ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023
Toward consistent reporting of sample characteristics in studies investigating the biological mechanisms of romantic love.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Romantic love as regulatory co-option of maternal-bonding circuitry: a testable genetic account.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Use of the term "romantic love" in the evolutionary social and behavioral sciences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The science of love is not quite there….mSystems · 2025Article
- Sex differences in romantic love: an evolutionary perspective.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- We know more and less about love: a comment on Babková and Repiská (2025).Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Music across the love-span: a mixed methods study into the use of music in romantic relationships.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Romantic Love and Behavioral Activation System Sensitivity to a Loved One.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Romantic love evolved by co-opting mother-infant bonding.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this non-systematic review, we consider the sample reporting practices of 42 studies up to and including 2021 investigating the biological mechanisms of romantic love (i.e., 31 neuroimaging studies, nine endocrinological studies, one genetics study, and one combined neuroimaging and genetics study). We searched scientific databases using key terms and drew on our and other authors' knowledge to identify studies that investigated the mechanisms associated with romantic love using neuroimaging, endocrinological, and genetic methods. Only studies with a group or entire sample experiencing romantic love were included. The aim was to collate all relevant studies and determine the comparability of studies and ability to assess the generalizability of findings. We summarize how these studies report sex/gender, age, romantic love, relationship duration/time in love, and sample descriptors. We then outline the case for promoting comparability and the ability to determine generalizability in future studies. The findings indicate a limited ability to compare studies' samples or make an assessment of the generalizability of findings. Existing studies are not representative of the general population in a particular country or globally. We conclude by presenting ideas about how best to report sex, age, romantic love characteristics, relationship status, time in love, relationship duration, relationship satisfaction, type of unrequited love, sexual activity, cultural characteristics, socio-economic status, student status, and method-relevant descriptors. If our ideas are adopted, in part or in whole, we expect the comparability of studies to increase. Adopting our ideas will also make it easier to make an assessment of the generalizability of findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.