1.1. Core assumptions

Specifically, we assume that love toward another person is a function of the significance bestowed on oneself in their relationship (S_R1) relative to the significance afforded by all other sources of significance, including work and alternative relationships (S_OTHER). This is qualified by the amount of significance one desires, i.e., the person’s magnitude of their need (N) for significance, a fundamental human motivation.

With the updated model, we state that significance received from a given relationship is a product function of the perceived Merit (M) of the other, the amount of Appreciation (A) they bestow upon oneself, and the Novelty (NV) of the relationship. Expressed formally, we have

(1) $${\rm{\;}}{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}\~\ \ {\rm{M}} \times {\rm{A}} \times {\rm{NV}}$$

1.1.2. Appreciation

The appreciation one receives from another has two dimensions, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative dimension refers to the frequency/effusiveness of appreciation expressions one receives from another. The qualitative dimension pertains to the specific aspects of the actor that receive the partner’s appreciation. As Baumeister & Jessen aptly note: “receiving appreciative messages from others can be deeply satisfying, because it affirms that one is being regarded the way one wants to be.” For instance, a person who is appreciated for their looks (i.e., “objectified”), or for being a scion of a respected family, may derive relatively little significance from these tokens of regard if they wanted to be valued for intellectual achievement, business acumen, or cooperativeness instead. We expect that most people want to be appreciated in the same domains that define merit mentioned above, as such appreciation validates that one is a valuable member according to one’s own idiosyncratic standards of merit and the standards held by important reference groups. Formally speaking, the A component in equation 1 can be expressed as a weighted function in which the extent of appreciation (E) is weighted by its quality Q:

(2) $${\rm{A}}\sim {\rm{QE}}$$

1.2. The role of novelty and alternative significance sources

1.2.1. Novelty

Novelty is a newly added component to the model, which refers to the extent to which the other provides experiences, perspectives, or qualities that are new, unexpected, or different from what one has encountered in the past. Novelty can be expressed in various ways, such as introducing the actor to unfamiliar ideas, activities, or social circles; displaying unpredictable and stimulating behaviors; or offering fresh emotional or intellectual challenges (Aron et al., Reference Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna and Heyman2000; Strong et al, Reference Strong, Aron, Vohs and Finkel2006). It can also stem from changes within the relationship itself, when the partner evolves in ways that continue to surprise or intrigue the actor (Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, Reference Overall, Fletcher and Simpson2010). Without novelty, even highly meritorious and appreciative partners risk becoming part of the relationship’s “background noise,” reducing the salience of the significance they confer. This possibility is consistent with findings demonstrating that happiness following positive events often returns to previous levels due to habituation (Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, Reference Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman1978; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, Reference Diener, Lucas and Scollon2006).

In our model, novelty functions as a multiplier: when paired with high merit and appreciation, it amplifies the partner’s significance-bestowing capacity; when absent, the relationship’s ability to sustain significance over time may diminish, potentially leading to declines in love despite stable merit and appreciation levels. Novelty is thus essential for understanding both the initiation of love (when newness is abundant) and its maintenance (when novelty must be actively cultivated).

Novelty, by its nature, is transient. Early in a relationship, partners are a rich source of new experiences, personality aspects, and social contexts. These novel elements capture attention and elicit emotional arousal, which can heighten the perceived significance of the relationship. However, as partners spend more time together, repeated exposure to the same traits, behaviors, and routines leads to habituation. What was once stimulating and distinctive can become familiar and predictable, reducing the attentional and emotional impact of those experiences.

Importantly, novelty need not vanish entirely – it can be renewed through changes in circumstances, self-development, or deliberate efforts by partners to explore new activities, settings, or roles together. Research on self-expansion in relationships supports the idea that engaging in novel, challenging, and exciting activities with a partner can rekindle feelings of closeness and attraction by restoring the sense of distinctiveness and growth that novelty initially provided (Muise et al., Reference Muise, Harasymchuk, Day, Bacev-Giles, Gere and Impett2019). Thus, the inclusion of novelty in the model not only helps explain the initial spark of love but also offers a pathway for understanding how love can be sustained or revitalized over time.

