four types of love essay

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different from the way I love my mother, my child, and my friend. This task has typically proceeded hand-in-hand with philosophical analyses of these kinds of personal love, analyses that in part respond to various puzzles about love. Can love be justified? If so, how? What is the value of personal love? What impact does love have on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved?

1. Preliminary Distinctions

2. love as union, 3. love as robust concern, 4.1 love as appraisal of value, 4.2 love as bestowal of value, 4.3 an intermediate position, 5.1 love as emotion proper, 5.2 love as emotion complex, 6. the value and justification of love, other internet resources, related entries.

In ordinary conversations, we often say things like the following:

• I love chocolate (or skiing).
• I love doing philosophy (or being a father).
• I love my dog (or cat).
• I love my wife (or mother or child or friend).

However, what is meant by ‘love’ differs from case to case. (1) may be understood as meaning merely that I like this thing or activity very much. In (2) the implication is typically that I find engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind of person to be a part of my identity and so what makes my life worth living; I might just as well say that I value these. By contrast, (3) and (4) seem to indicate a mode of concern that cannot be neatly assimilated to anything else. Thus, we might understand the sort of love at issue in (4) to be, roughly, a matter of caring about another person as the person she is, for her own sake. (Accordingly, (3) may be understood as a kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we typically reserve for persons.) Philosophical accounts of love have focused primarily on the sort of personal love at issue in (4); such personal love will be the focus here (though see Frankfurt (1999) and Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) for attempts to provide a more general account that applies to non-persons as well).

Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros , agape , and philia . It will be useful to distinguish these three and say something about how contemporary discussions typically blur these distinctions (sometimes intentionally so) or use them for other purposes.

‘ Eros ’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940). Nygren (1953a,b) describes eros as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric (1953b, p. 89). Soble (1989b, 1990) similarly describes eros as “selfish” and as a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved’s goodness or beauty. What is evident in Soble’s description of eros is a shift away from the sexual: to love something in the “erosic” sense (to use the term Soble coins) is to love it in a way that, by being responsive to its merits, is dependent on reasons. Such an understanding of eros is encouraged by Plato’s discussion in the Symposium , in which Socrates understands sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person’s soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

Soble’s intent in understanding eros to be a reason-dependent sort of love is to articulate a sharp contrast with agape , a sort of love that does not respond to the value of its object. ‘ Agape ’ has come, primarily through the Christian tradition, to mean the sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and, by extension, of our love for each other—a kind of brotherly love. In the paradigm case of God’s love for us, agape is “spontaneous and unmotivated,” revealing not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is love (Nygren 1953b, p. 85). Rather than responding to antecedent value in its object, agape instead is supposed to create value in its object and therefore to initiate our fellowship with God (pp. 87–88). Consequently, Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual’s fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is”; and Soble (1990, p. 5) infers that agape , in contrast to eros , is therefore not reason dependent but is rationally “incomprehensible,” admitting at best of causal or historical explanations. [ 1 ]

Finally, ‘ philia ’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one’s friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one’s country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977). Like eros , philia is generally (but not universally) understood to be responsive to (good) qualities in one’s beloved. This similarity between eros and philia has led Thomas (1987) to wonder whether the only difference between romantic love and friendship is the sexual involvement of the former—and whether that is adequate to account for the real differences we experience. The distinction between eros and philia becomes harder to draw with Soble’s attempt to diminish the importance of the sexual in eros (1990).

Maintaining the distinctions among eros , agape , and philia becomes even more difficult when faced with contemporary theories of love (including romantic love) and friendship. For, as discussed below, some theories of romantic love understand it along the lines of the agape tradition as creating value in the beloved (cf. Section 4.2 ), and other accounts of romantic love treat sexual activity as merely the expression of what otherwise looks very much like friendship.

Given the focus here on personal love, Christian conceptions of God’s love for persons (and vice versa ) will be omitted, and the distinction between eros and philia will be blurred—as it typically is in contemporary accounts. Instead, the focus here will be on these contemporary understandings of love, including romantic love, understood as an attitude we take towards other persons. [ 2 ]

In providing an account of love, philosophical analyses must be careful to distinguish love from other positive attitudes we take towards persons, such as liking. Intuitively, love differs from such attitudes as liking in terms of its “depth,” and the problem is to elucidate the kind of “depth” we intuitively find love to have. Some analyses do this in part by providing thin conceptions of what liking amounts to. Thus, Singer (1991) and Brown (1987) understand liking to be a matter of desiring, an attitude that at best involves its object having only instrumental (and not intrinsic) value. Yet this seems inadequate: surely there are attitudes towards persons intermediate between having a desire with a person as its object and loving the person. I can care about a person for her own sake and not merely instrumentally, and yet such caring does not on its own amount to (non-deficiently) loving her, for it seems I can care about my dog in exactly the same way, a kind of caring which is insufficiently personal for love.

It is more common to distinguish loving from liking via the intuition that the “depth” of love is to be explained in terms of a notion of identification: to love someone is somehow to identify yourself with him, whereas no such notion of identification is involved in liking. As Nussbaum puts it, “The choice between one potential love and another can feel, and be, like a choice of a way of life, a decision to dedicate oneself to these values rather than these” (1990, p. 328); liking clearly does not have this sort of “depth” (see also Helm 2010; Bagley 2015). Whether love involves some kind of identification, and if so exactly how to understand such identification, is a central bone of contention among the various analyses of love. In particular, Whiting (2013) argues that the appeal to a notion of identification distorts our understanding of the sort of motivation love can provide, for taken literally it implies that love motivates through self -interest rather than through the beloved’s interests. Thus, Whiting argues, central to love is the possibility that love takes the lover “outside herself”, potentially forgetting herself in being moved directly by the interests of the beloved. (Of course, we need not take the notion of identification literally in this way: in identifying with one’s beloved, one might have a concern for one’s beloved that is analogous to one’s concern for oneself; see Helm 2010.)

Another common way to distinguish love from other personal attitudes is in terms of a distinctive kind of evaluation, which itself can account for love’s “depth.” Again, whether love essentially involves a distinctive kind of evaluation, and if so how to make sense of that evaluation, is hotly disputed. Closely related to questions of evaluation are questions of justification: can we justify loving or continuing to love a particular person, and if so, how? For those who think the justification of love is possible, it is common to understand such justification in terms of evaluation, and the answers here affect various accounts’ attempts to make sense of the kind of constancy or commitment love seems to involve, as well as the sense in which love is directed at particular individuals.

In what follows, theories of love are tentatively and hesitantly classified into four types: love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as an emotion. It should be clear, however, that particular theories classified under one type sometimes also include, without contradiction, ideas central to other types. The types identified here overlap to some extent, and in some cases classifying particular theories may involve excessive pigeonholing. (Such cases are noted below.) Part of the classificatory problem is that many accounts of love are quasi-reductionistic, understanding love in terms of notions like affection, evaluation, attachment, etc., which themselves never get analyzed. Even when these accounts eschew explicitly reductionistic language, very often little attempt is made to show how one such “aspect” of love is conceptually connected to others. As a result, there is no clear and obvious way to classify particular theories, let alone identify what the relevant classes should be.

The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a “we.” A central task for union theorists, therefore, is to spell out just what such a “we” comes to—whether it is literally a new entity in the world somehow composed of the lover and the beloved, or whether it is merely metaphorical. Variants of this view perhaps go back to Aristotle (cf. Sherman 1993) and can also be found in Montaigne ([E]) and Hegel (1997); contemporary proponents include Solomon (1981, 1988), Scruton (1986), Nozick (1989), Fisher (1990), and Delaney (1996).

Scruton, writing in particular about romantic love, claims that love exists “just so soon as reciprocity becomes community: that is, just so soon as all distinction between my interests and your interests is overcome” (1986, p. 230). The idea is that the union is a union of concern, so that when I act out of that concern it is not for my sake alone or for your sake alone but for our sake. Fisher (1990) holds a similar, but somewhat more moderate view, claiming that love is a partial fusion of the lovers’ cares, concerns, emotional responses, and actions. What is striking about both Scruton and Fisher is the claim that love requires the actual union of the lovers’ concerns, for it thus becomes clear that they conceive of love not so much as an attitude we take towards another but as a relationship: the distinction between your interests and mine genuinely disappears only when we together come to have shared cares, concerns, etc., and my merely having a certain attitude towards you is not enough for love. This provides content to the notion of a “we” as the (metaphorical?) subject of these shared cares and concerns, and as that for whose sake we act.

Solomon (1988) offers a union view as well, though one that tries “to make new sense out of ‘love’ through a literal rather than metaphoric sense of the ‘fusion’ of two souls” (p. 24, cf. Solomon 1981; however, it is unclear exactly what he means by a “soul” here and so how love can be a “literal” fusion of two souls). What Solomon has in mind is the way in which, through love, the lovers redefine their identities as persons in terms of the relationship: “Love is the concentration and the intensive focus of mutual definition on a single individual, subjecting virtually every personal aspect of one’s self to this process” (1988, p. 197). The result is that lovers come to share the interests, roles, virtues, and so on that constitute what formerly was two individual identities but now has become a shared identity, and they do so in part by each allowing the other to play an important role in defining his own identity.

Nozick (1989) offers a union view that differs from those of Scruton, Fisher, and Solomon in that Nozick thinks that what is necessary for love is merely the desire to form a “we,” together with the desire that your beloved reciprocates. Nonetheless, he claims that this “we” is “a new entity in the world…created by a new web of relationships between [the lovers] which makes them no longer separate” (p. 70). In spelling out this web of relationships, Nozick appeals to the lovers “pooling” not only their well-beings, in the sense that the well-being of each is tied up with that of the other, but also their autonomy, in that “each transfers some previous rights to make certain decisions unilaterally into a joint pool” (p. 71). In addition, Nozick claims, the lovers each acquire a new identity as a part of the “we,” a new identity constituted by their (a) wanting to be perceived publicly as a couple, (b) their attending to their pooled well-being, and (c) their accepting a “certain kind of division of labor” (p. 72):

A person in a we might find himself coming across something interesting to read yet leaving it for the other person, not because he himself would not be interested in it but because the other would be more interested, and one of them reading it is sufficient for it to be registered by the wider identity now shared, the we . [ 3 ]

Opponents of the union view have seized on claims like this as excessive: union theorists, they claim, take too literally the ontological commitments of this notion of a “we.” This leads to two specific criticisms of the union view. The first is that union views do away with individual autonomy. Autonomy, it seems, involves a kind of independence on the part of the autonomous agent, such that she is in control over not only what she does but also who she is, as this is constituted by her interests, values, concerns, etc. However, union views, by doing away with a clear distinction between your interests and mine, thereby undermine this sort of independence and so undermine the autonomy of the lovers. If autonomy is a part of the individual’s good, then, on the union view, love is to this extent bad; so much the worse for the union view (Singer 1994; Soble 1997). Moreover, Singer (1994) argues that a necessary part of having your beloved be the object of your love is respect for your beloved as the particular person she is, and this requires respecting her autonomy.

Union theorists have responded to this objection in several ways. Nozick (1989) seems to think of a loss of autonomy in love as a desirable feature of the sort of union lovers can achieve. Fisher (1990), somewhat more reluctantly, claims that the loss of autonomy in love is an acceptable consequence of love. Yet without further argument these claims seem like mere bullet biting. Solomon (1988, pp. 64ff) describes this “tension” between union and autonomy as “the paradox of love.” However, this a view that Soble (1997) derides: merely to call it a paradox, as Solomon does, is not to face up to the problem.

The second criticism involves a substantive view concerning love. Part of what it is to love someone, these opponents say, is to have concern for him for his sake. However, union views make such concern unintelligible and eliminate the possibility of both selfishness and self-sacrifice, for by doing away with the distinction between my interests and your interests they have in effect turned your interests into mine and vice versa (Soble 1997; see also Blum 1980, 1993). Some advocates of union views see this as a point in their favor: we need to explain how it is I can have concern for people other than myself, and the union view apparently does this by understanding your interests to be part of my own. And Delaney, responding to an apparent tension between our desire to be loved unselfishly (for fear of otherwise being exploited) and our desire to be loved for reasons (which presumably are attractive to our lover and hence have a kind of selfish basis), says (1996, p. 346):

Given my view that the romantic ideal is primarily characterized by a desire to achieve a profound consolidation of needs and interests through the formation of a we , I do not think a little selfishness of the sort described should pose a worry to either party.

The objection, however, lies precisely in this attempt to explain my concern for my beloved egoistically. As Whiting (1991, p. 10) puts it, such an attempt “strikes me as unnecessary and potentially objectionable colonization”: in love, I ought to be concerned with my beloved for her sake, and not because I somehow get something out of it. (This can be true whether my concern with my beloved is merely instrumental to my good or whether it is partly constitutive of my good.)

Although Whiting’s and Soble’s criticisms here succeed against the more radical advocates of the union view, they in part fail to acknowledge the kernel of truth to be gleaned from the idea of union. Whiting’s way of formulating the second objection in terms of an unnecessary egoism in part points to a way out: we persons are in part social creatures, and love is one profound mode of that sociality. Indeed, part of the point of union accounts is to make sense of this social dimension: to make sense of a way in which we can sometimes identify ourselves with others not merely in becoming interdependent with them (as Singer 1994, p. 165, suggests, understanding ‘interdependence’ to be a kind of reciprocal benevolence and respect) but rather in making who we are as persons be constituted in part by those we love (cf., e.g., Rorty 1986/1993; Nussbaum 1990).

Along these lines, Friedman (1998), taking her inspiration in part from Delaney (1996), argues that we should understand the sort of union at issue in love to be a kind of federation of selves:

On the federation model, a third unified entity is constituted by the interaction of the lovers, one which involves the lovers acting in concert across a range of conditions and for a range of purposes. This concerted action, however, does not erase the existence of the two lovers as separable and separate agents with continuing possibilities for the exercise of their own respective agencies. [p. 165]

Given that on this view the lovers do not give up their individual identities, there is no principled reason why the union view cannot make sense of the lover’s concern for her beloved for his sake. [ 4 ] Moreover, Friedman argues, once we construe union as federation, we can see that autonomy is not a zero-sum game; rather, love can both directly enhance the autonomy of each and promote the growth of various skills, like realistic and critical self-evaluation, that foster autonomy.

Nonetheless, this federation model is not without its problems—problems that affect other versions of the union view as well. For if the federation (or the “we”, as on Nozick’s view) is understood as a third entity, we need a clearer account than has been given of its ontological status and how it comes to be. Relevant here is the literature on shared intention and plural subjects. Gilbert (1989, 1996, 2000) has argued that we should take quite seriously the existence of a plural subject as an entity over and above its constituent members. Others, such as Tuomela (1984, 1995), Searle (1990), and Bratman (1999) are more cautious, treating such talk of “us” having an intention as metaphorical.

As this criticism of the union view indicates, many find caring about your beloved for her sake to be a part of what it is to love her. The robust concern view of love takes this to be the central and defining feature of love (cf. Taylor 1976; Newton-Smith 1989; Soble 1990, 1997; LaFollette 1996; Frankfurt 1999; White 2001). As Taylor puts it:

To summarize: if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y . He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end. [p. 157]

In conceiving of my love for you as constituted by my concern for you for your sake, the robust concern view rejects the idea, central to the union view, that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a “we”: I am the one who has this concern for you, though it is nonetheless disinterested and so not egoistic insofar as it is for your sake rather than for my own. [ 5 ]

At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love “is neither affective nor cognitive. It is volitional” (Frankfurt 1999, p. 129; see also Martin 2015). Frankfurt continues:

That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct.

This account analyzes caring about someone for her sake as a matter of being motivated in certain ways, in part as a response to what happens to one’s beloved. Of course, to understand love in terms of desires is not to leave other emotional responses out in the cold, for these emotions should be understood as consequences of desires. Thus, just as I can be emotionally crushed when one of my strong desires is disappointed, so too I can be emotionally crushed when things similarly go badly for my beloved. In this way Frankfurt (1999) tacitly, and White (2001) more explicitly, acknowledge the way in which my caring for my beloved for her sake results in my identity being transformed through her influence insofar as I become vulnerable to things that happen to her.

Not all robust concern theorists seem to accept this line, however; in particular, Taylor (1976) and Soble (1990) seem to have a strongly individualistic conception of persons that prevents my identity being bound up with my beloved in this sort of way, a kind of view that may seem to undermine the intuitive “depth” that love seems to have. (For more on this point, see Rorty 1986/1993.) In the middle is Stump (2006), who follows Aquinas in understanding love to involve not only the desire for your beloved’s well-being but also a desire for a certain kind of relationship with your beloved—as a parent or spouse or sibling or priest or friend, for example—a relationship within which you share yourself with and connect yourself to your beloved. [ 6 ]

One source of worry about the robust concern view is that it involves too passive an understanding of one’s beloved (Ebels-Duggan 2008). The thought is that on the robust concern view the lover merely tries to discover what the beloved’s well-being consists in and then acts to promote that, potentially by thwarting the beloved’s own efforts when the lover thinks those efforts would harm her well-being. This, however, would be disrespectful and demeaning, not the sort of attitude that love is. What robust concern views seem to miss, Ebels-Duggan suggests, is the way love involves interacting agents, each with a capacity for autonomy the recognition and engagement with which is an essential part of love. In response, advocates of the robust concern view might point out that promoting someone’s well-being normally requires promoting her autonomy (though they may maintain that this need not always be true: that paternalism towards a beloved can sometimes be justified and appropriate as an expression of one’s love). Moreover, we might plausibly think, it is only through the exercise of one’s autonomy that one can define one’s own well-being as a person, so that a lover’s failure to respect the beloved’s autonomy would be a failure to promote her well-being and therefore not an expression of love, contrary to what Ebels-Duggan suggests. Consequently, it might seem, robust concern views can counter this objection by offering an enriched conception of what it is to be a person and so of the well-being of persons.

Another source of worry is that the robust concern view offers too thin a conception of love. By emphasizing robust concern, this view understands other features we think characteristic of love, such as one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved, to be the effects of that concern rather than constituents of it. Thus Velleman (1999) argues that robust concern views, by understanding love merely as a matter of aiming at a particular end (viz., the welfare of one’s beloved), understand love to be merely conative. However, he claims, love can have nothing to do with desires, offering as a counterexample the possibility of loving a troublemaking relation whom you do not want to be with, whose well being you do not want to promote, etc. Similarly, Badhwar (2003) argues that such a “teleological” view of love makes it mysterious how “we can continue to love someone long after death has taken him beyond harm or benefit” (p. 46). Moreover Badhwar argues, if love is essentially a desire, then it implies that we lack something; yet love does not imply this and, indeed, can be felt most strongly at times when we feel our lives most complete and lacking in nothing. Consequently, Velleman and Badhwar conclude, love need not involve any desire or concern for the well-being of one’s beloved.

This conclusion, however, seems too hasty, for such examples can be accommodated within the robust concern view. Thus, the concern for your relative in Velleman’s example can be understood to be present but swamped by other, more powerful desires to avoid him. Indeed, keeping the idea that you want to some degree to benefit him, an idea Velleman rejects, seems to be essential to understanding the conceptual tension between loving someone and not wanting to help him, a tension Velleman does not fully acknowledge. Similarly, continued love for someone who has died can be understood on the robust concern view as parasitic on the former love you had for him when he was still alive: your desires to benefit him get transformed, through your subsequent understanding of the impossibility of doing so, into wishes. [ 7 ] Finally, the idea of concern for your beloved’s well-being need not imply the idea that you lack something, for such concern can be understood in terms of the disposition to be vigilant for occasions when you can come to his aid and consequently to have the relevant occurrent desires. All of this seems fully compatible with the robust concern view.

One might also question whether Velleman and Badhwar make proper use of their examples of loving your meddlesome relation or someone who has died. For although we can understand these as genuine cases of love, they are nonetheless deficient cases and ought therefore be understood as parasitic on the standard cases. Readily to accommodate such deficient cases of love into a philosophical analysis as being on a par with paradigm cases, and to do so without some special justification, is dubious.

Nonetheless, the robust concern view as it stands does not seem properly able to account for the intuitive “depth” of love and so does not seem properly to distinguish loving from liking. Although, as noted above, the robust concern view can begin to make some sense of the way in which the lover’s identity is altered by the beloved, it understands this only an effect of love, and not as a central part of what love consists in.

This vague thought is nicely developed by Wonderly (2017), who emphasizes that in addition to the sort of disinterested concern for another that is central to robust-concern accounts of love, an essential part of at least romantic love is the idea that in loving someone I must find them to be not merely important for their own sake but also important to me . Wonderly (2017) fleshes out what this “importance to me” involves in terms of the idea of attachment (developed in Wonderly 2016) that she argues can make sense of the intimacy and depth of love from within what remains fundamentally a robust-concern account. [ 8 ]

4. Love as Valuing

A third kind of view of love understands love to be a distinctive mode of valuing a person. As the distinction between eros and agape in Section 1 indicates, there are at least two ways to construe this in terms of whether the lover values the beloved because she is valuable, or whether the beloved comes to be valuable to the lover as a result of her loving him. The former view, which understands the lover as appraising the value of the beloved in loving him, is the topic of Section 4.1 , whereas the latter view, which understands her as bestowing value on him, will be discussed in Section 4.2 .

Velleman (1999, 2008) offers an appraisal view of love, understanding love to be fundamentally a matter of acknowledging and responding in a distinctive way to the value of the beloved. (For a very different appraisal view of love, see Kolodny 2003.) Understanding this more fully requires understanding both the kind of value of the beloved to which one responds and the distinctive kind of response to such value that love is. Nonetheless, it should be clear that what makes an account be an appraisal view of love is not the mere fact that love is understood to involve appraisal; many other accounts do so, and it is typical of robust concern accounts, for example (cf. the quote from Taylor above , Section 3 ). Rather, appraisal views are distinctive in understanding love to consist in that appraisal.

In articulating the kind of value love involves, Velleman, following Kant, distinguishes dignity from price. To have a price , as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution.

On this Kantian view, our dignity as persons consists in our rational nature: our capacity both to be actuated by reasons that we autonomously provide ourselves in setting our own ends and to respond appropriately to the intrinsic values we discover in the world. Consequently, one important way in which we exercise our rational natures is to respond with respect to the dignity of other persons (a dignity that consists in part in their capacity for respect): respect just is the required minimal response to the dignity of persons. What makes a response to a person be that of respect, Velleman claims, still following Kant, is that it “arrests our self-love” and thereby prevents us from treating him as a means to our ends (p. 360).

Given this, Velleman claims that love is similarly a response to the dignity of persons, and as such it is the dignity of the object of our love that justifies that love. However, love and respect are different kinds of responses to the same value. For love arrests not our self-love but rather

our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person, tendencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being affected by him. Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to the other. [1999, p. 361]

This means that the concern, attraction, sympathy, etc. that we normally associate with love are not constituents of love but are rather its normal effects, and love can remain without them (as in the case of the love for a meddlesome relative one cannot stand being around). Moreover, this provides Velleman with a clear account of the intuitive “depth” of love: it is essentially a response to persons as such, and to say that you love your dog is therefore to be confused.

Of course, we do not respond with love to the dignity of every person we meet, nor are we somehow required to: love, as the disarming of our emotional defenses in a way that makes us especially vulnerable to another, is the optional maximal response to others’ dignity. What, then, explains the selectivity of love—why I love some people and not others? The answer lies in the contingent fit between the way some people behaviorally express their dignity as persons and the way I happen to respond to those expressions by becoming emotionally vulnerable to them. The right sort of fit makes someone “lovable” by me (1999, p. 372), and my responding with love in these cases is a matter of my “really seeing” this person in a way that I fail to do with others who do not fit with me in this way. By ‘lovable’ here Velleman seems to mean able to be loved, not worthy of being loved, for nothing Velleman says here speaks to a question about the justification of my loving this person rather than that. Rather, what he offers is an explanation of the selectivity of my love, an explanation that as a matter of fact makes my response be that of love rather than mere respect.

This understanding of the selectivity of love as something that can be explained but not justified is potentially troubling. For we ordinarily think we can justify not only my loving you rather than someone else but also and more importantly the constancy of my love: my continuing to love you even as you change in certain fundamental ways (but not others). As Delaney (1996, p. 347) puts the worry about constancy:

while you seem to want it to be true that, were you to become a schmuck, your lover would continue to love you,…you also want it to be the case that your lover would never love a schmuck.

The issue here is not merely that we can offer explanations of the selectivity of my love, of why I do not love schmucks; rather, at issue is the discernment of love, of loving and continuing to love for good reasons as well as of ceasing to love for good reasons. To have these good reasons seems to involve attributing different values to you now rather than formerly or rather than to someone else, yet this is precisely what Velleman denies is the case in making the distinction between love and respect the way he does.

It is also questionable whether Velleman can even explain the selectivity of love in terms of the “fit” between your expressions and my sensitivities. For the relevant sensitivities on my part are emotional sensitivities: the lowering of my emotional defenses and so becoming emotionally vulnerable to you. Thus, I become vulnerable to the harms (or goods) that befall you and so sympathetically feel your pain (or joy). Such emotions are themselves assessable for warrant, and now we can ask why my disappointment that you lost the race is warranted, but my being disappointed that a mere stranger lost would not be warranted. The intuitive answer is that I love you but not him. However, this answer is unavailable to Velleman, because he thinks that what makes my response to your dignity that of love rather than respect is precisely that I feel such emotions, and to appeal to my love in explaining the emotions therefore seems viciously circular.

Although these problems are specific to Velleman’s account, the difficulty can be generalized to any appraisal account of love (such as that offered in Kolodny 2003). For if love is an appraisal, it needs to be distinguished from other forms of appraisal, including our evaluative judgments. On the one hand, to try to distinguish love as an appraisal from other appraisals in terms of love’s having certain effects on our emotional and motivational life (as on Velleman’s account) is unsatisfying because it ignores part of what needs to be explained: why the appraisal of love has these effects and yet judgments with the same evaluative content do not. Indeed, this question is crucial if we are to understand the intuitive “depth” of love, for without an answer to this question we do not understand why love should have the kind of centrality in our lives it manifestly does. [ 9 ] On the other hand, to bundle this emotional component into the appraisal itself would be to turn the view into either the robust concern view ( Section 3 ) or a variant of the emotion view ( Section 5.1 ).

In contrast to Velleman, Singer (1991, 1994, 2009) understands love to be fundamentally a matter of bestowing value on the beloved. To bestow value on another is to project a kind of intrinsic value onto him. Indeed, this fact about love is supposed to distinguish love from liking: “Love is an attitude with no clear objective,” whereas liking is inherently teleological (1991, p. 272). As such, there are no standards of correctness for bestowing such value, and this is how love differs from other personal attitudes like gratitude, generosity, and condescension: “love…confers importance no matter what the object is worth” (p. 273). Consequently, Singer thinks, love is not an attitude that can be justified in any way.

What is it, exactly, to bestow this kind of value on someone? It is, Singer says, a kind of attachment and commitment to the beloved, in which one comes to treat him as an end in himself and so to respond to his ends, interests, concerns, etc. as having value for their own sake. This means in part that the bestowal of value reveals itself “by caring about the needs and interests of the beloved, by wishing to benefit or protect her, by delighting in her achievements,” etc. (p. 270). This sounds very much like the robust concern view, yet the bestowal view differs in understanding such robust concern to be the effect of the bestowal of value that is love rather than itself what constitutes love: in bestowing value on my beloved, I make him be valuable in such a way that I ought to respond with robust concern.

For it to be intelligible that I have bestowed value on someone, I must therefore respond appropriately to him as valuable, and this requires having some sense of what his well-being is and of what affects that well-being positively or negatively. Yet having this sense requires in turn knowing what his strengths and deficiencies are, and this is a matter of appraising him in various ways. Bestowal thus presupposes a kind of appraisal, as a way of “really seeing” the beloved and attending to him. Nonetheless, Singer claims, it is the bestowal that is primary for understanding what love consists in: the appraisal is required only so that the commitment to one’s beloved and his value as thus bestowed has practical import and is not “a blind submission to some unknown being” (1991, p. 272; see also Singer 1994, pp. 139ff).

Singer is walking a tightrope in trying to make room for appraisal in his account of love. Insofar as the account is fundamentally a bestowal account, Singer claims that love cannot be justified, that we bestow the relevant kind of value “gratuitously.” This suggests that love is blind, that it does not matter what our beloved is like, which seems patently false. Singer tries to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the role of appraisal: it is only because we appraise another as having certain virtues and vices that we come to bestow value on him. Yet the “because” here, since it cannot justify the bestowal, is at best a kind of contingent causal explanation. [ 10 ] In this respect, Singer’s account of the selectivity of love is much the same as Velleman’s, and it is liable to the same criticism: it makes unintelligible the way in which our love can be discerning for better or worse reasons. Indeed, this failure to make sense of the idea that love can be justified is a problem for any bestowal view. For either (a) a bestowal itself cannot be justified (as on Singer’s account), in which case the justification of love is impossible, or (b) a bestowal can be justified, in which case it is hard to make sense of value as being bestowed rather than there antecedently in the object as the grounds of that “bestowal.”

More generally, a proponent of the bestowal view needs to be much clearer than Singer is in articulating precisely what a bestowal is. What is the value that I create in a bestowal, and how can my bestowal create it? On a crude Humean view, the answer might be that the value is something projected onto the world through my pro-attitudes, like desire. Yet such a view would be inadequate, since the projected value, being relative to a particular individual, would do no theoretical work, and the account would essentially be a variant of the robust concern view. Moreover, in providing a bestowal account of love, care is needed to distinguish love from other personal attitudes such as admiration and respect: do these other attitudes involve bestowal? If so, how does the bestowal in these cases differ from the bestowal of love? If not, why not, and what is so special about love that requires a fundamentally different evaluative attitude than admiration and respect?

Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the bestowal view: there is surely something right about the idea that love is creative and not merely a response to antecedent value, and accounts of love that understand the kind of evaluation implicit in love merely in terms of appraisal seem to be missing something. Precisely what may be missed will be discussed below in Section 6 .

Perhaps there is room for an understanding of love and its relation to value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal accounts. After all, if we think of appraisal as something like perception, a matter of responding to what is out there in the world, and of bestowal as something like action, a matter of doing something and creating something, we should recognize that the responsiveness central to appraisal may itself depend on our active, creative choices. Thus, just as we must recognize that ordinary perception depends on our actively directing our attention and deploying concepts, interpretations, and even arguments in order to perceive things accurately, so too we might think our vision of our beloved’s valuable properties that is love also depends on our actively attending to and interpreting him. Something like this is Jollimore’s view (2011). According to Jollimore, in loving someone we actively attend to his valuable properties in a way that we take to provide us with reasons to treat him preferentially. Although we may acknowledge that others might have such properties even to a greater degree than our beloved does, we do not attend to and appreciate such properties in others in the same way we do those in our beloveds; indeed, we find our appreciation of our beloved’s valuable properties to “silence” our similar appreciation of those in others. (In this way, Jollimore thinks, we can solve the problem of fungibility, discussed below in Section 6 .) Likewise, in perceiving our beloved’s actions and character, we do so through the lens of such an appreciation, which will tend as to “silence” interpretations inconsistent with that appreciation. In this way, love involves finding one’s beloved to be valuable in a way that involves elements of both appraisal (insofar as one must thereby be responsive to valuable properties one’s beloved really has) and bestowal (insofar as through one’s attention and committed appreciation of these properties they come to have special significance for one).

One might object that this conception of love as silencing the special value of others or to negative interpretations of our beloveds is irrational in a way that love is not. For, it might seem, such “silencing” is merely a matter of our blinding ourselves to how things really are. Yet Jollimore claims that this sense in which love is blind is not objectionable, for (a) we can still intellectually recognize the things that love’s vision silences, and (b) there really is no impartial perspective we can take on the values things have, and love is one appropriate sort of partial perspective from which the value of persons can be manifest. Nonetheless, one might wonder about whether that perspective of love itself can be distorted and what the norms are in terms of which such distortions are intelligible. Furthermore, it may seem that Jollimore’s attempt to reconcile appraisal and bestowal fails to appreciate the underlying metaphysical difficulty: appraisal is a response to value that is antecedently there, whereas bestowal is the creation of value that was not antecedently there. Consequently, it might seem, appraisal and bestowal are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled in the way Jollimore hopes.

Whereas Jollimore tries to combine separate elements of appraisal and of bestowal in a single account, Helm (2010) and Bagley (2015) offer accounts that reject the metaphysical presupposition that values must be either prior to love (as with appraisal) or posterior to love (as with bestowal), instead understanding the love and the values to emerge simultaneously. Thus, Helm presents a detailed account of valuing in terms of the emotions, arguing that while we can understand individual emotions as appraisals , responding to values already their in their objects, these values are bestowed on those objects via broad, holistic patterns of emotions. How this amounts to an account of love will be discussed in Section 5.2 , below. Bagley (2015) instead appeals to a metaphor of improvisation, arguing that just as jazz musicians jointly make determinate the content of their musical ideas through on-going processes of their expression, so too lovers jointly engage in “deep improvisation”, thereby working out of their values and identities through the on-going process of living their lives together. These values are thus something the lovers jointly construct through the process of recognizing and responding to those very values. To love someone is thus to engage with them as partners in such “deep improvisation”. (This account is similar to Helm (2008, 2010)’s account of plural agency, which he uses to provide an account of friendship and other loving relationships; see the discussion of shared activity in the entry on friendship .)

5. Emotion Views

Given these problems with the accounts of love as valuing, perhaps we should turn to the emotions. For emotions just are responses to objects that combine evaluation, motivation, and a kind of phenomenology, all central features of the attitude of love.

Many accounts of love claim that it is an emotion; these include: Wollheim 1984, Rorty 1986/1993, Brown 1987, Hamlyn 1989, Baier 1991, and Badhwar 2003. [ 11 ] Thus, Hamlyn (1989, p. 219) says:

It would not be a plausible move to defend any theory of the emotions to which love and hate seemed exceptions by saying that love and hate are after all not emotions. I have heard this said, but it does seem to me a desperate move to make. If love and hate are not emotions what is?

The difficulty with this claim, as Rorty (1980) argues, is that the word, ‘emotion,’ does not seem to pick out a homogeneous collection of mental states, and so various theories claiming that love is an emotion mean very different things. Consequently, what are here labeled “emotion views” are divided into those that understand love to be a particular kind of evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object, whether that response is merely occurrent or dispositional (‘emotions proper,’ see Section 5.1 , below), and those that understand love to involve a collection of related and interconnected emotions proper (‘emotion complexes,’ see Section 5.2 , below).

An emotion proper is a kind of “evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object”; what does this mean? Emotions are generally understood to have several objects. The target of an emotion is that at which the emotion is directed: if I am afraid or angry at you, then you are the target. In responding to you with fear or anger, I am implicitly evaluating you in a particular way, and this evaluation—called the formal object —is the kind of evaluation of the target that is distinctive of a particular emotion type. Thus, in fearing you, I implicitly evaluate you as somehow dangerous, whereas in being angry at you I implicitly evaluate you as somehow offensive. Yet emotions are not merely evaluations of their targets; they in part motivate us to behave in certain ways, both rationally (by motivating action to avoid the danger) and arationally (via certain characteristic expressions, such as slamming a door out of anger). Moreover, emotions are generally understood to involve a phenomenological component, though just how to understand the characteristic “feel” of an emotion and its relation to the evaluation and motivation is hotly disputed. Finally, emotions are typically understood to be passions: responses that we feel imposed on us as if from the outside, rather than anything we actively do. (For more on the philosophy of emotions, see entry on emotion .)

What then are we saying when we say that love is an emotion proper? According to Brown (1987, p. 14), emotions as occurrent mental states are “abnormal bodily changes caused by the agent’s evaluation or appraisal of some object or situation that the agent believes to be of concern to him or her.” He spells this out by saying that in love, we “cherish” the person for having “a particular complex of instantiated qualities” that is “open-ended” so that we can continue to love the person even as she changes over time (pp. 106–7). These qualities, which include historical and relational qualities, are evaluated in love as worthwhile. [ 12 ] All of this seems aimed at spelling out what love’s formal object is, a task that is fundamental to understanding love as an emotion proper. Thus, Brown seems to say that love’s formal object is just being worthwhile (or, given his examples, perhaps: worthwhile as a person), and he resists being any more specific than this in order to preserve the open-endedness of love. Hamlyn (1989) offers a similar account, saying (p. 228):

With love the difficulty is to find anything of this kind [i.e., a formal object] which is uniquely appropriate to love. My thesis is that there is nothing of this kind that must be so, and that this differentiates it and hate from the other emotions.

Hamlyn goes on to suggest that love and hate might be primordial emotions, a kind of positive or negative “feeling towards,” presupposed by all other emotions. [ 13 ]

The trouble with these accounts of love as an emotion proper is that they provide too thin a conception of love. In Hamlyn’s case, love is conceived as a fairly generic pro-attitude, rather than as the specific kind of distinctively personal attitude discussed here. In Brown’s case, spelling out the formal object of love as simply being worthwhile (as a person) fails to distinguish love from other evaluative responses like admiration and respect. Part of the problem seems to be the rather simple account of what an emotion is that Brown and Hamlyn use as their starting point: if love is an emotion, then the understanding of what an emotion is must be enriched considerably to accommodate love. Yet it is not at all clear whether the idea of an “emotion proper” can be adequately enriched so as to do so. As Pismenny & Prinz (2017) point out, love seems to be too varied both in its ground and in the sort of experience it involves to be capturable by a single emotion.

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity : “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover’s being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):

Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved’s temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved’s emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one’s overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved’s well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved’s character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one’s emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one’s beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover’s identity. This is partly Rorty’s point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love ( above ). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “ dynamically permeable ” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person’s character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other. [ 14 ] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love’s continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship requires that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment. [ 15 ] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6 , especially the discussion of fungibility ).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved’s embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love? Moreover, as Naar (2013) notes, we need a principled account of when such historical patterns are disrupted in such a way as to end the love and when they are not. Do I stop loving when, in the midst of clinical depression, I lose my normal pattern of emotional concern?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love?

Helm (2009, 2010) tries to answer some of these questions in presenting an account of love as intimate identification. To love another, Helm claims, is to care about him as the particular person he is and so, other things being equal, to value the things he values. Insofar as a person’s (structured) set of values—his sense of the kind of life worth his living—constitutes his identity as a person, such sharing of values amounts to sharing his identity, which sounds very much like union accounts of love. However, Helm is careful to understand such sharing of values as for the sake of the beloved (as robust concern accounts insist), and he spells this all out in terms of patterns of emotions. Thus, Helm claims, all emotions have not only a target and a formal object (as indicated above), but also a focus : a background object the subject cares about in terms of which the implicit evaluation of the target is made intelligible. (For example, if I am afraid of the approaching hailstorm, I thereby evaluate it as dangerous, and what explains this evaluation is the way that hailstorm bears on my vegetable garden, which I care about; my garden, therefore, is the focus of my fear.) Moreover, emotions normally come in patterns with a common focus: fearing the hailstorm is normally connected to other emotions as being relieved when it passes by harmlessly (or disappointed or sad when it does not), being angry at the rabbits for killing the spinach, delighted at the productivity of the tomato plants, etc. Helm argues that a projectible pattern of such emotions with a common focus constitute caring about that focus. Consequently, we might say along the lines of Section 4.3 , while particular emotions appraise events in the world as having certain evaluative properties, their having these properties is partly bestowed on them by the overall patterns of emotions.

Helm identifies some emotions as person-focused emotions : emotions like pride and shame that essentially take persons as their focuses, for these emotions implicitly evaluate in terms of the target’s bearing on the quality of life of the person that is their focus. To exhibit a pattern of such emotions focused on oneself and subfocused on being a mother, for example, is to care about the place being a mother has in the kind of life you find worth living—in your identity as a person; to care in this way is to value being a mother as a part of your concern for your own identity. Likewise, to exhibit a projectible pattern of such emotions focused on someone else and subfocused on his being a father is to value this as a part of your concern for his identity—to value it for his sake. Such sharing of another’s values for his sake, which, Helm argues, essentially involves trust, respect, and affection, amounts to intimate identification with him, and such intimate identification just is love. Thus, Helm tries to provide an account of love that is grounded in an explicit account of caring (and caring about something for the sake of someone else) that makes room for the intuitive “depth” of love through intimate identification.

Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) argue that Helm’s construal of intimacy as intimate identification is too demanding. Rather, they argue, the sort of intimacy that distinguishes love from mere caring is one that involves a kind of emotional vulnerability in which things going well or poorly for one’s beloved are directly connected not merely to one’s well-being, but to one’s ability to flourish. This connection, they argue, runs through the lover’s self-understanding and the place the beloved has in the lover’s sense of a meaningful life.

Why do we love? It has been suggested above that any account of love needs to be able to answer some such justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of the intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties, but also that my beloved is not fungible—that no one could simply take her place without loss. Different theories approach these questions in different ways, but, as will become clear below, the question of justification is primary.

One way to understand the question of why we love is as asking for what the value of love is: what do we get out of it? One kind of answer, which has its roots in Aristotle, is that having loving relationships promotes self-knowledge insofar as your beloved acts as a kind of mirror, reflecting your character back to you (Badhwar, 2003, p. 58). Of course, this answer presupposes that we cannot accurately know ourselves in other ways: that left alone, our sense of ourselves will be too imperfect, too biased, to help us grow and mature as persons. The metaphor of a mirror also suggests that our beloveds will be in the relevant respects similar to us, so that merely by observing them, we can come to know ourselves better in a way that is, if not free from bias, at least more objective than otherwise.

Brink (1999, pp. 264–65) argues that there are serious limits to the value of such mirroring of one’s self in a beloved. For if the aim is not just to know yourself better but to improve yourself, you ought also to interact with others who are not just like yourself: interacting with such diverse others can help you recognize alternative possibilities for how to live and so better assess the relative merits of these possibilities. Whiting (2013) also emphasizes the importance of our beloveds’ having an independent voice capable of reflecting not who one now is but an ideal for who one is to be. Nonetheless, we need not take the metaphor of the mirror quite so literally; rather, our beloveds can reflect our selves not through their inherent similarity to us but rather through the interpretations they offer of us, both explicitly and implicitly in their responses to us. This is what Badhwar calls the “epistemic significance” of love. [ 16 ]

In addition to this epistemic significance of love, LaFollette (1996, Chapter 5) offers several other reasons why it is good to love, reasons derived in part from the psychological literature on love: love increases our sense of well-being, it elevates our sense of self-worth, and it serves to develop our character. It also, we might add, tends to lower stress and blood pressure and to increase health and longevity. Friedman (1993) argues that the kind of partiality towards our beloveds that love involves is itself morally valuable because it supports relationships—loving relationships—that contribute “to human well-being, integrity, and fulfillment in life” (p. 61). And Solomon (1988, p. 155) claims:

Ultimately, there is only one reason for love. That one grand reason…is “because we bring out the best in each other.” What counts as “the best,” of course, is subject to much individual variation.

This is because, Solomon suggests, in loving someone, I want myself to be better so as to be worthy of his love for me.

Each of these answers to the question of why we love understands it to be asking about love quite generally, abstracted away from details of particular relationships. It is also possible to understand the question as asking about particular loves. Here, there are several questions that are relevant:

• What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?
• What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?
• What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him?

These are importantly different questions. Velleman (1999), for example, thinks we can answer (1) by appealing to the fact that my beloved is a person and so has a rational nature, yet he thinks (2) and (3) have no answers: the best we can do is offer causal explanations for our loving particular people, a position echoed by Han (2021). Setiya (2014) similarly thinks (1) has an answer, but points not to the rational nature of persons but rather to the other’s humanity , where such humanity differs from personhood in that not all humans need have the requisite rational nature for personhood, and not all persons need be humans. And, as will become clear below , the distinction between (2) and (3) will become important in resolving puzzles concerning whether our beloveds are fungible, though it should be clear that (3) potentially raises questions concerning personal identity (which will not be addressed here).

It is important not to misconstrue these justificatory questions. Thomas (1991) , for example, rejects the idea that love can be justified: “there are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational” (p. 474). This is because, Thomas claims (p. 471):

no matter how wonderful and lovely an individual might be, on any and all accounts, it is simply false that a romantically unencumbered person must love that individual on pain of being irrational. Or, there is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.

However, as LaFollette (1996, p. 63) correctly points out,

reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are.… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them.

That is, reasons for love are pro tanto : they are a part of the overall reasons we have for acting, and it is up to us in exercising our capacity for agency to decide what on balance we have reason to do or even whether we shall act contrary to our reasons. To construe the notion of a reason for love as compelling us to love, as Thomas does, is to misconstrue the place such reasons have within our agency. [ 17 ]

Most philosophical discussions of the justification of love focus on question (1) , thinking that answering this question will also, to the extent that we can, answer question (2) , which is typically not distinguished from (3) . The answers given to these questions vary in a way that turns on how the kind of evaluation implicit in love is construed. On the one hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of the bestowal of value (such as Telfer 1970–71; Friedman 1993; Singer 1994) typically claim that no justification can be given (cf. Section 4.2 ). As indicated above, this seems problematic, especially given the importance love can have both in our lives and, especially, in shaping our identities as persons. To reject the idea that we can love for reasons may reduce the impact our agency can have in defining who we are.

On the other hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of appraisal tend to answer the justificatory question by appeal to these valuable properties of the beloved. This acceptance of the idea that love can be justified leads to two further, related worries about the object of love.

The first worry is raised by Vlastos (1981) in a discussion Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of love. Vlastos notes that these accounts focus on the properties of our beloveds: we are to love people, they say, only because and insofar as they are objectifications of the excellences. Consequently, he argues, in doing so they fail to distinguish “ disinterested affection for the person we love” from “ appreciation of the excellences instantiated by that person ” (p. 33). That is, Vlastos thinks that Plato and Aristotle provide an account of love that is really a love of properties rather than a love of persons—love of a type of person, rather than love of a particular person—thereby losing what is distinctive about love as an essentially personal attitude. This worry about Plato and Aristotle might seem to apply just as well to other accounts that justify love in terms of the properties of the person: insofar as we love the person for the sake of her properties, it might seem that what we love is those properties and not the person. Here it is surely insufficient to say, as Solomon (1988, p. 154) does, “if love has its reasons, then it is not the whole person that one loves but certain aspects of that person—though the rest of the person comes along too, of course”: that final tagline fails to address the central difficulty about what the object of love is and so about love as a distinctly personal attitude. (Clausen 2019 might seem to address this worry by arguing that we love people not as having certain properties but rather as having “ organic unities ”: a holistic set of properties the value of each of which must be understood in essential part in terms of its place within that whole. Nonetheless, while this is an interesting and plausible way to think about the value of the properties of persons, that organic unity itself will be a (holistic) property held by the person, and it seems that the fundamental problem reemerges at the level of this holistic property: do we love the holistic unity rather than the person?)

The second worry concerns the fungibility of the object of love. To be fungible is to be replaceable by another relevantly similar object without any loss of value. Thus, money is fungible: I can give you two $5 bills in exchange for a $10 bill, and neither of us has lost anything. Is the object of love fungible? That is, can I simply switch from loving one person to loving another relevantly similar person without any loss? The worry about fungibility is commonly put this way: if we accept that love can be justified by appealing to properties of the beloved, then it may seem that in loving someone for certain reasons, I love him not simply as the individual he is, but as instantiating those properties. And this may imply that any other person instantiating those same properties would do just as well: my beloved would be fungible. Indeed, it may be that another person exhibits the properties that ground my love to a greater degree than my current beloved does, and so it may seem that in such a case I have reason to “trade up”—to switch my love to the new, better person. However, it seems clear that the objects of our loves are not fungible: love seems to involve a deeply personal commitment to a particular person, a commitment that is antithetical to the idea that our beloveds are fungible or to the idea that we ought to be willing to trade up when possible. [ 18 ]

In responding to these worries, Nozick (1989) appeals to the union view of love he endorses (see the section on Love as Union ):

The intention in love is to form a we and to identify with it as an extended self, to identify one’s fortunes in large part with its fortunes. A willingness to trade up, to destroy the very we you largely identify with, would then be a willingness to destroy your self in the form of your own extended self. [p. 78]

So it is because love involves forming a “we” that we must understand other persons and not properties to be the objects of love, and it is because my very identity as a person depends essentially on that “we” that it is not possible to substitute without loss one object of my love for another. However, Badhwar (2003) criticizes Nozick, saying that his response implies that once I love someone, I cannot abandon that love no matter who that person becomes; this, she says, “cannot be understood as love at all rather than addiction” (p. 61). [ 19 ]

Instead, Badhwar (1987) turns to her robust-concern account of love as a concern for the beloved for his sake rather than one’s own. Insofar as my love is disinterested — not a means to antecedent ends of my own—it would be senseless to think that my beloved could be replaced by someone who is able to satisfy my ends equally well or better. Consequently, my beloved is in this way irreplaceable. However, this is only a partial response to the worry about fungibility, as Badhwar herself seems to acknowledge. For the concern over fungibility arises not merely for those cases in which we think of love as justified instrumentally, but also for those cases in which the love is justified by the intrinsic value of the properties of my beloved. Confronted with cases like this, Badhwar (2003) concludes that the object of love is fungible after all (though she insists that it is very unlikely in practice). (Soble (1990, Chapter 13) draws similar conclusions.)

Nonetheless, Badhwar thinks that the object of love is “phenomenologically non-fungible” (2003, p. 63; see also 1987, p. 14). By this she means that we experience our beloveds to be irreplaceable: “loving and delighting in [one person] are not completely commensurate with loving and delighting in another” (1987, p. 14). Love can be such that we sometimes desire to be with this particular person whom we love, not another whom we also love, for our loves are qualitatively different. But why is this? It seems as though the typical reason I now want to spend time with Amy rather than Bob is, for example, that Amy is funny but Bob is not. I love Amy in part for her humor, and I love Bob for other reasons, and these qualitative differences between them is what makes them not fungible. However, this reply does not address the worry about the possibility of trading up: if Bob were to be at least as funny (charming, kind, etc.) as Amy, why shouldn’t I dump her and spend all my time with him?

A somewhat different approach is taken by Whiting (1991). In response to the first worry concerning the object of love, Whiting argues that Vlastos offers a false dichotomy: having affection for someone that is disinterested —for her sake rather than my own—essentially involves an appreciation of her excellences as such. Indeed, Whiting says, my appreciation of these as excellences, and so the underlying commitment I have to their value, just is a disinterested commitment to her because these excellences constitute her identity as the person she is. The person, therefore, really is the object of love. Delaney (1996) takes the complementary tack of distinguishing between the object of one’s love, which of course is the person, and the grounds of the love, which are her properties: to say, as Solomon does, that we love someone for reasons is not at all to say that we only love certain aspects of the person. In these terms, we might say that Whiting’s rejection of Vlastos’ dichotomy can be read as saying that what makes my attitude be one of disinterested affection—one of love—for the person is precisely that I am thereby responding to her excellences as the reasons for that affection. [ 20 ]

Of course, more needs to be said about what it is that makes a particular person be the object of love. Implicit in Whiting’s account is an understanding of the way in which the object of my love is determined in part by the history of interactions I have with her: it is she, and not merely her properties (which might be instantiated in many different people), that I want to be with; it is she, and not merely her properties, on whose behalf I am concerned when she suffers and whom I seek to comfort; etc. This addresses the first worry, but not the second worry about fungibility, for the question still remains whether she is the object of my love only as instantiating certain properties, and so whether or not I have reason to “trade up.”

To respond to the fungibility worry, Whiting and Delaney appeal explicitly to the historical relationship. [ 21 ] Thus, Whiting claims, although there may be a relatively large pool of people who have the kind of excellences of character that would justify my loving them, and so although there can be no answer to question (2) about why I come to love this rather than that person within this pool, once I have come to love this person and so have developed a historical relation with her, this history of concern justifies my continuing to love this person rather than someone else (1991, p. 7). Similarly, Delaney claims that love is grounded in “historical-relational properties” (1996, p. 346), so that I have reasons for continuing to love this person rather than switching allegiances and loving someone else. In each case, the appeal to both such historical relations and the excellences of character of my beloved is intended to provide an answer to question (3) , and this explains why the objects of love are not fungible.

There seems to be something very much right with this response. Relationships grounded in love are essentially personal, and it would be odd to think of what justifies that love to be merely non-relational properties of the beloved. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how the historical-relational propreties can provide any additional justification for subsequent concern beyond that which is already provided (as an answer to question (1) ) by appeal to the excellences of the beloved’s character (cf. Brink 1999). The mere fact that I have loved someone in the past does not seem to justify my continuing to love him in the future. When we imagine that he is going through a rough time and begins to lose the virtues justifying my initial love for him, why shouldn’t I dump him and instead come to love someone new having all of those virtues more fully? Intuitively (unless the change she undergoes makes her in some important sense no longer the same person he was), we think I should not dump him, but the appeal to the mere fact that I loved him in the past is surely not enough. Yet what historical-relational properties could do the trick? (For an interesting attempt at an answer, see Kolodny 2003 and also Howard 2019.)

If we think that love can be justified, then it may seem that the appeal to particular historical facts about a loving relationship to justify that love is inadequate, for such idiosyncratic and subjective properties might explain but cannot justify love. Rather, it may seem, justification in general requires appealing to universal, objective properties. But such properties are ones that others might share, which leads to the problem of fungibility. Consequently it may seem that love cannot be justified. In the face of this predicament, accounts of love that understand love to be an attitude towards value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal, between recognizing already existing value and creating that value (see Section 4.3 ) might seem to offer a way out. For once we reject the thought that the value of our beloveds must be either the precondition or the consequence of our love, we have room to acknowledge that the deeply personal, historically grounded, creative nature of love (central to bestowal accounts) and the understanding of love as responsive to valuable properties of the beloved that can justify that love (central to appraisal accounts) are not mutually exclusive (Helm 2010; Bagley 2015).

• Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind , 86: 532–54.
• Badhwar, N. K., 1987, “Friends as Ends in Themselves”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 48: 1–23.
• –––, 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–69.
• Badhwar, N. K. (ed.), 1993, Friendship: A Philosophical Reader , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics , 125: 477–507.
• –––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy , New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
• Baier, A. C., 1991, “Unsafe Loves”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 433–50.
• Blum, L. A., 1980, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship as a Moral Phenomenon”, in Badhwar (1993), 192–210.
• Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 3–25.
• Bratman, M. E., 1999, “Shared Intention”, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–29.
• Brentlinger, J., 1970/1989, “The Nature of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 136–48.
• Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy , 16: 252–289.
• Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics , 23 (4): 347–67.
• Cocking, D. & Kennett, J., 1998, “Friendship and the Self”, Ethics , 108: 502–27.
• Cooper, J. M., 1977, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, Review of Metaphysics , 30: 619–48.
• Delaney, N., 1996, “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 33: 375–405.
• Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics , 119: 142–70.
• Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love , London: Duckworth.
• Frankfurt, H., 1999, “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love”, in Necessity, Volition, and Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–41.
• Friedman, M. A., 1993, What Are Friends For? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Theory , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1998, “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 22: 162–81.
• Gilbert, M., 1989, On Social Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1996, Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation , Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hamlyn, D. W., 1989, “The Phenomena of Love and Hate”, in Soble (1989a), 218–234.
• Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 102: 106–126.
• Hegel, G. W. F., 1997, “A Fragment on Love”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 117–20.
• Helm, B. W., 2008, “Plural Agents”, Noûs , 42: 17–49.
• –––, 2009, “Love, Identification, and the Emotions”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 46: 39–59.
• –––, 2010, Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
• Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
• Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review , 112: 135–89.
• Kraut, Robert, 1986 “Love De Re ”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 10: 413–30.
• LaFollette, H., 1996, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
• Lamb, R. E., (ed.), 1997, Love Analyzed , Westview Press.
• Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R., 1940, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edition.
• Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18: 691–702.
• Montaigne, M., [E], Essays , in The Complete Essays of Montaigne , Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
• Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 342–357.
• Newton-Smith, W., 1989, “A Conceptual Investigation of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 199–217.
• Nozick, R., 1989, “Love’s Bond”, in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , New York: Simon & Schuster, 68–86.
• Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
• Nygren, A., 1953a, Agape and Eros , Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
• –––, 1953b, “ Agape and Eros ”, in Soble (1989a), 85–95.
• Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion , 48: 127–44.
• Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
• Price, A. W., 1989, Love and Friendship in Plato and Arisotle , New York: Clarendon Press.
• Rorty, A. O., 1980, “Introduction”, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–8.
• –––, 1986/1993, “The Historicity of Psychological Attitudes: Love is Not Love Which Alters Not When It Alteration Finds”, in Badhwar (1993), 73–88.
• Scruton, R., 1986, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic , New York: Free Press.
• Searle, J. R., 1990, “Collective Intentions and Actions”, in P. R. Cohen, M. E. Pollack, & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Intentions in Communication , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.
• Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review , 123: 251–80.
• Sherman, N., 1993, “Aristotle on the Shared Life”, in Badhwar (1993), 91–107.
• Singer, I., 1984a, The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to Luther , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1984b, The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and Romantic , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1989, The Nature of Love, Volume 3: The Modern World , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn.
• –––, 1991, “From The Nature of Love ”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 259–78.
• –––, 1994, The Pursuit of Love , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• –––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Soble, A. (ed.), 1989a, Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , New York, NY: Paragon House.
• –––, 1989b, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love”, in Soble (1989a), xi-xxv.
• –––, 1990, The Structure of Love , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 1997, “Union, Autonomy, and Concern”, in Lamb (1997), 65–92.
• Solomon, R. C., 1976, The Passions , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1981, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1988, About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Solomon, R. C. & Higgins, K. M. (eds.), 1991, The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love , Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
• Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 80: 25–43.
• Taylor, G., 1976, “Love”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 76: 147–64.
• Telfer, E., 1970–71, “Friendship”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 71: 223–41.
• Thomas, L., 1987, “Friendship”, Synthese , 72: 217–36.
• –––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
• –––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
• Tuomela, R., 1984, A Theory of Social Action , Dordrecht: Reidel.
• –––, 1995, The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics , 109: 338–74.
• –––, 2008, “Beyond Price”, Ethics , 118: 191–212.
• Vlastos, G., 1981, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
• White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy , Rowman & Littlefield.
• Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist , 74: 3–29.
• –––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 43: 403–29.
• Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 45–62.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173: 223–42.
• –––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 235–50.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Aristotle , Nicomachean Ethics , translated by W.D. Ross.
• Moseley, A., “ Philosophy of Love ,” in J. Fieser (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

character, moral | emotion | friendship | impartiality | obligations: special | personal identity | Plato: ethics | Plato: rhetoric and poetry | respect | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic

Copyright © 2021 by Bennett Helm < bennett . helm @ fandm . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Eric Brown • July 28, 2020 • 14 min read

The 4 Hidden Flavors of Modern Love and How They Radically Impact Your Relationships

Psychology & Happiness Sexuality books

“An entire army made of lovers would be invincible.” — Plato, Symposium

It is said the Eskimos in North America have 50-100 unique words for snow.

Countless Native tribes have incredibly nuanced terms for plants, ground, and jungle structure. This gives their societies a better understanding of their environment and informs their knowledge of how best to move forward and address the situations in which they find themselves.

More detailed descriptions of your surroundings allow you to better understand the world you live in.

Why is it then, that we have only one word to express our most intimate feeling?

Do you really feel the same way about the latest Avengers’ movie as you do about your partner of 5 years?

Does your breakfast hold the same standing in your heart as your mother?

Most likely not.

We need a more comprehensive description of the types of love, to focus our definitions so that we more accurately describe our emotions and intensify our understanding of the world we inhabit.

Fortunately, we do have these descriptions.

They have been lost; sacred knowledge sacrificed to the relentless progression of time, society, and culture.

Both the ancient Greeks and modern psychologists have already helped us on our quest to dissect the divisions of love and understand it as a concept. With their insight, we can apply a more nuanced understanding of love to our daily lives and relationships and in doing so, come closer to our loved ones, peers, and neighbors.

Intuitively, we know that not all love is the same.

This is why the concept of a ‘soulmate’ still resonates in many love stories. This is why some love purists shun the idea of casual hookups, as it somehow ‘tarnishes’ the delicate nature of true love.

We deeply understand that there are differeent kinds of love, that it manifests itself in different ways; yet we only describe it with one overarching umbrella term?

It seems about time to update our emotional dialect.

What are the 4 types of love?

The ancient Greeks had 4 types of love : eros, philia, storge, and agape .

Some philosophical circles prefer to condense philia and storge into one category. As you will see, these can be considered quite separate definitions of love. I digress.

For the purposes of this post, we’ll continue to separate love into the four aforementioned categories.

1. Eros (Passionate/Intimate Love)

Eros , when translated, means sexual, or romantic love. The Greek word erotas means ‘intimate love’. You can see where we derive the modern-day term ‘erotic’.

In modern society, this is the sexual or intimate passion you feel for a lover. The alluring pull of a well-dressed woman, or the irresistible air of a fashionable gent.

Eros is raw attraction to the beauty of the individual.

This is a love normally felt between romantic partners, by you for your crush, or by a population for the ‘ ideal standard of beauty ’ being constructed and promoted. Eros is fluid. Ever-changing.

With time and increased exposure to your partner, eros evolves. Though initially felt for a person’s beauty, eros can be the feeling of love for the beauty of the individual , beyond their physical appeal.

In his acclaimed work Symposium , Plato argues that eros helps us understand beauty in its truest form. Noting that love does not require physical attraction — that beauty can be found in all people — we derive the idea of ‘ Platonic love ’, referring to love without physical attraction.

“He whom love touches not walks in darkness” — Plato, Symposium

Plato is renowned for his ‘ theory of forms ’ — the idea that the physical manifestations of a concept are never as ‘real’ as the intangible form or theory of the concept. This idea is reflected in Plato’s conception of eros , in that the truest beauty is not that which is immediately visible on the surface.

This passionate feeling of eros is a precursor to entering a relationship . You must be attracted to the other person. You must notice beauty in them.

Tread carefully, however.

Relationships built solely on the basis of eros will fail, as the deeper substance of love is ignored or overlooked.

Have you ever known a couple who were only together for their looks? Yeah.

Are they still together today? Exactly.

Eros draws us in through the gravitational pull of romantic attraction, and with continual meditation on the beauty of the individual, pushes us along the path to understand the true nature of beauty as it is, limitless and unconditional.

2. Philia (Friendly/Brotherly Love)

Philia is a friendly, or brotherly, love. The love felt between close friends, mentors, teams, and close communities.

The important difference between eros and philia is that philia is a dispassionate, virtuous love. Dispassionate in that there is not a romantic side to this relationship.

Philia is a love built on respect, equality, familiarity, and understanding.

“The deepest need of man, then, is to overcome his separateness, to leave the prison of his aloneness.” — Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

This is the feeling that arises when your friend confesses something of grave personal importance to them, and you are drawn closer to them. A profound sense of respect surfaces and you find yourself wanting to lessen their pain, to understand the root of their suffering.

Philia , specifically defined as a dispassionate, virtuous love, was popularized by Aristotle in his esteemed work, Nicomachean Ethics . In this publication, Aristotle presents a split definition of philia .

On one hand, he notes philia , previously described as a deep loyalty and connection to friends. On the other hand, he introduces philos , a general manifestation of love for peers, community, or the deep enjoyment of an activity.

Philos describes the rush of pleasure you have while playing a sport you love, the respect you share with your classmates, or the serene bliss that arrives after a quaint walk in the park.

Philia is a captivating concept because it is the least natural love of all the forms. The biological necessity of philia or friendly love is still hidden from the contemporary sciences. As it is the least natural, it is viewed as one of the higher levels of love — as it is freely chosen.

This is why for many of us, you can be closer with — or feel more attached to — your friends than you do your family. A common saying is “friends are the family that you choose.” The act of free selection, to invite someone into this level of your life, is a sign of deep trust and compassion, and philia describes this.

C.S. Lewis, writing on these 4 loves , notes: “[…] to the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it.”

Damn. Do you ever take your friendships for granted?

Though this concept of philia can be translated to family relations (and commonly is), another term is better suited to describe this. This is our third form of love, storge .

3. Storge (Familial/Affectionate Love)

Storge is familial love, the affectionate love you have for your family, whether that be your son, daughter, mother, father, or immediate/extended family.

Storge is considered to be the most natural, or common, manifestation of love that we know.

Did you ever have to earn your mother’s love? Did you ever ‘realize’ that you loved your brother?

It was natural. Pervasive. Ever-present.

It is a natural, emotive empathy for the tribe, seemingly programmed into parents and family. To share traits as personal as a bloodline creates a natural tendency towards acceptance and openness to those with whom you share these commonalities.

Storge is natural because it is present without coercion or force. You are innately loving towards your children.

Storge is emotive or emotional because of the deeply rooted traits you share, and the familiarity that comes from shared traits.

Finally, storge is common because it does not need to be won. It is the least discriminating of all the definitions of love, as the individual does not need to have traits you deem ‘worthy of love.’ It is merely their mutual affiliation to your similarities that creates this sense of love. Storge transcends the filters or criteria present in both eros and philia , making it the easiest to attain, but also the most fragile.

Why is storge fragile?

For the exact reason that makes storge so commonplace, the natural tendency or default expectation of it.

Let’s use the example of “respect your elders.”

Often the underlying rationale for respecting one’s elders is simply storge — the idea that you ought to love your family. So the argument goes: you must love and respect your family because you must love and respect your family. This is circular argumentation at its finest.

This removes the responsibility to act in a way that is deserving of love.

The love/respect is expected regardless of the virtue or acts of the individual. It is viewed as a ‘default’ or ‘given’ and should be received regardless of the individual’s behavior.

I remember this concept used to infuriate me growing up, I just couldn’t name the feeling. My grandparents were often condescending toward my personal interests and would act rudely if I behaved in a manner they didn’t approve of. My love for them was expected, never earned. It bothered me, the feeling that I did not choose this relationship, I was born into it, and yet my most important offering, respect, had to be given without being earned.

Though the familial love is ever-present and underlying, it should find its way to the surface through words, actions, and understanding.

Storge is the yang to the yin of philia . Philia is a high-level love specifically because it is chosen: it is selected by us.

We work for it.

In historical contexts, storge is used almost exclusively for describing familial love, and is not commonly used outside of this context.

It is the natural, relentless compassion and empathy of parents for their children, and is the bedrock foundation that the other loves, eros , philia , agape , are built upon.

Storge is our first understanding of conditional and unconditional love, and provides the vital life force that allows all other manifestations of love to thrive.

4. Agape (Unconditional Love)

Agape is the highest form of love, for it is unconditional love. This is commonly referred to as God’s love for man, and of man’s love for God.

Agape is an all-consuming love.

Regardless of context, external conditions, extraneous factors, or feelings, agape is expressed without hesitation by those who feel it. Agape is commonly known as the love we ascribe to ‘enlightened’ individuals — individuals who offer respect, understanding, and compassion to all beings without hesitation, judgment, or condition.

Agape is unconditional love for oneself and for all others.

Taking this further than the familial bond of storge , agape is the relentless, unconditional love a mother feels for her child. It is the love that makes you suffer for your loved ones. It is a love so pure, so powerful, so consuming that it is understood by only a few.

Contemporary and ancient scholars and writers alike have touched on this before. If your love doesn’t extend to the whole of humanity, unconditionally, then you don’t really know what love is yet.

Agape is considered the greatest of the four loves, as it is not contextual; changing circumstances or the changing of individuals does not impact agape .

Agape also translates beautifully to the ‘Golden Rule’ that is expressed by the world’s’ various religious scriptures — “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

To treat all beings with kindness, not because they have treated you with kindness first, but because you are a kind person.

Agape is what we strive for in life. Agape is to be free.

This is the goal of all relationships. To feel fully accepted by your partner, despite your flaws, weakness, blemishes, and bruises. This is the goal of social interactions. To accept everyone, from prince to pauper, without hesitation or judgment.

Modern Psychological Approaches to Modern Love

Though contemporary society has drifted from our understanding and embodiment of the four kinds of love listed above, traditional psychology has not. In fact, contemporary psychological understandings of love relate directly to the definitions of eros , philia , storge , and agape .

The modern psychological definitions of love are fatuous , romantic , companionate , and consummate love.

1. Fatuous Love

Fatuous love is a sexual attraction and commitment to the other, without significant emotional closeness. It is a purely sexual, physical love.

Though we have divided our definitions of love, this is not to say that this love is ‘inferior’; it is merely a different manifestation of love. Fatuous love is necessary for the continuation of our species.

We explored eros as an ‘evolving’ concept of love. Initially captured by the physical beauty of an individual, eros then grows into a longing to understand the true nature of beauty, to explore the love of the individual regardless of their physical beauty.

Fatuous love, it seems, translates very well to the early stages of eros . As eros evolves from fatuous love, and you become more drawn to the inner beauty of your partner, we move on to the next psychological definition of love: romantic love.

2. Romantic Love

If the respect, attachment, and interest you feel deepens beyond fatuous love, we say you are experiencing romantic love. Romantic love is a love bred over time, with the accruement of respect. Romantic love is all-consuming sexual arousal ( eros ), paired with comfort, security, and respect for the other.

This is where most modern relationships are; somewhere on the spectrum between fatuous love and romantic love.

This is also where much stress is found.

If your partner is more attracted to the ‘idea’ of you, or simply attracted to your more physical attributes, but you are deep into romantic love, you may feel that they are ‘not on the same page’ in the relationship. These differences of inner feelings strain a relationship. Be mindful of this, and use it to deepen your relationships and understand your partner more. This is an excellent way to gauge potential partners in your life.

How do you feel about each other? Is it romantic? Or is it the love you feel for a friend? This is where we find our next definition, companionate love.

3. Companionate Love

The third psychological definition of love is companionate love. This translates over to philia (and storge at some level) from the ancient understandings of love. This is the deep love and respect between friends and between peers. This is a love of intimacy and commitment, built through respect and well-intentioned action.

It does not need to entail a romantic or sexual attraction and can remain platonic. This is bred over time, and there are very specific actions you can take to deepen this love within your inner circle.

Expressing your vulnerability, letting someone know that they matter to you,  highlighting what you appreciate in them — these can all strengthen the companionate love felt and reciprocated in relationships.

4. Consummate Love

Finally, we see agape manifest itself in what psychologists call ‘consummate love’. ‘Consummate’ finds its etymological root in ‘consuming’. This echoes the ethos of agape , which is an all-consuming , unconditional love.

Consummate love is a love that contains intimacy (closeness), passion, and deep commitment. It does not require standards to be met but is unconditional and freely given.

This is a love that we all strive for in romantic relationships, but not all of them reach this point.

This is the love of God for man and the love of a mother for her offspring. This is the sparkle in your eye as you watch your lover from across the room, even when they’re at their worst.

It isn’t to say that nothing bad has happened in your relationship. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. There may be many strenuous moments that occur. This, however, does not diminish the love you feel, as consummate love is not contextual.

Now that we’ve seen four different flavors of love, from the ancient Greeks ( eros, philia, storge, agape ) all the way to modern psychologists ( fatuous, romantic, companionate, consummate ) — how can you apply this knowledge to your own life? How does your nuanced understanding of love aid your everyday life?

We start by understanding the nature of love in our relationships and then work to deepen it.

How To Gauge The Level of Love in Your Relationships

Just by being able to describe love at a deeper level, you will be able to see where your relationships are. Both romantic and personal relationships can be understood through these lenses, and you can develop them if you so wish.

When looking at eros , or passionate/romantic love, you can determine how ‘surface-level’ your relationship is.

• Would your relationship be strained if you changed your look or image?
• How does your partner act when you’re sick, or not at your best?
• Are you commonly ‘advertised’ to their network or peers?
• Are you praised for certain aspects of your personality, but not others?
• What does your partner appreciate about you? What do they like about your character?

The goal here should be to understand the gap between fatuous and romantic love and adjust accordingly.

Love is the one aspect of life with respect to which we should never settle for mediocre.

By understanding where you stand, you can take action to dive deeper into these relationships.

When looking at philia , or your friendly/familial relationships, you can understand who your true inner circle is, or who is using you as a ‘convenience’.

• Do you have friends who ask you for favors, but are reluctant to help you when you ask?
• Do your friends check in on you by their own will?
• Do you feel like you can confide in, and truly open up to, your friends and inner circle?
• Do you feel respected, trusted, and appreciated by your friends?
• If you had great news to tell someone, who comes to your mind?
• Who in your life do you respect deeply?

As we noted, this is one of the highest levels of love as it is freely selected . As a result, you choose who you invite into your inner circle, and ensure that you are surrounded by those who love you.

“You can’t change the people around you, but you can change the people around you .” — The Minimalists

Friends are incredibly important. Ensure that you surround yourself with good people.

Finally, we address agape . Often, this a personal understanding and embodiment of love. It is your relationship with love and the world. This is something developed within; it can be cultivated with time.

• Do you see intrinsic value in everyone you meet?
• Are some individual people worthy of love, while others are not?
• Are certain types of people worthy of love, while others are not?
• Do you only give love to people who have loved you first, or done something you deem worthy of deserving love?
• Are there things people can do that would make you stop loving them?

Agape is unconditional love. Unconditional. Find areas where you create conditions for love and address these.

How To Develop and Deepen the Love in Your Life

There are a number of ways we can improve the love in our life; to feel love deeply and to express it honestly and openly.

The first step was being able to effectively describe love. We now have more nuanced definitions: eros, philia, storge, agape.

The next step was identifying where our relationships stand on this spectrum. Are our relationships superficial, are they as deep as we thought, and how do we express our own love?

Once we understand what love is and how our relationships embody this love, we can decide where we would like them to be and take action to move forward. Here are some ways to do this:

• Practice loving-kindness meditation . Picture giving and receiving love to/from everyone that you meet.
• Cultivate gratitude throughout your day. We cannot love others or receive love effectively until we ourselves are in a state of love. Cultivate this within yourself.
• Take friendships deeper. Instead of sitting around watching Netflix, ask them about the challenges they face and how you can help. Express times that they helped you, and express how important the relationship is to them.
• Deeply understand your partner. Is this relationship solely fatuous? Or do you see the true inner beauty of your partner? Are they a beautiful soul or only a beautiful face to you?
• Ask questions that build empathy. Move towards unconditional love for that person and all people. Ask them what they struggle with, what they are afraid of, what they’re passionate about, and what you mean to them.

Love is one of the most important experiences in our lives. We all strive to give love and to feel love. But too often it is an afterthought, something that we will simply ‘arrive at’ eventually.

If we put conscious effort into understanding and cultivating love, we can dive deeper into this profound emotional and spiritual state than we ever thought possible.

Enjoy eros , cultivate philia , respect storge , and act with agape .

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis continues the discussion of the four ancient philosophical definitions of love: eros , philia , storge , and agape . A compelling tale that will help you dive deeper into your own emotions and understanding, this is highly recommended for anyone who values the relationships and people in their life.

BUY THE BOOK

I'm a creator, artist, writer, and experience designer. I help people become themselves.

Dive Down The Rabbit Hole

Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter and never miss out on new releases.

Related Posts

How to Deal With Your Inner Critic

John Vervaeke 2 – Redesigning Religion, Culture Hacking, and Saving Spirituality (#49)

John Vervaeke – Awakening From the Meaning Crisis, Stealing the Culture, & Redesigning Religion (#48)

Justin Noppé: Success is a Skill That Can Be Trained Like a Muscle (#46)

The Ascent: How to Make a Living Doing What You Love (HEx Dialogues #8)

Jamie Combs – 4Game Dynamics & the Cultural Theory of Everything (Podcast)

Acceptance is the Key That Unlocks Human Flourishing

Learning The Ultimate Meta-Skill and Bending Reality (HEx Dialogues #3)

Ikigai: The Shortcut to Your Reason For Being

When Time Doesn’t Heal, Here’s What Can.

• Relationships

These Are the 7 Types of Love

... and how we can ignore the most available and potentially fulfilling types..

Posted June 25, 2016 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

• Why Relationships Matter
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships
• Romantic love is a modern construct that emerged in tandem with the novel.
• Parents' love for their children, as well as one's love for friends or for nature, constitute other types of love besides romantic love.
• Love can be playful (Ludus) or practically oriented (Pragma).

[Article revised on 21 October 2022.]

Most of us seem to be hankering after romantic love. But few of us realize that, far from being timeless and universal, romantic love is a modern construct that emerged in tandem with the novel.

In Madame Bovary (1856), itself a novel, Gustave Flaubert tells us that Emma Bovary only found out about romantic love through "the refuse of old lending libraries."

...were all about love and lovers, damsels in distress swooning in lonely lodges, postillions slaughtered all along the road, horses ridden to death on every page, gloomy forests, troubles of the heart, vows, sobs, tears, kisses, rowing-boats in the moonlight, nightingales in the grove, gentlemen brave as lions and gentle as lambs, too virtuous to be true, invariably well-dressed, and weeping like fountains.

But there are, of course, many other ways to love. By preoccupying ourselves with romantic love, we risk neglecting other types of love that are more stable or readily available, and that may, especially in the longer term, prove more healing and fulfilling.

The Ancient Greeks had several words for love, enabling them to distinguish more clearly between the different types.

I’m now going to guide you through seven types of love, each with a name from Ancient Greek.

These seven types of love are loosely based on classical readings, especially of Plato and Aristotle, and on JA Lee’s 1973 book, Colors of Love .

Eros is sexual or passionate love, and most akin to the modern construct of romantic love. In Greek myth, it is a form of madness brought about by one of Cupid’s arrows. The arrow breaches us and we "fall" in love, as did Paris with Helen, leading to the downfall of Troy and much of the assembled Greek army.

In modern times, eros has been amalgamated with the broader life force, something akin to Schopenhauer’s will, a fundamentally blind process of striving for survival and reproduction. Eros has also been contrasted with Logos , or Reason, and Cupid painted as a blindfolded child.

