Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:50:34.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Evolution of Romantic Relationships: Adaptive Challenges and Relationship Cognition in Emerging Adulthood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

By
Jon K. Maner  and
Saul L. Miller
Edited by
Frank D. Fincham  and
Ming Cui
Frank D. Fincham
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Ming Cui
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

Forming and maintaining a successful romantic relationship can be a challenge. Without question, attaining love and romance can enrich your life and can help satisfy the need for positive, long-term social bonds. Yet, you can have trouble finding the “right” partner or any partner at all, and even if you find a suitable partner, so many things can go wrong. Your satisfaction can wane, and your level of commitment can go with it. You can be tempted by infidelity, or your partner may fall prey to similar temptations. These challenges can be particularly troublesome among emerging adults, who tend to have relatively little experience with forming and maintaining a successful long-term relationship. Indeed, emerging adults in many ways must feel their way through a new romantic relationship with relatively little knowledge or background to guide them.

Given the potential difficulties inherent in forming and maintaining a close romantic relationship, it is surprising that so many relationships among young adults are successful. However, their relationship successes are perhaps less surprising when one considers that human beings have been succeeding at long-term romantic relationships for thousands of generations. All of our ancestors were successful at mating (at least insofar as they were able to reproduce), and we have inherited from them a very useful suite of psychological processes that help us solve important relationship problems. In this sense all people are built to succeed at romantic relationships.

Type
Chapter
Information
Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood , pp. 169 - 189
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (2001). The legacy of parents' marital discord: Consequences for children's marital quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 627–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of social class. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baresh, D. P., & Lipton, J. E. (2001). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals and people. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Guerin, S., & Maner, J. K. (2005). Concentrating on beauty: Sexual selection and sociospatial memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1643–1652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betzig, L. (1985). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burriss, R. P., & Little, A. C. (2006). Effects of partner conception risk phase on male perception of dominance in faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50, 41–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, J. A., Schipper, L. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Morbid jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskenazi, B., Wyrobek, A. J., Sloter, E., Kidd, S. A., Moore, L., Young, S., & Moore, D. (2003). The association of age and semen quality in men. Human Reproduction, 18, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Marriage in the new millennium: Is there a place for social cognition in marital research? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958). The genetical theory of natural selection (2nd ed.) New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Frank, R. H. (2001). Cooperation through emotional commitment. In Nesse, R. M. (Ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment, (pp. 57–76). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzaga, G. C., Haselton, M. G., Smurda, J., Davies, M., & Poore, J. C. (2008). Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselton, M., & Buss, D. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women's desires and men's mate-guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 509–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., Butner, J., Li, N. P., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2002). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Mapping the domains of the new interactionist paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, A. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., & Gailliot, M. T. (2008). Selective attention to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 488–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can't take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C., & Neuberg, S. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T., Hofer, B., et al. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Rouby, D. A., & Gailliot, M. T. (2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 74–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. C., & Fishkin, S. A. (1997). On the dynamics of human pair-bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for-human-environmental interface. In Simpson, J. A. & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, R. J. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Sex differences in response to sexual versus emotional infidelity: The moderating role of individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabini, J., & Green, . (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across different genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1375–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (2005). Ekman's basic emotions: Why not love and jealousy? Cognition and Emotion, 19, 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy. The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1913–1917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schützwohl, A. (2008). The disengagement of attentive resources from task-irrelevant cues to sexual and emotional infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schützwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D., & Mayaux, M. J. (1982). Female fecundity as a function of age: Results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 404–406.Google ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). When opportunity knocks: Bottom-up priming of goals by means and its effects on self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S.Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P. et al. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partner's costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences in reported preferences in university students. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). Competitiveness, risk-taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×