The science of soulmates: is there someone out there exactly right for you?

In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato, in his dialogue Symposium, offered a captivating myth. He imagined primeval humans as powerful, spherical beings with four arms, four legs, and two faces. So potent were these beings that Zeus, fearing their strength, cleaved them in two. Ever since, each half has roamed the earth, consumed by a yearning to find its missing other, believing that only through this reunion can they achieve true completeness and wholeness. This poetic origin story laid the groundwork for the modern soulmate concept, promising a singular, fated connection.

The Middle Ages saw this longing refashioned into "courtly love." Inspired by troubadours and Arthurian legends, this fierce, often forbidden devotion, epitomized by Lancelot’s unyielding passion for Guinevere, became a central theme. Knights would prove their worth through acts of self-sacrifice and unwavering loyalty for a beloved they might never openly declare or possess, transforming love into an almost spiritual quest for an ideal. By the Renaissance, literary giants like Shakespeare introduced "star-crossed lovers," individuals bound by an overwhelming, cosmic connection yet tragically thwarted by external forces – family feuds, cruel fortune, or an unyielding fate. Their love stories, like Romeo and Juliet’s, were written by the universe itself, but often barred from a happy terrestrial ending, emphasizing a powerful, yet often doomed, preordained bond.

More recently, Hollywood blockbusters and romance novels have further cemented these fairy-tale narratives, selling us the dream of effortless, perfect love that sweeps us off our feet. But what does contemporary science, from social psychology to biology and mathematics, reveal about the existence of soulmates? Is there truly a unique, predestined individual waiting for each of us?

How We Fall for ‘The One’

Professor Viren Swami, a social psychologist at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) in Cambridge, has meticulously traced our modern European understanding of romantic love back to medieval Europe. He points to those very stories of Camelot, Lancelot, Guinevere, and the chivalric code of the Knights of the Round Table as foundational. "These stories first pushed the idea that you should choose one other individual as your companion and that companion is for life," Swami explains. He contrasts this with earlier periods in much of Europe where love was often fluid, non-exclusive, and not necessarily tied to sexual partnership.

Over centuries, as societies underwent profound transformations like industrialization, people were uprooted from their tight-knit agricultural communities. This societal upheaval led to a sense of alienation, tearing apart familiar attachments and leaving individuals feeling disconnected. "They start looking for one other individual to save them, to save them from the wretchedness of their lives," Swami posits, suggesting that the heightened emphasis on a singular, perfect partner emerged as a psychological balm for societal fragmentation.

Today, dating apps, while seemingly offering boundless choice, paradoxically embody this quest for "The One" through algorithms. Swami critically labels this "relation-shopping," arguing that it often becomes a "soulless experience." Users sift through countless profiles, seeking an ideal match, only to often feel exhausted and unfulfilled. "You’re shopping for a partner… going through possibly dozens of people on the dating app until you get to a point where you go… I need to stop," he observes, highlighting the potential for commodification in the search for an ostensibly unique connection.

The One vs. A Soulmate

Jason Carroll, Professor of Marriage and Family Studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, acknowledges the deep-seated human desire for "The One." "We are attachment-based creatures," he states. "We desire that bond." Yet, in his lectures, Carroll advises students to decouple the idea of a soulmate from their longing for "The One." This appears contradictory, but for Carroll, the distinction lies between destiny and deliberate effort.

"A soulmate is just simply found. It’s already pre-made," he elaborates. "But a one and only is something two people carve out together over years of adapting, apologising, and occasionally gritting their teeth." This crucial differentiation shifts the focus from passive discovery to active co-creation, suggesting that profound relationships are built, not merely stumbled upon.

The Soulmate Trap

Carroll’s perspective is grounded in extensive research, notably his work on "The Soulmate Trap." This research distinguishes between "destiny beliefs" – the notion that a truly right relationship should feel effortless and perpetually harmonious – and "growth beliefs," which emphasize the active role partners play in nurturing and improving their relationship.

A widely cited series of studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s, led by Professor C. Raymond Knee at the University of Houston, provided empirical support for this distinction. Researchers found that individuals who held strong "destiny beliefs" were significantly more likely to question their commitment after experiencing conflict. In contrast, those with a more "growth-minded" view tended to maintain higher levels of commitment, even when facing disagreements.

Carroll argues that people with growth-based views still aspire to something special, but they realistically anticipate challenges. "They ask… what can they do to make their relationship better, have improvement and have growth?" he explains. The "soulmate trap," in his view, is not the romance itself, but the unrealistic expectation that love should never be difficult. He contends that the most "soulful" aspect of a long-term relationship is not an initial cinematic spark, but the privileged position of having "front-row seats not only for each other’s strengths, but… [their] challenges and weaknesses." He calls this "a pretty sacred space," emphasizing the intimacy built through shared vulnerability and acceptance.

When love is treated solely as fate, Carroll warns, people become less inclined to undertake the often unglamorous, consistent work required to sustain it. This becomes particularly problematic when a relationship encounters its first serious obstacle. "The first time there’s any type of struggle, the immediate thought is, ‘well, I thought you were my soulmate. But maybe you’re not, because soulmates aren’t supposed to deal with things’," he says. This mindset fosters fragility, whereas true enduring love understands that "if relationships are going to go long term, it’s never just going to be a downhill run."

Spark or Trauma? Unpacking Chemistry

Vicki Pavitt, a London-based love coach, frequently assists individuals who believed they had found their soulmate, only to confront emotional manipulation, inconsistency, and pervasive anxiety. She challenges the interpretation of intense initial chemistry. "When there is a lot of chemistry and the spark, I think that can sometimes be about opening old unhealthy patterns, like old wounds," she suggests. A person who exhibits "hot and cold" behavior might generate intense longing and excitement, creating a cycle where the anxiety of their inconsistency fuels a desperate desire for their affection, rather than a healthy connection.

Pavitt posits that what feels like destiny or an undeniable pull might, in some cases, be the nervous system recognizing and attempting to resolve past hurts – a phenomenon therapists refer to as a trauma bond. This bond can masquerade as love, magnetically drawing individuals into unhealthy dynamics not because they are a perfect match, but because the patterns are deeply familiar.

A compelling study by Canadian psychologists Donald Dutton and Susan Painter, published in 1993, supports this. They followed 75 women who had left abusive partners, measuring their attachment to their exes and correlating it with their relationship experiences. They discovered that the strongest emotional bonds were not found in women who had experienced consistent abuse, but rather in those whose partners alternated unpredictably between charm and cruelty. This intermittent reinforcement created a powerful, addictive cycle.

Dutton and Painter argued that this "trauma bond" helps explain why people can feel irresistibly drawn back to relationships that are objectively detrimental to them. The unpredictable mix of danger and affection, though damaging, becomes a familiar, almost magnetic, force. Pavitt’s coaching aims to help clients discern this crucial difference: "It’s about discerning whether the chemistry you feel is showing me this person’s compatible with me or if it is a familiar sense of anxiety." She explicitly avoids the term "soulmates," preferring to emphasize agency: "I don’t personally believe that there is one person for everybody… but I do believe that we become ‘The One’ for someone."

The Nuances of Real Chemistry

If the idea of a singular soulmate seems unromantic, the complex biology of attraction offers further insights. Hormonal contraceptives, for instance, can subtly influence how partners perceive and feel about each other. Research suggests that pills, by flattening the natural fluctuations of fertility throughout the menstrual cycle, can dampen shifts in attraction that typically occur, potentially altering initial mate choice.

One significant study of 365 heterosexual couples found that women’s sexual satisfaction was higher when their current contraceptive status matched their status when they first chose their partner. This hints that changes in pill use can subtly modify how a partner is experienced over time. While these effects are often small, they underscore the complex biochemical interplay in attraction, making it harder to argue for a single, pre-ordained match immune to such influences. Beyond hormonal changes, other biological factors like pheromones, major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes (influencing immune system compatibility), facial symmetry, and even voice pitch all play a role in the intricate dance of initial attraction, further complicating the notion of a simple, fated connection.

The One But Not The Only: A Mathematical Perspective

Psychology and biology offer a nuanced view, but mathematics presents an intriguing alternative to "The One." Dr. Greg Leo, an economist at Vanderbilt University, has developed a compatibility algorithm that suggests we don’t just have "a One," but potentially "many Ones."

In his "Matching Soulmates" paper, Leo simulates a dating pool where thousands of digitally created individuals rank each other. His algorithm identifies "first-order soulmates" – pairs who mutually choose each other in a stable matching. These pairs are then removed, and the algorithm is run again with the remaining individuals to find "second-order soulmates," and so on. His simulations revealed that while it was exceedingly rare for individuals to be each other’s mutual first picks, many people found their "ones" among their second or third choices. In this scenario, a couple is considered "happy" if each partner ranks the other near the top of their list, and neither could find another person that both they and their current partner would prefer more. This number-crunching perspective suggests that there are numerous viable partners for each individual, challenging the exclusive nature of the traditional "soulmate" concept.

Sweat the Small Stuff: The Art of Co-Creation

So, if "The One" is co-created rather than found, how do couples actively build this unique bond? Professor Jacqui Gabb, Professor of Sociology and Intimacy at The Open University, explored this in her "Enduring Love" project, published in Sociology in 2015. This comprehensive study surveyed approximately 5,000 people and then followed 50 couples in meticulous detail, utilizing statistics, diaries, interviews, and "emotion maps" of their home lives.

When asked what made them feel appreciated, participants rarely mentioned grand romantic gestures like sunset proposals or surprise trips to Paris. Instead, the overwhelming consensus pointed to "surprise gifts, thoughtful gestures and the kindness of a cup of tea in bed." Examples included warming the car on a cold morning, picking wildflowers and placing them in a vase, or sharing a private smile across a crowded room. Quantitatively, these "everyday attentive acts" proved far more impactful than expensive presents or elaborate nights out. In her survey, 22% of mothers and 20% of childless women cited such small gestures as one of the top two things that made them feel valued.

Gabb’s research concluded that relationship satisfaction wasn’t primarily about financial stability or overt romance, but about "intimate couple knowledge" and its consistent, thoughtful expression in daily life. One young couple’s diary entry from the project, by Sumaira, vividly illustrates this. She describes her partner coming home, the dinner she cooked, a hug in the hallway, and them eating together at the table. "It’s perfect," she writes. "Just us and food. What more could I want?" The entry continues with a spontaneous dance, a walk where she feels scared in the dark, and a photo her partner cherishes. It paints a picture not of a fairy tale with glass slippers, but of grounded, real-life love with wellies. Gabb emphasizes that woven through these sweet moments are the everyday pressures of money worries, family obligations, and managing a history of depression – challenges the couple navigates together. "The soulmate feeling here doesn’t float above life; it is made, inch by inch, by life, in the way the pair meet those pressures," she concludes.

The Romance of Reality

Ultimately, the science of love doesn’t diminish romance; rather, it offers a more grounded, resilient path for it to flourish, through both good times and bad. As Jason Carroll articulates, "I’m pretty comfortable with the aspiration to be in a unique special relationship as long as we remember it needs to be created." Vicki Pavitt concurs, suggesting that "it’s fine, helpful, even to have faith that your person is out there, so long as you know there are many people that you could form a really great connection with and stop expecting anyone to be perfect."

The scientific journey into soulmates reveals a profound paradox. The individuals who ultimately cultivate relationships that feel uniquely "meant to be" are often precisely those who ceased passively waiting for fate to deliver. Instead, they actively turned towards the imperfect, real person in front of them and, through consistent effort, understanding, and shared growth, effectively said: "Shall we make something truly special of this?" This active choice, rather than a mystical decree, is where the deepest and most enduring connections are forged.