Comment

The three-factor model proposed by Kruglanski et al. represents an elegant and parsimonious motivational formulation of falling in love, conceived as an expression of the quest for meaning. According to this model, the likelihood that an individual falls in love depends on three main factors: the perception of the partner’s merit, the degree of appreciation received from the partner, and the intensity of the individual’s own need for significance. Romantic love is thus interpreted as an individual strategy to satisfy a fundamental need: to feel important, recognized, and meaningful.

While acknowledging the explanatory power and theoretical robustness of this model, we believe it remains anchored to a predominantly individualistic view of the motivational process. In our view, the interpretative potential of the model could be further enriched through the integration of an intersubjective and dynamic dimension. Specifically, we propose to conceive romantic love not only as a means through which an individual derives meaning from their partner but as an ongoing process of co-construction of meaning between the partners themselves. While it is true that falling in love may initially arise from the perception of the other’s qualities and the appreciation received, it is primarily through constant and reciprocal interaction that love evolves, contributing to the consolidation and transformation of each individual’s sense of personal and relational value. In this sense, love is not reduced to a mere internal motivational calculus but emerges as a shared process of mutual definition, negotiation, and transformation of meaning.

From this perspective, meaning is not a static resource transferred from one individual to another but an emergent property of relational dynamics. The idea that meaning is constructed and maintained through interaction is gaining increasing support in recent literature. Studies on interdependence and self-development suggest that romantic partners not only respond to each other’s needs but also actively contribute to the construction of each other’s identity and perception of personal value (Agnew & Etcheverry, Reference Agnew and Etcheverry2006; Contu et al., Reference Contu, Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Yu, Lemay and Pierro2025; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, Reference Cross, Bacon and Morris2000). This approach aligns with the updated self-expansion model, according to which intimate relationships allow partners to expand the self by incorporating the other’s perspectives, resources, and meanings in a bidirectional process of shared growth (Aron et al., Reference Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek and Aron2013; Aron & Tomlinson, Reference Aron, Tomlinson, Sternberg and Sternberg2019). The relationship itself thus becomes the primary source of significance, not merely for its static rewards but for the way it enables partners to feel like co-authors of an affective narrative.

This intersubjective extension of the original model is particularly relevant for understanding long-term romantic bonds, where love evolves not only in response to stable traits of the partner (such as merit) but through ever-changing relational patterns of recognition, attunement, and validation. A partner may initially make us feel appreciated, but it is the quality of daily interactions that determines the sustainability of this sense of meaning. This is consistent with evidence suggesting that the perception of sensitive support and mutual responsiveness significantly contributes to both relational and personal well-being (Canevello & Crocker, Reference Canevello and Crocker2010; Jiang, Canevello, & Crocker, Reference Jiang, Canevello and Crocker2023). Furthermore, as shown by some studies, marital growth is fostered by perceived support processes that generate mutual validation and identity co-construction (Andersen & Przybylinski, Reference Andersen and Przybylinski2018; Arican-Dinc & Gable, Reference Arican-Dinc and Gable2023).

Conceiving love as a shared project of meaning construction allows for a more nuanced understanding of relational transformations. Rather than interpreting the decline of romantic feelings solely in terms of diminished merit or appreciation, this extension would also account for changes in the relational narrative and in shared growth experiences. It is not uncommon for a relationship that is objectively positive to lose subjective value when partners no longer feel that it fosters their personal or relational development. Thus, a relationship may weaken not due to a lack of appreciation, but because of the interruption of the generative process of shared meaning (Contu et al., Reference Contu, Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Yu, Lemay and Pierro2025; Murray, Lamarche, & Seery, Reference Murray, Lamarche and Seery2018).

Integrating this dynamic and intersubjective perspective could offer at least three key theoretical advantages. First, it would capture the temporal and evolutionary nature of romantic love, recognizing that personal significance is also an emergent product of the relationship. Second, it would explain the resilience and transformation of intimate bonds not merely as the maintenance of satisfaction but as the active redefinition of shared meaning. Third, it would link individual motivations to dyadic interaction patterns, bringing Kruglanski et al.’s model into dialogue with established theories such as attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, Reference Mikulincer and Shaver2010), self-determination theory (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, Reference Deci, Olafsen and Ryan2017), and relational interdependence theory (Clark & Lemay, Reference Clark, Lemay, Fiske, Gilbert and Lindzey2010). In this way, the concept of the “quest for significance” is transformed from an individual impulse into a relational process, where significance is continuously shaped, molded, and renewed through encounters with the other.

In conclusion, this theoretical extension could open new empirical and conceptual research directions on the processes of intimacy building, relational satisfaction, and shared meaning in romantic relationships. From this perspective, love would no longer be understood merely as a response to an individual’s need for significance but would emerge as a transformative context in which partners co-construct and mutually redefine their perception of meaningfulness.