The Importance of Fantasy

-

The following is an excerpt from a 1974 book chapter titled "A Little about Love", by Ellen Berscheid & Elaine Hatfield. (See: doi, scans, pages 358–359, 380.) The chapter is also cited by Dorothy Tennov on page 56 of Love and Limerence (note: page 282), in her discussion of the Romeo and Juliet effect.

A. The Importance of Fantasy

Researchers have generally assumed that it is the actual rewards which are exchanged during interpersonal contact which create liking. It seems doubtful, however, that people are so reality-bound.

When the lover closes his eyes and daydreams, he can summon up a flawless partner—a partner who instantaneously satisfies all his unspoken, conflicting, and fleeting desires. In fantasy he may receive unlimited reward or he may anticipate that he would receive unlimited reward were he ever to actually meet his ideal.

Compared to our grandiose fantasies, the level of reward we receive in our real interactions is severely circumscribed. As a consequence, sometimes the most extreme passion is aroused by partners who exist only in imagination or partners who are barely known. Reactions to real-life love objects often seem to be far more tepid.

Theorists interested only in liking, then, may possibly afford to focus entirely on the impact actual reward has on liking. In contrast, it seems likely that romantic love theorists will be forced to take into consideration both the rewards a lover receives in fantasy and the rewards he fantasizes he might receive in future interaction with the partner. (Further discussion of the importance of fantasy in generating passionate love is provided by Reik, 1944, and the current state of scientific knowledge of fantasy is reviewed by Klinger, 1971.)

Klinger, E. Structure and functions of fantasy. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Reik, T. A psychologist looks at love. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944. 

Note then that the contemporary idea is that idealization (regarded as positive illusions) involves the reward system.

[T]he comparison between partners and non-close others may be facilitated and made more prominent by the processing of a partner’s positive characteristics by the caudate nucleus, while the dACC suppresses the perception of a partner’s negative features. At the same time, the vLPFC and dMPFC could be reducing the salience of attractive alternatives. Subsequently, these brain areas transmit signals to the vACC that may help differentiate information from potential partners over non-close others. Finally, as information is passed onto the OFC, the weighing of positive and negative information of a partner is redistributed, cementing biased subjective values (e.g., positive illusion) about the partner[.] (Song et al., 2019)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

incurable romantics

-
 In many places, Dorothy Tennov considers "romantic love" to be a synonym for limerence. Limerence has been called “romantic love” as opposed to “real love” because to a vocal and often very articulate segment of the population it is unreal. But even when limerence is not believed in, or believed in only secretly, it still makes a good tale. ( Love and Limerence , p. 161) Writers have been philosophizing, moralizing, and eulogizing on the subject of “erotic,” “passionate,” “romantic” love ( i.e. , limerence) since Plato (and surely long before that). ( Love and Limerence , p. 172) Also, for example, from the title of her collected works: "A Scientist Looks at Romantic Love and Calls It Limerence" . So in what sense does she mean "romantic love"? (And what does "romantic love" have to do with being "unreal"?) Below is an abridged version (edited down) of a chapter in Love Sick: Love as a Mental Illness by Frank Tallis, who explains this...
Read more

How does Dorothy Tennov define limerence?

-
How does Dorothy Tennov define limerence?  People often misread her. Some common misconceptions are that Dorothy Tennov doesn't clearly define limerence in her material, or that she defines it as a simple synonym for being in love (including crushes, and so on). A careful examination of her material shows that she does clearly define it. The reason for the confusion has to do with the way that Tennov defines limerence through descriptions and comparisons, rather than semantics. She does this because she doesn't want to compare limerence directly to other terms, which she thinks could lead people to misunderstand her. By my definition, limerence is distinct. It is involuntary and its course depends largely on external circumstances (social barriers to a relationship and the behavior of LO). Limerent attraction is always for a potential sexual partner although its primary goal is reciprocation, not the sexual act, which is often more symbolic of mutuality than an end in it...
Read more

Limerence and anxious attachment

-
Image
This is a general overview of how limerence and anxious attachment are sometimes conflated (starting from Tennov’s material, but continued throughout various academic literature). On the outset, I should say that anxious attachment clearly seems to make limerence worse for people, and it's possible that anxious attachment increases how often people experience it.  There are also a number of studies showing a correlation between anxious attachment and different obsession measures ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ). They're just different things. However, there are some people (academics, even) who actually seem to think that limerence and anxious attachment   are the same thing and don't understand that there's actually a whole other thing which Tennov is trying to describe. One paper even outright says this, and several others refer to that paper or allude to the theory by referring to a concept called desperate love (which is related to anxious attachment). Brief overview of Tennov’s...
Read more