Abstract
In a recent article, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) reported data to indicate that selectivity might be an important factor in determining romantic desire. Using a speed-dating paradigm, they found that individuals who, on average, rated potential dates as highly desirable were likely to receive lower average ratings from their dates, as evidenced by what they termed as negative generalized correlations. However, the dyadic correlations were positive, suggesting that, across pairs, desire was somewhat reciprocated. Eastwick et al. go as far as to claim that “... daters somehow broadcast their unselectivity... " (page 318), which we find to be a deeply dissatisfying explanation. We present an alternative and more principled approach in order to account for the disassociation between the generalized and dyadic correlations. We implemented a multi-agent model that allows an assessment of the relative contributions of selectivity and matching on ratings of attractiveness. The model suggests that the match between potential daters' attractiveness is the most important predictor of romantic desire. We believe that Eastwick et al's (2007) article is just another example of a dangerous pattern in social psychology research: spectacular claims are made on the flimsiest of evidence.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.