Evidence Hub

Problematic Love Behaviors and Correlated Factors: A Systematic Review with Subgroup Meta-Analysis Including Gender/Sex Moderation

Sánchez-Fernández M, Almeda N, Borda-Mas M

Archives of sexual behavior, 2026

55 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Problematic love behaviors (PLB) represent a growing concern in relationship research, yet the field lacks a systematic synthesis that clarifies their conceptual and correlational landscape. This study addressed the pronounced conceptual heterogeneity in the literature by reviewing and meta-analytically integrating findings on PLB correlates across distinct conceptual domains. A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, sourcing studies from Web of Science, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Medline. A total of 102 studies met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into three conceptual domains: manic love (ML; n = 55), emotional dependence (ED; n = 34), and love addiction (LA; n = 13). Quality assessment and narrative synthesis were performed, followed by subgroup meta-analyses for correlates supported by at least three studies within each domain. A subsequent moderation analysis by percentage of female participants was conducted to explain residual heterogeneity. Correlates were grouped into three categories: individual psychological, psychosocial, and partner-related factors. The meta-analyses revealed distinct correlational profiles: five significant correlates for ML, eleven for ED, and two for LA. Low self-esteem emerged as a shared correlate of ML and ED, whereas behavioral addictions were shared by ED and LA. The associations between ML and jealousy, as well as between ML and relationship satisfaction, were more pronounced in female-predominant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 55 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free