Slovenian Validation of the Capacity to Love Inventory: Associations with Clinical Measures and Mindfulness

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2024 Sep 24

PMID 39315040

Authors

Timotej Glavac

Vita Postuvan

Jim Schmeckenbecher

Nestor D Kapusta

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The main purpose of the present study was to validate the Slovenian version of the 41- item Capacity to Love Inventory (CTL-I). Based on psychoanalytic theory, limitations to capacity to love are expected to be associated with personality dysfunction and disintegration as well as fundamental mental capacities such as self-reflection and self-awareness.

Method: To examine these assumptions, a sample of 552 Slovenian non-clinical individuals were recruited through academic networks. The construct validity of the CTL-I was assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity of the CTL-I and its subscales was established against IPO-16, PID-5 BF, MAAS.

Results: Our findings show that the Slovenian version of the CTL-I replicated the six-factor structure, exhibiting good model fit as well as satisfactory internal consistency of all subscales. In line with expectations, capacity to love was found to be inversely associated with dysfunctional personality traits and structural personality disturbances. Accordingly, higher dispositional mindfulness was coherently associated with all domains of CTL-I.

Conclusion: The results add to the growing evidence for the cross-cultural validity and sound psychometric properties of CTL-I, presented here in the Slovenian version. Our findings also point to the significance of dispositional mindfulness both in relation to capacity to love as well as mental health.

Citing Articles

Being Female and in a Romantic Relationship Enhances the Association between Satisfaction with Love Life and Capacity to Love.

Leite A, Costa A, Ribeiro B, Fonseca C, Ribeiro I, Mesquita J Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(23).

PMID: 38063538 PMC: 10706159. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20237108.

References

Brown K, Ryan R . The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 84(4):822-48. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822. View

Kernberg O . Identity: recent findings and clinical implications. Psychoanal Q. 2006; 75(4):969-1004. DOI: 10.1002/j.2167-4086.2006.tb00065.x. View

Branstrom R, Duncan L, Moskowitz J . The association between dispositional mindfulness, psychological well-being, and perceived health in a Swedish population-based sample. Br J Health Psychol. 2011; 16(Pt 2):300-16. PMC: 3762484. DOI: 10.1348/135910710X501683. View

Brotto L, Basson R, Luria M . A mindfulness-based group psychoeducational intervention targeting sexual arousal disorder in women. J Sex Med. 2008; 5(7):1646-59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00850.x. View

Wachs K, Cordova J . Mindful relating: exploring mindfulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships. J Marital Fam Ther. 2007; 33(4):464-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x. View

Kapusta N, Jankowski K, Wolf V, Cheron-Le Guludec M, Lopatka M, Hammerer C . Measuring the Capacity to Love: Development of the CTL-Inventory. Front Psychol. 2018; 9:1115. PMC: 6066550. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01115. View

Debast I, Rossi G, van Alphen S . Construct Validity of the DSM-5 Section III Maladaptive Trait Domains in Older Adults. J Pers Disord. 2017; 31(5):671-688. DOI: 10.1521/pedi_2017_31_274. View

Grossman P, Niemann L, Schmidt S, Walach H . Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2004; 57(1):35-43. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7. View

Simpson J, Rholes W . Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017; 13:19-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006. View

10.

Lenzenweger M, Clarkin J, Kernberg O, Foelsch P . The Inventory of Personality Organization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a nonclinical sample. Psychol Assess. 2002; 13(4):577-91. View

11.

Whisman M, Sheldon C, Goering P . Psychiatric disorders and dissatisfaction with social relationships: does type of relationship matter?. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001; 109(4):803-8. DOI: 10.1037//0021-843x.109.4.803. View

12.

Kernberg O . Boundaries and structure in love relations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1977; 25(1):81-114. DOI: 10.1177/000306517702500104. View

13.

Decuyper M, Gistelinck F, Vergauwe J, Pancorbo G, De Fruyt F . Personality pathology and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Disord. 2016; 9(1):81-92. DOI: 10.1037/per0000219. View

14.

Swindle Jr R, Heller K, Pescosolido B, Kikuzawa S . Responses to nervous breakdowns in America over a 40-year period. Mental health policy implications. Am Psychol. 2000; 55(7):740-9. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.7.740. View

15.

Khoury B, Lecomte T, Gaudiano B, Paquin K . Mindfulness interventions for psychosis: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res. 2013; 150(1):176-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2013.07.055. View

16.

Coan J, Kasle S, Jackson A, Schaefer H, Davidson R . Mutuality and the social regulation of neural threat responding. Attach Hum Dev. 2013; 15(3):303-15. PMC: 4260393. DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2013.782656. View

17.

Campbell L, Simpson J, Boldry J, Kashy D . Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: the role of attachment anxiety. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005; 88(3):510-31. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510. View

18.

Whisman M, Schonbrun Y . Social consequences of borderline personality disorder symptoms in a population-based survey: marital distress, marital violence, and marital disruption. J Pers Disord. 2009; 23(4):410-5. DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.410. View

19.

Fletcher G, Simpson J, Campbell L, Overall N . Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: the curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 10(1):20-36. DOI: 10.1177/1745691614561683. View

20.

Fraley R, Heffernan M, Vicary A, Brumbaugh C . The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures questionnaire: a method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychol Assess. 2011; 23(3):615-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0022898. View