I've downvoted: it's not clear to me why an infodump of the first 10 pages of the "Science of relationships" blog (and their first page of facebook content) is useful as a discussion post here. Although you have edited it (to drop mention of studies that don't meet your standards) - what's missing is any other organisation or analysis of the content reported there.
The content area is certainly relevant for LW, I just don't see the value added in presenting this information in this format.
Please fix the formatting. No need to display the URLs in the text; it distracts from reading. Markdown syntax does not work in the article editor.
I think this may be deliberate:
These points are formatted to be inserted into a discussion level post (in response to this, or a bro-sciency relationship claim) for further discussion while keeping the links in-tact.
The idea is presumably that this is meant to be source material for copy-pasting into comments. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not endorsing this.
+1 for info, -1 for presentation.
bold, headings, table of contents, some kind of sorting into either relevance, usefulness or categories would go a long way. Also the same font would help.
If the secrets of the universe were written in messy handwriting on a rock on a deserted island I doubt we would read it. While formatting shouldn't be prohibitive, it is.
If the secrets of the universe were written in messy handwriting on a rock on a deserted island I doubt we would read it.
I doubt any serious LessWronger wouldn't go out of there way to read that.
But I get your point.
If the secrets of the universe were written in messy handwriting on a rock on a deserted island I doubt we would read it.
I doubt any serious LessWronger wouldn't go out of there way to read that.
Right below the messy handwriting is the instructions (also in messy handwriting) that describe that these are in fact the secrets of the universe...
Too long. Clearly LW needs a drop-down or something.
Personal question time: any practical difference between 'ask' question: "Would you go to the beach with me?" Versus 'assume' or 'command' statements: "We're going to the beach on Thursday". Would people comply more with the first statement or the second?
That depends on the relationship between the people involved, in particular the power balance. And, of course, on whether they belong to the Ask or to the Hint culture.
That depends on the relationship between the people involved
I should have mentioned this question was inspired by a conversation with a co-worker and their opinion about the way you should pursue relationships with the other sex. Which properly reflects some sort of larger dating advice conspiracy which tells you how to act.
Power balance isn't something to worry about but feel free to object.
Breaking them down into different cultures sounds okay, but is there some other general consensus?
Power balance isn't something to worry about but feel free to object.
Power matters because being powerful is attractive. Being able to accurately read the power dynamic of a social interaction also shows social intelligence.
In this case a mix of personal experience, reading academic research, nonacademic sources and theoretical reasoning.
If you don't find something convincing, I might give you a better answer if you explain why you don't find it convincing.
If you don't find something convincing, I might give you a better answer if you explain why you don't find it convincing.
Everything, please. I'm not sure how to approach this at all.
I am being literal.
It seems to me that LW population (on the average, of course) is not highly competent at dating and tends to have difficulties with it. Given this, looking for advice here may not be... rational :-)
However before you run to manosphere redpill people, make sure to check that your and their goals match.
Promote the interests of your family.
(Where "supposed to" means "able to, leading to evolutionary advantage, with the result that the quality in question becomes attractive to potential mates". I don't know whether this just-so story is actually right, but it seems very plausible.)
[EDITED to add: "promote the interests of" is intended to cover providing food and shelter and other useful resources, protection against attack, persuading others to treat the family well, etc.]
I don't have a good model of your mind, but let's start with basics.
It's a typical failure mode for nerds to think that being successful at dating is about being able to say the right lines. General there's no good track record that this works. There are PUA trainers who try to sell products based on that promise because there a market for that promise, but even those PUA trainers generally don't think that the principle works and usually try to actually provide products that do something different.
Humans have emotions. If you don't understand what emotions are or how to read what emotion another person is feeling, read Emotion Revealed by Paul Ekman. It tells you what all those fascial muscles do for each of his 7 main emotions.
Those emotions matter for what they do. In a romantic interaction the emotions of both parties matter. Emotions influence the way you communicate. It's okay that they do. You want to have an emotional state that leads to you saying attractive things.
Those main emotions that are easily readable on people faces aren't the only thing that people can feel. For romantic interactions "attraction" and "comfort" are to useful variables to think about. Attraction is basically when your pulse rises and you think that the person you are with causes your pulse to rise in a positive way. A physiology textbook told me that this a reason why drinking coffee makes a good date because the coffein raises the pulse, but I don't think that effect is significant enough to make it worthwhile to target it. Using power frequently does cause the pulse to rise.
You can also use evolutionary reasoning to see that it's benefitial for woman to value powerful mates and feel attraction in the presence of powerful mates.
However attraction isn't the only thing that matter in romantic interactions. Comfort also matters a great deal. Comfort is required to open up. Without comfort a situation with a high pulse can be seen as threatening and unsafe. Woman have a strong need to feel safe both physically and emotionally. Most man care more about approval then safety. While the biggest fear of a man is that a woman rejects him, the biggest fear of the woman might be that the man rapes her.
Those desires are more complex than two scalars. Humans tell themselves complex stories about their live and want to live in accordance with those stories. It's very useful to respect the agency of other people and don't model them as an automate that says yes or no when you ask them for something where the answer depends on the way you are asking.
Are you sure its not a question inspired by my reddit post on this exact question, lol?
When making such a statement you should add whether the claim is about correlation or causation.
[Relationships help us flourish](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/2/20/stronger-relationships-make-for-a-stronger-you.html). The [science is interesting](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/15/infographic-the-10-most-interesting-dating-studies-of-2014.html) e.g. men can more accurtely detect flirting than women - twice as well, in fact; And, cuddling after sex significantly improves sexual and relationship satisfaction (IMO, it's the best part!); And multiracial daters are the most desirable; Plus, Men but not women see a friendly (responsive) strateger as more attractive (feminine/masculine). [Relationships can help neurotic personalities stabilise](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/05/a-healthy-romantic-relationship-can-stabilize-neurotic-people/) too. Think your grannies wisdom has got your back? Opposites don't attract: 'Although there are competing common sense beliefs, the existing research overwhelmingly supports the idea that similarity leads to attraction and better quality relationships.1' - www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/4/14/do-opposites-attract.html. That's why I'm doing this very informal 'literature review'...
The following notes are designed to be useful without having to follow the links* I read through somewhere like 10 pages of the Science of Relationship blog, and the first page of their facebook page and clicked on any interesting links. Then, I disregarded that which isn’t directly supported by the study, and those studies with very small sample size, or that didn’t replicate. The remainder are reported here:
These points are formatted to be inserted into a discussion level post (in response to this, or a bro-sciency relationship claim) for further discussion while keeping the links in-tact.
[For the 144 speed daters, Vacharkulksemsuk says, "expansiveness (open body language) nearly doubles chances of getting a yes [to see each other again.]"]( http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/30/472250698/to-catch-someone-on-tinder-stretch-your-arms-wide)
[there’s enough dopamine triggered by sexual activity to actually make a person fall in love with their partner](http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/simple-carefree-casual-sex-as-if)
[Virgins are stigmatised]( http://www.glamour.com/story/stigma-against-virgins)
[Avoidants are moralise against privacy violations, the anxious moralise against potential infidelity]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/18/moral-boundaries-in-relationships-relationship-matters-podca.html)
[non symbolic gift giving is bad for relationships]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/17/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-the-science-of-gift-giving.html)
[surprise gifts are bad, gifts specifically on a partner’s wish list are good]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/19/this-holiday-season-get-your-romantic-partner-exactly-what-h.html)
[Principle 1: Give Experiences, Not Stuff, Principle 2: Give the Gift of Anticipation, Principle 3: Focus on Giving Quantity + 'we’ve got you covered. In previous articles, some of the best gifts for your relationship are ones that announce your relationship to the world, erotic photos, or simply exactly what your partner asked for']( www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/17/tis-the-season-5-principles-for-spending-your-money-wisely-d.html)
Don’t think you’re relationship material? [ two studies which found that relationships where there was self-expansion and self-pruning increased one’s willingness to be accommodating toward a partner, forgive a partner, and sacrifice for a partner. In contrast, self-adulteration and self-contraction increases thoughts about breaking up, attention to mate alternatives, and seeking revenge against a partner.](www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/11/how-relationships-change-us-over-time-relationship-matters-p.html)
[we may have an intuitive ability to sense other’s cheating ways based on a few minutes from a video](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/9/can-you-spot-the-cheater-it-should-only-take-you-a-few-minut.html)
Are they looking for lust or love? [When deciding whether a given photo portrayed love, male and female participants focused on the faces depicted in the photos, but very little attention was paid to the individuals’ and couples’ bodies. In contrast, when looking for signs of lust, both males and females generally focused more on the bodies in the photos. The researchers suggest this work could inform interventions for therapists who want to identify how couple members view each other.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/2/love-or-lust-follow-the-eyes.html)
What’s marriage material? [For example, in one study researchers asked women what they were looking for in a partner.3 The women indicated that they were looking for someone who was financially stable, willing to commit, and emotionally secure. Unfortunately, the women in the study felt like they knew very few people in their community who fit the bill. As a result, they said that they would rather be on their own than make a mistake and marry the wrong person. Getting married only to later get divorced is a fear that many people share](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/25/four-things-you-need-to-consider-when-deciding-to-get-marrie.html)
[three types of social influence predict adolescent sexual behavior: peer pressure, thinking your friends approve (injunctive norms)and thinking your friends are doing it (descriptive norms)](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/20/social-influence-and-teen-sex-what-matters-and-what-doesnt.html_) >The research team3 combined the results from 58 independent studies conducted between 1980 and 2012, including almost 70,000 adolescents from 24 countries, using a statistical technique known as meta-analysis...Of the three types of social influence, descriptive norms had the largest association with adolescent sexual behavior. Injunctive norms were the next best predictor of teenage sex, and peer pressure was the weakest. So normalness > normativity > normalisation
[So the next time your beloved shares a personal success, remember that a heartfelt “congratulations!” goes a long way towards fanning those warm feelings that sustain relationship happiness.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/18/are-you-listening-cold-shouldering-a-partners-successes-leav.html)
[In terms of general personality traits (e.g., openness to new experiences, neuroticism), online and offline daters are not significantly different from each other.1](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/7/the-truth-behind-online-dating-how-it-compares-to-offline-da.html)
[Two Is Stronger Than One: Shared Chocolate eating is More Intense ](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/3/two-is-stronger-than-one-shared-experiences-are-more-intense.html). The article generalises to shared experiences, but that’s insubstantiated.
[ A classic study from the 60s on in-person dating found that a date’s hot body/face predicted romantic attraction more than personality traits, intelligence, popularity/charisma, mental health, and self-esteem.2More recent “speed-dating” research shows similar results; beauty mattered more than political attitudes, preferred hobbies, values/ethics, and even attachment security.3 Perhaps unsurprisingly, some results from OKCupid’s data crunching show similar findings.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/31/the-truth-behind-online-dating-what-motivates-users-and-comp.html)
>Online dating exists as a business to turn a profit. It sounds like a cynical perspective to take, but the online dating website/app companies aren’t 100% enthusiastic about you finding a successful relationship, because if you do, then they lose a customer.
[It isn’t surprising that a person’s self-esteem may affect how she or he approaches flirting. When the risk of being rejected is high, men with high self-esteem use more direct techniques than those with low self-esteem, perhaps because they’re less concerned with how being shot down may affect them. However, men with low self-esteem are bolder and use more obvious approaches than men with high self-esteem when the target is clearly interested and rejection risk is low. This may be because encountering a sure thing is one of the only contexts in which a guy with low self-esteem feels safe making advances, so he has to make it count.]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/27/a-flirters-dilemma-subtlety-vs-success.html)
>When rejection risk is low for women, they’re more direct regardless of their self-esteem. Women traditionally initiate relationships less often than men, so when the chance arises perhaps women decide to throw caution to the wind and just go for it. Of course it is also possible that women are using the technique that they know works better when men try to flirt with them.
>When it comes to flirting technique the research is pretty clear: while subtlety is more likely to protect the flirter’s self-esteem, if you really want to get your message across, direct is best. A study asked college students about the most effective ways to show interest in someone. Both men and women agreed that subtle flirting was less likely to get the job done, and that the best approach would be a direct “Do you want to go to dinner with me?”
[any reliable associations that the researchers found were in the opposite direction from what marketing would suggest. For example, people who had spent between $2000-4000 on an engagement ring had significantly higher rates of divorce compared to people who spent between $500 and $2000. Similarly, couples who spent less than $1000 on their weddings had significantly lower rates of divorce even compared to people who spent between $5000 and $10,000. People who reported having spent more than $20,000 on their wedding tended to have higher divorce rates compared to those who spent less. Furthermore, any cases where spending more was associated with better relationship outcomes were explained by demographic factors like having a high income. In other words, it wasn’t that spending more made things better. Other factors were responsible.It gets worse. The researchers found that high levels of wedding-related spending—for example, having a wedding that cost more than $20,000—was associated with stress over wedding-related debt. The researchers posit that this stress may help to account for some of the negative associations between high spending and marital outcomes. Couples spend money on their wedding that they don’t have, which later puts a strain on their marriage when they have trouble paying off the resulting debt.These results suggest that if anything, high levels of wedding-related spending have a negative effect on marriage, not a positive one. Of course, this study is cross-sectional, meaning that the researchers did not follow people over time. It would be great to see a longitudinal study where newlyweds first report on their engagement ring and wedding spending, and are then followed over time to see who splits up.](www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/17/diamonds-arent-forever-expensive-rings-and-weddings-may-lead.html)
[If you ask people who identify as straight, but then have sex with someone else of the same gender, this experience does not necessarily make them “bisexual,” but it does make them sexually fluid.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/13/debunking-myths-about-sexual-fluidity.html) >In addition, romantic/emotional bonding is fundamentally different from sexual desire (love and sex are governed by different parts of the brain and different hormones in the body). In the words of Lisa Diamond, “one can ‘fall in love’ without experiencing sexual desire.” 4 The processes of affectional bonding (or romantic love) are not oriented specifically toward other-gender or same-gender partners.
[Researchers have found through more than two-dozen studies that relationship dissatisfaction accounts for 44% of a depressed partner's symptoms1 (such as loss of interest and motivation, hopelessness, changes in appetite and sleep). Shockingly or not, partners in distressed relationships experience a 10-fold increase in risk of depression]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/7/28/what-does-it-matter-why-depression-is-so-important-in-troubl.html)
[Of the Big 5 personality traits, having a conscientious spouse was associated with important benefits for job success. Specifically, participants with more conscientious partners reported higher incomes, higher job satisfaction, and they were more likely to have been promoted during the study. A partner’s conscientiousness had more of an impact on earnings in single-income couples than in dual-income couples, perhaps because the partner’s supporting role is magnified. These benefits all occurred above and beyond any benefits of one’s own personality. That is, regardless of your own personality, having a conscientious partner relates to job success.According to study author Brittany Solomon, “…while previous research has shown that people desire romantic partners high in agreeableness and low in neuroticism, our findings suggest that people should also desire highly conscientious partners. While having a conscientious partner could seem like a recipe for a rigid and lackluster lifestyle, the findings indicate that having an especially conscientious spouse is likely to lead to both relationship and occupational prosperity.”](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/2/for-richer-how-your-spouse-influences-your-job-success.html)
So, you’ll probably automatically select an agreeable and less neurotic partner. But, go out of your way to get a conscienscious partner.
[More recently, researchers have advanced a Social Surrogacy Hypothesis that claims parasocial relationships (e.g. tv characters, pickup gurus) help to fend off real life rejection.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/8/29/parasocial-relationships-i-get-by-with-a-little-help-from-my.html). The author implies actual friends are better for that anyhow.
[Those who read more men’s magazines reported a lower likelihood of requiring consent before having sex; those who read more women’s magazines reported a greater likelihood to refuse unwanted sex. We can’t infer that reading men’s magazines causes these troublesome opinions about sexual consent; however, it does warrant paying greater attention to the messages that men’s magazines send and about those who are inclined to read them.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/8/27/no-means-no-reading-mens-and-womens-magazines-linked-to-sexu.html)
[It may be intuitive that when two people enjoy the same thing (similarity), they can enjoy it together. However, similarity itself did not predict satisfaction. On the other hand, when one person likes receiving what the other likes giving (complementarity), then everyone is be more satisfied. What may be less obvious, however, is the impact that the overestimating these things can have on sexual satisfaction.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/4/sexual-satisfaction-do-you-and-your-partner-have-to-be-the-s.html)
[Since when is human sexuality supposed to be simple and straight-forward? If psychologists claimed that people’s levels of introversion or neuroticism (two of the “Big Five” personality traits) fluctuate over time, that would perhaps seem intuitively obvious and uncontroversial (of course people can be shy in childhood and grow up to be more outgoing). But because we’re talking about sexual variables, some may assume they are (or should be) completely stable over time. I’m speculating here, but perhaps political liberals want to believe that sexuality is stable across the lifespan, thus giving credence to the idea that since people cannot change or control their sexual preferences (they are simply “born that way”), it would be a rallying cry for equitable treatment (equal rights) based on gender and sexual orientation. It’s worth mentioning that this research on sexual fluidity has also been abused and misused by anti-gay activists in favor of “conversion therapy” (see more here), but this a complete misrepresentation of the scientific research. While I whole-heartedly agree that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be treated equally under the law (or otherwise), the idea that people’s sexuality does not fluctuate across their lives is scientifically inaccurate. Dismissing all of the supporting research does not do anyone any favors. I’m not sure why some people may believe that the theory of sexual fluidity is sexist, or at all insidious. But if folks are upset at the notion of sexual fluidity, then we should have a constructive, sex-positive conversation about specifically how it is damaging (if it is at all) and then how to fix it.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/13/debunking-myths-about-sexual-fluidity.html)
[These findings are one of the first to establish a causal link between stress and relationship behaviors. Specifically, they show how individuals’ acute stress experiences undermine relationships by making those individuals less likely to compliment one’s partner and more likely to pay attention to other potential partners.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/8/two-key-ways-that-stress-undermines-your-relationship.html). Keep your partner's stress low to keep your partner happy and your esteem in tact!
[ Good-looking men tend to be more interested in one-night stands and brief affairs, and owning an expensive electronic status-symbol might help them to attract partners. So we might expect to see handsome men first in line for the next iPhone.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/6/his-new-iphone-may-signal-hes-single-and-looking-to-hook-up.html)
[Results of the study indicate that men and women reported a similar number of lifetime “loves” and similar occurrences of falling in love first. However, compared to women, men reported physical attractiveness was more important and were more likely to mistakenly overestimate sexual interest from another person. Men also reported more occurrences of “love at first sight” and were more likely to fall in love without a partner reciprocating that feeling. Men who were more likely to overestimate females’ sexual interest fell in love more frequently, while women did not show a similar pattern. Men who place more importance on physical attractiveness fell in love first in their relationship more often when they thought they were with a highly attractive partner. Finally, women with a higher reported sex drive also reported falling in love more frequently. Overall, men seem to fall in love easier than women, but why? It may be that men fall in love easier because they think being in love is important to women. Thus,men fall in love is a way to show female partners that they are committed to the relationship. The fact that men were more likely to fall in love when they over estimated sexual interest suggests that a man may be more likely to have interest in a women once he believes she has sexual interest in him. That is, the way to a man’s heart is through his…well you know. Of course it is also possible that men who fall in love more easily are also inclined to overestimate sexual interest as a way of validating his own feelings.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/19/who-falls-in-love-the-easiest.html) >Though there may be true differences between men and women, it is also possible that this study tells us more about who falls in “lust” more easily. The researchers definition of love focuses heavily on the more passionate aspects of love such as powerful emotions, attraction, excitement, and intense desire. It is possible that a study focusing on more companionate or friendship-based love could yield a different pattern of results.
[the famous Czech writer Milan Kundera mused, “[it is] one of life’s great secrets: women don’t look for handsome men, they look for men with beautiful women.”1](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/12/1/i-want-what-shes-having-women-copy-other-womens-mate-choices.html). Women who thought other women regarded their partner to be attractive were more likely to experience an orgasm. What is interesting here is that this relationship holds even after other variables (eg. partner attractiveness) are statistically controlled for. In other words, even when all men are treated as being equally attractive, the ones that are perceived as being liked by other women are more likely to give their partner an orgasm. The authors were able to demonstrate that perception of other women’s assessment of partner’s attractiveness uniquely predicted likelihood of orgasm.
[The vast majority of teens do no meet romantic partners online...Overall, 64% of teens have never been in a romantic relationship (leaving about 36% of teens who have been). Of those who have been in a relationship, only 8% met a partner online.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/11/11/lets-talk-about-tech-and-teen-relationships.html)
>Why do teens use social media in their relationship?
The majority of teens (59%) report using it to feel more connected or closer to their partners. They also report that it gives them a chance to show their partners they care (47%) and to feel emotionally closer (44%). While those are positive sentiments for the relationships, 27% report that social media leads to feelings of jealousy and relationship uncertainty.
>How much do teens want to communicate with their relationship partners?
>The vast majority (85%) expect at least daily or more frequent communication, and 11% expect hourly communication from their partner. When asked what their partner expected from them, the numbers were nearly the same.
[Attachment style describes the degree to which we perceive our relationships (usually romantic partnerships) as being secure, capable of meeting our needs, and a source of comfort in times of distress.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/27/anxious-avoidant-duos-walking-on-thin-ice-in-relationships-a.html)
>It’s easy to see how an anxious-avoidant pairing could snowball into relationship dysfunction: in the face of an attachment threat, such as an argument or confrontation, anxious individuals are likely to pursue their attachment figures in an attempt to reestablish feelings of closeness, just as Anna did when she ventured out into the blizzard to chase after Elsa. When the avoidant partner responds by pulling away – as Elsa did when she told Anna her intention of never returning home – the anxious person’s fears are reinforced and the relationship is likely to suffer (i.e., Anna feels abandoned yet clings to her hope of reconnecting with her sister; Elsa feels overwhelmed and inadvertently strikes her sister with a nearly-fatal blast of ice).
>If you recognize a troublesome anxious-avoidant dynamic in your relationship, know that it’s possible to “unfreeze” bad patterns. After all, when Anna and Elsa finally empathized with each other and stopped letting their fears control them, they experienced self-growth and reconnection. Simply knowing your own attachment orientation can help you to understand your strengths and vulnerabilities in relationships. Likewise, noticing how your partner responds to relationship stressors can help both of you develop ways of communicating that fulfill each others’ attachment needs and reinforce relationship security over time. If Anna and Elsa can melt the ice and rekindle their bond, there’s hope for a happy ending for us all.
[“Parents Report More Positive Emotions Than Non-Parents; Age, Income, Marital Status Are Factors”](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/19/parents-are-less-happy-fact-or-fiction.html)
[reciprocity in disclosure facilitates more liking than engaging in only one of the two disclosing roles. This is where our measurement of interaction enjoyment, perceptions of being liked by the other, and perceived responsiveness came into play. We saw that all of these variables uniquely explained the difference in liking we saw between the two disclosure conditions. For example, because people found that engaging in reciprocal disclosure was more fun than non-reciprocal disclosure, they liked each other more.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/8/let-me-get-a-turn-dont-do-all-the-talking-in-a-conversation.html)
[when conversation flows easily between strangers, people tend to feel bonded with one another and this flow can indicate the beginning of a meaningful relationship. Likewise, when conversations are disrupted or otherwise difficult, this lack of flow can make people who have just met feel disconnected. But what about long-term relationships? Is a disruption in conversation as detrimental to couples as it can be for strangers? Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have tackled this question,1 and their work suggests that a conversational lull can actually benefit your romantic relationship - IF you feel already mentally connected to your partner](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/9/8/silence-is-golden-how-staying-hush-may-benefit-your-relation.html)
>For people who reported being secure and strongly connected to their partner, having a disrupted conversation (with the one second delay) actually resulted in feeling more validated and in agreement with their partners during the conversation compared to those experiencing an undisrupted conversation.
>This group of researchers report similar results in other close non-romantic pairs (e.g., friendships and family). It seems that the closer you feel to someone, silence or other interruptions in conversation can be beneficial for your relationship due to feelings of agreement that tend to accompany the disruptions. In relationships, sometimes silence is golden.
[anxiously attached partners are more likely to Facebook stalk their partners in an attempt to alleviate anxiety and (hopefully) confirm their partners’ undying devotion. Such findings suggest that individuals use the internet as a means to cope with their own desires to learn more about another.](http://ww.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/9/1/when-and-why-we-isnoop-on-others.html)
[when relationship partners idealized each other more, over time the individuals in the relationship actually changed to become more like their partner’s ideal.6 In other words, if you think long enough about your partner as fulfilling your ideals of what a romantic partner should be, sooner or later it may no longer be much of an illusion; they may actually be more like your ideal partner.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/11/15/and-for-my-next-trick-the-magical-effects-of-positive-illusi.html)
[we all come to view and appreciate our bodies in the context of our intimate relationships. In other words, how we feel about our bodies impacts our relationships and our relationships impact our feelings about our bodies.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/15/my-body-your-body-our-relationship-5-links-between-our-body.html_
>Fourth, working with our partners to achieve health, fitness, and our “best body” can be advantageous to all involved. Working with our partners should not involve denigrating or shaming them into eating well or spending more time on the treadmill. Research suggests that encouragement and support are likely to go a lot further. And, why not make it a team effort? Joining forces may mean skipping the ice cream aisle at the grocery store if you think your partner should eat less ice cream. Eat off of smaller plates to help control your portion
[We find out how our rational minds go all screwy when we're faced with attractive rivals or sexual competitors. Three new experiments show how sexual rivalry primes men to be cruel, self-centred, and prone to risk.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/7/catching-up-with-the-psychology-of-attractiveness-podcast.html)
Reddit’s The Red Pill (TRP) has a cannon theory called ‘alpha fucks and beta bucks’. It’s empirically false: [A study of 2,757 participants from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth examined how spouses’ relative earnings (i.e., who makes more money) influences likelihood of cheating. Results indicate absolute income did not predict infidelity, so simply earning more money did not make a person more likely to cheat. However, being the breadwinner (i.e., earning more than a spouse) was associated with men being more likely to cheat; the opposite was true for women-- they were less likely to cheat when they made more money than their husbands. Being economically dependent on a spouse (i.e., one spouse makes a lot more than the other) was associated with increased likelihood of cheating in both men and women, though the effect was stronger in men.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/2/is-it-better-to-be-the-breadwinner-implications-for-infideli.html)
[what you want and what you get may be two different things. Study 1 shows that everyone prefers a potential partner with high mate value. No surprise there. However, consistent with the matching hypothesis, only those with similarly high mate values sought out the high value potential partners. Importantly, this was self-imposed behavior. Study 1 can’t say whether the lower value initiators would be successful if they had tried to “date up.” Rather, the study suggests people don't generally try. Study 2 shows, that at least when it comes to online dating, this is what people try to do. They try to “date up” by pursuing others who are more attractive and essentially out of their league. It is likely that the low stakes environment of online dating where advances don’t result in outward or obvious rejection, but rather a much easier to handle lack of response. As a result, a “shotgun” approach where you contact lots of more attractive people is a more viable strategy that is less threatening to your ego. And really, you can’t blame a guy or gal for trying. But if you’re going for a higher success rate, Study 2 suggests that you’re better off sticking to others in your own league. Thus, the matching hypothesis operates on the more practical level of what type of partner you actually get, and not in terms of what people want. All in all this makes perfect sense. In an ideal world you may really want the best highest paying job there is. Yet, because of all of the other applicants, some of whom are more qualified than you, you end up matched to a job that most closely matches your skills and abilities. So if you ever find yourself in that room with other singles or online dating, while you may want to “date up” by pairing up with the most attractive partners, unless you are also one of the most attractive you’ll have better luck playing within your league.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/22/is-it-better-to-date-up-or-play-within-your-own-league.html)
[Individuals in committed romantic relationships tend to downplay the attractiveness of potential partners. This derogation of alternatives, as researchers refer to it, helps the relationship’s long-term future by decreasing the likelihood that partners will be tempted by others.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/2/see-no-evil-smell-no-evil-possible-alternative-partners.html)
[Now, if you’re getting married and want to potentially avoid any post-wedding blues, what should you do? First, talk to your partner about marriage, and be open and honest about your expectations. And if you have doubts now, you might consider why that is and take the time to figure things out before proceeding. Second, all relationships are better when they have the support and involvement of (nonproblematic) others. Celebrate your marriage, but do so with your friends and family.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/5/27/something-old-something-new-something-borrowed-something-blu.html)
[Why do people cheat? It’s a question we get (and address) here at ScienceOfRelationship.com regularly. Our coverage of the topic generally reflects the state of research on the topic, which focuses on proximal predictors of infidelity --- or science jargon for those things about individuals or relationships that directly increase the likelihood somebody will cheat, such as low commitment, more attractive alternatives, lack of impulse control, narcissism, and so on.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/5/19/cheating-its-a-family-affair.html)
>Students who had cheated on a partner were twice as likely to have had a parent who cheated compared to those students who had not cheated on a partner (44% vs. 22%). Interestingly, having a cheating parent didn’t affect the way students viewed cheating -- they were no more accepting of the idea of cheating in general (at least that’s what they told the researchers)-- so it’s not entirely clear exactly how having a parent cheat increases the odds that somebody may one day do the same. It’s most likely that knowing your mom or dad was a cheater somehow influences one of the many proximal predictors of cheating (e.g., feelings of commitment to partners), but future work is needed to clarify the chain of events that links your parents’ cheating ways (or not) to your own.
[80% of people had experienced a desire discrepancy with their partner in the past month; in other study, couples reported some degree of desire discrepancy on 5 out of 7 days a week. And we know from past research that disagreements related to sex can be very difficult to resolve successfully](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/4/27/what-happens-when-your-partner-wants-to-do-it-and-youre-not.html)
>Across all three studies we found that a person’s motivation to meet their partner’s sexual needs, termed sexual communal strength4 (also discussed here and here) plays an important role (a) in the decision to engage in sex in these situations and (b) in the maintenance of both partners’ sexual and relationship satisfaction.
>People who are high in sexual communal strength—those who are motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs without the expectation of immediate reciprocation—were less concerned with the negatives of having sex -- such as feeling tired the next day. Instead, these communal people were more focused on the benefits to their partner of engaging in sex, such as making their partner feel loved and desired. In turn, these motivations led the communal people to be more likely to engage in sex with their partner in these situations and also led to both partners feeling more satisfied with their sex life and relationship. This means that even though they engaged in sex to meet their partner’s needs, they reaped important benefits for themselves. In fact, communal people maintained feelings of satisfaction even in these desire discrepant situations.
>Our findings suggest that if one partner is interested in having sex, but the other partner isn’t in the mood, being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs can benefit both partners. It is very important, however, that this motivation to meet a partner’s needs comes from a place of agency, where people feel that they are able to meet their partner’s needs, and a delight in seeing ones partner happy. Situations that involve coercion or where a person ignores their own needs in the process (termed unmitigated communion) do not lead to the same benefits. In fact, an important part of communal relationships is that both partners are attuned to and responsive to each other’s needs. At times this may also mean understanding and accepting a partner’s need to not to engage in sex.
[Greater self-perceived attractiveness increased romantic self-confidence, which produced higher self-esteem. It seems looking good makes you more confident about your ability to attract and maintain relationships, which bodes well for your self-esteem.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/4/6/your-self-perceived-relationship-desirability-influences-you.html)
[People high in extraversion typically posted about social activities and everyday life, motivated by using Facebook to communicate and connect Low self-esteem was positively correlated with posting about romantic relationships Conscientiousness was positively associated with child-related updates (a topic often associated with a high number of “likes”) Those high in narcissism used Facebook to seek validation and typically posted about their accomplishments and diet/exercise routine (and reportedly received a greater number of “likes” and comments about their accomplishments)](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/18/what-are-you-sharing-on-facebook-and-what-does-it-say-about.html)
[In our second study, we asked half of our participants to read about the benefits of engaging in approach-motivated sex and we then instructed them to try and focus on approach-motivated reasons for having sex over the next week. That is, we asked them to think about the positive outcomes that they might expect to gain from having sex with their partner. One week later we followed up with them and asked them to report on their sexual experiences and relationship over the past week. People who focused on approach-motivated reasons for having sex (compared to people who were not given any information or instructions about approach-motivated sex), reported having sex more to pursue positive relationship outcomes and ultimately reported more satisfying sexual experiences during that week and felt happier with their overall relationship.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2016/4/22/why-you-have-sex-matters-for-your-desire-and-satisfaction.html)
[A majority of men and women admit feeling somewhat attracted to an opposite-sex friend at some point, but men report such feelings significantly more often than women do.3 Men are also more likely to want female friends for the purpose of casual sex, and are more likely to befriend women they find physically attractive.4 Even if they are in a committed relationship, men admit that feelings of physical attraction and sexual desire are important for initiating cross-sex friendships (physical attractiveness matters less to women in choosing their male friends); men are also more likely to end the friendship if they are rejected or denied sex.5 In contrast, women report wanting male friends more for social and physical protection (a “buffer” from the potentially creepy/dangerous men in the dating pool), although women also report wanting this kind of protection from their female friends as well. Like men, women will end their friendships with men if these needs aren’t satisfied.4,5](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/10/12/sexual-strategies-in-cross-sex-friendships.html)
>Interestingly, women are often blind to the fact that their male friends are looking for sex to be part of the friendship—women underestimate the degree to which their male friends are attracted to them. In contrast, men overestimate the degree to which their female friends are attracted to them. This is part of what creates the confusion and ambiguity in cross-sex friendships. Men and women are often on different wavelengths in terms of their perceived romantic attraction.5,6 It’s also part of the reason why men are so protective and even violent when faced with a rival7
[In both studies, the researchers found that partners who had greater executive control sacrificed more. They searched longer for the difference between the identical pictures and they typed out more letter strings. Partners who reported more commitment on the surveys also sacrificed more, but executive control was more strongly related to their sacrificing behaviors. Overall, these studies showed that commitment to a partner isn’t always enough on its own to promote sacrifice, especially when the sacrifice requires considerable time and effort. While sometimes it seems like we can effortlessly and automatically meet our partners’ needs, there are other times when we have to exert some extra mental effort to get past our own self-serving desires. So, even if it might take a little extra work to abandon your Netflix cue, the effort you put in to helping your partner could pay off big time for you both.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/30/id-do-anything-i-can-for-you-sacrifice-requires-more-than-ju.html)
So, smarter partners are better partners!
[being around an attractive woman can impair his cognitive ability..… on average women are more sexually satisfied than men....women find humor attractive perhaps because it shows his cognitive sophistication and intelligence....…women are typically more picky about who they date than men, but that this may have more to do with dating norms (i.e., men are expected to approach women and ask them out rather than vice versa) than with innate differences between men and women.…women were more in love actually initiated sex less often, perhaps as an invitation for seduction...](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/27/10-essential-relationship-lessons-that-men-should-learn-abou.html)
So, if you want sex, avoid getting fallen in love with!
[In comparison to the control conditions, savoring a specific past positive moment led to greater positive emotion in participants after the relational stressor. But, there’s an important catch. The savoring task appears to work mostly for those who are happy in their long distance relationship; the results mostly disappear when people are generally unhappy with their relationships.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/26/relational-savoring-in-long-distance-relationships-relations.html)
[While this study doesn’t conclusively show that self-expansion causes relationship quality, there is strong evidence from other studies4,5 that does support the idea that self-expansion improves relationship quality. In short, engaging in new, interesting and challenging activities with your partner can have a positive impact on your relationship over the long-haul.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/11/self-expansion-a-key-for-lasting-love.html)
[You need to show lots of active enthusiasm for your partner’s interests and activities5 (even if personally you find them dull or boring). You need to help them feel safe and protected when they experience distress.6 You need to show lots of gratitude and appreciation for your partner. 7,8 You need to put aside your own selfish goals for the good of the relationship (scientists call this pro-relationship motivation),9 or to resist responding with negativity when your partner makes a mistake10 (and everyone makes mistakes from time to time). These are all variables that are associated with long-term relationship health, and all of it is “work,” which can be challenging for many people even if they deeply love their partners. If you label these behaviors as something different, that’s totally fine, but when all is said and done, they’re still work. If it feels really good to make that kind of effort, then it simply means your choices are paying off.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/11/3/ben-affleck-was-right-relationships-are-hard-work-and-thats.html)
Based on that string of evidence, I think I’ll shift my goal from relationships, to … uhh… casual...
And with that, I am left with a list of the articles I have yet to extract conclusions as they relate to individual, evidence-based relationship decisions. So, here’s what I missed:
How Having Couple Friends Helps You Feel the Love - | - Science of Relationships
The Big Bang Theory Tests “The Intimacy Acceleration” Procedure - | - Science of Relationships
When Friends' "Help" Hurts - | - Science of Relationships
Afraid to Ask Someone Out? Read This. - | - Science of Relationships
How Do I Get (More) Intimate With A Woman? - | - Science of Relationships
The Art of Pickup: Misogyny in Action - | - Science of Relationships
When Are Pick Up Lines Most Effective? - | - Science of Relationships
Want to Increase Your Happiness? Science says… - | - Science of Relationships
How Sex Changes Across Stages in Relationships - | - Science of Relationships
Does Parenting Make People Happy or Miserable? - | - Science of Relationships
Stronger Relationships Make For A Stronger You - | - Science of Relationships
Got a Cold? Think Hugs, Not Drugs - | - Science of Relationships
Feeling Cold? How About a Romance Movie? - | - Science of Relationships
Give the Gift of Simultaneous Orgasm This Valentine’s Day - | - Science of Relationships
Valentine’s Day Sex: Extra-Special or Not-to-Be Expected? - | - Science of Relationships
"Survey Says": The Valentine's Day Proposal? - | - Science of Relationships
Should You Go See the Fifty Shades of Grey Movie for Valentine’s Day? - | - Science of Relationships
Survey Says: What Do Men Want for Valentine's Day? - | - Science of Relationships
A Feminist Valentine - | - Science of Relationships
Self-Esteem Affects When People Flirt - | - Science of Relationships
2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #3 - Feeling Like a Doormat - | - Science of Relationships
2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #9 - How Relationship Events Impact You - | - Science of Relationships
“Clear for Takeoff”: Turbulence in Romantic Relationships - | - Science of Relationships
Putting Your Best Foot Forward: How Insecure People Attract Dates - | - Science of Relationships
“Give me a minute”...Before I Behave Badly - | - Science of Relationships
First, Best, Worst, Forbidden, and Regretted: Kisses and Kissing - | - Science of Relationships
Ideal and Actual Marriage Proposals: We Asked, You Answered - | - Science of Relationships
The Pornography Effect on Men and Their Romantic Relationships - | - Science of Relationships
Mythbusting Online Dating - | - Science of Relationships
7 Ways to Use Science to Help Your Partner Meet His or Her Goals - | - Science of Relationships
Face It, Recover the Self to Recover from Break-Up - | - Science of Relationships
I (Don’t) Want 2 B w/ U: Texting, Sexting, and Avoidant Attachment - | - Science of Relationships
Do "Birds of a Feather Go Together" or "Opposites Attract"? - | - Science of Relationships
Two of a Kind?: What Facebook Profile Similarity Says About Couples - | - Science of Relationships
The Ghost of Relationships Past - | - Science of Relationships
All Women Lie - | - Science of Relationships
Creating Closeness: In the Lab and In Real Life - | - Science of Relationships
Who’s Hot, Who’s Not? Time Will Tell - | - Science of Relationships
Break Up Kindly With Compassionate Love - | - Science of Relationships
Infographic: The 10 Most Interesting Dating Studies of 2014 - | - Science of Relationships
Take Your Relationship to the Movies - | - Science of Relationships
An Attitude of Gratitude as a Relationship Rx - | - Science of Relationships
Getting Serious About Cuddling - | - Science of Relationships
Are You Over It?
What Kind of Sexual Personality Do You Have? - | - Science of Relationships
Are “Rebound Relationships” Bad? Relationship Matters Podcast 36 - | - Science of Relationships
The "Awesomeness Factor" on Freakonomics Radio - | - Science of Relationships
How Love Usually Goes... - | - Science of Relationships
Hope this was useful because a day of dedicated work went into this:)
**Misc unsorted notes**
>Some time ago, I wrote a post about how single people can readily call to mind all of the traits and features that they are looking for in a mate, yet these preferences seem to go right out the window when people make real-life dating decisions. Research consistently shows that what people say they want in a partner has virtually no bearing on who they actually choose to date in a laboratory setting.1,2 And yet, once people are in established relationships, they are happier with those relationships when their partners match their ideals.2,3,4 In other words, we all know what we want in a romantic partner, but we often fail to choose dating partners based on those preferences. This is despite the fact that choosing romantic partners who possess the traits that we prefer would probably make us happier in the long run. Clearly, the human mate selection process and our decisions about our partners have room for improvement.
So consciously prespecify the threshold traits you want in a romantic partner:
For me, that’s..erm that’s harder than the researchers suggest
*
6. Don’t interfere unnecessarily10
>Sometimes your partner may not want or need your help. Providing help that isn’t needed or wanted can be viewed as threatening to the self and may make people feel that their partner doesn’t have faith in them11 or can make them feel indebted to the giver.12
>7. Be subtle
>People sometimes respond negatively to obvious efforts to help, so providing help in a way that is indirect and less noticeable can be effective. When the recipient doesn’t realize they’ve been helped, it avoids the potential negative consequences of feeling controlled, indebted, or threatened. In one study, law students studying for the bar examination felt more anxious on days on which they believed their romantic partners had provided emotional support, and less anxious on days when they believed the partners had not provided any emotional support, but their romantic partners claimed that they had.13
Don't provide help unless your partner knows you already have faith in them
*
>This research provides insight into why some people continue to be lonely: they think that they are expressing more interest in others than they really are; that their nervousness is more obvious than it really is; and that others will take their nerves into account (when, in reality, others interpret their behavior as indicating disinterest). Furthermore, people fail to consider the fact that the person with whom they’re interacting might also be worried about rejection and that the other person might also be holding back. So the next time you find yourself talking to someone you’re interested in and you are worried about being rejected, remember that your interest might not be very obvious and that the other person might be worried about rejection, too.
*
>Consider another example: from Bob’s perspective, if he asks Anne what she’s doing next weekend, then he feels like he’s conveying his romantic interest in a direct manner; but if she asks him what he’s doing next weekend, then to him that could mean anything and doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s romantically interested in him. In other words, Bob is giving different explanations for his own behavior in comparison to Anne’s behavior, even though Anne’s behaving in the exact same way as him.
*
Initiative wins:
>People in general tend to think that they are more likely to be nervous than others when initiating a relationship and that they are more likely than others to not pursue a relationship with someone due to fear of rejection.2 This tendency for people to think that they’re the only ones who fear rejection can affect their behavior and how they interpret the behavior of others.
>When people are unsure about whether or not another person is romantically interested, and they’re nervous about it, they might do things like decide to wait for the other person to make the first move2 or withdraw (e.g., stop talking) with the hopes that the other person will pursue them.
*
>So Bob plays it cool, thinking that his interest is obvious to Anne, and waits to see if Anne will ask him out. Anne, who is interested in Bob, is also worried about being rejected, and so she also plays it cool and waits to see if Bob will ask her out. They are both holding back because they each fear rejection, but because neither of them make a move, they both assume each is disinterested in the other. They also both think their worries about rejection and interest in dating are obvious. Alas
*
>Is your script for your future relationship the same as hers? Does her culture heavily emphasize a mate’s earning capacity and ambition? Does your cultural emphasize good looks and attractiveness? Research shows that women from countries where females have the least ability to gain power on their own through jobs and education are more likely to seek out a mate with material resources.3 This might be the source of some of the “materialistic” vibe you are getting from her, and it sounds like this is something that bothers you. You may want to explore these expectations very carefully together to make sure you are on the same page regarding each other’s hopes for your future.
*
>Overconfidence is particularly a problem in relation to commonly held misconceptions. Here one might expect that overconfidence always interferes with learning from our mistakes but this is not always the case.
**>It seems that we are more likely to remember an error if we were initially confident we were correct, compared to errors resulting from a guess.**
Overconfidence is best
*
>Alternatively (and perhaps more upliftingly), those who remain in longer relationships with insecurely attached partners may have more faith in their partners’ potential to improve over time (that is, they have strong “growth” beliefs7), which might allow them to persevere in the relationship and make an effort to help their partners learn to enjoy higher quality relationship experiences.
*
>TL;DR - Worried about rejection & holding back? Your romantic intentions might not be obvious, people probably aren’t thinking about your anxiety, & others might be holding back their romantic interest