Laypersons’conceptions of a good heterosexual relationship were examined in four studies. In study 1, a total of 120 German college students listed all aspects of a good intimate relationship. The resulting 1,010 items represented 352 distinct features, of which the 64 most frequently mentioned were selected for further analyses. In study 2, a total of 107 German college students rated the degree of centrality of the 64 items and reliably distinguished central from peripheral features. These data are consistent with a prototype analysis of the concept “good relationship.” In study 3, central features were round to be more salient in memory than were peripheral features, and in study 4, central features were associated with shorter response latencies than were peripheral ones. The specific features identified by laypersons as central to a good relationship were compared to those identified by experts, and the similarities and differences between the lay concepts of love and good relationships were also examined.

Four studies examined the dimensions of relationship quality. In Study 1, based on a principal components analysis, four dimensions underlying the prototype of relationship quality were identified: intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality. The four-factorial structure was replicated both with a German sample (Study 2) and a Canadian sample (Study 3). Study 4 tested the validity of scales based on the four-factorial structure of relationship quality with German and Canadian samples. Relationship satisfaction was predicted well by the four scales, with intimacy contributing most, and sexuality least, to overall relationship satisfaction. The four scales correlated as predicted with other constructs relevant to close relationships, such as commitment, trust, love, and the like. Consequences for the measurement of relationship quality are discussed.

For nearly 70 years, studies have shown large sex differences in human mate selection preferences. However, most of the studies were restricted to a limited set of mate selection criteria and to college students, and neglecting relationship status. In this study, 21,245 heterosexual participants between 18 and 65 years of age (mean age 41) who at the time were not involved in a close relationship rated the importance of 82 mate selection criteria adapted from previous studies, reported age ranges for the oldest and youngest partner that they would find acceptable, and responded to 10 yes/no questions about a potential marriage partner. For nearly all mate selection criteria, women were found to be the more demanding sex, although men placed consistently more value on the physical attractiveness of a potential partner than women. Also, the effects of the participants' age and level of education were nearly negligible. These results demonstrate the robustness of sex differences in mate selection criteria across a substantial age range.

No abstract

Four studies tested the prototype-matching model that people use the prototype of a good relationship to evaluate the quality of concrete relationships. In Study 1, distance from the consensual prototype of participants’ descriptions of the features of their relationship strongly predicted relationship quality, and this prediction was significantly stronger for distance from central (vs. peripheral) features. Study 2 replicated these results and also found no significant advantage for predicting relationship quality using a relationship’s distance from idiosyncratically weighted (vs. consensually weighted) centrality of prototype features. Study 3 experimentally manipulated a described relation-ship’s distance from the prototype and found that distance from central features affected relationship evaluations more than distance from peripheral or intermediate features. Study 4 experimentally manipulated the prototype of relationship quality itself and found that correlations of relationship quality with matches with the prototype were more strongly influenced by those features that were increased in their importance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract