Kruglanski et al. propose an ambitious triadic theory of romantic love driven by perceived partner merit, appreciation, and actors’ “quest for significance.” While the framework is provocative and generative, we wish to raise questions regarding the conceptual and empirical robustness of the “quest for significance” as a foundational driver of love. Specifically, we contend that the formation of love between people may not primarily stem from motives related to social recognition or self-worth (e.g., the need for status or esteem within one’s group). Instead, we argue that love emerges from a fundamental human need, serving core evolutionary and psychological functions: reproduction in the context of romantic love, and survival/safety across both romantic and non-romantic bonds. From this perspective, we think that other theoretical accounts such as attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1969), the need to belong (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995), and social baseline theory (e.g., Beckes & Coan, Reference Beckes and Coan2011) offer a more compelling framework for understanding how love fulfills persistent and non-substitutable social needs – needs that have deep evolutionary roots. In fact, these theories share the central premise that forming and maintaining close social bonds has been critical for the survival and reproduction of our species.

Throughout human evolutionary history, people who formed romantic attachment bonds were more likely to reproduce and cooperate to ensure their offspring’s survival (e.g., Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, Reference Shaver, Hazan, Bradshaw, Sternberg and Barnes1988). Likewise, attachment bonds between parents and children were critical for offspring survival (e.g., Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1969). Humans also needed to collaborate to secure food, share resources, care for children, and protect themselves from predators and external threats (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995). In line with these evolutionary perspectives, social baseline theory proposes that social connectedness is the brain’s default state, as proximity to others reduced effort and enhanced survival in ancestral environments (e.g., Coan & Sbarra, Reference Coan and Sbarra2015). In agreement with these theories, we contend that love results from a fundamental need for connection that is distinct from, and more essential than, the quest for significance. This relational drive cannot be satisfied by other means (e.g., career accomplishments), nor can it become dormant when other needs arise. Instead, the need to form and maintain close bonds is persistently active, irreplaceable, and central to human well-being.

In addition, while the “quest for significance” provides a novel framing, its conceptual distinctiveness remains somewhat ambiguous, particularly in relation to well-established constructs such as self-esteem (Rosenberg, Reference Rosenberg1965), narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, Reference Morf and Rhodewalt2001), and the need for status (Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, Reference Anderson, Hildreth and Howland2015). For instance, narcissism entails a chronic pursuit of admiration and recognition, directly paralleling what “significance” aims to explain. Without clearer conceptual boundaries or added explanatory value, this construct risks redundancy.

We also want to note some methodological limitations, particularly the use of hypothetical scenarios and imagined responses in several supporting studies. While useful for theory development, such methods may limit the ecological validity of the findings when applied to actual romantic relationship processes. Contemporary relationship science increasingly emphasizes behavioral, longitudinal, and naturalistic designs to capture relational dynamics as they unfold in real life. Moreover, the proposed multiplicative model (Merit × Appreciation × Significance Quest) lacks direct empirical validation. Therefore, its predictive utility is difficult to assess, particularly when compared to well-established frameworks – such as attachment theory, the need to belong, and social baseline theory – that offer evolutionary grounded accounts of relational behavior without invoking a significance-seeking motive.

Furthermore, although the authors suggest that their model applies uniformly across all forms of love, we believe it is important to distinguish between different relational contexts, particularly between falling in love and passionate love (typically characteristic of the early stages of romantic relationships) and companionate love (which is more typical of long-term romantic bonds as well as non-romantic relationships) (Berscheid & Walster, Reference Berscheid and Walster1978; Sprecher & Regan, Reference Sprecher and Regan1998). Specifically, we propose that partner’s merit may play a more central role in the experience of falling in love, whereas appreciation from partners may become more critical for sustaining companionate love. This aligns with prior work highlighting the central role of physical attraction and self-expansion in early-stage romantic attraction, and the crucial importance of mutual care, responsiveness, and support in companionate relationships.

From an evolutionary perspective, passionate love is thought to serve the function of selecting a suitable reproductive partner (Reis & Aron, Reference Reis and Aron2008), making evaluations of partner’s merit particularly relevant during this phase. Consistent with this view, research on initial romantic attraction consistently shows that specific markers of partner merit, such as physical attractiveness and mate value, play a key role in generating interest (e.g., Joel, Eastwick, & Finkel, Reference Joel, Eastwick and Finkel2017). Similarly, passionate love seems to be fueled by self-expansion, the self including and acquiring partner’s meritorious characteristics (Aron & Aron, Reference Aron and Aron1996). In contrast, companionate love is seen as facilitating long-term cooperation, also for the purpose of raising offspring (Reis & Aron, Reference Reis and Aron2008), and thus relies more heavily on the experience of being appreciated and supported by one’s partner. Consistently, a very comprehensive meta-analysis of predictors of relationship satisfaction and commitment in established relationships showed that perceived partner responsiveness, appreciation, and commitment, all constructs related to the factor appreciation, were the strongest predictors of relationship quality. In contrast, partner’s attractiveness and other partner’s merit attributes were only weakly related (Joel et al., Reference Joel, Eastwick, Allison, Arriaga, Baker, Bar-Kalifa, Bergeron, Birnbaum, Brock, Brumbaugh, Carmichael, Chen, Clarke, Cobb, Coolsen, Davis, de Jong, Debrot, DeHaas and Wolf2020). Building on this distinction, we think that future research should (a) investigate how the relative importance of partner’s merit versus appreciation from partner varies across different relational contexts, particularly across different types and stages of relationship, and (b) explore the temporal dynamics of these two factors in predicting the development and maintenance of love over time.

In sum, Kruglanski et al.’s factor “quest for significance” offers a provocative lens on the motivational underpinnings of love, yet it does not clearly surpass existing theories in either conceptual clarity or empirical support. We argue that progress in understanding the foundations of love requires precision in identifying its core motivational drivers, the use of rigorous and diverse methodological approaches, and careful differentiation between relational types and stages. These steps will bring researchers closer to uncovering the essential roots of love.