1. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Dating, Mate Selection, and Living Together Chapter 10

2. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Mate Selection

3. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Courtship Patterns Parent-Arranged Marriages Elders assumed to know what is best Rejection is diminished Family support Highly stable American Dating Style Individual choice based on love “Trial and error” High divorce rate

4. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Limitations to Dating Although it may lead to intimacy, may not lead to commitment Tendency to skip friendship Focuses on romantic attraction Love and romance enjoyed for recreation Physical relationship mistaken for love Takes time and energy Creates an artificial environment Harris, 1997

5. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Contemporary Dating “Hooking Up” Dating and Matchmaking services Internet matchmaking Dating among older adults: Healthier and more active lifestyles Growing population demographically Social acceptance

6. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Mate Selection Criteria & Issues Physical attractiveness “Attractiveness capital” Attractiveness ranked third behind intelligence and “being funny” (Gardyn, 2002) Mating gradient Tendency of women to marry men who are better educated or more successful than they are Sex ratio Number of men and women at any given age Endogamy Choosing a mate from within one’s group Exogamy Choosing a mate from outside one’s group

7. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Challenges for Ethnically Diverse Marriages Discrepancy in Values Acculturation differences Religious differences Racial challenges Sex and Sex Roles Differences in socioeconomic status Degree of cultural familiarity Extended family support McGoldrick, 1998

8. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Stages of Commitment in Dating Friend Casual dating Serious dating Steady dating Pre-engaged Engaged Cohabitating Married Each stage increases level of commitment and relationship challenges Low commitment High commitment Limited challenges More challenges

9. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Theories of Mate Selection Homogamy versus Complementarity Filter Theory Stimulus-Value-Role Theory Wheel Theory Exchange Theories

10. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Homogamy vs. Complementarity Homogamy: tendency to be attracted to and marry someone from same background e.g. ethnic, socioeconomic, religious background Complementarity needs theory: Attraction to someone who complements one’s personality—”opposites attract” Little empirical support

11. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Filter Theory Potential mates are narrowed through subsequent filters Propinquity First filter—choose those who are near us Endogamy Choose mates from similar social categories Attractiveness and Compatibility Filters Leads to balance sheet filter

12. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Filter Theory of Mate Selection

13. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Stimulus-Value-Role Theory Stimulus attracted by a stimulus Value complementarity becomes more important than physical attraction Role Complementarity extent to which can establish cooperative relationship Murstein, 1987

14. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Reiss’s Wheel Theory of Love Four components explain how love develops…and may unravel Rapport Self-revelation Mutual dependency Intimacy needs fulfillment Occur within socio-cultural context that influences role conceptions

15. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Reiss’s Wheel Theory of Love

16. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Conflict and Violence in Dating Relationships

17. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Conflict Issues in Dating Growing awareness of prevalence in dating relationships Common conflict areas: Jealousy Commitment differences

18. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Types of Conflict in Dating Stets, & Henderson, 1991

19. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Warning Signs of A Potential Batterer Jealousy Controlling behavior Isolation Blames others for problems Hypersensitivity Cruelty to animals Use force during arguments “Playful” use of force in sex Verbal abuse Sudden mood swings History of violence Threats of violence Breaking of objects

20. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Common Characteristics found in Victims or Recipients Frightened of partners temper Afraid to disagree Find apologizing to themselves or others for partners behavior Frightened by violence toward others Experienced physical threats Forced to have sex Afraid to say no to sex Forced to justify what they do Isolation Become secretive

21. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Cohabitation Two unrelated adults of the opposite sex sharing the same living quarters Rising rates in United States: Crosses racial, age and economic classes Becoming normative Associated with age and parents marital status For some, associated with marital difficulties

22. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Percentage of Cohabitation and Parent’s Marital Status Amato, & Booth, 1997

23. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Explanations for Cohabitation Rates Allows for greater time together Intimacy without commitment of marriage Economic advantages Learn about each other without divorce issues and challenges “Test” compatibility Engagement

24. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Types of Cohabiting Relationships Linus blanket Dependency and insecurity Emancipation Means of breaking from family of origin Convenience “giver” and “taker” Testing Testing ground for marriage

25. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Cohabiting and Marital Success Cohabitation prior to engagement associated with likelihood of divorce ~(Popenoe & Whitehead, 2004) Cohabitation after engagement not associated with likelihood of divorce ~(Skinner et al, 2004) Long term cohabitating couples (3+years) had more marital difficulties than short term cohabitating couples ~(Skinner et al, 2002)

26. © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Living Arrangements & Premarital Satisfaction Stewart & Olson, 1990