Falling In Love: Why We Choose The Lovers We Choose Part 18

238.

APPENDIX.

Is the interviewee showing psychological understanding? (yes/no/not clear): Is partner similar to father (yes/no/not clear):____ Is partner similar to mother (yes/no/not clear):____ Is partner different from father (yes/no/not clear):____ Is partner different from mother (yes/no/not clear):____ Are the relations.h.i.+ps with partner and parents similar? (yes/no/not clear) s.e.xual preference:____ Number of children:____ Abuse in the relations.h.i.+p (definitely not, possibly, probably, definitely): TABLE ONE Attraction Variables by s.e.x and Country: Percentages (Pearson Chi-Square. df=1) (Pearson Chi-Square. df=1) APPENDIX.

239.

TABLE TWO.

a.n.a.lysis of Variance Attraction Variables by s.e.x and Country: Means TABLE THREE TABLE THREE a.n.a.lysis of Variance Relations.h.i.+p Variables by s.e.x and Country 240 240 APPENDIX.

TABLE FOUR.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients with Relations.h.i.+p Variables (only significant correlations are noted) (only significant correlations are noted) APPENDIX APPENDIX 241.

Notes.INTRODUCTION: About Falling In Love And About This Book About Falling In Love And About This Book 1. This clinical study is part of a longitudinal study carried out at the University of California, Berkeley, by developmental psychologists Jeanne and Jack Block. The study was initiated over twenty years ago by Jeanne Block who, besides being a pioneer and a leading scholar on the influence of differential socialization on the personality development of boys and girls, was a remarkable human being, a real 1. This clinical study is part of a longitudinal study carried out at the University of California, Berkeley, by developmental psychologists Jeanne and Jack Block. The study was initiated over twenty years ago by Jeanne Block who, besides being a pioneer and a leading scholar on the influence of differential socialization on the personality development of boys and girls, was a remarkable human being, a real mensch, mensch, and a lady. Jeanne died an untimely death of cancer. Like almost everyone who knew her, I loved and admired Jeanne. I hope I can make in this book a small contribution toward keeping her memory alive. and a lady. Jeanne died an untimely death of cancer. Like almost everyone who knew her, I loved and admired Jeanne. I hope I can make in this book a small contribution toward keeping her memory alive.

Jeanne and Jack Block followed 103 children from age 3 and until age 23. In one of the parts of the follow-up study that took place at age 23, 93 of the young men and women were interviewed extensively about their romantic relations.h.i.+ps. (During the 20 years of the research some of the original 103 subjects dropped out of the study, and others, for one reason or another, were not interviewed in this final stage.) I transcribed these interviews and a.n.a.lyzed them. Some of the 93 interviewees had never been in a romantic relations.h.i.+p while others were already married and had a child. Some even managed to get divorced by age 23.

The data gathered in the study were supported by a National Inst.i.tute of Mental Health Grant M11 16080. I wish to thank Adam Kreman for his computer implementations and Jack Block for his permission to use this data.

Some of the results of the study were presented in a paper ent.i.tled "A prospective study of personality and gender differences in romantic attraction" (Pines, 1998b).

2. The Israeli part of the cross-cultural study was carried out at Tel-Aviv University and The Inst.i.tute of Technology Arts and Sciences, with the help of my psychology students, Liat Bernstein, Keren Adir, Dana Talmor, Shalhevet Cohen, Michal Katz, Irit Noiberg, Rachel Radsevski, Sarit Reisman, Ruti Sharf, and Dalit Shoshan.

Results of the study, "Gender and culture in romantic attraction" (Pines, 1998a), were presented at the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.

3. This study is described in the third part of the book as well as in the article ent.i.tled "Fatal attraction or wise unconscious choices: The relations.h.i.+p between causes for entering and breaking intimate relations.h.i.+ps" (Pines, 1997).

4. I also examined various aspects of the relations.h.i.+ps. Who has more power in the relations.h.i.+p? Who is the pursuer and who is the distancer?

How rigidly defined are the s.e.x roles in the relations.h.i.+p? Does the relations.h.i.+p provide a sense of security? Can one be oneself in it? What is the frequency of conflicts? What are the conflicts about? How, and how successfully, are conflicts handled? Is jealousy a problem either for the person 243 244.

