Prescription for Love: An Experimental Investigation of Laypeople’s Relative Moral Disapproval of Love Drugs
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
New technologies regularly bring about profound changes in our daily lives. Romantic relationships are no exception to these transformations. Some philosophers expect the emergence in the near future of love drugs: a theoretically achievable biotechnological intervention that could be designed to strengthen and maintain love in romantic relationships. We investigated laypeople’s resistance to the use of such technologies and its sources. Across two studies (Study 1, French and Peruvian university students, N after exclusion = 186; Study 2, Amazon Mechanical Turk sample, N after exclusion = 693, pre-registered), we found that the use of love drugs designed to strengthen and maintain love in romantic relationships are considered as more morally problematic than psychological therapy with the same aim. In Study 2, we show that this last effect is partially due to the fact that the love resulting from the use of love drugs is perceived as less authentic, intense, and durable. We discuss the specific role of authenticity in the relative moral disapproval of love drugs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Lantian, Boudesseul, and Cova (2024) found that love drugs are viewed as less acceptable than psychological therapy due to the perceived inauthenticity of the resulting feelings.
“Their study reveals “love drugs” (LDs) are viewed as less acceptable than psychological therapy due to the perceived inauthenticity of the resulting feelings.”
From Authenticity and Love Drugs: Insights from Psychedelic Therapy (2026) · cites this paper as Lantian, Boudesseul, and Cova (2024)
The General Discussion reports that participants judged love drugs more morally objectionable than psychological therapy for rekindling romantic feelings. It says Study 2 suggests perceived inauthenticity partly explains the difference, whereas the claim presents it as an unqualified explanation; perceived intensity and durability also contributed. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
EARP, B. D., SANDBERG, A., & SAVULESCU, J. (2015) · Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · doi:10.1017/s0963180114000206 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Boudesseul, J., Lantian, A., Cova, F., & Bègue, L. (2016). Free love? On the relation between belief in free will, determinism, and passionate love. Consciousness and Cognition, 46, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.09.003 · DOI
- Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P. M., & Maiochi, F. H. (2021). Defining polyamory: A thematic analysis of lay people's definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y · DOI
- De Freitas, J., Cikara, M., Grossmann, I., & Schlegel, R. (2018). Moral goodness is the essence of personal identity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 739-740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.006 · DOI
- Earp, B. D. (2019). Love and enhancement technology. In C. Grau & A. Smuts (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Love. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013. · DOI
- Earp, B. D., Do, D., & Knobe, J. (2021). The ordinary concept of true love. In C. Grau & A. Smuts (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Love. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013. · DOI
- Earp, B. D., Sandberg, A., & Savulescu, J. (2016). The medicalization of love: response to critics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25(4), 759-771. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000542 · DOI
- Earp, B. D., & Savulescu, J. (2016). Is there such a thing as a love drug?: Reply to McGee. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 23(2), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2016.0007 · DOI
- Earp, B. D., & Savulescu, J. (2020a). Psychedelic relationship enhancement: Précis of love drugs. Philosophy and Public Issues, 10(3), 3-28. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian-Earp- 2/publication/344875872_Psychedelic_Relationship_Enhancement/links/6048ea8d29 9bf1f5d83d6bd3/Psychedelic-Relationship-Enhancement.pdf
- Earp, B. D., & Savulescu, J. (2020b). What is love? Can it be chemically modified? Should it be? Philosophy and Public Issues, 10(3), 93-151. http://fqp.luiss.it/files/2021/03/PPI_03_2020.-6.-Earp-and- Savulescu_Replies_Def.pdf
- Earp, B. D., Wudarczyk, O. A., Sandberg, A., & Savulescu, J. (2013). If I could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the ethics of a chemical breakup. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(11), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.839752 · DOI
- Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489 · DOI
- Liao, S. M. (2011). Parental love pills: some ethical considerations. Bioethics, 25(9), 489- 494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01796.x · DOI
- Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433-442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z · DOI
- McGee, A. (2016). Is there such a thing as a love drug? Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 23(2), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2016.0006 · DOI
- Mihailov, E., López, B. R., Cova, F., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2021). How pills undermine skills: Moralization of cognitive enhancement and causal selection. Consciousness and Cognition, 91, 103120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103120 · DOI
- Naar, H. (2016). Real-world love drugs: Reply to Nyholm. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33(2), 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12141 · DOI
- Newman, G. E., De Freitas, J., & Knobe, J. (2015). Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 96-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12134 · DOI
- Nyholm, S. (2015a). Love troubles: Human attachment and biomedical enhancements. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 32(2), 190-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12085 · DOI
- Nyholm, S. (2015b). The medicalization of love and narrow and broad conceptions of human well-being. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(3), 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180114000644 · DOI
- Plašienková, Z., & Farbák, M. (2020). Chemical dehumanization of love vs. authentic evolution of love. Philosophy and Public Issues, 10(3), 227-252
- Savulescu, J., & Sandberg, A. (2008). Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: The chemicals between us. Neuroethics, 1(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-007- 9002-4 · DOI · Paper page
- Spreeuwenberg, L. (2019). Taking the love pill: A reply to Naar and Nyholm. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(2), 248-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12305 · DOI
- Sripada, C. S. (2012). What makes a manipulated agent unfree? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(3), 563-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933- 1592.2011.00527.x · DOI
- Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., & Newman, G. (2017). The true self: A psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 551-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616689495 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Authenticity and Love Drugs: Insights from Psychedelic Therapy
Thomas, O., & Silva, F. (2026) · AJOB Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/21507740.2025.2517007
- Authors
- Lantian, A., Boudesseul, J., & Cova, F.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris Nanterre (FR)
- Universidad de Lima (PE)
- Université de Genève
- Corresponding author
- Lantian, Anthony
- Venue
- AJOB Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-04-18
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 218-233
- ISSN
- 2150-7740 (ISSN-L)
- 2150-7759
- OpenAlex
- W4394933191
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- AJOB Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- moral disapproval, romantic relationships, biotechnology, psychotherapy, resistance to technology
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Love, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Young Adult
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
