#need to see more casual vanny out there!!

[chloesimaginationthings]

I like Vanny's flannel, I want it.

She really knows how to wear it,,

#ask reply #TBH I want it too #Vanny has some unspoken style I swear #dyeing her hair rainbow #to the vanny outfit itself #she gots it she’s that it girl #Vanny cosplayers consider buying a purple flannel #need to see more casual vanny out there!! #I should draw Vanny in more outfits outside of canon

[dana-chan-the-control-brain]

Here are some of my thoughts on Ruin gameplay wise:

Ruin isn't that great from a gameplay perspective.

I do like that Steel Wool took a lot of criticism to heart and they improved Ruin in the Story department way more comparitively to the base game ten fold.

Like imagine having a Rabbit antagonist show up more than twice and is a constant presence throughout the game???? Imagine a protagonist with actual motivation and backstory to why they are there with relatable emotions?

I'm sure Vanny is sure jealous of MXES right about now. (Gregory to Cassie too probably and that's how the game ended how it did but that's another post)

But here's the thing that really soured me on Ruin. Especially on repeat playthroughs, and it was something I was easily discovering as I played through the first time.

There's really no creditable danger in the majority of Ruin.

The atmosphere is darker, and it is spookier.... But it is all literally in your head. The danger and horror is all an illusion.

Mr.Glitchy Malhare man can't harm you directly. He can only summon animatronics after you, or send an animatronic to kill you automatically if you stay too long in AR. Which you tend to recognize the sound ques and can easily get out of situations if you're trapped in AR.

The thing about MXES summoning animatronics to you....

All the animatronics AI from the Base game has been severely nerfed.

Monty can no longer jump and you can out walk him fairly easily. YEAH. WALK. I had never had to run from Monty. He'll despawn if he loses sight of you.

Roxy and Chica behave in a similar functional way.

Chica is faster, and gets distracted less easily if you have her chasing you. And her tight corridors prevent her from despawning but she can easily be out walked.

Sun and Moon won't even chase you and have to go out of the way to see the jumpscare.

You can become invisible to the endos.

And you don't need to run into Roxy as an enemy if you don't want and just use the very obvious intended camera speaker mechanic.

All the animatronics move slower than your base walking speed so I never found them that credible a threat and tended to get bored by them.

The tedium of the puzzles didn't help ease that boredom that much.

The only times of this game that felt genuinely horrifying to play were the Bonnie bowl section and the Freddy chase.

Freddy moves faster than your base running speed and he WILL get you a few times if you don't know what you're doing. It was one of the most horrifying experiences in the game for me.

I know horror is subjective. But once I learned quick that MXES couldn't hurt me, and all the animatronics AI was dumbed down to extremely basic.... I found everything an annoyance rather then a threat.

Not only that, Cassie mechanically is not fun to play. (CHARACTER WISE I LOVE HER but for another post)

She runs slower then Gregory and jumping around and running just isn't as fun. I suppose it makes sense. Gregory is dodgy cus he lives on the streets. Cassie just came home from eating carrot cake.

I have replayed the base Security Breach over five times because it's so fun to play. And yes. I typically play the game straight without many crazy glitches.

Ruin, I have only played twice and I got sick of it. The animatronics aren't fun to run from if they all function the same.

I did like it when MXES was approaching as I was solving puzzles. It lead to some genuinely tense moments.

Steel Wool is so close to making the perfect FNAF game.

I REALLY think that the animatronics needed some more AI tweaking or just copy how their shattered AI worked in base game.

I'm kinda glad that the game wasn't TOO hard. But it lead to a lot of situations where I was just casually walking away from the animatronics and it wore off it's novelty in repeat playthroughs.

Meanwhile I can play Security Breach for weeks and never get bored.

Reminder, this is just my opinion, and I'm just talking about the game mechanically.

Story wise, it's definitely an improvement and I did enjoy it alot and I will talk more in depth on that later

#fnaf #fnaf ruin #fnaf ruin spoilers #fnaf ruin dlc spoilers #danachan's rants

[lettherebemonsters]

My thoughts on Five Nights at Freddy's as a casual fan!

Spoilers ahead under the readmore!

I'm a casual FNAF fan. I haven't played the games since I stopped gaming over 6-8 years ago, and outside of flipping through Silver Eyes to see Afton get dragged into Hell by his animatronics, I haven't read the books.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie where you literally just leave your brain at the door for.

The movie was good. A really decent au made into a movie, but not awful. There are a few things that I feel would have been changed to make it fit better.

Like definitely a longer springlock, maybe have it look more like the Silver Eyes ending where Afton is dragged into the shadows by metal arms.

The one thing I definitely need to know more is HOW William came to know Schmidt. It's like he targeted Garret SPECIFICALLY and not just a Grabber situation where he's yanking kids left and right. I definitely think the inevitable sequel is going to answer this, maybe bring in Vanny since her dad in the movie was corrupting her.

And William MUST have something up his sleeve to say THAT line. Otherwise it sounds like he pulled it out of his bunny ass to shout that he'll always come back. If it has hints of the books, he's probably survived a springlock before and that's where it came from. Again this is something that definitely should be answered more in a sequel.

Overall, I enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect and I just watched it because of Springles, actually real life Fazbear animatronics and because I need to watch something that isn't blatant Oscar bait. Go into this movie wanting to have fun. Don't expect the Academy to give this an award since they have their heads up their asses.

#fnaf spoilers #five nights at freddy's spoilers #rave to the grave (out of character)

[star-going-supernova]

I don’t know if it’s appropriate for me to ask this, but I would like to see what happened to the Vanny suit after “I had strings”. I imagine destroying it would be next on Vanessa’s list after the wires, not to mention the cathartic release everyone would feel.

I certainly don’t see anything wrong with asking that! Since I’m an impatient “need to share writing NOW” kind of author, I’m doing this as a lil medium-sized ficlet instead of a big ao3 story, since this comes way after the current plot/timeline. It might eventually make its way over there, too, but for now… tumblr exclusive, lol!

Y’all might notice the tone/voice in this little ficlet is pretty different from everything else that exists so far in the strings ’verse! It’s ’cause this bad boy takes place a year after the implant was removed, so Vanessa’s in a way better headspace, and she and Gregory have settled into a familial relationship somewhere between parent-child and siblings. 

Milestone

Vanessa stared at the calendar on her phone, seated at her kitchen table. She scrolled back a bit and counted for the third time. She got the same number as the past attempts. Shocked, she leaned back in her chair and gazed unseeingly at the far wall. 

She hadn’t moved by the time Gregory’s footsteps approached from the hall, stopping where the carpet became tile. “Uh. Are you okay?” He tread closer like he was approaching a bomb, and Vanessa knew him well enough by then to know his hesitance wasn’t from fear that she’d regressed. 

It was probably more because the last time she’d ended up staring at a wall, he’d wandered in just as she muttered, “Did I have sex?” 

(“Context!” she’d shrieked after him when he went speeding away far faster than he had ever run from Vanny. Cheeks burning, she had run after him, waving the questionnaire she’d been given to fill out for her first appointment with a new doctor.

With the question of where the implant came from still up in the air, Vanessa hadn’t been willing to risk herself on the off chance her previous doctor had something to do with it. And even if he was innocent, the fact he’d somehow missed both the implant and the mind control really didn’t inspire confidence in his abilities. 

Regardless, the form had asked if she was sexually active. The mind control aspect of her last two years made that an extremely uncomfortable question. She was pretty sure the answer was no, though. 

If Gregory’s loud “Nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you!” was an indication, her attempts at explaining all that were… unappreciated.)

Instead of saying something that would mentally scar him, Vanessa merely pushed her phone in his direction. 

Gregory did little more than glance at it before casually saying, “Oh, hey. It’ll be a year since we met soon.” 

He didn’t sound surprised, the little turd. Whereas she was. Holy hell was Vanessa surprised that she’d made it—survived—a whole year of Trauma City. With how never-ending it had felt in the beginning, it was a shock she even passed six months. 

Once in the privacy of her room, she’d probably break down about it. Have a nice cry, contemplate what her life would be like if Gregory hadn’t pulled back the curtain surrounding her mind, probably abandon the privacy to go blubber all over him in thanks for refusing to let her curl up and die in a hole. He’d take it like a champ, and then he would have a turn at getting all sniffly about never having thought he’d find such a wonderful family after the death of his parents. 

Communication was vital, and they were masters at it. Look at how healthy her silly little brain was now.

Gregory took a deep breath, drawing Vanessa out of her self-congratulatory thoughts about not being a zombie anymore. “I kind of have something planned,” he said. “I thought about doing this at the six-month mark, but… I don’t think you were ready, then.” 

Vanessa turned to face him, offering him her full attention. “Even though I don’t know what you’re talking about, you were probably right.” 

He snorted. “Okay, so. Basically, did you know the pizzaplex has an incinerator?” 

“I did not,” she said evenly. “Why the hell do you?” 

“Don’t ask questions you don’t want the answers to. Follow-up question.” He hesitated a moment, which gave Vanessa enough warning for her to brace herself. “Did you ever wonder what happened to the Vanny bunny costume?” 

She made the logical leap. “You incinerated it?” 

“Not yet,” Gregory cheerfully corrected her. “I figured you’d want to do that. I asked Freddy to hide it until you were ready.” 

Ready, in this case, meaning “until you could stand to look at the suit without having a complete mental breakdown.” And, whaddya know, Vanessa found herself agreeing. She was ready. 

• • •

The whole gang—minus the pets, because, wow, that was a game no one wanted to play—gathered around the incinerator door exactly one year after Gregory ripped a wad of wires out from Vanessa’s neck. 

Gregory stood on one side of her, Roxy on the other, and the rest gathered around in a circle with her at the head. Vanessa stared down at the suit in her hands. The fabric was pretty nasty after a year of being tucked in some dusty storage room where she was practically guaranteed to never wander across it. 

It was exactly as she remembered it. Exactly as it was in her nightmares. 

She hadn’t been wearing it during their final confrontation at the end of that night, so long ago. She’d changed in and out of it during the chase, as if Gregory wouldn’t connect the dots between Vanny and Vanessa. For that reason, of all the victims who faced her, Gregory was the only one whose blood would never stain the suit. 

He survived it; now, he’d outlive it. She could think of no better middle finger to the purpose of this costume.

Vanessa considered making a speech or something, but she didn’t want this to be a funeral. This was more like… a public execution. 

“Good riddance,” she decided on, stepping forward to the incinerator. 

Freddy obligingly opened the door for her, the heat making the air waver. Even in standby, it was unpleasant. 

Roxy flipped the suit off, teeth bared, as Vanessa wadded it up and tossed it inside. 

“It won’t be missed,” Chica said. She was holding a cake topped with a bubbly candle shaped like the number one. 

Monty didn’t offer it even a speck of his attention, and based on the rips in the fabric, Freddy had already said his piece. 

The incinerator hummed as the flames kicked in, ready to consume the last remnant of Vanny. 

Though, that did remind her of something. Turning around, Vanessa asked Gregory, “What about the head?” 

“Oh, I took a sledgehammer to that ages ago.” 

“I supervised,” Freddy added, which wasn’t the reassurance he possibly thought it was. 

Roxy snorted and threw her arms over Monty and Chica’s shoulders. “Now that the trash has been taken out, the DJ’s waiting for us.” 

“Dibs on the first song!” Monty hollered, leading the charge down the hallway to the elevator. 

“No!” Chica cried, carefully passing the cake to Vanessa before running after him. “You’re just going to ask him to play that stupid meme song again!” 

Monty cackled. 

“Monty!” 

Roxy pulled ahead, flashing Vanessa an attempt at an apologetic look. “You guys cool catching up? You know I can’t miss an opportunity to watch Chica throw down with Monty over something.” 

Freddy sighed long-sufferingly, and Gregory snickered. 

“Go,” Vanessa said, rolling her eyes. “We’ll be right behind you.” 

“So,” Gregory said, once it was down to just the three of them walking down the hall. He eyed the candle’s flickering flame. “Do you still get to make a wish?” 

“I’ll defer to the expert on that one.” She peeked up at Freddy, beseeching. “Does this count for a ‘make a wish and blow out the candle’ situation, or is that strictly for birthdays?” 

“I think you are very deserving of making a wish, birthday or not,” Freddy replied as they all paused so she could blow it out.

Vanessa thought for a moment, the background hum of the incinerator not quite able to cover up the shrieking coming from the floor above them. 

Once upon a time, she would have wished for something big. Something abstract. For happiness, or to have a good year, or to continue to recover. But even though those things didn’t feel unattainable like they would have a few months ago, she didn’t. Some of the most important lessons she’d learned in the past year, both from Gregory and others, were that baby steps were necessary, setting small goals kept her from feeling defeated, and wishes were meaningless if she couldn’t fulfill them herself. 

There was no magic spell or fairy godmother or shooting star that would solve her problems. Every step she’d taken from the starting line had been under her own power. With a hell of a lot of help, sure, but still. 

She wouldn’t waste this on something that would require a genie. Not when she could grant her own wishes.

“I wish,” she said, ignoring Gregory’s protests about not saying it out loud, “that we’ll get another pet. Maybe a dog. Or a cat. Or a ferret. Not a raccoon, though.” And with that, she blew the candle out. 

Gregory sighed exasperatedly. “Adults are so weird,” he muttered to Freddy. 

“What would you have wished for, superstar?” 

“Another reason to use the incinerator.” He grinned when both Vanessa and Freddy made disapproving noises. “All right, all right, I won’t turn to a life of arson.” Then, to Vanessa, “I take it we’re going to the shelter this afternoon?” 

Vanessa laughed. “Would you look at that, my wish is already starting to come true!” 

#i answered a thing #wandererintheocean #fnaf fic #fnaf security breach #verse: see what i've become (i will no longer feed the machine) #star's stories #life and times of star

[cultbunny]

“  is that my blood? that’s my blood…  ”

˗ˏˋ ———— more injury prompts ( always accepting ) ! [ from @loveasachoice ] .

she is ENTIRELY unaffected by the red she sees. she is, after all, the one who drew it from the other. but he's about to panic, she can hear it, she can feel it, and all she can let out is a sigh. like he's being entirely too dramatic over the fact that she just swiped a knife across his forearm and left a trail in its wake. " freaking out is just going to make it worse. " it's unenthused. bored already. vanny wasn't trying to go after him - he's WAY out of the demographic of what they need - but he's just in the way at the moment. things that are in the way need to be gotten rid of. " adrenaline will make your blood pump faster, make the wound bleed more. " the blade flips idly, expertly, unconsciously in a lithe hand. like it's not even her doing it. " you're lucky i didn't get you on your upper arm. there's an artery there, you know, " she continues on, half an aside, grossly casual. the tip of silver points to his pale flesh, over and over again. " one there. two in the chest. two in the thighs. two in the neck. " odd that a pretty thing like her knows that anatomical layout. " just, i don't know, use the bottom of your shirt ? wrap it to stop the bleeding, if it bothers you that much. i don't know why you're making such a fuss. " she shrugs. she's already done with this whole interaction. " you're not why i'm here. so if you could just, y'know, go, that'd be fantastic. " and a little motion - exit stage left.

#˗ˏˋ 🐰 ———— come out and play ! [ answered ] . #˗ˏˋ 🐰 ———— come out and play ! [ loveasachoice ] . #( sorry for the late reply friend! ) #( thank you so much!! ) #( hope this works okay )

[ponds-of-ink]

All right, found out more about the CDs. They’re therapy sessions with Vanny. From what I understand from the seven CDs already found…

*Fazbear Entertainment knows about Vanny and Glitchtrap’s encoded chats. Turns out he has access to personal files as well as the ability to talk through her computer. Dunno why he’d need them, though.

*She’s been doing this during work hours. Not a smart move, tbh.

*Vanessa had family issues and testified in court. Her dad, Bill, was apparently manipulative. However, “Bill“ could be a red herring code name. We’ll see.

*It looks like Glitchtrap can sometimes control Vanny directly. I’m pretty sure it’s when she goes mute and more casual, while Vanny is more tired. Or the other way around. Either way, there’s tells that might‘ve shown off his character more.

*One of the two has a sweet tooth? One just snatched the candy up while the next denied it and gave the amount of calories in the candy. If Glitchtrap is William still and he‘s the mute Vanny then… Oh boy. There’s eating habit implications there.

That’s all I’ve got so far, but I’m sure I’ll add more later in another post.

#fnaf security breach #security breach spoilers

[the-ferocious-kittyrose]

A Drunk Girl Talks FNAF Security Breach

Okay so, I was never in the FNAF fandom and I haven’t actually played any of the games since 3, but I was always interested in the lore and theories, and recently I’ve been seeing a lot of content about FNAF Security Breach and it sorta reignited my interest in the series.

I watched play throughs and newer lore recap vids to catch up (wow this shit got weird) so I would be able to understand Security Breach, and tbh, I can’t say it helped much, because this story is weird.

Keep in mind I haven’t actually played the game, this is all based on play throughs and lore vids on yt, so I ain’t gonna talk about stuff like game play (though it looks buggy and unfinished) I’m mostly just gonna talk about some aspects of the story.

Keep in mind, I am not a writer, I’m a little wine drunk rn, and this is all my opinion. I ain’t trying to start any shit.

Vanny

The main problem I have with the story is Vanny/Vanessa and her motives, mainly her connection to William Afton. Afton’s story came to a satisfying end in FNAF 6, you don’t need to keep bringing him back (the whole glitchtrap thing is pretty weak).

I think it would be interesting if Vanny was just one of those girls who’s way too into true crime and serial killers, and after reading about Afton, she became obsessed with him. Sorta a parody of all the purple guy simps on the internet.

Vanessa believed that Afton was a misunderstood genius who was cut down in his prime, so she decided she would continue his murderous legacy. She got a job as a security guard at the Mega Pizza Plex, dawned a creepy rabbit costume, and lured children away to their deaths.

She also used her experience as a software programmer to create a virus she could use to manipulate the security system and the animatronics, making it easier for her to carry out her crimes without getting caught.

Idk I feel like I would’ve preferred that to the motive we got. It doesn’t have to be explicitly spelled out either, just small details/easter eggs. Maybe some sorta mini side quests where you find a key that unlocks a locker in the employee area that’s filled with old school fnaf stuff and creepy love letters to Afton. Stuff like that.

I also wish she was in the game more. In her bunny suit, I mean. I clarify that because normal Vanessa isn’t scary in the slightest, just cringy. Not shiting on her VA, but her voice has mega Karen energy.

Gregory

I know Gregory is a kid, but god this kid is annoying. His voice is whiny and irritating (again, not shiting on the VA it’s just my opinion) and the little personality he has is just... not great. It’s possible to make likable kid protagonists, hard but possible.

Nothing Gregory does makes sense. Why was he in Freddy’s stomach at the beginning? We can guess that he was hiding from Vanny/Vanessa, but why did he think that was a good hiding place? And also, Why was he scared of Vanessa? It’s obvious to the player that Vanessa=Vanny, but Gregory doesn’t know that, he just thinks she’s after him and assumes she’s dangerous for no real reason.

I would’ve preferred if Freddy found Gregory hiding in his greenroom after waking up and Gregory is all freaked out saying there was creepy rabbit lady with a knife following him and he had to find somewhere to hide. Freddy tries to help by contacting the security office but is unsuccessful, so he tells Gregory he will escort him to the security office personally.

On the way, Vanny can be seen lurking in the background stalking them through the pizza plex.

Then when they do meet Vanessa, she’s asleep in the office, she casually tells Freddy she’ll take Gregory off his hands and call his parents. Once Freddy’s gone she changes and gets all creepy, she pulls out her bunny mask and Gregory realizes she is the one he’s been running from and a chase ensues and she continues to hunt him through the night.

Animatronics

I really like the animatronics in this game! The new designs for Freddy and Chica are awesome and Roxy and Monty are great new additions!

I also like that we seem to be moving on from the animatronics being haunted to just being insanely advanced AI. I feel like that’s a nice new step.

The thing is, the fact that the Animatronics are so likable kinda works to the game’s detriment, because you have no choice but to destroy most of them.

I think I would’ve been awesome if we at least had the choice to reboot the animatronics and have them help you out. Each of them has different abilities and can access different areas.

Also riding in Freddy is more trouble than it’s worth, he runs out of battery so quick and the mechanic to summon him is so glitchy.

#glamrock freddy = dilf #fnaf security breach #fnaf sb #fnaf #glamrock freddy #glamrock chica #roxy wolf #monty gator #security breach vanny #sb gregory #william afton #springtrap

[ebficnotes]

Lorebook Notes for I was Summoned by a Mortal

A look at Vanus through the eyes of one of Molag Bal’s dremora.

Comments and corrections welcome.

in-game text from UESP

I was Summoned by a Mortal by Kynval Zzedenkathik of Clan Deathbringer A humorous tale of a Dremora’s summoning

For as long as I can remember—and like all Dremora my memory is keen, especially for grievances—I have faithfully served the officers of my clan, and through them, My Lord Molag Bal. And yet not always: for once, to my shame, I was compelled to serve another.

I was on guard duty at the Endless Stair, an assignment I always enjoy, for I can mock and torment the passing Soul Shriven without being held responsible for them meeting their quotas. Leaping out from behind a claw-pillar while shouting, “There you are, weakling!” just never loses its appeal.

I was lurking behind a Dark Anchor chain link, preparing to terrify an approaching Soul Shriven by suddenly knocking her down and sneering, “No match at all,” when I suddenly felt a strange tingling all over, from my horns down to my toes. I grew dizzy as the plane spun around me, nearly fell into a pool of blue plasm, and then suddenly felt myself hurled into an endless black void.

I wasn’t alarmed at first, because who hasn’t been hurled into an endless black void? It wasn’t until I began to materialize at my destination and got a taste of the air that I had my first misgivings. “I smell … weakness,” I said to myself—and I couldn’t have been more right. It was then that I first heard the voice of my Conjurer as he said, “Ah, this one looks fairly robust,” and the full horror of my situation broke upon me. For I had been summoned to do the bidding … of a mortal.

  weakness lol. That makes so much sense. My DB’s gonna have to give his a smack for that one. This is genius.

So its less of an insult to be summoned by a non-mortal? Makes sense I guess. And there are in fact quite a few non-mortals on nirn who could be summoning daedra and the like.  It just sounds funny to put it that way.

I turned, aghast, to see who had dared summon me across the infinities to Nirn, and found myself faced with a tall Elf of Summerset. Oh, I recognized the type: I’d abused more than a few Altmeri Soul Shriven in my time, and with gusto, for they evince a haughty arrogance entirely inappropriate in mere mortals. This one gave me a brief, appraising look, and then turned away, saying, “Follow and fight. There are Worm Cultists that need slaying.”

Worm Cultists. Can you imagine the ignominy, fellow kyn? Not only had I been conjured away from my duty by one of the hated Elven mortals, but I must serve him by slaying the minions of Mannimarco, our Dread Lord’s lieutenant and viceroy-to-be! I tried to resist, flexing my indomitable will, but the mortal mage’s binding spell was too strong—all I could do was say, “No one escapes!” and follow him past a pair of torches into a subterranean maze of tunnels.

“You serve the great Vanus Galerion, Dremora,” my Conjurer announced, quite unnecessarily—for what need had I to know the name of my slavemaster? But then I reconsidered, and mentally added his name to that long list each of us keeps: the list labeled, “Vengeance.”

He really knows how to win hearts and minds doesn’t he? So vanni can summon high level dremora and has zero qualms about it. Guess that bit of summerset heresy didn’t find its way into his head.

All the psijics are daedra whores, so I guess Vanny doesn’t object to that bit of mannimarco’s character? Nope, it’s just that one little thing…

“This one looks robust” - shopping for dremora:D And you KNOW he pulled one out of coldharbour on purpose, I’m sure of it. Does Vanus think that dremora’s gonna tell Manni who wasted his cell? lol he wishes right?

“Follow and fight. There are Worm Cultists that need slaying.” going hunting. And so casual! He does this kind of thing a lot does he?

I followed, not deigning to crouch when my Conjurer hunched over to sneak, merely glaring at him and thinking, “I will feast upon your heart.” In truth, however, it was as well that I had this Elf Vanus to follow, for the tunnels were many and twisting, and though we Dremora are fearless, relentless, and unparalleled among warriors throughout Oblivion, our sense of direction is rather poor. When doing courier duty, I’ve been known to lose my way right in the middle of the Moonless Walk and wind up back at the Lightless Oubliette where I started.

me too man, me too… [ stupid zone not having a single freaking map marker for us RL directionally challenged types >.