NOTES.or in the relations.h.i.+p? How difficult are temporary separations? Is there any evidence of physical or emotional abuse or of drug use? Is the relations.h.i.+p heteros.e.xual, bis.e.xual, or h.o.m.os.e.xual? What are the plans for the future? People who were not currently in a relations.h.i.+p were asked with what kind of a person they would like to be involved. The Appendix presents some of the data based on these a.n.a.lyses.

5. I elaborate on this point in my book Couple Burnout. Couple Burnout.

6. The Greek names for the six styles of love were storge storge (best friends), (best friends), agape agape (unselfish), (unselfish), mania mania (possessive), (possessive), pragma pragma (practical), (practical), lodus lodus (playful), and (playful), and eros eros (romantic). (romantic).

LOVE STYLES.

(adapted from La.s.swell & Lobsenz, 1980) Pa.s.sionate love: Pa.s.sionate love: You are in love with love and willing to tolerate anything for love. You are in love with love and willing to tolerate anything for love.

Game-playing love: You view a relations.h.i.+p as a challenge without a need for commitment. You view a relations.h.i.+p as a challenge without a need for commitment.

Friends.h.i.+p love: You enjoy a comfortable non-romantic intimacy in which s.e.x is secondary. You enjoy a comfortable non-romantic intimacy in which s.e.x is secondary.

Logical love: You are concerned with a mutual compatibility in which reason rules. You are concerned with a mutual compatibility in which reason rules.

Possessive love: You are consumed by the need to possess and be possessed. You are consumed by the need to possess and be possessed.

Selfless love: You subordinate yourself to others and are devoted and sacrificing. You subordinate yourself to others and are devoted and sacrificing.

7. In Robert Sternberg's "triangular model of love," when none of the three basic components of love-intimacy, pa.s.sion, and commitment-is present, the result is non-love. A relations.h.i.+p with pa.s.sion and commitment is "Hollywood style" fatuous love. A relations.h.i.+p with intimacy and commitment but no pa.s.sion is companionate love. (Sternberg, 1986) 8. My book Couple Burnout Couple Burnout is devoted to a discussion of what happens to intimate relations.h.i.+ps after the falling-in-love stage. is devoted to a discussion of what happens to intimate relations.h.i.+ps after the falling-in-love stage.

1.Proximity, The Hidden Matchmaker 1. In 63 percent of the interviews, propinquity was mentioned as a cause of attraction. It may also be worth noting that despite the somewhat larger effect that acquaintance had on women, the gender difference in this case was small and insignificant (67 percent of the women as compared to 58 percent of the men).

2.Arousal, The Elixir Of Love 1. In 22 percent of the interviews, the romantic relations.h.i.+p started in a period of great emotional turmoil. While women were more likely than men to describe a state of arousal at the start of the relations.h.i.+p, 24 percent of the women vs. 19 percent of the men, the s.e.x difference was not significant. In several cases the woman wasn't attracted to the man at first.

But he was there for her in her hour of need, and with time her feelings of grat.i.tude and appreciation turned to love.

NOTES.245.

2. A study showed that even in a laboratory setting, misattribution can generate in subjects feelings of love and excitement within two minutes of acquaintance (Kellerman, 1989). Also, a recent metaa.n.a.lysis that summarized the results of 33 studies on the effect of arousal on romantic attraction suggests that arousal exerts a stronger influence on attraction when it is ambiguous. Ambiguity refers to an inability to perceive the arousal as caused by its true source (Foster et al., 1998).

3. The study was done in Israel and included 240 men and 253 women, of whom 56 percent said they believe in love at first sight, 37 percent said they did not, and 7 percent said they didn't know. In addition, 60 percent said they believe that love can last forever, and 40 percent said they believe that everyone has a twin romantic soul.

3.Beauty and Character 1. In 92 percent of the American interviews and 94 percent of the Israeli interviews, the subject mentioned some aspect of the partner's character when trying to explain why he or she fell in love. Women mentioned personality traits more often than men; in the American interviews, 96 percent of the women and 88 percent of the men. However, the s.e.x difference was small and insignificant. A smaller percentage, 63 percent of the Americans and 70 percent of the Israelis, mentioned appearance. Here, however, the s.e.x difference was very large and statistically significant. Specifically, 81 percent of the American men, as compared to 44 percent of the women, mentioned being attracted to the physical appearance of the partner.

2. The first four explanations and the studies supporting them are discussed by Sharon Brehm in her book Intimate Relations.h.i.+ps Intimate Relations.h.i.+ps (1992). (1992).

