research about love

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

How to untangle ethics of psychedelics for therapeutic care

Exercise cuts heart disease risk in part by lowering stress, study finds

How to realize immense promise of gene editing

When love and science double date.

Illustration by Sophie Blackall

Alvin Powell

Harvard Staff Writer

Sure, your heart thumps, but let’s look at what’s happening physically and psychologically

“They gave each other a smile with a future in it.” — Ring Lardner

Love’s warm squishiness seems a thing far removed from the cold, hard reality of science. Yet the two do meet, whether in lab tests for surging hormones or in austere chambers where MRI scanners noisily thunk and peer into brains that ignite at glimpses of their soulmates.

When it comes to thinking deeply about love, poets, philosophers, and even high school boys gazing dreamily at girls two rows over have a significant head start on science. But the field is gamely racing to catch up.

One database of scientific publications turns up more than 6,600 pages of results in a search for the word “love.” The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is conducting 18 clinical trials on it (though, like love itself, NIH’s “love” can have layered meanings, including as an acronym for a study of Crohn’s disease). Though not normally considered an intestinal ailment, love is often described as an illness, and the smitten as lovesick. Comedian George Burns once described love as something like a backache: “It doesn’t show up on X-rays, but you know it’s there.”

Richard Schwartz , associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and a consultant to McLean and Massachusetts General (MGH) hospitals, says it’s never been proven that love makes you physically sick, though it does raise levels of cortisol, a stress hormone that has been shown to suppress immune function.

Love also turns on the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is known to stimulate the brain’s pleasure centers. Couple that with a drop in levels of serotonin — which adds a dash of obsession — and you have the crazy, pleasing, stupefied, urgent love of infatuation.

It’s also true, Schwartz said, that like the moon — a trigger of its own legendary form of madness — love has its phases.

“It’s fairly complex, and we only know a little about it,” Schwartz said. “There are different phases and moods of love. The early phase of love is quite different” from later phases.

During the first love-year, serotonin levels gradually return to normal, and the “stupid” and “obsessive” aspects of the condition moderate. That period is followed by increases in the hormone oxytocin, a neurotransmitter associated with a calmer, more mature form of love. The oxytocin helps cement bonds, raise immune function, and begin to confer the health benefits found in married couples, who tend to live longer, have fewer strokes and heart attacks, be less depressed, and have higher survival rates from major surgery and cancer.

Schwartz has built a career around studying the love, hate, indifference, and other emotions that mark our complex relationships. And, though science is learning more in the lab than ever before, he said he still has learned far more counseling couples. His wife and sometime collaborator, Jacqueline Olds , also an associate professor of psychiatry at HMS and a consultant to McLean and MGH, agrees.

Spouses Richard Schwartz and Jacqueline Olds, both associate professors of psychiatry, have collaborated on a book about marriage.

Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

More knowledge, but struggling to understand

“I think we know a lot more scientifically about love and the brain than we did a couple of decades ago, but I don’t think it tells us very much that we didn’t already know about love,” Schwartz said. “It’s kind of interesting, it’s kind of fun [to study]. But do we think that makes us better at love, or helping people with love? Probably not much.”

Love and companionship have made indelible marks on Schwartz and Olds. Though they have separate careers, they’re separate together, working from discrete offices across the hall from each other in their stately Cambridge home. Each has a professional practice and independently trains psychiatry students, but they’ve also collaborated on two books about loneliness and one on marriage. Their own union has lasted 39 years, and they raised two children.

“I think we know a lot more scientifically about love and the brain than we did a couple of decades ago … But do we think that makes us better at love, or helping people with love? Probably not much.” Richard Schwartz, associate professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

“I have learned much more from doing couples therapy, and being in a couple’s relationship” than from science, Olds said. “But every now and again, something like the fMRI or chemical studies can help you make the point better. If you say to somebody, ‘I think you’re doing this, and it’s terrible for a relationship,’ they may not pay attention. If you say, ‘It’s corrosive, and it’s causing your cortisol to go way up,’ then they really sit up and listen.”

A side benefit is that examining other couples’ trials and tribulations has helped their own relationship over the inevitable rocky bumps, Olds said.

“To some extent, being a psychiatrist allows you a privileged window into other people’s triumphs and mistakes,” Olds said. “And because you get to learn from them as they learn from you, when you work with somebody 10 years older than you, you learn what mistakes 10 years down the line might be.”

People have written for centuries about love shifting from passionate to companionate, something Schwartz called “both a good and a sad thing.” Different couples experience that shift differently. While the passion fades for some, others keep its flames burning, while still others are able to rekindle the fires.

“You have a tidal-like motion of closeness and drifting apart, closeness and drifting apart,” Olds said. “And you have to have one person have a ‘distance alarm’ to notice the drifting apart so there can be a reconnection … One could say that in the couples who are most successful at keeping their relationship alive over the years, there’s an element of companionate love and an element of passionate love. And those each get reawakened in that drifting back and forth, the ebb and flow of lasting relationships.”

Children as the biggest stressor

Children remain the biggest stressor on relationships, Olds said, adding that it seems a particular problem these days. Young parents feel pressure to raise kids perfectly, even at the risk of their own relationships. Kids are a constant presence for parents. The days when child care consisted of the instruction “Go play outside” while mom and dad reconnected over cocktails are largely gone.

When not hovering over children, America’s workaholic culture, coupled with technology’s 24/7 intrusiveness, can make it hard for partners to pay attention to each other in the evenings and even on weekends. It is a problem that Olds sees even in environments that ought to know better, such as psychiatry residency programs.

“There are all these sweet young doctors who are trying to have families while they’re in residency,” Olds said. “And the residencies work them so hard there’s barely time for their relationship or having children or taking care of children. So, we’re always trying to balance the fact that, in psychiatry, we stand for psychological good health, but [in] the residency we run, sometimes we don’t practice everything we preach.”

“There is too much pressure … on what a romantic partner should be. They should be your best friend, they should be your lover, they should be your closest relative, they should be your work partner, they should be the co-parent, your athletic partner. … Of course everybody isn’t able to quite live up to it.” Jacqueline Olds, associate professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

All this busy-ness has affected non-romantic relationships too, which has a ripple effect on the romantic ones, Olds said. A respected national social survey has shown that in recent years people have gone from having three close friends to two, with one of those their romantic partner.

More like this

Strength in love, hope in science

Love in the crosshairs

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

“Often when you scratch the surface … the second [friend] lives 3,000 miles away, and you can’t talk to them on the phone because they’re on a different time schedule,” Olds said. “There is too much pressure, from my point of view, on what a romantic partner should be. They should be your best friend, they should be your lover, they should be your closest relative, they should be your work partner, they should be the co-parent, your athletic partner. There’s just so much pressure on the role of spouse that of course everybody isn’t able to quite live up to it.”

Since the rising challenges of modern life aren’t going to change soon, Schwartz and Olds said couples should try to adopt ways to fortify their relationships for life’s long haul. For instance, couples benefit from shared goals and activities, which will help pull them along a shared life path, Schwartz said.

“You’re not going to get to 40 years by gazing into each other’s eyes,” Schwartz said. “I think the fact that we’ve worked on things together has woven us together more, in good ways.”

Maintain curiosity about your partner

Also important is retaining a genuine sense of curiosity about your partner, fostered both by time apart to have separate experiences, and by time together, just as a couple, to share those experiences. Schwartz cited a study by Robert Waldinger, clinical professor of psychiatry at MGH and HMS, in which couples watched videos of themselves arguing. Afterwards, each person was asked what the partner was thinking. The longer they had been together, the worse they actually were at guessing, in part because they thought they already knew.

“What keeps love alive is being able to recognize that you don’t really know your partner perfectly and still being curious and still be exploring,” Schwartz said. “Which means, in addition to being sure you have enough time and involvement with each other — that that time isn’t stolen — making sure you have enough separateness that you can be an object of curiosity for the other person.”

Share this article

You might like.

Experts from law, philosophy, spiritual care discuss issues surrounding research, safer use, kicking off University initiative

Benefits nearly double for people with depression

Nobel-winning CRISPR pioneer says approval of revolutionary sickle-cell therapy shows need for more efficient, less expensive process

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

Do phones belong in schools?

Banning cellphones may help protect classroom focus, but school districts need to stay mindful of students’ sense of connection, experts say.

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

What is love? Stanford researchers and scholars examine matters of the heart

From the fields of science to sociology, politics and philosophy, here is what Stanford research says about love and romance, in the past and present day.  

For centuries, people have tried to understand the behaviors and beliefs associated with falling in love. What explains the wide range of emotions people experience? How have notions of romance evolved over time? As digital media becomes a permanent fixture in people’s lives, how have these technologies changed how people meet?

Examining some of these questions are Stanford scholars.

From the historians who traced today’s ideas of romance to ancient Greek philosophy and Arab lyric poetry, to the social scientists who have examined the consequences of finding love through an algorithm, to the scientists who study the love hormone oxytocin, here is what their research reveals about matters of the heart.

The evolution of romance

How romantic love is understood today has several historical origins, says Robert Pogue Harrison , the Rosina Pierotti Professor in Italian Literature and a scholar of romance studies.

For example, the idea of finding one’s other half dates back to ancient Greek mythology, Harrison said. According to Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium , humans were once complete, “sphere-like creatures” until the Greek gods cut them in half. Ever since, individuals have sought after their other half.

Here are some of those origin stories, as well as other historical perspectives on love and romance, including what courtship looked like in medieval Germany and in Victorian England, where humor and innuendo broke through the politics of the times.

Stanford scholar examines origins of romance

Professor of Italian literature Robert Pogue Harrison talks about the foundations of romantic love and chivalry in Western civilization.

Medieval songs reflect humor in amorous courtships

Through a new translation of medieval songs, Stanford German studies Professor Kathryn Starkey reveals an unconventional take on romance.  

The aesthetics of sexuality in Victorian novels

In Queen Victoria’s England, novelists lodged erotic innuendo in descriptive passages for characters to express sexual desire.

Getting to the ‘heart’ of the matter

Stanford Professor Haiyan Lee chronicles the Chinese “love revolution” through a study of cultural changes influenced by Western ideals.

Love in the digital age

Where do people find love today? According to recent research by sociologist Michael Rosenfeld , meeting online is now the most popular way to meet a partner. 

“The rise of the smartphone took internet dating off the desktop and put it in everyone’s pocket, all the time,” said Rosenfeld. He found that 39 percent of heterosexual couples met their significant other online, compared to 22 percent in 2009. 

As people increasingly find connections online, their digital interactions can provide insight into people’s preferences in a partner. 

For example, Neil Malhotra , the Edith M. Cornell Professor of Political Economy, analyzed thousands of interactions from an online dating website and found that people seek partners from their own political party and with similar political interests and ideologies. Here is some of that research. 

Online dating is the most popular way couples meet

Matchmaking is now done primarily by algorithms, according to new research from Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld. His new study shows that most heterosexual couples today meet online.

Cupid’s code: Tweaking an algorithm can alter the course of finding love online

A few strategic changes to dating apps could lead to more and better matches, finds Stanford GSB’s Daniela Saban.

Political polarization even extends to romance

New research reveals that political affiliation rivals education level as one of the most important factors in identifying a potential mate.

Turns out that opposites don’t attract after all

A study of “digital footprints” suggests that you’re probably drawn to personalities a lot like yours.

Stanford scholars examine the lies people tell on mobile dating apps

Lies to appear more interesting and dateable are the most common deception among mobile dating app users, a new Stanford study finds.

The science of love

It turns out there might be some scientific proof to the claim that love is blind. According to one Stanford study , love can mask feelings of pain in a similar way to painkillers. Research by scientist Sean Mackey found intense love stimulates the same area of the brain that drugs target to reduce pain. 

“When people are in this passionate, all-consuming phase of love, there are significant alterations in their mood that are impacting their experience of pain,” said Mackey , chief of the Division of Pain Medicine. “We’re beginning to tease apart some of these reward systems in the brain and how they influence pain. These are very deep, old systems in our brain that involve dopamine – a primary neurotransmitter that influences mood, reward and motivation.”  

While love can dull some experiences, it can also heighten other feelings such as sociability. Another Stanford study found that oxytocin, also known as the love hormone because of its association with nurturing behavior, can also make people more sociable. Here is some of that research. 

Looking for love in all the wrong hormones

A study involving prairie vole families challenges previous assumptions about the role of oxytocin in prosocial behavior.

Give your sweetheart mushrooms this Valentine’s Day, says Stanford scientist

A romantic evening of chocolate and wine would not be possible without an assist from fungi, says Stanford biology professor Kabir Peay. In fact, truffles might be the ultimate romantic gift, as they exude pheromones that can attract female mammals.

Love takes up where pain leaves off, brain study shows

Love-induced pain relief was associated with the activation of primitive brain structures that control rewarding experiences.

Come together: How social support aids physical health

A growing body of research suggests that healthy relationships with spouses, peers and friends are vital for not just mental but also physical health.

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article

Towards a comprehensive theory of love: the quadruple theory.

• Independent Researcher, San Diego, CA, United States

Scholars across an array of disciplines including social psychologists have been trying to explain the meaning of love for over a century but its polysemous nature has made it difficult to fully understand. In this paper, a quadruple framework of attraction, resonance or connection, trust, and respect are proposed to explain the meaning of love. The framework is used to explain how love grows and dies and to describe brand love, romantic love, and parental love. The synergistic relationship between the factors and how their variations modulate the intensity or levels of love are discussed.

Introduction

Scholars across an array of disciplines have tried to define the meaning and nature of love with some success but questions remain. Indeed, it has been described as a propensity to think, feel, and behave positively toward another ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ). However, the application of this approach has been unsuccessful in all forms of love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Some social psychologists have tried to define love using psychometric techniques. Robert Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love and Clyde and Susan Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) are notable attempts to employ the psychometric approach ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ; Sternberg, 1986 ). However, data analysis from the administration of the LAS, Sternberg’s scale and the Passionate Love Scale by Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) found a poor association with all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ). Other studies have found a poor correlation between these and other love scales with different types of love ( Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ).

In recent years, the neuropsychological approach to study the nature of love has gained prominence. Research has compared the brain activity of people who were deeply in love while viewing a picture of their partner and friends of the same age using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and concluded that there is a specialized network of the brain involved in love ( Bartels and Zeki, 2000 ). Indeed, several lines of investigation using fMRI have described a specialized area of the brain mediating maternal love ( Noriuchi et al., 2008 ; Noriuchi and Kikuchi, 2013 ) and, fMRI studies have implicated multiple brain systems particularly the reward system in romantic love ( Aron et al., 2005 ; Fisher et al., 2005 , 2010 ; Beauregard et al., 2009 ). Brain regions including ventral tegmental area, anterior insula, ventral striatum, and supplementary motor area have been demonstrated to mediate social and material reward anticipation ( Gu et al., 2019 ). Although brain imaging provides a unique insight into the nature of love, making sense of the psychological significance or inference of fMRI data is problematic ( Cacioppo et al., 2003 ).

Also, there has been growing interests in the neurobiology of love. Indeed, evidence suggests possible roles for oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, cortisol, morphinergic system, and nerve growth factor in love and attachment ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ; De Boer et al., 2012 ; Seshadri, 2016 ; Feldman, 2017 ). However, in many cases, definite proof is still lacking and the few imaging studies on love are limited by selection bias on the duration of a love affair, gender and cultural differences ( De Boer et al., 2012 ).

So, while advances have been made in unraveling the meaning of love, questions remain and a framework that can be employed to understand love in all its forms remains to be developed or proposed. The objective of this article is to propose a novel framework that can be applied to all forms of love.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development (The AAC Model)

In the past few decades, the psychological literature has defined and described different forms of love and from these descriptions, the role of attraction, attachment-commitment, and caregiving (AAC), appears to be consistent in all forms of love.

Attraction theory is one of the first approaches to explain the phenomenon of love and several studies and scholarly works have described the importance of attraction in different forms of love ( Byrne and Griffitt, 1973 ; Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ; Fisher et al., 2006 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Grant-Jacob, 2016 ). Attraction has been described as an evolutionary adaptation of humans for mating, reproduction, and parenting ( Fisher et al., 2002a , 2006 ).

The role of attachment in love has also been extensively investigated. Attachment bonds have been described as a critical feature of mammals including parent-infant, pair-bonds, conspecifics, and peers ( Feldman, 2017 ). Indeed, neural networks including the interaction of oxytocin and dopamine in the striatum have been implicated in attachment bonds ( Feldman, 2017 ). The key features of attachment include proximity maintenance, safety and security, and separation distress ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Multiple lines of research have proposed that humans possess an innate behavioral system of attachment that is essential in love ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1977 , 1988 , 1989 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ; Hazan and Shaver, 1987 ; Bretherton, 1992 ; Carter, 1998 ; Burkett and Young, 2012 ). Attachment is essential to commitment and satisfaction in a relationship ( Péloquin et al., 2013 ) and commitment leads to greater intimacy ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Also, several lines of evidence have described the role of caregiving in love. It has been proposed that humans possess an inborn caregiving system that complements their attachment system ( Bowlby, 1973 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ). Indeed, several studies have used caregiving scale and compassionate love scale, to describe the role of caring, concern, tenderness, supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), in love and relationships ( Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Mutual communally responsive relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare with the expectation that the other will return the favor when their own needs arise ( Clark and Mills, 1979 ; Clark and Monin, 2006 ), have been described as key in all types of relationships including friendship, family, and romantic and compassionate love ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Attachment and caregiving reinforce each other in relationships. Evidence suggests that sustained caregiving is frequently accompanied by the growth of familiarity between the caregiver and the receiver ( Bowlby, 1989 , p. 115) strengthening attachment ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Several studies have proposed that attachment has a positive influence on caregiving behavior in love and relationships ( Carnelley et al., 1996 ; Collins and Feeney, 2000 ; Feeney and Collins, 2001 ; Mikulincer, 2006 ; Canterberry and Gillath, 2012 ; Péloquin et al., 2013 ).

The AAC model can be seen across the literature on love. Robert Sternberg triangular theory of love which proposes that love has three components —intimacy, passion, and commitment ( Sternberg, 1986 ), essentially applies the AAC model. Passion, a key factor in his theory, is associated with attraction ( Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ), and many passionate behaviors including increased energy, focused attention, intrusive thinking, obsessive following, possessive mate guarding, goal-oriented behaviors and motivation to win and keep a preferred mating partner ( Fisher et al., 2002b , 2006 ; Fisher, 2005 ). Also, evidence indicates that attachment is central to intimacy, another pillar of the triangular theory ( Morris, 1982 ; Feeney and Noller, 1990 ; Oleson, 1996 ; Grabill and Kent, 2000 ). Commitment, the last pillar of the triangular theory, is based on interdependence and social exchange theories ( Stanley et al., 2010 ), which is connected to mutual caregiving and secure attachment.

Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) , Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) which measures six types of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ) is at its core based on the AAC model. Similarly, numerous works on love ( Rubin, 1970 ; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986 ; Fehr, 1994 ; Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), have applied one or all of the factors in the ACC model. Berscheid (2010) , proposed four candidates for a temporal model of love including companionate love, romantic love, and compassionate love and adult attachment love. As described, these different types of love (romantic, companionate, compassionate, and attachment) all apply at least one or all of the factors in the AAC model.

New Theory (The Quadruple Framework)

The AAC model can be fully captured by four fundamental factors; attraction, connection or resonance, trust, and respect, providing a novel framework that could explain love in all its forms. Table 1 shows the core factors of love, and the four factors derived from them.

Table 1. Factors of love.

Evidence suggests that both attachment and attraction play a role in obsession or passion observed in love ( Fisher et al., 2005 ; Honari and Saremi, 2015 ). Attraction is influenced by the value or appeal perceived from a relationship and this affects commitment ( Rusbult, 1980 ).

Connection or Resonance

Connection is key to commitment, caregiving, and intimacy. It creates a sense of oneness in relationships and it is strengthened by proximity, familiarity, similarity, and positive shared experiences ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Homogeneity or similarity has been observed to increase social capital and engagement among people ( Costa and Kahn, 2003a , b ), and it has been described as foundational to human relationships ( Tobore, 2018 , pp. 6–13). Research indicates that similarity plays a key role in attachment and companionship as people are more likely to form long-lasting and successful relationships with those who are more similar to themselves ( Burgess and Wallin, 1954 ; Byrne, 1971 ; Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ; Lutz-Zois et al., 2006 ). Proximity plays a key role in caregiving as people are more likely to show compassion to those they are familiar with or those closest to them ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Similarity and proximity contribute to feelings of familiarity ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Also, caregiving and empathy are positively related to emotional interdependence ( Hatfield et al., 1994 ).

Trust is crucial for love ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ) and it plays an important role in relationship intimacy and caregiving ( Rempel and Holmes, 1985 ; Wilson et al., 1998 ; Salazar, 2015 ), as well as attachment ( Rodriguez et al., 2015 ; Bidmon, 2017 ). Familiarity is a sine qua non for trust ( Luhmann, 1979 ), and trust is key to relationship satisfaction ( Simpson, 2007 ; Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine, 2017 ).

Respect is cross-cultural and universal ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick et al., 2010 ) and has been described as fundamental in love ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). It plays a cardinal role in interpersonal relations at all levels ( Hendrick et al., 2010 ). Indeed, it is essential in relationship commitment and satisfaction ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ) and relationship intimacy and attachment ( Alper, 2004 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Synergetic Interactions of the Four Factors

Connection and attraction.

Similarity, proximity, and familiarity are all important in connection because they promote attachment and a sense of oneness in a relationship ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that proximity ( Batool and Malik, 2010 ) and familiarity positively influence attraction ( Norton et al., 2015 ) and several lines of evidence suggests that people are attracted to those similar to themselves ( Sykes et al., 1976 ; Wetzel and Insko, 1982 ; Montoya et al., 2008 ; Batool and Malik, 2010 ; Collisson and Howell, 2014 ). Also, attraction mediates similarity and familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Trust

Evidence suggests that respect promotes trust ( Ali et al., 2012 ).

Connection, Respect, Trust, and Attraction

Trust affects attraction ( Singh et al., 2015 ). Trust and respect can mediate attitude similarity and promote attraction ( Singh et al., 2016 ).

So, although these factors can operate independently, evidence suggests that the weakening of one factor could negatively affect the others and the status of love. Similarly, the strengthening of one factor positively modulates the others and the status of love.

Relationships are dynamic and change as events and conditions in the environment change ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Love is associated with causal conditions that respond to these changes favorably or negatively ( Berscheid, 2010 ). In other words, as conditions change, and these factors become present, love is achieved and if they die, it fades. Figure 1 below explains how love grows and dies. Point C in the figure explains the variations in the intensity or levels of love and this variation is influenced by the strength of each factor. The stronger the presence of all factors, the higher the intensity and the lower, the weaker the intensity of love. The concept of non-love is similar to the “non-love” described in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love in which all components of love are absent ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Figure 1. Description: (A) Presence of love (all factors are present). (B) Absence of love (state of non-love or state where all factors are latent or dormant). (C) Different levels of love due to variations in the four factors. (D) Movement from non-love toward love (developmental stage: at least one but not all four factors are present). (E) Movement away from love toward non-love (decline stage: at least one or more of the four factors are absent).

Application of the Quadruple Framework on Romantic, Brand and Parental Love

Romantic, parental and brand love have been chosen to demonstrate the role of these factors and their interactions in love because there is significant existing literature on them. However, they can be applied to understand love in all its forms.

Romantic Love

Attraction and romantic love.

Attraction involves both physical and personality traits ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Karandashev and Fata, 2014 ). To this end, attraction could be subdivided into sexual or material and non-sexual or non-material attraction. Sexual or material attraction includes physical attributes such as beauty, aesthetics, appeal, wealth, etc. In contrast, non-sexual or non-material attraction includes characteristics such as personality, social status, power, humor, intelligence, character, confidence, temperament, honesty, good quality, kindness, integrity, etc. Both types of attraction are not mutually exclusive.

Romantic love has been described as a advanced form of human attraction system ( Fisher et al., 2005 ) and it fits with the passion component of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which he described as the quickest to recruit ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, research indicates that physical attractiveness and sensual feelings are essential in romantic love and dating ( Brislin and Lewis, 1968 ; Regan and Berscheid, 1999 ; Luo and Zhang, 2009 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Ha et al., 2010 ; Guéguen and Lamy, 2012 ) and sexual attraction often provides the motivational spark that kickstarts a romantic relationship ( Gillath et al., 2008 ). Behavioral data suggest that love and sex drive follow complementary pathways in the brain ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Indeed, the neuroendocrine system for sexual attraction and attachment appears to work synergistically motivating individuals to both prefer a specific mating partner and to form an attachment to that partner ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Sex promotes the activity of hormones involved in love including arginine vasopressin in the ventral pallidum, oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens and stimulates dopamine release which consequently motivates preference for a partner and strengthens attachment or pair-bonding ( Seshadri, 2016 ).

Also, romantic love is associated with non-material attraction. Research indicates that many people are attracted to their romantic partner because of personality traits like generosity, kindness, warmth, humor, helpfulness, openness to new ideas ( Giles, 2015 , pp. 168–169). Findings from a research study on preferences in human mate selection indicate that personality traits such as kindness/considerate and understanding, exciting, and intelligent are strongly preferred in a potential mate ( Buss and Barnes, 1986 ). Indeed, character and physical attractiveness have been found to contribute jointly and significantly to romantic attraction ( McKelvie and Matthews, 1976 ).

Attraction is key to commitment in a romantic relationship ( Rusbult, 1980 ), indicating that without attraction a romantic relationship could lose its luster. Also, romantic attraction is weakened or declines as the reason for its presence declines or deteriorates. If attraction is sexual or due to material characteristics, then aging or any accident that compromises physical beauty would result in its decline ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ). Loss of fortune or social status could also weaken attraction and increase tension in a relationship. Indeed, tensions about money increase marital conflicts ( Papp et al., 2009 ; Dew and Dakin, 2011 ) and predicted subsequent divorce ( Amato and Rogers, 1997 ).

Connection and Romantic Love

Connection or resonance fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Connection in romantic love involves intimacy, friendship or companionship and caregiving and it is strengthened by novelty, proximity, communication, positive shared experiences, familiarity, and similarity. It is what creates a sense of oneness between romantic partners and it is expressed in the form of proximity seeking and maintenance, concern, and compassion ( Neto, 2012 ). Evidence suggests that deeper levels of emotional involvement or attachment increase commitment and cognitive interdependence or tendency to think about the relationship in a pluralistic manner, as reflected in the use of plural pronouns to describe oneself, romantic partner and relationship ( Agnew et al., 1998 ).

Research indicates that both sexual attraction and friendship are necessary for romantic love ( Meyers and Berscheid, 1997 ; Gillath et al., 2008 ; Berscheid, 2010 ), indicating that connection which is essential for companionship plays a key role in romantic love. A study on college students by Hendrick and Hendrick (1993) found that a significant number of the students described their romantic partner as their closest friend ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1993 ), reinforcing the importance of friendship or companionship in romantic love.

Similarity along the lines of values, goals, religion, nationality, career, culture, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, etc. is essential in liking and friendship in romantic love ( Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ). Research indicates that a partner who shared similar values and interests were more likely to experience stronger love ( Jin et al., 2017 ). Indeed, the more satisfied individuals were with their friendships the more similar they perceived their friends to be to themselves ( Morry, 2005 ). Also, similarity influences perceptions of familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ), and familiarity plays a role in the formation of attachment and connectedness because it signals safety and security ( Bowlby, 1977 ). Moreover, similarity and familiarity affect caregiving. Sprecher and Fehr (2005) , found compassion or caregiving were lower for strangers, and greatest for dating and marital relationships, indicating that similarity and familiarity enhance intimacy and positively influences caregiving ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ).

Proximity through increased exposure is known to promote liking ( Saegert et al., 1973 ), familiarity and emotional connectedness ( Sternberg, 1986 ; Berscheid, 2010 ). Exposure through fun times and direct and frequent communication is essential to maintaining and strengthening attachment and connectedness ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ). In Sternberg’s triangular theory, effective communication is described as essential and affects the intimacy component of a relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, intimacy grows from a combination of mutual self-disclosure and interactions mediated by positive partner responsiveness ( Laurenceau et al., 1998 , 2005 ; Manne et al., 2004 ), indicating that positive feedback and fun times together strengthens connection.

Also, sexual activity is an important component of the reward system that reinforces emotional attachment ( Seshadri, 2016 ), indicating that sexual activity may increase emotional connectedness and intimacy. Over time in most relationships, predictability grows, and sexual satisfaction becomes readily available. This weakens the erotic and emotional experience associated with romantic love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Research shows that a reduction in novelty due to the monotony of being with the same person for a long period is the reason for this decline in sexual attraction ( Freud and Rieff, 1997 , p. 57; Sprecher et al., 2006 , p. 467). According to Sternberg (1986) , the worst enemy of the intimacy component of love is stagnation. He explained that too much predictability can erode the level of intimacy in a close relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). So, novelty is essential to maintaining sexual attraction and strengthening connection in romantic love.

Jealousy and separation distress which are key features of romantic love ( Fisher et al., 2002b ), are actions to maintain and protect the emotional union and are expressions of a strong connection. Research has found a significant correlation between anxiety and love ( Hatfield et al., 1989 ) and a positive link between romantic love and jealousy in stable relationships ( Mathes and Severa, 1981 ; Aune and Comstock, 1991 ; Attridge, 2013 ; Gomillion et al., 2014 ). Indeed, individuals who feel strong romantic love tend to be more jealous or sensitive to threats to their relationship ( Orosz et al., 2015 ).

Connection in romantic love is weakened by distance, a dearth of communication, unsatisfactory sexual activity, divergences or dissimilarity of values and interests, monotony and too much predictability.

Trust and Romantic Love

Trust is the belief that a partner is, and will remain, reliable or dependable ( Cook, 2003 ). Trust in romantic love fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which includes being able to count on the loved one in times of need, mutual understanding with the loved one, sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one and maintaining the relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

It has been proposed that love activates specific regions in the reward system which results in a reduction in emotional judgment and fear ( Seshadri, 2016 ). This reduced fear or trust has been identified as one of the most important characteristics of a romantic relationship and essential to fidelity, commitment, monogamy, emotional vulnerability, and intimacy ( Laborde et al., 2014 ). Indeed, trust can deepen intimacy, increase commitment and increase mutual monogamy, and make a person lower their guards in the belief that they are safe from harm ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Bauman and Berman, 2005 ). People with high trust in romantic relationships tend to expect that their partner will act in their interest causing them to prioritize relationship dependence over making themselves invulnerable from harm or self-protection ( Luchies et al., 2013 ). In contrast, people with low trust in their partner tend to be unsure about whether their partner will act in their interests and prioritize insulating themselves from harm over relationship dependence ( Luchies et al., 2013 ).

Trust takes time to grow into a romantic relationship. Indeed, people in a relationship come to trust their partners when they see that their partner’s action and behavior moves the relationship forward or acts in the interest of the relationship and not themself ( Wieselquist et al., 1999 ). Research indicates that trust is associated with mutual self-disclosure ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ), and positive partner responsiveness which are both essential to the experience of friendship and intimacy in romantic relationships ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Reis and Shaver, 1988 ; Laurenceau et al., 1998 ).

Also, trust influences caregiving and compassion. Evidence suggests that compassion is positively related to trust ( Salazar, 2015 ). Mutual communal responsiveness or caregiving in relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare is done because they are confident that the other will do the same when or if their own needs arise ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ). Repeated acts of communal responsiveness given with no expectation of payback provide a partner with a sense of security and trust and increase the likelihood that they will be communally responsive if or when the need arises ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ), and contributes to a sense of love in romantic relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Loss or weakening of trust could spell the end of romantic love. Indeed, mistrust corrupts intimacy and often indicates that a relationship has ended or near its end ( LaFollette and Graham, 1986 ) and it makes mutual monogamy, and commitment difficult to achieve in a romantic relationship ( Towner et al., 2015 ). A study on individuals who had fallen out of romantic love with their spouse found that loss of trust and intimacy was part of the reason for the dissolution of love ( Sailor, 2013 ).

Respect and Romantic Love

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that respect is expected in both friendships and romantic relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ). In romantic love, it entails consideration, admiration, high regard, and value for the loved one as a part of one’s life ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Gottman (1999) , found that the basis for a stable and satisfactory marital relationship is friendship filled with fondness and admiration ( Gottman, 1999 ). Respect is considered one of the most important things married couples want from their partner ( Gottman, 1994 ). Grote and Frieze (1994) , found that respect correlates with companionate or friendship love ( Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), indicating that respect is essential to intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Also, respect is positively correlated with passion, altruism, self-disclosure, and relationship overall satisfaction ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ). It is associated with the tendency to overlook a partner’s negative behavior or respond with pro-relationship actions or compassion to their shortcomings ( Rusbult et al., 1998 ; Gottman, 1999 ).

Absence or a lack of respect could spell the end of romantic love. Research indicates that there is an expectation of mutual respect in friendship and most relationships and people reacted negatively when this expectation is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ), indicating that a lack of respect could negatively affect commitment and attraction. Indeed, denial of respect is an important negative behavior in friendships and most relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ) and a lack of respect is a violation of what it means to love one ‘s partner in a close romantic relationship ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). Gottman (1993 , 1994) identified contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling as four of the relationally destructive behavior and he labeled them as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

Romantic love summary

Romantic love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. All four must be present in love. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause romantic love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Romantic love is dynamic and requires significant investment from both partners to keep it alive.

Parental Love

Attraction and parental love.

Attraction plays an essential role in parental love and it could be material or non-material. Material attraction involves the child’s health, gender, accomplishments or success, and attractiveness. In contrast, non-material attraction includes traits such as intelligence, character, and other personality traits.

Evidence suggests that culture influences gender preference with attraction greater for sons in most cases ( Cronk, 1993 ). Indeed, mothers and fathers have been found to favor the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious child ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Also, parental perception that investment in a child will cost more than the benefits to be gained from taking care of the child might influence negative behavior toward the child. Indeed, multiple lines of evidence suggest that parental unemployment increases the rates of child maltreatment and abuse ( Steinberg et al., 1981 ; Lindo et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that teen mothers who have poor social support reported greater unhappiness, were at greater risk for child abuse and often employed the use of physical punishment toward their child ( Haskett et al., 1994 ; de Paúl and Domenech, 2000 ).

Also, several studies have suggested that parents tended to favor healthy children ( Mann, 1992 ; Barratt et al., 1996 ; Hagen, 1999 ). However, when resources are plentiful, parents tend to invest equally in less healthy or high-risk children ( Beaulieu and Bugental, 2008 ), because they have abundant resources to go around without compromising the reproductive value of healthy children ( Lauricella, 2009 ).

Connection and Parental Love

Connection creates a sense of oneness between parent and child and involves caregiving, intimacy, and attachment. It is influenced by proximity, positive and unique shared experiences, and similarity along virtually every dimension between parent and child.

Proximity, and similarity increases attachment and intimacy between parent and child. Research shows that parents are perceived as favoring genetically related children ( Salmon et al., 2012 ), and evidence suggests that paternal resemblance predicted paternal favoritism ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Parental proximity and similarity to a biological child are unique because it is based on genes and blood. In contrast, intimacy between a parent and an adopted child is based solely on shared experiences and proximity and takes time to grow and on many occasions may not develop ( Hooks, 1990 ; Hughes, 1999 ).

Dissimilarities or discrepancy in values, attitudes, etc., can create problems between children and parents and can have a profound effect on their relationship. Indeed, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Research has found that adolescents who are less religious than their parents tend to experience lower-quality relationships with their parents which results in higher rates of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms ( Kim-Spoon et al., 2012 ). When parents and family members were very religious, and a child comes out as an atheist, relationship quality could suffer in the form of rejection, anger, despair, or an inability to relate to one another ( Zimmerman et al., 2015 ). A study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youngsters, for patterns of disclosure of sexual orientation to families, found that those who had disclosed reported verbal and physical abuse by parents and family members ( D’Augelli et al., 1998 ). Honor killing of female children which have been reported in Pakistan and some parts of the Middle East because of deviation from traditional gender roles or crossing of social boundaries that are deemed as taboo in their culture ( Lindsey and Sarah, 2010 ), is another example of the negative effects of the discrepancy in values between parents and child.

Unique shared experiences between parent and child could increase connection. Bank (1988) observed that the development of favoritism seems to require that the “child’s conception or birth be unusual or stressful,” ( Bank, 1988 ). Evidence suggests that parents most favored child tended to be last-born child and this is linked to their unique position, vulnerability and neediness ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Also, proximity, positive experiences and time spent together increases connection and intimacy. Research indicates that parents tend to give more love and support to the grown child they were historically closest to and got along with ( Siennick, 2013 ). A study of primiparous women found that mothers with greater contact with their infants were more reluctant to leave them with someone else, and engaged more intimately with their child ( Klaus et al., 1972 ).

Divorce could create distance between a parent and child, weakening connection and intimacy. Indeed, one of the outcomes of divorce is the lessening of contact between divorced non-custodial fathers and their children ( Appleby and Palkovitz, 2007 ), and this can reduce intimacy ( Guttmann and Rosenberg, 2003 ).

Also, parental separation distress, worry, and concern for their child’s welfare, academic performance, and future are expressions of connection and a lack thereof is a sign of poor connection. Indeed, the levels of concern and worry expressed between children and their parents influenced their perceptions of the relationship quality ( Hay et al., 2007 ).

Trust and Parental Love

Trust is essential to parental attachment, intimacy, and caregiving. When there is mistrust, attachment and intimacy between a parent and their child are disrupted or unable to blossom. In Africa and many parts of the world, there have been reports of children being condemned and abandoned by their parents simply because they are tagged as witches with mysterious evil powers ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ). The tag of “witchcraft” stirs up fear and anger, causing the child to be perceived as a deadly threat which inevitably damages attachment, intimacy and eliminates the need for caregiving.

Research has found that firstborn children were most likely to be chosen as those to whom mothers would turn when facing personal problems or crises ( Suitor and Pillemer, 2007 ). This tendency may be linked to trust. Moreover, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). In other words, the more obedient, and reliable child is likely to gain the confidence and intimacy of the parents. In contrast, the disobedient and unreliable child is excluded or kept at a distance. Also, trust and poor connection could influence inheritance and disinheritance decisions. Indeed, estrangement, alienation and disaffection of a parent toward a child could result in disinheritance ( Batts, 1990 ; Brashier, 1994 , 1996 ; Foster, 2001 ; Arroyo et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Parental Love

Respect in parental love entails treating the child with consideration and regard. This consideration and regard for the child are essential to intimacy, caregiving and attachment. Indeed, respect is foundational to a harmonious relationship between parent and child ( Dixon et al., 2008 ). Evidence suggests that humans possess an innate behavioral system that leads them to form an attachment to a familiar person who provides care, comfort, and protection ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1989 ). Repeated acts of caregiving contribute to a sense of love in all types of relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ), reinforcing the role of parental caregiving in fostering intimacy and attachment with the child.

Taking care of an infant’s needs, and making sure they are safe and well, all fall under consideration and regard for the child. Child abuse and neglect ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ), is a display of a lack of consideration for the child’s need.

Also, respect in parental love involves admiration. Research has found that fathers treated more ambitious/industrious sons with high regard, and both parents favored the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious daughters ( Lauricella, 2009 ) indicating that a child that engages in activities or behavior that is highly regarded by their parents may gain favor with their parents, strengthening intimacy and vice versa.

Parental love summary

Parental love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause parental love to gradually decline. In many cases, the behavior and actions of a child significantly influence parental love.

Brand love has been defined as the level of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied or happy consumer has for a brand and evidence suggests it is very similar to interpersonal love ( Russo et al., 2011 ).

Attraction and Brand Love

Attraction plays an essential role in brand love. Material attraction for a brand includes attributes like superior design, quality, and aesthetics, price, benefits, etc. Non-material attraction involves social status symbol, brand personality, uniqueness, distinctiveness, user experience, image, etc. evidence suggests that when talking about loved brands, people often talk passionately about the brand’s many attractive qualities such as its exceptional performance, good-looking design, value for money, and other positive attributes ( Fournier, 1998 ; Whang et al., 2004 ; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ). Research on brand love has found that brand attractive attributes such as prestige or uniqueness influence brand passion which affects relevant factors such as purchase intention ( Bauer et al., 2007 ).

Also, brand attraction influences brand loyalty, and commitment. Indeed, research indicates that brand benefits influences brand loyalty or commitment ( Huang et al., 2016 ). Brand personality (image, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value) is strongly associated with brand identification and loyalty ( Kim et al., 2001 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Connection and Brand Love

Connection is essential to brand love. It involves brand attachment, commitment, and intimacy and it is strengthened by brand identification, image, familiarity or awareness, proximity, length or frequency of usage and similarity or congruences along virtually every dimension including values, lifestyle, goals, etc. between brand and customer. Brand awareness which means brand familiarity has been described as essential for people to identify with a brand ( Pascual and Académico, 2015 ), and it indirectly affects current purchases ( Esch et al., 2006 ).

Also, brand identification promotes a sense of oneness between a brand and a customer strengthening commitment and it is driven by brand self-similarity, brand prestige and brand distinctiveness ( Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2008 ). Indeed, brand identification contributes to the development of brand love and brand loyalty ( Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ) and brand image and identification influence loyalty and positive word of mouth ( Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ; Anggraeni and Rachmanita, 2015 ). Brand identity, values and lifestyle similarities to those of the customer appear to have a strong and significant relationship with brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014 ; Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Findings from research suggest that customer-to-customer similarity and sense of community drive consumer brand identification, loyalty, and engagement ( Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, proximity and interaction play a role in brand love. Indeed, the duration of the relationship between a customer and a brand is essential in brand love ( Albert et al., 2007 ). Fournier (1998) , discussed interdependence which involved frequent brand interactions as necessary for a strong brand relationship ( Fournier, 1998 ). Similarly, Batra et al. (2012) found that having a long-term relationship, positive emotional connection and frequent interactions with a brand was an important aspect of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ). Indeed, shared experiences and history between a person and a brand can increase their emotional attachment, make the brand to become an important part of the person’s identity narrative and increases their loyalty to the brand ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Pedeliento et al., 2016 ).

Just like romantic love, concern and worry and proximity seeking, or maintenance are an expression of emotional connectedness to the brand. Indeed, anticipated separation distress has been described as a core element of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ), and consumers are likely to feel strong desires to maintain proximity with their loved objects, even feeling “separation distress” when they are distanced from them ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Park et al., 2010 ).

Also, novelty through continued innovation is vital to maintaining and strengthening both attraction and connection. According to the Harvard business review, the relationship between brand and consumer go through “ruts” and to “keep the spark” alive, innovation and news are essential ( Halloran, 2014 ). Research indicates that innovation plays a role in brand equity and it impacts brand identification or resonance ( Sinha, 2017 ).

Lack of brand familiarity or awareness, poor or negative user experience, a dearth of innovation and increased dissimilarities in values and lifestyles between brand and consumer can all weaken brand connection.

Trust and Brand Love

Trust is essential to brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It involves confidence and reliability, or dependability of the brand and it is influenced by brand image, familiarity, values, user experience, and quality. Indeed, brand trust directly influences brand love ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ; Meisenzahl, 2017 ) and a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust and identification ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Evidence suggests that brand familiarity influences brand trust ( Ha and Perks, 2005 ) and brand trust and experience, positively influence brand attachment ( Erciş et al., 2012 ; Chinomona, 2013 ; Chinomona and Maziriri, 2017 ).

Also, brand trust affects brand purchase, loyalty, and commitment. Evidence suggests that a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust, brand commitment, positive word of mouth, and willingness to pay a higher price for the brand ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Research indicates that brand trust positively affects brand loyalty ( Setyawan and Kussudiyarsana, 2015 ), directly influences brand purchase intentions ( Yasin and Shamim, 2013 ) and positively influences current and future purchases ( Erciş et al., 2012 ). Indeed, more than any other factor, brand trust has been identified as essential for future purchases of a brand ( Esch et al., 2006 ). It is essential in determining purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty and it plays a role in brand market share ( Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001 ). Brand trust affects both affective and continuance commitment and affective commitment influences repurchase intention and loyalty ( Erciş et al., 2012 ).

Brand quality is essential to brand trust and love. Indeed, Fournier (1998) , discussed the role of brand quality in brand love and highlighted the role of trust in relationship satisfaction and strength ( Fournier, 1998 ). Also, brand trust has been found to positively affect resistance to negative information and repurchase intention ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ).

Brand trust is weakened by poor user experience, brand quality, brand image, and a lack of brand familiarity.

Respect and Brand Love

Brand respect is essential in brand love and plays an important role in brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It is influenced by brand identification, values, image, experience, and quality. Brand respect is displayed by the customer in the form of high regard, admiration for the brand, brand loyalty and consideration or tolerance of negative information. Indeed, brand familiarity positively affects brand respect ( Zhou, 2017 ), indicating that brand familiarity increases regard for a brand. Evidence suggests that brand image positively influences brand respect and love ( Cho, 2011 ), indicating that brand image modulates a customer’s regard and admiration for a brand.

Brand respect influences brand commitment and loyalty. Indeed, a strong relationship has been found between brand respect and brand loyalty ( Cho, 2011 ) and brand admiration results in greater brand loyalty, stronger brand advocacy, and higher brand equity ( Park et al., 2016 ). Brand respect affects the behavioral outcomes of brand love such as affective commitment, and willingness to pay a price premium ( Garg et al., 2016 ; Park et al., 2016 ).

Also, evidence suggests that customers’ admiration or high regard for a brand contributes to why they tend to ignore negative information about the brand ( Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Fournier (1998) , included respect as one of the components of brand partner quality. This means that respect is one of the factors that reflects the consumer’s evaluation of the brand’s performance ( Fournier, 1998 ).

A lack of respect could negatively influence the relationship between a brand and a customer. Indeed, people react negatively when the expectation of respect is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ) and a violation of expectation between brand and customer has been found to contribute to brand hate ( Zarantonello et al., 2016 ).

Brand love summary

Brand love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause brand love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Brand love is dynamic and requires significant investment from the brand to keep it alive.

Strengths and Advances Made by the Quadruple Theory

The quadruple theory builds on many of the strengths of previous theories of love and it applies a temporal approach that has been proposed as the best way to understand love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). It goes further than previous theories for several reasons. Firstly, it could potentially be applied to any form of love although, only brand, romantic and parental love were discussed in this paper due to the paucity of scholarly articles on other forms of love. One of the reasons current love scales and approaches have been unable to be applied in all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ; Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ), is because they capture only a part of the ACC model, unlike the quadruple framework which fully captures it.

Unlike previous theories, the quadruple theory’s application of the complex factor of connection/resonance gives it an edge in furthering our understanding of love. Proximity, positive shared experience, familiarity, and similarity are vital to connection and connection has the most profound influence on all the other factors.

Also, the dynamism and variation of these factors provide a fresh way to understand love from its development to collapse. As Figure 1 shows, love tends to take time to mature in a relationship and can die as these factors rise and decline. Figure 1 shows that variations in the presence of these factors represent different levels of love. Love in any relationship is influenced by the events in the environment it is embedded, and it responds favorably or negatively to these changes. Indeed, people get sick, old, lose their finances, travel in search of greener pastures creating distance, develop new interests different from their partner’s and all these influences the presence and absence of love. One brand becomes more innovative, improves its product quality and users experience over another and people gradually love it more than the one they previously loved. In other words, love is very dynamic and may be divided into high, moderate and low. Another point highlighted in Figure 1 is that the absence of one factor represents the absence of love and only the presence of all factors represents the presence of love. Indeed, the decline of a factor can be replenished in response to changes in the environment causing the reestablishment of love. Trust could decline but attraction and respect remain and over time trust could be replenished.

This dynamic understanding of love implies that it can be nurtured and sustained. As an example, for a brand to be loved and to maintain that love, it must make products that are attractive (appealing). It must be able to connect to its target customers by reaching out through adverts to achieve familiarity and it must ensure that its values, goals, actions are consistently similar to those of its customer base. Also, it must ensure its services and products and actions promote and maintain trust with its customers. It must respect (value) its customer’s interests and ensure that its services and products continue to receive the admiration of its customers. Table 2 describes how brand love can be nurtured and preserved.

Table 2. Brand love can be nurtured and maintained.

Using this framework, a love scale or algorithm could be developed to ascertain the presence or absence of love in any relationship. Such a scale must effectively capture these four factors and must consider the type of love being calculated in its approach. As an example, in trying to create a scale for romantic love, sexual attraction, and activity may be important for attraction and connection (depending on the age of the partners) but would be unnecessary in the calculation of brand or parental love.

Major Challenges for the Theory

One of the biggest challenges the theory faces is the lack of psychometric data to prove many of its claims. Most of its arguments are based on decades of psychological data, but its lack of psychometric data weakens the theory significantly. Also, the entire premise of the theory is based on the ACC model, which has not been validated as essential or foundational to understanding love. Perhaps, something else needs to be added to the model that the theory may have missed. The argument that the quadruple theory captures the ACC model better than previous theories on love is an argument that has not been validated, and it remains to be seen if this is true. Also, the argument that it can be applied to all forms of love apart from the three discussed remains to be tested and verified.

Gaps currently exist in our understanding of love and evidences from the existing literature show that a framework that can be applied to all forms of love is needed. The quadruple theory hopes to be that framework. It is likely to broaden our understanding of the complex nature of love. It could make love less complex by making it something that can be cultivated or nurtured, regulated and preserved. Future research should consider the modulatory roles of peptides, neurotransmitters, and hormones on these factors and their influence on love as well as the integrated parts of the brain that modulates all these factors and how they work synergistically in different stages of love.

It is important to note that love is universal and applies to people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, religion and sexual orientations. Indeed, romantic love as described by the quadruple theory applies equally to heterosexual relationships and to the relationships of people in the LGTBQ community.

In conclusion, culture has a monumental influence on what people feel, think, and how they behave toward other people and things in their environment ( Karandashev, 2015 ; Ching Hei and David, 2018 ). So, it can be considered a modulating factor on the factors discussed and on love.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., and Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 939–954. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ainsworth, M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 61, 792–812.

Google Scholar

Albert, N., and Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30, 258–266. doi: 10.1108/07363761311328928

Albert, N., Merunka, D., and Valette-Florence, P. (2007). When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 61, 1062–1075. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014

Ali, S. H. S., Mansur, N., and Abdullah, Z. (2012). Analyzing the issue of respect and trust: determining the mediating role of religion. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58, 614–623. doi: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2012.09.1039

Alnawas, I., and Altarifi, S. (2016). Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty. J. Vacat. Mark. 22, 111–128. doi: 10.1177/1356766715604663

Alper, G. (2004). Voices from the unconscious. J. Loss Trauma 10, 73–81. doi: 10.1080/15325020490890660

Amato, P. R., and Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. J. Marriage Fam. 59, 612–624. doi: 10.2307/353949

Anggraeni, A., and Rachmanita. (2015). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth; the case of local fashion brands among young consumers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 211, 442–447. doi: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.11.058

Appleby, D. W., and Palkovitz, R. (2007). Factors Influencing a Divorced Father’ s Involvement with His Children. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ccfs_fac_pubs/7 (accessed February 22, 2020).

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., and Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94, 327–337. doi: 10.1152/jn.00838.2004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arroyo, E., Amayuelas, I., and Amorós, E. F. (2016). Kinship bonds and emotional ties: lack of a family relationship as ground for disinheritance. Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 2, 203–222.

Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness. SAGE Open 3:215824401347605. doi: 10.1177/2158244013476054

Aune, K. S., and Comstock, J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: comparison between friends and romantics. Psychol. Rep. 69, 315–319. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.315

Bank, S. P. (1988). Favoritism. J. Child. Contemp. Soc. 19, 77–89. doi: 10.1300/J274v19n03_05

Barratt, M. S., Roach, M. A., and Leavitt, L. A. (1996). The impact of low-risk prematurity on maternal behaviour and toddler outcomes. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 19, 581–602. doi: 10.1177/016502549601900308

Bartels, A., and Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport 11, 3829–3834.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Bartholomew, L. (2015). Child abuse linked to beliefs in witchcraft. Trans. Soc. Rev. 5, 193–198. doi: 10.1080/21931674.2015.1028809

Batool, S., and Malik, N. I. (2010). Role of attitude similarity and proximity in interpersonal attraction among friends. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 1.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. J. Mark. 76, 1–16. doi: 10.1509/jm.09.0339

Batts, D. A. (1990). I Didn’t ask to be born: the American law of disinheritance and a proposal for change to a sytem of protected inheritance recommended citation. Hastings L. J. 41, 1197–1270.

Bauer, H. H., Heinrich, D., and Martin, I. (2007). “How to create high emotional consumer-brand relationships? The causalities of brand passion,” in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2007 , Dunedin, 2189–2198.

Bauman, L. J., and Berman, R. (2005). Adolescent relationships and condom use: trust, love and commitment. AIDS Behav. 9, 211–222. doi: 10.1007/s10461-005-3902-2

Beaulieu, D. A., and Bugental, D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: an evolutionary framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.002

Beauregard, M., Courtemanche, J., Paquette, V., and St-Pierre, É. L. (2009). The neural basis of unconditional love. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 172, 93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2008.11.003

Beckes, L., Coan, J. A., and Hasselmo, K. (2013). Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8, 670–677. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss046

Bergkvist, L., and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. J. Brand Manage. 17, 504–518. doi: 10.1057/bm.2010.6

Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61, 1–25. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318

Berscheid, E., and Hatfield, E. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Berscheid, E. A., and Reis, H. T. (1998). “Attraction and close relationships,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology , 4th Edn, Vol. 2, eds D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill), 193–281.

Bidmon, S. (2017). How does attachment style influence the brand attachment – brand trust and brand loyalty chain in adolescents? Int. J. Advert. 36, 164–189. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2016.1172404

Bowlby, J. (1973). “Affectional bonds: their nature and origin,” in Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation , ed. R. S. Weiss (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 38–52.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. Br. J. Psychiatry 130, 201–210. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a3133

Bowlby, J. (1988). A SECURE BASE Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development A Member of the. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.

Bowlby, J. (1989). The Making & Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Routledge.

Brashier, R. C. (1994). Disinheritance and the modern family. Case West. Reserve L. Rev. 83:121.

Brashier, R. C. (1996). Protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana stand alone? Repository citation protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana Stand Alone? Louis. L. Rev. 57.

Braxton-Davis, P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Sch. J. 14, 5–12.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev. Psychol. 28, 759–775. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Briggs, S., and Whittaker, A. (2018). Protecting Children from Faith-Based Abuse through Accusations of Witchcraft and Spirit Possession: Understanding Contexts and Informing Practice. Br. J. Soc. Work 48, 2157–2175. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcx155

Brislin, R. W., and Lewis, S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: replication. Psychol. Rep. 22, 976–976. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3.976

Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P. (1954). Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage , 1st Edn. New York, NY: Lippincott.

Burkett, J. P., and Young, L. J. (2012). The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction. Psychopharmacology 224, 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s00213-012-2794-x

Buss, D. M., and Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 559–570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559

Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24, 317–336. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Lorig, T. S., Norris, C. J., Rickett, E., and Nusbaum, H. (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 650–661. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.650

Canterberry, M., and Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment and Caregiving Functions, Interactions, and Implications. Available online at: https://gillab.ku.edu/sites/gillab.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/canterberrygillathchp14.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020).

Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., and Jaffe, K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Pers. Relat. 3, 257–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x

Carroll, B. A., and Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 17, 79–89. doi: 10.2307/40216667

Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23, 779–818.

Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65, 81–93. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

Ching Hei, K., and David, M. K. (2018). How love is perceived by malaysian malay children. Int. J. Linguist. Lit. Transl. 1, 80–104.

Chinomona, E., and Maziriri, E. (2017). The influence of brand trust, brand familiarity and brand experience on brand attachment: a case of consumers in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 9, 69–81.

Chinomona, R. (2013). The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, Trust And Attachment In South Africa. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 12, 1303–1316. doi: 10.19030/iber.v12i10.8138

Cho, E. (2011). Development of a Brand Image Scale and the Impact of Lovemarks on Brand Equity. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Clark, M. S., and Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 12–24. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12

Clark, M. S., and Monin, J. K. (2006). “Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love,” in The New Psychology of Love , eds R. J. Sternberg and K. Weis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), 200–221.

Collins, N. L., and Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 1053–1073.

Collisson, B., and Howell, J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. J. Soc. Psychol. 154, 384–400. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2014.914882

Cook, K. S. (2003). Trust in Society. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Costa, D. L., and Kahn, M. E. (2003a). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist’s perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1, 103–111. doi: 10.1017/S1537592703000082

Costa, D. L., and Kahn, M. E. (2003b). Understanding the American Decline in Social Capital, 1952-1998. Kyklos 56, 17–46. doi: 10.1111/1467-6435.00208

Cronk, L. (1993). Parental favoritism toward daughters. Am. Sci. 81, 272–279. doi: 10.2307/29774922

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., and Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 68, 361–371.

De Boer, A., Van Buel, E. M., and Ter Horst, G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: a neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience 201, 114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.017

de Paúl, J., and Domenech, L. (2000). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential in adolescent mothers: a longitudinal study. Child Abuse Negl. 24, 701–713.

Dew, J. P., and Dakin, J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. J. Financial Ther. 2:7. doi: 10.4148/jft.v2i1.1414

Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 22, 1–10. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.1

Elbedweihy, A. M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M. H., and Elsharnouby, T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. J. Bus. Res. 69, 2901–2910. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.059

Erciş, A., Ünal, S., Candan, F. B., and Yıldırım, H. (2012). The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand commitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58, 1395–1404. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1124

Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., and Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 15, 98–105. doi: 10.1108/10610420610658938

Esch, T., and Stefano, G. B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 26, 175–192. doi: 10.2174/157340005774575037

Feeney, B. C., and Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult Intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 972–994. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972

Feeney, J. A., and Noller, P. (1990). Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 281–291. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.010

Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Pers. Relat. 1, 309–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.x

Feldman, R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 80–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.007

Fisher, H. (2005). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.

Fisher, H., Aron, A., and Brown, L. L. (2005). Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J. Comp. Neurol. 493, 58–62. doi: 10.1002/cne.20772

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., and Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2173–2186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., Strong, G., and Brown, L. L. (2002a). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: a hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 23(Suppl. 4), 92–97.

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., and Brown, L. L. (2002b). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Arch. Sex. Behav. 31, 413–419.

Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., and Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. J. Neurophysiol. 104, 51–60. doi: 10.1152/jn.00784.2009

Fitzpatrick, J., and Lafontaine, M.-F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Pers. Relat. 24, 640–662. doi: 10.1111/pere.12203

Foster, F. H. (2001). The family paradigm of inheritance law, 80 N.C. N. C. L. Rev. 80, 12–13.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24, 343–373.

Frei, J. R., and Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Pers. Relat. 9, 121–139. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00008

Freud, S., and Rieff, P. (1997). Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Gaines, S. O. (1994). Exchange of respect-denying behaviors among male-female friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 11, 5–24. doi: 10.1177/0265407594111001

Gaines, S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 13, 241–261. doi: 10.1177/0265407596132005

Garg, R., Mukherjee, J., Biswas, S., and Kataria, A. (2016). An investigation into the concept of brand love and its proximal and distal covariates. J. Relat. Mark. 15, 135–153. doi: 10.1080/15332667.2016.1209047

Giles, J. (2015). Sexual attraction: the psychology of allure. Praeger 351, 23–25.

Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G. E., and Shaver, P. R. (2008). When sex primes love: subliminal sexual priming motivates relationship goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1057–1069. doi: 10.1177/0146167208318141

Gomillion, S., Gabriel, S., and Murray, S. L. (2014). A friend of yours is no friend of mine. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5, 636–643. doi: 10.1177/1948550614524447

Gottman, J. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. J. Fam. Psychol. 7, 57–75. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57

Gottman, J. (1994). What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-Based Marital Therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Grabill, C. M., and Kent, K. A. K. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Pers. Relat. 7, 363–378.

Graham, J. M., and Christiansen, K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: a reliability generalization meta-analysis. Pers. Relat. 16, 49–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.x

Grant-Jacob, J. A. (2016). Love at first sight. Front. Psychol. 7:1113. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01113

Grote, N. K., and Frieze, I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Pers. Relat. 1, 275–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00066.x

Gu, R., Huang, W., Camilleri, J., Xu, P., Wei, P., Eickhoff, S. B., et al. (2019). Love is analogous to money in human brain: COORDINATE-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 100, 108–128. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017

Guéguen, N., and Lamy, L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness. Swiss J. Psychol. 71, 157–160. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000083

Guttmann, J., and Rosenberg, M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and children’s adjustment: a comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. Educ. Psychol. 23, 457–472. doi: 10.1080/01443410303213

Ha, H.-Y., and Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. J. Consum. Behav. 4, 438–452. doi: 10.1002/cb.29

Ha, T., Overbeek, G., and Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: an experimental study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39, 1063–1071. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z

Hagen, E. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20, 325–359.

Halloran, T. (2014). The Eight Phases of Brand Love. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2014/02/the-eight-phases-of-brand-love (accessed February 22, 2020).

Harlow, H. F. (1958). Classics in the History of Psychology. New York, NY: York University.

Haskett, M. E., Johnson, C. A., and Miller, J. W. (1994). Individual differences in risk of child abuse by adolescent mothers: assessment in the perinatal period. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35, 461–476.

Hatfield, E., Brinton, C., and Cornelius, J. (1989). Passionate love and anxiety in young adolescents. Motiv. Emot. 13, 271–289. doi: 10.1007/BF00995539

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2, 96–99. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953

Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. J. Adolesc. 9, 383–410.

Hay, E. L., Fingerman, K. L., and Lefkowitz, E. S. (2007). The experience of worry in parent–adult child relationships. Pers. Relat. 14, 605–622. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00174.x

Hazan, C., and Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 511–524.

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 392–402. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 784–794.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., and Zacchilli, T. L. (2011). Respect and love in romantic relationships. Actas Investig. Psicol. 1, 316–329.

Hendrick, S. S., and Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10, 459–466. doi: 10.1177/0265407593103011

Hendrick, S. S., and Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23, 881–899. doi: 10.1177/0265407506070471

Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., and Logue, E. M. (2010). Respect and the family. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2, 126–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00046.x

Honari, B., and Saremi, A. A. (2015). The study of relationship between attachment styles and obsessive love style. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 165, 152–159. doi: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.12.617

Hooks, P. J. (1990). The real mother-issues in adoption. Jefferson J. Psychiatry 8:8. doi: 10.29046/JJP.008.2.005

Huang, S.-M., Fang, S.-R., Fang, S.-C., and Huang, C.-C. (2016). The influences of brand benefits on brand loyalty: intermediate mechanisms. Aust. J. Manage. 41, 141–160. doi: 10.1177/0312896214553516

Hughes, D. A. (1999). Adopting children with attachment problems. Child Welf. 78, 541–560.

Jin, W., Xiang, Y., and Lei, M. (2017). The deeper the love, the deeper the hate. Front. Psychol. 8:1940. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940

Karandashev, V. (2015). Unit 5 social psychology and culture subunit 4 interpersonal and intergroup relations article 2 6-1-2015 recommended citation Karandashev. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 5. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1135

Karandashev, V., and Fata, B. (2014). Change in physical attraction in early romantic relationships. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 8, 257–267. doi: 10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.167

Kim, C. K., Han, D., and Park, S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 43, 195–206. doi: 10.1111/1468-5884.00177

Kim-Spoon, J., Longo, G. S., and McCullough, M. E. (2012). Adolescents who are less religious than their parents are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symptoms: the mediating role of parent-adolescent relationship quality. J. Fam. Psychol. 26, 636–641. doi: 10.1037/a0029176

Klaus, M. H., Jerauld, R., Kreger, N. C., McAlpine, W., Steffa, M., and Kennell, J. H. (1972). Maternal attachment. N. Engl. J. Med. 286, 460–463. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197203022860904

Kunce, L. J., and Shaver, P. R. (1994). “An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships,” in Advances in Personal Relationships, Attachment Processes in Adulthood , Vol. 5, eds Bartholomew and D. Perlman (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers), 205–237.

Laborde, N. D., vanDommelen-Gonzalez, E., and Minnis, A. M. (2014). Trust - that’s a big one: intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Cult. Health Sex. 16, 1009–1022. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2014.921837

LaFollette, H., and Graham, G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 3, 3–18. doi: 10.1177/0265407586031001

Larzelere, R. E., and Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42, 595–604. doi: 10.2307/351903

Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., and Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 314–323. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314

Laurenceau, J.-P., Feldman Barrett, L., and Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process& quot; the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1238–1251.

Lauricella, A. M. (2009). Why do Mommy and Daddy Love You More? An Investigation of Parental Favoritism from an Evolutionary Perspective. Available online at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1250869200/inline (accessed February 22, 2020).

Lindo, J. M., Schaller, J., and Hansen, B. (2013). Economic Downturns and Child Abuse. NBER Working Paper No. 18994. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Lindsey, D., and Sarah, B. (2010). Interpreting honor crimes: the institutional disregard towards female victims of family violence in the Middle East. Int. J. Criminol. Sociol. Theory 3.

Luchies, L. B., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Eastwick, P. W., Coolsen, M. K., and Finkel, E. J. (2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 673–694. doi: 10.1037/a0031054

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Luo, S., and Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: similarity. Reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. J. Personal. 77, 933–964. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x

Lutz-Zois, C. J., Bradley, A. C., Mihalik, J. L., and Moorman-Eavers, E. R. (2006). Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: an idiographic approach. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23, 865–880. doi: 10.1177/0265407506068267

Mann, J. (1992). “Nurturance or negligence: maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm twins,” in The Adapted Mind , eds J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 367–390.

Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Rini, C., Fox, K., Goldstein, L., and Grana, G. (2004). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: the role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. J. Fam. Psychol. 18, 589–599. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589

Masuda, M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs? Jpn. Psychol. Res. 45, 25–37. doi: 10.1111/1468-5884.00030

Mathes, E. W., and Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49, 23–31. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23

McKelvie, S. J., and Matthews, S. J. (1976). Effects of physical attractiveness and favourableness of character on liking. Psychol. Rep. 38, 1223–1230. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1223

Meisenzahl, J. (2017). Correlation of Brand Experience and Brand Love Using the Example of FlixBus. Master’s thesis, Seinajok University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki.

Meyers, S. A., and Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: the difference a preposition makes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23, 347–362. doi: 10.1177/0146167297234002

Mikulincer, M. (2006). “Attachment, caregiving, and sex within romantic relationships a behavioral systems perspective,” in Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex , eds M. Mikulincer, and G. S. Goodman (New York, NY: Guilford Publications), 23–44.

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., and Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 25, 889–922. doi: 10.1177/0265407508096700

Moreland, R. L., and Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18, 395–415. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90062-2

Morris, D. (1982). “Attachment and intimacy,” in Intimacy , eds M. Fischer, and G. Stricter (Boston, MA: Springer), 305–323. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-4160-4_19

Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: a test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22, 561–584. doi: 10.1177/0265407505054524

Neto, F. (2012). Compassionate love for a romantic partner, love styles and subjective well-being. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 6, 23–39. doi: 10.5964/ijpr.v6i1.88

Noriuchi, M., and Kikuchi, Y. (2013). [Neural basis of maternal behavior]. Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi 115, 630–634.

Noriuchi, M., Kikuchi, Y., and Senoo, A. (2008). The functional neuroanatomy of maternal love: mother’s response to infant’s attachment behaviors. Biol. Psychiatry 63, 415–423. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.018

Norton, M., Frost, J., Ariely, D., Reis, H., Maniaci, M., Caprariello, P., et al. (2015). When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 3–19. doi: 10.1177/1745691614561682

Oleson, M. D. (1996). Adolescents’ Recollection of Early Physical Contact: Implications for Attachment and Intimacy. Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Orosz, G., Szekeres, Á., Kiss, Z. G., Farkas, P., and Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6:214. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214

Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., and Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Fam. Relat. 58, 91–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x

Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., and Eisingerich, A. B. (2016). Brand Admiration: Building a Business People Love , 1st Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., and Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74, 1–17.

Pascual, C. O., and Académico, C. (2015). María del Rosario Zulaica López TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO Brand Awareness and Brand Love. Is the too-of-Mind the Most Loved On? An Application to Fashion Retailers. Available online at: https://biblioteca.unirioja.es/tfe_e/TFE001238.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020).

Pedeliento, G., Andreini, D., Bergamaschi, M., and Salo, J. (2016). Brand and product attachment in an industrial context: the effects on brand loyalty. Ind. Mark. Manage. 53, 194–206. doi: 10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2015.06.007

Péloquin, K., Brassard, A., Delisle, G., and Bédard, M.-M. (2013). Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual satisfaction. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 45, 185–195. doi: 10.1037/a0033514

Rauschnabel, P. A., and Ahuvia, A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love. J. Brand Manage. 21, 372–395. doi: 10.1057/bm.2014.14

Regan, P. C., and Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we Know about Human Sexual Desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452233727

Reis, H. T., and Shaver, P. (1988). “Intimacy as an interpersonal process,” in Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions , eds S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, and B. M. Montgomery (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons), 367–389.

Rempel, J. K., and Holmes, J. G. (1985). Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 95–112. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95

Rodriguez, L. M., DiBello, A. M., Øverup, C. S., and Neighbors, C. (2015). The price of distrust: trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse. Partner Abuse 6, 298–319. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298

Rohde, P. A., Atzwanger, K., Butovskaya, M., Lampert, A., Mysterud, I., Sanchez-Andres, A., et al. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of the family The effects of birth order and sex. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24, 261–276. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00033-3

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16, 265–273.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 16, 172–186. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Rusbult, C. E., Bissonnette, V. L., Arriaga, X. B., Cox, C. L., and Weiss, R. L. (1998). “Accommodation processes during the early years of marriage,” in The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction , ed. T. N. Bradbury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 74–113. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.005

Russo, B., Boess, S., and Hekkert, P. (2011). ‘What’s love got to do with it?’ the experience of love in person-product relationships. Des. J. 14, 8–27. doi: 10.2752/175630610X12877385838687

Saegert, S., Swap, W., and Zajonc, R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 234–242. doi: 10.1037/h0033965

Sailor, J. L. (2013). A phenomenological study of falling out of romantic love. Qual. Rep. 18, 1–22.

Salazar, L. R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between compassion, closeness, trust, and social support in same-sex friendships. J. Happiness Well Being 3, 15–29.

Salmon, C. A., Shackelford, T. K., and Michalski, R. L. (2012). Birth order, sex of child, and perceptions of parental favoritism. 52, 357–362. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.033

Seshadri, K. G. (2016). The neuroendocrinology of love. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 20, 558–563. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.183479

Setyawan, A. A., and Kussudiyarsana, I. (2015). Brand trust and brand loyalty, an empirical study in indonesia consumers. Br. J. Mark. Stud. 4, 37–47.

Siennick, S. E. (2013). Still the Favorite? Parents’ differential treatment of siblings entering young adulthood. J. Marriage Fam. 75, 981–994.

Simpson, J. A. (2007). Foundations of Interpersonal Trust: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford.

Singh, R., Goh, A., Sankaran, K., and Bhullar, N. (2016). Similarity and liking effects on interpersonal attraction: test of the two-dimensional trust-respect model. Psychologia 59, 1–18. doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2016.1

Singh, R., Wegener, D. T., Sankaran, K., Singh, S., Lin, P. K. F., Seow, M. X., et al. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32, 829–850. doi: 10.1177/0265407515576993

Sinha, A. K. (2017). Impact of product innovation in building brand equity on consumer’s choice with a focus on brand resonance. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 8, 482–487. doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.6.775

Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., and Cate, R. (2006). “Sexuality in close relationships,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , eds A. L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 463–482. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.026

Sprecher, S., and Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22, 629–651. doi: 10.1177/0265407505056439

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., and Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2, 243–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x

Steinberg, L. D., Catalano, R., and Dooley, D. (1981). Economic antecedents of child abuse and neglect. Child Dev. 52, 975–985. doi: 10.2307/1129102

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93, 119–135. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27, 313–335. doi: 10.1007/s10936-019-09661-y

Sternberg, R. J., and Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47, 312–329. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.312

Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., Sen, S., Howard, B. K., and Chair, W. B. (2008). Drivers of consumer-brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 35.

Suitor, J. J., and Pillemer, K. (2007). Mothers’ favoritism in later life. Res. Aging 29, 32–55. doi: 10.1177/0164027506291750

Sullivan, R., Perry, R., Sloan, A., Kleinhaus, K., and Burtchen, N. (2011). Infant bonding and attachment to the caregiver: insights from basic and clinical science. Clin. Perinatol. 38, 643–655. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.011

Sykes, R. E., Larntz, K., and Fox, J. C. (1976). Proximity and similarity effects on frequency of interaction in a class of naval recruits. Sociometry 39, 263. doi: 10.2307/2786519

Tedam, P. (2014). Witchcraft branding and the abuse of African children in the UK: causes, effects and professional intervention. Early Child Dev. Care 184, 1403–1414. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2014.901015

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., and Whan Park, C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 15, 77–91. doi: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10

Tobore, T. (2018). On the Principles of Social Gravity: How Human Systems Work, from the Family to the United Nations. Delaware, DE: Vernon Press.

Towner, S. L., Dolcini, M. M., and Harper, G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban african american adolescents: patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth Soc. 47, 343–373. doi: 10.1177/0044118X12462591

Turgut, M. U., and Gultekin, B. (2015). The critical role of brand love in clothing brands. J. Bus. Econ. Finance 4:126. doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.201519963

Wetzel, C. G., and Insko, C. A. (1982). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18, 253–276. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90053-1

Whang, Y.-O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., and Zhang, H. (2004). “Falling in love with a product: the structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship,” in Advances in Consumer Research , eds B. E. Kahn, and M. F. Luce (Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research), 320–327.

Whitley, B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of sternberg’s triangular love scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10, 475–480. doi: 10.1177/0265407593103013

Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., and Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 942–966. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942

Wilson, S., Morse, J. M., and Penrod, J. (1998). Developing reciprocal trust in the caregiving relationship. Qual. Health Res. 8, 446–465. doi: 10.1177/104973239800800402

Yasin, M., and Shamim, A. (2013). Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-mouth. IOSR J. Bus. Manage. 7, 101–109.

Zarantonello, L., Romani, S., Grappi, S., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Brand hate. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 25, 11–25. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799

Zhou, L. (2017). The Aquila Digital Community How Visual Communication Strategies, Brand Familiarity, And Personal Relevance Influence Instagram Users’ Responses To Brand Content. Graphic Communications Commons. Available online at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertationshttps://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1435 (accessed February 22, 2020).

Zimmerman, K. J., Smith, J. M., Simonson, K., and Myers, B. W. (2015). Familial relationship outcomes of coming out as an atheist. Secular. Nonrelig. 4, 1–13. doi: 10.5334/snr.aw

Keywords : triangular theory of love, Romance, brand love, parental love, maternal love, Meaning of love, Definition of love, am I in love

Citation: Tobore TO (2020) Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Love: The Quadruple Theory. Front. Psychol. 11:862. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00862

Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 07 April 2020; Published: 19 May 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Tobore. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Tobore Onojighofia Tobore, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Filed under:

What science still can’t explain about love

People say they know what they’re looking for in a partner. Relationship experts say otherwise.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: What science still can’t explain about love

Tennesha Wood is a professional matchmaker but admits she can’t perfectly predict when a couple will hit it off. “People give me really specific descriptions,” Wood says. “They might say, ‘I want a 6-foot-tall Black man with nice teeth and a bald head.’”

Wood is the owner of The Broomlist , a matchmaker agency for Black professionals, and her clients will often tell her exactly whom they’re looking for. She’ll set up a date with someone who fits the description. “And they’re like, ‘Yeah, I just didn’t like that 6-foot-tall Black man,’” she says, laughing.

Matchmaking involves a lot of skills you might find in a therapist — sharp questions, active listening, steady coaching — but it is not a perfect science. “I guarantee I’ll introduce them to somebody that does fit the things that they’re looking for,” Wood says. “One thing I cannot predict and make happen is that initial chemistry.”

This is one of the great mysteries of life, and there’s a scientific sub-discipline devoted to it: relationship psychology. I started reporting this week’s episode of Unexplainable , Vox’s science podcast on unanswered questions, by simply asking relationship researchers: What don’t you understand about love?

It turns out they grapple with the same question as matchmakers, romance authors , poets, and many others. “The big mystery is — do you really know who you want?” says Dan Conroy-Beam , a University of California Santa Barbara psychologist who studies relationship formation.

The question seems simple, but it’s not trivial. A lot of time, energy, and heartache goes into finding solid relationships. “In a lot of senses, who you choose as a partner is the most important decision you’ll ever make,” Conroy-Beam says. “That’s going to affect your happiness, your health, and your overall well-being.”

Scientists don’t have all the answers, and they often disagree on which answers are even possible. But I found that their hypotheses — along with some advice from matchmakers and relationship coaches — can help us think through how love starts and how to maintain it once it’s found.

Our preferences can’t always predict attraction

In the 20th century, Conroy-Beam explains, scientists in his field kind of just trusted people’s stated preferences — for example, how tall, funny, or attractive they hoped their partner would be. The assumption was based on thin evidence, though. A questionnaire can ask participants to rate hypothetical dates, but that doesn’t tell you how the date is going to go.

In the 2000s, “scientists in this field were really starting to wonder, like, how useful this data was in the real world,” Conroy-Beam says. “So researchers turned to something that was pretty popular at the time, which was speed dating.”

Invented by a Los Angeles rabbi in the late ’90s, speed dating was kind of like Tinder in physical spaces — a way for singles to meet a lot of other singles and make snap judgments about them. Psychologists took notice of the trend and swiped right, so to speak. Speed dating is “a really nice invention for psychologists,” Conroy-Beam says, because it’s essentially an experiment that generates lots of data.

Psychologists started to publish studies . Before the dates, researchers could ask participants what they wanted in a partner; after, they could compare those notes with who they actually chose to go on more dates with. And then they could see: Was there any pattern?

“The answer turned out to mostly be no,” Conroy-Beam says, “much to a lot of people’s surprise.”

People who go on dates tend to make guesses based on what they like, says Paul Eastwick , a psychologist at the University of California Davis who also studies relationships. We might think, “I click really well with people who are interested in anime or people who are really interested in vegetarian cooking,” Eastwick explains. “The issue is that we really can’t find any evidence that any of those kinds of factors matter in terms of matching people.”

These speed dating studies have limitations. Even though they were set in the “real world,” outside of the lab, speed dating is just one of many ways that people meet. These studies, and much of the research discussed in this article, are also built on Western and American assumptions about dating. To grossly oversimplify, dating in the US tends to be individualistic (compared to cultures where families might play broader roles in matchmaking, for example).

“The research is also mega-dominated by cisgender, heterosexual people,” Conroy-Beam adds. “And there’s very little research on LGBTQ people or relationships, and that’s also something that really needs to change.”

Those reservations aside, the results of these studies did cause researchers to reevaluate their assumptions about how relationships form, and it split researchers into roughly two camps.

Broadly speaking, one group argues that compatibility is predictable or follows some patterns. The implication is that love is something we can find . The other group argues that love develops unpredictably, even chaotically — which also suggests that it can be built between people who don’t expect to be compatible.

Theory 1: Scientists can crack the code of love if they look hard enough

“I’ve heard people say, ‘Attraction is like an earthquake. You just can’t predict when it’s going to happen in advance. It’s inherently unpredictable,” Conroy-Beam explains. “Then there are some people — and this is a camp that I tend to fall into — that think people probably do roughly know what they want.”

Conroy-Beam still believes that people’s stated preferences can help predict whom they’d hit it off with. Our preferences might not match up perfectly with whom we decide to date in practice, but he thinks those preferences are still part of the mental software that guides us to a match. He suspects that as scientists look more closely, they will discover those preferences at work.

When we’re making dating decisions, Conroy-Beam says, most people aren’t filling out a mental scorecard. It’s not like we’re thinking to ourselves, well, this person scores six on attractiveness and a seven on humor, which adds up to a passing score and a second date. He thinks it’s more complicated and involves trade-offs. For instance, you might really want to be with someone who’s really smart, but you wouldn’t want to be with them if they were also really arrogant.

Wood sees this dynamic a lot. Her clients might say, “I want somebody who is educated, athletic, attractive, has really good family values,” Wood explains. “Let’s say it’s the case of a woman. I find her a man with all these qualities. I put her in front of the man. Let’s say the man is 5-foot-8 — and immediately, all of those other qualities she wanted seem to be less important because of this.”

When you make trade-offs in practice, you end up with someone who doesn’t look like your dream date, but your preferences got you there nonetheless. The system grows more complicated when you consider that everyone else is also processing their list of trade-offs. Conroy-Beam uses the term “mating market,” as if to suggest that we’re all buyers and sellers and each date is a negotiation. You can’t just choose a partner; they have to choose you back.

This hypothesis is hard to test in the real world, so for now, Conroy-Beam is trying to model it in his computer. His work is almost like a science fiction thought experiment come to life: Let’s say you take real-life happy couples, wipe their memories of ever meeting one another, and put them back into the world. If they meet again, do they hit it off? Is the love discovered again? If preferences matter and guide our decision-making, then there’s a good chance that the amnesiac love birds will find each other again. (If this reminds you of a Black Mirror episode, you’re not wrong .)

Conroy-Beam can’t wipe the minds of his study participants, but he can create mind-wiped versions of them in a computer. He first asks real-world couples lots of questions, individually — what they want in a partner, what their actual partner is like. “Once we have that information quantified, we can create a little simulated representation of you inside of our computers — avatars — that want all the same things as you have and also have all the same characteristics as you.”

He then puts these avatars in a computer program with other couples who have had their memories wiped. And then gets them flirting. “We can see what kinds of decisions actually do a good job of putting people back with their real-world partners,” he says. The idea is that, if he can craft a model that recreates something that exists in the real world, it will probably be onto something important.

In his best effort, his models put around 45 percent of the couples back together, and he says the couples that are put back together in the computer tend to be the happier ones in the real world. That gives him some hope that his models can lead to better predictions of who will hit it off with whom.

However, it’s one thing to recreate a couple that already exists in a computer simulation. It’s much harder to predict couples that don’t exist yet. That’s the next step. “We’re hoping to use our algorithm to take single people, run them through our simulations, and make recommendations,” he says. “We’ll see how well that does.”

Theory 2: Actually, love is chaos

Eastwick, the UC Davis psychologist, has a very different take. He doesn’t think it will ever be possible to accurately predict couples before they form. “It is very, very hard to study relationships before two people will officially call themselves a couple,” he says. It’s just too chaotic of a system.

He suspects that a lot of the course of an early relationship is the product of chance. In a chaotic system, small changes in starting conditions can lead to widely divergent paths later on.

When you’re looking at a happy couple, he says, it’s like looking at a chessboard in a game that’s 16 moves in. “Maybe a master could have predicted [the position of the pieces] from the first move, but most people can’t,” he says. There are often many paths the game can take to get to the same position. “It’s worth having some humility about the role of luck and chance in getting this couple to this point,” he says.

Starting a relationship is a process of saying yes to a series of choices: Do you want to go out on a date? Do you want to do this again? Bowling or movies? If your first date is ruined because a bad night of sleep leaves you grumpy and unreceptive to your date’s jokes, maybe you won’t bother going on a second.

“We’re pretty bad at studying unfolding choices over time, setting people on a path to something good or a path to something bad,” Eastwick says. “And it’s largely because we don’t have the data. We weren’t there in the beginning when you decided to start dating each other after barely knowing each other. ... These tools, we don’t exactly have.”

In Eastwick’s mind, the answer to Conroy-Beam’s thought experiment — would couples with their minds wiped find each other again? — is no.

“Take a happy couple and you wipe their minds, and there is a very good chance that you would get a very different outcome,” he says. “There is nothing about the truth of those two people, separately from each other, that does a very good job at predicting where they’re going to end up. It was about choices that they made along the way and the other chance circumstances.”

For Eastwick, the more interesting research question is less what gets a couple together, and more what keeps them together. “Compatibility comes from sort of a series of stacked-up choices that can’t be easily unwound,” he says.

Eastwick believes that love isn’t discovered between two people but grown. He suspects it has to do with setting up a “groove,” or patterns of behavior that reinforce the relationship. A groove can be support for one another’s career ambitions or nightly dinners together to reconnect after work, or something else — and what works in one relationship might not work for another.

He doesn’t pretend to know the secrets of compatibility. “We really have almost no ability to explain any of it,” Eastwick says. “It’s like the dark matter equivalent in relationship research. ... Where does compatibility come from? If it’s not about you and them, it has to be coming from something that is created along the way.”

Which theory do matchmakers and relationship coaches believe in?

Psychologists are hardly the only experts on love, so I was curious to ask matchmakers and relationship coaches this same question: Do people really know what they want? Are relationships discovered, or are they built?

They see a bit of both. Yes, people have a vague sense of what they want. But they owe it to themselves to investigate those desires further. “I think a lot of times people do not have clarity on what they want,” relationship coach Damona Hoffman says. But they’ll have the start of it. They’ll have a preference that needs to be unpacked further to reveal a core value they want to share in a partner.

Hoffman’s clients often say something like, “I met this person. How do I know if it’s going to work out?” In response, she says, “I can’t predict whether it’s going to work out, but I can tell you how to get clarity in your goals.”

For example, Hoffman says a client will say, “I have to be with someone Jewish.” Why? If the client isn’t particularly religious, maybe they should consider whether it’s more about living up to a family’s expectations. “Then we go to the root of that,” she says. “Why do your parents feel that that is important, and is that a value that you still hold?”

If it’s about wanting to pass on a tradition to eventual children, that’s a helpful core value to identify, too — and it might lead to a different preference than “I want someone who is Jewish.”

The relationship experts I spoke to agreed that initial chemistry is hard to predict. But they told me that, ultimately, it might not matter as much as these shared values.

“It has a huge element of luck and chance,” Hannah Orenstein , a former matchmaker and current dating journalist, says of forming relationships. “I think if you observe two people on a first date, I don’t think that you can predict long-term success at all, because you’re just scratching the surface of these people. You can’t get an entire person’s life story and values and what they’re looking for in an hour or two hours. But I think if you track that couple for six months, I think you would have a pretty good understanding.”

If there’s anything that everyone agrees on, it’s that a good relationship takes time. “There’s no way I can guarantee feeling butterflies, but I always encourage people to go on a second date,” Wood says. “If you feel like this person shares your values and you have the things in common that are important to you, give it a second date.”

Meradith Hoddinott contributed reporting. Listen to the full Unexplainable episode on Spotify , Apple Podcasts , or wherever you find podcasts .

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

The unexpected joy of the Squirrel Census

What science is just starting to understand about periods, the dairy industry really, really doesn’t want you to say “bird flu in cows”, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

• Relationships

10 Research-Based Truths About People in Love

What we've learned so far about love and the brain..

Posted November 19, 2013 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• Why Relationships Matter
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

Life without love is like a tree without blossoms or fruit. — Khalil Gibran

Love is one of the most important, yet most misunderstood emotions we experience. Human brains are naturally wired for connection with others, and we experience loneliness and rejection as painful threats to survival.

For both biological and cultural reasons, many of us believe we need a lasting love relationship to be truly fulfilled. Yet, in reality, love is not necessarily a lasting, unchanging state. Long-time love is not automatic, but takes hard work, unselfishness, and a willingness to be vulnerable.

Below are 10 science-based facts to help you understand what love really is—and isn’t:

1. Love is different than passion or lust.

Physical attraction is an important part of love for most of us, but emotional love is different than lust. This is why one-night stands and alcohol -fueled hookups don’t tend to lead to long-term relationships. Studies that scan brains in real time show that we manifest lust in the motivation /reward areas of the brains, while love lights up the regions connected to caring and empathy.

2. Love is both a momentary feeling and a long-term state of mind.

There's something to the cliché of two hearts beating together as one: New research shows that we do experience love in the moment as a state of communion. In this moment of deep connection, people in love mirror each other’s facial expressions, gestures, and even physiological rhythms. But love can also be a lasting mental and emotional state in which we care deeply for each other's wellbeing, feel moved by each other's pain, and are motivated to help relieve each other's suffering.

3. Building lasting relationships takes work.

A meta-analysis of the best long-term studies of loving relationships highlight some behavior patterns that couples with lasting love share: Partners think of each other positively when they are not together; they support each other’s personal growth and development; and they undertake shared experiences in which they can learn and expand themselves.

4. We can increase our capacity to love.

Research on mindfulness and self-compassion show that practicing these strategies regularly can develop our brains to be more positive and empathetic in a matter of months. Monks who regularly practice compassion meditation have a different rhythm of brain alpha waves than beginning meditation adherents, or the average non-meditating person. Mindfulness and compassion meditations increase activity in brain centers connected with empathy and positive emotions, decrease activation of our fear centers, and make our brains more interconnected —a trait associated with the secure attachment pattern.

5. It's not just in your head.

A large body of research shows that loving connection is beneficial to long-term physical health—and loneliness and a lack of social connection have been shown to shorten our lifespans as much as smoking . (Just being a member of a church, synagogue, or community group lessens this effect.) For men in particular, marriage improves long-term health—and the death of a spouse is a risk factor for earlier death. We don’t know if this is because wives encourage their spouses to take care of their health, or if it's directly related to their emotional and physical connection.

6. If we focus on love, we can enhance it.

When we deliberately focus our attention on our feelings and actions toward a loved one, we begin a positive reciprocal spiral of mutual appreciation and happiness . Let’s face it: We all want to be thought about, cared for, and appreciated. Research also shows that expressing gratitude in words or actions actually creates positive emotions in the giver as well as the receiver.

7. It is not a fixed quantity.

Loving one person, even a lot, does not mean you have less to give to others. In fact, the opposite is true: Love is a capacity you can build within yourself through mental concentration , emotional engagement, and caring actions. When we focus on and savor our loving feelings for one person, the internal feelings of satisfaction and connection we experience can motivate us to be more loving in general.

8. It is not unconditional.

One of the preconditions for loving feelings is a sense of safety and trust. In order to connect lovingly and empathically, your prefrontal cortex has to send a signal to the amygdala (the brain’s alarm center) to switch off your automatic “fight or flight” response. People who endured childhood trauma , neglect, abuse, or other experiences that threaten secure attachment may have a harder time switching off the “fight-flight-freeze” system—or feeling safe enough to love.

This reticence can be overcome with therapy or, sometimes, by a partner who repeatedly demonstrates trustworthiness and care. (However, if your repeated expressions of care are not reciprocated by any heart-softening in your partner, it could be time to consider moving on.)

9. It is contagious.

Expressions of caring, compassion, and empathy can inspire these feelings in others. This may be why leaders such as the Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandela inspire followers to be their best selves—and help them calm down “fight or flight.”

10. Love is not necessarily forever, but it can be.

In Sonnet 116, Shakespeare wrote that “Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds.” We now know that fixed, unchanging love is possible, but not the norm. In fact, some theorists even question the idea of a fixed, unchanging “self"—we are not the same person today as we were 10 years ago. Life experience can alter our biology, thought patterns, and behavior, and relationships may be challenged when one person’s needs change or both partners grow in different directions.

That being said, researcher Art Aron and colleagues at Stony Brook University have shown that, when thinking about their partners, the brain scans of a minority of people reporting long-term, intense love for their partners look the same as do the scans of individuals who report being newly in love.

Follow Dr. Greenberg on Twitter @drmelanieg

Acevedo, B.P., Aron A., Fisher, H. E, & Brown, L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 145-159. 


Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. (2000). Couples shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273-283. 


Barbara, L. Frederickson (2013) Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become. Hudson Street Press.

Melanie Greenberg, Ph.D. , is a licensed clinical psychologist and life coach practicing internationally via distance technologies. She is a former professor, national speaker, and the author of The Stress Proof Brain .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The weird science of love

Love often feels inexplicable, the most unpredictable of forces. Using science, math and methodical observation, these speakers offer clues to understanding it.

The brain in love

The mathematics of love

How I hacked online dating

The smelly mystery of the human pheromone

Why we love, why we cheat

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Know When You Love Someone

Baby don't hurt me

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Laura Porter

• How Do You Know You're Feeling Love for Someone?

Is Love Influenced By Biology or Culture?

How to show love to another person.

• Tips for Cultivating

Negative Emotions Associated With Love

Take the love quiz.

When it comes to love, some people would say it is one of the most important human emotions . Love is a set of emotions and behaviors characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment. It involves care, closeness, protectiveness, attraction, affection, and trust.

Many say it's not an emotion in the way we typically understand them, but an essential physiological drive. 

Love is a physiological motivation such as hunger, thirst, sleep, and sex drive.

There are countless songs, books, poems, and other works of art about love (you probably have one in mind as we speak!). Yet despite being one of the most studied behaviors, it is still the least understood. For example, researchers debate whether love is a biological or cultural phenomenon.

How Do You Know You're Feeling Love for Someone?

What are some of the signs of love? Researchers have made distinctions between feelings of liking and loving another person.

Zick Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving

According to psychologist Zick Rubin, romantic love is made up of three elements:

• Attachment : Needing to be with another person and desiring physical contact and approval
• Caring : Valuing the other person's happiness and needs as much as your own
• Intimacy : Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person

Based on this view of romantic love, Rubin developed two questionnaires to measure these variables, known as Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving . While people tend to view people they like as pleasant, love is marked by being devoted, possessive, and confiding in one another. 

Are There Different Types of Love?

Yup—not all forms of love are the same, and psychologists have identified a number of different types of love that people may experience.

These types of love include:

• Friendship : This type of love involves liking someone and sharing a certain degree of intimacy.
• Infatuation : This form of love often involves intense feelings of attraction without a sense of commitment; it often takes place early in a relationship and may deepen into a more lasting love.
• Passionate love : This type of love is marked by intense feelings of longing and attraction; it often involves an idealization of the other person and a need to maintain constant physical closeness.
• Compassionate/companionate love : This form of love is marked by trust, affection, intimacy, and commitment.
• Unrequited love : This form of love happens when one person loves another who does not return those feelings.

Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love

Specifically, psychologist Robert Sternberg developed his well-regarded triangular theory of love in the early 1980s. Much research has built upon his work and demonstrated its universality across cultures.

Sternberg broke love into three components—intimacy, passion, and commitment—that interact to produce seven types of love .

Love is most likely influenced by both biology and culture. Although hormones and biology are important, the way we express and experience love is also influenced by our own conceptions of love.

Some researchers suggest that love is a basic human emotion just like happiness or anger, while others believe that it is a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due to social pressures and expectations. 

Research has found that romantic love exists in all cultures, which suggests that love has a strong biological component. It is a part of human nature to seek out and find love. However, culture can significantly affect how individuals think about, experience, and display romantic love.

Is Love an Emotion?

Psychologists, sociologists, and researchers disagree somewhat on the characterization of love. Many say it's not an emotion in the way we typically understand them, but an essential physiological drive. On the other hand, the American Psychological Association defines it as "a complex emotion." Still, others draw a distinction between primary and secondary emotions and put love in the latter category, maintaining that it derives from a mix of primary emotions.

There is no single way to practice love. Every relationship is unique, and each person brings their own history and needs. Some things that you can do to show love to the people you care about include:

• Be willing to be vulnerable.
• Be willing to forgive.
• Do your best, and be willing to apologize when you make mistakes.
• Let them know that you care.
• Listen to what they have to say.
• Prioritize spending time with the other person.
• Reciprocate loving gestures and acts of kindness.
• Recognize and acknowledge their good qualities.
• Share things about yourself.
• Show affection.
• Make it unconditional.

How Love Impacts Your Mental Health

Love, attachment, and affection have an important impact on well-being and quality of life. Loving relationships have been linked to:

• Lower risk of heart disease
• Decreased risk of dying after a heart attack
• Better health habits
• Increased longevity
• Lower stress levels
• Less depression
• Lower risk of diabetes

Tips for Cultivating Love

Lasting relationships are marked by deep levels of trust, commitment, and intimacy. Some things that you can do to help cultivate loving relationships include:

• Try loving-kindness meditation. Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is a technique often used to promote self-acceptance and reduce stress, but it has also been shown to promote a variety of positive emotions and improve interpersonal relationships. LKM involves meditating while thinking about a person you love or care about, concentrating on warm feelings and your desire for their well-being and happiness.
• Communicate. Everyone's needs are different. The best way to ensure that your needs and your loved one's needs are met is to talk about them. Helping another person feel loved involves communicating that love to them through words and deeds. Some ways to do this include showing that you care, making them feel special, telling them they are loved , and doing things for them.
• Tackle conflict in a healthy way . Never arguing is not necessarily a sign of a healthy relationship—more often than not, it means that people are avoiding an issue rather than discussing it. Rather than avoid conflict, focus on hashing out issues in ways that are healthy in order to move a relationship forward in a positive way. 

As Shakespeare said, the course of love never did run smooth. Love can vary in intensity and can change over time. It is associated with a range of positive emotions, including happiness, excitement, life satisfaction, and euphoria, but it can also result in negative emotions such as jealousy and stress.

No relationship is perfect, so there will always be problems, conflicts, misunderstandings, and disappointments that can lead to distress or heartbreak.

Some of the potential pitfalls of experiencing love include:

• Increased stress
• Obsessiveness
• Possessiveness

While people are bound to experience some negative emotions associated with love, it can become problematic if those negative feelings outweigh the positive or if they start to interfere with either person's ability to function normally. Relationship counseling can be helpful in situations where couples need help coping with miscommunication, stress, or emotional issues.

History of Love

Only fairly recently has love become the subject of science. In the past, the study of love was left to "the creative writer to depict for us the necessary conditions for loving," according to Sigmund Freud . "In consequence, it becomes inevitable that science should concern herself with the same materials whose treatment by artists has given enjoyment to mankind for thousands of years," he added.  

Research on love has grown tremendously since Freud's remarks. But early explorations into the nature and reasons for love drew considerable criticism. During the 1970s, U.S. Senator William Proxmire railed against researchers who were studying love and derided the work as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Despite early resistance, research has revealed the importance of love in both child development and adult health.  

Our fast and free love quiz can help you determine if what you've got is the real deal or simply a temporary fling or infatuation.

Burunat E. Love is not an emotion .  Psychology . 2016;07(14):1883. doi:10.4236/psych.2016.714173

Karandashev V. A Cultural Perspective on Romantic Love .  ORPC. 2015;5(4):1-21. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1135

Rubin Z. Lovers and Other Strangers: The Development of Intimacy in Encounters and Relationships: Experimental studies of self-disclosure between strangers at bus stops and in airport departure lounges can provide clues about the development of intimate relationships . American Scientist. 1974;62(2):182-190.

Langeslag SJ, van Strien JW. Regulation of Romantic Love Feelings: Preconceptions, Strategies, and Feasibility .  PLoS One . 2016;11(8):e0161087. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161087

• Sorokowski P, Sorokowska A, Karwowski M, et al.  Universality of the triangular theory of love: adaptation and psychometric properties of the triangular love scale in 25 countries .  J Sex Res . 2021;58(1):106-115. doi:10.1080/00224499.2020.1787318

American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology .

Wong CW, Kwok CS, Narain A, et al. Marital status and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis .  Heart . 2018;104(23):1937‐1948. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313005

Robards J, Evandrou M, Falkingham J, Vlachantoni A. Marital status, health and mortality .  Maturitas . 2012;73(4):295‐299. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.08.007

Teo AR, Choi H, Valenstein M. Social Relationships and Depression: Ten-Year Follow-Up from a Nationally Representative Study . PLoS One . 2013;8(4):e62396. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062396

Roberson PNE, Fincham F. Is relationship quality linked to diabetes risk and management?: It depends on what you look at . Fam Syst Health. 2018;36(3):315-326. doi:10.1037/fsh0000336

He X, Shi W, Han X, Wang N, Zhang N, Wang X. The interventional effects of loving-kindness meditation on positive emotions and interpersonal interactions .  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat . 2015;11:1273‐1277. doi:10.2147/NDT.S79607

Freud S. The Freud Reader . New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1995.

Winston R, Chicot R. The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children . London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2016;8(1):12-14. doi:10.1080/17571472.2015.1133012

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

What is love?

Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Gery Karantzas receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is the founder of relationshipscienceonline.com

Deakin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

From songs and poems to novels and movies, romantic love is one of the most enduring subjects for artworks through the ages. But what about the science?

Historical, cultural and even evolutionary evidence suggests love existed during ancient times and across many parts of the world. Romantic love has been found to exist in 147 of 166 cultures looked at in one study.

The complexity of love has much to do with how people experience it differently and how it can change over time.

Read more: Friday essay: finding spaces for love

Like, love, or ‘in love’?

Psychological research over the past 50 years has investigated the differences between liking someone, loving someone and being “in love”.

Liking is described as having positive thoughts and feelings towards someone and finding that person’s company rewarding. We often also experience warmth and closeness towards the people we like. In some instances we choose to be emotionally intimate with these people.

When we love someone we experience the same positive thoughts and experiences as when we like a person. But we also experience a deep sense of care and commitment towards that person.

Being “ in love ” includes all the above but also involves feelings of sexual arousal and attraction. However, research into people’s own views of love suggests that not all love is the same.

Passionate vs companionate love

Romantic love consists of two types: passionate and companionate love. Most romantic relationships, whether they be heterosexual or same sex , involve both these parts.

Passionate love is what people typically consider being “in love”. It includes feelings of passion and an intense longing for someone, to the point they might obsessively think about wanting to be in their arms.

The second part is known as companionate love . It’s not felt as intensely, but it’s complex and connects feelings of emotional intimacy and commitment with a deep attachment toward the romantic partner.

How does love change over time?

Research looking at changes in romantic love over time typically finds that although passionate love starts high, it declines over the course of a relationship.

There are various reasons for this.

As partners learn more about each other and become more confident in the long-term future of the relationship, routines develop. The opportunities to experience novelty and excitement can also decline, as can the frequency of sexual activity . This can cause passionate love to subside.

Although a reduction in passionate love is not experienced by all couples, various studies report approximately 20-40% of couples experience this downturn. Of couples who have been married in excess of ten years, the steepest downturn is most likely to occur over the second decade .

Life events and transitions can also make it challenging to experience passion. People have competing responsibilities which affect their energy and limit the opportunities to foster passion. Parenthood is an example of this.

Read more: Love by design: when science meets sex, lust, attraction and attachment

In contrast, companionate love is typically found to increase over time.

Although research finds most romantic relationships consist of both passionate and companionate love, it’s the absence or reductions in companionate love, moreso than passionate love, that can negatively affect the longevity of a romantic relationship.

But what’s the point of love?

Love is an emotion that keeps people bonded and committed to one another. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, love evolved to keep the parents of children together long enough for them to survive and reach sexual maturity .

Read more: What is this thing called love?

The period of childhood is much longer for humans than other species. As offspring rely on adults for many years to survive and to develop the skills and abilities needed for successful living, love is especially important for humans.

Without love, it’s difficult to see how the human species could have evolved .

A biological foundation too

Not only is there an evolutionary foundation to love, love is rooted in biology. Neurophysiological studies into romantic love show that people who are in the throes of passionate love experience increased activation in brain regions associated with reward and pleasure.

Read more: Love lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here's how to tell if yours will survive

In fact, the brain regions activated are the same as those activated by cocaine.

These regions release chemicals such as oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine, which produce feelings of happiness and euphoria that are also linked to sexual arousal and excitement.

Interestingly, these brain regions are not activated when thinking about non-romantic relationships such as friends. These findings tell us that liking someone is not the same as being in love with someone.

What’s your love style?

Research has found three primary styles of love. First coined by psychologist John Lee , the love styles are eros, ludus and storge. These styles include people’s beliefs and attitudes about love and act as a guide for how to approach romantic relationships.

This style of love refers to erotic love and is focused on physical attraction and engaging in sex, the quick development of strong and passionate feelings for another and intense intimacy.

This style involves being emotionally distant and often involves “game-playing”. It’s not surprising people who endorse this love style are unlikely to commit, feel comfortable ending relationships and often start a new relationship before ending the current one.

Storge is often regarded as a more mature form of love. Priority is given to having a relationship with a person who has similar interests, affection is openly expressed and there is less emphasis on physical attractiveness. People high on storge love are trusting of others and are not needy or dependent on others.