The hallmark of philia , or friendship , is shared goodwill. Aristotle believed that a person can bear goodwill to another for one of three reasons: that he is useful; that he is pleasant; and above all, that he is good, that is, rational and virtuous. Friendships founded on goodness are associated not only with mutual benefit but also with companionship, dependability, and trust.

For Plato, the best kind of friendship is that which lovers have for each other. It is a philia born out of eros , and that in turn feeds back into eros to strengthen and develop it, transforming it from a lust for possession into a shared desire for a higher level of understanding of the self, the other, and the world. In short, philia transforms eros from a lust for possession into an impulse for philosophy .

Real friends seek together to live truer, fuller lives by relating to each other authentically and teaching each other about the limitations of their beliefs and the defects in their character, which are a far greater source of error than mere rational confusion: they are, in effect, each other’s therapist—and in that much it helps to find a friend with some degree of openness , articulacy, and insight, both to change and to be changed.

Storge ["store-jay"], or familial love, is a kind of philia pertaining to the love between parents and their children. It differs from most philia in that it tends, especially with younger children, to be unilateral or asymmetrical. More broadly, storge is the fondness born out of familiarity or dependency. Compared to eros and philia , it is much less contingent on our personal qualities.

People in the early stages of a romantic relationship often expect unconditional storge , but find only the need and dependency of eros , and, if they are lucky, the maturity and fertility of philia . Given enough time, eros tends to mutate into storge .

Agape ["aga-pay"] is universal love, such as the love for strangers, nature, or God. Unlike storge , it does not depend on filiation or familiarity. Also called charity by Christian thinkers, agape can be said to encompass the modern concept of altruism, as defined as unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

Recent studies link altruism with a number of benefits. In the short-term, an altruistic act leaves us with a euphoric feeling, the so-called "helper’s high". In the longer term, altruism has been associated with better mental and physical health, and even greater longevity.

At a social level, altruism serves as a signal of cooperative intentions, and also of resource availability and so of mating or partnering potential. It also opens up a debt account, encouraging beneficiaries to reciprocate with gifts and favours that may be of much greater value to us than those with which we felt able to part.

More generally, altruism, or agape , helps to build and maintain the psychological, social, and, indeed, environmental fabric that shields, sustains, and enriches us. Given the increasing anger and division in our society and the state of our planet, we could all do with quite a bit more agape .

Ludus is playful or uncommitted love. It can involve activities such as teasing and dancing, or more overt flirting , seducing, and conjugating. The focus is on fun, and sometimes also on conquest, with no strings attached.

Ludus relationships are casual, undemanding, and uncomplicated, but, for all that, can be very long-lasting. Ludus works best when both parties are mature and self-sufficient. Problems arise when one party mistakes ludus for eros , whereas ludus is, in fact, much more compatible with philia .

Pragma is a kind of practical love founded on reason or duty and one’s longer-term interests. Sexual attraction takes a back seat in favour of personal qualities and compatibilities, shared goals , and "making it work."

In the days of arranged marriages, pragma must have been very common. Although unfashionable, and at a polar opposite of romantic love, it remains widespread, most visibly in certain high-profile celebrity and political pairings.

Many relationships that start off as eros or ludus end up as various combinations of storge and pragma . Pragma may seem opposed to ludus , but the two can co-exist, with the one providing a counterpoint to the other. In the best of cases, the partners in the pragma relationship agree to turn a blind eye—or even a sympathetic eye, as with Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, or Vita Sackville-West and Harold Nicholson.

7. Philautia

Philautia , finally, is self-love, which can be healthy or unhealthy. Unhealthy self-love is akin to hubris . In Ancient Greece, people could be accused of hubris if they placed themselves above the gods, or, like certain modern politicians, above the greater good. Many believed that hubris led to destruction, or nemesis .

Today, "hubris" has come to mean an inflated sense of one’s status, abilities, or accomplishments, especially when accompanied by haughtiness or arrogance. Because it does not accord with the truth, hubris promotes injustice, conflict, and enmity.

Healthy self-love, on the other hand, is akin to self-esteem , which is our cognitive and, above all, emotional appraisal of our own worth. More than that, it is the matrix through which we think, feel, and act, and reflects on our relation to ourselves, to others, and to the world.

In everyday language, "self-esteem" and " self-confidence " tend to be used interchangeably. However, self-esteem and self-confidence do not always go hand in hand. In particular, it is possible to be highly self-confident and yet to have profoundly low self-esteem, as is the case, for example, with many performers and celebrities.

People with healthy self-esteem do not need to prop themselves up with externals such as income, status, or notoriety, or lean on crutches such as alcohol , drugs, or sex. They are able to invest themselves completely in projects and people because they do not fear failure or rejection. Of course, they suffer hurt and disappointment, but their setbacks neither damage nor diminish them. Owing to their resilience , they are open to growth experiences and relationships, tolerant of risk, quick to joy and delight, and accepting and forgiving of themselves and others.

In closing, there is, of course, a kind of porosity between the seven types of love, which keep on seeping and passing into one another.

For Plato, love aims at beautiful and good things, because the possession of beautiful and good things is called happiness , and happiness is an end-in-itself.

Of all good and beautiful things, the best, most beautiful, and most dependable is truth or wisdom , which is why Plato called love not a god but a philosopher.

Neel Burton is author of Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions .

Flaubert G (1856): Madame Bovary. Trans. Alan Russell.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethic X.

Plato, Lysis.

Plato, Phaedrus.

Plato, Symposium.

Neel Burton, M.D. , is a psychiatrist, philosopher, and writer who lives and teaches in Oxford, England.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Four Loves

31 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Introduction

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

The Four Loves , written by C.S. Lewis and originally published in 1960, presents the author’s philosophical and theological differentiation of four types of love: Friendship, Affection, Eros, and Charity. Affection, Friendship, and Eros are classified as “natural” (116) loves, while Charity receives a higher distinction in that it is closest to the type of love that is defined by the maxim “God is love” (1), the premise that underlies all of his arguments. Charity is discussed as a “supernatural” (140) love, as opposed to “unnatural”(40). Lewis examines each of the four loves in-depth, including their benefits, potential dangers, and how they each illuminate distinct aspects of God’s character.

The Four Loves is derived from a 1958 series of radio broadcasts by Lewis. The talks received widespread criticism in conservative circles for what was, at the time, a frank discussion of sex and its implications.

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 7,450+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,900+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

Before beginning the discussion of the “loves” themselves, Lewis defines his terms and makes some distinctions between what are typically called “likes” versus “loves.” Clarity of language is paramount in The Four Loves , and the first categories are “Need-loves,” “Gift-loves,” and loves of “appreciation” (2). A Need-love is compared to an infant needing its mother. It loves her because it needs her, and the need depends on the love. However, Need-loves are exhausted once the need has been satisfied. A Gift-love is independent and free of the expectation of reciprocity. It is manifested in a gift that is freely given, with no expectation of return. “Appreciative” love is a function of the lover’s admiration for a feeling of aesthetic or physical qualities. For instance, a breeze can be appreciated on a hot day, but the breeze itself has no inherent good in it.

After clarifying his semantic position, Lewis begins by examining the love known as Affection, or storge (31) in the original Greek. Affection is described by Lewis as being rooted in warmth and familiarity. It does not require attraction or mutual points of view. Affection is what is felt for pets, by pet owners, and for acquaintances for whom one has some fondness. But the fondness tends to have routine and safeness as its foundation, not anything implying a more intimate bond. Affection, in Lewis’s view, can lead to an appreciation for people, or things, that might not flourish without its presence. One of the potential downsides of Affection involves relationships between family members. People who become too familiar with one another may begin to take each other for granted, resulting in rudeness, neglect, and resentment.

The SuperSummary difference

• 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
• Study Guides you won ' t find anywhere else
• 100+ new titles every month

The next chapter examines the nature of Friendship. Friendship is unique in The Four Loves in that it appears to be the most unnecessary and also the least like the love of God. In modern times, Lewis believes that the role of Friendship has grown so small as to make the love almost trivial. The Greeks, however, saw Friendship as essential, and his sympathies lie with their thinking. Lewis identifies the primary potential downside of Friendship as its exclusionary nature. Friendship includes the friends and places non-friends outside of their circle by definition.

In Chapter 4, Lewis defines Eros as the state of “being in love” (91). Eros can include sex, but sex does not necessarily include Eros in all cases. He refers to the carnal element of lust as Venus. When Venus is unrestrained, a person can be reduced to pure appetite. The lustful person in the grips of Venus can only think of satisfying a physical pleasure. But when Eros is introduced, the physical act is a secondary focus and pleasure. “The Beloved” (93) then becomes the focus, shifting appetites to a peripheral role and allowing sex to lead to greater intimacy, rather than mere physical relief. Romantic love overlays the relationship of God and Christ to man because the Bible frequently compares Christ to a ”Bridegroom of the Church” (78)—and its members—as his wife.

The final chapter discusses Charity, which is the ultimate distillation of God’s love manifested in the world. God’s Charity is what caused him to create the world upon which his children could grow, learn, flourish, and perfect themselves. His creations practice charity by demonstrating God’s love through their relationships and actions towards each other. Lewis states, multiple times, that Charity is the culmination of the other loves. It is the highest order state that a person can experience on Earth and the closest to God that a person can be prior to ascending to Heaven.

The Four Loves can be read as a philosophical treatise on the nature of love, as a Christian meditation on God and His plan for his children, as a practical guide to living a better, more charitable life, or as a pure intellectual exercise as Lewis follows his reasoning as far as he is able. It contains much of value for people of faith and non-believers alike.

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By C. S. Lewis

A Grief Observed

C. S. Lewis

Mere Christianity

Out of the Silent Planet

Prince Caspian

Surprised by Joy

That Hideous Strength

The Abolition of Man

The Discarded Image

The Great Divorce

The Horse And His Boy

The Last Battle

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The Magician's Nephew

The Problem of Pain

The Screwtape Letters

The Silver Chair

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Till We Have Faces

Featured Collections

Christian Literature

View Collection

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Love: The Quadruple Theory

Scholars across an array of disciplines including social psychologists have been trying to explain the meaning of love for over a century but its polysemous nature has made it difficult to fully understand. In this paper, a quadruple framework of attraction, resonance or connection, trust, and respect are proposed to explain the meaning of love. The framework is used to explain how love grows and dies and to describe brand love, romantic love, and parental love. The synergistic relationship between the factors and how their variations modulate the intensity or levels of love are discussed.

Introduction

Scholars across an array of disciplines have tried to define the meaning and nature of love with some success but questions remain. Indeed, it has been described as a propensity to think, feel, and behave positively toward another ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ). However, the application of this approach has been unsuccessful in all forms of love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Some social psychologists have tried to define love using psychometric techniques. Robert Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love and Clyde and Susan Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) are notable attempts to employ the psychometric approach ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ; Sternberg, 1986 ). However, data analysis from the administration of the LAS, Sternberg’s scale and the Passionate Love Scale by Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) found a poor association with all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ). Other studies have found a poor correlation between these and other love scales with different types of love ( Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ).

In recent years, the neuropsychological approach to study the nature of love has gained prominence. Research has compared the brain activity of people who were deeply in love while viewing a picture of their partner and friends of the same age using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and concluded that there is a specialized network of the brain involved in love ( Bartels and Zeki, 2000 ). Indeed, several lines of investigation using fMRI have described a specialized area of the brain mediating maternal love ( Noriuchi et al., 2008 ; Noriuchi and Kikuchi, 2013 ) and, fMRI studies have implicated multiple brain systems particularly the reward system in romantic love ( Aron et al., 2005 ; Fisher et al., 2005 , 2010 ; Beauregard et al., 2009 ). Brain regions including ventral tegmental area, anterior insula, ventral striatum, and supplementary motor area have been demonstrated to mediate social and material reward anticipation ( Gu et al., 2019 ). Although brain imaging provides a unique insight into the nature of love, making sense of the psychological significance or inference of fMRI data is problematic ( Cacioppo et al., 2003 ).

Also, there has been growing interests in the neurobiology of love. Indeed, evidence suggests possible roles for oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, cortisol, morphinergic system, and nerve growth factor in love and attachment ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ; De Boer et al., 2012 ; Seshadri, 2016 ; Feldman, 2017 ). However, in many cases, definite proof is still lacking and the few imaging studies on love are limited by selection bias on the duration of a love affair, gender and cultural differences ( De Boer et al., 2012 ).

So, while advances have been made in unraveling the meaning of love, questions remain and a framework that can be employed to understand love in all its forms remains to be developed or proposed. The objective of this article is to propose a novel framework that can be applied to all forms of love.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development (The AAC Model)

In the past few decades, the psychological literature has defined and described different forms of love and from these descriptions, the role of attraction, attachment-commitment, and caregiving (AAC), appears to be consistent in all forms of love.

Attraction theory is one of the first approaches to explain the phenomenon of love and several studies and scholarly works have described the importance of attraction in different forms of love ( Byrne and Griffitt, 1973 ; Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ; Fisher et al., 2006 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Grant-Jacob, 2016 ). Attraction has been described as an evolutionary adaptation of humans for mating, reproduction, and parenting ( Fisher et al., 2002a , 2006 ).

The role of attachment in love has also been extensively investigated. Attachment bonds have been described as a critical feature of mammals including parent-infant, pair-bonds, conspecifics, and peers ( Feldman, 2017 ). Indeed, neural networks including the interaction of oxytocin and dopamine in the striatum have been implicated in attachment bonds ( Feldman, 2017 ). The key features of attachment include proximity maintenance, safety and security, and separation distress ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Multiple lines of research have proposed that humans possess an innate behavioral system of attachment that is essential in love ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1977 , 1988 , 1989 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ; Hazan and Shaver, 1987 ; Bretherton, 1992 ; Carter, 1998 ; Burkett and Young, 2012 ). Attachment is essential to commitment and satisfaction in a relationship ( Péloquin et al., 2013 ) and commitment leads to greater intimacy ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Also, several lines of evidence have described the role of caregiving in love. It has been proposed that humans possess an inborn caregiving system that complements their attachment system ( Bowlby, 1973 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ). Indeed, several studies have used caregiving scale and compassionate love scale, to describe the role of caring, concern, tenderness, supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), in love and relationships ( Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Mutual communally responsive relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare with the expectation that the other will return the favor when their own needs arise ( Clark and Mills, 1979 ; Clark and Monin, 2006 ), have been described as key in all types of relationships including friendship, family, and romantic and compassionate love ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Attachment and caregiving reinforce each other in relationships. Evidence suggests that sustained caregiving is frequently accompanied by the growth of familiarity between the caregiver and the receiver ( Bowlby, 1989 , p. 115) strengthening attachment ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Several studies have proposed that attachment has a positive influence on caregiving behavior in love and relationships ( Carnelley et al., 1996 ; Collins and Feeney, 2000 ; Feeney and Collins, 2001 ; Mikulincer, 2006 ; Canterberry and Gillath, 2012 ; Péloquin et al., 2013 ).

The AAC model can be seen across the literature on love. Robert Sternberg triangular theory of love which proposes that love has three components —intimacy, passion, and commitment ( Sternberg, 1986 ), essentially applies the AAC model. Passion, a key factor in his theory, is associated with attraction ( Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ), and many passionate behaviors including increased energy, focused attention, intrusive thinking, obsessive following, possessive mate guarding, goal-oriented behaviors and motivation to win and keep a preferred mating partner ( Fisher et al., 2002b , 2006 ; Fisher, 2005 ). Also, evidence indicates that attachment is central to intimacy, another pillar of the triangular theory ( Morris, 1982 ; Feeney and Noller, 1990 ; Oleson, 1996 ; Grabill and Kent, 2000 ). Commitment, the last pillar of the triangular theory, is based on interdependence and social exchange theories ( Stanley et al., 2010 ), which is connected to mutual caregiving and secure attachment.

Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) , Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) which measures six types of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ) is at its core based on the AAC model. Similarly, numerous works on love ( Rubin, 1970 ; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986 ; Fehr, 1994 ; Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), have applied one or all of the factors in the ACC model. Berscheid (2010) , proposed four candidates for a temporal model of love including companionate love, romantic love, and compassionate love and adult attachment love. As described, these different types of love (romantic, companionate, compassionate, and attachment) all apply at least one or all of the factors in the AAC model.

New Theory (The Quadruple Framework)

The AAC model can be fully captured by four fundamental factors; attraction, connection or resonance, trust, and respect, providing a novel framework that could explain love in all its forms. Table 1 shows the core factors of love, and the four factors derived from them.

Factors of love.

Evidence suggests that both attachment and attraction play a role in obsession or passion observed in love ( Fisher et al., 2005 ; Honari and Saremi, 2015 ). Attraction is influenced by the value or appeal perceived from a relationship and this affects commitment ( Rusbult, 1980 ).

Connection or Resonance

Connection is key to commitment, caregiving, and intimacy. It creates a sense of oneness in relationships and it is strengthened by proximity, familiarity, similarity, and positive shared experiences ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Homogeneity or similarity has been observed to increase social capital and engagement among people ( Costa and Kahn, 2003a , b ), and it has been described as foundational to human relationships ( Tobore, 2018 , pp. 6–13). Research indicates that similarity plays a key role in attachment and companionship as people are more likely to form long-lasting and successful relationships with those who are more similar to themselves ( Burgess and Wallin, 1954 ; Byrne, 1971 ; Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ; Lutz-Zois et al., 2006 ). Proximity plays a key role in caregiving as people are more likely to show compassion to those they are familiar with or those closest to them ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Similarity and proximity contribute to feelings of familiarity ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Also, caregiving and empathy are positively related to emotional interdependence ( Hatfield et al., 1994 ).

Trust is crucial for love ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ) and it plays an important role in relationship intimacy and caregiving ( Rempel and Holmes, 1985 ; Wilson et al., 1998 ; Salazar, 2015 ), as well as attachment ( Rodriguez et al., 2015 ; Bidmon, 2017 ). Familiarity is a sine qua non for trust ( Luhmann, 1979 ), and trust is key to relationship satisfaction ( Simpson, 2007 ; Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine, 2017 ).

Respect is cross-cultural and universal ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick et al., 2010 ) and has been described as fundamental in love ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). It plays a cardinal role in interpersonal relations at all levels ( Hendrick et al., 2010 ). Indeed, it is essential in relationship commitment and satisfaction ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ) and relationship intimacy and attachment ( Alper, 2004 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Synergetic Interactions of the Four Factors

Connection and attraction.

Similarity, proximity, and familiarity are all important in connection because they promote attachment and a sense of oneness in a relationship ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that proximity ( Batool and Malik, 2010 ) and familiarity positively influence attraction ( Norton et al., 2015 ) and several lines of evidence suggests that people are attracted to those similar to themselves ( Sykes et al., 1976 ; Wetzel and Insko, 1982 ; Montoya et al., 2008 ; Batool and Malik, 2010 ; Collisson and Howell, 2014 ). Also, attraction mediates similarity and familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Trust

Evidence suggests that respect promotes trust ( Ali et al., 2012 ).

Connection, Respect, Trust, and Attraction

Trust affects attraction ( Singh et al., 2015 ). Trust and respect can mediate attitude similarity and promote attraction ( Singh et al., 2016 ).

So, although these factors can operate independently, evidence suggests that the weakening of one factor could negatively affect the others and the status of love. Similarly, the strengthening of one factor positively modulates the others and the status of love.

Relationships are dynamic and change as events and conditions in the environment change ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Love is associated with causal conditions that respond to these changes favorably or negatively ( Berscheid, 2010 ). In other words, as conditions change, and these factors become present, love is achieved and if they die, it fades. Figure 1 below explains how love grows and dies. Point C in the figure explains the variations in the intensity or levels of love and this variation is influenced by the strength of each factor. The stronger the presence of all factors, the higher the intensity and the lower, the weaker the intensity of love. The concept of non-love is similar to the “non-love” described in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love in which all components of love are absent ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Description: (A) Presence of love (all factors are present). (B) Absence of love (state of non-love or state where all factors are latent or dormant). (C) Different levels of love due to variations in the four factors. (D) Movement from non-love toward love (developmental stage: at least one but not all four factors are present). (E) Movement away from love toward non-love (decline stage: at least one or more of the four factors are absent).

Application of the Quadruple Framework on Romantic, Brand and Parental Love

Romantic, parental and brand love have been chosen to demonstrate the role of these factors and their interactions in love because there is significant existing literature on them. However, they can be applied to understand love in all its forms.

Romantic Love

Attraction and romantic love.

Attraction involves both physical and personality traits ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Karandashev and Fata, 2014 ). To this end, attraction could be subdivided into sexual or material and non-sexual or non-material attraction. Sexual or material attraction includes physical attributes such as beauty, aesthetics, appeal, wealth, etc. In contrast, non-sexual or non-material attraction includes characteristics such as personality, social status, power, humor, intelligence, character, confidence, temperament, honesty, good quality, kindness, integrity, etc. Both types of attraction are not mutually exclusive.

Romantic love has been described as a advanced form of human attraction system ( Fisher et al., 2005 ) and it fits with the passion component of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which he described as the quickest to recruit ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, research indicates that physical attractiveness and sensual feelings are essential in romantic love and dating ( Brislin and Lewis, 1968 ; Regan and Berscheid, 1999 ; Luo and Zhang, 2009 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Ha et al., 2010 ; Guéguen and Lamy, 2012 ) and sexual attraction often provides the motivational spark that kickstarts a romantic relationship ( Gillath et al., 2008 ). Behavioral data suggest that love and sex drive follow complementary pathways in the brain ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Indeed, the neuroendocrine system for sexual attraction and attachment appears to work synergistically motivating individuals to both prefer a specific mating partner and to form an attachment to that partner ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Sex promotes the activity of hormones involved in love including arginine vasopressin in the ventral pallidum, oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens and stimulates dopamine release which consequently motivates preference for a partner and strengthens attachment or pair-bonding ( Seshadri, 2016 ).

Also, romantic love is associated with non-material attraction. Research indicates that many people are attracted to their romantic partner because of personality traits like generosity, kindness, warmth, humor, helpfulness, openness to new ideas ( Giles, 2015 , pp. 168–169). Findings from a research study on preferences in human mate selection indicate that personality traits such as kindness/considerate and understanding, exciting, and intelligent are strongly preferred in a potential mate ( Buss and Barnes, 1986 ). Indeed, character and physical attractiveness have been found to contribute jointly and significantly to romantic attraction ( McKelvie and Matthews, 1976 ).

Attraction is key to commitment in a romantic relationship ( Rusbult, 1980 ), indicating that without attraction a romantic relationship could lose its luster. Also, romantic attraction is weakened or declines as the reason for its presence declines or deteriorates. If attraction is sexual or due to material characteristics, then aging or any accident that compromises physical beauty would result in its decline ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ). Loss of fortune or social status could also weaken attraction and increase tension in a relationship. Indeed, tensions about money increase marital conflicts ( Papp et al., 2009 ; Dew and Dakin, 2011 ) and predicted subsequent divorce ( Amato and Rogers, 1997 ).

Connection and Romantic Love

Connection or resonance fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Connection in romantic love involves intimacy, friendship or companionship and caregiving and it is strengthened by novelty, proximity, communication, positive shared experiences, familiarity, and similarity. It is what creates a sense of oneness between romantic partners and it is expressed in the form of proximity seeking and maintenance, concern, and compassion ( Neto, 2012 ). Evidence suggests that deeper levels of emotional involvement or attachment increase commitment and cognitive interdependence or tendency to think about the relationship in a pluralistic manner, as reflected in the use of plural pronouns to describe oneself, romantic partner and relationship ( Agnew et al., 1998 ).

Research indicates that both sexual attraction and friendship are necessary for romantic love ( Meyers and Berscheid, 1997 ; Gillath et al., 2008 ; Berscheid, 2010 ), indicating that connection which is essential for companionship plays a key role in romantic love. A study on college students by Hendrick and Hendrick (1993) found that a significant number of the students described their romantic partner as their closest friend ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1993 ), reinforcing the importance of friendship or companionship in romantic love.

Similarity along the lines of values, goals, religion, nationality, career, culture, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, etc. is essential in liking and friendship in romantic love ( Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ). Research indicates that a partner who shared similar values and interests were more likely to experience stronger love ( Jin et al., 2017 ). Indeed, the more satisfied individuals were with their friendships the more similar they perceived their friends to be to themselves ( Morry, 2005 ). Also, similarity influences perceptions of familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ), and familiarity plays a role in the formation of attachment and connectedness because it signals safety and security ( Bowlby, 1977 ). Moreover, similarity and familiarity affect caregiving. Sprecher and Fehr (2005) , found compassion or caregiving were lower for strangers, and greatest for dating and marital relationships, indicating that similarity and familiarity enhance intimacy and positively influences caregiving ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ).

Proximity through increased exposure is known to promote liking ( Saegert et al., 1973 ), familiarity and emotional connectedness ( Sternberg, 1986 ; Berscheid, 2010 ). Exposure through fun times and direct and frequent communication is essential to maintaining and strengthening attachment and connectedness ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ). In Sternberg’s triangular theory, effective communication is described as essential and affects the intimacy component of a relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, intimacy grows from a combination of mutual self-disclosure and interactions mediated by positive partner responsiveness ( Laurenceau et al., 1998 , 2005 ; Manne et al., 2004 ), indicating that positive feedback and fun times together strengthens connection.

Also, sexual activity is an important component of the reward system that reinforces emotional attachment ( Seshadri, 2016 ), indicating that sexual activity may increase emotional connectedness and intimacy. Over time in most relationships, predictability grows, and sexual satisfaction becomes readily available. This weakens the erotic and emotional experience associated with romantic love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Research shows that a reduction in novelty due to the monotony of being with the same person for a long period is the reason for this decline in sexual attraction ( Freud and Rieff, 1997 , p. 57; Sprecher et al., 2006 , p. 467). According to Sternberg (1986) , the worst enemy of the intimacy component of love is stagnation. He explained that too much predictability can erode the level of intimacy in a close relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). So, novelty is essential to maintaining sexual attraction and strengthening connection in romantic love.

Jealousy and separation distress which are key features of romantic love ( Fisher et al., 2002b ), are actions to maintain and protect the emotional union and are expressions of a strong connection. Research has found a significant correlation between anxiety and love ( Hatfield et al., 1989 ) and a positive link between romantic love and jealousy in stable relationships ( Mathes and Severa, 1981 ; Aune and Comstock, 1991 ; Attridge, 2013 ; Gomillion et al., 2014 ). Indeed, individuals who feel strong romantic love tend to be more jealous or sensitive to threats to their relationship ( Orosz et al., 2015 ).

Connection in romantic love is weakened by distance, a dearth of communication, unsatisfactory sexual activity, divergences or dissimilarity of values and interests, monotony and too much predictability.

Trust and Romantic Love

Trust is the belief that a partner is, and will remain, reliable or dependable ( Cook, 2003 ). Trust in romantic love fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which includes being able to count on the loved one in times of need, mutual understanding with the loved one, sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one and maintaining the relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

It has been proposed that love activates specific regions in the reward system which results in a reduction in emotional judgment and fear ( Seshadri, 2016 ). This reduced fear or trust has been identified as one of the most important characteristics of a romantic relationship and essential to fidelity, commitment, monogamy, emotional vulnerability, and intimacy ( Laborde et al., 2014 ). Indeed, trust can deepen intimacy, increase commitment and increase mutual monogamy, and make a person lower their guards in the belief that they are safe from harm ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Bauman and Berman, 2005 ). People with high trust in romantic relationships tend to expect that their partner will act in their interest causing them to prioritize relationship dependence over making themselves invulnerable from harm or self-protection ( Luchies et al., 2013 ). In contrast, people with low trust in their partner tend to be unsure about whether their partner will act in their interests and prioritize insulating themselves from harm over relationship dependence ( Luchies et al., 2013 ).

Trust takes time to grow into a romantic relationship. Indeed, people in a relationship come to trust their partners when they see that their partner’s action and behavior moves the relationship forward or acts in the interest of the relationship and not themself ( Wieselquist et al., 1999 ). Research indicates that trust is associated with mutual self-disclosure ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ), and positive partner responsiveness which are both essential to the experience of friendship and intimacy in romantic relationships ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Reis and Shaver, 1988 ; Laurenceau et al., 1998 ).

Also, trust influences caregiving and compassion. Evidence suggests that compassion is positively related to trust ( Salazar, 2015 ). Mutual communal responsiveness or caregiving in relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare is done because they are confident that the other will do the same when or if their own needs arise ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ). Repeated acts of communal responsiveness given with no expectation of payback provide a partner with a sense of security and trust and increase the likelihood that they will be communally responsive if or when the need arises ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ), and contributes to a sense of love in romantic relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Loss or weakening of trust could spell the end of romantic love. Indeed, mistrust corrupts intimacy and often indicates that a relationship has ended or near its end ( LaFollette and Graham, 1986 ) and it makes mutual monogamy, and commitment difficult to achieve in a romantic relationship ( Towner et al., 2015 ). A study on individuals who had fallen out of romantic love with their spouse found that loss of trust and intimacy was part of the reason for the dissolution of love ( Sailor, 2013 ).

Respect and Romantic Love

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that respect is expected in both friendships and romantic relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ). In romantic love, it entails consideration, admiration, high regard, and value for the loved one as a part of one’s life ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Gottman (1999) , found that the basis for a stable and satisfactory marital relationship is friendship filled with fondness and admiration ( Gottman, 1999 ). Respect is considered one of the most important things married couples want from their partner ( Gottman, 1994 ). Grote and Frieze (1994) , found that respect correlates with companionate or friendship love ( Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), indicating that respect is essential to intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Also, respect is positively correlated with passion, altruism, self-disclosure, and relationship overall satisfaction ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ). It is associated with the tendency to overlook a partner’s negative behavior or respond with pro-relationship actions or compassion to their shortcomings ( Rusbult et al., 1998 ; Gottman, 1999 ).

Absence or a lack of respect could spell the end of romantic love. Research indicates that there is an expectation of mutual respect in friendship and most relationships and people reacted negatively when this expectation is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ), indicating that a lack of respect could negatively affect commitment and attraction. Indeed, denial of respect is an important negative behavior in friendships and most relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ) and a lack of respect is a violation of what it means to love one ‘s partner in a close romantic relationship ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). Gottman (1993 , 1994) identified contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling as four of the relationally destructive behavior and he labeled them as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

Romantic love summary

Romantic love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. All four must be present in love. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause romantic love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Romantic love is dynamic and requires significant investment from both partners to keep it alive.

Parental Love

Attraction and parental love.

Attraction plays an essential role in parental love and it could be material or non-material. Material attraction involves the child’s health, gender, accomplishments or success, and attractiveness. In contrast, non-material attraction includes traits such as intelligence, character, and other personality traits.

Evidence suggests that culture influences gender preference with attraction greater for sons in most cases ( Cronk, 1993 ). Indeed, mothers and fathers have been found to favor the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious child ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Also, parental perception that investment in a child will cost more than the benefits to be gained from taking care of the child might influence negative behavior toward the child. Indeed, multiple lines of evidence suggest that parental unemployment increases the rates of child maltreatment and abuse ( Steinberg et al., 1981 ; Lindo et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that teen mothers who have poor social support reported greater unhappiness, were at greater risk for child abuse and often employed the use of physical punishment toward their child ( Haskett et al., 1994 ; de Paúl and Domenech, 2000 ).

Also, several studies have suggested that parents tended to favor healthy children ( Mann, 1992 ; Barratt et al., 1996 ; Hagen, 1999 ). However, when resources are plentiful, parents tend to invest equally in less healthy or high-risk children ( Beaulieu and Bugental, 2008 ), because they have abundant resources to go around without compromising the reproductive value of healthy children ( Lauricella, 2009 ).

Connection and Parental Love

Connection creates a sense of oneness between parent and child and involves caregiving, intimacy, and attachment. It is influenced by proximity, positive and unique shared experiences, and similarity along virtually every dimension between parent and child.

Proximity, and similarity increases attachment and intimacy between parent and child. Research shows that parents are perceived as favoring genetically related children ( Salmon et al., 2012 ), and evidence suggests that paternal resemblance predicted paternal favoritism ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Parental proximity and similarity to a biological child are unique because it is based on genes and blood. In contrast, intimacy between a parent and an adopted child is based solely on shared experiences and proximity and takes time to grow and on many occasions may not develop ( Hooks, 1990 ; Hughes, 1999 ).

Dissimilarities or discrepancy in values, attitudes, etc., can create problems between children and parents and can have a profound effect on their relationship. Indeed, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Research has found that adolescents who are less religious than their parents tend to experience lower-quality relationships with their parents which results in higher rates of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms ( Kim-Spoon et al., 2012 ). When parents and family members were very religious, and a child comes out as an atheist, relationship quality could suffer in the form of rejection, anger, despair, or an inability to relate to one another ( Zimmerman et al., 2015 ). A study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youngsters, for patterns of disclosure of sexual orientation to families, found that those who had disclosed reported verbal and physical abuse by parents and family members ( D’Augelli et al., 1998 ). Honor killing of female children which have been reported in Pakistan and some parts of the Middle East because of deviation from traditional gender roles or crossing of social boundaries that are deemed as taboo in their culture ( Lindsey and Sarah, 2010 ), is another example of the negative effects of the discrepancy in values between parents and child.

Unique shared experiences between parent and child could increase connection. Bank (1988) observed that the development of favoritism seems to require that the “child’s conception or birth be unusual or stressful,” ( Bank, 1988 ). Evidence suggests that parents most favored child tended to be last-born child and this is linked to their unique position, vulnerability and neediness ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Also, proximity, positive experiences and time spent together increases connection and intimacy. Research indicates that parents tend to give more love and support to the grown child they were historically closest to and got along with ( Siennick, 2013 ). A study of primiparous women found that mothers with greater contact with their infants were more reluctant to leave them with someone else, and engaged more intimately with their child ( Klaus et al., 1972 ).

Divorce could create distance between a parent and child, weakening connection and intimacy. Indeed, one of the outcomes of divorce is the lessening of contact between divorced non-custodial fathers and their children ( Appleby and Palkovitz, 2007 ), and this can reduce intimacy ( Guttmann and Rosenberg, 2003 ).

Also, parental separation distress, worry, and concern for their child’s welfare, academic performance, and future are expressions of connection and a lack thereof is a sign of poor connection. Indeed, the levels of concern and worry expressed between children and their parents influenced their perceptions of the relationship quality ( Hay et al., 2007 ).

Trust and Parental Love

Trust is essential to parental attachment, intimacy, and caregiving. When there is mistrust, attachment and intimacy between a parent and their child are disrupted or unable to blossom. In Africa and many parts of the world, there have been reports of children being condemned and abandoned by their parents simply because they are tagged as witches with mysterious evil powers ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ). The tag of “witchcraft” stirs up fear and anger, causing the child to be perceived as a deadly threat which inevitably damages attachment, intimacy and eliminates the need for caregiving.

Research has found that firstborn children were most likely to be chosen as those to whom mothers would turn when facing personal problems or crises ( Suitor and Pillemer, 2007 ). This tendency may be linked to trust. Moreover, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). In other words, the more obedient, and reliable child is likely to gain the confidence and intimacy of the parents. In contrast, the disobedient and unreliable child is excluded or kept at a distance. Also, trust and poor connection could influence inheritance and disinheritance decisions. Indeed, estrangement, alienation and disaffection of a parent toward a child could result in disinheritance ( Batts, 1990 ; Brashier, 1994 , 1996 ; Foster, 2001 ; Arroyo et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Parental Love

Respect in parental love entails treating the child with consideration and regard. This consideration and regard for the child are essential to intimacy, caregiving and attachment. Indeed, respect is foundational to a harmonious relationship between parent and child ( Dixon et al., 2008 ). Evidence suggests that humans possess an innate behavioral system that leads them to form an attachment to a familiar person who provides care, comfort, and protection ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1989 ). Repeated acts of caregiving contribute to a sense of love in all types of relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ), reinforcing the role of parental caregiving in fostering intimacy and attachment with the child.

Taking care of an infant’s needs, and making sure they are safe and well, all fall under consideration and regard for the child. Child abuse and neglect ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ), is a display of a lack of consideration for the child’s need.

Also, respect in parental love involves admiration. Research has found that fathers treated more ambitious/industrious sons with high regard, and both parents favored the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious daughters ( Lauricella, 2009 ) indicating that a child that engages in activities or behavior that is highly regarded by their parents may gain favor with their parents, strengthening intimacy and vice versa.

Parental love summary

Parental love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause parental love to gradually decline. In many cases, the behavior and actions of a child significantly influence parental love.

Brand love has been defined as the level of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied or happy consumer has for a brand and evidence suggests it is very similar to interpersonal love ( Russo et al., 2011 ).

Attraction and Brand Love

Attraction plays an essential role in brand love. Material attraction for a brand includes attributes like superior design, quality, and aesthetics, price, benefits, etc. Non-material attraction involves social status symbol, brand personality, uniqueness, distinctiveness, user experience, image, etc. evidence suggests that when talking about loved brands, people often talk passionately about the brand’s many attractive qualities such as its exceptional performance, good-looking design, value for money, and other positive attributes ( Fournier, 1998 ; Whang et al., 2004 ; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ). Research on brand love has found that brand attractive attributes such as prestige or uniqueness influence brand passion which affects relevant factors such as purchase intention ( Bauer et al., 2007 ).

Also, brand attraction influences brand loyalty, and commitment. Indeed, research indicates that brand benefits influences brand loyalty or commitment ( Huang et al., 2016 ). Brand personality (image, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value) is strongly associated with brand identification and loyalty ( Kim et al., 2001 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Connection and Brand Love

Connection is essential to brand love. It involves brand attachment, commitment, and intimacy and it is strengthened by brand identification, image, familiarity or awareness, proximity, length or frequency of usage and similarity or congruences along virtually every dimension including values, lifestyle, goals, etc. between brand and customer. Brand awareness which means brand familiarity has been described as essential for people to identify with a brand ( Pascual and Académico, 2015 ), and it indirectly affects current purchases ( Esch et al., 2006 ).

Also, brand identification promotes a sense of oneness between a brand and a customer strengthening commitment and it is driven by brand self-similarity, brand prestige and brand distinctiveness ( Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2008 ). Indeed, brand identification contributes to the development of brand love and brand loyalty ( Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ) and brand image and identification influence loyalty and positive word of mouth ( Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ; Anggraeni and Rachmanita, 2015 ). Brand identity, values and lifestyle similarities to those of the customer appear to have a strong and significant relationship with brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014 ; Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Findings from research suggest that customer-to-customer similarity and sense of community drive consumer brand identification, loyalty, and engagement ( Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, proximity and interaction play a role in brand love. Indeed, the duration of the relationship between a customer and a brand is essential in brand love ( Albert et al., 2007 ). Fournier (1998) , discussed interdependence which involved frequent brand interactions as necessary for a strong brand relationship ( Fournier, 1998 ). Similarly, Batra et al. (2012) found that having a long-term relationship, positive emotional connection and frequent interactions with a brand was an important aspect of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ). Indeed, shared experiences and history between a person and a brand can increase their emotional attachment, make the brand to become an important part of the person’s identity narrative and increases their loyalty to the brand ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Pedeliento et al., 2016 ).

Just like romantic love, concern and worry and proximity seeking, or maintenance are an expression of emotional connectedness to the brand. Indeed, anticipated separation distress has been described as a core element of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ), and consumers are likely to feel strong desires to maintain proximity with their loved objects, even feeling “separation distress” when they are distanced from them ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Park et al., 2010 ).

Also, novelty through continued innovation is vital to maintaining and strengthening both attraction and connection. According to the Harvard business review, the relationship between brand and consumer go through “ruts” and to “keep the spark” alive, innovation and news are essential ( Halloran, 2014 ). Research indicates that innovation plays a role in brand equity and it impacts brand identification or resonance ( Sinha, 2017 ).

Lack of brand familiarity or awareness, poor or negative user experience, a dearth of innovation and increased dissimilarities in values and lifestyles between brand and consumer can all weaken brand connection.

Trust and Brand Love

Trust is essential to brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It involves confidence and reliability, or dependability of the brand and it is influenced by brand image, familiarity, values, user experience, and quality. Indeed, brand trust directly influences brand love ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ; Meisenzahl, 2017 ) and a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust and identification ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Evidence suggests that brand familiarity influences brand trust ( Ha and Perks, 2005 ) and brand trust and experience, positively influence brand attachment ( Erciş et al., 2012 ; Chinomona, 2013 ; Chinomona and Maziriri, 2017 ).

Also, brand trust affects brand purchase, loyalty, and commitment. Evidence suggests that a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust, brand commitment, positive word of mouth, and willingness to pay a higher price for the brand ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Research indicates that brand trust positively affects brand loyalty ( Setyawan and Kussudiyarsana, 2015 ), directly influences brand purchase intentions ( Yasin and Shamim, 2013 ) and positively influences current and future purchases ( Erciş et al., 2012 ). Indeed, more than any other factor, brand trust has been identified as essential for future purchases of a brand ( Esch et al., 2006 ). It is essential in determining purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty and it plays a role in brand market share ( Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001 ). Brand trust affects both affective and continuance commitment and affective commitment influences repurchase intention and loyalty ( Erciş et al., 2012 ).

Brand quality is essential to brand trust and love. Indeed, Fournier (1998) , discussed the role of brand quality in brand love and highlighted the role of trust in relationship satisfaction and strength ( Fournier, 1998 ). Also, brand trust has been found to positively affect resistance to negative information and repurchase intention ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ).

Brand trust is weakened by poor user experience, brand quality, brand image, and a lack of brand familiarity.

Respect and Brand Love

Brand respect is essential in brand love and plays an important role in brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It is influenced by brand identification, values, image, experience, and quality. Brand respect is displayed by the customer in the form of high regard, admiration for the brand, brand loyalty and consideration or tolerance of negative information. Indeed, brand familiarity positively affects brand respect ( Zhou, 2017 ), indicating that brand familiarity increases regard for a brand. Evidence suggests that brand image positively influences brand respect and love ( Cho, 2011 ), indicating that brand image modulates a customer’s regard and admiration for a brand.

Brand respect influences brand commitment and loyalty. Indeed, a strong relationship has been found between brand respect and brand loyalty ( Cho, 2011 ) and brand admiration results in greater brand loyalty, stronger brand advocacy, and higher brand equity ( Park et al., 2016 ). Brand respect affects the behavioral outcomes of brand love such as affective commitment, and willingness to pay a price premium ( Garg et al., 2016 ; Park et al., 2016 ).

Also, evidence suggests that customers’ admiration or high regard for a brand contributes to why they tend to ignore negative information about the brand ( Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Fournier (1998) , included respect as one of the components of brand partner quality. This means that respect is one of the factors that reflects the consumer’s evaluation of the brand’s performance ( Fournier, 1998 ).

A lack of respect could negatively influence the relationship between a brand and a customer. Indeed, people react negatively when the expectation of respect is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ) and a violation of expectation between brand and customer has been found to contribute to brand hate ( Zarantonello et al., 2016 ).

Brand love summary

Brand love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause brand love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Brand love is dynamic and requires significant investment from the brand to keep it alive.

Strengths and Advances Made by the Quadruple Theory

The quadruple theory builds on many of the strengths of previous theories of love and it applies a temporal approach that has been proposed as the best way to understand love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). It goes further than previous theories for several reasons. Firstly, it could potentially be applied to any form of love although, only brand, romantic and parental love were discussed in this paper due to the paucity of scholarly articles on other forms of love. One of the reasons current love scales and approaches have been unable to be applied in all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ; Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ), is because they capture only a part of the ACC model, unlike the quadruple framework which fully captures it.

Unlike previous theories, the quadruple theory’s application of the complex factor of connection/resonance gives it an edge in furthering our understanding of love. Proximity, positive shared experience, familiarity, and similarity are vital to connection and connection has the most profound influence on all the other factors.

Also, the dynamism and variation of these factors provide a fresh way to understand love from its development to collapse. As Figure 1 shows, love tends to take time to mature in a relationship and can die as these factors rise and decline. Figure 1 shows that variations in the presence of these factors represent different levels of love. Love in any relationship is influenced by the events in the environment it is embedded, and it responds favorably or negatively to these changes. Indeed, people get sick, old, lose their finances, travel in search of greener pastures creating distance, develop new interests different from their partner’s and all these influences the presence and absence of love. One brand becomes more innovative, improves its product quality and users experience over another and people gradually love it more than the one they previously loved. In other words, love is very dynamic and may be divided into high, moderate and low. Another point highlighted in Figure 1 is that the absence of one factor represents the absence of love and only the presence of all factors represents the presence of love. Indeed, the decline of a factor can be replenished in response to changes in the environment causing the reestablishment of love. Trust could decline but attraction and respect remain and over time trust could be replenished.

This dynamic understanding of love implies that it can be nurtured and sustained. As an example, for a brand to be loved and to maintain that love, it must make products that are attractive (appealing). It must be able to connect to its target customers by reaching out through adverts to achieve familiarity and it must ensure that its values, goals, actions are consistently similar to those of its customer base. Also, it must ensure its services and products and actions promote and maintain trust with its customers. It must respect (value) its customer’s interests and ensure that its services and products continue to receive the admiration of its customers. Table 2 describes how brand love can be nurtured and preserved.

Brand love can be nurtured and maintained.

Using this framework, a love scale or algorithm could be developed to ascertain the presence or absence of love in any relationship. Such a scale must effectively capture these four factors and must consider the type of love being calculated in its approach. As an example, in trying to create a scale for romantic love, sexual attraction, and activity may be important for attraction and connection (depending on the age of the partners) but would be unnecessary in the calculation of brand or parental love.

Major Challenges for the Theory

One of the biggest challenges the theory faces is the lack of psychometric data to prove many of its claims. Most of its arguments are based on decades of psychological data, but its lack of psychometric data weakens the theory significantly. Also, the entire premise of the theory is based on the ACC model, which has not been validated as essential or foundational to understanding love. Perhaps, something else needs to be added to the model that the theory may have missed. The argument that the quadruple theory captures the ACC model better than previous theories on love is an argument that has not been validated, and it remains to be seen if this is true. Also, the argument that it can be applied to all forms of love apart from the three discussed remains to be tested and verified.

Gaps currently exist in our understanding of love and evidences from the existing literature show that a framework that can be applied to all forms of love is needed. The quadruple theory hopes to be that framework. It is likely to broaden our understanding of the complex nature of love. It could make love less complex by making it something that can be cultivated or nurtured, regulated and preserved. Future research should consider the modulatory roles of peptides, neurotransmitters, and hormones on these factors and their influence on love as well as the integrated parts of the brain that modulates all these factors and how they work synergistically in different stages of love.

It is important to note that love is universal and applies to people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, religion and sexual orientations. Indeed, romantic love as described by the quadruple theory applies equally to heterosexual relationships and to the relationships of people in the LGTBQ community.

In conclusion, culture has a monumental influence on what people feel, think, and how they behave toward other people and things in their environment ( Karandashev, 2015 ; Ching Hei and David, 2018 ). So, it can be considered a modulating factor on the factors discussed and on love.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Agnew C. R., Van Lange P. A. M., Rusbult C. E., Langston C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 939–954. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 61 792–812. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30 258–266. 10.1108/07363761311328928 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D., Valette-Florence P. (2007). When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 61 1062–1075. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali S. H. S., Mansur N., Abdullah Z. (2012). Analyzing the issue of respect and trust: determining the mediating role of religion. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 614–623. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2012.09.1039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alnawas I., Altarifi S. (2016). Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty. J. Vacat. Mark. 22 111–128. 10.1177/1356766715604663 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alper G. (2004). Voices from the unconscious. J. Loss Trauma 10 73–81. 10.1080/15325020490890660 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato P. R., Rogers S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. J. Marriage Fam. 59 612–624. 10.2307/353949 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anggraeni A., Rachmanita (2015). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth; the case of local fashion brands among young consumers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 211 442–447. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.11.058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appleby D. W., Palkovitz R. (2007). Factors Influencing a Divorced Father’ s Involvement with His Children. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ccfs_fac_pubs/7 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Aron A., Fisher H., Mashek D. J., Strong G., Li H., Brown L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94 327–337. 10.1152/jn.00838.2004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arroyo E., Amayuelas I., Amorós E. F. (2016). Kinship bonds and emotional ties: lack of a family relationship as ground for disinheritance. Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 2 203–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Attridge M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness. SAGE Open 3 : 215824401347605 . 10.1177/2158244013476054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aune K. S., Comstock J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: comparison between friends and romantics. Psychol. Rep. 69 315–319. 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.315 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank S. P. (1988). Favoritism. J. Child. Contemp. Soc. 19 77–89. 10.1300/J274v19n03_05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barratt M. S., Roach M. A., Leavitt L. A. (1996). The impact of low-risk prematurity on maternal behaviour and toddler outcomes. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 19 581–602. 10.1177/016502549601900308 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A., Zeki S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport 11 3829–3834. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartholomew L. (2015). Child abuse linked to beliefs in witchcraft. Trans. Soc. Rev. 5 193–198. 10.1080/21931674.2015.1028809 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batool S., Malik N. I. (2010). Role of attitude similarity and proximity in interpersonal attraction among friends. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 1 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Batra R., Ahuvia A., Bagozzi R. P. (2012). Brand love. J. Mark. 76 1–16. 10.1509/jm.09.0339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batts D. A. (1990). I Didn’t ask to be born: the American law of disinheritance and a proposal for change to a sytem of protected inheritance recommended citation. Hastings L. J. 41 1197–1270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer H. H., Heinrich D., Martin I. (2007). “ How to create high emotional consumer-brand relationships? The causalities of brand passion ,” in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2007 , Dunedin, 2189–2198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman L. J., Berman R. (2005). Adolescent relationships and condom use: trust, love and commitment. AIDS Behav. 9 211–222. 10.1007/s10461-005-3902-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaulieu D. A., Bugental D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: an evolutionary framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29 249–255. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauregard M., Courtemanche J., Paquette V., St-Pierre É. L. (2009). The neural basis of unconditional love. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 172 93–98. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2008.11.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckes L., Coan J. A., Hasselmo K. (2013). Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8 670–677. 10.1093/scan/nss046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergkvist L., Bech-Larsen T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. J. Brand Manage. 17 504–518. 10.1057/bm.2010.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61 1–25. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E., Hatfield E. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. A., Reis H. T. (1998). “ Attraction and close relationships ,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology , 4th Edn, Vol. 2 eds Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; ), 193–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bidmon S. (2017). How does attachment style influence the brand attachment – brand trust and brand loyalty chain in adolescents? Int. J. Advert. 36 164–189. 10.1080/02650487.2016.1172404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1973). “ Affectional bonds: their nature and origin ,” in Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation , ed. Weiss R. S. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ), 38–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. Br. J. Psychiatry 130 201–210. 10.1136/bmj.a3133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1988). A SECURE BASE Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development A Member of the. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1989). The Making & Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1994). Disinheritance and the modern family. Case West. Reserve L. Rev. 83 : 121 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1996). Protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana stand alone? Repository citation protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana Stand Alone? Louis. L. Rev. 57 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Braxton-Davis P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Sch. J. 14 5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev. Psychol. 28 759–775. 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Briggs S., Whittaker A. (2018). Protecting Children from Faith-Based Abuse through Accusations of Witchcraft and Spirit Possession: Understanding Contexts and Informing Practice. Br. J. Soc. Work 48 2157–2175. 10.1093/bjsw/bcx155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brislin R. W., Lewis S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: replication. Psychol. Rep. 22 976–976. 10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3.976 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgess E. W., Wallin P. (1954). Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage , 1st Edn New York, NY: Lippincott. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkett J. P., Young L. J. (2012). The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction. Psychopharmacology 224 1–26. 10.1007/s00213-012-2794-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss D. M., Barnes M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 559–570. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D., Griffitt W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24 317–336. 10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo J. T., Berntson G. G., Lorig T. S., Norris C. J., Rickett E., Nusbaum H. (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 650–661. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.650 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canterberry M., Gillath O. (2012). Attachment and Caregiving Functions, Interactions, and Implications. Available online at: https://gillab.ku.edu/sites/gillab.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/canterberrygillathchp14.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnelley K. B., Pietromonaco P. R., Jaffe K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Pers. Relat. 3 257–278. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll B. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 17 79–89. 10.2307/40216667 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23 779–818. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhuri A., Holbrook M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 81–93. 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ching Hei K., David M. K. (2018). How love is perceived by malaysian malay children. Int. J. Linguist. Lit. Transl. 1 80–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona E., Maziriri E. (2017). The influence of brand trust, brand familiarity and brand experience on brand attachment: a case of consumers in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 9 69–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona R. (2013). The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, Trust And Attachment In South Africa. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 12 1303–1316. 10.19030/iber.v12i10.8138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho E. (2011). Development of a Brand Image Scale and the Impact of Lovemarks on Brand Equity. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Mills J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 12–24. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Monin J. K. (2006). “ Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love ,” in The New Psychology of Love , eds Sternberg R. J., Weis K. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; ), 200–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins N. L., Feeney B. C. (2000). A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 1053–1073. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collisson B., Howell J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. J. Soc. Psychol. 154 384–400. 10.1080/00224545.2014.914882 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook K. S. (2003). Trust in Society. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003a). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist’s perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1 103–111. 10.1017/S1537592703000082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003b). Understanding the American Decline in Social Capital, 1952-1998. Kyklos 56 17–46. 10.1111/1467-6435.00208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronk L. (1993). Parental favoritism toward daughters. Am. Sci. 81 272–279. 10.2307/29774922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Augelli A. R., Hershberger S. L., Pilkington N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 68 361–371. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Boer A., Van Buel E. M., Ter Horst G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: a neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience 201 114–124. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Paúl J., Domenech L. (2000). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential in adolescent mothers: a longitudinal study. Child Abuse Negl. 24 701–713. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dew J. P., Dakin J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. J. Financial Ther. 2 : 7 10.4148/jft.v2i1.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon S. V., Graber J. A., Brooks-Gunn J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 22 1–10. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbedweihy A. M., Jayawardhena C., Elsharnouby M. H., Elsharnouby T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. J. Bus. Res. 69 2901–2910. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erciş A., Ünal S., Candan F. B., Yıldırım H. (2012). The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand commitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 1395–1404. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch F., Langner T., Schmitt B. H., Geus P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 15 98–105. 10.1108/10610420610658938 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T., Stefano G. B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 26 175–192. 10.2174/157340005774575037 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney B. C., Collins N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult Intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 972–994. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney J. A., Noller P. (1990). Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 281–291. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Pers. Relat. 1 309–331. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 80–99. 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. (2005). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2005). Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J. Comp. Neurol. 493 58–62. 10.1002/cne.20772 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 361 2173–2186. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Strong G., Brown L. L. (2002a). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: a hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 23 ( Suppl. 4 ), 92–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Brown L. L. (2002b). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Arch. Sex. Behav. 31 413–419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Brown L. L., Aron A., Strong G., Mashek D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. J. Neurophysiol. 104 51–60. 10.1152/jn.00784.2009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzpatrick J., Lafontaine M.-F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Pers. Relat. 24 640–662. 10.1111/pere.12203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster F. H. (2001). The family paradigm of inheritance law, 80 N.C. N. C. L. Rev. 80 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fournier S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 343–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frei J. R., Shaver P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Pers. Relat. 9 121–139. 10.1111/1475-6811.00008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S., Rieff P. (1997). Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. New York, NY: Collier Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1994). Exchange of respect-denying behaviors among male-female friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 11 5–24. 10.1177/0265407594111001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 13 241–261. 10.1177/0265407596132005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garg R., Mukherjee J., Biswas S., Kataria A. (2016). An investigation into the concept of brand love and its proximal and distal covariates. J. Relat. Mark. 15 135–153. 10.1080/15332667.2016.1209047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giles J. (2015). Sexual attraction: the psychology of allure. Praeger 351 23–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillath O., Mikulincer M., Birnbaum G. E., Shaver P. R. (2008). When sex primes love: subliminal sexual priming motivates relationship goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 1057–1069. 10.1177/0146167208318141 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomillion S., Gabriel S., Murray S. L. (2014). A friend of yours is no friend of mine. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 636–643. 10.1177/1948550614524447 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. J. Fam. Psychol. 7 57–75. 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1994). What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-Based Marital Therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabill C. M., Kent K. A. K. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Pers. Relat. 7 363–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham J. M., Christiansen K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: a reliability generalization meta-analysis. Pers. Relat. 16 49–66. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant-Jacob J. A. (2016). Love at first sight. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1113 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grote N. K., Frieze I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Pers. Relat. 1 275–300. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00066.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gu R., Huang W., Camilleri J., Xu P., Wei P., Eickhoff S. B., et al. (2019). Love is analogous to money in human brain: COORDINATE-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 100 108–128. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guéguen N., Lamy L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness. Swiss J. Psychol. 71 157–160. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000083 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttmann J., Rosenberg M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and children’s adjustment: a comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. Educ. Psychol. 23 457–472. 10.1080/01443410303213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha H.-Y., Perks H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. J. Consum. Behav. 4 438–452. 10.1002/cb.29 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha T., Overbeek G., Engels R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: an experimental study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 1063–1071. 10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagen E. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20 325–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halloran T. (2014). The Eight Phases of Brand Love. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2014/02/the-eight-phases-of-brand-love (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Harlow H. F. (1958). Classics in the History of Psychology. New York, NY: York University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haskett M. E., Johnson C. A., Miller J. W. (1994). Individual differences in risk of child abuse by adolescent mothers: assessment in the perinatal period. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35 461–476. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Brinton C., Cornelius J. (1989). Passionate love and anxiety in young adolescents. Motiv. Emot. 13 271–289. 10.1007/BF00995539 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Cacioppo J. T., Rapson R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2 96–99. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Sprecher S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. J. Adolesc. 9 383–410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hay E. L., Fingerman K. L., Lefkowitz E. S. (2007). The experience of worry in parent–adult child relationships. Pers. Relat. 14 605–622. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00174.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazan C., Shaver P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 511–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 392–402. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56 784–794. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S., Zacchilli T. L. (2011). Respect and love in romantic relationships. Actas Investig. Psicol. 1 316–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (1993). Lovers as friends. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 459–466. 10.1177/0265407593103011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 881–899. 10.1177/0265407506070471 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C., Logue E. M. (2010). Respect and the family. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 126–136. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00046.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honari B., Saremi A. A. (2015). The study of relationship between attachment styles and obsessive love style. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 165 152–159. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.12.617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooks P. J. (1990). The real mother-issues in adoption. Jefferson J. Psychiatry 8 : 8 10.29046/JJP.008.2.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang S.-M., Fang S.-R., Fang S.-C., Huang C.-C. (2016). The influences of brand benefits on brand loyalty: intermediate mechanisms. Aust. J. Manage. 41 141–160. 10.1177/0312896214553516 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes D. A. (1999). Adopting children with attachment problems. Child Welf. 78 541–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jin W., Xiang Y., Lei M. (2017). The deeper the love, the deeper the hate. Front. Psychol. 8 : 1940 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V. (2015). Unit 5 social psychology and culture subunit 4 interpersonal and intergroup relations article 2 6-1-2015 recommended citation Karandashev. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 5 10.9707/2307-0919.1135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V., Fata B. (2014). Change in physical attraction in early romantic relationships. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 8 257–267. 10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim C. K., Han D., Park S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 43 195–206. 10.1111/1468-5884.00177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim-Spoon J., Longo G. S., McCullough M. E. (2012). Adolescents who are less religious than their parents are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symptoms: the mediating role of parent-adolescent relationship quality. J. Fam. Psychol. 26 636–641. 10.1037/a0029176 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klaus M. H., Jerauld R., Kreger N. C., McAlpine W., Steffa M., Kennell J. H. (1972). Maternal attachment. N. Engl. J. Med. 286 460–463. 10.1056/NEJM197203022860904 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunce L. J., Shaver P. R. (1994). “ An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships ,” in Advances in Personal Relationships, Attachment Processes in Adulthood , Vol. 5 eds Bartholomew, Perlman D. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; ), 205–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laborde N. D., vanDommelen-Gonzalez E., Minnis A. M. (2014). Trust - that’s a big one: intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Cult. Health Sex. 16 1009–1022. 10.1080/13691058.2014.921837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFollette H., Graham G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 3 3–18. 10.1177/0265407586031001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larzelere R. E., Huston T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42 595–604. 10.2307/351903 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Barrett L. F., Rovine M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 314–323. 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Feldman Barrett L., Pietromonaco P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process& quot; the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 1238–1251. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lauricella A. M. (2009). Why do Mommy and Daddy Love You More? An Investigation of Parental Favoritism from an Evolutionary Perspective. Available online at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1250869200/inline (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindo J. M., Schaller J., Hansen B. (2013). Economic Downturns and Child Abuse. NBER Working Paper No. 18994 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsey D., Sarah B. (2010). Interpreting honor crimes: the institutional disregard towards female victims of family violence in the Middle East. Int. J. Criminol. Sociol. Theory 3 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchies L. B., Rusbult C. E., Kumashiro M., Eastwick P. W., Coolsen M. K., Finkel E. J. (2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 673–694. 10.1037/a0031054 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo S., Zhang G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: similarity. Reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. J. Personal. 77 933–964. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lutz-Zois C. J., Bradley A. C., Mihalik J. L., Moorman-Eavers E. R. (2006). Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: an idiographic approach. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 865–880. 10.1177/0265407506068267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann J. (1992). “ Nurturance or negligence: maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm twins ,” in The Adapted Mind , eds Barkow J., Cosmides L., Tooby J. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 367–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manne S., Ostroff J., Rini C., Fox K., Goldstein L., Grana G. (2004). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: the role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. J. Fam. Psychol. 18 589–599. 10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masuda M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs? Jpn. Psychol. Res. 45 25–37. 10.1111/1468-5884.00030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes E. W., Severa N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49 23–31. 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKelvie S. J., Matthews S. J. (1976). Effects of physical attractiveness and favourableness of character on liking. Psychol. Rep. 38 1223–1230. 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meisenzahl J. (2017). Correlation of Brand Experience and Brand Love Using the Example of FlixBus. Master’s thesis, Seinajok University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers S. A., Berscheid E. (1997). The language of love: the difference a preposition makes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 347–362. 10.1177/0146167297234002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M. (2006). “ Attachment, caregiving, and sex within romantic relationships a behavioral systems perspective ,” in Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex , eds Mikulincer M., Goodman G. S. (New York, NY: Guilford Publications; ), 23–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 25 889–922. 10.1177/0265407508096700 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreland R. L., Zajonc R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 395–415. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90062-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris D. (1982). “ Attachment and intimacy ,” in Intimacy , eds Fischer M., Stricter G. (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 305–323. 10.1007/978-1-4684-4160-4_19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morry M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: a test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 561–584. 10.1177/0265407505054524 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neto F. (2012). Compassionate love for a romantic partner, love styles and subjective well-being. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 6 23–39. 10.5964/ijpr.v6i1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y. (2013). [Neural basis of maternal behavior]. Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi 115 630–634. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y., Senoo A. (2008). The functional neuroanatomy of maternal love: mother’s response to infant’s attachment behaviors. Biol. Psychiatry 63 415–423. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton M., Frost J., Ariely D., Reis H., Maniaci M., Caprariello P., et al. (2015). When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 3–19. 10.1177/1745691614561682 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oleson M. D. (1996). Adolescents’ Recollection of Early Physical Contact: Implications for Attachment and Intimacy. Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosz G., Szekeres Á., Kiss Z. G., Farkas P., Roland-Lévy C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6 : 214 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papp L. M., Cummings E. M., Goeke-Morey M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Fam. Relat. 58 91–103. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., MacInnis D. J., Eisingerich A. B. (2016). Brand Admiration: Building a Business People Love , 1st Edn Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., Macinnis D. J., Priester J., Eisingerich A. B., Iacobucci D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pascual C. O., Académico C. (2015). María del Rosario Zulaica López TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO Brand Awareness and Brand Love. Is the too-of-Mind the Most Loved On? An Application to Fashion Retailers. Available online at: https://biblioteca.unirioja.es/tfe_e/TFE001238.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedeliento G., Andreini D., Bergamaschi M., Salo J. (2016). Brand and product attachment in an industrial context: the effects on brand loyalty. Ind. Mark. Manage. 53 194–206. 10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2015.06.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Péloquin K., Brassard A., Delisle G., Bédard M.-M. (2013). Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual satisfaction. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 45 185–195. 10.1037/a0033514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauschnabel P. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love. J. Brand Manage. 21 372–395. 10.1057/bm.2014.14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan P. C., Berscheid E. (1999). Lust: What we Know about Human Sexual Desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781452233727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis H. T., Shaver P. (1988). “ Intimacy as an interpersonal process ,” in Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions , eds Duck S., Hay D. F., Hobfoll S. E., Ickes W., Montgomery B. M. (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; ), 367–389. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rempel J. K., Holmes J. G. (1985). Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49 95–112. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez L. M., DiBello A. M., Øverup C. S., Neighbors C. (2015). The price of distrust: trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse. Partner Abuse 6 298–319. 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohde P. A., Atzwanger K., Butovskaya M., Lampert A., Mysterud I., Sanchez-Andres A., et al. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of the family The effects of birth order and sex. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24 261–276. 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00033-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16 265–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 16 172–186. 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E., Bissonnette V. L., Arriaga X. B., Cox C. L., Weiss R. L. (1998). “ Accommodation processes during the early years of marriage ,” in The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction , ed. Bradbury T. N. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 74–113. 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russo B., Boess S., Hekkert P. (2011). ‘What’s love got to do with it?’ the experience of love in person-product relationships. Des. J. 14 8–27. 10.2752/175630610X12877385838687 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saegert S., Swap W., Zajonc R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25 234–242. 10.1037/h0033965 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailor J. L. (2013). A phenomenological study of falling out of romantic love. Qual. Rep. 18 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salazar L. R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between compassion, closeness, trust, and social support in same-sex friendships. J. Happiness Well Being 3 15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmon C. A., Shackelford T. K., Michalski R. L. (2012). Birth order, sex of child, and perceptions of parental favoritism. 52 357–362. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seshadri K. G. (2016). The neuroendocrinology of love. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 20 558–563. 10.4103/2230-8210.183479 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Setyawan A. A., Kussudiyarsana I. (2015). Brand trust and brand loyalty, an empirical study in indonesia consumers. Br. J. Mark. Stud. 4 37–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siennick S. E. (2013). Still the Favorite? Parents’ differential treatment of siblings entering young adulthood. J. Marriage Fam. 75 981–994. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson J. A. (2007). Foundations of Interpersonal Trust: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Goh A., Sankaran K., Bhullar N. (2016). Similarity and liking effects on interpersonal attraction: test of the two-dimensional trust-respect model. Psychologia 59 1–18. 10.2117/psysoc.2016.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Wegener D. T., Sankaran K., Singh S., Lin P. K. F., Seow M. X., et al. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32 829–850. 10.1177/0265407515576993 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha A. K. (2017). Impact of product innovation in building brand equity on consumer’s choice with a focus on brand resonance. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 8 482–487. 10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.6.775 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Christopher F. S., Cate R. (2006). “ Sexuality in close relationships ,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , eds Vangelisti A. L., Perlman D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 463–482. 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Fehr B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 629–651. 10.1177/0265407505056439 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley S. M., Rhoades G. K., Whitton S. W. (2010). Commitment: functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 243–257. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. D., Catalano R., Dooley D. (1981). Economic antecedents of child abuse and neglect. Child Dev. 52 975–985. 10.2307/1129102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93 119–135. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27 313–335. 10.1007/s10936-019-09661-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Grajek S. (1984). The nature of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47 312–329. 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokburger-Sauer N., Ratneshwar S., Sen S., Howard B. K., Chair W. B. (2008). Drivers of consumer-brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 35 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Suitor J. J., Pillemer K. (2007). Mothers’ favoritism in later life. Res. Aging 29 32–55. 10.1177/0164027506291750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan R., Perry R., Sloan A., Kleinhaus K., Burtchen N. (2011). Infant bonding and attachment to the caregiver: insights from basic and clinical science. Clin. Perinatol. 38 643–655. 10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sykes R. E., Larntz K., Fox J. C. (1976). Proximity and similarity effects on frequency of interaction in a class of naval recruits. Sociometry 39 263 10.2307/2786519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tedam P. (2014). Witchcraft branding and the abuse of African children in the UK: causes, effects and professional intervention. Early Child Dev. Care 184 1403–1414. 10.1080/03004430.2014.901015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson M., MacInnis D. J., Whan Park C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 15 77–91. 10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobore T. (2018). On the Principles of Social Gravity: How Human Systems Work, from the Family to the United Nations. Delaware, DE: Vernon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Towner S. L., Dolcini M. M., Harper G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban african american adolescents: patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth Soc. 47 343–373. 10.1177/0044118X12462591 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turgut M. U., Gultekin B. (2015). The critical role of brand love in clothing brands. J. Bus. Econ. Finance 4 : 126 10.17261/Pressacademia.201519963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wetzel C. G., Insko C. A. (1982). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 253–276. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90053-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whang Y.-O., Allen J., Sahoury N., Zhang H. (2004). “ Falling in love with a product: the structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship ,” in Advances in Consumer Research , eds Kahn B. E., Luce M. F. (Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research; ), 320–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of sternberg’s triangular love scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 475–480. 10.1177/0265407593103013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wieselquist J., Rusbult C. E., Foster C. A., Agnew C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 942–966. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S., Morse J. M., Penrod J. (1998). Developing reciprocal trust in the caregiving relationship. Qual. Health Res. 8 446–465. 10.1177/104973239800800402 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasin M., Shamim A. (2013). Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-mouth. IOSR J. Bus. Manage. 7 101–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarantonello L., Romani S., Grappi S., Bagozzi R. P. (2016). Brand hate. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 25 11–25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou L. (2017). The Aquila Digital Community How Visual Communication Strategies, Brand Familiarity, And Personal Relevance Influence Instagram Users’ Responses To Brand Content. Graphic Communications Commons. Available online at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertationshttps://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1435 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman K. J., Smith J. M., Simonson K., Myers B. W. (2015). Familial relationship outcomes of coming out as an atheist. Secular. Nonrelig. 4 1–13. 10.5334/snr.aw [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• The four main types of essay | Quick guide with examples

The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples

Published on September 4, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An essay is a focused piece of writing designed to inform or persuade. There are many different types of essay, but they are often defined in four categories: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive essays.

Argumentative and expository essays are focused on conveying information and making clear points, while narrative and descriptive essays are about exercising creativity and writing in an interesting way. At university level, argumentative essays are the most common type. 

In high school and college, you will also often have to write textual analysis essays, which test your skills in close reading and interpretation.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Argumentative essays, expository essays, narrative essays, descriptive essays, textual analysis essays, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of essays.

An argumentative essay presents an extended, evidence-based argument. It requires a strong thesis statement —a clearly defined stance on your topic. Your aim is to convince the reader of your thesis using evidence (such as quotations ) and analysis.

Argumentative essays test your ability to research and present your own position on a topic. This is the most common type of essay at college level—most papers you write will involve some kind of argumentation.

The essay is divided into an introduction, body, and conclusion:

• The introduction provides your topic and thesis statement
• The body presents your evidence and arguments
• The conclusion summarizes your argument and emphasizes its importance

The example below is a paragraph from the body of an argumentative essay about the effects of the internet on education. Mouse over it to learn more.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

An expository essay provides a clear, focused explanation of a topic. It doesn’t require an original argument, just a balanced and well-organized view of the topic.

Expository essays test your familiarity with a topic and your ability to organize and convey information. They are commonly assigned at high school or in exam questions at college level.

The introduction of an expository essay states your topic and provides some general background, the body presents the details, and the conclusion summarizes the information presented.

A typical body paragraph from an expository essay about the invention of the printing press is shown below. Mouse over it to learn more.

The invention of the printing press in 1440 changed this situation dramatically. Johannes Gutenberg, who had worked as a goldsmith, used his knowledge of metals in the design of the press. He made his type from an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony, whose durability allowed for the reliable production of high-quality books. This new technology allowed texts to be reproduced and disseminated on a much larger scale than was previously possible. The Gutenberg Bible appeared in the 1450s, and a large number of printing presses sprang up across the continent in the following decades. Gutenberg’s invention rapidly transformed cultural production in Europe; among other things, it would lead to the Protestant Reformation.

A narrative essay is one that tells a story. This is usually a story about a personal experience you had, but it may also be an imaginative exploration of something you have not experienced.

Narrative essays test your ability to build up a narrative in an engaging, well-structured way. They are much more personal and creative than other kinds of academic writing . Writing a personal statement for an application requires the same skills as a narrative essay.

A narrative essay isn’t strictly divided into introduction, body, and conclusion, but it should still begin by setting up the narrative and finish by expressing the point of the story—what you learned from your experience, or why it made an impression on you.

Mouse over the example below, a short narrative essay responding to the prompt “Write about an experience where you learned something about yourself,” to explore its structure.

Since elementary school, I have always favored subjects like science and math over the humanities. My instinct was always to think of these subjects as more solid and serious than classes like English. If there was no right answer, I thought, why bother? But recently I had an experience that taught me my academic interests are more flexible than I had thought: I took my first philosophy class.

Before I entered the classroom, I was skeptical. I waited outside with the other students and wondered what exactly philosophy would involve—I really had no idea. I imagined something pretty abstract: long, stilted conversations pondering the meaning of life. But what I got was something quite different.

A young man in jeans, Mr. Jones—“but you can call me Rob”—was far from the white-haired, buttoned-up old man I had half-expected. And rather than pulling us into pedantic arguments about obscure philosophical points, Rob engaged us on our level. To talk free will, we looked at our own choices. To talk ethics, we looked at dilemmas we had faced ourselves. By the end of class, I’d discovered that questions with no right answer can turn out to be the most interesting ones.

The experience has taught me to look at things a little more “philosophically”—and not just because it was a philosophy class! I learned that if I let go of my preconceptions, I can actually get a lot out of subjects I was previously dismissive of. The class taught me—in more ways than one—to look at things with an open mind.

A descriptive essay provides a detailed sensory description of something. Like narrative essays, they allow you to be more creative than most academic writing, but they are more tightly focused than narrative essays. You might describe a specific place or object, rather than telling a whole story.

Descriptive essays test your ability to use language creatively, making striking word choices to convey a memorable picture of what you’re describing.

A descriptive essay can be quite loosely structured, though it should usually begin by introducing the object of your description and end by drawing an overall picture of it. The important thing is to use careful word choices and figurative language to create an original description of your object.

Mouse over the example below, a response to the prompt “Describe a place you love to spend time in,” to learn more about descriptive essays.

On Sunday afternoons I like to spend my time in the garden behind my house. The garden is narrow but long, a corridor of green extending from the back of the house, and I sit on a lawn chair at the far end to read and relax. I am in my small peaceful paradise: the shade of the tree, the feel of the grass on my feet, the gentle activity of the fish in the pond beside me.

My cat crosses the garden nimbly and leaps onto the fence to survey it from above. From his perch he can watch over his little kingdom and keep an eye on the neighbours. He does this until the barking of next door’s dog scares him from his post and he bolts for the cat flap to govern from the safety of the kitchen.

With that, I am left alone with the fish, whose whole world is the pond by my feet. The fish explore the pond every day as if for the first time, prodding and inspecting every stone. I sometimes feel the same about sitting here in the garden; I know the place better than anyone, but whenever I return I still feel compelled to pay attention to all its details and novelties—a new bird perched in the tree, the growth of the grass, and the movement of the insects it shelters…

Sitting out in the garden, I feel serene. I feel at home. And yet I always feel there is more to discover. The bounds of my garden may be small, but there is a whole world contained within it, and it is one I will never get tired of inhabiting.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Though every essay type tests your writing skills, some essays also test your ability to read carefully and critically. In a textual analysis essay, you don’t just present information on a topic, but closely analyze a text to explain how it achieves certain effects.

Rhetorical analysis

A rhetorical analysis looks at a persuasive text (e.g. a speech, an essay, a political cartoon) in terms of the rhetorical devices it uses, and evaluates their effectiveness.

The goal is not to state whether you agree with the author’s argument but to look at how they have constructed it.

The introduction of a rhetorical analysis presents the text, some background information, and your thesis statement; the body comprises the analysis itself; and the conclusion wraps up your analysis of the text, emphasizing its relevance to broader concerns.

The example below is from a rhetorical analysis of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech . Mouse over it to learn more.

King’s speech is infused with prophetic language throughout. Even before the famous “dream” part of the speech, King’s language consistently strikes a prophetic tone. He refers to the Lincoln Memorial as a “hallowed spot” and speaks of rising “from the dark and desolate valley of segregation” to “make justice a reality for all of God’s children.” The assumption of this prophetic voice constitutes the text’s strongest ethical appeal; after linking himself with political figures like Lincoln and the Founding Fathers, King’s ethos adopts a distinctly religious tone, recalling Biblical prophets and preachers of change from across history. This adds significant force to his words; standing before an audience of hundreds of thousands, he states not just what the future should be, but what it will be: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” This warning is almost apocalyptic in tone, though it concludes with the positive image of the “bright day of justice.” The power of King’s rhetoric thus stems not only from the pathos of his vision of a brighter future, but from the ethos of the prophetic voice he adopts in expressing this vision.

Literary analysis

A literary analysis essay presents a close reading of a work of literature—e.g. a poem or novel—to explore the choices made by the author and how they help to convey the text’s theme. It is not simply a book report or a review, but an in-depth interpretation of the text.

Literary analysis looks at things like setting, characters, themes, and figurative language. The goal is to closely analyze what the author conveys and how.

The introduction of a literary analysis essay presents the text and background, and provides your thesis statement; the body consists of close readings of the text with quotations and analysis in support of your argument; and the conclusion emphasizes what your approach tells us about the text.

Mouse over the example below, the introduction to a literary analysis essay on Frankenstein , to learn more.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific advancement unrestrained by ethical considerations. In this reading, protagonist Victor Frankenstein is a stable representation of the callous ambition of modern science throughout the novel. This essay, however, argues that far from providing a stable image of the character, Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to portray Frankenstein in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as. This essay begins by exploring the positive portrayal of Frankenstein in the first volume, then moves on to the creature’s perception of him, and finally discusses the third volume’s narrative shift toward viewing Frankenstein as the creature views him.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

At high school and in composition classes at university, you’ll often be told to write a specific type of essay , but you might also just be given prompts.

Look for keywords in these prompts that suggest a certain approach: The word “explain” suggests you should write an expository essay , while the word “describe” implies a descriptive essay . An argumentative essay might be prompted with the word “assess” or “argue.”

The vast majority of essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Almost all academic writing involves building up an argument, though other types of essay might be assigned in composition classes.

Essays can present arguments about all kinds of different topics. For example:

• In a literary analysis essay, you might make an argument for a specific interpretation of a text
• In a history essay, you might present an argument for the importance of a particular event
• In a politics essay, you might argue for the validity of a certain political theory

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

The key difference is that a narrative essay is designed to tell a complete story, while a descriptive essay is meant to convey an intense description of a particular place, object, or concept.

Narrative and descriptive essays both allow you to write more personally and creatively than other kinds of essays , and similar writing skills can apply to both.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/essay-types/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write an argumentative essay | examples & tips, how to write an expository essay, how to write an essay outline | guidelines & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Essays About Love: 20 Intriguing Ideas for Students

Love can make a fascinating essay topic, but sometimes finding the perfect topic idea is challenging. Here are 20 of the best essays about love.

Writers have often explored the subject of love and what it means throughout history. In his book Essays in Love , Alain de Botton creates an in-depth essay on what love looks like, exploring a fictional couple’s relationship while highlighting many facts about love. This book shows how much there is to say about love as it beautifully merges non-fiction with fiction work.

The New York Times  published an entire column dedicated to essays on modern love, and many prize-winning reporters often contribute to the collection. With so many published works available, the subject of love has much to be explored.

If you are going to write an essay about love and its effects, you will need a winning topic idea. Here are the top 20 topic ideas for essays about love. These topics will give you plenty to think about and explore as you take a stab at the subject that has stumped philosophers, writers, and poets since the dawn of time.

For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

1. Outline the Definition of Love

2. describe your favorite love story, 3. what true love looks like, 4. discuss how human beings are hard-wired for love, 5. explore the different types of love, 6. determine the true meaning of love, 7. discuss the power of love, 8. do soul mates exist, 9. determine if all relationships should experience a break-up, 10. does love at first sight exist, 11. explore love between parents and children, 12. discuss the disadvantages of love, 13. ask if love is blind, 14. discuss the chemical changes that love causes, 15. outline the ethics of love, 16. the inevitability of heartbreak, 17. the role of love in a particular genre of literature, 18. is love freeing or oppressing, 19. does love make people do foolish things, 20. explore the theme of love from your favorite book or movie.

Defining love may not be as easy as you think. While it seems simple, love is an abstract concept with multiple potential meanings. Exploring these meanings and then creating your own definition of love can make an engaging essay topic.

To do this, first, consider the various conventional definitions of love. Then, compare and contrast them until you come up with your own definition of love.

One essay about love you could tackle is describing and analyzing a favorite love story. This story could be from a fiction tale or real life. It could even be your love story.

As you analyze and explain the love story, talk about the highs and lows of love. Showcase the hard and great parts of this love story, then end the essay by talking about what real love looks like (outside the flowers and chocolates).

This essay will explore what true love looks like. With this essay idea, you could contrast true love with the romantic love often shown in movies. This contrast would help the reader see how true love looks in real life.

An essay about what true love looks like could allow you to explore this kind of love in many different facets. It would allow you to discuss whether or not someone is, in fact, in true love. You could demonstrate why saying “I love you” is not enough through the essay.

There seems to be something ingrained in human nature to seek love. This fact could make an interesting essay on love and its meaning, allowing you to explore why this might be and how it plays out in human relationships.

Because humans seem to gravitate toward committed relationships, you could argue that we are hard-wired for love. But, again, this is an essay option that has room for growth as you develop your thoughts.

There are many different types of love. For example, while you can have romantic love between a couple, you may also have family love among family members and love between friends. Each of these types of love has a different expression, which could lend itself well to an interesting essay topic.

Writing an essay that compares and contrasts the different types of love would allow you to delve more deeply into the concept of love and what makes up a loving relationship.

What does love mean? This question is not as easy to answer as you might think. However, this essay topic could give you quite a bit of room to develop your ideas about love.

While exploring this essay topic, you may discover that love means different things to different people. For some, love is about how someone makes another person feel. To others, it is about actions performed. By exploring this in an essay, you can attempt to define love for your readers.

What can love make people do? This question could lend itself well to an essay topic. The power of love is quite intense, and it can make people do things they never thought they could or would do.

With this love essay, you could look at historical examples of love, fiction stories about love relationships, or your own life story and what love had the power to do. Then, at the end of your essay, you can determine how powerful love is.

The idea of a soul mate is someone who you are destined to be with and love above all others. This essay topic would allow you to explore whether or not each individual has a soul mate.

If you determine that they do, you could further discuss how you would identify that soul mate. How can you tell when you have found “the one” right for you? Expanding on this idea could create a very interesting and unique essay.

Break-ups seem inevitable, and strong relationships often come back together afterward. Yet are break-ups truly inevitable? Or are they necessary to create a strong bond? This idea could turn into a fascinating essay topic if you look at both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, you could argue that the break-up experience shows you whether or not your relationship can weather difficult times. On the other hand, you could argue that breaking up damages the trust you’re working to build. Regardless of your conclusion, you can build a solid essay off of this topic idea.

Love, at first sight is a common theme in romance stories, but is it possible? Explore this idea in your essay. You will likely find that love, at first sight, is nothing more than infatuation, not genuine love.

Yet you may discover that sometimes, love, at first sight, does happen. So, determine in your essay how you can differentiate between love and infatuation if it happens to you. Then, conclude with your take on love at first sight and if you think it is possible.

The love between a parent and child is much different than the love between a pair of lovers. This type of love is one-sided, with care and self-sacrifice on the parent’s side. However, the child’s love is often unconditional.

Exploring this dynamic, especially when contrasting parental love with romantic love, provides a compelling essay topic. You would have the opportunity to define this type of love and explore what it looks like in day-to-day life.

Most people want to fall in love and enjoy a loving relationship, but does love have a downside? In an essay, you can explore the disadvantages of love and show how even one of life’s greatest gifts is not without its challenges.

This essay would require you to dig deep and find the potential downsides of love. However, if you give it a little thought, you should be able to discuss several. Finally, end the essay by telling the reader whether or not love is worth it despite the many challenges.

Love is blind is a popular phrase that indicates love allows someone not to see another person’s faults. But is love blind, or is it simply a metaphor that indicates the ability to overlook issues when love is at the helm.

If you think more deeply about this quote, you will probably determine that love is not blind. Rather, love for someone can overshadow their character flaws and shortcomings. When love is strong, these things fall by the wayside. Discuss this in your essay, and draw your own conclusion to decide if love is blind.

When someone falls in love, their body feels specific hormonal and chemical changes. These changes make it easier to want to spend time with the person. Yet they can be fascinating to study, and you could ask whether or not love is just chemical reactions or something more.

Grab a science book or two and see if you can explore these physiological changes from love. From the additional sweating to the flushing of the face, you will find quite a few chemical changes that happen when someone is in love.

Love feels like a positive emotion that does not have many ethical concerns, but this is not true. Several ethical questions come from the world of love. Exploring these would make for an interesting and thoughtful essay.

For example, you could discuss if it is ethically acceptable to love an object or even oneself or love other people. You could discuss if it is appropriate to enter into a physical relationship if there is no love present or if love needs to come first. There are many questions to explore with this love essay.

If you choose to love someone, is heartbreak inevitable? This question could create a lengthy essay. However, some would argue that it is because either your object of affection will eventually leave you through a break-up or death.

Yet do these actions have to cause heartbreak, or are they simply part of the process? Again, this question lends itself well to an essay because it has many aspects and opinions to explore.

Literature is full of stories of love. You could choose a genre, like mythology or science fiction, and explore the role of love in that particular genre. With this essay topic, you may find many instances where love is a vital central theme of the work.

Keep in mind that in some genres, like myths, love becomes a driving force in the plot, while in others, like historical fiction, it may simply be a background part of the story. Therefore, the type of literature you choose for this essay would significantly impact the way your essay develops.

Most people want to fall in love, but is love freeing or oppressing? The answer may depend on who your loved ones are. Love should free individuals to authentically be who they are, not tie them into something they are not.

Yet there is a side of love that can be viewed as oppressive, deepening on your viewpoint. For example, you should stay committed to just that individual when you are in a committed relationship with someone else. Is this freeing or oppressive? Gather opinions through research and compare the answers for a compelling essay.

You can easily find stories of people that did foolish things for love. These stories could translate into interesting and engaging essays. You could conclude the answer to whether or not love makes people do foolish things.

Your answer will depend on your research, but chances are you will find that, yes, love makes people foolish at times. Then you could use your essay to discuss whether or not it is still reasonable to think that falling in love is a good thing, although it makes people act foolishly at times.

Most fiction works have love in them in some way. This may not be romantic love, but you will likely find characters who love something or someone.

Use that fact to create an essay. Pick your favorite story, either through film or written works, and explore what love looks like in that work. Discuss the character development, storyline, and themes and show how love is used to create compelling storylines.

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Bryan Collins is the owner of Become a Writer Today. He's an author from Ireland who helps writers build authority and earn a living from their creative work. He's also a former Forbes columnist and his work has appeared in publications like Lifehacker and Fast Company.

View all posts

• Christ Cathedral
• OC Catholic Sports League
• EWTN Live Stream
• Athlete Profiles
• OC Catholic TV
• Health & Wellness
• From the Bishop

Sign Up for Our Newsletter!

Sign-Up to receive updated stories from OC Catholic. *

Faith & Life

A look at love, it’s one of the most fundamental components of the faith, but it’s far from simple.

Love is complicated. In Catholic teaching, it is complicated in multiple nuanced ways. Simply put, the Catholic faithful believe that God is love and everything more or less follows from there. The complicated part is in the details, and yes, God is in the details too.

“A misunderstanding about love is the confusion between ‘God is love’ and ‘love is God’” says Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy at Boston College in his 2011 essay “What is Love?”

“The worship of love instead of the worship of God involves two deadly mistakes. First, it uses the word God only as another word for love… Second, it divinizes the love we already know instead of showing us a love we don’t know. Consider that ‘A is B; does not mean the same as ‘A equals B’. ‘That house is wood’ does not mean ‘wood is that house.’”

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (section 1822) reads, “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.” When you peel back the Catechism and look at love in all its incarnations, however, it gets more complex.

“Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia” defines love as “Any strong affection, closeness or devotion to things or persons.” It then goes on to describe the Greek concepts of the four types of love: Storge, Philia, Eros and Agape.

Storge is familial love, or a fondness due to familiarity. Familiarity makes the heart grow fonder, or breeds contempt, depending on the relationship. In Ephesians 6:2-7 Paul instructs: “Children, honor your father and mother.” Then he quickly follows up by admonishing parents “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger.” Essentially, you need to love your family because God says so.

Philos is friendship, the people we freely choose to be in our lives. Philos can also be love of neighbor, the kind of love Jesus spoke about when he commanded us to “love our neighbor as our self”. In order to love yourself, you need to take care of yourself and then extend that self-care or self-love to everyone you encounter. In Matthew 25:35-36: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” Those who exhibit this kind of brotherly love get to go off with the sheep on Judgment Day, and those who don’t, presumably because they didn’t notice, like or approve of the stranger in their midst, go off with the goats.

Eros, or passion, is the most popular form of love and what we often associate with the word love. Eros obviously refers to the special and erotic love between a man and a woman but it can also refer to other life passions we might pursue in works or art or some other endeavor. However, Eros, without the other forms of love, becomes disordered and can leave one singing “Love hurts” over a flat beer.

Finally, Agape is the highest form of love, the kind of love that God is and gives to us. It is also the unselfish open-arms love we, when we’re being very good, give back to God. Kreeft points out that we should not confuse Agape love with kindness. Kindness is an emotion we feel from sympathy or empathy – we can be kind to just about anyone we choose whether we love them or not. However, Agape goes beyond kindness to actually willing or effecting what is best for another person. “It is painfully obvious that God is not mere kindness, for he does not remove all suffering, though he has the power to do so. Indeed, this very fact – that the God who is omnipotent and can at any instant miraculously erase all suffering from this world deliberately chooses not to do so — is the commonest argument unbelievers use against him.”

Agape can be tough love, but it is guided by the desire to move the beloved to what is best for him in order to achieve salvation. “We are kind to strangers but demanding of those we love,” says Kreeft. “Grandfathers are kind; fathers are loving. Grandfathers say, ‘Run along and have a good time;’ fathers say, ‘But don’t do this or that.’ Grandfathers are compassionate; fathers are passionate. God is never once called our grandfather.”

Love does make the world go ‘round. It is in the explosion that created the universe in the blink of an eye; it is in the tiniest quirks of quarks; it is what makes the soul of man different and exceptional from all of God’s other creatures. It is, quite simply, complicated.

More Faith & Life News

Recent stories.

• TEAMWORK MAKES THE DREAM WORK
• FEATURE PRESENTATION
• CHRIST CATHEDRAL TO CELEBRATE FEAST OF ST. PEREGRINE
• FAITHFULNESS AND FIDELITY
• OC CATHOLIC AFAR
• CATHOLIC SPORTS VIEW: ON LOCATION AT THE BORAS CLASSIC BASEBALL TOURNAMENT
• LEADERSHIP IN ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC SCHOOLS
• “GOD MOMENTS” IN THE PHILIPPINES
• WE ARE AN EASTER PEOPLE: “HALLELUJAH”
• DIOCESE TO HOST RELIC OF ST. JUDE

Can One Really Define Love? Essay

What is love? It seems to be as baffling as the question “What is the meaning of life?” Liking and attraction seem to be of lesser degree when compared to love yet attraction is also closely associated with friendship. These are three concepts that mean lot of things to different people.

When it comes to love, one will encounter countless lines that attempt to define it. We all have heard that love is blind. Love is what makes the world go round. Love is all there is. Novels, poems, short stories and songs, all kinds of literature have immortalized love. Why? Plato said it right: At the touch of love, everyone becomes a poet. Since the beginning of time, love has been there to propel people who fall in it to do crazy – or at least extraordinary things. Those who stumble into it go into a trance, seeing everything or everyone who stands against it as a threat to their happiness.

The dictionary says that love is the passionate devotion to another being but its essence must not be entirely confined to its lexical meaning. The New Testament alone exemplifies three types of love. The romantic, sexual love or eros , the love of friendship or phileo , and the unconditional love of the Divine or agape . While the first two may come easily for most people, agape does not because it is the unconditional love that is usually ascribed to the Divine. (Boyer, 1999).

Some hold that love is nothing but a physical response to another whom the agent feels physically attracted to. Physical determinists for example, consider love to be an extension of the chemical-biological constituents of the human creature and is explicable according to such processes. Others who consider love to be an aesthetic response hold that love is knowable through the emotional and conscious feeling that it provokes and it cannot be captured in rational or descriptive language but by metaphor or by music. The spiritualist vision of love incorporates mystical as well as traditional romantic notions of love, but rejects the behaviorist or physical determinist’s explanations. (Moseley, 2001).

Love may be defined in any way imaginable to man and may differ from one person to another. Hence, although each of us has his own way of looking at love, it can’t nevertheless be denied that love is universal and everyone, anywhere can feel it.

Levels of physical attractiveness can influence people in so many powerful ways. A person’s characteristics based on an individual’s perception of physical attractiveness can either add to one’s status or stigmatize them. Males and females have different cognitive schemas about the attractiveness of the opposite sex. This is because one’s gender determines the how the person will view their own attractiveness and how that person will view another one’s physical attractiveness. There are several theories that apply to physical attraction and one of this is the reinforcement theory. This means that when a person is paired with a stimulus that elicits a positive effect or reward, the result is increased liking of that person. One can begin to like a physically attractive person because he is pleasing to look at which is your own personal reward. Meanwhile, the attractive person also gets the benefits of being attractive because once a positive reward is associated with an individual; your liking of them will increase.

There are actually three factors that influence attraction. One of this is proximity. It seems that people tend to like those that are closer to them By this we mean, of greater proximity rather than those far from them. This is because if people are close to each other, they often see each other. Perhaps because they are able to nurture relationships with each other. It is difficult for people to cultivate relationships when they are far apart. (Social Psychology, Interpersonal Relations).

One other factor is physical attractiveness. According to Robert B Cialdini, an influential psychologist, physical attractiveness is an important component in degree of influence. He stipulates that physically attractive people have a huge social advantage in our culture. They are better liked, more persuasive, more frequently helped, and seen as possessing better personality traits and intellectual capabilities (Cialdini 1984). This is what some experts call the halo effect. This happens when positive characteristics of a person, spell the way a person is viewed by others (Henricks, Chris, et. al, 1998). There is the notion that people who are above average in physical attractiveness is also above average in other aspects as well.

Sometimes this can be a disadvantage too. The physically attractive people may think that things are being done for them just because they look good rather than their innate attributes. (Social Psychology, Interpersonal Relations).The third factor in attraction is similarity. People who are similar in tastes and likes tend to attract each other. When they find that they have a lot of commonalities, they tend to go together. It is like the saying that says, “birds of the same feather, flock together.” People are interested in establishing relationships with others who are similar to themselves. In this connection, if the goal of attraction is partnership, and apart of this partnership is sharing life with someone else, then it is wise to choose a partner with similar background and interests. The person who is similar with another one in terms of interests, then, there would be less problems since there is a meeting of minds. They will want to do the same activities and share the same hobbies as you do. (Social Psychology, Interpersonal Relations).

One way to get someone to like you is to like them. This action is called a reciprocity norm. This means that whatever is done to you should be done in return. The value of indebtedness comes into play here. When someone does something for us, often we feel indebted to that person, so the action is often reciprocated. Many great thinkers today find that whatever good feelings you give to others will return back to you. In the context of the reciprocity norm, it means that the way to get someone to like us is to like them first. What you give will come back to you a hundredfold.

Sternberg has a theory of love, which involves 3 dimensions: passion, intimacy, and commitment. He suggests that the combination of these dimensions can be used to classify different types of love or mutually good feelings. So, Sternberg is suggesting that not all loving relationships are created equal. I might suggest that true love – the love that creates a special and precious relationship between two people – is one that would have all 3 of Sternberg’s dimensions (Social Psychology, Interpersonal Relations).

Love in its many forms is a way of bringing joy into our lives, and we all treasure the moments of love that we know and have known. Loving is a way of giving, both to the person receiving and the one giving. Through loving, a person becomes closer to himself as he shares himself to another one and opens the way for sharing. The meaning of love is limitless because love is relative from person to person. How one would see it would be different from how another would. Love teaches us in different ways. It remains a mystery, a puzzle that must be left to work out on its own – or better yet, just left to retain its mystique.

Works-Cited List

Boyer, Janet. “What Is Love?” 1999. Web.

Moseley, Alex. “ Philosophy of Love ”. From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001. Web.

“Social Psychology, Interpersonal Relations,” 2008. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, May 12). Can One Really Define Love? https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-love/

"Can One Really Define Love?" IvyPanda , 12 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-love/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Can One Really Define Love'. 12 May.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Can One Really Define Love?" May 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-love/.

1. IvyPanda . "Can One Really Define Love?" May 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-love/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Can One Really Define Love?" May 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-love/.

• Love Components in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
• Biorefineries Processes and Products
• Four Types of Love in O’Neill’s "Long Day’s Journey Into Night"
• Theology of Christian Marriage in "The Four Loves" by Lewis C.S.
• "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" by Sternberg et al.
• Intimate Relationships: Conceptual Distinction Between Liking and Loving
• Love Concept from Different Aspects
• Love as a Multi-Faceted Concept
• Learner Difference and Learner Needs
• Reciprocity in the Capitalist Workforce
• Human Nature Aspects Producing Our Love of Cars
• Jealousy as a Specific Emotion
• Courage vs. Recklessness and Thrill-Seeking
• Happiness: Health, Marriage, and Success
• Death and Grief in “Tuesdays With Morrie” and “Dakota 38”

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Love — The Many Faces of Love

The Many Faces of Love

• Categories: Love Types of Love

About this sample

Words: 533 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 533 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

The beginning of love, early stages of love, obstacles and challenges, the power of love, the dark side of love, different forms of love.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 733 words

2 pages / 1125 words

2 pages / 806 words

5 pages / 2219 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Love

Verona, Italy - In a heart-wrenching turn of events, the city of Verona has been shaken by the tragic deaths of two young lovers, Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet. The circumstances surrounding their untimely demise have left [...]

In conclusion, "Perfect" by Ed Sheeran is a powerful and timeless love song that has resonated with audiences worldwide. Through its evocative lyrics, Sheeran explores the theme of finding love in an imperfect world, using [...]

"Too Good at Goodbyes" by Sam Smith is a powerful song that delves into the themes of love, heartbreak, self-worth, and empowerment. In this essay, we will analyze the song's themes, lyrics, and emotional impact, exploring how [...]

Valentine's Day is a widely celebrated holiday in many parts of the world, where people express their love and affection for one another through the exchange of gifts, cards, and romantic gestures. However, the holiday has also [...]

Archetypes are recurring symbols, themes, or motifs that represent universal patterns of human experience. They serve as a foundation for understanding and interpreting the text, allowing readers to connect with the story on a [...]

My promise to you is that I will give you the best things in the world, spare my best time to be with you and share my whole life with you. In return, all I need is your love and you to stick with me thru everything that life [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Before You Write a Love Essay, Read This to Get Examples

The day will come when you can’t escape the fate of all students: You will have to write a what is love essay.

No worries:

Here you’ll find tons of love essay topics and examples. No time to read everything? Scroll down to get a free PDF with original samples.

Definition: Essay on Love

First, let’s define what is love essay?

The most common topics are:

• Definition of love
• What is love?
• Meaning of love

Why limit yourself to these hackneyed, general themes? Below, I’ll show how to make your paper on love original yet relevant to the prompt you get from teachers.

Love Essay Topics: 20 Ideas to Choose for Your Paper

Your essay on love and relationship doesn’t have to be super official and unemotional. It’s ok to share reflections and personal opinions when writing about romance.

Often, students get a general task to write an essay on love. It means they can choose a theme and a title for their paper. If that’s your case,  feel free to try any of these love essay topics:

• Exploring the impact of love on individuals and relationships.
• Love in the digital age: Navigating romance in a tech world.
• Is there any essence and significance in unconditional love?
• Love as a universal language: Connecting hearts across cultures.
• Biochemistry of love: Exploring the process.
• Love vs. passion vs. obsession.
• How love helps cope with heartbreak and grief.
• The art of loving. How we breed intimacy and trust.
• The science behind attraction and attachment.
• How love and relationships shape our identity and help with self-discovery.
• Love and vulnerability: How to embrace emotional openness.
• Romance is more complex than most think: Passion, intimacy, and commitment explained.
• Love as empathy: Building sympathetic connections in a cruel world.
• Evolution of love. How people described it throughout history.
• The role of love in mental and emotional well-being.
• Love as a tool to look and find purpose in life.
• Welcoming diversity in relations through love and acceptance.
• Love vs. friendship: The intersection of platonic and romantic bonds.
• The choices we make and challenges we overcome for those we love.
• Love and forgiveness: How its power heals wounds and strengthens bonds.

Love Essay Examples: Choose Your Sample for Inspiration

Essays about love are usually standard, 5-paragraph papers students write in college:

• One paragraph is for an introduction, with a hook and a thesis statement
• Three are for a body, with arguments or descriptions
• One last passage is for a conclusion, with a thesis restatement and final thoughts

Below are the ready-made samples to consider. They’ll help you see what an essay about love with an introduction, body, and conclusion looks like.

What is love essay: 250 words

Lao Tzu once said, “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” Indeed, love can transform individuals, relationships, and our world.

A word of immense depth and countless interpretations, love has always fascinated philosophers, poets, and ordinary individuals. This  emotion breaks boundaries and has a super power to change lives. But what is love, actually?

It’s a force we feel in countless ways. It is the warm embrace of a parent, filled with care and unwavering support. It is the gentle touch of a lover, sparking a flame that ignites passion and desire. Love is the kind words of a friend, offering solace and understanding in times of need. It is the selfless acts of compassion and empathy that bind humanity together.

Love is not confined to romantic relationships alone. It is found in the family bonds, the connections we forge with friends, and even the compassion we extend to strangers. Love is a thread that weaves through the fabric of our lives, enriching and nourishing our souls.

However, love is not without its complexities. It can be both euphoric and agonizing, uplifting and devastating. Love requires vulnerability, trust, and the willingness to embrace joy and pain. It is a delicate balance between passion and compassion, independence and interdependence.

Finally, the essence of love may be elusive to define with mere words. It is an experience that surpasses language and logic, encompassing a spectrum of emotions and actions. Love is a profound connection that unites us all, reminding us of our shared humanity and the capacity for boundless compassion.

What is love essay: 500 words

A 500-word essay on why I love you

Trying to encapsulate why I love you in a mere 500 words is impossible. My love for you goes beyond the confines of language, transcending words and dwelling in the realm of emotions, connections, and shared experiences. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to express the depth and breadth of my affection for you.

First and foremost, I love you for who you are. You possess a unique blend of qualities and characteristics that captivate my heart and mind. Your kindness and compassion touch the lives of those around you, and I am grateful to be the recipient of your unwavering care and understanding. Your intelligence and wit constantly challenge me to grow and learn, stimulating my mind and enriching our conversations. You have a beautiful spirit that radiates warmth and joy, and I am drawn to your vibrant energy.

I love the way you make me feel. When I am with you, I feel a sense of comfort and security that allows me to be my true self. Your presence envelops me in a cocoon of love and acceptance, where I can express my thoughts, fears, and dreams without fear of judgment. Your support and encouragement inspire me to pursue my passions and overcome obstacles. With you by my side, I feel empowered to face the world, knowing I have a partner who believes in me.

I love the memories we have created together. From the laughter-filled moments of shared adventures to the quiet and intimate conversations, every memory is etched in my heart. Whether exploring new places, indulging in our favorite activities, or simply enjoying each other’s company in comfortable silence, each experience reinforces our bond. Our shared memories serve as a foundation for our relationship, a testament to the depth of our connection and the love that binds us.

I love your quirks and imperfections. Your true essence shines through these unique aspects! Your little traits make me smile and remind me of the beautiful individual you are. I love how you wrinkle your nose when you laugh, become lost in thought when reading a book, and even sing off-key in the shower. These imperfections make you human, relatable, and utterly lovable.

I love the future we envision together. We support each other’s goals, cheering one another on as we navigate the path toward our dreams. The thought of building a life together, creating a home filled with love and shared experiences, fills my heart with anticipation and excitement. The future we imagine is one that I am eager to explore with you by my side.

In conclusion, the reasons why I love you are as vast and varied as the universe itself. It is a love that defies logic and surpasses the limitations of language. From the depths of my being, I love you for the person you are, the way you make me feel, the memories we cherish, your quirks and imperfections, and the future we envision together. My love for you is boundless, unconditional, and everlasting.

A 5-paragraph essay about love

I’ve gathered all the samples (and a few bonus ones) in one PDF. It’s free to download. So, you can keep it at hand when the time comes to write a love essay.

Ready to Write Your Essay About Love?

Now that you know the definition of a love essay and have many topic ideas, it’s time to write your A-worthy paper! Here go the steps:

• Check all the examples of what is love essay from this post.
• Choose the topic and angle that fits your prompt best.
• Write your original and inspiring story.

Any questions left? Our writers are all ears. Please don’t hesitate to ask!

• Essay samples
• Essay writing
• Writing tips

Recent Posts

• Writing the “Why Should Abortion Be Made Legal” Essay: Sample and Tips
• 3 Examples of Enduring Issue Essays to Write Yours Like a Pro
• Writing Essay on Friendship: 3 Samples to Get Inspired
• How to Structure a Leadership Essay (Samples to Consider)
• What Is Nursing Essay, and How to Write It Like a Pro

Types of Essays: A Comprehensive Guide to Writing Different Essay Types

When it comes to academic writing, essays are one of the most common assignments you will encounter. Essays are a way for you to showcase your understanding of a particular topic, and they come in various forms. Each type of essay has its unique characteristics, and it is essential to understand the differences between them to produce a well-written piece. In this article, we will explore the different types of essays you may encounter in your academic journey.

Types of Essays: Your Ultimate Guide to Essay Writing

Understanding Essays

Definition of essay.

An essay is a piece of writing that presents an argument or a point of view on a particular topic. It is a formal piece of writing that is usually written in the third person and is structured into paragraphs. Essays can be written on a variety of topics, ranging from literature to science, and can be of different lengths. They are often used in academic settings to assess a student’s understanding of a particular subject.

Purpose of Essay

The purpose of an essay is to persuade the reader to accept the writer’s point of view. Essays can be used to argue for or against a particular position, to explain a concept, or to analyze a text. The writer must provide evidence to support their argument and must use persuasive language to convince the reader of their position.

There are four main types of essays: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive. Each type of essay has its own unique characteristics and is written for a different purpose. Understanding the different types of essays is essential for writing a successful essay.

Types of Essays

Narrative essay.

A narrative essay is a type of essay that tells a story. It is often written in the first person point of view, and it can be either fictional or non-fictional. This type of essay allows you to express yourself in a creative and personal way.

When writing a narrative essay, it is important to have a clear and concise thesis statement that sets the tone for the rest of the essay. The thesis statement should be specific and should reflect the main point of the essay. It should also be interesting and engaging to the reader.

One of the key elements of a successful narrative essay is the use of vivid and descriptive language. This helps to create a clear picture in the reader’s mind and makes the story more engaging. Additionally, it is important to use dialogue to bring the characters to life and to show their emotions and personalities.

Another important aspect of a narrative essay is the structure. It should have a clear beginning, middle, and end, and the events should be presented in chronological order. This helps the reader to follow the story and understand the sequence of events.

Descriptive Essay

In a descriptive essay, you are required to describe something, such as an event, a person, a place, a situation, or an object. The primary objective of a descriptive essay is to provide a detailed and vivid description of the topic. By using sensory details, such as sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste, you can create a picture in the reader’s mind and make them feel as if they are experiencing the topic themselves.

When writing a descriptive essay, it is important to choose a topic that you are familiar with and have a personal connection to. This will help you to convey your emotions and feelings effectively and make your essay more engaging and interesting to the reader.

To write a successful descriptive essay, you should follow these steps:

• Choose a topic that you are passionate about and have a personal connection to.
• Brainstorm and create an outline of your essay, including the main points you want to cover and the sensory details you will use.
• Use sensory details to create a vivid and engaging picture in the reader’s mind.
• Use figurative language, such as metaphors and similes, to add depth and complexity to your descriptions.
• Use transitions to connect your ideas and create a smooth flow of information.
• Revise and edit your essay to ensure that it is well-structured, organized, and error-free.

Expository Essay

An expository essay is a type of academic writing that aims to explain, describe, or inform the reader about a particular subject. This type of essay is based on facts, evidence, and examples, and it does not require the writer’s personal opinion or feelings. Expository essays can be written in various styles, including compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution.

Compare and Contrast Essay

A compare and contrast essay is a type of expository writing that involves comparing and contrasting two or more subjects. This type of essay aims to provide the reader with a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the subjects being compared. To write a successful compare and contrast essay, you need to identify the similarities and differences between the subjects, organize your ideas, and provide supporting evidence.

Cause and Effect Essay

A cause and effect essay is a type of expository writing that explores the causes and consequences of a particular event, situation, or phenomenon. This type of essay aims to explain the reasons behind a particular occurrence and its effects on individuals, society, or the environment. To write a successful cause and effect essay, you need to identify the causes and effects of the subject, organize your ideas, and provide supporting evidence.

Problem and Solution Essay

A problem and solution essay is a type of expository writing that focuses on a particular problem and proposes a solution to it. This type of essay aims to inform the reader about a particular issue and provide a viable solution to it. To write a successful problem and solution essay, you need to identify the problem, explain its causes, propose a solution, and provide supporting evidence.

Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of academic writing that aims to persuade the reader to accept the writer’s point of view. In this type of essay, the writer presents their argument and supports it with evidence and reasoning to convince the reader to take action or believe in a particular idea.

To write a persuasive essay, you must first choose a topic that you are passionate about and can argue convincingly. Then, you need to research the topic thoroughly and gather evidence to support your argument. You should also consider the opposing viewpoint and address it in your essay to strengthen your argument.

The structure of a persuasive essay is similar to that of other types of essays. It consists of an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. In the introduction, you should grab the reader’s attention and clearly state your thesis statement. The body paragraphs should present your argument and evidence, and the conclusion should summarize your argument and restate your thesis statement.

To make your persuasive essay more effective, you can use various persuasive writing strategies, such as appealing to the reader’s emotions, using rhetorical questions, and using vivid language. You can also use statistics, facts, and examples to support your argument and make it more convincing.

Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that requires you to present a well-researched and evidence-based argument on a particular topic. The aim of this essay is to convince the reader of your stance on the topic by using logical reasoning and factual evidence.

To write an effective argumentative essay, it is important to have a clear and concise thesis statement that presents your position on the topic. This statement should be supported by strong evidence, such as quotations, statistics, and expert opinions. It is also important to consider and address potential counterarguments to your position.

One key aspect of an argumentative essay is the use of logical fallacies. These are errors in reasoning that can weaken your argument and make it less convincing. Some common logical fallacies include ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and straw man arguments. It is important to avoid these fallacies and instead rely on sound reasoning and evidence to support your argument.

When writing an argumentative essay, it is also important to consider your audience. Your tone and language should be appropriate for your intended audience, and you should anticipate and address any potential objections or concerns they may have about your argument.

Analytical Essay

An analytical essay is a type of academic writing that involves breaking down a complex topic or idea into smaller parts to examine it thoroughly. The purpose of this essay is to provide a detailed analysis of a particular subject and to present an argument based on the evidence gathered during the research.

When writing an analytical essay, it is crucial to have a clear thesis statement that outlines the main argument of the essay. The thesis statement should be specific and concise, and it should be supported by evidence from primary and secondary sources.

To write an effective analytical essay, you should follow these steps:

• Choose a topic that interests you and that you can research thoroughly.
• Conduct research to gather relevant information and evidence to support your thesis statement.
• Create an outline to organize your ideas and arguments.
• Write an introduction that provides background information on the topic and presents your thesis statement.
• Develop body paragraphs that provide evidence to support your thesis statement.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis statement.

When writing an analytical essay, it is important to focus on the analysis rather than just summarizing the information. You should critically evaluate the evidence and present your own interpretation of the data.

Critical Essay

A critical essay is a type of academic writing that involves analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating a text. In a critical essay, you must make a claim about how particular ideas or themes are conveyed in a text, and then support that claim with evidence from primary and/or secondary sources.

To write a successful critical essay, you must first read the text carefully and take notes on its main ideas and themes. You should also consider the author’s purpose and audience, as well as any historical or cultural context that may be relevant to the text.

When writing your critical essay, you should follow a clear and logical structure. Begin with an introduction that provides background information on the text and your thesis statement. In the body of your essay, you should provide evidence to support your thesis, using quotes and examples from the text as well as other sources.

It is important to be critical in your analysis, examining the text in detail and considering its strengths and weaknesses. You should also consider alternative interpretations and counterarguments, and address them in your essay.

Reflective Essay

A reflective essay is a type of academic essay that requires you to analyze and interpret an academic text, such as an essay, a book, or an article. Unlike a personal experience essay, a reflective essay involves critical thinking and evaluation of the material.

In a reflective essay, you are expected to reflect on your own learning and experiences related to the material. This type of essay requires you to think deeply about the material and analyze how it relates to your own experiences and knowledge.

To write a successful reflective essay, you should follow these steps:

• Choose a topic that is relevant to the material you are reflecting on.
• Analyze the material and identify key themes and concepts.
• Reflect on your own experiences and knowledge related to the material.
• Evaluate and analyze the material and your own experiences to draw conclusions and insights.
• Write a clear and concise essay that effectively communicates your reflections and insights.

Remember that a reflective essay is not just a summary of the material, but rather an analysis and evaluation of it. Use examples and evidence to support your reflections and insights, and be sure to use proper citation and referencing to acknowledge the sources of your information.

Personal Essay

A personal essay is a type of essay that involves telling a story about yourself, your experiences, or your feelings. It is often written in the first person point of view and can be a powerful way to share your unique perspective with others.

Personal essays can be used for a variety of purposes, such as college admissions, scholarship applications, or simply to share your thoughts and experiences with a wider audience. They can cover a wide range of topics, from personal struggles and triumphs to reflections on important life events.

When writing a personal essay, it is important to keep in mind that you are telling a story. This means that you should focus on creating a narrative that is engaging and compelling for your readers. You should also be honest and authentic in your writing, sharing your true thoughts and feelings with your audience.

To make your personal essay even more effective, consider incorporating descriptive language, vivid imagery, and sensory details. This can help bring your story to life and make it more memorable for your readers.

Synthesis Essay

A synthesis essay is a type of essay that requires you to combine information from multiple sources to create a cohesive argument. This type of essay is often used in academic writing and requires you to analyze, interpret, and evaluate information from various sources to support your thesis statement.

There are two main types of synthesis essays: explanatory and argumentative. An explanatory synthesis essay aims to explain a particular topic or issue by using different sources to provide a comprehensive overview. On the other hand, an argumentative synthesis essay requires you to take a stance on a particular issue and use evidence from multiple sources to support your argument.

When writing a synthesis essay, it is important to carefully analyze and interpret each source to ensure that the information you are using is relevant and accurate. You should also consider the credibility of each source and evaluate the author’s bias or perspective.

To effectively write a synthesis essay, you should follow a clear structure that includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction should provide background information on the topic and include a clear thesis statement. The body paragraphs should each focus on a specific aspect of the topic and provide evidence from multiple sources to support your argument. The conclusion should summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement.

Review Essay

A review essay is a type of academic writing that involves analyzing and evaluating a piece of work, such as a book, movie, or article. This type of essay requires you to provide a critical assessment of the work, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. A successful review essay should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the work being reviewed and your opinion of it.

When writing a review essay, it is important to keep in mind the following guidelines:

• Length: A review essay should be between 1,000 and 1,500 words. This length allows for a thorough analysis of the text without becoming bogged down in details. Of course, the specific length will vary depending on the nature of the text being reviewed and the desired focus of the essay.
• Structure: A review essay should follow a clear and logical structure. Start with an introduction that provides some background information on the work being reviewed and your thesis statement. The body of the essay should provide a summary of the work and a critical analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, end with a conclusion that summarizes your main points and provides your final thoughts on the work.
• Evidence: A successful review essay should be supported by evidence from the work being reviewed. This can include direct quotes or paraphrases, as well as examples that illustrate your points.
• Critical Thinking: A review essay requires you to engage in critical thinking. This means that you must evaluate the work being reviewed in a thoughtful and analytical manner, considering both its strengths and weaknesses.

Research Essay

When it comes to writing a research essay, you must conduct in-depth independent research and provide analysis, interpretation, and argument based on your findings. This type of essay requires extensive research, critical thinking, source evaluation, organization, and composition.

To write a successful research essay, you must follow a specific structure. Here are some key components to include:

Introduction

The introduction should provide a brief overview of your research topic and state your thesis statement. Your thesis statement should clearly state your argument and the main points you will cover in your essay.

Literature Review

The literature review is a critical analysis of the existing research on your topic. It should provide a summary of the relevant literature, identify gaps in the research, and highlight the significance of your study.

Methodology

The methodology section should describe the methods you used to conduct your research. This may include data collection methods, sample size, and any limitations of your study.

The results section should present your findings in a clear and concise manner. You may use tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help convey your results.

The discussion section should interpret your results and provide a critical analysis of your findings. You should also discuss the implications of your research and how it contributes to the existing literature on your topic.

The conclusion should summarize your main findings and restate your thesis statement. You should also discuss the limitations of your study and suggest avenues for future research.

Report Essay

A report essay is a type of essay that presents and summarizes factual information about a particular topic, event, or issue. The purpose of a report essay is to provide readers with a clear and concise understanding of the subject matter. It is important to note that a report essay is not an opinion piece, but rather a neutral presentation of facts.

When writing a report essay, it is important to follow a structured format. The typical format includes an introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction should provide background information on the topic and state the purpose of the report. The body should present the facts in a logical and organized manner, using headings and subheadings to help readers navigate the information. The conclusion should summarize the key findings and provide any recommendations or conclusions.

One of the key elements of a report essay is research. It is essential to conduct thorough research on the topic to ensure that the information presented is accurate and reliable. This may involve reviewing academic articles, government reports, and other sources of information. It is also important to cite all sources used in the report essay using a recognized citation style, such as APA or MLA.

Informal Essay

An informal essay, also known as a familiar or personal essay, is a type of essay that is written in a personal tone and style. This type of essay is often written as a reflection or commentary on a personal experience, opinion, or observation. Informal essays are usually shorter than formal essays and are often written in a conversational style.

In an informal essay, you are free to use first-person pronouns and to express your personal opinions and feelings. However, you should still strive to maintain a clear and concise writing style and to support your arguments with evidence and examples.

Informal essays can take many forms, including personal narratives, anecdotes, and reflections on current events or social issues. They can also be humorous or satirical in nature, and may include elements of fiction or creative writing.

When writing an informal essay, it is important to keep your audience in mind and to use language and examples that will be familiar and relatable to them. You should also be aware of your tone and style, and strive to create a voice that is engaging and authentic.

Short Essay

When it comes to writing a short essay, it is essential to convey your thoughts and ideas in a concise and clear manner. Short essays are usually assigned in the range of 250-750 words, and occasionally up to 1,000 words. Therefore, it is important to focus on the most important elements of your topic.

To write a successful short essay, you should start by selecting a topic that is interesting and relevant. Once you have chosen your topic, you should conduct thorough research to gather evidence and support for your argument. This will help you to develop a clear and concise thesis statement.

When writing your short essay, it is important to structure your ideas in a logical and coherent manner. You should start with an introduction that provides background information and a clear thesis statement. The body of your essay should be structured around your main points, with each paragraph focusing on a specific idea or argument. Finally, you should conclude your essay by summarizing your main points and restating your thesis statement.

To make your short essay more engaging and impactful, you may want to consider using bullet points, tables, and other formatting techniques to convey your ideas more clearly. Additionally, you should use strong and clear language, avoiding jargon and unnecessary words.

When it comes to academic writing, a long essay is a common type of assignment that you may encounter. This type of essay typically requires you to conduct extensive research and analysis on a specific topic.

The length of a long essay can vary depending on the assignment requirements, but it is usually longer than a standard essay. In general, a long essay can range from 2,500 to 5,000 words or more.

To write a successful long essay, it is important to have a clear understanding of the topic and to conduct thorough research. This may involve reading academic articles, books, and other sources to gather information and support your arguments.

In addition to research, a long essay should also have a clear and well-structured argument. This may involve outlining your main points and supporting evidence, as well as addressing any counterarguments or potential weaknesses in your argument.

Overall, a long essay requires a significant amount of time and effort to complete. However, by following a clear structure and conducting thorough research, you can produce a well-written and persuasive essay that meets the requirements of your assignment.

Some tips for writing a successful long essay include:

• Start early to give yourself enough time to research and write
• Break down the assignment into manageable sections
• Use clear and concise language
• Provide sufficient evidence to support your arguments
• Use proper citation and referencing to avoid plagiarism

Five Paragraph Essay

If you are a student, you have likely been assigned a five-paragraph essay at some point. This type of essay is commonly used in high school and college writing classes. The five-paragraph essay is a structured format that consists of an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

The introduction paragraph is where you present your thesis statement, which is the main idea or argument that you will discuss in your essay. This paragraph should grab the reader’s attention and provide some background information about the topic. It should also include a clear thesis statement that outlines what you will be discussing in the essay.

The three body paragraphs are where you provide evidence to support your thesis statement. Each paragraph should focus on a single point that supports your thesis. You should use specific examples and evidence to back up your claims. Each paragraph should also include a transition sentence that connects it to the next paragraph.

The conclusion paragraph is where you wrap up your essay and restate your thesis statement. This paragraph should summarize the main points of your essay and leave the reader with a clear understanding of your argument. You should avoid introducing any new information in the conclusion paragraph.

Scholarship Essay

A scholarship essay is a crucial document that can help you secure financial aid for your academic pursuits. It is a written statement that highlights your qualifications, accomplishments, and goals. Scholarship essays are typically required by organizations that offer scholarships to students. The essay is meant to help the organization understand why you are deserving of the scholarship and how it will help you achieve your academic and career goals.

To write an effective scholarship essay, it is important to understand the prompt and the organization offering the scholarship. Many scholarship essay prompts are open-ended, which means that you can write about any topic that is relevant to you. However, it is important to ensure that your essay is aligned with the values and goals of the scholarship organization.

When writing a scholarship essay, it is important to be concise and clear. Use simple language and avoid jargon or technical terms that the reader may not understand. Make sure that your essay is well-structured and organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Use headings and subheadings to make your essay easy to read and navigate.

To make your scholarship essay stand out, use specific examples and anecdotes that demonstrate your qualifications and accomplishments. Use concrete details and avoid generalizations. Be honest and authentic, and avoid exaggerating or making false claims. Finally, proofread your essay carefully to ensure that it is free of errors and typos.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the different types of academic essays?

There are four main types of academic essays: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive. Each type has its own unique purpose and structure, and it’s important to understand the differences between them in order to write effectively.

What are the parts of a standard essay?

A standard essay typically consists of three main parts: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should provide background information on the topic and include a thesis statement that outlines the main argument of the essay. The body should present evidence and support for the thesis statement, and the conclusion should summarize the main points and restate the thesis in a new way.

Can you provide examples of different types of essays?

Sure, here are some examples of each type of essay:

• Argumentative: An essay that presents a clear argument on a controversial topic, such as gun control or abortion.
• Expository: An essay that explains or describes a topic, such as how to bake a cake or the history of the Civil War.
• Narrative: An essay that tells a story, such as a personal experience or a fictional tale.
• Descriptive: An essay that uses sensory details to paint a picture of a person, place, or thing, such as a description of a sunset or a character in a novel.

How do you write a narrative essay?

To write a narrative essay, you should first choose a topic that is meaningful to you and has a clear beginning, middle, and end. Then, you should use descriptive language and sensory details to bring the story to life for the reader. Finally, you should reflect on the experience and what you learned from it.

What are the four main types of essays?

The four main types of essays are argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive. Each type has its own unique purpose and structure, and it’s important to understand the differences between them in order to write effectively.

What are the three parts of the essay format?

The three parts of the essay format are the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. The introduction should provide background information on the topic and include a thesis statement that outlines the main argument of the essay. The body should present evidence and support for the thesis statement, and the conclusion should summarize the main points and restate the thesis in a new way.

Last Updated on August 31, 2023

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Essay on Love for Students and Children

500+ words essay on love.

Love is the most significant thing in human’s life. Each science and every single literature masterwork will tell you about it. Humans are also social animals. We lived for centuries with this way of life, we were depended on one another to tell us how our clothes fit us, how our body is whether healthy or emaciated. All these we get the honest opinions of those who love us, those who care for us and makes our happiness paramount.

What is Love?

Love is a set of emotions, behaviors, and beliefs with strong feelings of affection. So, for example, a person might say he or she loves his or her dog, loves freedom, or loves God. The concept of love may become an unimaginable thing and also it may happen to each person in a particular way.

Love has a variety of feelings, emotions, and attitude. For someone love is more than just being interested physically in another one, rather it is an emotional attachment. We can say love is more of a feeling that a person feels for another person. Therefore, the basic meaning of love is to feel more than liking towards someone.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Need of Love

We know that the desire to love and care for others is a hard-wired and deep-hearted because the fulfillment of this wish increases the happiness level. Expressing love for others benefits not just the recipient of affection, but also the person who delivers it. The need to be loved can be considered as one of our most basic and fundamental needs.

One of the forms that this need can take is contact comfort. It is the desire to be held and touched. So there are many experiments showing that babies who are not having contact comfort, especially during the first six months, grow up to be psychologically damaged.

Significance of Love

Love is as critical for the mind and body of a human being as oxygen. Therefore, the more connected you are, the healthier you will be physically as well as emotionally. It is also true that the less love you have, the level of depression will be more in your life. So, we can say that love is probably the best antidepressant.

It is also a fact that the most depressed people don’t love themselves and they do not feel loved by others. They also become self-focused and hence making themselves less attractive to others.

Society and Love

It is a scientific fact that society functions better when there is a certain sense of community. Compassion and love are the glue for society. Hence without it, there is no feeling of togetherness for further evolution and progress. Love , compassion, trust and caring we can say that these are the building blocks of relationships and society.

Relationship and Love

A relationship is comprised of many things such as friendship , sexual attraction , intellectual compatibility, and finally love. Love is the binding element that keeps a relationship strong and solid. But how do you know if you are in love in true sense? Here are some symptoms that the emotion you are feeling is healthy, life-enhancing love.

Love is the Greatest Wealth in Life

Love is the greatest wealth in life because we buy things we love for our happiness. For example, we build our dream house and purchase a favorite car to attract love. Being loved in a remote environment is a better experience than been hated even in the most advanced environment.

Love or Money

Love should be given more importance than money as love is always everlasting. Money is important to live, but having a true companion you can always trust should come before that. If you love each other, you will both work hard to help each other live an amazing life together.

Love has been a vital reason we do most things in our life. Before we could know ourselves, we got showered by it from our close relatives like mothers , fathers , siblings, etc. Thus love is a unique gift for shaping us and our life. Therefore, we can say that love is a basic need of life. It plays a vital role in our life, society, and relation. It gives us energy and motivation in a difficult time. Finally, we can say that it is greater than any other thing in life.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

The Four Loves Essay Questions

By c. s. lewis, essay questions.

These notes were contributed by members of the GradeSaver community. We are thankful for their contributions and encourage you to make your own.

Written by people who wish to remain anonymous

How does C.S. Lewis use the literary device of imagery in his book?

Love is used as an ingenious image of intimacy in the book The Four Loves . For instance, Lewis refers to the third type of love as Eros which precisely paints a visual depiction of erotic intimacy to the reader. This type of love is experienced between individuals possessing unique feelings for each other. A perfect illustration of erotic intimacy is between people of the opposite sex that are looking forward to forming a permanent relationship.

What is the symbolic m meaning of Eros?

The author categorizes Eros as the third type of love which represents bodily affection. Readers can associate Eros to romance because the author further associates it with the goddess of romance. The author depicts Cupid as the complete opposite of Eros because it is the goddess of sensuality.

What are the four types of love according to Lewis in his book The Four Loves ?

According to Lewis, many people misconstrue the definition of love because they view it from one outlook which is affection. Lewis offers various perspectives in which love can be defined to broaden its meaning. He categorizes love into four categories namely, Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge. These four types of love are clearly illustrated in the Holy Book. These terms are mentioned in Greek where Agape represents given love while the rest of the terminologies represent natural love.

Update this section!

You can help us out by revising, improving and updating this section.

After you claim a section you’ll have 24 hours to send in a draft. An editor will review the submission and either publish your submission or provide feedback.

The Four Loves Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for The Four Loves is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Study Guide for The Four Loves

The Four Loves study guide contains a biography of C. S. Lewis, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About The Four Loves
• The Four Loves Summary
• Character List

Essays for The Four Loves

The Four Loves essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis.

• Till We Have Love: Comparative Analysis Incorporating 'Four Loves' and the Bible

Wikipedia Entries for The Four Loves

• Introduction
• Need/gift love
• The four loves