3. The six styles of love are: storge storge (best friends' love), (best friends' love), agape agape (unselfish and sacrificing love), (unselfish and sacrificing love), mania mania (possessive love), (possessive love), pragma pragma (practical love), (practical love), lodus lodus (playful and game-playing love), and (playful and game-playing love), and eros eros (romantic, erotic love). They were mentioned and discussed in the introduction. (romantic, erotic love). They were mentioned and discussed in the introduction.

4.Birds Of A Feather Or Opposites Attract?

1. a.n.a.lysis of the romantic attachment interviews suggests that 28 percent of the men and 31 percent of the women mentioned similarity as playing a role in the initial attraction. For some reason, possibly greater social h.o.m.ogeneity, similarity was mentioned significantly less frequently in the Israeli sample than it was in the American sample.

2. Literature reviews on the effect of similarity on mate selection can be found in Pines, A.M. (1996); Brehm, S. (1992); Berscheid & Hartfield-Walster (1978).

3. A third study done in Hawaii showed that the couples were similar in level of education, verbal ability, and professional success (Nagos.h.i.+ et al., 1987). The partic.i.p.ants in the study were couples and their siblings. The researchers compared the siblings, the couples, and the couples to the siblings.

They concluded that the similarities of the couples were due to both attraction to the similar and a similar social environment.

4. See, for example, Byrne & Blaylock (1963), and Levinger & Breedlove (1966), as well as Berscheid and Hartfield-Walster (1978).

246.

NOTES.5.Satisfying Needs And Reciprocating Love 1. a.n.a.lysis of the romantic attraction interviews shows that in 54 percent of the American interviews, and 60 percent of the Israeli interviews, the subject mentioned that the beloved satisfied an important need. 1. a.n.a.lysis of the romantic attraction interviews shows that in 54 percent of the American interviews, and 60 percent of the Israeli interviews, the subject mentioned that the beloved satisfied an important need.

2. See, for example, the cla.s.sic works of Homans (1961) as well as Thibaut and Kelley (1959).

3. See, for example, the study by Aronson and Linder (1965) as well as the series of studies by Jones (1964).

4. a.n.a.lysis of the romantic attraction interviews shows that in 40 percent of the American interviews, and 41 percent of the Israeli interviews, an indication of attraction by the beloved played an important role in the initial attraction. For women the rate was 47 percent, a bit higher than the 35 percent rate for men.

6.Falling In Love As A Process 1. In 33 percent of the cases, falling in love was gradual. In 11 percent of interviews, love was at first sight.

2. In 30 percent of the men's stories and 35 percent of the women's stories, there was a description of falling in love as a process.

7.On Gender And Love, Status And Beauty 1. There was no gender difference in the effect of geographic proximity; 58 percent of the men as compared to 67 percent of the women were influenced by it. There was no gender difference in the effect of arousal; 19 percent of the men as compared to 24 percent of the women were influenced. There was no gender difference in the effect of attractive personality traits; 88 percent of the men as compared to 96 percent of the women were influenced. There was no gender difference in the effect of similarity; 28 percent of the men as compared to 31 percent of the women were influenced. And there was no gender difference in either the effect of reciprocity in attraction, 35 percent of the men and 47 percent of the women were influenced; or the effect of satisfying needs, 53 percent of the men and 54 percent of the women were influenced.

2. The only variable in which there was a significant gender difference (in both the Israeli and the American samples) was physical attraction-81 percent of the American men as compared to 44 percent of the women mentioned it as a significant cause of attraction (Chi Sq.=12.8, df=1, p=.000).

In addition, when describing the things that made them fall in love with their mates, men described physical attraction as having played a more significant role. On a 7-point scale, the average for men was 4.2 and for women 2.8 (t=4.0, p=.0001).

The emphasis on physical appearance was especially p.r.o.nounced in men who define s.e.x-roles rigidly and stereotypically. The correlation between mentioning physical attraction as an important variable at the beginning of the relations.h.i.+p and the tendency to define s.e.x-roles in a rigid and stereotypic way is r=.34 (p=.001).

NOTES.247.

3. The study by Alan Feingold was a "metaa.n.a.lysis." For the interested reader, I'd like to add a few words about what a metaa.n.a.lysis is. As the quant.i.ty of information in different areas of science exploded in recent years, an accompanying need arose to develop statistical techniques that would enable a significant summary of large volumes of research data.

Metaa.n.a.lysis is just such a summary. It is a sort of statistical summation of research findings, akin to a literature review. It provides in a single number single number a summary of many studies that were done on a certain subject. Metaa.n.a.lysis takes into account the size of the samples when evaluating the significance of their findings. Thus, one general finding, based on a large number of studies, can include a huge number of subjects. a summary of many studies that were done on a certain subject. Metaa.n.a.lysis takes into account the size of the samples when evaluating the significance of their findings. Thus, one general finding, based on a large number of studies, can include a huge number of subjects.

4. See for example, Buss & Schmitt (1993), Trievers (1972), Trost & Alberts (1998).

5. In recent years a huge number of studies were done on the psychology of gender differences. Metaa.n.a.lyses involving hundreds of studies and thousands of subjects were done on such topics as gender differences in mathematical ability, verbal ability, spatial orientation, and aggression, most of them showing very small gender differences.

For example, a metaa.n.a.lysis of 143 studies that investigated gender differences in aggression revealed that gender accounts for only 5 percent of the explained variance in aggression (Hyde, 1984). Similarly, a metaa.n.a.lysis of 165 studies (and 1,418,899 subjects) that investigated gender differences in verbal ability showed that over 99 percent of a given score is influenced by things other than gender (Hyde & Lynn, 1988). A metaa.n.a.lysis of 100 studies (involving 3,985,682 subjects) revealed an even smaller gender difference-close to zero-in mathematical ability (Hyde & Lynn, 1986).

And a metaa.n.a.lysis of 172 studies that examined gender differences in spatial orientation revealed that less than 5 percent of the variance is explained by gender (Hyde, 1981).

Given these consistent findings that show no gender difference in various areas, the results of a metaa.n.a.lysis showing a large and significant gender difference in att.i.tudes toward s.e.xual intimacy is especially notable. The study showed that the difference between men and women regarding s.e.x and intimacy are among the largest gender differences found. It is far greater than the gender differences in verbal ability, mathematical ability, and spatial orientation, and similar in size to the difference in the ability to throw to a distance (Hyde, 1993).

6. See for example, Nancy Chodorow (1978); Dorothy Dinnerstein (1976); Lillian Rubin (1983), and Jean Baker Miller (1976).

7. Results of the study showed that, significantly more so than men, women were likely to describe a partner as a best friend, and, furthermore, to describe higher levels of intimacy, commitment, and security in their intimate relations.h.i.+ps. More than men, women were themselves in their relations.h.i.+ps and expressed a greater understanding of a partner than men did. On the other hand, men's relations.h.i.+ps tended to be shorter in duration and more s.e.x-role stereotyped.

Here are the numbers: Women were more likely to describe a partner as a best friend (21 percent of the men and 34 percent of the women described a partner as a best friend; Chi Square=9.2; p=.01) and their descriptions of their relations.h.i.+ps indicated higher levels of intimacy (men's mean=3.9, women's=4.9; t=3.5; p=.0009), commitment (men's mean=3.5, women's mean=4.4; t=3.1; p=.02), and security (men's mean=4.1, women's=4.7).

248.

NOTES.Women felt more themselves in their relations.h.i.+ps (men's mean=4.3, women's mean=4.9; t=3.1; p=.002) and women showed greater understanding of a partner than men did (men's mean=2.9, women's mean=3.4; t = 3.1; p=.002).

On the other hand, men described relations.h.i.+ps that were more s.e.x-role stereotyped (men's mean=3.3, women's=2.6; t=2.3; p=.02). Women's intimate relations.h.i.+ps tended to last longer than the relations.h.i.+ps of men.

The average length of a relations.h.i.+p for men was 18 months, for women 26 (t=2.1; p=.03).

In most cases, when men described an intimate relations.h.i.+p, they were describing a relations.h.i.+p with a woman. By the same token, when women described an intimate relations.h.i.+p, they were describing a relations.h.i.+p with a man. How, then, can these descriptions be so different? It is as if there are two relations.h.i.+ps: "his relations.h.i.+p" marked by physical attraction and s.e.x role stereotyping and "her relations.h.i.+p" marked by intimacy, commitment, security, and a sense that intimate partners are each other's best friends.

One explanation for this puzzling finding is that it is an artifact, a result of the difference in emotional maturity between men and women at the tender age of 23. Another possible interpretation is that the men and women are describing the same relations.h.i.+ps, but their perceptions of these relations.h.i.+ps are different, the result of different socialization and/or different evolutionary programming. Because of these differences, deep friends.h.i.+p, intimacy, commitment, and security are more important to women causing them to notice these factors more in their love relations.h.i.+ps. On the other hand, because physical attraction is more important to men, it causes them to notice it more.

8. See Beall & Sternberg (1995); Benjamin (1998); deLamater & Hyde (1998); Eagly (1987); Goldner (1998); Hyde (1990); Tavris (1992).

9. The table on page 249 presents the results of the gender by culture comparison.

8.Openness To Love 1. 12 percent of the American interviewees and 5 percent of the Israeli said that at age 23 they still had never had a romantic relations.h.i.+p.

2. The relations.h.i.+p between self-confidence and different love styles was first noted at the end of chapter three.

3. It is important to note that Kernberg's view of personality development/organization varies somewhat from traditional object-relations theory. It is also somewhat idiosyncratic diagnostically. For example, there is no diagnosis of narcissistic schizophrenic personality in the DSM IV.

(One is Axis I the other Axis II.) 4. Masterson is another theoretician who talks about difficulties with intimacy that arise out of different types of personality disorders- particularly the Borderline Person ality Disorder (a need to merge, rage, and withdraw), and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (a self-absorption that only connects in the mirror of the other person by seeing the self reflected in a positive way). Masterson makes an interesting point of how often the Borderline woman marries a Narcissistic man and how these relations.h.i.+ps erupt in major drama. Or how two Narcissists essentially exist for each other in the mirror each holds up for the other's reflection.

NOTES.249.

5. When the mother cannot stand the baby's withdrawal, when the baby's move away from the symbiosis with her causes her anxiety, the baby internalizes symbiotic remnants such as narcissistic needs, infantile dependence, and ambivalence about them. The self develops around these pathological internalizations (called "introjects") and both their extremes can be found in the adult: feelings of inadequacy and inferiority together with grandiosity, submission, and aggression. When we see in a person evidence of a grandiose self, we can be sure to also find evidence for an inferior self. When we find the submissive self of a victim, we can be sure to also find evidence of aggression, hostility, and destructiveness.

6. For example, Benjamin (1998); Goldner (1998); Tavris (1992).

7. See for example, Chodorow (1978); Dinnerstein (1976).

8. Fairbairn (1952/1992). Fairbairn believes that the study of the schizoid personality is the most fascinating and productive in the area of psychopathology. While the schizoid condition is among the most difficult psychopathological conditions, still, because of his introversion, the schizoid has an ability for self-examination that far ex-ceeds that of the average person. Fairbairn also believes that everyone has schizoid episodes. Examples of such episodes that are familiar to all of us are the strange feeling we sometimes have in the presence of a familiar person or environment, or the feeling of deja vu, deja vu, of having experienced an event before. of having experienced an event before.

250.

NOTES.9.The Son Falls In Love With "Mother," The Daughter With "Father"

1. A significantly higher percentage of women than men described their partners as similar to their fathers, 78 percent of the women as compared to 31 percent of the men; and in the Israeli sample, 27 percent of the women as compared to 3 percent of the men. A significantly higher percentage of men than women described their partners as similar to their mothers, 50 percent of the men as compared to 43 percent of the women; and in the Israeli sample, 21 percent of the men as compared to 11 percent of the women.

The cross-cultural differences between the Israelis and the Americans can be attributed to the greater psychological sophistication of the American sample and their greater familiarity with Freud's ideas in their popular version.

2. It should be noted that most people, both men and women, view s.e.xuality and motherhood as mutually exclusive. If a woman is described as s.e.xual they don't see her as a mother, and if they are told she is in fact a mother they a.s.sume she is a bad mother. See Friedman, A., Weinberg, H., & Pines, A.M. (1998). s.e.xuality and Motherhood: Mutually exclusive in perception of women. s.e.x Roles, s.e.x Roles, 38, 781800. 38, 781800.

3. Anna Freud lived with a woman called Dorothy Burlington for over thirty years and there has been ample speculation as to the nature of that relations.h.i.+p, but without doubt, s.e.xual or not, it was a primary attachment.

10.The Internal Romantic Image 1. Seventy percent of the interviewees (83 percent of the women and 55 percent of the men) answered yes when asked if there was a similarity between their relations.h.i.+p with their parents and their most significant romantic relations.h.i.+p. Since we can a.s.sume that the gender difference found does not mean that women's relations.h.i.+ps are more similar to their relations.h.i.+ps with their parents than men's are, then another explanation is needed. One possible explanation is that women are more familiar with psychological thinking than men are, in part because they read more psychological books, and thus see the similarity between a childhood and adult relations.h.i.+p more clearly than men do. Support for this interpretation is provided by the cross-cultural comparison between the Americans and the Israelis. Only 30 percent of the Israeli interviewees, 38 percent of the women and 21 percent of the men, noticed a similarity between their childhood relations.h.i.+p with their parents and their current romantic relations.h.i.+p. Once again it is far easier to explain both these cultural and gender differ-ences as a result of differences in psychological sophistication than it is to explain them in terms of the different dynamics of intimate relations.h.i.+ps in the two cultures.

2. People who described their childhood relations.h.i.+p with their parents as more similar to the relations.h.i.+p they had with their romantic partner also described their partner as more similar to their mother (r=.31 p=.004) and their father (r=.41 p= .000). They described themselves as feeling more secure in the relations.h.i.+p (r=.24 p= .03), as more able to be themselves in the relations.h.i.+p (r=22 p=.047), and as more able to handle conflicts in NOTES 251.

the relations.h.i.+p (r=.29 p=.009). The romantic relations.h.i.+ps they described had fewer conflicts than relations.h.i.+ps described by people who did not notice a similarity between their partner and parents (r=.23 p=.036).

3. Other notable theoreticians of object relations theory, in addition to Margaret Mahler (1974), are Melanie Klein (1959), Ronald Fairbairn (1952) and Donald Winnicott (1965).

4. See for example: d.i.c.ks (1967), Framo (1990), Meissner (1978), Ogden (1979).

5. Helen Fisher (1998) distinguishes three primary emotion categories for mating and reproduction that can be found in humans as well as other mammals: the s.e.x drive, attraction, and attachment. Each emotion category is a.s.sociated with a discrete constellation of neural correlates and each has evolved to direct a specific aspect of reproduction. The s.e.x drive is a.s.sociated primarily with the s.e.x hormones estrogen, the female hormone, and androgen, the male hormone. It evolved to motivate individuals to seek s.e.xual union. The attraction system is a.s.sociated primarily with the catecholamines, neurotransmitters that activate various systems in the brain.

This system evolved to facilitate mate choice and enable individuals to focus their mating efforts on preferred partners. The attachment system is a.s.sociated primarily with peptides, amino acids that regulate various systems in the brain including the reproductive system. The attachment system evolved in order to motivate individuals to engage in positive social behaviors and a.s.sume parental duties.

11.Four Stories 1. The four tables demonstrate how the romantic interviews presented throughout the book have been a.n.a.lyzed. They serve to help interested readers understand the research appendix and how the numbers presented in it were obtained. They can also help interested readers to a.n.a.lyze their own relations.h.i.+ps. It is recommended that couples do this kind of a.n.a.lysis separately, by using copies of the form presented in the appendix, and then compare their scores.

12.Turning Love Problems Into Opportunities For Growth 1. See, for example, Bowen (1978); d.i.c.ks (1967); Freud (1921); Hendrix (1992); Kernberg (1974); and Meissner (1978). The psychodynamic perspective was presented in chapter ten as part of the discussion on object relations theory. 1. See, for example, Bowen (1978); d.i.c.ks (1967); Freud (1921); Hendrix (1992); Kernberg (1974); and Meissner (1978). The psychodynamic perspective was presented in chapter ten as part of the discussion on object relations theory.

2. A woman like Ann is likely to push intimate partners away with her angry outbursts because in this way, rather than be as helpless as she felt as a child when her father abandoned her and her mother, she can control the desertion.

3. See Pines (1997) for details. I worked with the 100 couples during the years 19951996.

4. When the abusive partner is willing to work on the issues at the root of the abusive behavior, feminist psychoa.n.a.lytic theory has some profound insights about the early childhood determinants of this behavior. Some of these were described in chapter ten of this book. For an especially deep and profound article, see Virginia Goldner's paper ent.i.tled "Violence and 252 NOTES.Victimization in Intimate Relations.h.i.+p: A Feminist Intersubjective Perspective" (1998).