Liking Some Things (in Some People) more than Others: Partner Preferences in Romantic Relationships and Friendships

By Susan Sprecher, Pamela C. Regan. 2002

290 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Marketing, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c55dc60bf26d5fd9d9f28c045ed93662c710c87

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Marketing

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Testing an Adaptationist Theory of Trait Covariation: Relative Bargaining Power as a Common Calibrator of an Interpersonal Syndrome (2013, background): “…are seen as possessing valuable traits and abilities (e.g. Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 2000), preferred as friends, mates and allies (e.g. Sprecher & Regan, 2002; Sugiyama, 2005), given generous treatment in social exchange (e.g. Krupp, DeBruine, & Jones, 2010; Zaatari, Palestis, &…”
Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. (2011, background): “Humor is not just a reliable intelligence-indicator; it may be one of the most important traits for humans seeking mates (Smith, Waldorf, & Trembath, 1990; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”
Dissing Oneself versus Dissing Rivals: Effects of Status, Personality, and Sex on the Short-Term and Long-Term Attractiveness of Self-Deprecating and Other-Deprecating Humor (2008, background): “Many studies show that sense of humor is sexually attractive, especially to women (e.g., Buss, 1988; Feingold, 1992; Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham, 1998; Sprecher and Regan, 2002).”
The influence of humor on desirability (2006, unknown): “…(Apte, 1987) and report preferring individuals with a good sense of humor as both friends and relationship partners (Goodwin, 1990; Hansen, 1977; Hewitt, 1958; Kenrick, Sadhalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Smith, Waldorf, & Trembath, 1990; Sprecher & Regan, 2002; Todosijevic, Snezana, & Arancic, 2003).”
Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-analysis (2011, background): “Additionally, agency expectations are consistently among the least important ideal characteristics (Sprecher & Regan, 2002; Vigil, 2007), and were not identified as an ideal friend 740 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28(6) characteristic in early research (e.g., Bigelow, 1977).”
Has Dating Become More Egalitarian? A 35 Year Review Using Sex Roles (2011, background): “…and women expect similar intimacy-promoting behaviors from their romantic partners and friends (e.g., Fuhrman et al. 2009), though research shows that we tend to have higher standards and expectations for romantic partners (e.g., Flannagan et al. 2005; Fuhrman et al. 2009; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”
Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating (2010, unknown): “One of the Social Exchange theories, equity theory (Roloff, 1981; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978) assumes that “people exchange their own assets for desirable attributes in a partner and end up matched with someone of about equal social desirability” (Sprecher & Regan, 2002, p. 467).”
Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships (2009, unknown): “Moreover, males and females often expect cross-sex friends to have more desirable trait qualities than same-sex friends (Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”
Friendship standards: The dimensions of ideal expectations (2012, background): “Several studies of friendship expectations did not provide all items (e.g., Sprecher & Regan, 2002), therefore three scales were created: a two-item exciting personality scale (‘‘Has an exciting personality’’, ‘‘Has an outgoing personality’’), a two-item competitiveness scale (‘‘Is someone I can…”
How Do They Get There? An Examination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks (2004, methodology): “This capability is critical because traditional individual-level analyses do not control for the nested structure of data and may misrepresent the within-team effects (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994).”
Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions (2013, unknown): “It is plausible that the standards for potential romantic partners, especially committed or long-term partners, are quite stringent (e.g., Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”
Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. (2006, background): “College students (Sprecher & Regan, 2002) considered it important to have higher levels of physical attractiveness for romantic partners than for friends.”
Gender Rules: Same- and Cross-Gender Friendships Norms (2012, unknown): “ences for traits in a cross-gender, as opposed to a samegender, friend (Sprecher and Regan 2002) and may have higher normative expectations for such friendships.”
Good Character Is What We Look for in a Friend: Character Strengths Are Positively Related to Peer Acceptance and Friendship Quality in Early Adolescents (2018, background): “Further, it was expected that (4) honesty, (5) teamwork, and (6) humor would be among the most desired characteristics as these have been identified as qualities we particularly look for in close friends (e.g., Cottrell et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2015; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”
Altruism and egoism: prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context (2007, background): “A large body of theory and research suggests that different motives often guide affiliative behaviors within different relationship contexts (e.g., Reis et al., 2000; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).”