Consistency and inconsistency among romantic partners over time.

Abstract

Theoretical perspectives on mating differentially emphasize whether (and why) romantic partner selection and maintenance processes derive from stable features of individuals (e.g., mate value, mate preferences, relationship aptitude) and their environments (e.g., social homogamy) rather than adventitious, dyad-specific, or unpredictable factors. The current article advances our understanding of this issue by assessing how people's actual romantic partners vary on constructs commonly assessed in evolutionary psychology (Study 1), sociology (Study 2), and close relationships (Study 3). Specifically, we calculated the extent to which the past and present partners of a focal person (i.e., the person who dated all of the partners) cluster on various measures. Study 1 investigated consistency in the observable qualities of the romantic partners, revealing substantial evidence for clustering on coder-rated attributes like attractiveness and masculinity. Study 2 examined qualities self-reported by romantic partners themselves in a demographically diverse sample and found modest evidence for clustering on attributes such as IQ and educational aspirations; however, clustering in this study was largely due to demographic stratification. Study 3 explored target-specific ratings by partners about the focal person and found little evidence for clustering: The ability to elicit high romantic desirability/sexual satisfaction ratings from partners was not a stable individual difference. The variables that affect mating may differ considerably in the extent to which they serve as stable versus unpredictable factors; thus, the fields of evolutionary psychology, sociology, and close relationships may reveal distinct depictions of mating because the constructs and assessment strategies in each differ along this underappreciated dimension. (PsycINFO Database Record

Relationship Trajectories: A Meta-Theoretical Framework and Theoretical Applications

“…Generally speaking, the density dimension could help to broaden the typical focus of close relationships researchers beyond an individual's current romantic relationship; very few studies have collected data on people's multiple romantic partnerships over time (for exceptions, see Eastwick, Harden, Shukusky, Morgan, & Joel, 2017;Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002). Examinations of concurrent romantic partnerships, as in the case of consensual nonmonogamy (Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017), are equally rare despite their cross-cultural and evolutionary relevance (Marlowe, 2003).…”

Consistency between individuals' past and current romantic partners' own reports of their personalities

“…that person's partners were used to examine the similarity between partner traits across relationships. In Eastwick et al's study (14), researchers examined the extent to which an individual's partners "cluster" (i.e., are more similar to one another than would be expected by chance) in terms of physical (e.g., attractiveness; study 1) and nonphysical (e.g., religiosity; study 2) traits. For each trait, intraclass correlations were calculated to capture the degree to which an individual's partners shared similarities.…”

“…If any instability does exist in the partner preference aspect of relationship initiation, it seems likely that it will lie in a domain that provides sensible attributions for why a previous relationship was not successful (e.g., what people have learned to avoid). Although attractiveness or religiosity (14) may sometimes be such a domain, a more common attribution for relationship failure comes from the suitability of a partner's personality. For example, people who are contemplating breakups commonly identify the partner's personality as an important reason that they are considering ending the relationship (15).…”

The Social Genome of Friends and Schoolmates in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health

“…A second hypothesis is that friends are more genetically similar because people tend to form friendships within environments that are socially stratified (e.g., living in the same community, attending the same school). We refer to this process, which has been observed as a cause of demographic similarity among spouses (39), as social structuring (40). When genetics influence the social environments people live in-e.g.…”