What kind of love is love at first sight? An empirical investigation

Love at first sight (LAFS) is a commonly known phenomenon, but has barely been investigated scientifically. Major psychological theories of love predict that LAFS is marked by high passion. However, it could also be a memory confabulation construed by couples to enhance their relationship. We investigated LAFS empirically by assessing feelings of love at the moment participants met potential partners for the first time. Data were collected from an online study, a laboratory study, and three dating events. Experiences of LAFS were marked neither by high passion, nor by intimacy, nor by commitment. Physical attraction was highly predictive of reporting LAFS. We therefore suggest that LAFS is not a distinct form of love, but rather a strong initial attraction that some label as LAFS, either in the moment of first sight or retrospectively.     

The Association between Parental Reports of Attachment Style and Family Dynamics, and Offspring''s Reports of Adult Attachment Style

This research assessed the association between parents' reports of attachment styles and their perceptions of family environment, on the one hand, and offspring's reports of adult attachment styles, on the other. The sample included 98 Israeli young adults who completed the adult attachment style scale, and their mothers and fathers who completed this scale, as well as FACES III, and the conflict and expressiveness subscales of the Family Environment Scale. Findings revealed associations between parents' and offspring's reports of attachment styles, which were qualified by gender matching. They also indicated independent and differential contributions of the examined dimensions of perceived family environment to offspring's attachment styles. The discussion attempts to integrate attachment theory with a family system perspective.     

The Puzzle of Multiple Endings

Why is it that most fictions present one and only one ending, rather than multiple ones? Fictions presenting multiple endings are possible, because a few exist; but they are very rare, and this calls for an explanation. We argue that such an explanation is likely to shed light on our engagement with fictions, for fictions having one and only one ending seem to be ubiquitous. After dismissing the most obvious explanations for this phenomenon, we compare the scarcity of multiple endings in traditional kinds of fiction to their profusion in the case of interactive fictions. This contrast poses a challenge to accounts of our engagement with fictions in terms of games of make‐believe. We conclude that solving this puzzle is likely to improve our philosophical understanding of fictions.