The Science of Attraction, Compatibility, and Romance

There is a popular story about dating that goes something like this: Everyone has a fixed value. The most desirable people compete for one another. Men prioritize beauty and youth, women prioritize money and status, and successful relationships begin when two people recognize that they are a good match.

Parts of that story describe what happens when strangers make quick judgments. But when we examine how people actually get to know one another, become attracted, and build relationships, a very different picture emerges.

Attraction becomes more personal with time. What people say they want often differs from what draws them to someone face to face. And many of the qualities that help someone succeed on a dating app are not the same qualities that make them a good long-term partner.

My discussion with relationship scientist Dr. Paul Eastwick centered on those distinctions. The important message is not that physical attractiveness, finances, or first impressions are irrelevant. They matter. The message is that human relationships are not reducible to a ranking system, and understanding why provides practical ways to meet people and strengthen the relationships we already have.

Table of Contents

• Where the Dating Marketplace Model Works, and Where It Breaks Down
• Attraction Grows Through Shared Moments, Not Just Desirable Traits
• A Strong Relationship Does Not Require an Overwhelming First Spark
• What Men and Women Say They Want Is Not Always What Attracts Them
• Age Preferences Are More Complicated Than the Stereotypes
• Money, Ambition, and Education Do Not Tell the Whole Story
• Why Dating Apps Can Distort the Search for Compatibility
• Texting Rewards Some Skills More Than Others
• Shared Activities Reveal What an Interview Cannot
• Ask Questions That Create Connection, Not Just Common Ground
• Perceived Similarity Matters More Than a Compatibility Score
• Attachment Is a Dynamic Process, Not a Permanent Label
• Support Your Relationship Without Turning It Into a Public Referendum
• Why Social Support Beyond a Partner Is Especially Important for Men
• Attraction to Other People Is Not the Same as Infidelity
• Attention From Strangers Is a Poor Measure of Relationship Quality
• Shared History Matters, but More Years Do Not Automatically Mean More Satisfaction
• Physical Intimacy Is an Important Part of Relationship Satisfaction
• A Practical Approach: Build Repeated Opportunities for Real Connection

Where the Dating Marketplace Model Works, and Where It Breaks Down

Consider a classroom exercise. Students receive randomly assigned numbers that everyone else can see, but they cannot see their own. Their task is to pair with the highest-numbered person willing to pair with them.

Very quickly, the students with low numbers discover that other people are avoiding them. They become anxious. Those with high numbers receive plenty of interest. Pairings start to reflect the visible rankings.

This is a useful demonstration of what researchers call mate value: the idea that people possess broadly desirable characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, status, or resources, that influence their romantic opportunities.

The exercise works because everyone can read the same numbers. There is agreement about who is desirable.

But now imagine blurring those numbers. Or imagine that, after spending time together, people stop agreeing about what the numbers should be. That is much closer to what happens as real acquaintances develop.

Someone whom other people find moderately appealing may become exceptionally attractive to you. The reverse can happen as well. Familiarity does not make everyone more attractive. It makes attraction more individualized.

Eastwick describes this as increasing idiosyncrasy. The longer people know one another, the more their evaluations can diverge. Broad desirability still matters, but it no longer explains the entire interaction.

That distinction is critical. Being widely desirable and being uniquely desirable to a particular person are not the same thing.

Attraction Grows Through Shared Moments, Not Just Desirable Traits

We often describe attraction using categories: attractive, intelligent, funny, ambitious, kind. Yet the experiences that make someone compelling are usually much more specific.

Perhaps someone listened carefully when you were struggling with a family problem. Perhaps you developed an unexpected rhythm of banter. Perhaps you saw them handle a difficult situation with unusual competence.

I remember a colleague whose attraction to his eventual wife crystallized when he saw her expertly aliquoting laboratory reagents while carrying on a conversation. It was an extraordinarily specific display of skill. Not exactly a universal dating strategy. But for him, in that setting, it was captivating. They went on to build a marriage and family.

The broader point is that attraction often begins with a moment that would not mean the same thing to anyone else.

Those moments create a small shared history. At the next gathering, you want to sit near that person because you want to experience that connection again. Over time, the connection becomes a story that belongs to the two of you.