In time this Vanus began to pause frequently, listening, which only increased my irritation and impatience. Finally he stopped, with a “Shh!” to me—which was completely unfair, as I hadn’t said a word. But I realized why he’d stopped when I suddenly heard human speech from the tunnel ahead. Hesitating nary an instant, I drew my greatsword and rushed forward, crying “A challenger is near!” The Elf cursed and followed, but he had only himself to blame—I was following his orders exactly.

Winding tunnels and sneaking.  It sounds  like he’s alone. No backup for Vainest Vanus I guess. Or maybe his guild/lamp knights want nothing to do with his vendetta? They sure are disinterested in-game. Makes me wonder how he managed  to convince  them to come to coldharbour at the end - oh shit he DIDN’T!

 What if that derpfest of a “diplomatic mission” was a setup from the beginning to trap his guild into storming coldharbour with the fighters guild because they wouldn’t get involved??? That would explain his lack of playing hero in Summerset. He probably just barely managed to squeak his way out from under the pr nightmare of his last crusade (justified though it may have been). He’s officially cashed all his chips with his longsuffering guild and just isnt about to admit it to  us. He uses up his one remaining favor/uses some prophecy to dupe some newcomer into investigating that witch-girl because no ones gonna trust his word alone after the coldharbour fiasco! He NEEDS US BECAUSE WE HAVENT FUCKED ANYONE OVER (to their knoledge). Oh that hurts. And would be amazing if it checks out. Talk about “growing up”. Manni would be so proud of him. If only he wasn’t on the wrong end of it. Or maybe despite being on the wrong end of it? That one. After he cools off from his eternal suffering anyway… Mani says in his notes that he don’t want the plannemeld to actually finish without him, so he’s probably cool with Vanus’s bunkerbusting. This time.

The next minute passed in the red fury that all true Dremora feel when they enter battle. But my usual enjoyment of bloody slaughter was tainted by the knowledge that I was killing those my Dread Lord would prefer I didn’t, and frankly, that just ruined the whole experience for me. As I lopped off the limbs and heads of the Worm Cultists, I was aware of the energies of the Elf’s powerful magics crackling past me, incinerating the more distant enemies, but I was too mortified to enjoy the orgy of destruction. The Elf came striding up as I subdivided the final Worm Anchorite, gloating, “So much for them. Take that, Mannimarco!”

“Take that Mannimarco”. lol cute. And bloodbath? Orgy of destruction? Vanus sure knows how to throw a party doesn’t he? He is a spiteful, violent, angry, awesome little shit. Maybe HE should be running for Bal’s Viceroy. he’d fit right in up there.

“so much for them”? Either he’s done this a million times and trashing Manni’s worms just never gets old (my fav), or this is Vanus’s first dungeon solo and he’s suprised they aren’t tougher, whch only happens 4.x years after the soulburst? what took him so long? you’d think he’d be be raining hellfire 24/7 in response to Manni kicking his guild out of cyrodiil.

“There could be no other end,” I replied sourly, then felt the strange tingling again as the conjuration that had brought me to Nirn began to weaken. As the bonds dissolved I took one menacing step toward the Elf, but then the plane spun around me again, and it was back into the endless black void. When I came to my senses I was lying in a pool of turquoise slime, looking up at the smiling face of my superior, Kynreeve Xalxorkig. “So, Zzedenkathik,” he snarled, “straying from your post when on duty, eh? It’s the scathe-rings for you, my lad!”

“But, Kynreeve,” I cried, leaping to attention, “I couldn’t help it! I was conjured, summoned to Nirn—by a mortal!”

Xalxorkig smiled even wider. “And that’ll be an extra shift scathing for telling such a hornless lie. Now march, Zzedenkathik,” he shouted, thumping me with his truncheon. “Left, right, left, right, left, right …” I hate it when Xalxorkig smiles. Kynreeve or not, his name’s going on my list.

Blue balled by the Great Mage himself. I’d feel bad for that dremora if I  wasn’t laughing so hard. Damn Vanus, you got yours! Though given where he ends up later… Oh dear.

So mortal conjurers are the daedric version of the bogeyman or an urban legend? Something that is either super rare so no one thinks it can happen to them, or is limited to few enough that the dremora at large don’t believe it’s really a thing? wow. that’s… kind of messed up actually.

This is during the player’s time. It mentions soul shriven and dark anchors, which aren’t a thing on the ground until four years after the soulburst itself. this note also appears in the hollow city, so x amount of time passes between soulless me dropping into the world, vanus’s first(?) dungeon solo, and finding my way up there to find this note about it. How long is a reasonable time in lore? all the quests starting at once makes this hard to feel out in-game.

#tes #eso #vanus galerion #Mannimarco #book notes #mine #my favorite book

[josiesparklelove]

Lost in the Forbidden Garden

Code Realize!AU  (Josie x Van Helsing Universe)

For @labyrinthofleah since she suggested it.

Based on this post.

“Note to self.” Josie’s thoughts began to herself as she wandered aimlessly through the Queen’s palace devoid of her usual armor. “Kill Lupin next time I see him. On the spot. As painfully as possible.”

The day before Lupin assembled all those living at Saint Germain’s mansion into the living room to discuss a new development. Or a possible development Lupin corrected as they all took their seats. Josie remained standing somewhat near the doorway in between where Delly sat on the couch and the door opening which would allow her more room if needed to protect her master. Impey sat on the same couch as Delly as Victor who had been volunteered against his will sat between the with Sisi in his lap.

Across from them, Saint Germain sat next to Leah in his brand new two-seater couch - a ‘love-seat’ which had been very recently acquired. Only he and Leah sat there together, the Count’s obvious message being somewhat lost on poor Leah. Lupin stood in front of everyone near the mantle and a suspicious looking blueprint of the palace which he just… happened to come across. And Van Helsing had chosen a chair a little away from the others which so happened to be nearest to Josie. He had offered her the chair once, but she refused stating it would be improper to her duties, he only rolled his eyes.

And so, Lupin delivered his plan. Apparently he had heard whispers of a possible clue to Isaac Beckford’s location. There was supposed to be a meeting held within the palace to discuss it, which meant that they needed to be present. After a very vague explanation as to why he had sealed blueprints of the Queen’s Palace in his arsenal Lupin began his explanation.

They would split into three groups: Infiltration Team - Lupin, Leah, and Saint Germain. Diversion Team: Impey and Victor. And the Lookout/Guard Team: Van Helsing and Josie. Though Saint Germain had originally been on the Lookout team he… requested his present be at Leah’s side and…. Well Lupin couldn’t exactly say too much and so the teams were formed. Though not without loud protesting from Impey who also wanted to be on the Infiltration team with Leah but was very quickly dismissed.

Lupin then began to give out the instructions which Josie listened to with no particular interest until her name came up in conversation and she looked up.

“So? Do you have anything suitable?” Lupin asked with a terrible looking grin spreading on his face.

“Suitable… for what?” Josie asked irritation running high just from the look of his wicked grin.

“I have some items she could borrow but…” Leah started and then looked down a little sheepishly.

“I doubt they would… uh … be inconspicuous.” Victor added a bit of pink dusting his cheeks in apology. And Josie only scrunched her brow at the scene.

“I don’t-”

“Do you have any clothes that aren’t armor?” Van Helsing said bluntly as he pushed his glasses up his nose.

“My under armor?” Josie responded confusedly.

“Perhaps something a bit less risque.” Saint Germain added with a small nod.

“Oh! But you could wear that more around the man- OUCH! Fran! Don’t pinch my leg.” Impey wailed.

“Be grateful it was just a pinch, Impey. I think Vanny was grabbing his gun.” Lupin chuckled

“Huh?” Impey quickly turned around as Van Helsing adjust his arms across the chest. Whether he was previously holding something was left to be seen by the redhead who quietly sunk down into his seat.

“My under armor is… risque?” Josie asked quietly almost to herself when Leah jumped up excitedly.

“Oh! We can quickly head into the city and find some casual clothes. That would be fun. Would that be okay, Saint Germain? Today was supposed to be our day in the city.”

“Oh, well. We can consider it a little test on your progress.” Saint Germain responded his normal smile only dropping for a quick moment before returning.

“Great!” Lupin exclaimed. “Well, with the costume change taken care of let’s continue with the rest of the plan.

Josie was no less confused as when the conversation began as she silently began to glance down at her attire confused as to why her clothes could be considered risque. Van Helsing snuck a few peeks towards the confused woman and had to stifle a smile.

Eventually as Lupin’s explanation continued he turned towards Leah. “Now, I have no doubts that you will do just fine while we sneak inside, however. What’s our rule #2?”

“Always have an escape plan.” Leah announce determinedly.

“Correct! Such a great little student.” Lupin praised and nearly pat her on the shoulder until he saw a glint come off from Saint Germain’s eyes. “Ah… Anyway. So I have an idea for a possible escape route for you. ‘Damsel in Distress’.” Josie rolled her eyes as Leah was sure to write it down in her little notebook.

The rest of the conversation droned on to Josie who thoroughly decided that humans planned too much. She could have saved them all times by just walking in and putting her sword to the throat of anyone with news, but no one asked her for her opinion. Later that day Leah dragged Josie into town to purchase some casual clothes outfits. She was then forced to provide a mini fashion show to the men of the mansion since Leah was so excited to show her off.

Finally the day of the mission and Josie stood with her arms squarely crossed across her chest with a scowl plastered on her face.

“Josie! You look super cute!” Leah announced bouncing on her toes. Impey stood behind her also bouncing on his toes but quickly shriveled at her glare.

“I feel really exposed.” Josie complained an worried the light fabric of her blouse.

“You’d be more exposed in your under-armor.” Van Helsing said from his location leaning against the wall near the front door. Josie shot him a glare.

With a polite cough from Victor trying to squelch the conversation they had a final meeting before departing towards Steel London. Victor, Van Helsing, and Lupin each had to wear some type of disguise as they could be recognized by some personnel so the idea had come to pass for Van Helsing and Josie to pose… as a married couple visiting the palace. The suggestion was made by Lupin who had made sure to stay several meters away from Josie at all times.

And so they made their way to the palace. Josie was as stiff as a board as she walked arm in arm with a disguised yet smiling Van Helsing into the Palace. While walking through the Palace with a group they confirmed with the other members of the group at specific areas that the mission was going according to plan. Eventually they ducked out from the group easily and Josie heaved a sigh of relief. She was more than sure that Van Helsing could hear her thunderous heart beating out of her chest. So some space apart was very welcome.

Though as she looked up from where she was leaning over catching her breath she noticed she was suspiciously alone. She surveyed the area for Van Helsing but to no avail. She couldn’t call out to him since she was in a quarantined area so she decided to just continue forward for her segment of the mission. It was a few minutes of aimless walking when she suddenly stopped in a garden area and inwardly cursed herself for not paying more attention to the suspicious map from Lupin.

As she internally berated herself a voice called out to her.

“Miss. May I help you?”  A guard called out to her from the garden entrance.

“Uh. I …” She hesitated suddenly feeling so much more exposed and really wishing she had her armor and sword.

“Are you lost?” He asked one hand still perched on the hilt of his sword.

Am I lost? Josie asked herself. She was but why would she ever admit that. It’s not like she was in distress or-  With a sudden memory of Lupin’s suggestion to Leah, Josie quickly turned to the guard and said a bit too loudly.

“YES! Yes… I am lost.”

“You are?”

“Yes. I … was on the group tour with my h-h-hus..band….  when I went in search of a restroom.”

“You got lost… looking for the restroom?” He asked inquisitively.

“Yes.” Josie said affirmatively and attempted to look demure.

“And you ended up in the middle of the Queen’s forbidden garden?”

“...Yes.” Josie replied quickly glancing around for why it would be forbidden but attempted to bat her eyes.

“Can you explain yourself?”

“Uh… I was… hoping a cute guard would show up to save me?” She asked sweetly tilting her head in the way that always annoyed her when she saw human females do so in town.

The guard quirked his head in confusion. “But weren’t you here with your husband, you said?”

“Oh… uh… well, it worked! Thank you so much for the help sir! But.. uh I really should be going… You know I heard this garden’s forbidden?” She awkwardly laughed before she attempted to sidestep the man and make her escape.

“Miss.” The guard demanded and he reached out and grabbed Josie’s arm to stop her. Josie quickly glanced down to the arm that held her and debated over four different ways she would tear this pathetic human apart for daring to touch her when she heard a voice.

“Duck.” Van Helsing said from the shadows and Josie spied a quick glint of light reflected from his glasses before she did as instructed and heard the sound of Van Helsing’s gun unloading what she supposed was a rock salt round at point blank range.   Next thing she knew the man slumped to the ground unconscious and she wiped off her clothes from the residual salt that fell on her clothes.

