Romance Through the Ages: The Evolutionary and Sociocultural Drivers of Love
- neuroversecc
- Mar 9
- 9 min read
Love – it’s exhilarating, maddening, and life-altering. It has inspired poets and storytellers and enamored scientists, philosophers, and psychologists for decades. Yet, what love truly means is one of the most widely pondered questions to exist. Is it merely a chemical reaction? A survival mechanism? A marvel that defies logic?
Neuroverse celebrated their third anniversary on Valentine's Day this year with a special episode where Clara & Carolina unpack love through the lenses of evolutionary biology, philosophy and sociology. They discuss why we love, how culture shapes romance, and the forces that drive us to form bonds and navigate desire, attachment and commitment.
PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS: WILL, DESIRE AND POSSESSION
Love has long captivated philosophers, who viewed it as more than an emotion, but a force that shapes existence. Plato envisioned love as a metaphysical thought, transcending people, and intertwining with reality itself [1]. Spinoza pictured love as a force essential to human flourishing. Schopenhauer, although believing that love is compelling, recognized its only purpose as nature's way to ensure that life would continue. He saw love as a “will-to-life”, driving individuals towards reproduction. To Schopenhauer, love is not a soulful connection but serves a larger purpose to ensure continuity [2].
In stark contrast, Nietzsche viewed love as being far from idealism and selflessness in affection. Love, instead, is a form of possession, a manifestation of more primal instincts to do with possession and self-interest. Nietzsche also observed how different sexes may experience love differently- men viewing it as a struggle for power and women as a surrendering- the contribution of biological and social forces remains a major topic of debate [3].
Robert Solomon treaded the path of rationality and emotion with great nuance in his book About Love. In the chapter Falling in Love, Solomon asserted the idea that love is not a matter of destiny, but choice; it involves conscious decisions and is an avenue for self- exploration. According to Solomon, biology, personal history and societal factors define how we choose to engage with another person, which ultimately acts as a means for self-growth [4].
The apparent dichotomy of love as being selfless versus selfish is a deep philosophical issue that has been explored from various angles in ethical theory. Iris Murdoch notably depicted love as a form of altruism, saying that genuine love requires the decentering of self and is devoid of any self-serving motives [5]. However, selfless love is not necessarily mutually exclusive to selfishness. One may seek love for inherently selfish reasons- for a need of affection, out of loneliness or validation; love can be the transforming force that shifts oneself towards altruism, allowing compassion and selflessness to flourish [6].
THE MEANING OF THE EVOLUTION OF LOVE
We all know the feeling of love- a nervous glance, fluttering heart, warm glow. It may be harder, or less romantic, to imagine love as a powerful survival mechanism, designed by evolution to enhance human reproductive power. But what may seem like chemistry and emotionally-driven will on the surface could contain an inner blueprint that drives mate selection, procreation, and commitment [7].
An evolutionary perspective would view love as an adaptation to support survival. For humans, successful reproduction relies heavily on long-term pair bonding. Bonding and commitment increases the chance of having more offspring and successfully raising children into adulthood. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, attachment is a strategic force to identify an ideal mate who would provide a stable and resourceful environment to ensure survival for generations to come. In Robert H. Frank's 1988 book Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions, where he argues that emotions can be beneficial to human survival, love is portrayed as the emotion that secures commitment [8]. Romantic love ensures that you will not leave when someone more desirable comes along, which ultimately fosters long-term partnership.
THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF BONDING AND ATTACHMENT
Studies have revealed surprising similarities between the neurobiological foundations of romantic relationships and mother-infant bonds, although with nuances in function and intensity [9]. Mother-infant bonds primarily exist to ensure the survival of the species where, traditionally, a mother ensures the infant is fed, nurtured and protected. As individuals develop, the drive to form romantic bonds is tied back to the need of cooperative parenting, pair bonding and reproduction.
Along these lines, psychologist John Bowlby theorised that early childhood experiences shape relationships in adulthood Each attachment style shapes how individuals form relationships, stemming from their past experiences and their personalities. A secure attachment is characterised open communication resulting from responsive and consistent caregiving. An individual’s search for love is thus characterised by feelings of trust, healthy dependence, and intimacy, leading to stable and long-term relationships. On the other hand, anxious attachment styles lead to closeness due to fear of abandonment, requiring constant reassurance. An individual with an avoidant attachment style may value independence and struggle with emotional intimacy, and a fearful avoidant attachment may lead to push-pull dynamics, stemming from and also causing from anxiety.
Studies in animals have revealed distinct brain circuits that govern both maternal attachment and romantic bonds. For example, the neurotransmitter oxytocin, plays a dynamic role in romantic relationships [10]. During the early stages of love, oxytocin fosters feelings of attraction and infatuation, but over time it helps to support the maintenance of mutual affection and attachment by counteracting stress responses and enhancing empathy. Indeed, heightened activity in oxytocin signalling pathways has been observed during intimate interactions such as hugging or sexual activity, and is thought to help partners attune to one another's needs [11].
Another chemical involved in love is dopamine. Rather than, serving a role in bonding like oxytocin does, dopamine is referred to as the “feel-good” chemical. In romantic love, dopamine likely contributes to the excitement after an immediate connection, and regulates motivation to pursue the relationship further. In the brain, dopamine is highly expressed in regions such as the basal ganglia, which includes a key structure known as the striatum that is responsible for goal directed behaviours, decision making and responses to social cues [12]. Moreover, the high expression of a third neurotransmitter, serotonin, in regions including the striatum helps process social and environmental cues – crucial in romantic relationship to recognize signals of attraction and understand unspoken emotions [13].
Listen to Neuroverse episode 70 Love on the Brain to hear more about the neurobiology of love; listen to Neuroverse episode 92 Why We Love to hear more about the evolution of oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin systems.
Studies have also revealed how the dopamine transporter (DAT) protein, crucial for regulating the levels of dopamine in the brain, are altered in individuals experiencing romantic love. Researchers examined the level of DAT in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell, which interestingly revealed a decreased density in subjects who were in relationships, highlighting lesser reuptake of the neurotransmitter. This prolonged dopamine presence is further supported by brain imaging studies showing increased activity in dopamine-rich areas like the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and caudate nucleus. Initially heightened dopamine levels stabilizing over time may also explain the eventual shift from passionate intensity to long-term attachment [14].
So, love is indeed a chemical affair. But, being societal beings intertwined in a web of relations, love is of course more complex than a chemical cocktail.
HOW SOCIETY SHAPES LOVE AND RELATIONSHIPS
While evolutionary theories have provided an adaptive view into the utility of romantic love for survival, socio-cultural perspectives illustrate love in context. One of the most significant sociocultural factors influencing romantic choices is the type of culture a person comes from [15].
Individualistic (mainly Western) societies emphasise personal autonomy, self-expression and independence, encouraging individuals to pursue love based on emotional fulfilment than for external reasons. By focusing on passion and companionship, individualistic societies pursue love as a means of personal satisfaction and growth within the relationship [16,17].
On the other hand, collectivist (mainly Eastern) societies emphasise societal obligations, family ties, and social harmony. Studies have revealed how people from individualistic cultures prioritize personal compatibility, emotional connection and mutual attraction, while those from collectivist societies approach love through the lens of community and familial connection. In collectivist societies, the idea that “love is a union of families” flourishes and qualities such as loyalty, respect and alignment with values is emphasized [18]. In such cultures, the act of marriage is a step towards establishing social relations and responsibilities, as opposed to individual pursuits; emotional love may develop over time as opposed to initial foundations.
Such cultural differences, prevalent across different regions in the world, therefore play a crucial role in shaping attitudes towards the foundations of love, conflict resolution and relationship longevity. While in individualistic cultures, love is often driven by passion and dictated by personal needs, collectivist cultures emphasize perseverance and commitment, highlighting the idea that the socio-cultural lens is crucial for understanding love and what it means to us.
THE DIGITAL HEART
In our modern world, dating has evolved into a search for identity, connection and fulfilment. As the social contract theory suggests, dating involves a balance between idealism and reality, between what we desire, expect, and experience. With the rise of online dating, this dynamic is more prevalent today, where individuals select potential partners based on a range of traits such as ambitions, income, personality and lifestyle [21].
Researchers have attempted to understand this process, asking what makes someone attractive. Generally, men prioritize youthfulness and fertility, while women favour strength, status and emotional intelligence, traits that ensure stability [22]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people also tend to make split-second decisions based on facial features when using dating apps, easily overlooking the potential for deeper compatibility. Additionally, dating apps have been shown to alter neural processing, triggering the brain's reward system and overloading cognition so that decision-making becomes difficult- the result is that we tend to make the easiest and fastest decisions that normally do not favour commitment [23, 24].
