Cited by 111Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: the chemicals between us.

Open access
Savulescu, Julian, Sandberg, Anders·2008·Neuroethics

Abstract

This paper reviews the evolutionary history and biology of love and marriage. It examines the current and imminent possibilities of biological manipulation of lust, attraction and attachment, so called neuroenhancement of love. We examine the arguments for and against these biological interventions to influence love. We argue that biological interventions offer an important adjunct to psychosocial interventions, especially given the biological limitations inherent in human love.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12152-007-9002-4

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Natural selection did not shape basic mating strategies nor underlying brain chemistry to foster life-long, monogamous matrimony in the modern world, but rather to promote reproductive success of progenitors in the Pleistocene.

    “Natural selection did not shape our basic mating strategies—nor our underlying brain chemistry—to foster life-long, monogamous matrimony in the modern world, but rather to promote the reproductive success of our progenitors in the environment of the Pleistocene [2, 3].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Griffin, J. 1986. Well-being. Oxford: Clarendon.
  2. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.
  3. Simpson J.A., D.T. Kenrick , pp. 237-264. Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Savulescu, J., & Sandberg, A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Savulescu, Julian
Venue
Neuroethics
Published
2008-02-07
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
31-44
ISSN
  • 1874-5490 (ISSN-L)
  • 1874-5504
OpenAlex
W2162553208
Cited by
111
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Neuroethics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
cognitive enhancement, love, marriage, lust, romantic attraction, attachment, psychosocial interventions, emotions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review