towards relationships and love, thus more influenced by love styles compared to
men [33] [48]. A further source of complication is the life cycle of a love rela-
tionship. In terms of love styles, the relational satisfaction curve seems to over-
come the U-shape—as Vaillant and Vaillant [49] observed—and follows a vary-
ing proportionality to the life phases of a couple [7] [9].
Moreover, the research papers reviewed emphasize not only the distinction
between love styles, but also the variability within each style as opposed to the
different factors of relationship quality. In fact, although the results of research
and studies mostly agree in stating the importance of Eros, Agape, and Ludus in
the quality of a love relationship—a positive effect in the first two cases (as fac-
tors of protection and resources) and a negative effect in the third case (as a fac-
tor of risk and vulnerability)—there is in any case a certain degree of variation
and contradiction in the results recorded for the different styles. For instance,
while almost the entire pool of research projects records a correlation between
Eros and positive characteristics of a relationship, certain other cases highlighted
a correlation with negative behaviour in the relationship maintenance phase,
such as spying on the partner [32], and—in males—with preoccupied attach-
Despite the development we may record in terms of interest for research on
love styles and types, as well as their effects on well-being, personal and rela-
tionship health, there still remain a number of matters to deal with, which the
articles reviewed agree to mainly be the method-related aspects. We have indeed
recorded how the majority of projects use convenience sampling but—although
this method is appropriate in certain circumstances, especially in exploratory
research performed to generate new ideas—as stated by Lin and Huddle-
ston-Casas [30], it is necessary to also implement random sampling in order to
know and generalize the results. Moreover, the samples were generally com-
posed of students, and thus—as stated by Neto and Pinto [41]—were not repre-
sentative of the wider population of people involved in love relationships. In ad-
dition to this, the samples mostly comprised individuals and not couples. This
prevented from recording what actually occurs in a relationship, and thus the
possibility of performing a dyadic assessment, which is a method gathering wide
attention in the field of research on relationship quality [50] [51] [52] [53]. In
fact, a number of studies highlights the possibility of a reciprocal influence be-
tween partners, also in terms of the attitude towards love [54]. Using a dyadic
approach, for some of love styles (as Eros and Agape) the reviewed research of
Gana et al. [23] showed husband-wife non-independence in marital satisfaction.
Therefore, acknowledging how the love approach of a partner influences not
only his/her perception, behaviour, attitude, and feelings towards the relation-
ship, but even those of the partner, is a particularly interesting goal in the study
of love. Indeed, upon a systemic approach, it may be stated that the influence
one may have on his/her personal and relational health and well-being does not
only depend on one’s own way of being, but also that of the partner.