Taking together, we have Novelty as a function of time as well as occasional novelty renewal from new activities, roles, or life changes brought upon by the partner:

(3) $${\rm{N}}{{\rm{V}}_t} = {\rm{N}}{{\rm{V}}_0}{{\rm{e}}^{ - {\rm{kt}}}} + \sum (r\,\;{e^{ - {\rm{kt}}}})$$

^{Footnote 1}

Here, NV ₀ denotes initial novelty at t = 0; k denotes the habituation rate of novelty (larger k indicates faster decline over time, k > 0); and r denotes the occasional renewal effect of novelty ( $\sum (r$ e ^-kt )) denotes the total effect of all novelty injections over time). It is important to note that the habituation rate k can reflect the length of exposure to the partner (i.e., novelty declines with familiarity).

As noted above, love need not necessarily decline with drops in the novelty of partner merit and appreciation. Cognitive processes, such as counterfactual thinking, downward social comparisons, and benefit-finding (i.e., effortful identification of positive features), may promote love even when novelty is lacking. Indeed, prior research demonstrates that gratitude and a sense of meaning in life can be sustained by such processes (Kray et al., Reference Kray, George, Liljenquist, Galinsky, Tetlock and Roese2010; Nicuta & Constantin, Reference Nicută and Constantin2021). For example, the value of the habituated love relationship may be particularly salient in the context of possibly losing it (e.g., under a threat of partner’s withdrawal or threat of abandonment).

1.2.2. Other sources of significance

We also assume that, however special and important, a love relationship (S_R1) is one among several sources of significance available to a person, including other possible relationships, and work/career $\sum ($ S_OTHER). Thus, the total amount of significance one expects to garner is an additive function of the significance one receives from the given relationship and the significance received from other, feasible, sources.

(4) $${{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{TOTAL}}}}\ \~\ \ ({{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}} + \sum ({{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{OTHER}}}})$$

Furthermore, different sources of significance compete for attention and resource investment, in the sense that placing greater weight on one proportionately reduces the weight (attention, caring) given to the other. For instance, a predominant focus on a love relationship often comes at the expense of other life domains. Tennov (Reference Tennov1999) illustrates how obsessive fixations associated with this mental state often lead individuals to neglect parental responsibilities, halt intellectual hobbies, or downgrade social engagements (e.g., pp. 167–172). Similarly, considerable research evidence attests to the detrimental impact of excessive job involvement and work-family conflict on marital/romantic relationship satisfaction (e.g.Bagherzadeh et al., Reference Bagherzadeh, Taghizadeh, Mohammadi, Kazemnejad, Pourreza and Ebadi2016; Bellavia & Frone, Reference Bellavia, Frone, Barling, Kelloway and Frone2005; Heves Ozyılmaz, Reference Ozyılmaz2025; Hostetler et al., Reference Hostetler, Desrochers, Kopko and Moen2012; Yoo, Reference Yoo2021).

The prioritization of a given source of significance over another should be magnified by the magnitude of one’s Need for Significance (N): The higher the level of that Need, the greater the differentiation between the available significance sources, increasing the attention gap given to the most promising source over its alternatives (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Szumowska, Kopetz, Vallerand and Pierro2021; Kruglanski & Moskalenko, Reference Kruglanski and Moskalenko2025). Stated formally, we have our formulae of love (L_R1)

(5a) $${\rm{When\;}}\,{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}/{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{OTHER}}}} \gt 1:{{\rm{L}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}\ \~\ \ \left( {{\rm{N x }}{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}} \right)/\sum ({{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{OTHER}}}})$$

(5b) $${\rm{When\;}}\,{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}/{{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{OTHER}}}} \lt 1:{{\rm{L}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}\ \~\ \ {{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{R1}}}}/N \times \sum ({{\rm{S}}_{{\rm{OTHER}}}})$$

In other words, we assume that N multiplies the dominant source of significance. When S_R1 is dominant, i.e., it exceeds in magnitude the S_OTHER, the N multiplies its magnitude further. When, in contrast, the S_OTHER is dominant, its magnitude in turn gets a further boost from the N. Whereas no direct evidence yet exists concerning the effects of the significance need on polarization of significance sources (S_R1 versus S_OTHER), equations 5a and 5b are potentially relevant to cases where the extremes of love occlude other life domains (Tennov, Reference Tennov1999), and cases where extreme workaholism undermines love (Robinson, Flowers, & Ng, Reference Robinson, Flowers and Ng2006).

