English 論文/Paper

The suggestion of evidence-based Romantic Love theory.



①The current state of Japanese Romantic Love

At first, as the above figure, about 70% males from 20 to 30 years old in Japan have no girlfriends. On the other hand, above 60% females from 20 to 30 years old in Japan reported that they had no boyfriends.(ブライダル総研2015).

According to this report, the young people in Japan do not think the romantic love important. It is the severe problem because of the declining birthrate in Japan. Thus, it is not exaggerated that all we need in Japan is to deepen the research of the romantic love or to develop the romantic love theory. If the young people do not love, the falling fertility rate and the aging becomes more serious. This is the emergent problem for the Japanese government.

Instead of this situation, however, the past research of the love has never made progress. Matsui(1998) claimed that the literature and the fiction are the main subjects to be investigated. The magazines for adolescents frequently focus on the romantic love and inform how the other sexes think or how people can get along with them. But, almost all the articles in those magazines are the comments or the experiences of the popular cerebrity or the commentators. These articles are not evidence-based. Occasionally, the magazine and TV show the data, which is composed of the simple interview or is the questionnaire. Tanimoto (1998) investigated the articles about the romantic love in those magazines and showed that these were far from the actual romantic love theory because the authors wrote them to make readers pleasure and avoided the suggestive conclusion in order to appeal to readers.

In sum, the past romantic love theory is based on the subjective perspectives. It is a pleasure and not "the Theory" but "the Perspective". If you claim the romantic love theory, the universality and the evidence are needed in the theory. The past romantic love theories are less evident and fruitless by saying "The love is ...etc" to avoid the solid conclusion.


②The current Romantic Love research

However, one of the reasons why the past romantic love theory is there is lack of the scientific research. In fact, the start of the scientific method particularly by reference of psychology is 1970 years. Before 1970s, psychologists examined the love as "Attractiveness". Researchers investigated enthusiastically the love by means of scientific methods in 1970s. Why is the scientific research so late ? First, the definition of the love is too broad. Second, there are ethical limitations. Third, when a researcher chose the love as his/her research target, he/she was not recognized as the scientist and he/she can not gain the research funds. More seriously in Japan, researchers started to investigate the love in 1990s(Matsui, 1990; Matsui, 1998; Matsui & Hiko, 2005). In neuroscience, the start was later because introducing PET and fMRI was about 30 years ago.

Although the research of the romantic love is developing, I will show you the evidence-based romantic love research and give you the foundation to think and discuss the romantic love. I claim the scientific romantic love theory.

The purpos of this article is to answer the main question "Why do we love others" by reference to psychology, neuroscience and evolution.

Before, we must be supposed to understand the difference of the two explanations. Kartlite(2005) suggested the way of the two explanations: the close-range explanation and the ultimate(long-range) explanation. The former refers to the direct causal relationship with things. The latter deals with the essential causation of things. For example, for heart attack. The close-range explanation is the decline of blood flow into the myocardium. The ultimate explanation is the lack of nutrition, the stress, or the genetic abnormality. In this article, I suggest the ultimate explanation of the romantic love.


③The definition of Romantic Love

By the way, I will define the romantic love. The romantic love has been studied by "romantic love", "mate choice", "sexual selection" in Psychology and Neuroscience.

We should differenciate "like" from "love". This difference was recognized by Rubin's classic research(Rubin, 1970). Bartels & Zeki (2000) used fMRI to show the difference of the brain activation whether the participants watched the girlfriend's picture or the unknown-other sex's picture. Marazziti & Canele (2003) investigated the difference of the blood hormones between "like" and "love". Thus, these are dissociable. But, we think these researches critically. Whether the participants do sex or not has possibly great influence on the change of brain activities. Although the limitations are there, these researches made a progress on unveiling scientifically the romantic love.

Fischer et al. (1998) divided "love" into the three types-"Lust", "Attraction", and "Attachment". "Lust" is the sex drive and satisfies sexual needs. "Attraction" is lively emotion. People who has "Attraction" think someone several times and wish for the affective relationship with them or the partner. "Attachment" is the comfortable emotion and it maintains the familiar social contacts. Thus, there are three types of love. Fisher, Aron, Brown(2006) inquiry that "mate choice" and "sexual selection" are common with "courtship attraction". The popular image of "Love" is nearly "Attraction". So, in this article, I define the Love as "Attraction".

Before I discuss the romantic love concretely, we take cousion for three things. First, the research I will introduce is what we are attracted to. Second, I want to introduce the neuroscientific research, but I will not do too specific to describe the research. If you are not the specialist for or study the neuroscience, it is not significant to

explain the brain region, the transmitter and the hormones related to the romantic love. So, I avoid to explain neuroscientific research. Third, I chose the understandable, interesting, and popular research. From three reasons, I introduce ①odor(pheromone)②looks③disposition.



