Advertisement

Classical Theories of Mate Choice and the Relational Deficit in the Study of Relationship Formation

  • Andreas Schmitz
Chapter

Abstract

The analytical emphasis on the ‘individual’ within research on online dating markets, as outlined so far, is not a phenomenon unique to this specific subject area. It is also constitutive for a great deal of traditional and current research into the sociology of mating. Although there is no single coherent research program on mating processes in the social sciences, the individualistic paradigm also prevails in empirical research on offline partner markets, above all in its quantitative variation. This section will elaborate on the central components of the approach, constitutive for research on empirical mating processes both on and offline. The way these theoretical foundations are used and integrated by modern individualist mate choice researchers will then be illustrated. This dominant approach in the field of partner market research in contemporary empirical sociology can be characterized as a combination of theories of preference, choice, and social exchange, of several different market-related considerations, and drawing on further theoretical inspirations. Collectively, it constitutes a research paradigm which will henceforth be referred to as “mating as agency in structure”, or MAS. Subsequently, MAS will be examined with regard to its potential to include structure into the different models of individual mate choice. It will be then shown that individualistic mate choice research tries to overcome the restrictions inherent to methodological individualism and rational choice. This, in sum, will indicate the need for a relational notion of ‘structure’ in research on mating processes.

Keywords

Mate Choice Rational Choice Mating Process Mating Preference Potential Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adloff, F., & Wacquant, L. (2015). For a sociology of flesh and blood: Questions to Loïc Wacquant. In F. Adloff, K. Gerund, & D. Kaldewey (Eds.), Revealing tacit knowledge: Embodiment and explication (pp. 185–196). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Alpern, S., & Reyniers, D. (2005). Strategic mating with common preferences. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 237(4), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, S. H., & Hansen, L. G. (2010). The rise and fall of divorce – A sociological adjustment of Becker’s model of the marriage market. FOI Working Paper. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/files/153/6480754.pdf.
  4. Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, A. J. (2005). Double click: Romance and commitment among couples online. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage. In T. W. Schultz (Ed.), Economics of the family: Marriage, children, and human (pp. 299–344). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G. S. (1996). Accounting for tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Belot, M., & Francesconi, M. (2007). Can anyone be “the” one? field evidence on dating behavior. ISER Working Paper, 17.Google Scholar
  12. Bergström, M. (2011). Casual dating online. Sexual norms and practices on French heterosexual dating sites. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 291–318.Google Scholar
  13. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (1st ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Blau, P. M. (1989). Reciprocity and imbalance. A citation classic commentary on exchange and power in social-life by Blau, P. M., Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, 25, 16.Google Scholar
  16. Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The american occupational structure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Blau, P. M., Beeker, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces, 62(3), 585–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blossfeld, H.-P. (1996). Macro-sociology, rational choice theory, and time. A theoretical perspective on the empirical analysis of social processes. European Sociological Review, 12(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Drobnic, S. (2001). Theoretical perspectives on couples’ careers. In H.-P. Blossfeld & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Careers of couples in contemporary societies. From male breadwinner to dual earner families (pp. 16–50). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Müller, R. (1996). Sozialstrukturanalyse, Rational Choice Theorie und die Rolle der Zeit: Ein Versuch zur dynamischen Integration zweier Theorieperspektiven. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 382–410.Google Scholar
  22. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (1997). Das Bildungssystem als Heiratsmarkt: Eine Längsschnittanalyse der Wahl von Heiratspartnern im Lebenslauf (Sonderforschungsbereich 186, Vol. 43). Bremen: University of Bremen.Google Scholar
  23. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (European studies of population, Vol. 12). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bokek-Cohen, Y., Peres, Y., & Kanazawa, S. (2007). Rational choice and evolutionary psychology as explanations for mate selectivity. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(2), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  28. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Bozon, M. (1991). Women and the age gap between spouses: An accepted domination? Population. An English Selection, 3, 113–148.Google Scholar
  30. Bozon, M., & Heran, F. (1989). Finding a spouse: A survey of how french couples meet. Population. An English Selection, 44(1), 91–121.Google Scholar
  31. Brehm, S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. (2002). Intimate relationships (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
  34. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Butler-Smith, P., Cameron, S., & Collins, A. (1998). Gender differences in mate search effort: An exploratory economic analysis of personal advertisements. Applied Economics, 30(10), 1277–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D. T., & Warntjes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks, W. (1977). Courtship American style: Newspaper ads. The Family Coordinator, 26(1), 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Carol, S. (2016). Like will to like? Partner choice among muslim migrants and natives in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(2), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Çelikakso, A., Nekby, L., & Rashid, S. (2010). Assortative mating by ethnic background and education among individuals with an immigrant background in Sweden. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 22(1), 65–88.Google Scholar
  40. Chiswick, B. R., & Houseworth, C. (2011). Ethnic intermarriage among immigrants: Human capital and assortative mating. Review of Economics of the Household, 9(2), 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology, 91(6), 1309–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Collins, R. (1990). Stratification, emotional energy, and the transient emotions. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas of the sociology of emotion (pp. 27–67). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  44. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Corijn, M. (2003). Who marries whom in Flamish Belgium? In H.-P. Blossfeld & A. Timm (Eds.), Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (pp. 37–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Crossley, N. (2010). Towards relational sociology. International library of sociology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. de Campos, S. L., Otta, E., & de Oliviera Siqueira, J. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. de Munck, V. C. (1998). Romantic love and sexual behavior: Perspectives from the social sciences. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. de Singly, F. (1987). Théorie critique de l’homogamie. L’Année sociologique, 37, 181–205.Google Scholar
  50. Donati, P. (2010). Relational sociology: A new paradigm for the social sciences. Ontological explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Edwards, J. (1969). Familial behavior as social exchange. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31(3), 518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Elder, G. (1969). Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 34(4), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Elster, J. (1986). Rational choice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  56. England, P., & Farkas, G. (1986). Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic, and demographic view. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  57. Esser, H. (1993). Soziologie. Allgemeine Grundlagen. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  58. Esser, H. (1999). Soziologie: Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  59. Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Feld, S. L. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ferguson, T. (1989). Who solved the secretary problem? Statistical Science, 4(3), 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Flap, H. (2002). No man is an island: The research programme of a social capital theory. In O. Favereau & E. Lazega (Eds.), New horizons in institutional and evolutionary economics. Conventions and structures in economic organization. Markets, networks and hierarchies (pp. 29–59). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  63. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Freese, J. (2009). Preferences and the explanation of social behavior. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of analytic sociology (pp. 94–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1996). Marriage paradoxes. Rationality and Society, 8(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Gardner, M. (1960). Mathematical games. Scientific American, 202(1), 150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  68. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  69. González-Ferrer, A. (2006). Who do immigrants marry? Partner choice among single immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review, 22(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Gustavsson, L., Johnsson, J., & Uller, T. (2008). Mixed support for sexual selection theories of mate preferences in the Swedish population. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hakim, C. (2010). Erotic capital. European Sociological Review, 26(5), 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hakim, C. (2011). Erotic capital: The power of attraction in the bedroom and the boardroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  73. Haller, M. (1981). Marriage, women, and social stratification: A theoretical critique. American Journal of Sociology, 86(4), 766–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let’s make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hassebrauck, M. (1990). Wer sucht wen? Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung von Heirats- und Bekanntschaftsanzeigen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 21(2), 101–122.Google Scholar
  76. Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hedström, P., & Bearman, P. S. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Heiner, R. A. (1983). The origin of predictable behavior. The American Economic Review, 73(4), 560–590.Google Scholar
  79. Hertog, E. (2012). Hedged bets: Preferences for future marriage partners’ earning power in contemporary Japan. Unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
  80. Hirschmann, E. C. (1987). People as products: Analysis of a complex marketing exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2005). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/assa/2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf
  82. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hodgson, G. M. (2009). Choice, habit and evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.Google Scholar
  85. Homans, P., & Aden, L. (1968). The dialogue between theology and psychology (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. Huckfeld, R. R. (1983). Social contexts, social networks, and urban neighborhoods: Environmental constraints on friendship choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Huinink, J., & Feldhaus, M. (2009). Family research from the life course perspective. International Sociology, 24(3), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Illouz, E. (2012). Why love hurts. A sociological explanation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  90. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 496–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79(4), 1289–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Kara, A. (2009). Implications of multiple preferences for a deconstructive critique and a reconstructive revision of economic theory. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 11(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