Or is a mixture more your style?

You may see yourself in more than one of these styles.

Evidence suggests some people possess a mixture of the three main love styles; these mixtures were labelled by Lee as mania, pragma and agape.

Read more: Darling, I love you ... from the bottom of my brain

Manic love includes intense feelings for a partner as well as worry about committing to the relationship. Pragmatic love involves making sensible relationship choices in finding a partner who will make a good companion and friend. Agape is a self-sacrificing love that is driven by a sense of duty and selflessness.

Why do you love the way you do?

A person’s love style has little to do with their genetics . Rather, it’s associated with the development of personality and a person’s past relationship experiences.

Some studies have found people who are high on dark traits, such as narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism, endorse more of a ludus or pragma love style.

Read more: There are six styles of love. Which one best describes you?

People who have an insecure attachment style , involving a high need for validation and preoccupation with relationship partners, endorse more mania love, while those who are uncomfortable with intimacy and closeness do not endorse eros love.

No matter the differences in the way love is experienced, one thing remains common for all: we as humans are social animals who have a deep fascination for it.

• Relationships

Project Offier - Diversity & Inclusion

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

10 Psychology Studies Every Lover Should Know

Psychology of love and relationships: The brain map of love, the role of kissing, how couples come to look similar, what kills a relationship and more…

“Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.” ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

The psychology of love and relationships has been examined by poets, philosophers, writers and many other artists over the years.

From the initial moment of attraction to growing old together, here are 10 psychology studies that all lovers should know.

1 . Falling in love takes one-fifth of a second

It takes a fifth-of-a-second for the euphoria-inducing chemicals to start acting on the brain when you are looking at that special someone.

Brain imaging studies of love suggest that 12 different areas of the brain are involved.

When looking or thinking about a loved one, these areas release a cocktail of neurotransmitters across the brain, including oxytocin, dopamine, vasopressin and adrenaline.

The brain gets a similar ‘hit’ from love as it does from a small dose of cocaine.

2 . Psychology of love: brain map

The first study to look at the neural difference between love and sexual desire finds remarkable overlaps and distinct differences.

The results showed that some strikingly similar brain networks were activated by love and sexual desire.

The regions activated were those involved in emotion, motivation and higher level thoughts.

This psychology of love suggests that sexual desire is more than just a basic emotion, but involves goal-directed motivation and the recruitment of more advanced thoughts.

Love is built on top of these circuits, with one key area of difference being in the striatum. This area of the brain is typically associated with the balance between higher- and lower-level functions.

3 . Psychology of love: kissing helps us choose

Two studies of kissing have found that apart from being sexy, kissing also helps people choose partners–and keep them.

In a survey, women in particular rated kissing as important, but more promiscuous members of both sexes rated kissing as a very important way of testing out a new mate.

But kissing isn’t just important at the start of a relationship; it also has a role in maintaining a relationship.

The researchers found a correlation between the amount of kissing that long-term partners did and the quality of their relationship.

This link wasn’t seen between more sex and improved relationship satisfaction.

4 . Couples look more similar after 25 years together

People who live with each other for 25 years may develop similar facial features.

One study  on the psychology of love has found that over 25 years of marriage the facial features of couples became more similar, as judged by independent observers.

This may be because of similarities in diet, environment, personality or even a result of empathising with your partner over the years.

5 . Psychology of love: long distance relationships

Contrary to the received wisdom, long distance relationships can work, according to research on the psychology of love.

Two factors that help keep long distance relationships alive are that these couples:

• Tell each other more intimate information.
• Have a more idealised view of their partner.

As a result, those in long distance relationships often have similar levels of relationship satisfaction and stability as those who are geographically close to each other.

6 . Four things that kill a relationship stone dead

For over 40 years the psychologist Professor John Gottman has been analysing the psychology of love.

He’s followed couples across decades in many psychological studies to see what kinds of behaviours predict whether they would stay together.

There are four things that kills relationships stone dead : repeated criticism, lots of expressions of contempt like sarcasm, being defensive and stonewalling, which is when communication almost completely shuts down.

7 . Modern marriages demand self-fulfilment

The face of marriage has changed significantly over the years, according to research .

It used to be more about providing safety and solidity, now people want psychological fulfilment from their marriages.

More than ever people expect marriage to be more of a journey towards self-fulfilment and self-actualisation.

Unfortunately in the face of these demands, couples are not investing sufficient time and effort to achieve this growth.

The study’s author, Eli Finkel explained:

“In general, if you want your marriage to help you achieve self-expression and personal growth, it’s crucial to invest sufficient time and energy in the marriage. If you know that the time and energy aren’t available, then it makes sense to adjust your expectations accordingly to minimize disappointment.”

8 . A simple exercise to save a marriage

If your relationship needs a little TLC, then there may be no need to go into therapy, suggests research on the psychology of love.

Instead, watching a few movies together could do the trick.

A three-year study finds that divorce rates were more than halved by watching movies about relationships and discussing them afterwards.

The study’s lead author, Ronald Rogge, said:

“The results suggest that husbands and wives have a pretty good sense of what they might be doing right and wrong in their relationships. Thus, you might not need to teach them a whole lot of skills to cut the divorce rate. You might just need to get them to think about how they are currently behaving. And for five movies to give us a benefit over three years–that is awesome.”

9 . The post-divorce relationship

Even after divorce, relationships don’t necessarily end, especially if there are children.

A study of co-parenting post-divorce has found it can go one of five ways, the first three of which are considered relatively functional:

• Dissolved duos, where (usually) the father disappears.
• Perfect pals, where parents continue to be best friends.
• Cooperative colleagues, where couples move on but remain on a good footing with each other.
• Angry associates, where the fighting continues after the divorce.
• Fiery foes, where children become pawns in the fight and usually suffer as a result.

10 . Psychology of love: the little things

Finally, as we live in a highly commercialised world where we’re encouraged to think love can be bought and sold, it’s worth remembering that often it’s the small things that can make a difference.

A survey  on the psychology of love of over 4,000 UK adults found that simple acts of kindness are often appreciated the most.

Bringing your partner a cup of tea in bed, putting the bins out or telling them they look good naked may all do a lot more than a box of chocolates or bunch of flowers (although these won’t hurt!).

Psychology of love

As the German poet and novelist Rainer Maria Rilke said:

“Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue, a wonderful living side by side can grow, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole against the sky.”

Author: Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. He is also the author of the book "Making Habits, Breaking Habits" (Da Capo, 2013) and several ebooks. View all posts by Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

• Love & Relationships

The Science Behind Happy Relationships

W hen it comes to relationships , most of us are winging it. We’re exhilarated by the early stages of love , but as we move onto the general grind of everyday life, personal baggage starts to creep in and we can find ourselves floundering in the face of hurt feelings, emotional withdrawal, escalating conflict, insufficient coping techniques and just plain boredom. There’s no denying it: making and keeping happy and healthy relationships is hard.

But a growing field of research into relationships is increasingly providing science-based guidance into the habits of the healthiest, happiest couples — and how to make any struggling relationship better. As we’ve learned, the science of love and relationships boils down to fundamental lessons that are simultaneously simple, obvious and difficult to master: empathy, positivity and a strong emotional connection drive the happiest and healthiest relationships.

Maintaining a strong emotional connection

“The most important thing we’ve learned, the thing that totally stands out in all of the developmental psychology, social psychology and our lab’s work in the last 35 years is that the secret to loving relationships and to keeping them strong and vibrant over the years, to falling in love again and again, is emotional responsiveness,” says Sue Johnson, a clinical psychologist in Ottawa and the author of several books, including Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love .

That responsiveness, in a nutshell, is all about sending a cue and having the other person respond to it. “The $99 million question in love is, ‘Are you there for me?’” says Johnson. “It’s not just, ‘Are you my friend and will you help me with the chores?’ It’s about emotional synchronicity and being tuned in.”

“Every couple has differences,” continues Johnson. “What makes couples unhappy is when they have an emotional disconnection and they can’t get a feeling of secure base or safe haven with this person.” She notes that criticism and rejection — often met with defensiveness and withdrawal — are exceedingly distressing, and something that our brain interprets as a danger cue.

To foster emotional responsiveness between partners, Johnson pioneered Emotionally Focused Therapy , in which couples learn to bond through having conversations that express needs and avoid criticism. “Couples have to learn how to talk about feelings in ways that brings the other person closer,” says Johnson.

Keeping things positive

According to Carrie Cole, director of research for the Gottman Institute , an organization dedicated to the research of marriage, emotional disengagement can easily happen in any relationship when couples are not doing things that create positivity. “When that happens, people feel like they’re just moving further and further apart until they don’t even know each other anymore,” says Cole. That focus on positivity is why the Gottman Institute has embraced the motto “small things often.” The Gottman Lab has been studying relationship satisfaction since the 1970s, and that research drives the Institute’s psychologists to encourage couples to engage in small, routine points of contact that demonstrate appreciation.

One easy place to start is to find ways to compliment your partner every day, says Cole — whether it’s expressing your appreciation for something they’ve done or telling them, specifically, what you love about them. This exercise can accomplish two beneficial things: First, it validates your partner and helps them feel good about themselves. And second, it helps to remind you why you chose that person in the first place.

Listen to the brain, not just your heart

When it comes to the brain and love, biological anthropologist and Kinsey Institute senior fellow Helen Fisher has found — after putting people into a brain scanner — that there are three essential neuro-chemical components found in people who report high relationship satisfaction: practicing empathy, controlling one’s feelings and stress and maintaining positive views about your partner.

In happy relationships, partners try to empathize with each other and understand each other’s perspectives instead of constantly trying to be right. Controlling your stress and emotions boils down to a simple concept: “Keep your mouth shut and don’t act out,” says Fisher. If you can’t help yourself from getting mad, take a break by heading out to the gym, reading a book, playing with the dog or calling a friend — anything to get off a destructive path. Keeping positive views of your partner, which Fisher calls “positive illusions,” are all about reducing the amount of time you spend dwelling on negative aspects of your relationship. “No partner is perfect, and the brain is well built to remember the nasty things that were said,” says Fisher. “But if you can overlook those things and just focus on what’s important, it’s good for the body, good for the mind and good for the relationship.”

Happier relationships, happier life

Ultimately, the quality of a person’s relationships dictates the quality of their life. “Good relationships aren’t just happier and nicer,” says Johnson. “When we know how to heal [relationships] and keep them strong, they make us resilient. All these clichés about how love makes us stronger aren’t just clichés; it’s physiology. Connection with people who love and value us is our only safety net in life.”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• The Revolution of Yulia Navalnaya
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• What's the Deal With the Bitcoin Halving?
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Changing Landscape of Love and Marriage

Celebrities breaking up, making up, and having kids out of wedlock. Politicians confessing to extramarital affairs and visits to prostitutes. Same-sex couples pushing for, and sometimes getting, legal recognition for their committed relationships. Today’s news provides a steady stream of stories that seem to suggest that lifelong love and (heterosexual) marriage are about as dated as a horse and carriage. Social conservatives have been sounding the alarm for some time about the social consequences of the decline of marriage and the rise of unwed parenting for children and for society at large. Are we really leaving behind the old model of intimacy, or are these changes significant but not radical? And what are the driving forces behind the change we see?

In the United States, marriage historically has been an important and esteemed social institution. Historian Nancy Cott argues that, since colonial times, Americans have viewed marriage as the bedrock of healthy families and communities, and vital to the functioning of democracy itself. But today, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. People are getting married later than they used to; the median age at first marriage is now 28 for men and 26 for women, compared to 23 and 20 respectively in 1960. The proportion of adults who never marry remains low but has been climbing in recent years; in 2006, 19% of men and 13% of women aged 40–44 had never married. Roughly one-third of all births are to unmarried parents, and unmarried cohabitation has gone from being a socially stigmatized practice to being seen as a normal stage in the adult life course, especially as a prelude to marriage. More than half of all American marriages now begin as cohabitations. Many of the same patterns have occurred in Europe, although divorce is lower there (see Figure 1 ).

Marriage Dissolution by Country

Two conclusions from these demographic trends seem undeniable: Marriage has lost its taken-for-granted, nearly compulsory status as a feature of adult life, and as a result both adults and children are experiencing more change and upheaval in their personal lives than in the past. Sociologists have entered the fray to try to make sense of these trends, both by offering causal explanations and by predicting the depth and future direction of changes in intimacy.

How and Why Intimacy Is Changing

Two prominent sociologists have offered different but related theories about what is happening to intimacy in modern Western nations today. The British theorist Anthony Giddens argues that we are witnessing a “transformation of intimacy,” and the American family scholar Andrew Cherlin suggests that we are witnessing the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage.

In his 1992 book The Transformation of Intimacy , Giddens observes that intimacy is undergoing radical change in contemporary Western societies. The romantic love model, which emphasizes relationship permanence (epitomized in the marriage vow of “till death do us part”) and complementary gender roles, is being displaced by a new model of intimacy, which Giddens calls “confluent love.” The confluent love model features the ideal of the “pure relationship,” meaning a relationship that is entered into for its own sake and maintained only as long as both partners get enough satisfaction from it to stick around. Partners in a pure relationship establish trust through intense communication, yet the possibility of breakup always looms. Giddens sees the rise of confluent love resulting from modernization and globalization. As family and religious traditions lose influence, people craft their own biographies through highly individualized choices, including choice of intimate partners, with the overarching goal of continuous self-development. Giddens argues that pure relationships are more egalitarian than traditional romantic relationships, produce greater happiness for partners, and foster a greater sense of autonomy. At the same time, the contingent nature of the relationship commitment breeds psychological insecurity, which manifests in higher levels of anxiety and addiction.

Cherlin’s deinstitutionalization argument focuses more specifically on the present and future of marriage. The social norms that define and guide people’s behavior within the institution of marriage are weakening, according to Cherlin. People today experience greater freedom in how to be married, and in when and whether to marry at all. Several factors have contributed to marriage’s deinstitutionalization, including the rise of unmarried childbearing, the changing division of labor in the home, the growth of unmarried cohabitation, and the emergence of same-sex marriage. These large-scale trends create a context in which people actively question the link between marriage and parenting, the idea of complementary gender roles, and even the connection between marriage and heterosexuality. Under such conditions, Cherlin argues, people feel freer to marry later, to end unhappy marriages, and to forego marriage altogether, although marriage stills holds powerful symbolic significance for many people, partly as a marker of achievement and prestige. The future of marriage is hard to predict, but Cherlin argues it is unlikely to regain its former status; rather, it will either persist as an important but no longer dominant relationship form, or it will fade into the background as just one of many relationship options.

The Persistent Pull of Marriage

Several recent empirical studies suggest that the transformation of intimacy predicted by Giddens is far from complete, and the deinstitutionalization of marriage described by Cherlin faces some powerful countervailing forces, at least in the U.S. context. In her interview study of middle-class Americans, Ann Swidler found that when people talk about love and relationships they oscillate between two seemingly contradictory visions of intimacy. They often speak about love and relationships as being hard work, and they acknowledge that relationship permanence is never a given, even in strong marriages. This way of talking about intimacy reflects the confluent love Giddens describes. But the same people who articulated this pragmatic and realistic vision of intimacy would also sometimes invoke elements of romantic love ideology, such as the idea that true love lasts forever and can overcome any obstacles.

Swidler speculates that people go back and forth between these two contradictory visions of love because the pragmatic vision matches their everyday experience but the romantic love myth corresponds to important elements in the institution of marriage. In other words, the ongoing influence of marriage as a social institution keeps the romantic model of intimacy culturally relevant, despite the emergence of a newer model of intimacy that sees love very differently. Swidler’s findings at least partially contradict the idea of a wholesale transformation of intimacy, as well as the idea that marriage has lost much of its influence as a cultural model for intimate relationships.

Other studies have also challenged Giddens’ ideas about the nature and extent of change occurring in intimate relationships. A 2002 study by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons used data from a national survey of American adults to test Giddens’ predictions about the effects of “pure relationships” on their participants. They found support for some of the positive effects described by Giddens: People in pure relationships appear to have a greater sense of autonomy and higher relationship satisfaction. But the survey results did not support the idea that pure relationships lead to higher levels of anxiety and addiction. A 2004 British interview study of members of transnational families (i.e., people with one or more close family members living in another country) found that people often strike a balance between individualistic approaches to marriage and attention to the marriage values of their home countries, families and religions. Study authors Carol Smart and Beccy Shipman conclude that Giddens’ theory of a radical transformation of intimacy ignores the rich diversity of cultural values and practices that exists even in highly modernized Western nations. And sociologist Lynn Jamieson has critiqued Giddens’ theory for ignoring the vast body of feminist research that documents ongoing gender inequalities, such as in housework, even among heterosexual couples who consider their relationships to be highly egalitarian.

In his recent book The Marriage-Go-Round , Cherlin documents the fact that the deinstitutionalization of marriage has not gone as far in the U.S. as in many other Western countries. Americans have established a pattern of high marriage and remarriage rates, frequent divorce and separation, and more short-lived cohabitations, relative to other comparable countries. The end result is what Cherlin calls a “carousel of intimate partnerships,” leading American adults, and any children they have, to face more transition and upheaval in their personal lives. Cherlin concludes that this unique American pattern results from the embrace of two contradictory cultural ideals: marriage and individualism.

The differing importance placed on marriage is obvious in the realm of electoral politics, for example. The current leaders of France and Italy, President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, have weathered divorces and allegations of extramarital affairs without any discernible effect on their political viability. In the U.S., by contrast, President Bill Clinton endured an impeachment which many interpreted as a kind of punishment for his extramarital liaison with an intern, and more recently the revelations of extramarital dalliances by South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and former North Carolina senator John Edwards were widely viewed as destroying their prospects as future presidential candidates.

What Young People Want

To understand where intimacy in America is headed, we might look to youth as a harbinger of future developments. Today’s mainstream media paints a picture of young people having substantially different attitudes toward intimacy compared to older generations. In some ways, young people’s attitudes toward relationships today are quite similar to the attitudes of their parents. A 2001 study by Arland Thornton and Linda Young-DeMarco compares the attitudes of high school students across time from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. They find strong support for marriage among both male and female students across the two-decade period. The percentage of female students who rated “having a good marriage and family life” extremely important was roughly 80% throughout this time period, and the percentage of male students hovered around 70%.

Some studies track changes in young people’s specific expectations regarding intimate partnerships. For example, a study by psychologist David Buss and colleagues examined college students’ preferences for mate characteristics over a period of several decades. They found that both male and female students rank mutual love and attraction as more important today than in earlier decades. Changing gender roles also translated into changes in mate preferences across the decades, with women’s financial prospects becoming more important to men and men’s ambition and industriousness becoming less important to women. Overall, gender differences in mate preferences declined in the second half of the 20 th century, suggesting that gender has become a less important factor in determining what young people look for in intimate partnerships.

In a recent study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family , we compared the relationship attitudes and values of lesbian/gay, bisexual, and heterosexual 18–28 year olds. Notably, people in all of these groups were highly likely to consider love, faithfulness, and life-long commitment as extremely important values in an intimate relationship. These findings indicate that romantic love is widely embraced by most young adults, regardless of sexual orientation, which contests stereotypes and contrary reports that sexual minorities have radically different aspirations for intimacy in their lives. Yet, we also found modest differences that indicate that straight women are especially enthusiastic about these relationship attributes. They are more likely to rate faithfulness and lifelong commitment as extremely important compared to straight men and sexual minorities. Our findings are similar to other studies that consistently show that while both men and women highly value love, affection, and life-long marriage, women assign greater value to these attributes than men.

In his recent book The Age of Independence , sociologist Michael Rosenfeld argues that same-sex relationships and interracial relationships both have emerged in the last few decades in large part because of the same social phenomenon: young people today are less constrained by the watchful eyes and wishes of their parents. Unmarried young adults are much less likely to be living with their parents than in generations past, giving them more freedom to make less traditional life choices. And making unconventional choices along one dimension may make people more willing to make unconventional choices along other dimensions. Thus, while people’s aspirations for romantic love may not be changing substantially, partner choice may be changing over time as taboos surrounding unconventional relationships erode. In our study, we find that sexual-minority young adults report being more willing to date someone of a different race or enter into less financially secure relationships than heterosexual young adults, lending support to Rosenfeld’s claim that nontraditional relationship choices breed further departures from tradition.

Why Intimacy Matters

If the ideas of today’s young adults are any indication, Americans still place a high value on traditional, romantic love ideals for their relationships, including the ideal of lifelong marriage. Yet, all evidence suggests that many of us do not follow through. What difference does it make if our behaviors around intimacy are changing? Some social scientists see these shifts as alarming, whereas others welcome the changes as long overdue. What does it all mean for our society, our lives and those of our children?

In 2004, sociologist Paul Amato outlined the typical positions on this “so what” question. The marital decline position argues that changes in intimacy are a significant cause for concern. From this perspective, the current decline in lifelong marriage and the corresponding increase in single-parent and disrupted families are a key culprit in other social ills like poverty, delinquency, and poor academic performance among children. This is because stable marriages promote a culture in which people accept responsibility for others, and families watch over their own to protect against falling prey to these social ills. In short, marriage for the long haul groups people together in families where we check each other’s behavior and take care of each other—marriage helps keep our societal house in order.

The marital resilience perspective , in contrast, contends that changes in family life have actually strengthened the quality of intimate relationships, including marriages. From this perspective, in the past many people stayed in bad marriages because of strong social norms and legal obstacles to exit. Today, however, no-fault divorce provides an opportunity to correct past mistakes and try again at happiness with new partners. This is a triumph for individual freedom of choice and opportunities for equality within intimate relationships.

Perhaps today’s intimacy norms dictate more individualism and a corresponding reduction in the responsibility we take for those we love or loved. Maybe we are better for it because we have more freedom of choice—after all, freedom is one America’s most cherished values. Americans in general seem to be willing to live with mixed feelings on the new norms for intimacy. Most of us value the commitment and security of a lifelong partner, but we also want the option of exit. And, almost half of people who marry use this option. But, some evidence suggests that the “carousel of intimate relationships” may be taking its toll on us. Sociologists Mary Elizabeth Hughes and Linda Waite recently compared the health of middle-aged Americans who were married once and still with their partner to those who were never married, those who were married then divorced and remarried, and those who were married, divorced, and not remarried. They found that those who experienced divorce reported more chronic conditions, mobility limitations and depression years later, and remarriage boosted health some (particularly mental health), but not to the level of those who never divorced in the first place. Those who divorced and did not remarry had the worst health, even after accounting for many factors that may make one more likely both to have poor health and to divorce. Having loved and lost may have some lasting consequences.

What about the kids? This is the question that lingers in academic and policy debates, as well as amongst friends and neighbors who are considering severing ties with their significant others. A fair amount of research suggests that kids are more likely to avoid most social ills and develop into competent, successful adults if they are raised by two happily and continuously married parents. Marital happiness is key. A number of studies have found that frequently quarrelling parents who stay married do not do their kids many favors. Children of these types of marriages have an elevated risk of emotional and behavioral problems as well. Most children who are raised by caring parents—one or two of them, married or not—end up just fine. Further, if our social policies provided greater support to all varieties of families, not just those characterized by lifelong heterosexual marriage, we might erase the association between growing up with happily married parents and children’s well-being. More family supports, such as childcare subsidies, might translate into happily-ever-after for most kids regardless of family form.

Finally, what do new rules of intimacy mean for society? If social order is substantially buttressed by traditional marriage, and a new model of intimacy is weakening the norm of lifelong, heterosexual marriage, will these changes erode social cohesion and stability? If we think this is a threat, it seems a few policy adjustments could help to promote social order. If marriage has the benefits of status, institutional support, and legitimacy, granting the right to marry to same-sex couples should bolster their relationships, making them more stable and long-lasting and therefore benefiting the adults and children in these families, and society more generally. This would bring some Americans into the marriage fold, but many who already have access choose not to enter or they enter and later exit marriage.

Can healthy, well-functioning societies be maintained without reinforcing marriage as the ideal family form? Evidence from other Western nations suggests that different models of intimacy are compatible with societal well-being, but social policy must be aligned with the types of relationships that individuals choose to form. Many comparable countries have lower marriage rates and higher cohabitation rates than the U.S. (see Figure 2 ). Some of these countries extend significant legal protection and recognition to nonmarital relationships, and these countries do as well as, or sometimes better than, the U.S. on key measures of social and familial well-being. For example, Swedish children who live with only one parent do better, on average, than American children of this same circumstance. Many observers argue that this is attributable to Swedish pro-family policies that grant significantly longer periods of paid maternity and sick leave and government-subsidized, high-quality childcare. All parents are eligible for these family supports, minimizing the differences in care children receive across family types.

Cohabitations as Proportion of Unions

In the end, current research suggests a paradox. Most people, including young adults, say things to researchers that suggest they hold fast to the ideal of an exclusive, lifelong intimate partnership, most commonly a marriage. Yet often people behave in ways more aligned with the “pure relationship” that Giddens argues is the ascendant model of intimacy. Perhaps this contradiction indicates that it is harder than ever for people to live out their aspirations in the area of intimacy. Or perhaps it suggests that we are indeed in the midst of a transition to a brave new world of intimacy, and people’s willingness or ability to articulate new relationship values has not yet caught up to the changes in their actual behavior.

Recommended Resources

• Cherlin Andrew J. The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. Alfred A. Knopf; 2009. Describes how Americans’ simultaneous embrace of the contradictory values of marital commitment and individual freedom has resulted in a “carousel of intimate partnerships” featuring shorter relationships and more frequent transitions. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coontz Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. Viking; 2005. Points out that the linkage of marriage and romantic intimacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and one that has involved a tradeoff between marital stability and personal freedom and happiness. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens Anthony. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford University Press; 1992. Argues that romantic love is being replaced in modern societies by the ideal of the “pure relationship,” in which intimacy is maintained for its own sake and only as long as both parties believe its benefits outweigh its costs. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross Neil. The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered. Sociological Theory. 2005; 23 :286–311. Challenges Giddens’ account of the transformation of intimacy by suggesting that “regulative” traditions have lost influence but “meaning-constitutive” traditions remain powerful in modern intimacy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stacey Judith. In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the Postmodern Age. Beacon Press; 1996. Examines the fluid and contested nature of the “postmodern family condition” and argues that most contemporary social problems are not the result of innovations in family form. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swidler Ann. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. University of Chicago Press; 2001. Uses interviews with middle-class Americans to show that people simultaneously maintain inconsistent views on love, oscillating between a romantic love ideology and a more pragmatic, contingent vision of the nature of intimacy. [ Google Scholar ]

• CONTACT A LOCATION
• REQUEST APPOINTMENT
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• View Locations

© 2014 Riordan Clinic All Rights Reserved

• High Dose IV Vitamin C (IVC)
• Integrative Medicine
• Integrative Oncology

Psychological Research on Love and Its Influence in Adult Human Relationships

Now, here is this topic about love. The subject without any movie, novel, poem and song cannot exist. The topic of love has fascinated scientists, philosophers, historians, poets, playwrights, novelists, and songwriters, as well as all other human beings.

I decided to look at this subject from a scientific point of view. It was very interesting to search and to write this article, and I hope that it will be interesting to you to read it. It is ironic, that as I am writing this article on Saturday in the empty Riordan Clinic, while drinking tea and eating chocolate that I found a love poem from “Romeo and Juliet” inside the wrapping.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON LOVE Whereas psychological science was slow to develop an active interest in love, the past few decades have seen considerable growth in research on the subject. The excellent review of the central and well-established findings from psychologically informed research on love and its influence in adult human relationships is presented in this article:

“Love. What Is It, Why Does It Matter, and How Does It Operate?” H Reis and A Aron. The brief summary of the ideas from this article is presented below.

On the other hand, four major intellectual developments of the 19th and 20th centuries provided key insights that helped shape the agenda for current research and theory of love.

The first major intellectual development was the work of Charles Darwin, who proposed that reproductive success was the central process underlying the evolution of species. Evolutionary theorizing has led directly to such currently popular concepts as mate preference, sexual mating strategies, and attachment, as well as to the adoption of a comparative approach across species.

A second development was the work of Sigmund Freud. Contemporary research and theory on love features many psychodynamic principles that were first introduced by Freud, such as the importance of early childhood experiences, the powerful impact of motives operating outside of awareness, the role of defenses in shaping the behavioral expression of motives, and the role of sexuality as a force in human behavior

A third historically significant development was the work of Margaret Mead. Mead’s vivid descriptions of cultural variations in the expression of love and sexuality led researchers to consider the influence of socialization and to recognize cultural variation in many aspects of love.

At the same time, social psychologists were beginning work that would show that adult love could be studied experimentally and in the laboratory.

Any history of psychological research on love would be incomplete without reference to “l’affaire Proxmire”. In March 1975, William Proxmire, a powerful U.S. Senator, gave the first of a series of so-called Golden Fleece Awards to Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield, the two most prominent love researchers of the time. They had recently received a federal grant for their work. To some, their work was a gross misuse of federal tax-payer dollars and a topic “better left to poets.” For the ensuing years, that ill-informed and ignoble proclamation cast a pall not only on Berscheid and Hatfield but on any scientist interested in studying love. To this day, politics occasionally obstructs funding for research on love.

Despite the political barrier to love research in the U.S., other countries, particularly Canada, have taken a more enlightened view, as have at least two private foundations.

Considerable evidence supports a basic distinction, first offered in 1978, between passionate love (“a state of intense longing for union with another”) and other types of romantic love, labeled companionate love (“the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply entwined”). The evidence for this distinction comes from a variety of research methods, including psychometric techniques (e.g., factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, and prototype analysis), examinations of the behavioral and relationship consequences of different forms of romantic love, and biological studies, which are discussed in this article.

Most work has focused on identifying and measuring passionate love and several aspects of romantic love, which include two components: intimacy and commitment. Some scholars see companionate love as a combination of intimacy and commitment whereas others see intimacy as the central component, with commitment as a peripheral factor (but important in its own right, such as for predicting relationship longevity). In some studies, trust and caring were considered highly prototypical of love, whereas uncertainty and “butterflies in the stomach” were more peripheral.

Passionate and companionate love solves different adaptational problems. Passionate love may be said to solve the attraction problem—that is, for individuals to enter into a potentially long-term mating relationship, they must first identify and select suitable candidates, attract the other’s interest, engage in relationship-building behavior, and then go about reorganizing existing activities and relationships so as to include the other. All of this is effortful, time-consuming, and disruptive. Consequently, passionate love is associated with many changes in cognition, emotion, and behavior. For the most part, these changes are consistent with the idea of disrupting existing activities, routines, and social networks to orient the individual’s attention and goal-directed behavior toward a specific new partner.

Considerably less effort has been devoted toward understanding the evolutionary significance of the intimacy and commitment aspects of love. However, much evidence indicates that love in long-term relationships is associated with intimacy, trust, caring, and attachment, all factors that contribute to the maintenance of relationships over time.

More generally, the term companionate love may be characterized by a communal relationship: a relationship built on mutual expectations that one’s self and a partner will be responsive to each other’s needs.

It was speculated that companionate love, or at least the various processes associated with it, is responsible for the noted association between social relatedness and health and well-being. In a recent series of papers, it was claimed that marriage is linked to health benefits.

Having noted the positive functions of love, it is also important to consider the dark side. That is, problems in love and love relationships are a significant source of suicides, homicides, and both major and minor emotional disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Love matters not only because it can make our lives better, but also because it is a major source of misery and pain that can make life much worse.

One particularly timely prediction is that psychological theories of love are likely to become more biologically informed, in the sense that the psychological and behavioral phenomena associated with love will have clear, comprehensible, and distinguishable neural and hormonal substrates. This will be useful not so much for the intrinsic purpose of identifying the brain and body regions in which love occurs, but rather because the identification of neural and hormonal circuits corresponding to particular experiences and behaviors will allow researchers to sort the various phenomena associated with love into their natural categories.

It is also believed that research will address how culture shapes the experience and expression of love. Although both passionate and companionate love appears to be universal, it is apparent that their manifestations may be moderated by culture-specific norms and rules.

Passionate and companionate love have profoundly different implications for marriage around the world, considered essential in some cultures but contra-indicated or rendered largely irrelevant in others. For example, among U.S. college students in the 1960s, only 24% of women and 65% of men considered love to be the basis of marriage, but in the 1980s this view was endorsed by more than 80% of both women and men.

Finally, the authors believe that the future will see a better understanding of what may be the quintessential question about love: how this very individualistic feeling is shaped by experiences in interaction with particular others.

Why Love Has Wings and Sex Has Not: How Reminders of Love and Sex Influence Creative and Analytic Thinking (J.A. Forster). This article examines cognitive links between romantic love and creativity and between sexual desire and analytic thought based on construal level theory. It suggests that when in love, people typically focus on a long-term perspective, which should enhance holistic thinking and thereby creative thought, whereas when experiencing sexual encounters, they focus on the present and on concrete details enhancing analytic thinking. Because people automatically activate these processing styles when in love or when they experience sex, subtle or even unconscious reminders of love versus sex should suffice to change processing modes. Two studies explicitly or subtly reminded participants of situations of love or sex and found support for this hypothesis.

Passion, Intimacy, and Time: Passionate Love as a Function of Change in Intimacy (R.F. Baumeister, E. Bratslavsky) To build on existing theories about love, the authors propose that passion is a function of change in intimacy (i.e., the first derivative of intimacy overtime). Hence, passion will be low when intimacy is stable (either high or low), but rising intimacy will create a strong sense of passion. This view is able to account for a broad range of evidence, including frequency of sex in long-term relationships, intimate and sexual behavior of extraverts, gender differences in intimate behavior, gain and loss effects of communicated attraction, and patterns of distress in romantic breakups.

TO LOVE, OR NOT TO LOVE. Love Stories of Later Life: A Narrative Approach to Understanding Romance (Amanda Smith Barusch. Oxford University Press, 2008.) This book is a qualitative study employing in-depth interviews and an open-ended survey distributed on the Internet. Barusch (a professor of social work) focused her study on four research questions. They include, but are not limited to 1. How do older adults describe and experience romantic love? 2. How do gender, culture, and age influence the lived experience of romantic love? 3. Is it possible to fall in love at advanced ages? If so, how do adults describe this experience? Do their descriptions differ from those offered by younger people? 4. How do older adults interpret their lived experiences of romance?

Barusch writes with two different ‘voices’ for two different audiences. First, she writes for academic gerontologists who have an interest in the study of late relationships. Second, she writes for elders who want to gain insight into romantic and sexual relationships in later life. She hopes that this audience will gain strength and insight by reading her book. The book is delightful, hopeful and inspiring.

It is rare for an author to successfully address two such diverse audiences. We encourage you to read this fine work.

Related Health Hunter News Articles

Honoring Excellence in Healthcare: Brianna Morrow, RN

New Research on IVC and Prostate Cancer

No Deaths From Vitamins. Absolutely None.

• Shop Nutrients
• ORDER LAB tests

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/