Given our revised model of love described above, we now consider several specific questions raised in the commentaries.

2.1. Love and the need for significance

Some of the commentaries (e.g., Clark & Chughtai; Fowers) raise (albeit implicitly) a fundamental question: Does our portrayal of love as deriving from people’s need for significance and mattering (N) depict it as selfish, hence inconsistent with views of love as a quintessentially caring, prosocial emotion? We think not. We believe that all human actions and emotions, including those of the saintliest, most altruistic persons (e.g., Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, St Francis of Assisi), are motivated, that is, rooted in some basic need or want. This hardly makes all that people do egoistic or selfish. What may differ between persons motivated by the quest for significance, for instance, is how they choose to satisfy it: the means they choose to achieve their end. Some people, on certain occasions, may resort to aggression and violence (c.f. Kruglanski et al.); others, or the same individuals on different occasions, may do so through humanitarian devotion or the love of another. Moral evaluation pertains to what people choose to do rather than to the underlying, typically unconscious, motives they seek to satisfy through their actions.Footnote ²

2.2. Love as prosocial despite motivated roots

In a gist, then, while love is motivated, it nonetheless represents a fundamentally pro-social phenomenon of caring for and being cared for by another human being. The notion that love is not necessarily incompatible with the pursuit of personal goals is similarly found in theorizing on communal relationships, which holds that unselfish satisfaction of motives may drive people to adhere to communal norms in their relationships, norms that involve caring for others’ needs (Clark & Mills, 1993; Reference Clark, Mills, Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2011).

3.1. Love of god

We maintain that in all cases of love or friendship, the object of one’s affection has some considerable Merit in the eye of the lover/friend and is presumed to appreciate the latter in return. Take the love of God, for instance. The very concept of God is of a Being with infinite Merits (all knowledgeable, all powerful, omnipresent). In addition, however, God is assumed to love his flock (i.e., appreciates it) and acts as a heavenly father to humans and other living creatures.

A striking parallel between romantic love and the love of God is the conception, deeply rooted within the Catholic Church, of nuns as “God’s brides” or “brides of Christ.” By professing vows (of poverty, chastity, and obedience) or receiving the Rite of Consecration of Virgins, they publicly dedicate their entire lives, their bodies, and their souls to Jesus Christ as their one and only Spouse.

3.2. Parental love

Or consider the love of children. Whereas it might seem that babies couldn’t possibly have merits (Fishbach), having a baby is a badge of honor and a rite of passage for parents, often celebrated by society and family with lavish gifts and commemorations. In this sense, a baby does have merit. By contrast, those who fail to produce a healthy baby are often pitied and made to feel ashamed and defective (Galhardo et al., Reference Galhardo, Pinto-Gouveia, Cunha and Matos2011; Munschauer, Reference Munschauer2014), suggesting that not having a baby leads to a loss of significance.

Furthermore, nobody ever receives as much Appreciation as a mother from their newborn baby, who depends on her for everything. The vocalizations and facial expressions of babies are precisely evolutionarily tailored to convey both their needs and the satisfaction of their attainment (Murray et al., Reference Murray, De Pascalis, Bozicevic, Hawkins, Sclafani and Ferrari2016; Lyons-Ruth, Reference Lyons-Ruth2008; Lamb & Easterbrooks, Reference Lamb, Easterbrooks, Lamb and Sherrod1981). A baby responds to the parents, especially the mother, in unmistakably appreciative ways. In this sense, Appreciation is very much a part of that relationship. Indeed, feeling loved by children is an important predictor of parents’ satisfaction with the parent–child relationship (DeHart et al., Reference DeHart, Murray, Pelham and Rose2003).

