Romantic relationships are something uniquely human — we form attachments and perceive compatibility in ways no other species does. So what explains the idiosyncratic preferences people have for one potential partner over another? And why have popular conceptions based on evolutionary psychology been wrong about when it comes to how humans choose their mates?

Psychology professor Paul Eastwick is the head of UC Davis’ Social-Personality Psychology program and the director of the Attraction and Relationships Research Lab. His book, Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection, challenges society’s core assumptions about attraction and compatibility, and presents new findings on the key to long-lasting commitment. He also co-hosts the podcast, Love Factually, with his colleague Eli Finkel, which explores the science of relationships through film.

Paul and Greg discuss how a distorted view of evolutionary psychology has perpetuated inaccurate ideas about dating and relationships, the effect online dating has had on intensifying competition and gender differences, and some key tips for building strong, long-lasting connections.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Episode Quotes:

Why dating apps can’t replace real romantic connections

39:57: The apps make you think like a romantic connection is right there. Like maybe it will be tonight. I would encourage people instead to think about what is it like just to hang out with other people and give the romantic possibilities some time to fall out of those networks a little bit more organically, a little bit more naturally. It takes a while. Like it can take quite a long time, especially like if we haven't been tending to our networks recently, but nevertheless, like this is at least an approach that people should be supplementing with their online dating if, if they're going to continue to use the apps.

Why are some couples happy and some are not?

22:46: Compatibility, how well two people fit together. That is probably explaining the lion’s share of why some couples are happy and some couples are not. Rather than this idea that like, oh, you got a good long-term partner, that's probably not the best way to think about it.

Compatibility is something couples build together

25:17: Compatibility can be many, many things. It can be like, we seem to get along and coordinate well. It could be about our easy flowing conversation, but it also could be about how we get through the day. And often that's what relationships are. It's an interdependent web of goals and preferences and values that two people negotiate together. And it's very hard for people to know how that negotiation is going to turn out until they really dig in and start to try to do it.

The evolutionary mismatch behind modern dating

45:44: What I think is deeply ironic is that some of the earliest evolutionary psychological findings happened to be the ones that reinforced the view that really fits this hierarchy idea, the mismatch component of it. So it's like, I love the idea of the evolutionary mismatch, thinking deeply about the environment in which we evolved. My problem is like a lot of the early ev psych ideas actually weren't doing that all that, all that well, that in reality, right? We evolved in small groups. You got to know a limited number of potential partners. There were going to be other people involved trying to shape, you know, who you spent time with and who you got to meet. It wasn't this dramatic marketplace of inequality.

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

Guest Profile:

Faculty Profile at UC Davis
Professional Website

Guest Work:

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

630. What Evolutionary Psychology Gets Wrong About Dating and Attraction with Paul Eastwick

unSILOed with Greg LaBlanc