This also explains why looking to other people for guidance can become counterproductive. Researchers use the term mate choice copying for situations in which someone becomes more appealing partly because others appear interested in them. Social information can be useful, but popularity is not a substitute for noticing your own experience.

The question is not simply, “Does everyone think this person is great?” It is, “What happens when this person and I spend time together?”

A Strong Relationship Does Not Require an Overwhelming First Spark

One of the more reassuring findings is that the typical beginning of a relationship is not necessarily spectacular.

Looking backward from established relationships, first impressions are often somewhere in the middle: pleasant enough, interesting enough, worth another interaction. Attraction then builds as people accumulate experiences.

You discover that someone is funnier than you initially realized. They show sensitivity in a situation where you did not expect it. You notice that you find them especially attractive when they are engaged in something they care about.

Eastwick thinks of this as a gradual narrowing of uncertainty. Early on, your impression contains many possibilities. As you learn more, it becomes more stable. A relationship can emerge when both people arrive at sufficiently positive impressions of one another.

That does not mean forcing yourself to continue dating someone you dislike. It means recognizing that an ordinary first impression is not evidence that attraction cannot develop.

Why the early stages remain difficult to study

Researchers can readily study reactions to photographs, brief conversations, or established partners. The period between those points is much harder to capture.

What happened between a short first interaction and the point, several weeks later, when someone genuinely wanted a relationship? Which moments mattered? When did enthusiasm strengthen or disappear?

Even experiences commonly described as “the ick,” in which a particular moment abruptly changes attraction, remain underresearched. Men can experience such reversals too, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to offer a comprehensive explanation.

This is an important scientific limitation. We know more about the endpoints than we do about every step connecting them.

What Men and Women Say They Want Is Not Always What Attracts Them

For decades, studies asking people to rate desirable partner traits have produced familiar average differences. Men report placing greater importance on physical attractiveness. Women report placing greater importance on earning potential.

Those findings are real findings about stated preferences. The question is whether they predict attraction to actual people.

Eastwick and his colleagues approached that question using speed dating. Instead of asking only what participants wanted in the abstract, they examined how much a potential partner’s characteristics predicted romantic interest after an actual meeting.

For example, men tended to express somewhat more interest in women with stronger earning prospects or ambition. Women also tended to express more interest in ambitious men. Crucially, the strength of that association was similar for both groups.

Eastwick describes a comparable pattern for physical attractiveness: In evaluations of people someone has actually met, these traits do not produce the familiar gender differences suggested by questionnaires. His work across different settings, including ongoing relationships and research spanning more than 40 countries, challenges the idea that men and women have fundamentally opposing priorities in this domain.

The distinction is not that everyone wants exactly the same partner. It is that average differences in stated ideals should not be mistaken for reliable rules about real-world attraction.

When someone looks excellent on paper but you feel no connection, that experience matters. When someone falls outside your imagined type but you genuinely enjoy being with them, that matters too.

Age Preferences Are More Complicated Than the Stereotypes

Age provides a particularly interesting example of the gap between stated preferences and responses to real people.

In research involving a matchmaking service and roughly 4,000 participants, Eastwick examined whether a date’s age predicted interest in meeting again. These were people paying for help finding a long-term partner, not simply rating hypothetical profiles.

The men in the available pool were about four years older than the women on average. Within that pool, however, dates varied in age.

Men showed a modest preference for younger dates. More surprisingly, women also showed a modest preference for younger dates. Some women had explicitly said they did not want to meet younger men, yet responded positively when they did.

There are several important boundaries around that result:

• The effect was modest, not an overwhelming preference.
• It concerned attraction and interest in another date, not every later relationship decision.
• It does not explain why men are older on average in many heterosexual couples.
• The available dating pool already contained an average age difference.

In fact, the couples who formed and the pairings that did not progress both reflected roughly the same average age gap in the original pool. That suggests that the familiar age difference between partners cannot simply be attributed to women preferring older men during a first date.

Other processes may operate before people enter the pool or later in dating. The study does not settle those questions.

Preferences are different from consequential life goals

Wanting children is a different kind of consideration from an imagined preference for a certain age or appearance.

You may feel attracted to someone whose family plans are incompatible with yours. That does not make the incompatibility disappear.

This is one area where dating services can be genuinely helpful. Filtering for an important life goal can create opportunities to meet people with whom a workable future is possible, even if broad preference checklists do a poor job predicting chemistry.

Money, Ambition, and Education Do Not Tell the Whole Story

A person’s income provides some information. It does not tell you how they acquired it, how much time they have, how they respond to stress, or what daily life with them would feel like.

High ambition may initially seem appealing. In practice, it may also mean that someone is rarely available. A trait cannot be separated from the other characteristics and tradeoffs attached to the person who possesses it.

Eastwick notes that an individual’s objective income generally has very small associations with how positively their partner feels about them. A couple’s broader access to resources is a different issue. Struggling to meet basic needs can place substantial pressure on a relationship.

Job loss is also more complicated than a loss of provider status. Losing work can affect identity, purpose, mood, and confidence. Those changes can shape the relationship even when family support or other resources soften the financial consequences. Eastwick offered that as a plausible interpretation, not a definitive explanation for every breakup following unemployment.

He also described evidence that an older association between wives earning more and marital fragility stopped appearing in the 1990s. Similarly, a woman having more education than her male partner is not, by itself, a reliable sign of relationship trouble.

The useful distinction is between a mismatch in credentials and a lack of direction or belonging. Having purpose matters. Having people in your life matters. Simply earning less or holding a different degree does not establish that someone will be a poor partner.

Why Dating Apps Can Distort the Search for Compatibility

Dating apps concentrate attention on what can be evaluated quickly: photographs, short descriptions, demographic information, and messages.

That makes them especially compatible with marketplace dynamics. A relatively small group can receive a disproportionate share of interest.

Offline attraction is less uniform. Eastwick offered a useful illustration: Two people making simple attractiveness judgments after brief exposure might agree roughly two-thirds of the time. That is meaningful agreement, but it leaves substantial disagreement even before a deeper acquaintance develops.

Repeated interaction gives that disagreement more room to grow. Profiles often do the opposite by emphasizing the attributes on which people most readily agree.

Swiping behavior is not the same as relationship behavior

One large average gender difference appears in swiping: Eastwick cited figures of women saying yes to roughly 5% of profiles and men saying yes to roughly half. Those numbers describe a particular behavior in a particular environment. They do not establish that the same gulf applies to commitment, emotional closeness, or attraction after getting to know someone.

Context can change the magnitude of a difference dramatically. In a well-known experimental setup, strangers approached people on a college campus with an immediate sexual proposition. Men were about 20 times more likely than women to agree.

Research asking about more familiar, real-life contexts produced a much smaller difference, closer to twofold. These are not interchangeable research designs, but the contrast makes an important point: reactions to an unexpected proposition from a stranger are not a complete model of human sexuality.

For many people, familiarity and an existing social connection substantially change the experience.

What we do not know about the algorithms

Dating companies generally do not provide researchers with enough access to explain exactly how their algorithms balance user recruitment, engagement, paid features, and successful matches.

It is reasonable to distinguish an engagement-based business from a matchmaking service focused on arranging satisfying dates. It is not reasonable to claim certainty about hidden algorithms without the data.

Apps also deserve credit for expanding access. They can be especially valuable for people whose local networks offer few suitable partners, including gay and lesbian people living in environments where openly expressing attraction could carry risks.

The goal is not to declare apps universally good or bad. It is to understand what they make easier and what they cannot reveal.

Texting Rewards Some Skills More Than Others

Texting introduces another selection process. Someone who is quick, witty, and expressive in writing may create interest easily. Someone whose strengths are patient attention, warmth, and quiet practical support may be harder to appreciate through a message thread.

In person, listening can be communicated through posture, expression, timing, and a thoughtful response. In text, the same person may appear to contribute very little.

There is a potential advantage in the other direction too. For someone who becomes anxious during face-to-face conversation, written communication can provide time to think and reduce pressure.

Research examining couples’ early message histories suggests that their communication styles can become more coordinated over time. They develop similar rhythms and patterns of language.

But there is a limitation: Those are the pairs who became couples. Without comparable records from interactions that went nowhere, we cannot confidently explain which texting patterns caused success or failure.

The practical implication is modest but useful: Do not assume that texting ability captures someone’s entire capacity for connection.

Shared Activities Reveal What an Interview Cannot

One of the strongest recurring themes in our conversation was the value of spending time with people in groups, repeatedly.

This provides information that a conventional date may not. You can observe how someone treats friends, responds when plans change, notices another person’s discomfort, or participates when they are not the center of attention.

Eastwick pointed to the film Say Anything, in which a first date takes place at a party. The two people interact with one another, but they also move among other people. Part of the attraction develops as the young woman sees her date acting responsibly and looking out for others.

The point is not to turn social gatherings into covert evaluations. It is that real behavior becomes visible when people have something to do besides describe themselves.

Activities can also create shared experiences directly:

• A hike allows conversation alongside movement and changing surroundings.
• A sporting event provides excitement and something to respond to together.
• A collaborative task reveals how people communicate and handle frustration.
• A recurring group activity gives attraction time to develop without demanding an immediate verdict.

We joked about assembling furniture or trying an escape room. Those were examples of doing something together, not validated compatibility tests. No activity can reliably simulate the thousands of responsibilities involved in building a life with someone.

Ask Questions That Create Connection, Not Just Common Ground

Early conversations often become searches for overlap: Where are you from? What do you do? Did we study the same subject?

That can work. Shared background can provide an opening. But a memorable interaction often requires something more personal than matching facts.

Eastwick highlighted the research behind the Fast Friends procedure, often associated with the 36 questions. The general approach involves gradually increasing reciprocal self-disclosure.

The important word is reciprocal. Connection is not produced simply by extracting a sensitive confession. Both people need opportunities to reveal something meaningful and respond to one another.

A question about something someone has long wanted to tell another person, and what has held them back, can become powerful after trust has started to develop. It would be a very different experience if delivered abruptly as the opening line of a four-minute encounter.

In a brief interaction, the goal may simply be to discover one interesting thread worth returning to. With more time, there is room for greater depth.

There is no scientifically established question that gives a relationship an automatic green light. The value lies in the process: feeling heard, sensing responsiveness, and learning something about the other person’s inner life.

We are not just collections of traits. We carry stories about who we are. Being invited into someone else’s story can be an enormous part of attraction.

Perceived Similarity Matters More Than a Compatibility Score

Actual similarity and perceived similarity are different things.

Actual similarity refers to measurable overlap: attitudes, preferences, values, or other characteristics assessed separately.

Perceived similarity is the subjective feeling that you have a great deal in common and understand one another.

The second is much more closely connected to how people feel about a relationship.

When we like someone, we have considerable flexibility in deciding which similarities matter. One couple may see their shared political outlook as central. Another may disagree politically but organize their connection around other interests and values.

That does not mean political differences never matter. People with sharply opposed views are relatively unlikely to pair in the first place. But among the mismatched couples who do form, the mismatch does not necessarily explain much about satisfaction.

Eastwick’s research suggests that using extensive pre-meeting assessments of similarity to predict which two individuals will click has performed poorly. That is a narrower claim than saying nothing about compatibility can ever be predicted. It means that an apparently precise similarity score should not be confused with evidence that two people will feel a connection.

Happy couples often find and emphasize meaningful common ground. The felt connection is not necessarily the output of an objective matching calculation.

Attachment Is a Dynamic Process, Not a Permanent Label

Attachment theory offers another evolutionary perspective on relationships, one focused less on competition and more on bonding.

Humans seek closeness, support, and a dependable person to turn to. Secure relationships can support recovery, sleep, and well-being.

Two broad difficulties can interfere with that process:

• Attachment anxiety: Becoming preoccupied with closeness, reassurance, or the possibility of losing the relationship.
• Attachment avoidance: Moving toward excessive self-reliance and discomfort with depending on someone else.

These are useful dimensions, but they should not be treated as permanent identities.

People’s attachment orientations can change over time. Someone who enters a relationship with substantial avoidance may become more secure through repeated experiences with a responsive partner.

That is not a promise that anyone can repair a painful history merely by finding the right person. It is evidence against fatalism. Your past shapes you, but it does not necessarily dictate every future relationship.

The broad processes can be studied scientifically. The particular stories and moments through which a couple builds security may remain deeply individual.

Support Your Relationship Without Turning It Into a Public Referendum

Support from friends and family matters. But support is not the same thing as constantly asking other people to assess your partner.

Other people rarely have access to the full relationship. They hear selected moments, often described during frustration or uncertainty. Their advice can be well intentioned while still missing essential context.

At the same time, privacy should not become isolation. Concerns about emotional or physical safety deserve attention, and professional help can be important. The distinction is between seeking useful support and repeatedly outsourcing your own judgment.

One constructive alternative is spending time with other couples or supportive friends. Research on couple friendships suggests that being embedded in a social network can benefit relationships.

A shared meal or double date allows others to experience your relationship without requiring a formal verdict. You can feel that people are in your corner without asking them to grade every interaction.

Ideally, friends can celebrate the person you love without needing to want that same person for themselves.

Why Social Support Beyond a Partner Is Especially Important for Men

One meaningful average gender difference concerns where people obtain support.

Women generally cultivate support across more areas of their lives. Men are more likely to depend heavily on a romantic partner for emotional closeness and support.

Eastwick connects this pattern to research suggesting that men, on average, can be more eager to enter a relationship, say “I love you,” or become exclusive. Women are more likely to initiate a breakup, while men may have more difficulty moving on afterward.

These are averages, not descriptions of every man and woman. But they challenge the sweeping claim that men are naturally uninterested in commitment.

The central practical question is straightforward: If something went wrong, do you believe there are people besides your partner whom you could turn to?

You do not need to discuss your deepest feelings every time you meet a friend. Perceived availability matters. Knowing that support exists can be valuable even when you seldom need to call on it.

Activity-based friendships can provide that foundation. Sports teams, shared projects, regular gatherings, and family relationships can create dependable connection without requiring every interaction to become a discussion of emotions.

This matters particularly for men who feel that their social networks have disappeared. A lack of belonging can affect confidence, purpose, and willingness to engage with others. Rebuilding connection is not merely an accessory to dating. It is valuable in its own right.

Attraction to Other People Is Not the Same as Infidelity

In a happy, committed relationship, people often perceive potential alternatives as less appealing than they otherwise would.

Researchers call this derogation of alternatives. It is a relationship-protective process: Your partner occupies a special position, and other possibilities lose some of their pull.

This is another reason the marketplace metaphor becomes incomplete. A person who is happily attached is not necessarily scanning everyone else with an impartial ranking system.

That protection is not absolute. People can still notice someone attractive.

Some recent studies discussed by Eastwick suggest that fantasizing about an alternative person can increase desire for that person and, at the same time, increase desire for one’s current partner. Attraction can sometimes spill back into the existing relationship.

That finding is not a recommendation to flirt with others to improve your relationship. Eastwick explicitly did not endorse that strategy.

The more useful distinction is between a passing feeling and a pattern of behavior:

• Noticing attraction does not automatically mean the relationship is in trouble.
• Repeatedly seeking contact can give that attraction room to develop.
• Secretive conversations and concealed interactions are more concerning than the mere existence of attraction.

Social media can make continued contact unusually easy. An interaction that once would have ended after a flight, party, or chance meeting can now continue indefinitely.

There is no universal rule that every partnered person must leave social media. But it is worth recognizing the difference between encountering an attractive person and repeatedly nurturing a private connection with them.

Attention From Strangers Is a Poor Measure of Relationship Quality

People can have a loving partner and still wonder how desirable they appear to everyone else.

That question can become especially charged with aging or changes in the attention someone receives. A shift in who approaches them may be interpreted as evidence that their attractiveness has changed.

The interpretation may or may not be accurate. More importantly, it concerns a different issue from the quality of their relationship.

People who are broadly considered highly desirable can have terrible relationships. People who receive less attention from strangers can have exceptional ones.

It is understandable to care about how the world sees you. But external attention and intimate compatibility are different sources of information.

Part of protecting a relationship may involve acknowledging the wish for outside validation without treating it as something that must always be pursued. Feeling a pull does not require acting on it.

Shared History Matters, but More Years Do Not Automatically Mean More Satisfaction

There is something powerful about reaching milestones together: first jobs, moves, children, difficult periods, and changes in identity.

Yet relationship duration by itself is not a reliable measure of quality. On average, people often report greater happiness earlier in a relationship than later.

That does not mean staying together causes failure or that long relationships cannot be deeply satisfying. It means that the number of years alone does not capture what makes a shared history valuable.

The stronger idea is a shared narrative: We faced things together. We changed. We built something that matters.

This also helps explain why breakups can be so painful. You may lose not only companionship and support, but also a person who helped hold the continuity of your own story.

A relationship ending does not necessarily erase its value. Something can have been meaningful, loving, or formative without lasting until death.

That perspective does not require denying harm or pretending every former partner behaved well. It allows two truths to coexist: The relationship ended, and parts of what happened still mattered.

In a new relationship, respecting those histories need not mean examining every detail. My partner and I have found value in not speaking negatively about former partners and in recognizing that our earlier experiences helped shape who we are now.

Physical Intimacy Is an Important Part of Relationship Satisfaction

Sexual desire and satisfaction are closely connected to how people feel about their romantic relationships.

In the research Eastwick described, the subjective perception that someone is a good lover, or would likely be a good lover during initial attraction, was strongly associated with positive feelings and interest in continuing the relationship.

That is worth stating clearly. Physical intimacy is not something the evidence allows us to dismiss as irrelevant once a relationship becomes established.

At the same time, it is not equally central for every couple, and desire is not a simple switch.

Stress, exhaustion, parenting, time together, and time apart can all shape the conditions in which desire emerges. A reduction in spontaneous passion does not prove that attraction is permanently gone.

The important balance is to avoid both extremes:

• Do not assume that fading intensity means the relationship is doomed.
• Do not assume that a prolonged absence of desired intimacy has no consequences.

Feeling unwanted can affect self-esteem and feed back into the relationship. Conversely, creating conditions for connection can help desire return.

The broader relationship structure matters too. Daily responsibilities can gradually turn a partnership into a series of transactions. Making room for play, warmth, and the kinds of interactions that originally brought people together can be important.

When couples therapy helps, part of the work may involve interrupting entrenched negative patterns and rediscovering what each person once appreciated in the other.

A Practical Approach: Build Repeated Opportunities for Real Connection

Relationship science cannot yet provide a precise formula for finding a partner within 90 days. Eastwick cannot tell you which combination of apps, clubs, or activities will produce the best odds for a particular individual.

But one recommendation follows consistently from the discussion: Spend time around people on repeated occasions.

A running club, recreational sports team, faith community, improv class, or recurring dinner can provide that opportunity. The activity can reflect your interests and values, but its repeated social structure may be at least as important as its subject matter.

Some communities can also support a relationship after it begins. They provide friends, shared routines, and a sense that the couple belongs to something larger. Workplace relationships are more complicated because the surrounding institution may not support their development, and professional boundaries and power differences require particular care.

You do not have to wait for someone else to create the ideal gathering. Organizing something simple can be enough.

In graduate school, there was a recurring Friday volleyball game followed by Thai food. People could join without being especially skilled. Another kind of gathering involved bringing dishes to share. These were not elaborate events. Their value came from making it easy for people to spend time together.

A useful approach is to:

1. Choose something you would enjoy even without meeting a partner. That makes the time valuable regardless of the romantic outcome.
2. Return often enough for familiarity to develop. One encounter provides less opportunity than a series of shared experiences.
3. Notice behavior as well as conversation. Kindness, responsiveness, and reliability become clearer in context.
4. Allow a worthwhile connection to unfold. An ordinary beginning can become something compelling.
5. Maintain relationships beyond romance. Friendship and community support both single and partnered life.

Technology offers many reasons to stay home. It also offers useful ways to find events and coordinate gatherings. The question is whether it ultimately helps you connect with people or replaces the opportunities to do so.

The science provides good reasons for optimism. Attraction is more personal than a popularity ranking. Attachment can change. Shared experiences can deepen a bond. And men and women have far more common ground in their relationship needs than the most antagonistic online narratives suggest.

The challenge is not to win a universal desirability contest. It is to create opportunities for the right kind of mutual connection, and then give that connection the attention, intimacy, and support it needs.

Further discussion of these ideas appears in Eastwick’s Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection.