Fact-check any claim. Instantly. · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
“Romantic love typically lasts for three years.”
The Conclusion
Executive Summary
The evidence does not support that romantic love “typically” lasts three years. At most, some researchers discuss an intense early “honeymoon”/passionate phase that often fades within ~18 months–3 years, but romantic love itself can persist for many years and has no fixed expiration date.
Warnings
- Equivocation: the claim swaps “passionate/obsessive honeymoon phase” for “romantic love,” which are not the same construct in the cited research.
- Cherry-picking: citing the “three-year” line while ignoring the same author's evidence that intense romantic love can persist in long-term marriages.
- Overgeneralization: even if an early intensity phase often declines, that does not justify a universal or “typical” three-year endpoint for romantic love.
The Claim
How we interpreted the user input
Intent
The user wants to know if there is a typical duration for romantic love, specifically if it lasts three years.
Testable Claim
The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis
“Romantic love typically lasts for three years.”
The Research
What we found online
Summary of Findings
All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.
The Debate
The for and against arguments
Source 2 (Helen Fisher, PhD) and Source 4 (Dr. Helen Fisher) both confirm that "psychologists maintain that the dizzying feeling of intense romantic love lasts no longer than 18 months to three years," establishing this as the scientific consensus among psychology professionals. This timeframe represents the well-documented duration of passionate romantic love's neurochemical intensity, which naturally transitions after this period regardless of relationship satisfaction or longevity.
You're treating Helen Fisher's phrasing “psychologists maintain” as proof of consensus, but in Source 2/4 (Helen Fisher) it's explicitly framed as a widely believed rule-of-thumb and is immediately undercut by her own cited evidence of long-married couples showing similar brain activity and 46% reporting they're still “very intensely in love,” which contradicts your “no longer than three years” claim. And your leap from “dizzying” early intensity to the motion's broader “romantic love typically lasts three years” ignores Source 1 (American Psychological Association), which reports romantic love can persist in long-term relationships, and Source 3 (BBC Science Focus), which rejects any set number of years—so your “natural transition regardless” assertion is unsupported by the brief.
The motion claims romantic love “typically” lasts three years, but Source 1 (American Psychological Association) reports evidence that romantic love can persist in both short- and long-term relationships, directly contradicting any fixed, typical three‑year endpoint. Even Source 2/4 (Helen Fisher) only repeats a popular belief that psychologists “maintain” 18 months to three years while simultaneously describing brain-scan and self-report findings of intense love in long-married couples, and Source 3 (BBC Science Focus) explicitly rejects any set number of years—so the three-year “typical” claim is not supported.
You misrepresent Source 1 (American Psychological Association) by conflating "romantic love" with "passionate love," when the study explicitly distinguishes these as different phenomena—with passionate love being the intense form that drives shorter relationships, exactly supporting the three-year timeframe. Your dismissal of Source 2 (Helen Fisher, PhD) as merely "popular belief" ignores that she's reporting the established scientific consensus among psychologists, and her brain scan findings of 46% still being "very intensely in love" actually confirms that the majority (54%) are no longer experiencing that intense romantic phase after years of marriage.
Jump into a live chat with the Proponent and the Opponent. Challenge their reasoning, ask your own questions, and investigate this topic on your terms.
The Adjudication
How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments
The most reliable sources are Source 1 (APA, authority 0.9) which explicitly distinguishes passionate love from romantic love and shows romantic love can persist in long-term relationships, and Source 3 (BBC Science Focus, authority 0.75) which states scientists agree there's no set timeframe for love duration. Source 2/4 (Helen Fisher) presents the three-year claim as what "psychologists maintain" but immediately contradicts it with her own research showing 46% of long-married couples still report intense love, undermining rather than supporting the claim.
The claim commits a scope mismatch fallacy: Source 2/4 (Helen Fisher) describes "dizzying feeling of intense romantic love" lasting 18 months to three years, but this narrow definition of passionate/obsessive love does not equal the broader category "romantic love" in the claim; Source 1 (APA) explicitly distinguishes passionate love (which drives shorter relationships) from romantic love (which persists in long-term relationships), and Source 3 (BBC Science Focus) directly refutes any set timeframe. The proponent's argument equivocates between "passionate love" and "romantic love" throughout, while the opponent correctly identifies that even Fisher's own data (46% still intensely in love after years) contradicts a typical three-year endpoint—the evidence logically refutes the claim as stated.
The claim omits critical distinctions between "passionate/obsessive love" (the intense, anxiety-driven phase) and "romantic love" (which can persist long-term): Source 1 (APA) explicitly distinguishes these as different phenomena, with passionate love driving shorter relationships while romantic love persists in long-term satisfied partnerships; Source 2/4 (Helen Fisher) reports the 3-year timeframe as what "psychologists maintain" but immediately contradicts it with brain-scan evidence showing 46% of long-married couples still "very intensely in love," and Source 3 (BBC Science Focus) flatly rejects any set duration. The claim conflates a temporary neurochemical honeymoon phase with romantic love itself, creating a misleading impression that romantic feelings have a fixed expiration date when the evidence shows they can endure indefinitely in healthy relationships—the opponent's rebuttal correctly identifies this framing distortion.
Adjudication Summary
All three panels converged on the same problem: the best sources (APA; BBC Science Focus) reject a set duration for romantic love and distinguish it from short-lived passionate infatuation. The only apparent support (Helen Fisher) is largely a report of a popular belief and is undercut by her own findings that many long-married couples still report intense romantic love. Thus, the claim fails on source support, logic, and context.
Consensus
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
Lucky claim checks from the library
- Mostly “Engine displacement is a key characteristic of an engine.”
- Misleading “All the world's bacteria stacked on top of each other would stretch for 10 billion light-years.”
- Misleading “The increasing use of deepfake technology poses a significant threat to democratic elections.”