“Damsel in distress?” Van Helsing asked with a cocky smile on his face as he approached and reloaded his gun.

“Hm. Figured it would be less suspicious than a loud gun fire like your little stunt.” She casually said as she leaned down and divested the guard of his sword and armor from his right hand and arm up to his pauldrons.

“Oh, and here I thought the damsel is supposed to give her hero a kiss for their bravery.” He replied with a smirk. Josie paused for a moment before quickly leaning over and kissing his cheek. Van Helsing retreated for a moment to look at her in surprise. He was gifted with the small blush that crossed her cheeks.

“Human customs are very strange.” She replied before nudging the unconscious guard with her foot.  “Let’s get back to the others.”

As Josie began to escape from the garden, Van Helsing stood rooted to the spot for a moment more as his hand unconsciously went and felt the area on his cheek where her lips touched. A small smile crept to his own lips before he thought of a few other human customs he would need to teach her in time. But… that was for another time. For now let’s go save the others. There’d be time for that later, he hoped.

#cr!au #cr!leah #vampknight!josie #vampknight!josie x van helsing #abraham van helsing #code: realize #josie writes #josie did a thing #drabbles

[ohnohetaliasues]

Hey, this is the made up nation. While I am aware of the main problems of made up nations, I like to take challenges with what people see as instant Sues to see if it’s even possible to pull it off. Anyway, here she is, with my personal notes at the end. Thanks again!

Country Information:

Official Country Name: Commonwealth of Flurian Islands (Fluria)

Capitol: Gadleigh

Languages: Flurian, French, Mandarin (Government officials speak English)

Government: Monarchy, with a Prime Minister as the advisor to the ruler. (Working towards Constitutional Monarchy.)

 Human Information:

Name: Barvana “Vannie” Venata

Meaning: Barnava roughly translates in english to Fairy of the Stars. Venata roughly translates to Sun Storm.

Age Appearance: 26

Gender: Female

Birthday: June 13th. This is the day Espya, Ascon, and Rebrium unified into a single country.

 About Them:

Personality: As a country of islands, the best way to describe Barvana is to say that her personality differs, each one reflecting a different island. Like the people of Espya, she has a commanding presence, with a powerful voice and a strong stubbornness. Like the people of Ascon, she’s caring and gentle, but willing and ready to prove a point. And, finally, like the people of Rebrium, she’s loyal to a fault and silver tongued. Of course, all of these things come with their own strong downside, her stubbornness often blinds her, for example. Like her people, she’s very wary of strangers and outsiders, as well as slightly scared of the advancing technologies of the modern world.

Hobbies: Baking, sneaking about in the night, fishing, the occasional party (formal parties), sewing (by hand, thank you.)

 Physical Attributes:

Description: (Images) Barvana has a tanned skin complexion, a deep, natural tan. Her eyes are colored a dark blue, and are rather large. Her hair is a deep honey brown, it’s curly and she usually wears two small braids in it. Her left shoulder blade has a burn scar, presumed to represent the volcano eruption that wiped out Rebrium centuries ago, while on her chest, there’s heavy scarring from what looks like an animal attack. Her breasts are small, and barely noticeable.

Height: 5’3’’

Weight: 124 lbs

Outfit: Island Casual, Conference Meetings, Armored Combat, Modern Warfare, Military Commander’s Uniform (Use these as references, will be updating soon with rough descriptions/sketches of what she actually wears. These are to be used as my inspiration.)

 Family and Foreign Relationships:

England (Arthur Kirkland) England is one of the very few nations that have been allowed to trade with Fluria. Arthur and Barvana haven’t talked much, however, due to the grudge both of them are still harboring. China (Wang Yao) China was the first nation to gain the trust of Flurians and have trade opened up with the islands.Yao and Barvana share a positive relationship, she would even dare call them friends. (Roleplay only: Possible Love Interest) France (Francis Bonnefoy) Arguably, France is the nation that first discovered Fluria, landing on Rebrium centuries before the islands unified. They’ve opened up trading and share a positive relationship. (Roleplay only: Possible Love Interest) Jonathan Vesque Venata (Cecian) Cecian is a small island micronation closest to Ascon. The countries are close allies, Vesque and Barvana are brother and sister to each other. France ‘discovered’ Rebrium around the time when they owned the other two islands. The representative claimed they were already a single nation, though never got the chance to explain other nations to Fluria before he vanished. All images that aren’t in that sta.sh folder are to be used as references. As mentioned in the outfit, I’m using those as my inspiration. The history is a heavy WIP, I only have scattered ideas with no solid dates. This is a world map with a few ideas for where I’m thinking the nation itself is. Cecian is going to be fully developed after Fluria is finished. Or at least in a more finished state.

Brief History:

Fluria began as the three islands of Rebrium, Espya, and Ascon, each of which were very close to each other. The three islands had their own representative country for upwards of five hundred years, before wars broke out between them. The first war was between Rebrium and Espya, where the peoples of Rebrium won the war and took Espya as their own, before then warring with Ascon. The war ended with Rebrium owning the other two islands.

Two hundred years later, another war broke out, the people of the islands revolting against their oligarchy leaders. At the end of this long and bloody war, a treaty was made that would unite the three islands into one nation, which they would name ‘Fluria’. A name meaning Land’s Hope.

Barvana was found on the beach of Espya shortly after, staring out at the sea as the countries approached. The three would be disappearing soon, since their nations had united… And they knew it, they even knew who this chibi was. They tried to train her to become a good country, but they vanished shortly after the first king of Fluria was crowned.

Barvana herself, has led a simple life for her peoples. She began as a seamstress, apprenticing with an elderly woman who was happy to teach her, who later adopted her after finding out she had no parents. She assisted the woman for as long as she lived, before working on her own for almost 50 years, before taking on her own apprentice before leaving the trade. She tried archery, alchemy (as in mixing herbs together to make medicines, I need to check the actual name of it), and fishing before trying politics, and in the right moment too.

Roughly 74 years after she began her political ‘apprenticeship’, Chinese ships arrived on the shores of Espya. Barvana was on the beaches that night to greet them. Of course, a language barrier barred the discussion for a moment, before someone walked out from the ship, speaking a tongue Barvana was shocked she understood. This man explained it was the language of the countries, a secret language hardwired into their brains that only they could understand.

The conversation was long, spanning days. The visitors and the natives both believed it was to work out trade, but it was mostly just chatting about being countries. The Chinese left with Flurian goods, leaving a few items behind for the people of the islands. Since then, circa 1805, China and Fluria have traded with each other.

England was next to arrive, demanding gold and silver from the islanders. This time, however, they were not so diplomatic. Barvana greeted the country on the beach clad in chain-leather armor. They argued. They fought. Flurians defeated the British by sinking their ships and preventing them from leaving, using poisons to fell their generals. England begrudgingly surrendered… Accepting when Barvana demanded trading from him and his countrymen. She watched one of her own ships taking the British home.

Now, Fluria is a slowly advancing country. Barvana is scared but curious of the strange technology China and England bring, reaching towards it and quickly pulling her hand away when it makes sounds or lights up. Barvana has only recently started coming to World Conference Meetings, her first meeting seeing a terrified country walking in staring in awe at everything. She almost talked China’s ear off.

 Extra:

 Notes:

I'm used to awful made up OCs, but this isn't too bad. It doesn't interfere with any major relations, and I actually like this one! Good job!

~Kat

#OC #Hetalia OC #APH Hetalia #mary sue #submission

[bluewatsons]

Robert G. Bringle et al., The Prevalence and Nature of Unrequited Love, SAGE Open 1 (2013)

Abstract

Unrequited love (UL) is unreciprocated love that causes yearning for more complete love. Five types of UL are delineated and conceptualized on a continuum from lower to greater levels of interdependence: crush on someone unavailable, crush on someone nearby, pursuing a love object, longing for a past lover, and an unequal love relationship. Study 1a found all types of UL relationships to be less emotionally intense than equal love and 4 times more frequent than equal love during a 2-year period. Study 1b found little evidence for limerent qualities of UL. Study 2 found all types of UL to be less intense than equal love on passion, sacrifice, dependency, commitment, and practical love, but more intense than equal love on turmoil. These results suggest that UL is not a good simulation of true romantic love, but an inferior approximation of that ideal.

Although virtually all aspire to consummate romantic love, the path toward achieving the ideal love relationship is littered with relationships that are incomplete approximations. Many of these are discarded, whereas some relationships are maintained in spite of their imperfections. The prototype of consummate romantic love is that it will be reciprocal, fulfilling, and enduring (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996) and trusting, caring, and, intimate (Fehr, 2006). Unrequited love (UL) occurs when differences in the aspirations or the experiences of love result in a yearning for more complete love by one of the individuals in the relationship. The experience of UL may be an ephemeral mood state, a developmental stage in a relationship, idiosyncratic to the combination of two individuals, or the result of a stable attribute (e.g., anxious/ambivalent attachment; Aron, Aron, & Allen, 1998). UL has been found to be more prevalent among individuals who reported an anxious/ambivalent attachment style (Aron et al., 1998) and who were low on defensiveness (K. K. Dion & Dion, 1975). This research is focused on evaluating the question of whether or not UL is a type of romantic love and the ways in which UL aligns with the attributes of romantic love.

Types of UL

Baumeister, Wotman, and Stillwell (1993) described several ways in which UL can develop (e.g., growing out of friendship, loving from afar) and Aron and Aron (1991) described three types of UL (secret, jilted, hanger on). We conceptualized UL as occurring in different kinds of relationships that are assumed to be located on a continuum of interdependence (e.g., Kelley et al., 1983; Kelley et al., 2003; see also Baumeister et al., 1993). Interdependence encompasses influence, behavioral control, and the frequency, diversity, and length of interaction (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004). Berscheid and Ammazzalorso (2001) posited that increasing interdependency creates stronger, more numerous, and more consequential expectations that, when violated, produce stronger emotional reactions. An extreme example of a relationship with low interdependence is an imaginary lover. A love relationship that is equal in exchanges encompasses high levels of interdependence (e.g., Kelley et al., 1983; Kelley et al., 2003). This continuum of presumed interdependence organizes the following types of UL relationships.

Crush on Someone Who Is Unavailable

Someone can have a crush on a love object who exists, but who is seldom proximal (e.g., a rock star, a movie star). The person has little or no chance of forming an equal, reciprocal relationship because the love object is unavailable. There are often large disparities between the two persons in their desirability and the desirability of their alternatives, decreasing the prospect of a reciprocal, romantic relationship (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Furthermore, relationships that might form are superficial, asymmetrical, and incomplete (e.g., talking at an autograph session, a one-night sexual relationship). Thus, the love object is more accessible to, more important to, and exercises more behavioral control over the enamored than vice versa. However, there is interdependence. As Ferris (2001) documented, fans collect information about their paramours, experience emotions when good and bad events occur in the paramour’s life, alter their behavior to be near the paramour (e.g., go to concerts) (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Furthermore, the star’s behavior can be influenced by fans (e.g., changing behavior to appeal to them).

Crush on Someone Nearby Without Initiating a Romantic Relationship

Some potential romantic partners may be physically nearby. Awareness may be unilateral or mutual (Levinger & Snoek, 1972). Because of the person’s proximity, interdependence can be greater than that for the previous type. The presence of the love object may influence the enamored person’s behavior (e.g., attempts at contact are made). There can be interaction, which may be perfunctory and contain no disclosure of romantic interests, or the relationship may develop into a friendship without clear revelation of romantic interests (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992).

Pursuing the Love Object

At some point, the enamored may decide to initiate a romantic relationship, either through somewhat passive routes (increasing contact, ambiguous statements), or more active communication of romantic interests (asking for a date). The intentions may or may not be accurately perceived by the love object (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992), resulting in varying degrees of emotions and differences in expectations for the future of the romantic relationship (Arriaga, 2001).

The attraction can be rather sudden (which Shaver, Morgan, & Wu, 1996, describe as a love surge) and the “love struck” person assumes the task of communicating romantic intentions, eliciting reciprocation, and initiating a romantic relationship (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992). Alternatively, unilateral romantic inclinations can develop within the context of a friendship. In either case, the fate of the relationship likely depends on many factors (e.g., clear communication, availability of the prospective partner). Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) found that partners who “fell in love at first sight” had more dissimilar personalities than those who fell in love more gradually. In addition, differences in desirable qualities may result in the person “falling upward” (i.e., attempting to initiate a relationship with someone of greater overall desirability) to be thwarted by the more desirable person (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992). Thus, one consequence of expressed romantic interests may be that they are either initially or regularly rejected. However, the UL relationship may blend into the courtship process in which the couple pursues a romantic relationship (Cate & Lloyd, 1992).

Longing for a Past Lover

Dissolution of a relationship is often not mutual (Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2002; Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). In contrast to those who leave a dating partner, those who are committed to a deteriorating relationship continue to invest in the relationship, find the relationship satisfying, devalue alternative relationships, stalk, and profess commitment after the relationship dissolves (Meloy & Fisher, 2005; Rusbult, 1983). Because there once was a relationship, there was a rather high level of interdependence, including familiarity with and knowledge of the love object. Thus, individuals who are left by a lover can harbor lingering feelings of attraction for their past lover, longing for the resumption of the relationship (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998; Wegner & Gold, 1995). “Frustration attraction” may have a biological basis that explains why rejection produces more passion (Fisher, 2004), and attempts to reestablish the relationship can intensify into stalking (Davis et al., 2002).

Unequal Love Relationship

Once a romantic relationship has been initiated, there may be differences in the intensity of love, in the nature of the love experienced by the two individuals, or differences in the expectations about the pace of relationship development. Quantitative asymmetry refers to differences in the intensity of the love experienced or differences in the various dimensions of intensity, such as onset latency, duration, action readiness, and overall intensity (Arriaga, 2001; Frijda, Ortony, Sonnemans, & Clore, 1992).

Qualitative asymmetry occurs when two individuals obtain different types of outcomes from a relationship. Love can involve numerous distinct qualities, such as passion, intimacy, and commitment (Sternberg, 1986); attachment, caregiving, and sexuality (Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006; Shaver, Morgan, & Wu, 1996); passionate and companionate love (Berscheid & Walster, 1978); caring and needing (Kelley et al., 1983); and mixes of eros, ludus, and storge (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006; Lee, 1973, 1988). An imbalance can occur in any of these qualitative aspects of love. For example, a lover can be dissatisfied because high passion and low commitment are experienced and desired from the partner, but the partner experiences and seeks low passion and high commitment (Regan, 1998).

Study 1a

Baumeister et al. (1993) reported the prevalence of three types of quantitatively differentiated UL experiences: a casual attraction; a moderate attraction; and a powerful, intense, and serious attraction. During a 5-year span, college respondents reported 1.07 “powerful,” 1.86 “moderate,” and 3.66 “casual” instances of UL. Their definition of UL was, “you have been attracted to another person, but that other person did not feel an equal attraction to you” (Baumeister et al., 1993, p. 386). This description could encompass all five types of UL relationships described earlier, with the possible exception of a crush on an unavailable love object. Hill, Blakemore, and Drumm (1997) studied mostly young adults (M age = 23 years) and found that the frequency of UL was significantly higher for males (3.06) than the frequency of mutual love in males (2.26), and higher than UL for females (1.62, which was significantly lower than mutual love for females: 2.50).

Study 1a sought descriptive information about the prevalence of UL by measuring the frequency and intensity of the five types of UL relationships and equal, reciprocated love. Because UL is an “easy” kind of love (low investment, low interdependence; Baumeister et al., 1993), UL was expected to be more frequent than equal love. Because equal love is emotionally fulfilling love (Aron & Aron, 1986), and because Berscheid and Ammazzalorso (2001) predicted more intense emotional responses for more interdependent relationships, the general intensity of the emotional experience for equal love was hypothesized to be greater than that for UL and to be greater for types of UL with presumed higher interdependency.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 153 high school students (60 males, 93 females) and 165 university students (54 males, 111 females), aged 14 to 63 years (M = 21.1, SD = 9.42). University students were given extra credit in a psychology course for their participation.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire presented descriptions of six different types of love relationships:

A huge “crush” on someone you do not know personally, nor ever really expect to know, like a movie star, rock star, or athlete.

A huge crush on someone you know, but for one reason or another you have not let that person know of your feelings for him or her.

A relationship in which you are (were) actually pursuing the person you are (were) in love with, but so far have been unsuccessful in winning that person’s love in return.

A love relationship that has ended for whatever reason, but one in which you still long for that partner although there is no prospect of reuniting.

A love relationship in which you are (were) currently involved romantically, but one in which you feel that you love the partner more, were more committed to, and put more effort into the relationship than did your partner.

A love relationship involving an equal love—relationships in which you are (or were) in love with someone who loves (or loved) you just as much in return.

Respondent were asked to consider instances of love in the last 2 years. A period of 2 years was selected because high school students were included in the sample and a longer time frame might have included years during which they had little interest in romantic relationships. Respondents were asked to indicate all instances of each type of love relationship by writing the initials of the love object. For each relationship listed, they were asked to indicate the age at which the relationship began, the length of time that the relationship lasted, whether it was a current relationship, and the intensity of the feelings that they had for the love object on a scale ranging from 1 (no feelings) to 7 (extremely intense feelings).

Results

Two indices of frequency were examined: whether the respondent reported any occurrence of a type of relationship and the number of instances of each type of relationship (see Table 1). Equal romantic love was experienced by 70% of the sample during the past 2 years; respondents reported pursuing a relationship with someone for whom they had romantic thoughts or feelings less frequently than they had those feelings; and instances of all types of UL were over 4 times more prevalent than equal love.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Each Type of Relationship in Study 1a.

Due to the statistical interdependence of different types of love (i.e., one participant could report on several different types of love relationships or more than one instance of the same type of love relationship), it was not possible to conduct statistical analyses that assume either independent or dependent observations. Therefore, a comparison of types of relationships on intensity was conducted by computing a z score for the mean intensity score for each UL group by using the mean (M = 6.362) and standard deviation (.064) of the equal love group (see Table 2). This method of analysis provides a way to compare each type of UL with equal love (e.g., the absolute value of the average z scores is an indicator of the magnitude of difference), avoids the problems of missing data and unequal occurrences of different types of love relationships, and makes the results more readily interpretable (J. Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Respondents reported significantly lower intensity for each type of UL relationship (z > 1.96), and the average intensity across all types of UL was significantly lower than equal love.

Table 2. Intensity and Duration for Each Type of Relationship in Study 1a.

A similar analysis was conducted for duration. On the questionnaire, respondents indicated if a relationship were current and these relationships were excluded from this analysis of duration because they had not been terminated. Approximately one third of the respondents reported an ongoing equal love relationship (.33), whereas the average number of ongoing UL relationships per respondent was lower (star = .16, nearby = .20, pursue = .06, unequal = .12, long for = .04). However, the cumulative frequency of all ongoing UL relationships (.59) was greater than equal love. For those relationships that had ended, loving someone nearby and pursuing someone were of shorter duration than equal love (Table 2). A terminated relationship may have started before the 2-year period; therefore, the relationship duration could exceed 24 months. The other types of UL relationships, and UL in general, were not markedly different in duration from equal love.

Discussion

Study 1a assessed the prevalence and intensity of five different types of UL and equal love occurring during a 2-year period. Baumeister et al. (1993) found that 1.32 instances of three intensities of UL per year were reported and Hill et al. (1997) found 0.47 instances of UL per year were reported for the 16- to 20-year age group. The current research found a greater number of instances (1.91 reported instances of all types of UL per year) than both of these studies. The higher number in the current research may have resulted from the multiple, specific prompts given to respondents for the different types of UL relationships. Nonetheless, the conclusion from all three studies is that UL is common among young adults.

In addition, UL was over 4 times more frequent than equal love, which is very different from Hill et al.’s (1997) study, in which the frequencies of UL and mutual love were similar for the 16- to 20-year age group. Hill et al. (1997) also reported the highest frequency of UL for the 16- to 20-year age group. One explanation for the higher frequency in the current research is that equal love is more enduring than UL. This is the case in general and, specifically, for two types of UL (nearby lover and pursued lover). Duration was analyzed only for those relationships that had terminated, which may disproportionately exclude equal love relationships. However, the frequency of all ongoing UL relationships exceeded ongoing equal love relationships. The higher frequency of UL relationships, then, is partially accounted for by their shorter duration, but is not attributable to differential inclusion in the analyses of duration.

Another factor that contributes to the higher frequency of UL is that multiple instances were reported. Only 1 participant out of 104 reported two simultaneous, ongoing equal love relationships. But equal love does not preclude the experience of UL. Just more than 25% (n = 29) of those currently in equal love relationships also reported that they were experiencing some form of UL. In addition, 33 participants reported multiple ongoing UL relationships. Thus, UL relationships were more prevalent than equal love relationships because they coexisted with other types of love relationships during the sampled time frame.

As hypothesized, forms of UL that are presumed to be less interdependent were more common. Consistent with Berscheid and Ammazzalorso’s (2001) theory, the pattern of z scores supports the ordering of types of UL relationships from highly interdependent to less interdependent because those that are presumed to be more interdependent yielded more intense emotions and were closer approximations to equal love. In addition, UL, in terms of general emotional responses, was less intense than equal love. This is consistent with psychological theories of love that posit an emotionally rich prototype of consummate love (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1986). However, this finding is inconsistent with conjectures that emphasize how fantasy can feed UL (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Tennov, 1979), and how reality constraints can reduce the emotions experienced in an actual relationship (Murray et al., 1996; Tesser & Paulus, 1976).

Study 1b

Researchers typically define love in terms of the essential characteristics of consummate romantic love (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1986; Berscheid & Meyers, 1996; Fehr, 2006; Rubin, 1973; Shaver et al., 1996), not necessarily including those qualities that may be typical of actual romantic relationships that fall short of the ideal, prototype (Fehr, 1988), or paradigm (Davis & Todd, 1982). Fehr’s (1994) research illustrates the variety of attributes that can be associated with as many as 15 types of love, not all of which are measured adequately in romantic love scales.

Furthermore, there may be an important conceptual distinction between theories and descriptions of “love” and theories and descriptions of “falling in love” (Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson, 1989; Berscheid & Meyers, 1996; Lamm & Wiesmann, 1997), with the latter being more germane to experiences of UL. For example, Aron et al. (1989) found that accounts of falling in love failed to reflect some of the qualities (arousal, perceived similarity) that are central to typical conceptualizations of love.

Tennov’s (1979) discussion of limerence identifies several qualities that are not well captured in extant measures of love and that are posited to be components of UL (see also Baumeister et al., 1993; Baumeister & Wotman, 1992). For example, her characterization of limerence details an obsessive quality of intrusive thoughts about the love object. However, there are divergent views in the literature concerning how obsessiveness might be related to UL versus equal love and how it might be related to the five types of UL in this research. For example, Brehm (1992) speculated that obsessiveness will be more likely when a person has little real information about the love object. Thus, UL relationships should possess greater obsessiveness than equal love relationships and less interdependent types of UL should show greater obsessiveness than more interdependent types. However, Tesser and Paulus (1976) found positive associations between thoughts about the love object, contact with the love object (dating), and reports of love. This would lead to the expectation of greater obsessiveness in more interdependent types of love relationships.

A second characteristic of limerence is idealizing or glorifying the love object. As Money (1980) noted, “the person projects onto the partner an idealized and highly idiosyncratic image that diverges from the image of that partner as perceived by other people” (p. 65). Gaining information about the love object that conflicts with idealized expectations should produce decreased idealization of the love object (Murray et al., 1996; Tesser & Paulus, 1976). Although Tesser and Paulus found little evidence that these reality constraints reduced love, this line of reasoning predicts that UL relationships would exhibit greater idealization than equal love relationships, and less interdependent types of UL relationships would exhibit more idealization than more interdependent ones.

One quality about which the lover can idealize is the perceived similarity between the self and the love object. In interpersonal attraction research (e.g., Byrne, 1971), similarity is a relatively powerful determinant of attraction. Montoya, Horton, and Kirchner (2008) found in a meta-analysis of research that perceived similarity was a significant correlate of attraction across a wide range of relationship types (e.g., limited interactions, short-term relationships, existing relationships) and a better predictor of attraction than actual similarity. Distortions of perceived similarity could be easiest when there is scant information about the love object. In the absence of accurate information conveyed through firsthand experience and prolonged interactions, the person loving from afar should be able to imagine that the love object constitutes a perfect match. Therefore, UL (vs. equal love) could be fueled by the perception of exaggerated similarity and less interdependent types of UL relationships would be most susceptible to this effect. The perceived knowledge of the love object was predicted to show similar results.

