behavioral

sciences
Review
Refuting Six Misconceptions about Romantic Love
Sandra J. E. Langeslag

Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri—St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA;
langeslags@[Link]

Abstract: Scientific research on romantic love has been relatively sparse but is becoming more
prevalent, as it should. Unfortunately, several misconceptions about romantic love are becoming
entrenched in the popular media and/or the scientific community, which hampers progress. There-
fore, I refute six misconceptions about romantic love in this article. I explain why (1) romantic love
is not necessarily dyadic, social, or interpersonal, (2) love is not an emotion, (3) romantic love does
not just have positive effects, (4) romantic love is not uncontrollable, (5) there is no dedicated love
brain region, neurotransmitter, or hormone, and (6) pharmacological manipulation of romantic love
is not near. To increase progress in our scientific understanding of romantic love, I recommend that
we study the intrapersonal aspects of romantic love including the intensity of love, that we focus
our research questions and designs using a component process model of romantic love, and that we
distinguish hypotheses and suggestions from empirical findings when citing previous work.

Keywords: love; close relationships; misconceptions; myths; emotions; brain; neuroscience

1. Introduction
There is a growing interest in the science of romantic love, as evident from the increased
number of publications on this topic, the organization of scientific conferences devoted to
research on love, and the publication of special journal issues like this one. This growing
interest is exciting and warranted for two reasons. First, love pertains to virtually everyone.
For example, more than 80% of adolescents in a study in the US reported to have been
involved in at least one romantic relationship by the age of 18 [1] and love has been observed
Citation: Langeslag, S.J.E. Refuting in almost all cultures that have been studied [2]. Second, when people fall in love, it greatly
Six Misconceptions about Romantic impacts their lives. People are sometimes even willing to change their friends, job, country,
Love. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383. or religion to be with their beloved [3]. It is important that we conduct thorough scientific
[Link] research on romantic love and that we disseminate the results broadly. Unfortunately, there
Academic Editors: Bianca P. Acevedo are several misconceptions about romantic love that are permeating popular media, the
and Adam Bode scientific community, or both. Some of these misconceptions stem from lay people’s and
scientists’ assumptions about romantic love. Other misconceptions stem from hypotheses
Received: 7 March 2024 or interpretations put forth in scientific articles being cited in other articles as empirical
Revised: 15 April 2024
evidence. Collectively, these misconceptions are hampering the progress of the scientific
Accepted: 30 April 2024
understanding of romantic love. In this article, I refute six of those misconceptions and
Published: 2 May 2024
provide recommendations for research.
The misconceptions refuted in this article concern romantic love, which is love for
a significant other (as opposed to love for family members or friends, for example) and
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
can be experienced regardless of whether someone is in a romantic relationship with the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. beloved. Scientists have proposed several taxonomies of love, each with various numbers
This article is an open access article and different types of love, e.g., [4–7]. Because the word “love” does not have a plural
distributed under the terms and form, I use the term “love feelings” to refer to a collection of different love types (note
conditions of the Creative Commons that the term “feeling” does not necessarily refer to an emotion [8]). In my work, I have
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// distinguished between the following types of romantic love: infatuation (or passionate
[Link]/licenses/by/ love), attachment (or companionate love), and sexual desire (cf. [5]). Infatuation is the
4.0/). overwhelming, amorous feeling for one individual that is typically most intense during

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383. [Link] [Link]

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 2 of 9

the early stage of love (i.e., when individuals are not (yet) in a relationship with their
beloved or are in a new relationship). Attachment, on the other hand, is the comforting
feeling of emotional bonding with another individual that takes some time to develop,
often in the context of a romantic relationship [5,6,9]. Sexual desire is the craving for
sexual gratification [5]. Even though some of the arguments below may depend on certain
definitions or taxonomies of love, those arguments are never the sole argument used to
refute a misconception. Therefore, the overall refutation of each misconception does not
hinge on specific definitions or taxonomies of love.

