Kruglanski et al.’s “love as a quest” model posits that romantic love emerges from a confluence of three factors: a partner’s perceived merit, their appreciation of the actor, and the actor’s desire for significance. Romantic love, in turn, is theorized to serve as a means to an end of bolstering the actor’s own personal significance – positioning love as a psychological mechanism that fulfills a motivational need. We acknowledge the authors’ efforts to elevate the construct of mattering, a concept long recognized as central to human motivation (Elliot, Kao, & Grant, Reference Elliott, Kao and Grant2004), and for attempting to formalize its role in close relationships (Mak & Marshall, Reference Mak and Marshall2004; H. Park et al., Reference Park, Suk, Cheon and Kim2023). However, while invoking “love” may enhance the model’s rhetorical appeal, it comes at the cost of conceptual clarity and theoretical precision: the model’s three core variables are likely sufficient on their own to predict felt significance without necessitating love as an intermediary construct.

To evaluate the scope of the proposed model, it is essential to consider whether romantic love can truly be reduced to the pursuit of significance or whether it fulfills other distinct relational needs. Foundational theories in relationship science suggest the latter. Self-determination theory emphasizes the importance of relatedness (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan2012), attachment theory highlights the need for relationship security (Shaver & Mikulincer, Reference Shaver, Mikulincer, Obegi and Berant2009), and the need to belong theory underscores the motivation to form and sustain close bonds (Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995). By positioning felt significance as the end goal of romantic love, Kruglanski et al.’s model risks overlooking these relationally grounded needs and makes problematic assumptions – for instance, treating partner merit and appreciation as “functionally equivalent” in eliciting love and suggesting that romantic love is “substitutable” with other means of attaining significance. While both merit and appreciation may enhance one’s sense of significance, they are not interchangeable in the experience of love, which serves distinct relational functions. At its core, romantic love is not reducible to a formula of individual validation but is a relational process shaped by shared meaning and cultural context. Although felt significance may indeed arise from the interaction of the three components the authors propose, framing the model specifically around romantic love may unnecessarily narrow its scope. Indeed, the authors themselves claim that “the intended scope of our model is the realm of individual relations with social agents,” such as building a professional relationship with a respected mentor or leader in the field.

A central limitation of the model is its emphasis on individual validation at the expense of relational dynamics. Love can arise even without clear signs of reciprocated appreciation, such as when someone feels moved by witnessing their partner’s kindness toward others (Algoe et al., Reference Algoe, Dwyer, Younge and Oveis2020). In such cases, love stems from internal values or emotions, not from receiving validation. More broadly, the model frames love as something one receives – admiration, affirmation, significance – rather than something partners build together. However, research on communal motivation shows that people in close relationships are often driven by concern for their partner’s well-being, not by personal gain (Clark & Mills, Reference Clark, Mills, Van Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2012). Indeed, expressing appreciation – not just simply receiving it – can foster intimacy and commitment (e.g., Y. Park et al., Reference Park, Suk, Cheon and Kim2023).

Love also emerges through shared activities, joint attention, and co-constructed meaning (Wolf & Tomasello, Reference Wolf and Tomasello2025). People feel closer to their romantic partner after engaging in shared activities than after completing those same activities alone (Haj-Mohamadi, Fles, & Shteynberg Reference Haj-Mohamadi, Fles and Shteynberg2018; Wolf, Launay, & Dunbar, Reference Wolf, Launay and Dunbar2016). Further, shared reality – creating a common perspective and feeling “on the same page” – enhances connection even after accounting for background similarity and partner merit (Higgins, Rossignac-Milon, & Echterhoff, Reference Higgins, Rossignac-Milon and Echterhoff2021; Rossignac-Milon et al., Reference Rossignac-Milon, Bolger, Zee, Boothby and Higgins2021). These findings suggest that love is not merely about being validated but about building something together: mutual understanding, meaning, and responsiveness.

Incorporating these relational processes may also help resolve the conceptual circularity present in the current model. According to the authors, love arises when an individual receives sufficient appreciation from a meritorious partner. Yet research shows that love-related feelings – such as satisfaction and gratitude – can themselves shape perceptions of appreciation (Joel et al., Reference Joel, Maxwell, Khera, Peetz, Baucom and MacDonald2023). That is, love may influence whether we perceive others as appreciative, not just the reverse. This recursive dynamic implies that appreciation may be as much a consequence of love as its cause. Feelings of love may also arise from shared experiences or relational motives even in the absence of explicit validation. By incorporating such reciprocal and dynamic processes, future frameworks can offer a more comprehensive understanding of how love emerges and evolves.

Finally, the model reflects values that are idealized in independent cultures, including autonomy, self-enhancement, and individual validation. But romantic love is not universally experienced or idealized in this way. In interdependent cultures, romantic love is more relationally embedded, as it is often shaped by family obligations, role responsibilities, and social harmony (Selcuk & Gunaydin, Reference Selcuk and Gunaydin2023). The model’s exclusive focus on the quest for significance risks universalizing a culturally specific ideal and overlooking other powerful relational motives. A more inclusive theory would recognize diverse motivational pathways to love, including belonging (Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995) and relational duty (Stuifbergen & Van Delden, Reference Stuifbergen and Van Delden2011).

While the authors seek parsimony, the resulting model oversimplifies a complex and dynamic relational phenomenon. Romantic love is not a static formula but a dynamic relational process that goes beyond the quest for significance. People love partners who fail to affirm them and stay in relationships for reasons that transcend individual significance, such as commitment, shared history, or family ties. A fuller theory of love would integrate motivational insights from the significance quest model into a broader relational framework – one that centers mutual responsiveness, shared construction, and cultural context. Love is not merely a reflection of personal significance; it is an evolving relationship built through co-created meaning and care.