Enhancing transparency of the research process to increase accuracy of findings: A guide for relationship researchers

The purpose of this paper is to extend to the field of relationship science, recent discussions and suggested changes in open research practises. We demonstrate different ways that greater transparency of the research process in our field will accelerate scientific progress by increasing accuracy of reported research findings. Importantly, we make concrete recommendations for how relationship researchers can transition to greater disclosure of research practices in a manner that is sensitive to the unique design features of methodologies employed by relationship scientists. We discuss how to implement these recommendations for four different research designs regularly used in relationship research and practical limitations regarding implementing our recommendations and provide potential solutions to these problems

Contemporary Methods of Social Introduction: Is the Stigmatisation justified?

Historically, individuals in search of a romantic partner have expanded their pool of alternatives by meeting others through their personal social networks. In the last few decades, however, a growing singles population, coupled with advances in technology, has promoted the utilisation and modernization of contemporary marriage market intermediaries (MMIs), including online dating sites, social networking sites, and professional matchmaking services. Importantly, these contemporary MMIs depart from more normative methods for meeting others, making their use ripe for social stigmatization, as evidenced by myriad portrayals in the popular media. The purpose of the present research was to provide an empirical exploration of the validity of the layperson stigma towards users of contemporary MMIs by assessing the extent to which users and nonusers of these various services differ on key individual characteristics relevant to relationship initiation and progression. Specifically, we surveyed 96 individuals, all of whom were attending a singles‘ happy hour, and compared users and nonusers of contemporary MMIs on several important characteristics. Although users reported going on more dates and perceived greater attractiveness in others at the event, no differences were observed in personality (i.e., the Big 5) or adult attachment classification (i.e., secure vs. insecure). Altogether, our findings suggest that users of contemporary MMIs are not socially undesirable people (or at least any more undesirable than nonusers)

Thinking close: Measuring relational closeness as perceived self-other inclusion

This chapter reviews our work examining Aron and colleagues Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale, and presents results from several studies that demonstrate its utility. -- author-supplied descriptio

The science of relationships: Answers to your questions about dating, marriage, and family.

A text that introduces the science of relationship research across a range of topics (e.g., attraction, love, sex, maintenance, parenting). --author-supplied descriptio

What\u27s the best way to meet someone?

A chapter on context and attraction in the volume I co-edited. --author-supplied descriptio

How does my sex life stack up to others?

A chapter on sexual behaviors in the volume I co-edited. --author-supplied descriptio

I believe for a relationship to work, partners must be soul mates. Am I right?

A chapter on destiny and growth beliefs in the volume I co-edited.--author-supplied descriptio