2. Romantic Love Is Not Necessarily Dyadic, Social, or Interpersonal

The first misconception is that romantic love is dyadic, social, or interpersonal, and
that it only exists within romantic relationships. For example, one anonymous reviewer
of one of my manuscripts commented that “It’s odd that ~1/6 of the sample who were
purportedly “in love” were not in a relationship with the target of their love.” While
romantic love has obvious interpersonal aspects (i.e., people are in love with another
person and romantic relationships involve more than one person by definition), romantic
love is not necessarily dyadic, social, or interpersonal, and can be experienced outside of the
context of a romantic relationship.
In contrast to what the reviewer seemed to think, it does not take two to love. For
example, people may develop love feelings for someone before they become involved in
a romantic relationship with that person [9], or may still experience love feelings after a
romantic relationship has ended [10]. People may experience love feelings that are not
reciprocated and may love someone they have never been and will never be in a romantic
relationship with. People can even experience love feelings for someone they have never
interacted with. For example, people can experience love at first sight [11] and some people
develop one-sided, parasocial attachment to celebrities [12]. Interestingly, people even
report experiencing parasocial attachment to fictional characters in movies, TV shows,
video games, and books [13,14]. Finally, people may experience sexual arousal in the
absence of (thoughts of) another individual, such as during masturbation, which suggests
that sexual desire, which has been considered a type of love by some researchers [5], may
not require a target at all.
So, romantic love is not necessarily dyadic, social, or interpersonal, and does not only
exist within romantic relationships. Therefore, we need to broaden our approach and study
the intrapersonal aspects of romantic love as well. This does not require the study of dyads
who are in a relationship with each other, but can be achieved by studying individuals who
are experiencing love feelings, regardless of their relationship status. This also means that
besides fitting into the realm of social psychology/neuroscience, research on romantic love
fits into the realm of affective and cognitive (neuro)science.
Due to the social emphasis of previous research on romantic love, researchers have
often focused on relationship satisfaction rather than intrapersonal love feelings. It is
important to note, though, that romantic love is not the same as relationship satisfaction.
People can be satisfied with a relationship if it fulfils some need (e.g., money, housekeeping,
sex, protection, child care, status, personal growth), rather than experiencing love for their
partner [15]. And, in abusive relationships, conversely, it is possible that the victim is in
love with their abuser while being unsatisfied with the relationship. In a sample of married
individuals, the correlation between relationship satisfaction and attachment level was
high but nowhere near perfect (.68), and the correlation between relationship satisfaction
and infatuation level was only .18 [16]. And, in a meta-analysis of 25 questionnaire studies,
the correlations between relationship satisfaction and the intensity of different types of love
(i.e., infatuation, attachment, eros, and mania) ranged between −.02 and .56 [17]. These
findings confirm that even though relationship satisfaction and intensity of love feelings
may be related, they are distinct concepts.
Because romantic love is distinct from relationship satisfaction, relationship
satisfaction—while interesting in its own right—should not be used as a proxy for love
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 3 of 9

intensity in research. Relationship satisfaction can be assessed using items such as “How
happy/satisfied are you in your relationship with___?” or using questionnaires such
as the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-32) [18] or the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(RDAS) [19]. Intensity of love feelings, on the other hand, can be assessed using items such
as “How in love with/infatuated with/attached to___are you?” or questionnaires such as
Infatuation and Attachment Scales [9].

