I saw this on BBC and it reminded me of scrimetime's post about an alternative theory of love based on 'micro-moments'.
Naturally, one of the striking things about that article was that it made salient the discrepancy between how people perceive love and how it supposedly actually happens. People have all sorts of personal and cultural ideas about what love is that are radically different to Fredrickson's thesis.
I think an over-emphasis on the extreme passion of young love is bad, because it doesn't last forever, and when it leaves couples are probably left standing in the dust. Being "in love with love" sounds clichéd, but given the extraordinary happiness it puts people in, it's hardly surprising that people actively seek out love, and sometimes get bored of partners.
Though I can't say I fully buy Frerickson's idea, it is interesting to think about how things would be if people looked at love in this way. One interesting consequence would be an altogether different view of how love works, in the sense that people would not make the mistake of thinking that love begets love. Or, to put it another way, people might be less likely to think that 'love' has a magical, a priori effect but that it's the other way around - relationships shape love more than vica versa. (Maybe. I'm no expert.)
I think an overly romantic idea of love probably makes a lot of people end relationships because of minor problems that make them think 'if this person was The One, this wouldn't happen' - at the same time, of course, people have to be careful not to be too accepting.
As an aside, I've read somewhere (it is lost in the mists of time) that being in love and doing cocaine are similar in their effect on the experience of pleasure; not only do they release pleasure-inducing chemicals such as dopamine, but they actually lower your pleasure threshold, so that everything is a bit more enjoyable. Essentially, when you're in love (or on cocaine), life is better.