What is your actual relationship style?
Pop psychology likes a tidy single-type label. Real research using the Love Attitudes Scale Short Form maps you across six love styles at the same time, and the most common pattern is not what most people expect. Take the 24-item quiz to see where your profile sits against population norms.
Rate each statement: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree. Items 1 to 8 of 24 (Eros and Ludus styles).
Items 9 to 16 of 24 (Storge and Pragma styles).
Items 17 to 24 of 24 (Mania and Agape styles).
A few optional details to compare your profile against population norms. Leave any blank if you prefer.
Calculating your result…
Try the attachment style version
ECR-R measures the deeper wiring beneath your love style.
What are the six love styles?
The Love Attitudes Scale Short Form (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998) measures six distinct orientations toward romantic relationships, drawn from John Alan Lee's typology. Eros is intense passionate attraction. Ludus is playful, low-commitment love. Storge is friendship that grows into love. Pragma is partner choice based on practical fit. Mania is anxious, possessive attachment. Agape is selfless giving. Each style is measured by four items, scored 1 to 5.
| Love style | Population mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Eros (passionate) | 3.55 | 0.75 |
| Ludus (game-playing) | 2.27 | 0.80 |
| Storge (friendship) | 3.17 | 0.78 |
| Pragma (practical) | 2.64 | 0.82 |
| Mania (possessive) | 2.66 | 0.88 |
| Agape (selfless) | 3.36 | 0.73 |
Why blended profiles are the norm
Pop psychology frames love as having a single dominant type. The LAS-SF data tells a different story. Roughly 55 to 60 percent of respondents have a blended profile with two or three co-dominant styles above the population mean. Only about 25 to 30 percent show a clear single dominant style, and 10 to 15 percent show a flat profile. The specific combination of your top styles is more informative than any single label.
Gender differences in love styles
Hendrick and Hendrick's research consistently finds two reliable gender differences. Men score significantly higher on Ludus (game-playing) and slightly higher on Eros and Agape. Women score slightly higher on Pragma and Storge. There is no significant gender difference on Mania. These are population-level trends with large individual variation, and non-binary respondents remain underrepresented in the existing normative data.
Frequently asked questions
Love styles (measured by the Love Attitudes Scale) describe your fundamental orientation toward romantic relationships: whether you lead with passion, friendship, practicality, selflessness, possessiveness, or playfulness. The concept comes from John Alan Lee's typology and was operationalised by Hendrick and Hendrick as a peer-reviewed psychometric instrument. Love languages (Chapman, 1992) describe preferred methods of giving and receiving affection. Love styles measure relational orientation, while love languages measure communication preference. The two frameworks answer different questions and can be used complementarily.
Yes, and it is the most common outcome. Research using the LAS-SF consistently shows that 55 to 60 percent of respondents have a blended profile with two or three co-dominant styles. Only about 25 to 30 percent show a clear single dominant style. A flat profile, where all styles are near the mean, is the least common pattern at 10 to 15 percent. The specific combination of your top two or three styles is more informative than any single dominant label.
Mania (possessive love) describes intense, anxious attachment characterised by jealousy, preoccupation with the partner, and emotional volatility. The population mean is 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.88. A score above 3.5 places you in roughly the top 15 to 20 percent. High Mania is associated with anxious attachment style and can correlate with relationship dissatisfaction if left unexamined. Mania is a style, not a disorder. Many people with high Mania scores have healthy, fulfilling relationships, particularly when paired with partners who provide consistent reassurance.
Love styles show moderate stability over time but can shift with major life events and relationship experiences. Eros and Agape tend to be the most stable, while Ludus and Mania are the most likely to change. Entering a committed long-term relationship typically increases Storge and Pragma scores while decreasing Ludus. Relationship trauma or betrayal can increase Mania or decrease Agape. Age also plays a role: Ludus tends to decline with age, while Pragma and Storge increase. Taking this quiz at different life stages may yield different profiles, which is normal and expected.
Pragma (practical love) is a love style characterised by rational, long-term partner selection criteria: compatibility in values, life goals, financial stability, and family background. People high in Pragma approach relationships more like an investment decision than a spontaneous attraction. The population mean for Pragma is 3.09 with a standard deviation of 1.05, making it one of the more common styles. Pragma is not pathological or unromantic. Research by Hendrick & Hendrick found that Pragma is positively associated with relationship satisfaction and commitment in long-term partnerships, particularly among couples who met later in life or through intentional search methods. (Source: Hendrick C & Hendrick SS, 1986; Lee JA, 1973)
Agape (selfless love) is a love style characterised by unconditional, altruistic concern for a partner's wellbeing, even at cost to oneself. It is the rarest of the six styles, with the lowest population mean of approximately 2.85. High Agape scorers prioritise their partner's happiness and needs without expectation of reciprocation. Hendrick & Hendrick found Agape to be associated with high relationship satisfaction and low conflict, but it is rare because it requires consistent self-regulation and emotional generosity that most people exhibit only intermittently. Very high Agape combined with low Pragma can sometimes lead to overextension or self-neglect in relationships. (Source: Hendrick C & Hendrick SS, 1986)
Love styles and attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoidant, disorganised) are related but distinct constructs. Eros and Agape correlate most strongly with secure attachment. Mania shows the strongest correlation with anxious attachment. Ludus is associated with avoidant attachment, reflecting a preference for emotional distance and low commitment. Storge and Pragma show weak correlations with all attachment styles, suggesting they are relatively independent of early relational patterns. Understanding both frameworks together gives a fuller picture: two people can have compatible love styles but incompatible attachment patterns, which creates friction even when values and goals align. (Source: Levy MB & Davis KE, 1988; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992)
Not necessarily. Research on love style compatibility is mixed. Hendrick & Hendrick (1986) found that couples who matched on Eros and Agape reported higher satisfaction, but dissimilarity on Ludus (where one partner is high and the other is not) was associated with lower satisfaction. Eros-Storge pairings are particularly common in long-term stable couples, where passionate early love transitions into warm, friendship-based companionate love over time. What matters more than matching styles is having mutual awareness of each other's styles and the communication skills to navigate differences. A high-Pragma person paired with a high-Eros person can thrive if they understand and appreciate each other's approach to love. (Source: Hendrick SS et al., 1988; Sternberg, 1986)
- Hendrick C, Hendrick SS, Dicke A. The Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998;15(2):147-159.
- Hendrick C, Hendrick SS. A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;50(2):392-402.
- Fetzer Institute. Self-Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Love Attitudes Scale.
- Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;78(2):350-365.