3. Love Is Not an Emotion

The second misconception is that love is an emotion (similar to fear, anger, sadness,
surprise, disgust, and joy, for example). Lay people typically consider love to be an
emotion [20,21] and so do some scientists [22,23]. Although it depends on how emotions
are defined, there are several reasons to assume that love is not an emotion.
As mentioned above, although scientists do not agree on how many and which types
of love exist, they do agree that there are multiple types of love [4–7]. There being multiple
types of love is one reason to assume that love as a whole is not an emotion [24]. There
are also reasons to assume that the different types of love themselves are not emotions
either. First, love elicits various emotions depending on the situation. When infatuation
is requited, for example, it may elicit the emotion joy [25], yet it may elicit the emotion
sadness when it is unrequited [26]. Note that this is different from how emotions can
elicit meta-emotions, which are emotions about one’s own emotions [27]. An example of
a meta-emotion is when someone is anxious about an upcoming presentation and then
feels shame about being anxious. The emotions elicited as a result of love, in contrast,
are not about being in love. For example, someone who is in love may feel jealous when
their beloved attends to others, but they are not jealous about being in love. Second, it has
been shown that distraction after a romantic breakup decreased negative affect but not the
intensity of love, and that negative reappraisal of an ex-partner decreased love intensity yet
increased negative affect [10,28]. These observed dissociations indicate that love regulation
and emotion regulation are conceptually distinct. That is, love regulation targets love
feelings (such as infatuation and attachment), whereas emotion regulation targets emotions
(such as fear, anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, and joy) [10]. Third, another reason why love
feelings are not emotions is that love feelings can be very long lasting, whereas emotions
are usually shorter lasting. Research has shown that emotions typically last for a half hour
up to several days. The longest lasting emotion was sadness, with a median duration until
a first return to baseline of 48 h (i.e., 2 days) and a median duration until permanent return
to baseline of 120 h (i.e., 5 days) [29]. In contrast, it is not uncommon for infatuation to last
for weeks or months and for attachment to last for years or decades [9,30].
Rather than an emotion, scientists have categorized love as an attitude [31], a script [32],
or a motivation or drive (similar to craving, hunger, and thirst) [24,33–35]. Although
refuting the misconception that love is an emotion may just seem a quibble about semantics,
it does suggest that we should not assume that any knowledge we have about emotions
generalizes to romantic love.

4. Romantic Love Does Not Just Have Positive Effects

The third misconception is that romantic love has mainly positive effects, which has
contributed to the relative paucity of scientific interest in romantic love (e.g., in terms of the
number of publications, journals, scientific societies, and grant mechanisms). Of course,
love has a plethora of positive effects on people and society. Infatuation, for example, elicits
positive emotions such as euphoria [25], and romantic relationships enhance happiness and
life satisfaction [36]. It is often overlooked, however, that love has many negative effects on
people and society as well.
First, love can elicit several negative emotions. For example, infatuation is stress-
ful [37], love can be accompanied by jealousy [38], the death of a romantic partner may
elicit intense grief [39], and unreciprocated love and romantic breakups elicit sadness and
shame [26]. Second, love may reduce general well-being. For example, romantic breakups
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 4 of 9

are a main risk factor for major depressive disorder in adolescents [40] and dysfunctional
romantic relationships and romantic breakups are associated with decreased happiness and
life satisfaction [41,42]. Third, people who are in love may be distracted from their duties
(e.g., work or homework) because they think about their beloved all the time [43,44]. Even
though this may not bother the infatuated individual, it may result in a loss of productivity.
Fourth, love plays a role in several mental disorders, including sexual dysfunctions, para-
philic disorders, and erotomanic and jealous delusional disorders [45], as well as in suicide
behavior [46]. Finally, love is associated with various forms of criminal behavior including
stalking [47], domestic violence [48,49], and homicide [50].
It may be clear that love has both positive and negative effects. Taken together, the
negative effects of love cause substantial individual, social, and economic burden, and
underscore the great need to study romantic love. It is my hope that thorough research on
romantic love can both increase the positive effects of love and decrease its negative effects
on individuals and society.