Also consistent with our theory are the findings that the arrival of (and a love relationship with) a child often has a detrimental impact on the parents’ romantic love and marital satisfaction. Studies and meta-analyses consistently reveal that the birth of a child introduces significant stressors that can lead to a decline in romantic relationship satisfaction. For instance, research indicates that up to 67% of couples experience a decrease in relationship satisfaction after a child’s birth (Shapiro, Gottman, & Carrère, Reference Shapiro, Gottman and Carrère2000). And a meta-analysis by Twenge, Campbell, and Fosterk (Reference Twenge, Campbell and Fosterk2004) concluded that parents report lower marital satisfaction than non-parents, an effect more pronounced over time. In present terms, commitment to the new, significance-affording love of one’s child inflates the S_OTHER term in equation (3) above, hence correspondingly lowers the proportion of significance derived from the parents’ romantic coupling (S_R1), and their consequent degree of love toward each other.

4.1. Exclusivity

And yet, despite the continuity with other loves, romantic love is special. What makes it so is its defining exclusivity: The sense of being the chosen one, and the potential to be loved and cherished by another person. There’s a “you and me against the world” dynamic, a unique bond not shared with anyone else. Whereas God’s love, however exalted, is presumed to be shared with all other creations, and the bond with one’s children typically weakens when they reach adulthood and “leave the nest” – romantic love, at least in its ideal form, is “till death do you part.”

4.2. Unique source of significance

In that sense, romantic love constitutes an extremely powerful and enduring source of significance. In modern Western culture, romantic love is typically seen as a unique and highly important relationship (Acevedo & Aron, Reference Acevedo and Aron2009). Indeed, a perceived inability to enter a romantic relationship has inspired a radical online movement of Incels (involuntarily celibates) whose grievance about being unloved has led some to commit mass violence (Moskalenko et al., Reference Moskalenko, González, Kates and Morton2022). In this way, romantic love stands apart as a singular source of significance, unlike any other social bond.

5.1. Changing weights of merit and appreciation across the lifespan

Indeed, we believe that our Merit x Appreciation model of love applies throughout the relationship, not only at its beginning and end points (see e.g., Contu et al., Reference Contu, Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Yu, Lemay and Pierro2025). The relative contributions of the Merit and Appreciation factors to the significance one derives from a given love relationship can fluctuate over time. At different points in their life trajectory, individuals may give more weight to either the Merit or Appreciation factors. For instance, in people’s youth, partner’s Merit (e.g., appearance) may carry relatively more weight than the Appreciation factor, whereas later in life this emphasis may reverse (Wahring et al). Too, the partner’s Merit may be more stable over time (or change at a slower rate) than the expressions of Appreciation, with the result that over time Appreciation may receive more weight than Merit (Wahring et al).

There can also be individual differences in the relative weights that persons assign to the Merit and Appreciation factors. In a recent set of 3 experimental studies and one dyad daily dairy study involving 226 couples, Yu et al. (Reference Yu, Kruglanski, Ellenberg and Lemay2025a) hypothesized, consistent with our theory, that high SES people, with a higher base level of significance, assume (feel entitled to) a greater level of Appreciation already, hence their increment in felt significance is derived more from the partner’s Merit (social status, specifically). In contrast, low SES individuals lack Appreciation to a degree, hence they are more sensitive to the Appreciation received from potential or actual partners. Indeed, the results showed that people high in SES place greater weight on partner’s Merit (social status) but less weight on partner’s Appreciation than do those low in SES (see also Milyavsky et al., Reference Milyavsky, Kruglanski, Gelfand, Chernikova, Ellenberg and Pierro2022).

5.2. The decline and renewal of novelty

The proportions of significance derived from a given love relationship (S_R1) versus alternative significance sources (S_OTHER) may vary over time. Several factors likely determine these proportions. The decline of novelty (NV) of the partner’s significance-affording features and perhaps a decline in evaluation of those features (e.g., seeing less glamorous and loving aspects of the partner that were largely concealed during the courtship phase) reduces the relative weight of the love relationship as a significance source. Love researchers distinguish between passionate love, characterizing the early, novel and exciting phase of the relationship, and companionate love, characterizing the later stages. We suggest that a novel, passionate love affords a sudden significance boost that lends the relationship elevated weight as a significance source (see equation 3). In contrast, the settled, sedate, companionate love is often “taken for granted” and habituated to. It can be experienced as a less salient significance enhancer relative to alternative significance sources, and more as an endowment one is loath to lose. As noted earlier, however, novelty can be rekindled (the “spark can be reignited”) through the couple’s common explorations of novel domains in part benefiting from the parties’ personal development that they share with each other the ( $\sum (r$ e ^-kt ) term of equation 3).

5.3. Alternative sources of significance

As noted earlier, the weight given to alternative sources of significance (S_OTHER) depends on their feasibility: the expectancy of realizing their significance-affording potential. For instance, career opportunities may vary throughout one’s life trajectory depending on one’s skills, age, and market demands. The greater such opportunities, the greater the weight of one’s work as a source of significance relative to the weight of a love relationship. As stated above, such prioritization is often associated with reduced romantic relationship satisfaction.

5.4. Other loves

Too, one’s personal attractiveness and charm may increase the allure of enhancing one’s significance through embarking on alternative romantic relationships. Research finds that physically attractive individuals have more relationship partners, implying lesser commitment to any given relationship (Jokela, Reference Jokela2009). Studies of men in both casual and serious dating relationships showed that the highly attractive ones reported a greater desire for sexual relations with partners outside their current relationship (White, Reference White1980). Research also finds that women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) – classically considered a hallmark of femininity – had more adventures outside their principal relationship than did women with a high WHR (Hughes & Gallop, Reference Hughes and Gallup2003). And Ma-Kellams et al., (Reference Ma-Kellams, Wang and Cardiel2017) found that more attractive men (judged by the high school yearbook photos) had shorter marriages, and so did actors and celebrities, judged as more attractive. Too, people in exclusive romantic relationships found that those rated as more attractive reported greater attraction to individuals outside their relationship than did those rated as less attractive. Finally, this research also found that participants experimentally made to feel more attractive felt less satisfied with their current relationship and more attracted to relationship alternatives than participants experimentally prompted to judge themselves as less attractive.

5.5. Love’s potential for resilience and recovery

Does protracted investment in a relationship blur the distinction between the Merit and Appreciation factors as Murray and Pascuzzi are suggesting, implying that our model may apply to the initiation of a love relationship, but not to its subsequent phases? Presumably, Murray and Pascuzzi’s argument is based on the motivationally driven alignment, a kind of “halo effect,” prompting individuals to view people who exhibit Appreciation as also meritorious and vice versa. However, such motivational bias that demonstrably exists (e.g., Lemay & Clark, Reference Lemay and Clark2015; Lemay, Ryan, & Teneva, Reference Lemay, Ryan and Teneva2021; Murray, Reference Murray1999) should also impact the stage of relationship initiation, inconsistent with the proposal that stages of a relationship differ in this regard. For example, people demonstrate goal-driven perceptions of acceptance during the relationship-initiation process (Cameron et al., Reference Cameron, Stinson, Gaetz and Balchen2010).

More fundamentally yet, biasing motivations (or needs for specific closure, Kruglanski, Reference Kruglanski2004) typically are constrained by the need for accuracy or Truth (Cornwell et al., Reference Cornwell, Franks and Higgins2014; Higgins, Reference Higgins2012; Kruglanski, Reference Kruglanski1989). Research has shown that motivational biases are particularly likely to occur under stimulus ambiguity (Dunning et al., Reference Dunning, Meyerowitz and Holzberg1989; Kunda, Reference Kunda1990). Where the evidence is clear (e.g., concerning the candidate’s Merit and/or Appreciation attributes), the Truth motivation prevails, prompting “objective” judgment of partner features, readily agreed upon with other observers. Again, this should apply across stages of a relationship given the basic human motivation for Truth (Higgins, Reference Higgins1997). It is perhaps for this reason that, despite the evidence for biased perception, there is compelling evidence for accuracy in romantic partner perceptions (LaBuda & Gere, Reference LaBuda and Gere2023).

Studies by Murray and colleagues (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, Reference Murray, Holmes and Collins2006; Murray et al., Reference Murray, Bellavia, Rose and Griffin2003; Murray & Pascuzzi, Reference Murray and Pascuzzi2024) suggest that people distance themselves from their partners and feel dissatisfied in response to lower perceived partner Appreciation. This research does not directly tap the effects on the partner’s perceived Merit. Whether lowered Appreciation would prompt a corresponding dip in perceived partner Merit might depend on the extent of lowering. Our model, as well as dissonance theory (Festinger, Reference Festinger1957), suggests that if the love level remained constant, a reduction in one ingredient (Appreciation or Merit) would prompt a compensatory augmentation (dissonance reduction) in the other. Exploration of these possibilities could be profitably undertaken in future research.

7.1. Love’s underlying motivation

Two sets of challenges were levelled against our claim that the love experience is uniquely driven by people’s need for significance and mattering: (1) the notion that the support one gets from another in one’s pursuit of any goal whatsoever elicits love (Fishbach; Szczesniak et al); (2) the notion that specific other motives, such as belonging or relatedness (Topal et al; Esch) or emotional security, arousal, and sexual attraction (Quirin & Buss), are additionally involved in the love relationship.

Concerning the first point, the question is what is meant by “goal support.” If by this term is meant facilitation of (any) goal attainment, the answer is no. People do not usually fall in love with those who fulfill active goals unrelated to significance. For example, we do not usually fall in love with those who hire us, clean our houses, repair our cars, accept our manuscripts, etc. If, however, “goal support” is taken to mean acceptance of the partner’s goal pursuit in general, this may reflect respect for the partner and sustenance of their dreams and ambitions, in other words, Appreciation. Still, missing from the equation here is the Merit of the “goal supporter,” without a sufficient degree of which there will be no love, according to our model.

Consider now motives like belonging or relatedness; aren’t they likely to be involved in love relationships? We believe that they are because the need for significance is the common thread that unites them. For instance, belonging, as conceptualized by Baumeister and Leary (Reference Baumeister and Leary1995), does not pertain to category membership as such (e.g., being a male, a psychologist, or a member of the X generation) but rather to being accepted, included, appreciated – made to feel one matters. And the same pertains to “relatedness”: It too betokens acceptance and inclusion. Feelings of intimacy depend heavily on feeling valued (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, Reference Laurenceau, Barrett and Pietromonaco1998; Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Collins2006). Thus, the need for significance isn’t just one among several motives that underlie love, but rather is unique and essential. To love and to be loved is to be cared for and to repay with caring: love’s underlying motivation is, therefore, to have that uplifting experience.

We also agree with Quirin and Buss that emotional security, arousal, and sexual attraction can be relevant to love. Emotional security, “perceiving a partner as kind and caring enhances romantic attraction and commitment” is relevant because it indicates the partner’s capacity for Appreciation of the actor. Arousal is involved in any heightened motivational state, including but not limited to the excitement about an opportunity to satisfy one’s need for significance. Finally, while sexual attraction can bias or reflect an actor’s perception of the partner’s Merit and Appreciation potential, sexual attraction is neither a sufficient condition for falling in love (there can be sexual attraction without love) nor a necessary one (there can be love without sex). Yes, good sex sensitive to the partner’s specific needs can be considered a form of Appreciation and, in that sense, contribute to love. Overall, however, emotional security, arousal, and sexual attraction, while relevant to love, do not necessitate an expansion of our model because they can be addressed within its parameters.

9.1. Overgeneralization

A theory that’s too abstract, broad, or general may lose explanatory or predictive power because it loses touch with specific observable realities. For instance, whereas all humans are mammals, a general theory about mammalian properties misses phenomena that are uniquely human, e.g., having to do with language, sociality, or culture. In short, a theory too detached from the realm of phenomena it aims to describe becomes an abstraction without traction. To twist a quip attributed to Einstein: “A theory should be as general as possible but no more general.”

The phenomena our M-A model seeks to address are the fluctuations in the love experience, including its commencement, “falling in love,” its possible dissolution – “falling out of love,” with all the undulations of amorous feelings in between. We explain those in terms of the partner’s perceived Merit, Appreciation, and Novelty that jointly lend the actor the sense of significance and mattering.

In this light, consider the proposals to replace our model with a general goal theory whereby people love those who offer them goal support (Fishbach; Szczesniak et al). Admittedly, positive affect as a function of goal attainment (generalizing to the means of attainment) is common to goal theories, and love is a special kind of positive affect. Does that mean that a general goal theory offers a better fit for explaining love phenomena than does our model? We think not. While all love phenomena are goal-driven, not all goal-driven phenomena are love-relevant. Goal support (e.g., from one’s teacher, grocer, or car mechanic) does not deliver love unless it came from a sufficiently meritorious (appealing) person and was accompanied by a sufficiently meaningful degree of Appreciation. Explaining love as a mere instance of goal pursuit is an overgeneralization that largely misses the phenomenon our model aims to explain.

Similar considerations apply to the Van Dessel and Boddez proposal to replace our framework with Goal-Directed Predictive Processing Theory (e.g., Moors, Reference Moors2017). While useful in considering the broad realm of goal-driven phenomena, this framework is overly general to explain the nuanced love fluctuations of present interest. For instance, the inferences “I want intimacy” and “This person could fulfill that need” fail to explain why the desire for intimacy arose in that particular moment, nor why the given person was deemed apt to fulfill it, or why the intimate relationship declined in importance relative to work/career opportunities or the arrival of children.

9.2. Targeting specificity

A fundamental principle of scientific thinking is that no single theory exhaustively explains all aspects of a phenomenon. Instead, multiple theories coexist, each illuminating some of its features while ignoring others. In Psychology, working memory models (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, Reference Baddeley, Hitch and Bower1974) focus on short-term, active processing, whereas long-term memory theories (e.g., encoding specificity, semantic networks) deal with storage, retrieval, and permanence. No single model explains the entire spectrum of memory phenomena from encoding to forgetting, from conscious recall to implicit memory, nor should it. The power of science lies not in finding one all-seeing spotlight, but in coordinating many. Each theory contributes a partial view – useful and valid within its domain — but none offers a total picture.

These considerations pertain to arguments by some of our critics (Righetti & Slatcher; Esch; Boudesseul et al) who complain that our model fails to take into account the biological underpinnings of love phenomena, and/or assert that evolutionary theory (e.g. Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Simpson, Campbell and Overall2015) has already explained all the love phenomena that our model seeks to illuminate. Our theory is hardly inconsistent with evolutionary accounts. Indeed, we have assumed (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Molinario, Jasko, Webber, Leander and Pierro2022; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Szumowska, Molinario, Speckhard, Leander, Pierro, Di Cicco and Bushman2023) that the need for significance has likely evolved owing to the procreative advantages it conferred. Individuals who contributed to the group acquired a reputation and significance (Willer, Reference Willer2009) that enhanced their access to desirable mates and other resources, and hence their reproductive fitness. Moreover, the significance boost that a loving relationship affords through the joint workings of the Merit and Appreciation factors is likely to enhance commitment to the relationship just as evolutionary theorists hypothesized (Quirin & Buss; Baumeister & Jessen; Fletcher et al).

That said, evolutionary/biological theories that address couplehood commitment, the suppression of mate-seeking mechanisms, and the hormonal and neuropsychological signatures attached to a loving relationship, while useful and important, do not address specifically the joint contribution of Merit and Appreciation factors to the love experience, nor the fluctuation of that experience throughout the relationship, the impact on the love relationship of alternative sources of significance (work/career, other significance affording relationships), habituation to the significance derived from a given loving relationship (the “taking for granted” phenomenon), etc. Our expanded M-A model targets specifically those aspects of love as a lived experience, thus offering a novel lens on real-world phenomena with major impact on people’s lives.