Baumeister et al. (1993) found that about half of their enamored respondents reported diminished self-esteem and feelings of inferiority as a result of their plight. Fiske and Peterson (1991) found a positive association between depression and UL. Furthermore, Smith and Hokland (1988) found that greater depression and anxiety, and lower self-confidence and well-being were more characteristic of UL relationships than equal love relationships (see also Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001). Therefore, feelings of inferiority were expected to be greater for UL than equal love, but the more interdependent types were expected to engender greater feelings of inferiority (vs. the less interdependent types) due to the greater sense of rejection and lack of fulfillment inherent in them.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 239 high school students (104 males, 135 females) and 165 university students (54 males, 111 females), aged 13 to 63 years (M = 20.2, SD = 6.36). University students were given extra credit in a psychology course for their participation.1

Questionnaire

Some items for the questionnaire were selected from existing scales to represent the following domains: commitment, idealization of the love object, obsessive thoughts for the love object, ambivalent feelings for the love object (e.g., inferiority, rejection), perceived similarity of the love object, and presumed knowledge of the love object.2

Procedures

Questionnaires provided a description of one of the six types of love relationships (the five types of UL and equal love) and were randomly distributed to respondents. Respondents were asked whether they were currently experiencing that type of love relationship. If yes, they completed the questionnaire referring to that relationship. If not, they were asked whether they had experienced that type of love relationship within the past 2 years. If yes, they were instructed to choose the most intense example of that type of relationship that had occurred in the past 2 years and complete the questionnaire referring to that relationship. If not, they were instructed to contact the researcher, who gave them another questionnaire with a different type of love relationship. This procedure was continued until the respondent could complete a questionnaire.

Results

The following frequencies were obtained for the types of love relationships: crush on a star (n = 36, 8.9%), nearby (n = 83, 20.5%), pursuing (n = 39, 9.6%), longing for someone from a past relationship (n = 56, 13.8%), unequal love (n = 85, 21%), and equal love (n = 105, 25.9%).

Factor analysis

Numerous principal components factor analyses were conducted on all items measuring qualities that may be distinct to UL relationships. Factor analyses were conducted using all respondents, only respondents in longing for a past lover or in equal and unequal love relationships, and only those in equal and unequal love relationships. In addition, each of these principal components factor analyses was conducted imposing various constraints on the number of factors extracted. Finally, principal components factor analyses were conducted with both orthogonal (varimax) and oblique (oblimin) rotations. The factor structure was relatively stable across these different analyses.3 Four items loaded on several different factors in different analyses or they formed idiosyncratic factors; these items were eliminated from additional analyses.

The first factor, Fulfillment (α = .91), was composed of 13 items measuring relationship satisfaction (e.g., For me, ______ is the perfect romantic partner; I believe a relationship with ______ is capable of satisfying me overall, forever). The second factor, Ambivalence (α = .83), contained eight items related to both the positive and negative qualities of love (e.g., Sometimes I feel my life would be much better if I didn’t love ______; but other times ______ makes me happy; concerning my relationship with ______, I sometimes feel that I can’t live with ______ and I can’t live without ______). The third factor, Obsession (α = .86), contained six items intended to measure preoccupation with the love object (e.g., I find it hard to concentrate on my work because I can’t get ______ off my mind; I find myself thinking about ______ all the time). The fourth factor, Homogamy (α = .85), contained seven items intended to measure perceived similarity between the love object and the respondent (e.g., ______ and I are very much alike in many ways; I believe that ______ and I could talk about the same things for hours on end). The fifth factor, Knowledge (α = .88), contained three items intended to measure perceived knowledge of the love object (e.g., I am aware of ______’s shortcomings and faults; I am aware of what kind of person ______ is for I know all about his/her past). The final factor, Inferiority (α = .67), contained four items intended to measure feelings of inferiority and rejection (e.g., I am afraid ______ will reject me in the future; sometimes my relationship with ______ makes me feel inferior).

Table 3 shows the correlations between factors. The scales measuring Fulfillment, Obsession, Homogamy, and Knowledge were moderately intercorrelated (average r = .46). Inferiority and Ambivalence were correlated, but relatively independent of the other scales.

Table 3. Correlations Between Factor Scores in Study 1b.

Analyses

To provide comparisons with equal love, z scores were computed for each scale using the mean and standard deviation of the equal love group on that scale. A two-way MANOVA (Type of relationship × Gender) based on all standardized scale scores revealed a significant multivariate main effect for Type of relationship, F(30, 1546) = 5.40, p < .01, Wilks’s lambda = .67, and a significant interaction of Gender and Type, F(30, 1546) = 1.77, p < .01, Wilks’s lambda = .87.

For the Type of relationship main effect, Table 4 reports the results of the analyses on the significant univariate main effects (all variables except Obsession). The planned contrast of equal love to all types of UL showed a significant difference for all measures except Obsession. UL relationships, as a group, demonstrated lower Fulfillment, Homogamy, and Knowledge, but greater Ambivalence and Inferiority. The linear and quadratic trends were calculated across the types of UL relationships. There were dominant linear trends for Fulfillment, Ambivalence, and Knowledge. In addition, there was a significant quadratic trend for Inferiority. Furthermore, Duncan’s multiple range tests indicated that, for Ambivalence, crush on a star, loving someone nearby, and equal love were associated with significantly less Ambivalence than the remaining relationships.

Table 4. Means and Contrasts for Types of Relationships in Study 1b.

Table 5 reports the means for the two significant univariate interactions. In general, male and females responses for Fulfillment were the same except that Duncan multiple range tests revealed that males scored significantly lower than females on Fulfillment when pursuing, and males scored significantly lower on Fulfillment than females when in equal love relationships. For Inferiority, females scored significantly higher than males when pursuing.

Table 5. Means for Type by Sex Interactions of Fulfillment and Inferiority in Study 1b.

Discussion

Study 1b was designed to detect the presence of several qualities (perceived similarity, perceived knowledge, and obsessiveness) that theorists (e.g., Aron et al., 1998; Noller, 1996; Tennov, 1979) have identified as being distinctive of UL. Some of the items measuring these qualities were revised so that they would apply to the UL relationships. These revisions, if anything, would have allowed respondents more latitude to endorse the item when considering UL relationships.

The results failed to demonstrate that the presence of perceived homogamy and perceived knowledge were distinctive of any type of UL, relative to equal love. Contrary to the predictions associated with limerence (Tennov, 1979), knowledge and obsessiveness were positively, not negatively correlated and both were positively correlated with fulfillment. In addition, level of obsessiveness was similar in UL relationships and equal love relationships. Thus, the findings for perceived similarity, perceived knowledge, and obsessiveness were not consistent with the presumption that limerence is a dominant characteristic of UL, even when a test of this hypothesis was biased toward confirmation. The results concerning inferiority conceptually replicated those showing that UL relationships were associated with more negative outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, poorer well-being) than equal love relationships (Smith & Hokland, 1988).

Study 2

The experience of love has been described in theories as subsuming a variety of attributes. Love involves passion, intimacy, and commitment (Sternberg, 1986); attachment, caregiving, and sexuality (Shaver et al., 1996; Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006); passionate and companionate (Berscheid & Walster, 1978); caring and needing (Kelley et al., 1983); eros, ludus, and storge (Lee, 1973, 1988); and self-enhancement (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996). The prototype of UL occurs when the imbalance is such that it generates longing, obsession (Tennov, 1979), and “emptiness, anxiety or despair” (Hatfield, 1988, p. 193), qualities not typically associated with romantic love. As most romantic relationships fall short of the ideal (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1998), actual romantic love, including UL, may incorporate these and other negative emotions, even though Baumeister et al. (1993) found that would-be lovers reported more positive than negative emotions.

The most dominant dimension in C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1989) analysis of romantic love was passion (Grote & Frieze, 1994). The literature, however, provides contradictory bases for predicting whether UL contains greater, equal, or less passion than equal love. Sternberg’s (1986) theory differentiates equal, consummate love (passion, commitment, and intimacy) from infatuation (passion without commitment and intimacy), suggesting that passion should be high for both types of love.

In contrast, Aron and Aron’s (1986, 1996) self-expansion theory of love suggests that relationship development toward consummate love should show growth of all positive outcomes, such as interdependence, friendship, commitment, and passion. This perspective leads to the expectation that passion increases as the level of interdependence in this type of love relationship increases. Alternatively, limerence (Tennov, 1979) suggests that UL would have a higher level of passion than commensurate love.

While Study 1a measured the intensity of emotional reactions in general and Study 1b measured limerent qualities of love, Study 2 was designed to differentiate the components of consummate and UL, determine how UL might differ from equal love on these dimensions, and determine how these emotions (e.g., passion, intimacy, commitment) varied for different types of UL relationships. In addition, Study 2 directly tested the assumption that types of UL can be organized by levels of presumed interdependence. Specifically, the level of commitment (a dimension of love and interdependence; Rusbult, 1983; Sternberg, 1986) was expected to be lower for less interdependent types of UL (i.e., crush on someone who is unavailable, crush on someone nearby without initiating a romantic relationship) and highest for unequal love. In addition, all types of UL were expected to show lower levels of commitment than equal love.

Finally, discriminate validity of these dimensions was sought by comparing both types of love relationships with a nonlove relationship (friendship). Davis and Todd (1982) demonstrated that love and friendships have unique characteristics (see also Grote & Frieze, 1994); love was found to have stronger passion, fascination, and sexual desire. However, both relationships provide important social support.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 44 high school students (23 males, 21 females) and 405 university students (135 males, 270 females), aged 16 to 48 years (M = 22.5, SD = 6.3). University students were given extra credit in a psychology course for their participation.

Questionnaire

C. Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) provided a synthesis of the various approaches to measuring love and identify the underlying dimensions inherent in these measures. Their factor structure for scale scores served as a preliminary basis for sampling items from existing scales. Items for the questionnaire were selected from existing scales to represent the following four factors identified in C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1989) study: (a) passionate love, intimacy, and commitment; (b) absence of conflict; (c) anxiety, dependency, and jealousy; and (d) friendship. To represent the self-enhancement theory (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996), some items were also identified and sampled.4

The questionnaire also contained Rusbult’s (1983) measure of commitment. Four-item subscales measuring satisfaction, alternatives, and investments were used. Commitment was computed as the following linear combination of relationship satisfaction (RSAT), investments (INV), and alternatives (ALT): COMM = RSAT + INV − ALT.

Procedures

Respondents were presented with descriptions of the types of love relationships from less interdependent to highly interdependent. The next-to-last choice described an equal love relationship and the last choice gave the following description of a friendship: You are in a relationship in which your feelings for the person you have in mind could best be described as a genuine, caring friendship. Respondents were instructed to choose the first description that described a current relationship and complete the questionnaire referring to that relationship. The descriptions were ordered by interdependence to obtain sufficient numbers of persons choosing the less interdependent types of love relationships, assuming that everyone would have a current friendship.

Results

In spite of the instructions that respondents were to choose the first type of relationship that described a current relationship, crush on a star had a low frequency of being chosen (n = 5, 1%). The other types produced more proportionate selections: nearby (n = 61, 12%), pursuing (n = 36, 7.1%), longing for someone from a past relationship (n = 77, 15.2%), unequal love (n = 68, 13.4%), equal love (n = 174, 34.3%), and friendship (n = 86, 16.9%).

Factor analyses

Numerous principal components factor analyses were conducted on all items except Rusbult’s scales. Rusbult’s measure was retained separately because it constituted a more direct examination of the hypothesis that the five types of UL were ordered according to the level of interdependence. Factor analyses were conducted using all respondents. However, the entire sample included some persons who completed the questionnaire while referring to a friendship. Having respondents complete the “love” scale while referring to a friendship is useful for purposes of comparison across types of relationships, but is not entirely appropriate for examining the factor structure of a love scale. Therefore, the principal components factor analyses were also conducted excluding respondents in the friendship condition. In addition, respondents in C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s research were undergraduates who were asked to refer to their current dating partner or their last dating partner. Because our sample also included respondents who were referring to other types of love relationships, the factor analyses were also conducted for only those respondents who completed the questionnaire for unequal and equal love relationships. In addition, each of these principal components factor analyses was conducted imposing various constraints on the number of factors extracted. Finally, principal components factor analyses were conducted with both orthogonal (varimax) and oblique (oblimin) rotations.

There were some differences in the factor structure across analyses. On some analyses, the first factor split into two factors; however, the correlation between these two subscales was very high (r > .75). Five items loaded on several different factors, depending on the subsample selected and the rotation procedure employed; these 5 items were eliminated from additional analyses. The remaining 50 items demonstrated remarkable consistency in factor structure across analyses.

The factors identified from the analysis of items partially corroborated C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s factor structure when they analyzed scale scores. There was a dominant factor (based on all love relationships and varimax rotation, percentage variance = 33.7) that was labeled Passion (α = .97) and corresponded to C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s first factor (e.g., I melt when I look deeply into ______’s eyes; I would rather be with ______ than anyone else). The second factor consisted of eight items and was labeled Sacrifice (α = .90, for example, If I were going through a difficult time, I would put away my own concerns to help ______ out; I would do almost anything for ______). This factor does not correspond to any of C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s factors (Agape loaded on their first factor). The third factor extracted contained seven items dealing with turmoil and tension (α = .83, for example, Sometimes I feel that loving ______ have changed me for the worse; There is tension in my relationships with ______). The fourth factor was composed of five items creating an index of Dependency (α = .83, for example, It would be hard for me to get along without ______ in my life; I believe that ______ is almost completely responsible for my feelings of sadness and happiness). Another factor, Practical, was composed of three items (α = .50, for example, I consider a relationship with ______ would reflect favorably on my career; I believe an important factor in choosing a partner is whether or not he/she would be a good parent). Although the reliability was low, because the score was based on only three items, it was included in subsequent analyses.

Rusbult’s 12-item measure of commitment (4 items each for satisfaction, alternatives, and investments) had a coefficient alpha of .87.

Table 6 reports the correlations between the factor scores, computed with unit weighting. In general, the scores were moderately correlated with each other, with the exception of Turmoil. The average of the absolute values of the correlations of other variables and Turmoil was .12, whereas the average of the absolute values of the correlations of the other variables with each other was .55.

Table 6. Correlations Between Factor Scores in Study 2.

Analyses

To provide a comparison with equal love, z scores were created for each scale extracted by the factor analysis using the mean and standard deviation of the equal love group. Because of the small size of the group describing a crush on a star, this group was deleted from all inferential analyses.

The MANOVA based on all scales found a significant multivariate main effect for Type of relationship, F(30, 1726) = 21.91, p < .01, Wilks’s lambda = .28. Three planned comparisons were computed for each significant univariate type of relationship main effect. First, the average of all types of love relationships was compared with friendship. Second, equal love was compared with friendship. Third, the average of all types of UL relationships was compared with equal love. In all cases, except Turmoil and Sacrifice (see Table 7), each contrast was significant. The lack of significance for the first contrast on Sacrifice indicates that love, in general, and friendships both involve similar amounts of sacrifice, although the types of love differed. The lack of significance for the second contrast on Turmoil indicates that the level of Turmoil was similar in friendships and equal love relationships, but it was significantly lower than that in UL relationships.

Table 7. Means and Contrasts for Types of Relationships in Study 2.

To evaluate the rationale for ordering types of UL on a continuum of interdependence, the linear trend was calculated for the types of UL relationships (equal love was not included in these analyses; when it was included, the linear trends were more pronounced). The linear trend was significant for each of the dependent variables except Practical (see Table 4).

Discussion

The primary purpose of Study 2 was to identify similarities and differences between types of love relationships and friendships on dimensions of love. UL was found to be quite distinct from equal love in terms of the intensity of each component of love. On each of the positive dimensions (passion, sacrifice, dependency, commitment, and practical love), UL relationships as a group reported less intense feelings and beliefs, which corroborates and expands on the findings of Study 1a. In addition, the most interdependent type of UL (unequal love) showed significantly more passion, sacrifice, dependency, and commitment than did the least interdependent type (loving someone who is nearby), again supporting the conceptual ordering of UL relationships on the presumed dimension of interdependency.

If infatuation is a characteristic of the less interdependent forms of UL (e.g., S. S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992), then passion should have been high for all types of UL (Sternberg, 1986). However, a significant linear component was found across the four types of UL, such that persons in the more interdependent types reported higher levels of passion. Unbridled passion, then, is not uniformly experienced in all forms of UL (Regan, 1998). Nor is there evidence that actual relationships supply “reality constraints” that reduce passion (Murray et al., 1996; Tesser & Paulus, 1976). This finding is also consistent with earlier results that failed to support predictions about limerence (Study 1b).

However, the experience of love is not limited to just positive feelings. Interestingly, the most significant deviation from the pattern of correlated factors was for Turmoil, which suggests that such negative feelings can coexist with various levels of positive feelings (cf. Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Furthermore, these negative feelings (turmoil) were more evident in UL than in either equal love or friendships. However, turmoil was more evident in more interdependent than in less interdependent types of UL. Thus, the less interdependent forms of UL provide not only low positive emotional payoffs (e.g., passion) but also fewer emotional costs (e.g., turmoil) than attempting to start a relationship and doing so with difficulty.

The propositions that greater interdependence (with its higher levels of frequency, diversity, interaction, influence, and behavioral control) exists in the more interdependent types of UL relationships and leads to greater levels of passion, dependency, practical love, and commitment were supported. However, to the extent that the types are viewed as a progression toward equal romantic love, there were increasing costs (turmoil) as a love relationship became more interdependent (Regan, 1998).

The results also provide evidence of discriminate validity for these dimensions of love. In comparison with equal love, individuals who completed the questionnaire for a friendship scored significantly lower on all dimensions except Turmoil (Davis & Todd, 1982). In addition, all types of love (equal and unrequited) were rated significantly higher than friendship on all dimensions except Sacrifice.

General Discussion

With few exceptions (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1991; Aron et al., 1998; Baumeister et al., 1993; K. K. Dion & Dion, 1975; Hill et al., 1997), empirical research on romantic love has neither differentiated UL nor studied it as a separate construct. Kelley (1983/2002) has noted that there can be no single theory of love, and different kinds of love warrant different theories. Sternberg and Weis’s (2006) compendium of research on love does not have UL in the index and authors generally fail to differentiate UL as a type of love (with the exception of cursory mention of infatuation, lust, and incomplete love). However, Berscheid (2010) contended that confusion around the conceptualization of love and clear differentiation of love is necessary for enhancing the quality of research on love. The current research demonstrates the high prevalence of UL, relative to equal love, and the distinctive nature of UL (e.g., emotional and behavioral manifestation). Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the causes and consequences of UL warrant separate theoretical and empirical treatment (Berscheid, 2006, 2010).

Previous attempts to describe and understand the nature of UL have found placing analyses of love within a comparative context useful. Baumeister et al. (1993) chose to compare the experiences of the enamored with the experiences of the person being pursued. Hill et al. (1997) compared frequencies of UL with mutual love. Aron and Aron (1991) differentiated three types of UL (secret, jilted, and hanger on) and compared them within the context of self-expansion theory, and Aron et al. (1998) analyzed how strengths of three motives were related to the intensity of UL for persons with different adult romantic attachment styles. The current research expanded on these research strategies by differentiating five types of UL that are assumed to be conceptually organized in terms of interdependence, and then measured their prevalence, emotional experiences in general, emotional experiences common to romantic love, and experiences assumed to be unique to UL. Several findings support the conceptualization of different types of UL based on levels of presumed interdependence. Study 1a showed that the more interdependent types of UL relationships elicited reports of greater intensity and were longer in duration (Berscheid & Ammazzalorso, 2001). In Study 1b, less interdependent types of UL were less fulfilling than more interdependent types of UL and persons involved in UL love relationships with less interdependence were less knowledgeable about the partner than those in more interdependent love relationships. Study 2 provided additional support for the distinction by demonstrating that more interdependent UL relationships were characterized by more commitment, dependency, passion, and sacrifice.

This research expanded on Baumeister et al.’s (1993) research by comparing the reported experiences of those in different types of UL relationships with the reported experiences of persons in equal love (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) and friendship relationships (Study 2). This research expanded on Hill et al.’s (1997) study by comparing five different types of UL and equal love on not just frequencies but also intensities of various emotions (e.g., passion) and beliefs (e.g., commitment). These different research strategies begin a process of triangulation from which a greater understanding of the nature of UL can proceed.

For example, Baumeister et al. (1993) found that the enamored reported more positive feelings than did the rejecters. Lemieux and Hale (1999) found passion and intimacy to be stronger than commitment in young dating adults. The current research found that the enamored in all five types of UL relationships reported less intense positive feelings than did those in equal love relationships (Hill et al., 1997, did not report results on intensity). These results are inconsistent with the assumption that UL is a euphoric type of love in which the enamored reaps some of the benefits of being in love (the feelings of excitement, passion, lust, identification, distortions of presumed similarity) unencumbered by the costs and hassles of a real romantic relationship (cf. Baumeister et al., 1993; Murray et al., 1996; Tesser & Paulus, 1976). These results are also inconsistent with the assumption that the distortion, imagination, and fantasies of UL provide exaggerated benefits (and very high costs such as suffering) that approximate or exceed those reported in consummate love relationships (Murray et al., 1996; Tennov, 1979). If these states do exist in UL, then the retrospective accounts suggest that they are more ephemeral than or not as salient as equal love relationships. Real love may not be a state of unqualified bliss; however, this research shows that UL is inferior to equal love on positive qualities and is not a good approximation of it.

Baumeister et al. (1993) also found that the enamored reported less intense negative feelings than did rejecters in UL. The current research found that the enamored in UL relationships generally experienced more intense negative feelings than did those in equal love relationships. Thus, these results are inconsistent with speculation that UL avoids certain costs that are embedded in equal love relationships (e.g., Baumeister & Wotman, 1992). However, these results are consistent with the portrayals that those in UL relationships suffer from turmoil, suffering, ambivalence, misery, and pain (Smith & Hokland, 1988).

UL, then, is not a fulfilling emotional state, circumstance, or relationship that provides the benefits of love at low costs to the enamored. At best, it provides small rewards at some costs. Furthermore, as the type becomes more interdependent and rewards increase, so do the costs until equal love occurs or the relationship is terminated (Arriaga, 2001; Regan, 1998). This picture of UL highlights its paradoxical nature. From the point of view of exchange theory, relationships with this status (low fulfillment, moderate costs) should be infrequent, unstable, and ephemeral. Indeed, UL relationships were found to be of somewhat shorter duration. Yet, UL relationships persisted and occurred with a much higher cumulative frequency than consummate love. Why? There are at least three ways to understand why UL is so prevalent and is tolerated by many persons: (a) imperfect practice, (b) errors in the education of attention (Gibson, 1966), and (c) incentive.

The research started with the question, “Is UL a type of love?” In many ways, UL did not measure up to consummate love. However, this research demonstrates that UL does provide some of the experiences of love that are not realized in friendships. Aron et al. (1998) found that the intensity of UL was related to the desire to be in love. Thus, one of the motives for pursuing romantic relationships and allowing UL relationships to persist is that they provide the person with “practice at being in love.” The one characteristic on which UL was indistinguishable from equal love was obsessiveness. UL does provide the enamored with the opportunity to think about a relationship with the love object and what the person would, for example, do and what they would talk about. The costs for this cognitive practice and preparation are comparatively high, particularly when one acts on these emotions (Baumeister et al., 1993); but emotional returns from an UL relationship may be better than no romantic relationship (Aron et al., 1998).

The matching hypothesis predicts that phenotypically similar persons are more likely to bond (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). This pattern of positive assortative mating is found to generalize to various types of relationships (friendships, dating, marriages), is found for a wide range of characteristics (e.g., physical, demographic, social-psychological), and is consistent with numerous theoretical perspectives (e.g., Buss, 1994; Price & Vandenberg, 1980). Social psychologists have frequently assumed that the matching hypothesis is caused by a preference for similarity because similarity is rewarding (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Thus, individuals seek out similar others because they prefer similar others. The matching hypothesis rests on the presumption that individuals develop a means for accurately evaluating the desirability of self and others and selecting another who matches (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Thus, the evaluation of attributes and matching on those attributes are probably acquired skills, and errors would be made in learning these skills (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Epstude & Forster, 2011). Some instances of UL may then be evidence of those errors. If so, then UL may occur before persons develop a good sense of self-knowledge, self-appraisal, and the “education of attention” (Gibson, 1966) that is necessary to evaluate others (Neff & Karney, 2006).5

Lykken and Tellegen (1993) presented provocative data to support the position that similarity does no more than eliminate 50% of the pool of potential mates. Within the remaining 50% “mate-worthy” group, bonding is, according to them, unpredictable, adventitious, and dependent on idiosyncratic factors that foster reciprocation. This suggests that lust, infatuation, and crushes (Shaver et al., 1996) are generalized responses that can be easily evoked by a sizable portion of potential romantic partners. Consistent with this, the type of UL with the highest prevalence was having romantic feelings for someone nearby (Hill et al., 1997). This is consistent with Lykken and Tellegen’s contention that adolescence may be a critical period predisposed toward infatuation, which produces a wide array of internal responses (sexual fantasies, behavioral intentions) and external responses (glances, conversations, propositions, proposals). Lust, then, can be viewed as a fundamental drive with unique biological components (Fisher, 2006).

