Soulmate theory
editThe soulmate theory is based on the idea that there is only one person or only a select few people in the world with whom each person is meant to be and with whom a person can have a satisfying Interpersonal relationship.[1] However, it is clear to see that the perfect fit for an individual is a highly controversial subject, which thoughts can be traced back to Plato's time.[2]
The two major relationship theories identified are the soulmate theory and the work-it-out-theory, which differ strongly from one another. The work-it-out theory focuses on handling problems together and people who believe in this theory forgive their partners much faster after an argument compared to the people who believe in the soulmate theory but think their current partner is not an ideal fit for them. Conversely, the belief in the soulmate theory indicates that if the soulmate theorists encounter the ideal fit for them, they tend to use relationship enhancing cognition, trust their partner more and do not terminate the relationship prematurely.[1]
As one can see in the polarised criticism above, it is not possible to say which of the theories is better fitting for a long lasting relationship. Individual differences and beliefs in a specific implicit relationship theory influence the longevity of a relationship, but no general conclusion can be drawn about what predicts a long-lasting romantic relationship.[3]
Theoretical background
editImplicit theories
editThe work-it-out theory and soulmate theory are both implicit theories. Implicit theories are beliefs that people have about the nature of certain constructs. Implicit theories of relationships (abbreviated as ITRs) distinguish between people who believe that relationships are meant to be and those who believe that relationships develop over time with hard work.[1]
The theory that someone holds about romantic relationships can influence the functioning of the relationship. This will have significant consequences for the relationship.[1]
The work-it-out theory
editThe work-it-out theory is based on the idea that there are many people with whom one can have a satisfying relationship and that building the relationship is simply a matter of working at it. People who follow this theory, believe that their relationship is successful when you work hard and put effort in.[1][3] People holding a work-it-out theory of relationships believe, that there are many people with whom they could be happy and that their partner is not expected to be a perfect fit. For work-it-out theorists, effort is the most important factor in a relationship and passion is relatively unimportant because building the relationship is simply a matter of working at it.[1]
A work-it-out theory of relationships stems from a growth-belief. Specifically, it is focused on the idea that all challenges can be overcome and that obstacles and difficulties in general help shaping and building the relationship.[4] Also, the partners possess an optimistic view towards the relationship’s potential, being prone to date the same person for longer, have fewer one-night stands and develop successful relationship maintenance strategies.[4] Thus, people possessing a growth-belief are willing to put effort in creating and preserving the relationship. Also, they do no place much emphasis on the compatibility with the partner, but on the possible outcome, considering that they are both willing to work for achieving the desired relationship satisfaction.[4]
The soulmate theory
editPeople holding a soulmate theory of relationships hold several believes that are fundamentally different compared to people holding a work-it-out theory of relationships. Soulmate theorists often belief that there is one right person or one “ideal” partner that is to be expected a perfect fit. For soulmate theorists, finding the “right” partner is the most important thing, this being the moment when the relationship is successful. This implies that love is to be discovered and passion is of great importance.[1]
Holding a soulmate theory is beneficial to the relationship when one perceives that they are with the “right” person. Soulmate theorists who believe that they have found their ideal partner tend to hold “positive illusion” and idealize their romantic partner and romantic relationships in general. These idealizations are related to positive relationship outcomes as arising difficulties tend to be overlooked to avoid relationship stressors and arguments. A soulmate theory is detrimental to the relationship when one does not perceive his/her partner as ideal match. Soulmate theorists who see their partner as not “ideal” are more likely to end the relationship than work-it-out theorists for which the discrepancy between ideal and actual partner is less important.[1]
Different to the development of the work-it-out theory, the soulmate theory developed through its main belief of romantic destiny, that one specific partner should be found, the personal “perfect” soulmate.[4] This belief also developed for reason of different social contexts. Studies have shown that the belief in romantic destiny is not just associated with stronger relationship survival, but also linked to initial satisfaction. The more people are convinced of having found their soulmate, their “perfect” intimate partner, the stronger also the feeling of initial closeness becomes.[4] Moreover, the feeling of initial closeness may have also another function. Destiny theorists who have the feeling of being initially less close, are known as terminate their relationship more quickly. In this way, the strength of their own feelings of either having found the one right soulmate or not functions as the basis of decision-making, if the relationship should continue or not. Therefore, destiny-believers show in this way also more responsibility for ending the relationship.[4]
All in all, holding a soulmate theory can be favourable, if one perceives that his or her partner is an ideal fit.[4] Therefore, the development of a romantic destiny belief often occurs in a social context to become more satisfied and to reduce doubts in the relationship.[1]
The history behind the soulmate concept
editThe theory of soulmates can be traced back to the Athenian Philosopher, Plato’s time. The idea of soulmates is thought to have originated in Plato’s Symposium, written in 385 – 370 BC. Symposium was a collection of essays, which included a speech by Aristophanes, a Greek playwright.[2]
Aristophanes’ speech is the basis for the soulmate theory that is believed by many to this day. The speech describes humans as having three genders: man, woman and androgynous. Males were descended from the sun, women from the earth and androgynous from the moon.[5] Humans were described as having four arms, four legs and two heads. Over time, the Gods began to feel threatened by the human’s power. To punish the humans for their pride, Zeus developed a plan. He split the humans in half, causing deep misery and pain. The humans were doomed to a lifetime of searching for their other half. According to the myth, when two halves found each other, there would be an unspoken shared understanding and immediate feelings of joy and unity.[6] This ancient myth explains why we call our partners our “Other Half’s ”.[6]
Plato describes the origin of soulmates in his own words:
“According to Greek mythology, humans were originally created with four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search of their other halves.”[6]
Contemporary relevance of the soulmate theory
editSoulmate model vs. institutional marriage
editMany adults have come to see marriage as an expressive “super-relationship” rather than as an institutional marriage that is governed by a host of norms which include rearing of children, cultivate mutual dependency, gender specialization, and shared faith. Through embracing the soulmate theory, they are more likely to see marriage as an opportunity to enjoy companionship, for personality development, and emotional security. This leads to the conclusion of many family scholars that adherents of the soulmate theory are more likely to get divorced due to the fluid character of sexual attraction and emotional ties. They have fewer normative commitments to marital permanency that might serve as a barrier to divorce. Besides that, adherents to the soulmate theory are less likely to be integrated into social institutions that could serve as social support for marital permanency.[7]
Contemporary zeitgeist
editThe soulmate model of marriage fits in the contemporary Zeitgeist as it focuses on individualization. It is also consistent with the hedonistic ethic of contemporary capitalism where the market seeks to cultivate and meet a range of individual needs and desires.[7]
Violence in relationships
editSoulmate theorists and work-it-out theorists tend to respond differently to conflict. Central to the soulmate theory is the belief about partner fit. It was shown that it is difficult for couples with a strong soulmate theory to leave a violent relationship, especially if they have a weak work- it- out theory. However, the soulmate theory offers some protection early in the relationship to allow soulmate theorists to end relationships quickly when there are signs of relationship violence. People who have a strong soulmate theory may be more prone to committing relationship violence or seeking out a partner that is also more prone to committing violence in a relationship.[3]
Partner´s fit
editThe soulmate theory can also be used for the search of partner compatibility. The key for longevity and relationships success is the matching of four of twelve personality traits which include the need for companionship, idealism, emotional intensity, spontaneity, libido, nurturance, materialism, extroversion, aestheticism, activity level, subjective well-being, and intellectualism. The matching of the personality traits can prevent the relationship from failing.[8]
Forgiveness likelihood, relationship satisfaction and longevity of relationships
editDepending on a person holding a work-it-out theory or a soulmate theory, he or she assigns different meanings to events. This, in combination with the degree of partner fit, consequently leads to varying degrees of satisfaction with the relationship and also predicts the relationship longevity and willingness to forgive insults.[9]
Forgiveness likelihood
editResearch shows that whether someone would evaluate their fairly new partner to be a good fit, predicted, if that someone would decide to forgive the partner after being hurt by him or her.[10]
This association seems to be even stronger for people who have a soulmate belief. Compared to work-it-out believers, they let the evaluation whether they consider the other person to be a good fit for them or not, influence the decision to forgive or not to forgive an insult in an even greater extend.[10]
When confronted with an hurtful act by their partner they consider to be a good fit, they use relationship enhancing cognition that is in line with the thought of the other person being ideal or close to ideal. When soulmate believers doubt that the other person is a good fit for them, they tend to not forgive the act and interpret the incident as an indication that that person was never right for them to begin with.[11]
Work it out theorists are not additionally biased by their implicit relationship belief when evaluating partner fit and whether to forgive an insult.[11] They don’t automatically forgive their partners, but their focus is more on actively resolving the conflict, instead of using the insult to judge whether the person is a good fit or not.[12]
Relationship satisfaction and longevity of relationships
editJust as holding a soulmate theory seems to moderate the partner fit- forgiveness association, it also seems to moderate the partner fit- satisfaction association: The findings of Knee Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, and Patrick (2001) support the notion that the perceived discrepancy between one’s ideal and one’s actual partner is not that influential on the relationship satisfaction of work-it-out believers as it is for soulmate believers.[13]
The belief in destiny, which is closely linked to the soulmate belief, is associated with being more willing to take responsibility for deciding to stop investing in a relationship and ending it when experiencing negative events.[4] Once a soulmate believer is occupied by the thought that the other person is not a good fit, he or she is very likely to end the relationship to look for a more ideal partner.[10] That might be the reason why relationship length was found to be negatively correlated with holding a soulmate theory.[14]
Work it out theorists who believe in growth being crucial and who are optimistic towards the relationships potential tend to use maintenance strategies in the face of conflicts and are less likely than soulmate believers to end the relationship when being unsatisfied. They also engage in long term relationships more than in one night stands, since they see the value of a relationship in its development.[4]
“Work-it-out or growth theorists do not assign the same level of importance to partner evaluations as soulmate or destiny theorists.”, which could make the Work-it-out-believers to be more likely to be satisfied in a relationship with a partner who is less than ideal compared to people who hold a soulmate theory.[10]
Measuring methods
editDifferent research studies implicate different scales to measure one's belief and attitude towards romantic relationships. The scales typically divide into different components, which individually measure the belief of one aspect of a romantic relationship. Some scales amongst many that are used include The Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Theory Questionnaire, and, Implicit Theories of Relationship Scale.[1]
Romantic beliefs scale
editThe Romantic Beliefs Scale (abbreviated RBS) developed by Sprecher and Metts comprises four subscales which all together measure the individuals attitude towards romantic beliefs. The subscales are divided into ‘love finds a way’, ‘one and only’, ‘idealization’, and ‘love at first sight'. The sections look into the individuals beliefs on love overcoming difficulties, the existence of only one person whom an individual may romantically love, and love arising at the first encounter, retrospectively. The total scale contains 15 items, each rated using a 7-point Likert scale. The higher the score on the RBS, the more the individual shares romantic beliefs.[15]
Relationship theory questionnaire
editThe original Relationship Theory Questionnaire by Franiuk includes 60 questions in random order which determine beliefs in the soulmate theory and the work-it-out theory. Most items of the original questionnaire were disposed of due to too many components being included, which resulted in a more condensed scale being developed. The 20-item Relationship Theory Questionnaire contains two sections; the first evaluating the beliefs in the soulmate theory, and the second evaluating beliefs in the work-it-out theory. Each section is based on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating strong supporters of the components in the soulmate theory.[1]
Implicit theories of relationships scale
editThe Implicit Theories of Relationships Scale is used to measure destiny and growth beliefs in a relationship. It consists of eight items which are divided into two categories. Four items assess the destiny beliefs in regards to a relationship, and the other four items assess growth belief in regards to a relationship. The individual items are presented in random order and are rated using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.[4]
Representations of the soulmate concept
editThe theory of a soulmate is something that exist for years now and is widely-used, not just as an inspiration in novels, but also in religion. There are some different viewpoints of a soulmate, which leads to more variation, for implication of this theory. Aristophanes with Plato’s Symposium made the first reference to the word „Soulmate“.[16]
Religion and the soulmate theory
editThe soulmate theory is also present in religion. It is present with different concepts. In the Old Testament, they talk about that God decides to give the androgynous, which comprises the essence of of spirit, a living soul and creates Adam and Eve. The New Testament says that humans were once whole but were divided to create its mate. The soulmate theory also plays a role in the Hinduism. The universal soul is conscious of itself, desire, companionship, and therefore brings forth from its own being the male and the female. The soulmate theory is also related to the concept of reincarnation.[16]
Literature and the soulmate theory
editAnother big implementation of the soulmate theory are novels and novelist. The concept of the theory is for many novelists and inspiration for their work. For example, William Shakespeare used the concept in his drama „Romeo and Juliet“. Other examples are: A.E.W. Mason’s „The three Gentlemen“, James Riddell´s „Many Many Times“, and Paulo Coelho´s „Brida“.[16]
References
edit- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Franiuk, Renae; Cohen, Dov; Pomerantz, Eva M. (2002-12). "Implicit theories of relationships: Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity". Personal Relationships. 9 (4): 345–367. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.09401. ISSN 1350-4126.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b "Symposium (Plato)", Wikipedia, 2020-03-13, retrieved 2020-05-11
- ^ a b c Franiuk, Renae; Shain, E. Ashley; Bieritz, Lauren; Murray, Courtney (2012-09). "Relationship theories and relationship violence: Is it beneficial to believe in soulmates?". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 29 (6): 820–838. doi:10.1177/0265407512444374. ISSN 0265-4075.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g h i j Knee, C. Raymond (1998). "Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (2): 360–370. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360. ISSN 0022-3514.
- ^ GradeSaver. "Symposium by Plato The Speech of Aristophanes Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver". www.gradesaver.com. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
- ^ a b c "Soul Mate Theory 101: The Origin Story Behind The One". Secure Single. 2016-02-03. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
- ^ a b Wilcox, W. Bradford; Dew, Jeffrey (2010-09-01). "Is love a flimsy foundation? Soulmate versus institutional models of marriage". Social Science Research. Marriage and Family in the New Millenium:Papers in Honor of Steven L. Nock. 39 (5): 687–699. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.006. ISSN 0049-089X.
- ^ Weiner, Marcella Bakur, 1925- (2003). The love compatibility book. Hoffman, Edward, 1951-. Novato, Calif.: New World Library. ISBN 1-57731-226-0. OCLC 50755060.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Knee, C. Raymond; Patrick, Heather; Lonsbary, Cynthia (2003-02). "Implicit Theories of Relationships: Orientations Toward Evaluation and Cultivation". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 7 (1): 41–55. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0701_3. ISSN 1088-8683.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c d Burnette, Jeni L.; Franiuk, Renae (2010-01-01). "Individual differences in implicit theories of relationships and partner fit: Predicting forgiveness in developing relationships". Personality and Individual Differences. 48 (2): 144–148. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.011. ISSN 0191-8869.
- ^ a b Franiuk, Renae; Pomerantz, Eva M.; Cohen, Dov (2004-11). "The Causal Role of Theories of Relationships: Consequences for Satisfaction and Cognitive Strategies". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (11): 1494–1507. doi:10.1177/0146167204264894. ISSN 0146-1672.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Finkel, Eli J.; Burnette, Jeni L.; Scissors, Lauren E. (2007). "Vengefully ever after: Destiny beliefs, state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92 (5): 871–886. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.871. ISSN 1939-1315.
- ^ Knee, C. Raymond; Nanayakkara, Aruni; Vietor, Nathaniel A.; Neighbors, Clayton; Patrick, Heather (2001-07). "Implicit Theories of Relationships: Who Cares if Romantic Partners Are Less than Ideal?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (7): 808–819. doi:10.1177/0146167201277004. ISSN 0146-1672.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Cavanaugh, John C.,. Adult development and aging. Blanchard-Fields, Fredda, (7th edition ed.). Stamford, CT. ISBN 978-1-285-44491-8. OCLC 880336988.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Sprecher, Susan; Metts, Sandra (1989-11). "Development of the `Romantic Beliefs Scale' and Examination of the Effects of Gender and Gender-Role Orientation". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 6 (4): 387–411. doi:10.1177/0265407589064001. ISSN 0265-4075.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c Dutta, *seema; Nigam, Ruchi (2017-02-28). "SEARCHING THE OTHER HALF: THE CONCEPT OF SOULMATE IN PAULO COELHO'S BRIDA". SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH. 5 (2): 8–8. ISSN 2582-3574.