week 3 - dating and interdependency

(essential reading) methods summary - Joel et la. (2017)

• used machine learning (random forest algorithm) to test how well people’s self-reported traits and preferences predict people’s tendencies to romantically desire others and to be desired by other people

• participants completed an online questionnaire assessing a variety of psychological constructs and then 1-2 weeks later they attended a speed dating event where they filled out an interaction questionnaire after each 4 min date

• used random forests to make models predicting 4 components of romantic desire: actor desire, partner desire, relationship desire (men → women), relationship desire (women → men)

(essential reading) results summary - Joel et al. (2017)

• resulting models were able to predict approx. 4-18% of the variance in actor desire

• and 7-27% of the variance in partner desire

• models were unable to account for any of the variance in how much men and women especially desired each of their matches beyond actor and partner variance

do people’s dating preferences predict who they want to date?

• Eastwick & Finkel (2008)

• speed dating event where people indicated which traits in a partner were most important to them and then rated each of their dates on the same characteristics

• found that there was no correlation between what people said they wanted before the event and who they wanted to date after the event

prevalence of online dating in the UK

• statisa (2025)

• 16.5% of the total UK population but approx. 60% of the people actually looking for a relationship

• online dating is mostly used by young people and, heterosexuals

pros of online dating (Pronk & Denisson, 2020)

• large dating pool

• less pressure (can meet and leave as strangers which is harder to do through mutual friends)

• less ambiguity/clear dating goals

• can filter preferences

cons of online dating (Pronk & Denisson, 2020)

• choice overload (become too critical)

• feeling less optimistic (the more profiles people swipe through the less matches they seem to get)

• disappointment (investment into online communication can lead to high expectations and then disappointment)

• burn out (from disappointing experiences)

how to navigate online dating (Pronk & Denisson, 2020)

• go an a dating ‘diet’ (only look at a limited number of profiles per day)

• manage expectations (don’t let wish lists be too restrictive)

• take it offline asap

• short/cheap dates (don’t spend too much time/money when sampling partners)

• work on yourself (work on becoming your own ideal partner)

non-verbal signed of romantic interest (Andersen et al., 2006)

• smiling

• eye contact

• synchrony

• mimicking

• less distance

• oriented towards each other

what are positive illusions? (Fisher et al., 2005)

• when we overlook our partners inevitable imperfections once we are in love

• hormones activate to trigger motivational processes to motivate us to stay with them

what is interdependence theory? (Thiabut & Kelley, 1959)

• key theory in science of relationship social exchange theory

• rewards (desirable relationship experiences) and costs (undesirable relationship experiences) determine satisfaction and commitment

• outcome = rewards - costs

influence of costs vs rewards

• pay more attention to costs (Baumeister et al., 2001)

• roughly x5 greater influence than rewards

• magic 5:1 ratio - need 5 positive expressions/experiences to counteract 1 negative experience/expression (Gottman & Levenson, 1992)

how to determine an individual’s satisfaction in a relationship?

• satisfaction = outcomes - CL

• CL = comparison level (personal standards, what we feel we deserve, expectations)

• people are satisfied when outcomes exceed CL, dissatisfied when outcomes are worse than CL

• this means people can be dissatisfied in highly rewarding relationships, and satisfied in costly relationships

high vs low comparison level

• high CL - expect relationships to be rewarding; low rewards are unacceptable/disappointing

• low CL - expect relationships to be troublesome; low rewards are acceptable/tolerable

sources of comparison level

• everyone’s CL is unique

• influenced by:

  • previous relationship experiences

  • observing others’ relationships

  • personality dispositions (e.g. attachment style, self-esteem)

what is the comparison level for alternatives?

• CL_alt

• what we realistically expect we could get in another relationship

• other alternatives that are currently available

• includes other partners or being single

• standard against which we decide to stay or leave

what is dependence?

• dependence = outcomes - CL_alt

• how free a person feels to leave the relationship (how strongly tied a person is to another)

• lowest level of outcome that we will tolerate from current partner

• explains why some stay in unsatisfying relationships

sources of comparison level alternatives

• presence of currently available partners who are realistic options

• previous relationship experiences

• observing others’ relationships

• structural/environmental factors

• personality dispositions

changes in couple satisfaction

• on average, satisfaction declines over time

• caused by:

  • changes in rewards and costs (e.g. decline in effort from partner)

  • changes in CL and CL_alt (e.g. shifts in own standards)

investment model of commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998)

• satisfaction (happiness in a relationship)

• alternatives (potential happiness in a different relationship/alone)

• investment (what have you put into the relationship that you would lose if it were to end)

• these factors predicts people’s commitment to a relationship and in turn whether they stay or leave

meta-analysis of investment model of commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003)

• across 52 studies, satisfaction was the strongest predictor of commitment but the investments and alternatives were also strong predictors

• commitment was then also a moderately good predictor of whether people stayed in their relationships

pros and cons of investment (Rusbult & Martz, 1995)

• high investments may enable couples to stick out tough times

• but they can also trap people in unhealthy relationships

• e.g. women with high investments and poor alternatives are more likely to return to abusive partners

why is commitment important?

commitment helps to protect and maintain relationships by:

• detracting from alternatives (Lydon & Karremans, 2015)

• being more accommodating (respond more constructively when dissatisfied) (Rusbult et al., 1991)

• making sacrifices (when conflicts of interest arise) (Righetti & Impett, 2017)