As previously mentioned, the results describe UL as a relationship providing low rewards at relatively high costs. Thus, the frequency and persistence of UL may be better understood in terms of its long-term promise for outcomes rather than in terms of immediate payoffs (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1996). As the song warns, “you’re nobody ’til somebody loves you,” that message represents a powerful motivator if persons believe that they are fundamentally deficient without love and that they can only become whole through love. Thus, the plight of enamored persons, particularly in the more interdependent types of UL, is partially understood not in terms of the immediate net payoffs (e.g., positive and negative feelings, personal and interpersonal fulfillment) in their relationships but in terms of the incentive value of potential payoffs as love increases in a relationship (Sprecher, 1999). Indeed, Aron et al. (1998) demonstrated that the perceived desirability or value of the potential romantic relationship, the perceived probability of having a romantic relationship, and desirability of the state or benefits to the self of the potential relationship were each independently important for understanding the motivation to enter and maintain a UL relationship. For the enamored, pursuing the relationship is a high-stakes gamble in which the potential for high payoffs justifies the use of unscrupulous tactics along with the risks of failure, embarrassment, and lowered self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 1993).

Notes

The same participants from Study 1a with 100 additional high school students (who did not complete the measures from Study 1a) completed several other measures of romantic relationships at a separate time. Because of the addition of new participants and the change in focus of the research questions examined in these later questionnaires, these results are presented as part of a related study.

The following items were utilized in the questionnaire and subsequent factor analyses: Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) Passionate Love Scale (12, 15, 21R), Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Scale (5R, 7 11R, 12R, 45R), Rusbult’s (1983) Commitment Scale, Davis and Latty-Mann’s (1987) Relationship Rating Scale (18R, 19R, 20R, 33R, 54R, 55R), Aron, Dutton, Aron, and Allen’s (1989) measure of love as self-enhancement (1R, 5R), and C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) Love Attitudes Scale (7R, 17R, 19R, 23R, 28R, 29R, 47). The “R” behind an item number indicates that the item was revised. This also applies to Study 2. Items were revised so that they were in the same format and so that they could reasonably apply to all types of love relationships as well as equal love relationships. For example, Sternberg’s item 45 was changed from “I fantasize about my partner” to “I frequently fantasize about taking part in romantic activities with _____.” In addition, 13 original items were included in the questionnaire to provide additional measures of each domain. All survey items are available from the first author.

To conserve space, the items that loaded on each factor, in this study or in Study 2, are not presented but can be obtained from the first author.

The following items were sampled and submitted to factor analyses: Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) Passionate Love Scale (2R, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23R, 25R, 26R, 28, 30), Hatfield, Brinton, and Cornelius’s (1989) Juvenile Love Scale (12), Davis and Latty-Mann’s (1987) Relationship Rating Scale (3R, 19R, 33R, 49R, 50R, 53R, 54R), Rubin’s (1970) Love Scale (4, 6, 8, 13R), Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love Scale (as cited in C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; 45R), Aron et al.’s (1989) measure of love as self-enhancement (5R, 23, I-R, Q-R), and C. Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) Love Attitudes Scale (7R, 11R, 12R, 19R, 23R, 24R, 28, 29R, 30R, 34R, 42R, 43R, 47R). As in Study 1a, items were revised so that they could reasonably apply to all types of unrequited love relationships as well as equal love relationships. Four original items were included to measure dependency, anxiety, and jealousy. All survey items are available from the first author.

An alternative explanation for the failure of age-dependent effects to appear more prominently is that the matching hypothesis is either incorrect or of limited importance in the mate selection criteria (see Price & Vandenberg, 1980) or the criteria for appraising the desirability of the self and others changes with age.

References

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1991, May). Motivational structures of types of unrequited love. Paper presented at the Third International Network Conference on Personal Relationships, Normal, IL.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relation- ships. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325-344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Allen, J. (1998). Motivation for unreciprocated love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 787-796.

Aron, A., Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., & Iverson, A. (1989). Experiences of falling in love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243-257.

Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 754-765.

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479-496.

Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377-394.

Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of “love.”; In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 171-183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1-25.

Berscheid, E., & Ammazzalorso, H. (2001). Emotional experience in close relationships. In M. Hewstone & M. Brewer (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 308- 330). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Berscheid, E., & Meyers, S. A. (1996). A social categorical approach to a question about love. Personal Relationships, 3, 19-43.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2004). Measuring closeness: The Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI) revisited. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 81-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2002). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment, insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. In K. E. Davis, I. H. Frieze, & R. D. Maiuro (Eds.), Stalking: Perspective on victims and perpetrators (pp. 407-425). New York, NY: Springer.

Davis, K. E., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality: A contribution to validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 409-428.

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. In K. E. Davis (Ed.), Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 79-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1975). Self-esteem and romantic love. Journal of Personality, 43, 39-57.

Epstude, K., & Forster, J. (2011). Seeing love or seeing lust? How people interpret ambiguous romantic situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1017-1020.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.

Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Personal Relationships, 1, 309-331.

Fehr, B. (2006). A prototype approach to studying love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 225-246). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ferris, K. O. (2001). Through a glass, darkly: The dynamics of fan-celebrity encounters. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 25-47.

Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Fisher, H. (2006). The drive to love: The neural mechanism for mate selection. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 87-115). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fiske, V., & Peterson, C. (1991). Love and depression: The nature of depressive romantic relationships. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10, 75-90.

Frijda, N. H., Ortony, A., Sonnemans, J., & Clore, G. L. (1992). The complexity of intensity: Issues concerning the structure of emotion intensity. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Vol. 13: Emotion (pp. 60-89). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 275-300.

Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hatfield, E., Brinton, C., & Cornelius, J. (1989). Passionate love and an anxiety in young adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 271-289.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relations. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., & Slapion-Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love differently? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 177-195.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2006). Styles of romantic love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 149-170). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic love. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hill, C. A., Blakemore, J. E. O., & Drumm, P. (1997). Mutual and unrequited love in adolescence and young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 4, 15-23.

Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 147-167.

Kelley, H. H. (2002). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-314). Clinton Corners, NY: Percheron. (Original work published 1983)

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relation- ships. New York, NY: Freeman.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lamm, H., & Wiesmann, U. (1997). Subjective attributes of attraction: How people characterize their liking, their love, and their being in love. Personal Relationships, 4, 271-284.

Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: New Press.

Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic relationships: Successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 85, 497- 503.

Levinger, G., & Snoek, D. (1972). Attraction in relationship: A new look at interpersonal attraction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 56-68.

Meloy, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2005). Some thoughts on the neurobiology of stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 1472- 1480.

Money, J. (1980). Love and love sickness: The science of sex, gender difference, and pair-bonding. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P. (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 423-436.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2006). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 480-497.

Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and family. Personal Relationships, 3, 97-115.

Price, R. A., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1980). Spouse similarity in American and Swedish couples. Behavior Genetics, 10, 59- 71.

Regan, P. C. (1998). Of lust and love: Beliefs about the role of sexual desire in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 139-157.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.

Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioral systems approach to romantic love relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 35-64). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shaver, P. R., Morgan, J. J., & Wu, S. (1996). Is love a “basic” emotion? Personal Relationships, 3, 81-96.

Smith, D. F., & Hokland, M. (1988). Love and salutogenesis in late adolescence: A preliminary analysis. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 25, 44-49.

Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (2007, May). Fanning the flames of fandom: Celebrity worship, parasocial interaction, and stalking. Paper presented at the International Communication Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Sprecher, S. (1999). “I love you more today than yesterday”: Romantic partners’ perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 46-53.

Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 791-809.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (Eds.). (2006). The new psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. New York, NY: Stein & Day.

Tesser, A., & Paulus, D. L. (1976). Toward a causal model of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1095-1105.

Wegner, D. M., & Gold, D. B. (1995). Fanning old flames: Emotional and cognitive effects of suppressing thoughts of a past relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 782-792.

#love #emotions #interpersonal relationships #unrequited love #interdependence #friendship #rejection #limerence #psychology #studies #crushes #pair bonding #attraction #intimate relationships #love sickness

[ponds-of-ink]

Drabble Sequel: “Tomorrow is Another (Dark) Day”

Vanny stared at Glitchtrap’s flickering form. “So, um…” she said softly, lowering her head. “About June 26th…”

Glitchtrap stared at the now-blackened mall being visable thanks to starlit sky. “I have no idea,” he muttered, genuinely dazed. “I can still feel some rumblings in there but…” His figure stabilized as he blinked, only to faze in and out even more. “All of the lights are out. I can’t hear any of the animatronics‘ tests. I—“ A stifled wince emitted from the rabbit as he fell into the desk chair. “I think there’s a new hitch.”

”Another one!?” Vanny cried. “What could possibly be the matter now? Budget cuts? More additions?”

”Worse,” Glitchtrap groaned. “A change in management. All that work must’ve gotten to the CEO, which I can personally understand.”

Vanny rose from her seat and pulled her mask’s ears down to face-level. “What are we going to do?” she sputtered furiously. “What if this new manager knows who I am? What if we get caught much faster because of this? What if the mall is—?”

”Vanny, the mall is too far ahead in construction for the entire thing to be torn down,” Glitchtrap reasoned, pinching the bridge of his narrow snout. “The worst case scenario would it being abandoned with everything in there up for auction. Fazbear’s wouldn‘t dare ruin their prized darling like it was a cash-grabbing afterthought.”

Vanny let go of her bent ears. “I guess that makes sense,” she shrugged. “But are you speaking from experience? It kind of sounds like you’ve been through this before.”

Glitch chuckled sheepishly. “Let’s just say that I have some knowledge about how businesses work,” he answered casually. “Make of that what you will…for now.“

Vanny nodded thoughtfully. As she tried to ponder what those last two words meant, the previous topic lingered on. “What would the best case scenario be?” she asked, tilting her head.

”That the mall opens while the change is happening,” Glitchtrap responded. “Then, we sneak in and do what we need to do. New manager or not, we will finally be unstoppable.” The word ‘finally’ was emphasized by a clench of the fist and an energetic thrust of the voice.

Vanny hummed a sigh, but decided to hold back her doubts. “Of course,” she said firmly. “June 26 might still have something, even if it won’t be what we’re expecting.”

Glitchtrap smiled darkly. “Atta girl,” he purred, his accent slipping from his usual light American to a heavier British. ”Now there’s the determination I like to see.”

”And there’s the accent you don’t like to hear,” Vanny giggled, putting a hand to her masked mouth. She watched as her ‘employer’ flicker as well as blush. “Good catch,” she heard him mutter as he corrected his voice. “Now, get some sleep, will you? You’re going to need it for…. training tomorrow.”

”I will,” Vanny assured him, moving closer to the bed. “Good night, Glitchtrap.”

“Good night, Vanny,” the rabbit concluded as he vanished. Now alone, the woman pulled the covers away from her pillow. She would have climbed into her bed, but one last idea crept into her mind. Her head turned to face the rabbit plush on her nightstand. It almost looked sad, sitting there with its fuzzy ears drooped and round body slumped. “There, there,” she whispered to it as if it was a sad child. “I‘m sure everything will work out somehow.“ Content with her strange actions, she removed her mask and went to bed with her toy friend.

Back in a different realm, Glitchtrap sat on the floor as he let the warmth overtake his unstable state. Thanks to that doll, he heard and felt everything Vanny just did. A mix of green and purple gunk streamed down his face only to disappear once it hit the ground. He wiped away this gunk and teleported back into the hotel room. Not caring if he looked pixelated or high quality, he walked to her bedside and sat on its edge. He reached his hand to shake her awake, but stopped himself. “I was going to save this for when it was time, but I may as well say it now,” he said with a soft chuckle. Then, with a push back of the ears and a straightening of his posture he began:

“When I first found you…”

#glitchtrap #fnaf vanny #drabble #oh boy #a sequel #i didn’t plan this #but yea #I’m not trying to condone here #but if they don’t get a s i n g l e chance #i’m gonna lose it #fnaf security breach #setback saga #fnaf setback saga