First is the odor(pheromone). I introduce Wedekind's classic experiment. In supposition, I explain MHC(Major Histcompatibility Complex). The MHC is related to the immune system. The mouse has it, but the HLA(Human Leukocyte Antigen) is equivalent to it. The HLA has a variety of types like the blood type. Ihara(2002) described that the HLA type is so much that there is no man who has the completely same type. In other words, the type of the immune system depends on the human. The human can recognize the HLA differences as the odor variation and dissociate the HLA types. With this knowledge, I introduce Wedekind's research.

After checking the participant's HLA type, males wore the set T-shirts during two days. Then, females took the smell of the T-shirts and evaluated the odors. The results were that females evaluated better odors for males with different HLA types than males with similar HLA types(figure). Why do the female like the male with different HLA types ? Robetts & Roiser (2010) claim that the children whose parents have different HLA types have more flexible immune systems than children whose parents have similar HLA types, which results in sickless children. In other words, parents with different HLA types can leave excellent children.(We can reveal that the daughter dislike her father's odor.)



Second is looks. The main subjects are the shape and the face. On the former, Singh(2002) showed the WHR(waist-to-hip ratio)  for females is related to the attraction. According to Singh(2002), females with low WHR are more attractive than females with high WHR. Miller & Todd(1998) reported that in all culture the most attractive WHR is about 0.7. Why is the low WHR attractive ? Miller & Todd(1998) claimed that the low WHR indicated the health, the youngness, and the fecundity of the female. Moreover, Singh(2002) showed that the high WHR was correlated with the cancer and the psychiatric disease. In other words, the higher the WHR is, the weaker the female tends to be. (The discussion for face is as following blogs.)



Third is the disposition. Let me show you the figure by reference to Miller & Todd (1998).The figure show the disposition which is attractive for human. Geary et al. (2005) claim that the "cultural successful men"- who is in high social position and has many resources for their children and spouse- is attractive. They invest their resources in their children. Such children has low death rate and has more propagating power than other children. In other words, the men can leave excellent genes. It is more possible to make their children alive.

We looked into ①odor(pheromone)②looks③disposition. The common factor of these researches is that human are more attractive, who can leave their excellent children and make them alive. In conclusion, "Why do we love ?" is "to choose the human who can leave good children". We must stop discussing the unproductive subjective love theory. I suggest the Evidence-Based Romantic Love Theory.





 ジョン・H・カートライト (2005). 進化心理学入門. 新曜社.

 スーザン・ヘンドリック & クライド・ヘンドリック, 斎藤 勇 監訳 (1998). 恋愛・性・結婚の人間関係学. 川島書店.

 松井 豊 編集 (2010). 朝倉実践心理学講座8 対人関係と恋愛・友情の心理学. 朝倉書店.

 Ihara Yasuo (2002). Does MHC Influence Human Mate Choice? . In Aoki Kenichi & Akazawa Takeru(Ed.). Human Mate Choice and Prehistoric Marital Networks(pp. 67-78). International Research Center for Japanese Studies.

 Devendra Singh (2002). Waist-To-Hip Ratio: An Indicator of Female Mate Value . In Aoki Kenichi & Akazawa Takeru(Ed.). Human Mate Choice and Prehistoric Marital Networks(pp. 67-78). International Research Center for Japanese Studies.


  Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11 (17), 3829–3834

  Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage 21, 1155-1166

  Anthony C. Little, Benedict C. Jones, and Lisa M. DeBruine (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transaction, Vol. 366, 1638-1659

  Arthur Aron, Helen Fisher, Debra J. Mashek, Greg Strong, Haifang Li, and Lucy L. Brown (2005). Reward, Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love. Neurophysiol vol 94. 327-337

  Claus Wedekind, Thomas Seebeck, Florence Bettens and Alexander J. Paepke (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Biological Sciences, Vol. 260, No. 1359. pp. 245-249.

  Dan J. Stein and Bavanisha Vythilingum (2009). Love and Attachment: The Psychobiology of Social Bonding. Pearls in Clinical Neuroscience . 239-242

  David C. Geary, Jacob Vigil, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven (2004). Evolution of Human Mate Choice. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol 41, pp. 27-42

  Donatella Marazziti and Domenico Canale (2004). Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29, 931-936

  Enzo Emanuele, Pierluigi Politi, Marika Bianchi, Piercarlo Minoretti, Marco Bertona, and Diego Geroldi (2005). Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love. Psychoneuroendocrinology xx, 1-7

  Geoffrey F. Miller and Peter M. Todd (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 190-198

  Helen E. Fisher (1998) Lust, Attraction, and Attachment In Mammalian Reproduction. Human Nature, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 23-52

  Helen Fisher, Arthur Aron, and Lucy L. Brown (2005). Romantic Love: An fMRI Study of a Neural Mechanism for Mate Choice. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 493, 58-62

  Helen Fisher, Arthur Aron, and Lucy L. Brown (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions 361, 2173-2186

  Helen Fisher, Arthur Aron, Debra Mashek, Haifang Li, and Lucy L. Brown (2002). Defining the Brain Systems of Lust, Romantic Attraction, and Attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 413-419

  Johan Alan Lee (1977). A Typology of Styles of Loveing. Psychological Review , 3, 173-182

  Larry J Young & Zuoxin Wang (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience, Vol.7, No. 10, 1048-1054

  Robert J. Sternberg (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, Vol. 93, No. 2, 119-135

  Robert J. Sternberg and Susan Grajek (1982). The Nature of Love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 2, 312-329

  Craig Roberts and Anthony C. Little (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate choice. Genetica 134, 31-43

  Thomas Roberts and Jonathan P Roiser (2010). In the nose of the beholder: are olfactory influences on human mate choice driven by variation in immune system genes or sex hormone levels?. Experimental Biology and Medicine 235, 1277-1281

  Tobias Esch and George B. Stefano (2005). The Neurobiology of Love. Neuroendocrinology Letters, Vol. 26, No. 3, 175-192

  Tobias Esch and George B. Stefano (2005). Love Promotes Health. Neuroendocrinology Letters, Vol. 26, No. 3, 264-268

  Wiebke Schuett, Tom Tregenza, and Sasha R. X. Dall (2010). Sexual selection and animal personality. Biological Review, Vol. 85, pp. 217-246

  Zick Rubin (1970). Measurement of Romantic Love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2, 265-273


 相羽 美幸, 松井 豊 (2007). 異性関係スキル研究の動向と問題. 筑波大学心理学研究34, 17-26

 相馬 敏彦, 山内 隆久, 浦 光博 (2003). 恋愛・結婚関係における排他性がそのパートナーとの葛藤時の対処行動選択に与える影響. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 43, No. 1, 75-84

 安達 喜美子 (1994). 青年における意味ある他者の研究―とくに、異性の友人(恋人)の意味を中心として. 青年心理学研究, Vol. 6, 19-28

  井上 和子 (1985). 恋愛関係におけるEquity理論の検証. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 24, No. 2, 127-134

  奥田 秀守 (1994). 恋愛関係における社会的交換過程―公平, 投資, および互恵モデルの検討―. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 34, No. 1, 82-91

 金政 裕司, 大坊 郁夫 (2003). 青年期の愛着スタイルと社会的適応. 心理学研究, Vol. 74, No. 5, 466-473

 金政 裕司, 大坊 郁夫 (2003). 青年期の愛着スタイルが親密な異性関係に及ぼす影響. 社会心理学研究, Vol. 19, No. 1, 59-76

 久保 真人 (1993). 行動特性からみた関係の親密さ―RICの妥当性と限界―. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1-10

 大坊 郁夫 (1990). 対人関係における親密さの表現―コミュニケーションに見る発展と崩壊―. 心理学評論, Vol. 33, No. 3, 322-352

 立脇 洋介 (2007). 異性交際中の感情と相手との関係性. 心理学研究, Vol. 78, No. 3, 244-251

 富重 健一 (2000). 青年期における異性不安と異性対人行動の関係―異性に対する親和指向に関する他者比較・経時的比較の役割を中心に―. 社会心理学研究, Vol. 15, No. 3, 189-199

 外山 美樹 (2002). 大学生の親密な関係性におけるポジティブ・イリュージョン. 社会心理学研究, Vol. 18, No. 1, 51-60

 中村 雅彦 (1991). 大学生の異性関係における愛情と関係評価の規定因に関する研究. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 31, No. 2, 132-146

 堀毛 一也 (1994). 恋愛関係の発展・崩壊と社会的スキル. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 34, No. 2, 116-128

 増田 匡裕 (1994). 恋愛関係における排他性の研究. 実験社会心理学研究, Vol. 34, No. 2, 164-182

 谷本 美穂 (1998). 現代的恋愛の諸相―雑誌の言説における社会的物語―. 社会学評論, Vol. 49, No. 2, 116-131

 松井 豊 (1990). 青年の恋愛行動の構造. 心理学評論, Vol. 33, No. 3, 355-370

 松井 豊 (1993). 恋愛行動の段階と恋愛意識. 心理学研究, Vol. 64, No. 5, 335-342

   松井 豊 (1998). 恋愛に関する実証的研究の動き. 現代のエスプ, No. 368, 5-19

   松井 豊, 比嘉 さやか (2006). 日本における恋愛研究の動向. 筑波大学心理学研究, Vol. 29, 71-87

 山根 一郎 (1987). 心理的距離と面識度水準の効果にもとづく対人経験の分析. 心理学研究, Vol. 57, No. 6, 329-334

   山根 一郎 (1987). 「恋人」という間柄を意味する諸行為の記号学的分析. 社会心理学研究, Vol. 2, No. 2, 29-34

   和田 実, 山口 雅敏 (1999). 恋愛関係における社会的交換モデルの比較: カップル単位の分析. 社会心理学研究, Vol. 15, No. 2, 125-136





-English, 論文/Paper

Copyright© Theories:アカデミアをあたりまえに Academia for All , 2021 All Rights Reserved Powered by AFFINGER5.