  95. Katz, A. M., & Hill, R. (1958). Residential propinquity and marital selection: A review of theory, method, and fact. Marriage and Family Living, 20(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Kaupp, P. (1968). Das Heiratsinserat im sozialen Wandel. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
  97. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Kincaid, H. (1995). Philosophical foundations of the social sciences: Analyzing controversies in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Klein, T. (1996). Der Altersunterschied zwischen Ehepartnern. Ein neues Analysemodell. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 25(5), 346–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Klein, T. (2011). Durch Dick und Dünn. Zum Einfluss von Partnerschaft und Partnermarkt auf das Körpergewicht. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 63, 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Kok, J. (2007). Principles and prospects of the life course paradigm. In Virtual knowledge studio for the humanities and social sciences. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-demographie-historique-2007-1-page-203.htm
  102. Kroneberg, C. (2006). The definition of the situation and variable rationality: The model of frame selection as a general theory of action (Sonderforschungsbereich 504, No. 06–05). Mannheim: University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
  103. Kroneberg, C., & Kalter, F. (2012). Rational choice theory and empirical research: Methodological and theoretical contributions in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters? Personal Relationships, 14, 623–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Lewin, K., & Cartwright, D. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (1st ed.). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  108. Lewis, S. K., & Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). Educational assortative mating across marriage markets: Non-Hispanic whites in the United States. Demography, 37(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. Burr, I. Reiss, R. Hill, & F. Nye (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: General theories and theoretical orientations (pp. 268–294). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  110. Lichbach, M. (2003). Is rational choice theory all of social science? Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R. N., & Hayward, M. D. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16(4), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lindenberg, S. (2001). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 635–668). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  113. Luhmann, N. (2011). Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Baecker, D (Ed.). Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag.Google Scholar
  114. Mäenpää, E. (2015). Socio-economic homogamy and its effects on the stability of cohabiting unions. In The Population Research Institute Väestöliitto (Ed.), Finnish Yearbook of Population (pp. 32–34). Turku.Google Scholar
  115. Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. McPherson, M. (1983). Ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48, 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. McPherson, J. M., & Ranger-Moore, J. R. (1991). Evolution on a dancing landscape: Organizations and networks in dynamic Blau space. Social Forces, 70(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Münch, R. (1987). The interpenetration of microinteraction and macrostructures in a complex and contingent instituional order. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch, & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 319–337). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  122. Münch, R. (2002). Soziologische Theorie. Band 2: Handlungstheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  123. Murstein, B. (1970). Stimulus – value – role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32(3), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Mu, Z., & Wu, X. (2015). Residential concentration and marital behaviors of Muslim Chinese. Population Studies Center Research Report 15.Google Scholar
  125. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Verbrugge, L. M. (1999). Subjective well-being and social production functions. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  128. Peggs, K., & Lampard, R. (2001). (Ir)rational choice. A multidimensional approach to choice and constraint in decisions about marriage, divorce and remarriage. In M. S. Archer & J. Q. Tritter (Eds.), Rational choice theory. Resisting colonization (pp. 93–110). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Peter, F., & Spiekermann, K. (2011). Rules, norms, commitments. In I. C. Jarvie & J. Zamora-Bonilla (Eds.), The Sage handbook of the philosophy of social sciences (pp. 216–238). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  130. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(3), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Reimer, T., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). Fast and frugal heuristics. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), A Sage reference publication. Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 347–349). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  132. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theory in mate selection. American Journal of Sociology, 110(5), 1284–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sanchez, L., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1998). Sex-specialized or collaborative mate selection? Union transitions among cohabitors. Social Science Research, 27(3), 280–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N., & Qudrat, A. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Schmitz, A. (2012). Elective affinities 2.0? A bourdieusian approach to couple formation and the methodology of E-dating. Social Science Research on the Internet (RESET), 1(1), 175–202.Google Scholar
  137. Schmitz, A., Skopek, J., Schulz, F., Klein, D., & Blossfeld, H. P. (2009). Indicating mate preferences by mixing survey and process-generated data. The case of attitudes and behaviour in online mate search. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 34(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  138. Schoen, R., & Wooldredge, J. (1989). Marriage choices in North Carolina and Virginia, 1969–71 and 1979–81. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(2), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Schroedter, J. H., & Kalter, F. (2008). Binationale Ehen in Deutschland. Trends und Mechanismen der sozialen Assimilation. In F. Kalter (Ed.), Migration und Integration (Sonderheft 48 der KZfSS, pp. 350–379). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  140. Schulz, F. (2009). Bildungshomophilie im Onlinedating. In Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Ed.), Konferenzband der DGS zum Soziologentag in Jena. Jena: DGS Tagung 2009.Google Scholar
  141. Schulz, F. (2010). Verbundene Lebensläufe: Partnerwahl und Arbeitsteilung zwischen neuen Ressourcenverhältnissen und traditionellen Geschlechterrollen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. In G. K. Browning, A. Halcli, & F. Webster (Eds.), Understanding contemporary society. Theories of the present (pp. 126–138). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(4), 317–344.Google Scholar
  145. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Skopek, J. (2011). Partnerwahl im Internet: Eine quantitative Analyse von Strukturen und Prozessen der Online-Partnersuche. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  148. Skopek, J., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Partnersuche im Internet. Bildungsspezifische Mechanismen bei der Wahl von Kontaktpartnern. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 61(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Skopek, J., Schmitz, A., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011). The gendered dynamics of age preferences – Empirical evidence from online dating. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 267–290.Google Scholar
  150. South, S. J. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 928–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Spanier, G. B., & Glick, P. C. (1980). Mate selection differentials between Whites and Blacks in the United States. Social Forces, 58(3), 707–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Stauder, J. (2008). Opportunitäten und Restriktionen des Kennenlernens. Zur sozialen Vorstrukturierung der Kontaktgelegenheiten am Beispiel des Partnermarkts. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60(2), 266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Stovel, K., & Fountain, C. (2009). Matching. In P. Hedström & P. S. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 365–390). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Surra, C. A., & Boelter, J. M. (2013). Dating and mate selection. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 211–232). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  159. Timm, A. (2004). Partnerwahl- und Heiratsmuster in modernen Gesellschaften. Der Einfluss des Bildungssystems. Wiesbaden: DUV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Todd, P. M., & Miller, G. F. (1999). From pride to Prejudice and Persuasion. In G. Gigerenzer & P. M. Todd (Eds.), Evolution and cognition. Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 287–308). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  161. Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 104(38), 15011–15016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity. Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  164. Wang, H., & Lu, X. (2007). Cyberdating: Misinformation and (Dis)trust in online interaction. Informing Science Journal, 10, 1–15.Google Scholar
  165. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  167. White, J. M. (2013). The current status of theorizing about families. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 65–89). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  168. Wiesenthal, H. (1987). Rational Choice – Ein Überblick über Grundlinien, Theoriefelder und neuere Themenakquisition eines sozialwissenschaftlichen Paradigmas. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 16(6), 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Wiik, K. A., & Holland, J. A. (2015). Partner choice and timing of first marriage among children of immigrants in Norway and Sweden. Discussion Papers No. 810 of the Research Department, Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  170. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-Ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). Sexual experience and couple formation attitudes among emerging adults. Journal of Adult Development, 17(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Winch, R. F., Ktsanes, T., & Ktsanes, V. (1954). The theory of complementary needs in mate- selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 19(3), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Witt, U. (1991). Economics, sociobiology and behavioral psychology on preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(4), 557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1226–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Yang, C. (2009). Looking online for the best romantic partner reduces decision quality: The moderating role of choice-making strategies. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 13, 1–4.Google Scholar
  176. Zafirovski, M. (1999). What is really rational choice? Beyond the utilitarian concept of rationality’. Current Sociology, 47(1), 47–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Zillmann, D., Schmitz, A., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011). Lügner haben kurze Beine. Zum Zusammenhang unwahrer Selbstdarstellung und partnerschaftlicher Chancen im Online-Dating. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 291–318.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Schmitz
    • 1
  1. 1.SociologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations