Now on ScienceBlogs: Prehistoric DNA reveals the story of a Pleistocene survivor, the muskox

« More on Depression | Main | The Spread of Goodness »

Marriage

Posted on: March 8, 2010 12:43 PM, by Jonah Lehrer

One of the hazards of writing a book on decision-making is getting questions about decisions that are far beyond the purview of science (or, at the very least, way beyond my pay grade). Here, for instance, is a question that often arrives in my inbox, or gets shouted out during talks:

"How should we make decisions about whom to marry? If the brain is so smart, why do half of all marriages end in divorce?"

Needless to say, there is no simple answer to this question. (And if I had a half-way decent answer, I'd be writing a book on marriage.) But I've been recently been reading some interesting research on close, interpersonal relationships (much of it by Ellen Berscheid, at the University of Minnesota) and I'm mostly convinced that there's a fundamental mismatch between the emotional state we expect to feel for a potential spouse - we want to "fall wildly in love," experiencing that ecstatic stew of passion, desire, altruism, jealousy, etc - and the emotional state that actually determines a successful marriage over time. Berscheid defines this more important emotion as "companionate love" or "the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined." Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia, compares this steady emotion which grows over time to its unsteady (but sexier and more cinematic) precursor: "If the metaphor for passionate love is fire, the metaphor for companionate love is vines growing, intertwining, and gradually binding two people together."

What's wrong with seeking passion? Don't we need to experience that dopaminergic surge of early love, in which the entire universe has been reduced to a single person? ("It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.") The only problem with this romantic myth is that passion is temporary. It inevitably decays with time. This is not a knock against passion - this is a basic fact of our nervous system. We adapt to our pleasures; we habituate to delight. In other words, the same thing happens to passionate love that happens to Christmas presents. We're so impossibly happy and then, within a matter of days or weeks or months, we take it all for granted.

I can't help but think that Shakespeare was trying to warn us about the fickleness of passionate love even as he was inventing its literary template. Romeo and Juliet, after all, begins with Romeo in a disconsolate funk. But he's not upset about Juliet. He hasn't even met Juliet. He's miserable over Rosaline. And so, while the rest of the tragedy is an ode to young lovers and impossible passions, Shakespeare has prefaced the action with a warning: passion is erratic. The same randy Romeo who compares you to the sun was in love with someone else last night.

What makes this mismatch even more dangerous is our tendency to confuse physical attractiveness with personal goodness. In a classic 1972 paper, "What is beautiful is good," Berscheid and colleagues demonstrated that we instinctively believe that prettier people "have more socially desirable personality traits" and "lead better lives". Furthermore, this phenomenon works in both directions, so that people who have been "prejudged" to be more or less physically attractive, but don't know they've been judged that way, still behave in a more "friendly, likeable and sociable manner". This suggests that our emphasis on attractiveness, lust and beauty - these are the variables that we associate with passionate love - can actually distort our perception of more important personality variables. Because we'll habituate to those hips, and that sexy smile won't be sexy forever. And then we'll no longer confuse beauty with goodness, or believe that our attractive boyfriend is also really nice.

The point is not that passionate love isn't an important signal. It surely is - that rush of dopamine is trying to tell us something. But a successful marriage has to endure long past the peak of passion. It has survive the rigors of adaptation and intimacy, which are features of romantic relationships that don't get valorized in Hollywood, Bollywood or Shakespeare.

Share on: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/133245

Comments (16)

1

Yes, we fall in love with being in love..knocking out all common sense feedback we might have ever had. So caught up, we only see what we want to see, until we wake up one day and finally realize we married a pathological lier(or they do). We really want is a feeling that transcends our fear of death.

Posted by: Was Once | March 8, 2010 12:45 PM

2

"If the brain is so smart, why do half of all marriages end in divorce?"
Maybe because the brain IS so smart. If primates bonded for life, it could be argued that the human variety wouldn't have evolved. Just for starters.

Posted by: royniles | March 8, 2010 12:49 PM

3

One of the best quotes I've ever heard about love and passion comes from "Captain Correlli's Mandolin":

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two."

[And Shakespeare did cover mature love in "Antony and Cleopatra". Despite the fact that she has the worlds worst temper and he gets married to various other people, they maintain what is very clearly a long lasting love throughout the play]

Posted by: Lab Rat | March 8, 2010 12:57 PM

4

Thanks for this Jonah. And thanks also to Vajrayana Buddhism which recognizes such passion as our life force energy kneaded with concepts and misdirected as is anger and the other negative emotions. Meditation allows us to separate the concepts out from the good stuff and use that to invigorate our lives.

Thanks also for the intertwined vegetation as metaphor for mature love. Ovid's story about Philemon and Baucis also uses this. We're mounting the story as a play in Baltimore.

Posted by: jb | March 8, 2010 2:31 PM

5

What a great post. I happened to stumble upon the Wikipedia page for Interpersonal Relationships the other day and some categories I had never even heard of. A Cicisbeo? Who knew? Perhaps that's why so many cultures have created structured outlets for other types of relationships, from the passionate to the companionate. I would venture that the modern era's conflation of the two is what causes problems.

Posted by: Michael Buitron | March 8, 2010 3:53 PM

6

Lots of things feed into our divorce rate, but unrealistic expectations may be the most important. The other is which body part is in charge.

To stay married, you have to want to stay married, be realistic about what you expect in a relationship, be willing to delay gratification (of all kinds), and be willing to adapt your passions to current conditions. How to reconcile all that with passion, I don't know.

Are there any studies on the stability of marriages rationally arrived at? As, through a decision tree on both parties? Of course, that limits one's partners to "the set of all people who would decide a marriage based on a decision tree."

Posted by: george.w | March 8, 2010 6:02 PM

7

a friend's Buzz linked to this article, and I've enjoyed reading it. thank you for pointing out Shakespeare's "preface" of Romeo--interesting that he also spends one of Merchant of Venice's plot points to deal with the subject of "fancy", the term he used for being attracted to someone, and with the subject of inward and outward beauty. stuff to ponder . . . =)

Posted by: joyous | March 8, 2010 6:20 PM

8

Marriage is certainly an emotive topic for many. I think Marilyn Yalom's book 'The History of the Wife' charts very cleverly the history of this institution and how the myth of romantic love (certainly in western culture) was born out of the analogy of marriage between two individuals like Christ's connection the church.

In my experience working with clients over many years, I believe so many people try to find 'the missing piece' in a partner. Their partner often ends up being no more than a projection of their own stereotypes of what they 'believe' is 'the one'. 'Another' can certainly allow us to access parts of ourselves we can't bring to the fore alone - and if we embrace our own 'otherness' (and often that we would prefer not to own), I believe we can be more open to others as the unique beings they are - not sterotyped projections of our own.

Clare Mann
Marriage Counselling Sydney

Posted by: Clare Mann | March 8, 2010 8:32 PM

9

Wish I could remember what comedian said this, and I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was:

There ought to be mandatory pre-marital counseling.

COUNSELOR, TO ENGAGED MAN: Einstein, arguably one of the smartest men ever, saw his first marriage end in divorce.

MAN: So?

COUNSELOR: So, do you think you're SMARTER THAN EINSTEIN?

Posted by: Nunzio X | March 8, 2010 9:21 PM

10

I like vines; they too catch fire every now and then.

Posted by: Huzaifa Zoomkawala | March 8, 2010 10:20 PM

11

Great topic Jonah. What do you propose trumps the ability for the frontal cortex to inhibit limbic structures, as current thought holds? Normally the frontal cortex is thought to dampen emotional responses to stimuli so that the organism can behave rationally. What is special about passionate love? Can pheromones override the frontal cortex?

Posted by: Rob R | March 9, 2010 10:45 AM

12

I think that this is the stereotypical view; that there's "passionate love" and "mature love"; and those words carry a lot of spin, and that spin is tied up in our cultural mythology of how relationships are supposed to work. At least, in order to support the ongoing structure of our civilization.

That there is infatuation, attraction, is certainly not a myth. But sometimes - people want to be in a relationship for reasons that have nothing at all to do with infatuation or attraction. Those can be elements, but there's also, security, fear of abandonment, wanting to fit-in socially, duty to family, duty to perhaps a sense of responsibility; even a duty to a mythology of "love". (for example, a person likes the notion that there is some magical, universal bond, between two people in the world who are ideal "soul-mates", and the idea appeals so much to that person, they want to believe this mythology so badly, that they project that onto any suitable partner. "Is he THE ONE?")

None of these have anything at all to do with how well two people will relate, emotionally or personally, over the long term of decades that a lifelong relationship may last. Through childrearing, illness, hardship, joyous occasions, one-sided triumphs, loss, etc.

People make the decision to get into a relationship and may have no clue how they themselves, or their partner, may weather that long-term time period. Maybe they're weather it well. Maybe they'll weather it poorly, and divorce. Maybe they'll weather it poorly, and cope anyway, and simply be unhappy.

In any case - when two people end up in a relationship, and they relate well, and manage the long-term issues well, and communicate, and respect each other, is it necessarily love? I think we instinctively know it's a whole different set of feelings and skills than are involved in infatuation. Sometimes THAT kind of love comes first (example: cases of arranged marriages), and attraction follows later; perhaps as a biological imperative, or perhaps, as the person allows themselves to CHOOSE to be attracted.

That's the thing about the wild infatuation type of love. It's a very curious choice, that feels like it's not a choice. It feels very compulsory. The more imperative, the better it feels.

Posted by: NDP | March 9, 2010 12:42 PM

13

It is of course the case that historically speaking, there have been periods where romantic love was viewed as an unnecessary and even undesirable thing in marriage - a good marriage was one based on economic and social merits, and love was assumed to follow. As the historian John Boswell has observed, in its early stages love for most of pre-modern european history (and really for most human beings through most of history) was at its outset mostly about economic and family factors, in its mid-stages mostly about raising children, and in its late stages largely about love (he bases this upon historic records of epitaphs and post-death marital accounts that express considerable affection). He then observes that in the modern era, marriage is at its outset mostly about love, at its early stages mostly about raising children, assuming there are children, and in its late stages (ie, its ending) mostly about economic and family considerations. He rather dryly observes that this rearrangement does not necessarily constitute an improvement.

Sharon

Posted by: Sharon Astyk | March 9, 2010 2:02 PM

14

The fire and vine metaphors are so true. If only I had known more when I got married the first time!

Posted by: Emma | March 9, 2010 2:53 PM

15

This is a very good article with lots to reflect upon for those considering marriage ...

www.ashortguidetoahappymarriage.com

Posted by: sharongilo | March 9, 2010 5:22 PM

16

Please remember that half of all marriages don't end in divorce. This statistic comes from taking the marriages in one year and comparing them with the divorces in the same year. Since most marriages last a period of time--say 24 hours to 60 or so years--this means that 1/2 of all marriages don't ever end in divorce. In fact all marriages end in one of two ways--death of one of the partners or divorce. In every year of a marriage either of these two things can happen. The actual divorce to marriage statistic is too difficult for most people to to since it involves predicting the length of marriages and then figuring out how they ended-death or divorce in a specific stated length of time.

Posted by: susan ardis | March 10, 2010 10:18 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.