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the search for love represents a combination of instinctive drive and a rational choice. While technology may change how people meet, the drive for connection and security are deeply embedded in the human experience.
This article was written by Purnima BR and edited by Clara Lenherr
REFERENCES
[1] Helm, B. (2017). Love (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu.
[2] Axinte, M. (2025). The metaphysics of love at A. Schopenhauer. Globethics.net.
[3] Verkerk, W. (2014). Nietzsche on Love | Issue 104 | Philosophy Now.
Philosophynow.org. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Nietzsche_on_Love
[4] Solomon, Robert C. (1981). Love: emotion, myth, & metaphor. Buffalo, N.Y.:
Prometheus Books.
[5] Sadjadi, Bakhtiar, and Peyman Amanolahi Baharvand. “The Significance of Love and
Selflessness in Iris Murdoch’s Moral Philosophy.” Khazar Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences, vol. 22, no. 2, July 2019, pp. 83–92, https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-
2621.2019.22.2.83
[6] Layne, L. (2020). Introduction Self, Selfish, Selfless. https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/intros/LayneSelfishness_intro.pdf
[7] Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A.,
Wojciszke, B.; Pawłowski, B. (2017). Love Influences Reproductive Success in
Humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01922
[8] Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. W W
Norton & Co.
[9] Bode, A. (2023). Romantic love evolved by co-opting mother-infant bonding.
Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1176067
[10] Schneiderman, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2012).
Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic attachment: Relations to couples’
interactive reciprocity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(8), 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.12.021
[11] Carter, C. S., & Porges, S. W. (2013). The biochemistry of love: an oxytocin
hypothesis. EMBO Reports, 14(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.191
[12] Surmeier, D. J., Shen, W., Day, M., Gertler, T., Chan, S., Tian, X., & Plotkin, J. L.
(2010). The role of dopamine in modulating the structure and function of striatal
circuits. Progress in Brain Research, 183, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(10)83008-0
[13] Takahashi, K., Mizuno, K., Sasaki, A. T., Wada, Y., Tanaka, M., Ishii, A., Tajima, K.,
Tsuyuguchi, N., Watanabe, K., Zeki, S., & Watanabe, Y. (2015). Imaging the
passionate stage of romantic love by dopamine dynamics. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00191
[14] Marazziti, D., Baroni, S., Giannaccini, G., Piccinni, A., Mucci, F., Catena-Dell’Osso,
M., Rutigliano, G., Massimetti, G., & Dell’Osso, L. (2016). Decreased
lymphocyte dopamine transporter in romantic lovers. CNS Spectrums, 22(3),
[15] Chapman, H. (2011). Love: A Biological, Psychological and Philosophical Study. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=srhonorsprog
[16] Sorokowski, P., Kowal, M., Sternberg, R. J., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M.,
Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Asao, K., Atama, C. S., Atamtürk Duyar, D., Ayebare,
R., Conroy-Beam, D., Bendixen, M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M., Buss,
D. M., & Butovskaya, M. (2023). Modernization, collectivism, and gender
equality predict love experiences in 45 countries. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 773.
[17] Dion, K. K. & Dion, K. L. (1996). Cultural perspectives on romantic love. Personal
Relationships, 3(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00101.x
[18] Montagna, N. (2023). For a new Sociology of Social love. The American Sociologist,
54(2), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-023-09572-5
[19] Cassidy, J., Jones, J. D., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Contributions of attachment
theory and research: A framework for future research, translation, and policy.
Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1415–1434.
[20] Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic
relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13(13), 19–24. National Library of
[21] Portolan, L., & McAlister, J. (2021). Jagged Love: Narratives of Romance on Dating
Apps during COVID-19. Sexuality & Culture, 26(1).
[22] Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness:
evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404
[23] Timmermans, E., & Alexopoulos, C. (2020). Anxiously Searching for Love
(Among Other Things): Attachment Orientation and Mobile Dating Application Users’
Motives and Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7).
[24] Nencheva, M. (n.d.). Learning online dating preferences from neuroimaging data.
[25] Li, L., Huang, X., Xiao, J., Zheng, Q., Shan, X., He, C., Liao, W., Chen, H., Menon,
V., & Duan, X. (2022). Neural synchronization predicts marital satisfaction.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
119(34), e2202515119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202515119
Commentaires