Cited by 108Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAttachment and Relationship DynamicsAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies?

Conroy-Beam, Daniel, Goetz, Cari D., Buss, David M.·2016·Evolution and Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M.
Affiliations
  • California State University, San Bernardino (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Evolution and Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
440-448
ISSN
1090-5138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2341613155
Cited by
107
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Evolution and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
romantic relationship satisfaction, mate retention, trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review