A measure of preference for consistency (the PFC Scale) was developed. In three construct validation experiments, scores on the PFC successfully predicted individuals who would and would not be susceptible to a set of standard consistency-based effects: cognitive balance, foot in the door, and dissonance. The pattern of results in each of the experiments suggested the type of consistency that the PFC measures: a tendency to base one's responses to incoming stimuli on the implications of existing (prior entry) variables, such as previous expectancies, commitments, and choices. A surprisingly large percentage (at least half) of our participants showed no strong inherent preference for consistency—a finding that may explain the frequent failure to detect or replicate (a) traditional consistency effects and (b) a wide variety of other experimental phenomena.

Individual differences are explicitly connected to social interaction in Darwin's notion of sexual selection. Traits that increase the probability of successful reproduction will tend to increase in frequency. This process operates partly through differential choice, by one sex, of certain traits in the other. According to the parental investment model, females frequently have more stringent criteria for the traits they will accept in a mate because they have a relatively larger investment in each offspring. Because human mating arrangements often involve a substantial commitment of resources by the male, it is necessary to invoke a distinction between the selectivity involved during casual mating opportunities and the selectivity exercised when choosing a long-term partner. Ninety-three undergraduate men and women rated their minimum criteria on 24 partner characteristics at four levels of commitment. In line with an unqualified parental investment model, females were more selective overall, particularly on status-linked variables. In line with a qualified parental investment model, males' trait preferences depended upon the anticipated investment in the relationship. Males had lower requirements for a sexual partner than did females, but were nearly as selective as females when considering requirements for a long-term partner.

Two studies examined which traits males and females desire in partners at various levels of relationship development in an attempt to integrate evolutionary models (which emphasize sex differences) and social exchange models (which emphasize self-appraisals). In Study 1, male and female students specified their minimum criteria on 24 traits for a date, sexual partner, exclusive dating partner, marriage partner, and 1-night sexual liaison. They also rated themselves on the same dimensions. Sex differences were greatest for casual sexual liaisons, with men's criteria being consistently lower than women's. Men's self-ratings were generally less correlated with their criteria for a 1 -night stand, as well. Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, adding several modifications, including a measure of Ss' sex typing. Sex typing had few effects. The advantages of combining social psychological and evolutionary perspectives are discussed.

Two independently conducted studies investigate the relations between jealousy‐related emotions and communicative responses. In Study 1, participants provided open‐ended accounts of specific jealousy episodes, from which descriptions of jealous communication were coded. Study 2 examined whether people tend to experience jealousy‐related emotion and use communicative responses to jealousy in systematic and related ways. Across both studies, fear and anger were central to the experience of jealousy. Various combinations of emotion predicted the different communicative responses to jealousy. For example, violent communication was predicted by high levels of hostility and low levels of guilt, while communication with the rival was predicted by high levels of passion and hostility. These results suggest that people are likely to express jealousy differently depending on the specific emotions they experience.