The psychologist Paul Eastwick, like many, has personal experiences with romantic rejection and unrequited affections. During his undergraduate years at the close of the last millennium, Eastwick developed feelings for a fellow student named Anna. She was tall, strikingly beautiful, an aspiring poet, and fluent in Russian. She also associated with a popular crowd on campus. Eastwick, by his own admission, was less socially outgoing and “doughy-adjacent,” not inclined to parties, describing himself as a “6” to her “9.” Though they spent some time together, their romantic connection did not materialize as he had hoped, and he found himself relegated to the “friend zone.”
One perspective on relationships, which Eastwick terms the “EvoScript,” suggests that such rejections are predetermined. This view frames the dating scene as a marketplace where each individual possesses an inherent “mate value.” This value is supposedly determined by a combination of physical attractiveness, intelligence, social standing, and financial resources. The underlying assumption is that humans seek the most advantageous partner for procreation, aiming to pair with the individual of the highest perceived value. This leads to a rigid hierarchy of potential partners. As Eastwick, now a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, notes, the advice often given is to “Find your rank and stay put, or fry like Icarus.”
This theory, which initially seemed to be supported by psychological research, has become prevalent in popular culture and online discussions. However, in his insightful new book, “Bonded by Evolution: What we’ve got wrong about love and connection,” Eastwick argues convincingly that this notion is entirely unfounded.
A significant flaw in the experiments often cited to support the EvoScript is that they measured mate value by having participants evaluate photographs or videos of individuals they had never encountered. In these initial assessments, people do tend to agree on who is more attractive, suggesting a ranking based on perceived genetic quality. Yet, this overlooks a crucial point: first impressions can shift considerably once people interact in real-world settings.
Conducting such real-world studies is time-consuming. Nevertheless, Eastwick and his colleagues have undertaken this research and demonstrated that initial judgments of an individual’s appeal rapidly diminish as people get to know each other. In essence, our perceived mate value is fleeting. “If I think you’re hot, someone else agrees with me a mere 53 percent of the time,” Eastwick states. This finding is less than ideal for those who rely heavily on initial attractiveness. “Mere weeks after potential romantic partners meet each other, hotness seems to lose its magnetic pull.”
Eastwick posits that compatibility, rather than initial attractiveness or status, is the primary determinant of lasting romantic connections. He further argues that compatibility is notoriously difficult to predict. While individuals can readily articulate preferences for certain traits—such as extroversion, adventurousness, or excitement—Eastwick’s research indicates these preferences have minimal impact on actual partner selection. We are equally likely to find happiness with someone exhibiting traits like being easy-going, intelligent, and successful, even if these are unrelated to our stated desires. “What ultimately matters are the feelings their behaviours elicit in you, rather than whether they match some dusty old checklist of must-haves,” he writes. This understanding, he explains, can only be achieved through sustained, often unpredictable, conversations.
Justin Garcia, executive director and senior scientist at the Kinsey Institute, arrives at a similar conclusion in his book, “The Intimate Animal.” Although Garcia continues to utilize market-related terminology, a concept Eastwick questions, he acknowledges that initial impressions of someone’s potential as a romantic partner can be highly deceptive. “We are quick to judge partnerships that seem mismatched on the surface, but one’s total mate value is much more complex than we imagine,” he writes.
Both books underscore the significance of “self-expansion” within close relationships. Garcia notes, “Universally, we find growth beyond the self, new experiences, and new ways of thinking to be an alluring aspect of partnership.”
These findings have important implications for individuals seeking romantic relationships. While online dating may have expanded the pool of potential partners, the initial choices are often based on superficial first impressions that are unlikely to endure. This can explain the numerous disappointments many experience before finding a suitable partner. Given the crucial role of compatibility, Eastwick suggests offering most individuals at least three opportunities before making a definitive judgment about pursuing a relationship. “Your third impression is a better predictor than pretty much anything that’s been tested,” he asserts.
Furthermore, Eastwick advises varying date activities to better understand how a person behaves in different contexts. He recommends trying experiences like roller-skating, karaoke, or chocolate tasting over the conventional drinks or meals. This approach provides a more comprehensive assessment than simply engaging in typical social engagements.
Concurrently, maintaining and nurturing existing friendship networks is recommended, as romantic partners are more likely to emerge from familiar circles than from complete strangers. Beyond the potential for romance, strong social connections offer significant benefits, including improved physical and mental well-being, for their own sake.
Eastwick’s personal experience with Anna exemplifies this. He advises remaining on good terms with past romantic interests, as they can lead to further platonic relationships. Despite initial heartbreak, his feelings for Anna eventually subsided. They remained friends, and through her, he met her circle of friends. “The feeling of an expanding social circle is exhilarating all by itself, and I had Anna to thank for that,” he concludes. In retrospect, the “friend zone” proved to be a beneficial space.
In contrast to many superficial guides offering cynical dating strategies, these two books provide an evidence-based, optimistic outlook on finding lasting connections by remaining authentic. The advice is straightforward: meet a variety of people with an open mind, be honest, respectful, and kind, and observe how feelings develop. These are not complex maneuvers, yet they may significantly enhance one’s love life.
Recommended Reading on Relationships
Find Love: How to navigate modern love and discover the right partner for you
By Paul C. Brunson. This book addresses whether finding romance in the 21st century is more challenging than ever. Brunson, a scientific advisor for Tinder, explores evolving ideals and common mistakes made in the pursuit of love.
The All-or-Nothing Marriage: How the best marriages work
By Eli J. Finkel. Packed with evidence-based strategies for achieving mutual growth in long-term relationships, this book offers techniques for improving communication and overcoming inevitable relationship challenges.
Single at Heart: The power, freedom, and heart-filling joy of single life
By Bella DePaolo. Social psychologist DePaolo challenges societal pressure to couple up, highlighting how an increasing number of individuals find happiness in singlehood. This book serves as a myth-busting counterpoint to conventional societal expectations about romantic relationships.