1. Sternberg’s Triangle theory of love makes what assumptions about how people form close relationships? What are some of the strengths and limitations of his theory? Compare his theory to other theories as they apply to the beginning stages of close relationships.
2. What assumptions does evolutionary psychology as formulated by Buss, Kenrick, Simpson, and others make about the beginning stages of close relationships? What are its strengths and limitations? Compare this theoretical position to other theories of similar processes.
3. Filter theories of meeting (e.g., S-V-R) make what assumptions about the beginning stages? What are their strengths and limitations?
4. What do CR case examples such as the romance and marriage of Ted Kennedy and Victoria Reggie suggest about the limits of current models of meeting and of the early stages of CRs?
5. Can we abstract basic principles of meeting, for example: 1. Basic motivations: closeness, companionship, sex, procreation; 2. Some theories imply a magnetic dynamic emphasizing sex, maybe procreation (evolutionary psychology). 3. Some theories imply a matching process (Sternberg). 4. Some theories imply a comparison process (filters). Also, the latter suggest a developmental sequence. 5. Probably left out are interactive ideas about timing x motivation x matching x comparison x personality and personal history?

1. Reflects the work of David Buss (1994, The Evolution of Desire) and other scholars over the last decade.

2. Attempts to extrapolate from evolutionary theory in biology and make links to heterosexual dating and mating preferences. Homosexual selection is not part of the theory because it does not contribute to the propagation of the species; it is viewed as an aberration from the norm and insignificant in the big picture of evolved human sexual and mating desires.

3. Assumptions: Males more wired by evolution to "spread seed" widely and achieve multiple paternity of children than are women; whereas women more wired by evolution to be more discriminating in sexual behavior, because they are more committed to taking care of the offspring and making sure that they prosper.

4. Main Hypotheses:

A. Men will value and make sexual/mate selections of females based on cues reflecting reproductive fertility and that emphasize characterisitics such as health, youthfulness, physically attractiveness, and coyness (hard to get, because if they are hard to get and the men "get" them, they will be more certain of paternity with these females).

B. Women will value and make sexual/male selections of males based on cues as to the male's physical resources and willness to share them with the female and offspring. Also, characteristics such as ambition and willingness to work hard to make money will be more valued by females than males.

5. How studied? Various correlational survey and experimental maniuplations, often with college students, E.g., Buss 1988, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. This study with U. Michigan students asked them to select 3 friends and tell how they made themselves more attractive to members of the opposite sex. Men, for example, significantly emphasized "display of resources," while women significantly emphasized "wearing makeup," "altering appearance," and the like. Only coy-flirt dimensions did not come out as expected.

6. Questions: How do such expressed preferences of males and females have much to do with long-term evolution? What is the link? Cognitive/affective-psychological mediation is given little due in Buss' most extreme statements of the theory. Yet, it is likely they greatly affect students' and others' beliefs about "how to be attractive to members of the opposite sex." The inability to deal with homosexual preferences is a major problem. This theory can be helpful if it is tempered so that evolutionary processes are seen as valuable to study, but need to be wed with contemporaneous social psychological mediation of selection.