5. Romantic Love Is Not Uncontrollable

The fourth misconception is that love should not and/or cannot be controlled. An
anonymous reviewer for one of my grant proposals on love regulation asked: “Do we want
to be able to control our love feelings?”
Indeed, it is not uncommon for people to think that love should not be controlled
because it is a natural process [28]. Nevertheless, there are many situations in which it might
be beneficial to regulate love feelings. For example, love feelings may be stronger than
desired, such as when people are still in love with their ex-partner after a breakup, when
the love is forbidden, and when people are in love with someone who treats them poorly.
In situations like those, people may want to decrease how in love they are. Successful
down-regulation of love feelings could ameliorate heartbreak. It could also help people to
stop pursuing an inappropriate partner or to put an end to a dysfunctional (e.g., abusive)
relationship. At other times, love feelings may be weaker than desired, such as when they
decline in long-term relationships [9,30]. Successful up-regulation of love may stabilize
long-term relationships.
In addition, some people think that love regulation is difficult or even impossi-
ble [25,28]. People think that other people are better at love regulation than they are,
that who they are in love with is less controllable than love intensity, and that infatuation
is even less controllable than attachment and sexual desire [10,28,51,52]. Nevertheless, a
series of studies have shown that people can control different types of love using behavioral
and cognitive strategies. Specifically, looking at pictures of the beloved increases infatu-
ation and attachment [16], positive reappraisal of the beloved, the relationship, and/or
the future increases attachment [28,53], and sexual imagery increases sexual desire and
infatuation [53]. Conversely, negative reappraisal of the beloved, the relationship, and/or
the future decreases infatuation and attachment [10,28].
In short, misconceptions that love regulation is undesirable and/or difficult exist.
Given that love regulation is possible and can be adaptive, these misconceptions have
negative consequences for well-being. Therefore, lay people need to be educated about
the feasibility and benefits of love regulation, and scientists should not let their own
misconceptions keep them and others from studying this important topic.

6. There Is No Dedicated Love Brain Region, Love Neurotransmitter, or Love Hormone

The fifth misconception is that there is a dedicated love brain region, love neurotrans-
mitter, and/or love hormone. This misconception is more prevalent in lay people than in
scientists (the #1 question that I am asked in interviews for popular media is which brain
region is involved in love) and reflects a lack of knowledge of how the brain and body
work more than a misconception about love specifically.
Generally, there is no one-to-one mapping between anatomy and function. Each brain
region, neurotransmitter, and hormone has multiple functions, and each function requires
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 5 of 9

multiple brain regions, neurotransmitters, and/or hormones. Love affects behaviors, feel-
ings, cognition, and physiology in many different ways [25]. Each of these ‘components’ of
romantic love depends on a different network of brain regions, and multiple neurotrans-
mitters and/or hormones. Take, for example, the enhanced memory for information that
is related to the beloved, which is related to the arousal that this information elicits [54].
We know that enhanced memory for arousing information depends on the amygdala and
hippocampus, the neurotransmitter noradrenaline, and the hormones adrenaline and corti-
sol [55,56]. Therefore, it can be expected that those brain regions, neurotransmitters, and
hormones are involved in the memory bias for the beloved. And, take the increased skin
conductance response to the beloved [57]. We know that skin conductance responses result
from the release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the sympathetic nervous system,
which, in turn, is innervated by the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus [58].
Therefore, that brain region and neurotransmitter likely play a role in the skin conduc-
tance response to the beloved. I hope that these two examples clarify how different brain
networks, neurotransmitters, and hormones are involved in the different components of
romantic love. This component process model reflects an approach that aims to understand
romantic love as an emergent process that consists of numerous components, each with its
own neurobiological basis.
Even though scientists typically understand that there is no dedicated love brain re-
gion, love neurotransmitter, or love hormone, they could improve the focus of their research
questions and designs according to the component process model. Many neuroimaging
studies on romantic love (including some of my own) use a passive viewing design, which
makes it difficult to interpret the findings without resorting to reverse inference, which
is the inference of mental states from neuroimaging data [59]. By having participants
complete specific tasks during neuroimaging (e.g., a memory, attention, or regulation
task) instead, the findings become more interpretable in terms of mental states, which will
then allow us to learn that brain network/neurotransmitter/hormone X plays a role in
component Y of romantic love.

7. Pharmacological Manipulation of Romantic Love Is Not Near

The final misconception is that our recent knowledge of the biological basis of romantic
love will soon lead to a pharmacological route to control romantic love [60–63], which is
something that people have pursued for ages. Even nowadays, people across the world
wishfully use aphrodisiac substances and love philters [64]. However, although evidence-
based pharmacological manipulation of love feelings may be feasible at some point in the
future, several issues prevent the development of an effective and safe ‘love pill’ in the
short term.
First, the scientific community has only just begun to unravel the psychopharmacology
of love. We are only starting to learn which neurotransmitters and hormones might play
a role in the different types of love. For example, several functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (fMRI) studies have shown that brain regions such as the caudate, putamen, ventral
tegmental area, insula, cingulate cortex, and inferior frontal gyrus are more active when
people view pictures of their beloved than when they view pictures of other people [65–72].
Some of those regions (especially the caudate, putamen, and ventral tegmental area) are
dopaminergic brain regions, and their activation in response to the beloved has been
interpreted as evidence for the notion that romantic love is associated with increased levels
of the neurotransmitter dopamine. However, it is important to note that fMRI studies
cannot reveal whether dopamine is released in response to the beloved. To my knowledge,
there is only one study that has actually measured dopamine levels when people view
pictures of their beloved (compared to when they view pictures of friends), using positron
emission tomography (PET). That study showed more dopamine release in response to the
beloved pictures than the friend pictures in the medial orbitofrontal and prefrontal cortices,
but surprisingly not in the more typical dopaminergic regions [73]. So, more research is
needed on whether and where dopamine is released when people see their beloved. As
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 6 of 9

another example, it has been hypothesized that romantic love is associated with reduced
levels of serotonin because of its resemblance with obsessive–compulsive disorder [25].
In one study, however, women who were in love had higher blood serotonin levels than
women who were not in love, and obsessive thinking about the beloved in women was
associated with an increased serotonin level in serum [43]. So we cannot conclude at this
time that romantic love is associated with reduced serotonin levels. In addition, we are
still far from understanding any causal relationships between psychopharmacology and
love feelings. For example, many studies compare people who are in love when they view
stimuli that are related to their beloved with when they view other stimuli. It would be
informative, but more difficult, to compare participants who are in love with participants
who are not in love or even to compare people before and after they fall in love. Crucially,
in order to develop a ‘love pill’ we would have to prove that alteration of neurotransmitter
or hormone levels actually results in a change in the intensity of love.
Second, it would be challenging to design a drug that targets love feelings for one per-
son specifically, which would be desirable in at least some situations. For example, someone
who is married might want to decrease their love feelings for a crush without changing
(or while increasing) their love for their spouse. Third, because the neurotransmitters and
hormones involved in love have many different functions, any love drug that affects the
levels of these neurotransmitters or hormones may have side effects that could be adverse.
Finally, pharmacological manipulation of love feelings is associated with ethical issues
such as who decides whether and when someone takes a love drug to increase or decrease
their love feelings [60,61]. Compared to pharmacological manipulation of love feelings,
behavioral and cognitive strategies to regulate love feelings like the ones mentioned before
(i.e., looking at pictures of the beloved, positive or negative reappraisal of the beloved, the
relationship, and/or the future, and sexual imagery) are associated with fewer physical
and ethical risks and can be implemented right away.
In addition, I hope that the examples about dopamine and serotonin show that we need
to be careful when citing previous work. That is, we should be specific when describing
previous research findings (e.g., dopaminergic regions becoming more active vs. dopamine
levels being elevated). Additionally, when citing researchers‘ suggestions and hypotheses
(e.g., love being associated with high dopamine and low serotonin levels), we need to label
them as such so that they are not taken as empirical evidence by the reader.

8. Conclusions
Science is making great strides in understanding romantic love. In this article, I have
refuted six common misconceptions that exist in lay people and/or scientists, in the hopes
that this will allow us to make even greater progress. Alongside the social science of
romantic relationships, the cognitive and affective neuroscience of romantic love could
mature into its own important field of research that focuses on the intrapersonal aspects
of romantic love, including the intensity of love. Different types of love and the various
emotions have some similarities, so we can be inspired by our knowledge of emotions, but
because love is not an emotion we cannot assume that anything we know about emotions
also applies to romantic love. We need to realize that love has multiple negative effects,
which underscores the importance of research on this topic. And despite what people may
think, it is possible and may be beneficial to control love feelings. Future research can
explore what strategies are effective and adaptive in which situations. I also recommend
focusing our research questions and designs using a component process model of romantic
love. Finally, more work needs to be done to understand the (causal) role that various brain
networks, neurotransmitters, and hormones play in romantic love. When citing previous
work, we need to distinguish suggestions from empirical findings and recognize the limits
of information that a certain research method provides.
To conclude, research on romantic love is extremely important because it pertains
to almost everyone and because it affects people to a great extent, both good and bad. I
recommend that we do not let our misconceptions guide what we study and that we cite
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 7 of 9

previous work precisely, so that the science of romantic love can be an even more fruitful
field of research that will benefit individuals and societies.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Carver, K.; Joyner, K.; Udry, J.R. National Estimates of Adolescent Romantic Relationships, in Adolescent Romantic Relations and Sexual Be-
havior: Theory, Research, and Practical Implications; Florsheim, P., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA,
2003; pp. 23–56.
2. Jankowiak, W.R.; Fischer, E.F. A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology 1992, 31, 149–155. [CrossRef]
3. Aron, E.N.; Aron, A. Extremities of love: The sudden sacrifice of career, family, dignity. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1997, 16, 200–212.
[CrossRef]
4. Berscheid, E. Love in the fourth dimension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010, 61, 1–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Fisher, H.E. Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Hum. Nat. 1998, 9, 23–52. [CrossRef]
6. Hatfield, E. Passionate and companionate love. In The Psychology of Love; Sternberg, R.J., Barnes, M.L., Eds.; Yale University Press:
New Haven, CT, USA, 1988; pp. 191–217.
7. Sternberg, R.J. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 1986, 93, 119–135. [CrossRef]
8. Thoits, P.A. The sociology of emotions. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1989, 15, 317–342. [CrossRef]
9. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Muris, P.; Franken, I.H. Measuring romantic love: Psychometric properties of the infatuation and attachment
scales. J. Sex Res. 2013, 50, 739–747. [CrossRef]
10. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Sanchez, M.E. Down-regulation of love feelings after a romantic break-up: Self-report and electrophysiological
data. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2018, 147, 720–733. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Zsok, F.; Haucke, M.; De Wit, C.Y.; Barelds, D.P. What kind of love is love at first sight? An empirical investigation. Pers. Relatsh.
2017, 24, 869–885. [CrossRef]
12. Erickson, S.E. Romantic parasocial attachments and the developments of romantic scripts, schemas and beliefs among adolescents.
Media Psychol. 2018, 21, 111–136. [CrossRef]
13. Tuchakinsky, R.H. Para-romantic love and para-friendships: Development and assessment of a multiple-parasocial relationships
scale. Am. J. Media Psychol. 2011, 3, 73–94.
14. Karhulahti, V.; Välisalo, T. Fictosexuality, fictoromance, and fictophilia: A qualitative study of love and desire for fictional
characters. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 575427. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Finkel, E.J.; Cheung, E.O.; Emery, L.F.; Carswell, K.L.; Larson, G.M. The suffocation model: Why marriage in America is becoming
and all-or-nothing institution. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 238–244. [CrossRef]
16. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Surti, K. Increasing love feelings, marital satisfaction, and motivated attention to the spouse. J. Psychophysiol.
2022, 36, 199–214. [CrossRef]
17. Acevedo, B.P.; Aron, A. Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2009, 13, 59–65. [CrossRef]
18. Funk, J.L.; Rogge, R.D. Testing the Ruler with Item Response Theory: Increasing Precision of Measurement for Relationship
Satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. J. Fam. Psychol. 2007, 21, 572–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Busby, D.M.; Christensen, C.; Crane, D.R.; Larson, J.H. A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use for distressed and
nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. J. Marital. Fam. Ther. 1995, 21, 289–308. [CrossRef]
20. Fehr, B.; Russell, J.A. Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1984, 113, 464–486. [CrossRef]
21. Shaver, P.; Schwartz, J.; Kirson, D.; O’connor, C. Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 1061–1086. [CrossRef]
22. Shaver, P.R.; Morgan, H.J.; Wu, S. Is love a “basic” emotion? Pers. Relatsh. 1996, 3, 81–96. [CrossRef]
23. Cowen, A.S.; Keltner, D. Sematic space theory: A computational approach to emotion. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2021, 25, 124–136.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Langeslag, S.J.E. Liefde is een motivatie, niet een emotie: Een neurobiologische benadering [Love is a motivation, not an emotion:
A neurobiological approach]. De Psycholoog 2006, 41, 260–265.
25. Fisher, H.E.; Aron, A.; Mashek, D.; Li, H.; Brown, L.L. Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment.
Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002, 31, 413–419. [CrossRef]
26. Leary, M.R.; Koch, E.J.; Hechenbleikner, N.R. Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In Interpersonal Rejection; Leary, M.,
Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 145–166.
27. Miceli, M.; Castelfranchi, C. Meta-emotions and the complexity of human emotional experience. New Ideas Psychol. 2019, 55, 43–49.
[CrossRef]
28. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Van Strien, J.W. Regulation of romantic love feelings: Preconceptions, strategies and feasibility. PLoS ONE 2016,
11, e0161087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 8 of 9

29. Verduyn, P.; Lavrijsen, S. Which emotions last longest and why: The role of event importance and rumination. Motiv. Emot. 2015,
39, 119–127. [CrossRef]
30. Hatfield, E.C.; Pillemer, J.T.; O’Brien, M.U.; Le, Y.C. The endurance of love: Passionate and companionate love in newlywed and
long-term marriages. Interpersona 2008, 2, 35–64. [CrossRef]
31. Rubin, Z. Measurement of romantic love. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1970, 16, 265–273. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Skolnick, A. The Intimate Environment: Exploring Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown: Boston, MA, USA, 1987.
33. Lamy, L. Beyond emotion: Love as an encounter of myth and drive. Emot. Rev. 2016, 8, 97–107. [CrossRef]
34. Aron, A.; Aron, E.N. Comment: An inspiration for expanding the self-expansion model of love. Emot. Rev. 2016, 8, 112–113.
[CrossRef]
35. Fisher, H.; Aron, A.; Brown, L.L. Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J. Comp. Neurol. 2005,
493, 58–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Kim, H.K.; McKenry, P.C. The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being. J. Fam. Issues 2002, 23, 885–911.
[CrossRef]
37. Marazziti, D.; Canale, D. Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2004, 29, 931–936. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
38. De Silva, P. Jealousy in couple relationships: Nature, assessment, and therapy. Behav. Res. Ther. 1997, 35, 973–985. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39. Rosenzweig, A.; Prigerson, H.; Miller, M.D.; Reynolds, C.F., III. Breavement and late-life depression: Grief and its complications
in the elderly. Annu. Rev. Med. 1997, 48, 421–428. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Monroe, S.M.; Rohde, P.; Seeley, J.R.; Lewinsohn, P.M. Life events and depression in adolescence: Relationship loss as a prospective
risk factor for first onset of major depressive disorder. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1999, 108, 606–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Amato, P.R. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. J. Marriage Fam. 2004, 62, 1269–1287. [CrossRef]
42. Proulx, C.M.; Helms, H.M.; Buehler, C. Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. J. Marriage Fam. 2007,
69, 576–593. [CrossRef]
43. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Van der Veen, F.M.; Fekkes, D. Blood levels of serotonin are differentially affected by romantic love in men and
women. J. Psychophysiol. 2012, 26, 92–98. [CrossRef]
44. Van Steenbergen, H.; Langeslag, S.J.; Band, G.P.; Hommel, B. Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motiv. Emot. 2014,
38, 444–450. [CrossRef]
45. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric
Association: Arlington, VA, USA, 2013.
46. Canetto, S.S.; Lester, D. Love and achievement motives in women’s and men’s suicide notes. J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl. 2002,
136, 573–576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Meloy, J.R.; Fisher, H. Some thoughts on the neurobiology of stalking. J. Forensic Sci. 2005, 50, 1472–1480. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Garcia-Moreno, C.; Jansen, H.A.; Ellsberg, M.; Heise, L.; Watts, C.H. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the
WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet 2006, 368, 1260–1269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Wilt, S.; Olson, S. Prevalence of domestic violence in the United States. J. Am. Women’s Assoc. 1996, 51, 77–82.
50. Wilson, M.; Daly, M. Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence Vict. 1993, 8, 3–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Horner, S.B.; Langeslag, S.J.E. Negative and positive reappraisal after a romantic break-up. J. Stud. Res. 2019, 8, 9–17. [CrossRef]
52. Surti, K.; Langeslag, S.J.E. Perceived ability to regulate love. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216523. [CrossRef]
53. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Davis, L.L. A preliminary study on up-regulation of sexual desire for a long-term partner. J. Sex. Med. 2022,
19, 872–878. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Langeslag, S.J.; Olivier, J.R.; Köhlen, M.E.; Nijs, I.M.; Van Strien, J.W. Increased attention and memory for beloved-related
information during infatuation: Behavioral and electrophysiological data. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2015, 10, 136–144. [CrossRef]
55. Roozendaal, B.; McEwen, B.S.; Chattarji, S. Stress, memory, and the amygdala. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 10, 423–433. [CrossRef]
56. Phelps, E.A. Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2004,
14, 198–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Guerra, P.; Campagnoli, R.R.; Vico, C.; Volchan, E.; Anllo-Vento, L.; Vila, J. Filial versus romantic love: Contributions from
peripheral and central electrophysiology. Biol. Psychol. 2011, 88, 196–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Iversen, S.; Iversen, L.; Saper, C. The autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamus. In Principles of Neuroscience; Kandel, E.R.,
Schwartz, J.H., Jessell, T.M., Eds.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 960–981.
59. Poldrak, R.A. Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: From reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron 2011,
72, 692–697. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Earp, B.D.; Wudarczyk, O.A.; Sandberg, A.; Savulescu, J. If I could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the ethics of
a chemical breakup. Am. J. Bioeth. 2013, 13, 3–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Wudarczyk, O.A.; Earp, B.D.; Guastella, A.; Savulescu, J. Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research
imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2013, 26, 474–484. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Earp, B.D.; Savulescu, J. What is love? Can it be chemically modified? Should it be? reply to commentaries. Philos. Public Issues
(New Ser.) 2020, 10, 93–151.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 383 9 of 9

63. Garasic, M.D. Love in the posthuman world: How neurointerventions could impact on our societal values. Philos. Public Issues
(New Ser.) 2020, 10, 29–43.
64. Wedeck, H.E. Love Potions through the Ages: A Study of Amatory Devices and Mores; Open Road Media: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
65. Acevedo, B.P.; Aron, A.; Fisher, H.E.; Brown, L.L. Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.
2012, 7, 145–159. [CrossRef]
66. Aron, A.; Fisher, H.; Mashek, D.J.; Strong, G.; Li, H.; Brown, L.L. Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with
early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 2005, 94, 327–337. [CrossRef]
67. Bartels, A.; Zeki, S. The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport 2000, 11, 3829–3834. [CrossRef]
68. Fisher, H.E.; Brown, L.L.; Aron, A.; Strong, G.; Mashek, D. Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with
rejection in love. J. Neurophysiol. 2010, 104, 51–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Stoessel, C.; Stiller, J.; Bleich, S.; Boensch, D.; Doerfler, A.; Garcia, M.; Richter-Schmidinger, T.; Kornhuber, J.; Forster, C. Differences
and similarities on neuronal activities of people being happily and unhappily in love: A functional magnetic resonance imaging
study. Neuropsychobiology 2011, 64, 52–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Xu, X.; Aron, A.; Brown, L.; Cao, G.; Feng, T.; Weng, X. Reward and motivation systems: A brain mapping study of early-stage
intense romantic love in Chinese participants. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2011, 32, 249–257. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Younger, J.; Aron, A.; Parke, S.; Chatterjee, N.; Mackey, S. Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain:
Involvement of neural reward systems. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13309. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Langeslag, S.J.E.; Van der Veen, F.M.; Röder, C.H. Attention modulates the dorsal striatum response to love stimuli. Hum. Brain
Mapp. 2014, 35, 503–512. [CrossRef]
73. Takahashi, K.; Mizuno, K.; Sasaki, A.T.; Wada, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Ishii, A.; Tajima, K.; Tsuyuguchi, N.; Watanabe, K.; Zeki, S.; et al.
Imaging the passionate stage of romantic love by dopamine dynamics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 191. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.