Introduction
One day, while Susan was at her favorite coffee shop, Mark approached her. He invited her to a party he was having with his friend Joe. Having missed social life for a long time, Susan accepted the invitation.
During the party, Mark and his friends strongly admired Susan. Mark believed he had a connection with Susan as he seemed to interpret every good touch and look she made. Susan behaved courteously and in a friendly manner without giving any wrong impression, which was an act of kindness towards Mark and his friends for the invitation. Susan enjoyed herself at the party and thanked Mark for having an enjoyable evening.
At the end of the night, before Susan could hit the road home, she accepted Mark’s Facebook friend request. After a while, Susan discovered Mark’s affection and obsession with her on Facebook, as he posted daily about his love. Susan took a bold step to clear the confusion without hurting Mark’s feelings and set things straight between them. She set limits on her future meetings with Mark and unfriended him on Facebook to avoid giving him the wrong impression.
The case of Susan shows the unrequited love theory, which implies one-sided love. Sometimes people are unaware of someone else’s feelings whenever they have a strong feeling towards them, or they become uninterested in the individual and reject them. According to Baumeister and Bushman (2020), one can love someone, and one does not have to love them in return.
Research Studies on Unrequited Love
Two articles related to the psychological theory of unrequited love are the research studies by Clark et al. (2020) and Bamford (2015). Clark et al.’s (2020) research on unrequited love establishes relationships between the role of prior commitment, friendship maintenance, and motivation to remain friends. On the other hand, a research study conducted by Bamford (2015) about unrequited love discusses key concerns of healthcare ethics about neurochemical enhancement of love.
The article of Clark et al. (2020) entails testing of a mediation model that shows the relationship between commitment before unrequited love episodes and the levels of friendship. Participants wrote about their experiences with unrequited love as followers in the article. They completed several measures of friendship maintenance behaviors, motivations to maintain friendship, rejection distress, and pre-unrequited love commitment. Research findings showed mediators to be social or interpersonal connections and motivations.
Clark et al.’s (2020) research provides relevant information that is helpful to professionals, including mental health practitioners, to understand and potentially restore friendships following an episode of unrequited love. The study performed by Bamford (2015) on unrequited love raised concerns about the neurochemical modulation of love as a prime issue in current neuro-ethics. The article identifies potential issues in evaluating modulation through neurochemical enhancement of love as an essential matter in the modern neuro-ethics performed by Earp and colleagues.
Psychological Theory
The psychological theory chosen for this case study is unrequited love. According to Baumeister and Bushman (2020), unrequited love is a situation where an individual loves someone, but the person does not love back in return. Unrequited love is a common experience among people, especially young adults and adolescents. These individuals mostly have a crush on someone who does not have similar feelings for them.
Conversely, the feelings of romantic attractiveness are not reciprocated toward them. In the case study, the unrequited love theory is best demonstrated. Mark expresses strong affection for Susan during and after the party and makes numerous posts about his love for Susan.
In return, Susan does not love Mark back. She felt their friendship was just normal as she enjoyed the party. Despite both men and women experiencing unrequited love roles, men are most likely to be rejected lovers, while women are more often in the rejecting role. Like the case study, Susan is in the rejecting role while Mark is the rejected lover.
In this theory, the rejected lover experiences a sensitive roller coaster alternating between insecure despair, passionate feelings, excitement, and hope. The rejected suffer intensely but look back on the failed love with nostalgic affection. Conversely, the rejecters try to think there is nothing good about the unrequited love episodes, and they are more likely to wish the whole incident had never happened. However, rejection is usually a blow to an individual’s self-esteem. Heartbroken lovers wonder if something is wrong with them or if they have inner flaws that prevent others from becoming attracted to them romantically.
On the other hand, rejecters do not feel the problem of low self-esteem; instead, they feel guilt. People are designed to maintain relationships; when one refuses another, they feel guilty for hurting the other (Baumeister & Bushman, 2020). Susan demonstrates the need to belong as she tries not to hurt Mark’s feelings by setting rules for their future friendship despite rejecting him.
Relationship of Social Psychological Research Studies and Unrequited Love Theory
Social psychological research studies relate to the theory because they provide in-depth research about unrequited love. The information garnered in these studies is relevant to healthcare practices to resolve issues of unrequited love among people. In addition, employing social psychological research on the theory allows psychologists to get a more detailed look at what causes individuals to engage in particular behaviors in social situations. Therefore, to study the theory of unrequited love, relying on numerous scientific research findings will be essential.
Ethical Reasoning Concept
The ethical reasoning concept selected for Susan’s case study is moral awareness, which is defined as the ability to detect and appreciate the ethical aspects of a decision an individual has to make. In the case study, Susan demonstrates ethical reasoning when making her decisions after realizing that Mark is obsessed with her and frequently posts about her on his Facebook page. Susan acted morally by clarifying the confusion about their relationship with Mark on social media posts and ensuring she did not hurt his feelings. By acting morally, she developed a positive sense of self that increased the likelihood that Mark would act morally in the future.
Critical Thinking Concept
In the case study, confidence in reason is an applicable critical thinking concept. The concept is such that individuals believe that their interests and those of humankind are best served by reasoning. Critical thinking is essential in social interactions as it assists in making decisions.
Susan is perceived to be a good thinker, demonstrating a disciplined mind with intellectual confidence in reason. After discovering Mark’s posts about her on Facebook, she respected the evidence and reasoning and valued them as tools for unveiling the truth, which is his love for her. She believed that with proper encouragement and cultivation, Mark could learn to form insightful perspectives and draw reasonable conclusions afterward.
Conclusion
The selected case study entailed a social psychological theory of unrequited love, which explains a situation where one loves someone but the other does not love in return. Two social psychological research studies provided in-depth information to support the theory. Susan’s case study also includes moral awareness as an ethical reasoning concept and confidence in reason as critical thinking. These concepts are perceived to be relevant in evaluating unrequited love in the case study.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2020). Social psychology and human nature. Cengage Learning.
Clark, E. M., Votaw, K. L., Harris, A. L., Hasan, M., & Fernandez, P. (2020). Unrequited love: The role of prior commitment, motivation to remain friends, and friendship maintenance. The Journal of social psychology, 160(3), 293-309. Web.
Bamford, R. (2015). Unrequited: Neurochemical enhancement of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(3), 355-360. Web.