Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and highly relevant. Understanding how beliefs about love influence romantic relationships may contribute to a better comprehension of the social nature of intimate relationships and the ways in which they are shaped by sociocultural contexts and historical changes.

One of the main issues concerns the concepts of “stable” and “unstable” love beliefs, which constitute the core constructs of the study. Although these concepts are central to the manuscript, their theoretical foundations are not sufficiently developed in the Introduction. Readers only become fully aware of the content of these dimensions when the factor-analytic results are presented..It would be helpful to clarify from the outset what is understood by a stable versus an unstable vision of love. Do these dimensions primarily refer to commitment and lack of commitment, or do they include other elements such as permanence, responsibility, sexuality, emotional intensity, fidelity, “to be in love”, pleasure, maternity-paternity, or conscious choice? Furthermore, the role of emotions remains somewhat unclear. Is emotional intensity considered a characteristic of unstable love, while stable love is mainly associated with commitment and responsibility? Which is the role of “feelings”? Providing a stronger theoretical rationale for these dimensions in the Introduction would considerably strengthen the manuscript.

As a suggestion, the authors may consider incorporating some classical and contemporary contributions to the study of love, such as Erich Fromm’s The Art of Loving, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s The Normal Chaos of Love, Giddens’ The Transformation of Intimacy, bell hooks’ All About Love, or Eva Illouz’s The End of Love. The inclusion of this literature is not an essential requirement but rather a suggestion that could enrich the theoretical framework if the authors consider it relevant.

Regarding Materials and Methods

It would be useful to include a brief introductory paragraph at the beginning of the Methods section summarizing the overall methodological approach before entering into the description of participants and procedures..Although participant recruitment is briefly described, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed presentation of the sample characteristics and recruitment process. In particular, the study included 51 participants, yet the rationale for the composition of the sample is not entirely clear. Later in the Results section, it is reported that all participants were women. It would be important to clarify whether this was intentional (for example, a study specifically focused on women) or whether it resulted from the recruitment process. This issue is particularly relevant for the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.

Overall, the Results section is clearly presented. However, I was uncertain about the rationale for grouping sexuality and family planning variables within the same analytical section. A clearer explanation of the theoretical relationship between these domains would improve the coherence of the manuscript. In particular, it would be useful to clarify whether the study distinguishes between sexuality associated with reproduction, sexuality associated with romantic love and emotional intimacy, and sexuality associated with pleasure.

Regarding Discussion, a broader conceptual issue concerns the place of feelings, emotions, and being “in love” within the proposed framework. The conceptualization of love developed in the manuscript appears to be strongly centered on commitment, responsibility, conscious choice, and personal development. In contrast, emotional dimensions of love seem to receive comparatively little attention. While these aspects may not have been directly measured in the questionnaire, they could be discussed as a conceptual limitation or as an avenue for future research.  

The manuscript states that a stable vision of love may support “better functioning” in romantic relationships. It would be helpful to define more explicitly what is meant by better functioning. Does this refer to lower conflict, greater relationship stability, more effective communication, greater satisfaction, fidelity, or some other dimension of relationship functioning? Although several behavioural indicators are included in the study, the concept itself could be defined more clearly.

Similarly, the Conclusions emphasize relationship quality as an important outcome. While the manuscript explains how the relationship quality index was constructed, a clearer conceptual definition of what the authors understand by “relationship quality” would strengthen the interpretation of the findings. It would be valuable to explain more explicitly how the selected indicators reflect this broader construct.

The manuscript addresses a relevant and interesting topic and presents potentially valuable findings. Nevertheless, stronger theoretical grounding of the concepts of stable and unstable love, greater clarity regarding the sample characteristics, and a more explicit discussion of the emotional dimensions of love and the conceptual meaning of relationship quality would substantially improve the paper. A broader conceptual consideration concerns the theoretical assumptions underlying the proposed framework. Throughout the manuscript, concepts such as stable love, relationship quality, and better relationship functioning appear to be closely associated with commitment, permanence, marriage, responsibility, and family-oriented values. While this is a legitimate theoretical perspective, it would be helpful for the authors to make this framework more explicit. Other dimensions commonly discussed in the literature on love and intimate relationships—such as being in love, emotional intimacy, passion, sexual pleasure, or sexuality as an expression of affection independent of family planning—receive comparatively little attention. If the authors intentionally adopt a specific theoretical perspective emphasizing commitment and relational permanence, this should be clearly stated. Otherwise, readers may interpret the proposed definitions of relationship quality and relationship functioning as universally accepted constructs rather than as concepts informed by a particular understanding of love and intimate relationships.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful review, your constructive comments, and the time you devoted to evaluating our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our detailed point-by-point responses are provided below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an interesting and relevant topic, and the distinction between stable and unstable beliefs about love offers a novel perspective on relationship quality. The manuscript is well organized, and the objectives are clearly stated. However, several issues should be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.

The primary limitation is the small sample size (N = 51), which consisted entirely of women recruited through convenience sampling. This substantially limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the low KMO value indicates that the exploratory factor analysis should be interpreted with caution. The discussion should place greater emphasis on the preliminary nature of the factor structure and the need for validation in larger and more diverse samples.

The manuscript would also benefit from additional information regarding the development of the original questionnaire. More detail should be provided on how the items were generated and whether the instrument underwent any content validation before data collection.

Because numerous correlation analyses were performed without adjustment for multiple comparisons, readers should be cautioned that some statistically significant findings may represent Type I error. Although this limitation is acknowledged, it should receive greater emphasis in the Discussion.

Finally, there appears to be an inconsistency regarding ethics and informed consent. The Methods section states that informed consent was obtained from participants, whereas the Informed Consent Statement indicates that informed consent was not applicable. These statements should be clarified.

Overall, this is an interesting exploratory study with potential value. Addressing the methodological concerns and clarifying the reporting will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful review, your constructive comments, and the time you devoted to evaluating our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our detailed point-by-point responses are provided below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful revisions. The manuscript has been substantially improved in response to the reviewer comments. The expanded description of questionnaire development, clearer discussion of the exploratory nature of the study, additional acknowledgment of the limitations associated with the small convenience sample and low KMO value, clarification regarding informed consent, and more balanced interpretation of the findings have strengthened both the methodological transparency and the overall quality of the manuscript.

The study remains exploratory, and the limitations are now appropriately acknowledged. The conclusions are consistent with the presented results and are stated with appropriate caution. I have no further substantive concerns.