Lovelogy: Toward An Integrative Science Of Human Love

Abstract

Background: Love influences mental and physical health, relational stability, prosocial behavior, learning, and social cohesion, yet the scientific literature remains fragmented across disciplines and often relies on heterogeneous definitions and metrics (Berscheid, 2010; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010).

Objective: To propose and delimit Lovelogy as an integrative scientific field dedicated to the systematic study of love, providing explicit demarcation criteria, a shared minimal theoretical core, and a reproducible agenda for measurement, mechanisms, and interventions (Sternberg, 1986; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Approach: This position paper synthesizes major research traditions—component models of love, adult attachment, compassionate love, communal norms, and social neuroscience—and articulates an operational architecture (the MAA Model) alongside a methodological pathway for scale development and validation (Clark & Watson, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).

Contributions: The paper (1) defines Lovelogy and differentiates it from adjacent constructs and non-scientific discourse; (2) proposes an operationalizable model (MAA: Bond, Eros, Care, Relational Ethics) with falsifiable predictions; (3) outlines minimum methodological standards (EFA/CFA, omega, measurement invariance, dyadic designs) and an ethical framework to prevent conceptual and applied misuse (Lilius et al., 2008; Young & Wang, 2004).

Implications: Lovelogy offers a common language and practical tools for education, health, organizations, and public policy—particularly in response to loneliness, relational violence, and erosion of social trust (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

Limitations: As a programmatic manuscript, it presents no primary data. Empirical validation is required to test incremental validity versus adjacent constructs and to examine cross-cultural invariance and intervention effectiveness (Clark & Watson, 1995; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).