A new study suggests that encountering reminders of romance can lead individuals to take greater risks. This influence appears to stem from a reduced sense of self-control, prompting behaviors that range from recreational thrills to unethical decisions. These findings were published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
The connection between love and risk is a recurring theme in cultural narratives throughout history. Despite the prevalence of this theme in art and storytelling, scientific understanding of how romance alters decision-making remains limited.
“I have loved reading love stories since childhood, from the Chinese folk tale The Butterfly Lovers to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, and I am moved alike by the characters’ steadfast devotion and by the ache of their tragic endings,” said study author Heng Li, a professor of cognitive science and psychology at Sichuan International Studies University.
“This has left me wondering: can people really sacrifice everything for love? Does love make us blind? Is this an ancient myth, or a cultural impulse that modern people have merely inherited, so that when confronted with love we remain fearless and ready to give up all?”
“As I grew, I found that we still carry this cultural gene today,” Li continued. “My friends may not be willing to lay down their lives for love, but they can be strikingly blind at times—for example, taking out loans to buy gifts for a partner or quitting a stable job to start a venture with a loved one. Even in an era when artificial intelligence is increasingly pervasive, that enduring tendency to be myopically bold for love seems unchanged.”
“What drew me to this line of inquiry, ultimately, is that my training in psychology and cognitive science enables me to test these childhood curiosities through the lens of behavioral science, turning romance from a mere subject of stories into a real-world scientific question. That is, romance is more than a feeling—it can shape our decisions, sometimes nudging us toward risk when we least expect it. By highlighting self-control as a mediator, this work opens avenues for understanding when and how romantic cues steer everyday choices, with implications for consumer behavior, health, and safety.”
The study draws upon the psychological concept that love is often perceived as an uncontrollable force. This concept suggests that when people encounter romantic triggers, they may feel less in charge of their own actions. Language often reflects this idea through metaphors like being “lovesick” or falling blindly in love. The research also considers Parental Investment Theory regarding mating strategies. This theory proposes that taking risks can sometimes serve as a strategy to demonstrate fitness and attract partners.
To test these theoretical frameworks, Li conducted four separate experiments. The first experiment involved 182 undergraduate students recruited from a Chinese university. The researcher divided the participants into two groups for a computer-based task involving lexical decisions. One group viewed words associated with romance, such as “wedding,” “marriage,” “date,” and “romance.” The control group viewed neutral words like “objective,” “window,” “class,” and “thought.”
Following the word task, participants completed a survey designed to measure their sense of personal control. They also filled out a scale known as DOSPERT to gauge their likelihood of engaging in risky activities. This scale assesses risk-taking propensity across five distinct domains: ethical, financial, recreational, social, and health or safety.
The data indicated that students exposed to romantic words expressed a higher willingness to take risks compared to the control group. This tendency was not limited to a single type of behavior but appeared across multiple domains. Statistical analysis confirmed that the romantic group felt a weaker sense of personal control over their lives. The analysis suggested that this reduced feeling of control was the primary driver behind their increased risk appetite.
The second study sought to replicate these findings with a broader population and behavioral measures. Li recruited 151 non-student adults from central China to participate. Instead of viewing words, the priming task involved viewing advertisements under the guise of an evaluation task. The experimental group saw romantic imagery, such as movie posters featuring a couple kissing and red roses. The control group viewed advertisements for technology products like cell phones and video games.
Participants then completed the same personal control assessment used in the first study. To measure actual risk-taking behavior, the researcher offered a choice between two gift tickets as a token of appreciation. One ticket was for a garden exhibition, representing a safe and low-stakes activity. The other was for a bungee jumping experience, representing a nonmoral but physically risky activity.
The results showed a behavioral shift based on the imagery the participants had seen. The participants exposed to romantic advertisements were significantly more likely to choose the bungee jumping ticket. Approximately 74 percent of the romantic group selected the risky option. In comparison, only about 53 percent of the neutral group made the same choice. This experiment provided evidence that romantic cues can drive people toward physical thrills in real-world scenarios.
The third experiment investigated whether this effect applies to immoral or unethical risks. Bungee jumping is physically risky but socially acceptable, whereas other behaviors violate moral standards. Li recruited 111 adults to test this distinction using a storytelling method. Participants viewed a picture of a medieval bridge located in a European town.
Half the participants read a backstory describing a lifelong romance connected to the bridge. The other half read a story about a lifelong friendship between two boys that started at the same location. Participants were then asked to evaluate a website containing links to different informational articles. The key measure was how often they clicked on a link offering information on “how to become a briber.” An alternative link offered information about video games.
Individuals who read the romantic story clicked on the bribery link more frequently than those who read the friendship story. This indicates a higher willingness to engage in immoral risk-taking when primed with romance. Both groups showed similar interest in the video game link, suggesting the effect was specific to the risky content. Once again, the participants in the romantic condition reported lower levels of perceived self-control.
The final experiment sought to provide direct evidence that self-control was the mechanism driving these behaviors. The researcher hypothesized that if self-control were bolstered by the environment, the effect of romantic cues would diminish. The study recruited 90 undergraduate students for this phase. They were assigned to read either the romantic or the friendship story used in the previous experiment.
To manipulate self-control levels, Li varied the physical setting in which the participants read the story. Some participants completed the task in a quiet library. This environment is typically associated with discipline, focus, and higher self-control. The other participants read the story in a dormitory. This setting is often associated with relaxation, socializing, and looser behavioral regulation.
After reading the stories in their respective environments, participants made a choice regarding the gift tickets used in the second study. In the dormitory setting, the romantic group preferred the risky bungee jumping option. This result replicated the findings from the earlier studies. However, in the library setting, the influence of the romantic cues disappeared.
When the environment encouraged higher self-control, exposure to romantic stories did not lead to increased risk-taking. This supports the hypothesis that romantic cues function by temporarily lowering a person’s self-control defenses. The library setting effectively counteracted the depletion of control caused by the romantic thoughts.
As with all research, the study has certain limitations. The samples were composed entirely of Chinese participants. Cultural differences in how love and romance are conceptualized could mean the results might vary in other parts of the world. Additionally, the experiments relied on laboratory tasks and hypothetical choices. While the behavioral measures were designed to be realistic, they did not involve the actual execution of risky acts like bribery.
Future research could investigate whether these effects vary based on a person’s relationship status. It is possible that individuals in new relationships react differently than those in long-term marriages. It would also be beneficial to observe these behaviors in natural settings outside of a controlled experiment.
“Love, of course, is wonderful,” Li concluded. “Countless everyday observations and empirical studies show that a healthy love relationship yields many positive outcomes. Yet love also has a knack for going to our heads; when we’re in a relationship, we’re often steered by affection, emotion, and hormones in how we judge our partner.”
“That said, our findings suggest the influence isn’t limited to love itself—it’s it can spill over into many ordinary judgments that have nothing to do with romance. So here’s a friendly caution for the next time you’re making a decision: if love clues start blinking, tread carefully. For example, men should not pretend to be brave in ways that don’t fit their reality — like taking a leap off a cliff when their body says ‘no.’ After all, love isn’t just wonderful; it can be blind, loud, and a little dangerous — like a romance novel with a literal cliffhanger.”
The study, “Blind Love, Risky Romance: Exposure to Romantic Cues Increases Nonmoral and Immoral Risk Taking,” was authored by Heng Li.
