Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T14:10:38.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the equation: An evolutionary reassessment of the love formula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Jordane Boudesseul Open the ORCID record for Jordane Boudesseul [Opens in a new window] ,
Florian Cova  and
Anthony Lantian
Jordane Boudesseul*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Parisien de Psychologie Sociale, Univ. Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France jmj.boudesseul@gmail.com anthony.lantian@parisnanterre.fr Universidad de Lima, Instituto de Investigación Científica, Lima, Perú
Florian Cova
Affiliation:
Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland florian.cova@gmail.com
Anthony Lantian
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Parisien de Psychologie Sociale, Univ. Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France jmj.boudesseul@gmail.com anthony.lantian@parisnanterre.fr
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kruglanski et al.’s love formula – partner merit, appreciation, and the quest for meaning – offers a novel perspective but overlooks key evolutionary insights. It oversimplifies mating preferences, neglects contextual flexibility, and downplays reproductive signals crucial to partner selection. While innovative, the model fails to account for the complexity of human romantic behavior shaped by ecological, social, and developmental factors.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e4
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

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614561683 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1205–1259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035438 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henshaw, J. M., Fromhage, L., & Jones, A. G. (2022). The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(33), e2206262119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206262119 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369469 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/517857 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00065.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to- hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed