A Triangular Theory of Love
Robert J. Steinberg

Results Section: SPSS

We ran the following steps on our conservatism items and Sternberg’s items:

1. Rename variables
2. Recode variables (if needed; i.e. C2 changed to C2r)
3. Run scale reliability analysis for variables to compute Cronbach’s alpha (state Cronbach’s alpha and what it means)
4. Check to see if we need to remove anything to improve Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach’s alpha for passion was unacceptable, therefore we cut 2 of the 3 questions to increase the reliability of the items/measurement (?)
5. Create composite variables by running mean scores for each variable (this might be before step 4 but I can’t quite remember)
6. After we go through conservatism, intimacy, passion, and commitment, we run a correlation between the constructs and behaviors
   1. Love behaviors and commitments: r=.715
   2. Love behaviors and intimacy: r=.730
   3. Love behaviors and passion: r=.125 (basically no correlation – maybe because many respondents were in long term relationships?)

Purpose of study: to improve the construct validity of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love by adding love behaviors (this will be the second to last sentence of the introduction and the first sentence in the discussion)

Limitations (in Discussion Section): we neglected to remove people from the analyses that were talking about imaginary partners – had we done so it might have affected our Crombauch’s alpha

Future Discussion: what might we do differently to get different results? I suggested redesigning our survey to better gather data from non-monogamous and/or relationships between non-binary partners (essentially to make the survey less centered on heteronormative, monogamous, and binary ideas of love behaviors) – I think she wants us all to answer this for ourselves in the discussion section, but I’m not exactly sure

She also said “We expect convergent validity between Sternberg’s constructs and love behaviors” (they will have a strong, positive correlation) and we expect “discriminate validity between conservatism and love behaviors” (no correlation) – however, we found out at the end that our

Outline of the paper

Abstract
Introduction
Statement of the problem
Review of literature
Summary paragraph of literature
Clear hypotheses
Method
Participants
Materials/ Questionnaire
Design and Procedure
Results
Discussion
Review of hypotheses
Discuss each hypothesis in turn
Limitations of your study
Critical thinking
Future directions
Writing Quality and APA-style
Comments:

Please read will help with the paper

you’ve read a number of empirical papers already so you know that the basic rundown is intro which includes a literature review. the method section has four or so subsections right participants, materials, method and procedure and the participants is really all about your demographics. Materials is where you describe the survey and you only need to describe the parts that we ran the analysis on, so you want to describe the conservative scale Sternberg, triangular item scale, and the behavior scale. The study is attached.

You can just say Sternberg, three-dimensional, triangular scale. Examples of conservative scale, behavior scale, Sternberg item scale an example of passion, intimacy, and commitment from the Sternberg. procedure section design, correlational design and then the procedure is step-by-step. What happened to the participant? They were invited via social media to respond to a questionnaire for a class project or scale consent. That’s what happened, that’s what goes into the procedure section. 

I We need to clarify the variables, correlation, and complicated experimental design. There’s a whole sentence by two factorial experimental design variables that would be a good idea in your design statement. It was correlational with the variables, behaviors, love triangle and conservatism. I mean let’s talk about the paper without the introduction cause that’s gonna be variable right so with the method results discussion references I’m gonna say 6 to 8 pages and that’s a generous APA format you can get information on that at the Purdue OWL really good source for APA stuff method. We had two items on the conservatism scale. We ran scale, reliabilities whatever it was because it was because we created a composite variable of conservatism, and do the same step for all of the scales, so do the scale stuff first All the steps when it comes to the correlations report which variables you say something like we correlated in order to enhance constructibility correlated the behaviors with each of the subsections of Strandberg theory, talk about why we ran the variables. On you report the correlation, coefficient correlation between Love behaviors and intimacy was our equals whatever it was you don’t need the significance because we haven’t really learned yet so you tell us what you’re gonna do and tell us what the static is and then is the most important piece of this you tell us the nature of the correlation so I can say we had a positive correlation, but what does that mean? It means behaviors go up three steps for correlations. Solidify how to write paper to interpret the recording results. 

There was one limitation that we identified was a question said, are you reporting a current relationship a past relationship or an imaginary relationship we did not distinguish, who was in an imaginary relationship, so the results are very limited because we have this kind of problem so future research Will want to make sure that all the people are currently in a relationship are unreliable because people don’t understand your question or they don’t know they’re not paying attention so all of those kind of issues crap up and survey research and then there’s a matter of the sample size it was really small And maybe some might even talk about general reliability like these are all friends of ours, we are a kind of small group, we did not randomly assigned people to this class. People were friends with us are gonna be certain kind of people, so we might want to try the research with Different kind of populations distinguish whether they were sexual homosexual, pansexual, etc. we didn’t think about that that’s another thing you put in your limitations you don’t pretend that you don’t have limitations when you’re really legitimately writing a paper you acknowledge them accept them. Everybody knows no one is perfect, and then you can closely talk about the theoretical ramifications of behaviors that seem to be correlated with at least aspects of Sternberg theory. Research includes behaviors and specific research and references are on their own page.