Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T08:22:02.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The significance quest model of love does not make evolutionary sense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Brendan Paul Zietsch Open the ORCID record for Brendan Paul Zietsch [Opens in a new window]
Brendan Paul Zietsch*
Affiliation:
Centre for Psychology and Evolution, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia zietsch@psy.uq.edu.au
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kruglanski’s “significance quest” model of romantic love purports to be functionalist. But it only explains one positive emotion (falling in love) as a way to feel another positive emotion (feeling significant), without explaining why the second should be considered more fundamental or important than the first. Evolutionarily, the model does not make sense, and even descriptively, it seems incoherent.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e23
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blumenthal, S. A., & Young, L. J. (2023). The neurobiology of love and pair bonding from human and animal perspectives. Biology, 12, 844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bode, A., & Kushnick, G. (2021). Proximate and ultimate perspectives on romantic love. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 573123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruglanski, A. W., Molinario, E., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Leander, N. P., & Pierro, A. (2022). Significance-quest theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 1050–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate–proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zietsch, B. P. (2024). Resolving the evolutionary paradox of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-024-09978-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar