The commentaries by Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2016), Jankowiak (2016), Marazziti (2016), and Aron and Aron (2016) admirably illustrate the multifaceted nature of love and the difficulty of bringing together such diverse perspectives. Rising love is still far from being the subject of true experimental study since the experimenter often only observes the consequences thereof, and attempts to reconstitute in hindsight the circumstances of its onset.
AcevedoB. P.AronA.FisherH. E.BrownL. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 145–159.
2.
AronA.AronE. N. (2016). Comment: An inspiration for expanding the self-expansion model of love. Emotion Review. 8(2): pp. 112–113.
3.
BartelsA.ZekiS. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport, 11, 3829–3834.
4.
CacioppoS.CacioppoJ. T. (2016). Comment: Demystifying the neuroscience of love. Emotion Review. 8(2): pp. 108–109.
5.
JankowiakW. R. (2016). Comment: What is this thing called love?Emotion Review. 8(2): pp. 109–110.
6.
MarazzitiD. (2016). Comment: “Beyond emotion: Love as an encounter of myth and drive” by Lubomir Lamy. Emotion Review. 8(2): pp. 110–112.
7.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.
