The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selective Versus Unselective Romantic Desire: Not All Reciprocity Is Created Equal
Abstract
It is well established in non-romantic contexts that people tend to like individuals who like them (Kenny, 1994); in fact, such reciprocity of liking emerges even when individuals first meet for only a few minutes (Chapdelaine, Kenny, & LaFontana, 1994). Textbooks and common psychological lore frequently extend these findings to romantic liking, but the validity of this extension is unclear. There is indeed evidence that, when asked to recall a falling-in-love experience, individuals often report learning of another’s affection shortly before developing passionate feelings in return (Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson, 1989). Nevertheless, such retrospections can be misleading. Moreover, the opposite hypothesis—that potential romantic partners who play “hard to get ” are desirable and individuals who demonstrate unconcealed romantic interest seem desperate and unappealing—is also likely (for discussion, see Walster, Walster, Piliavin, & Schmidt, 1973). One useful perspective on reciprocity derives from David Kenny’s Social Relations Model (Kenny, 1994; Kenny & Nasby, 1980). This model distinguishes between two independent components: Dyadic reciprocity, which refers to liking that is shared uniquely between two individuals, and generalized reciprocity, which refers to the tendency for people who generally
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Note that Eastwick et al. (2007) also found a weak at-event dyadic reciprocity correlation ( r 5 .14 for romantic desire and r 5 .20 for chemistry) in their speed-dating study. However, they did not report any postevent result.”
From What Leads to Romantic Attraction: Similarity, Reciprocity, Security, or Beauty? Evidence From a Speed‐Dating Study (2009) · cites this paper as Eastwick et al. (2007)
In the citing paper
“These findings are consistent with Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely's (2007) report of negative at-event general reciprocity correlations in their speed-dating study and also generally consistent with Kenny's (1994) meta-analyses suggesting that evidence for general reciprocity was mixed and weak.”
From What Leads to Romantic Attraction: Similarity, Reciprocity, Security, or Beauty? Evidence From a Speed‐Dating Study (2009) · cites this paper as Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely's (2007)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.1177/0265407589063001 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.83 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00013.x-i1 · DOI
- 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90050-6 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511499845 · DOI
- Kenny D.A., 1994, Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis
- 10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.249 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0034234 · DOI
Cited by
Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x · Cited by 246
FISMAN, R., IYENGAR, S. S., KAMENICA, E., & SIMONSON, I. (2008) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00465.x · Cited by 189
Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000069 · Cited by 125
Can Generative AI Chatbots Emulate Human Connection? A Relationship Science Perspective
Smith, M. G., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916251351306 · Cited by 88
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2558-12.2012 · Cited by 45
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht102 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-319
- ISSN
- 0956-7976
- 1467-9280
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.