Mutton, Meters. E., & Gilbride, K. Inside the W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and you will incompatible dating (pp. 33-60). Nyc: Springer-Verlag. [ Links ]
Detected resemblance and you will relationships achievements among relationships couples: An idiographic method
Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Younger, J. (2008). In the event the I am not saying scorching, have you been very hot or otherwise not?: Physical-attractiveness recommendations and relationship choices as a function of a person’s individual elegance. Emotional Research, 19, 669677. [ Backlinks ]
Levinger, G., & Rands, Meters. (1985)patibility in marriage or any other intimate dating. From inside the W. Ickes (Ed.), Appropriate and you can in conflict dating (pp. 309-331). Nyc: Springer-Verlag. [ Backlinks ]
Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspiration. When you look at the J. McV. Have a look (Ed.), Character additionally the choices problems (Vol. 1, pp. 333378). Nyc: Ronald Force. [ Website hur man raderar asian single solution-kontot links ]
Enjoying, T. J. (2006). Forecasting relationships relationships future having insiders’ and you can outsiders’ direction: Which and you can what exactly is asked things. Individual Relationship, 13, 349-362. [ Backlinks ]
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and you can relationship top quality for the newlyweds: A few situated means. Record from Personality and you can Societal Mindset, 88, 304-326. [ Website links ]
Madden, Yards., & Lenhart, A beneficial. (2006). Online dating. Washington, DC: Declaration on the Pew Sites & American Lives Project. Retrieved , out-of [ Website links ]
MacDonald, T. K., & Ross, Meters. (1999). Evaluating the accuracy out of predictions on matchmaking relationships: Exactly how and just why perform lovers’ forecasts differ from men and women made by perceiver? Identity and you may Personal Psychology Bulletin, 25, 14171429. [ Website links ]
ater, J., & Smith, S. (1982). Legitimizing factors about initiation out of heterosexual dating. Papers showed within Basic Internationally Conference into the Private Relationships, Madison, WI. [ Backlinks ]
Merkle, Age.Roentgen., & Richardson, R.An effective. (2000). Electronic dating and virtual associated: Conceptualizing desktop mediated close relationship. Family members, forty-two, 187-192. [ Backlinks ]
Montoya, R. Meters., Horton, Roentgen. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Try real similarity very important to attraction? Good meta-studies regarding genuine and you can imagined similarity. Record out-of Social and personal Dating, twenty-five, 889-922. [ Hyperlinks ]
Morry, Meters. M. (2005). Relationship fulfillment once the an effective predictor out of similarity evaluations; An examination of your own appeal-resemblance hypothesis. Record of Public and private Relationship, twenty-two, 561-584. [ Backlinks ]
Record out-of Social and private Relationships, 23, 865-880
Morry, Meters. Meters. (2007). The fresh new attraction-similarity theory certainly mix-sex members of the family: Matchmaking fulfillment, thought similarities, and you may worry about-providing attitudes. Record from Personal and personal Matchmaking, 24, 117-138. [ Website links ]
Murstein, B. I. (1987). An explanation and expansion of one’s SVR principle out of dyadic combining. Journal away from ily, 49, 929-947. [ Backlinks ]
Orbuch, T. L., Veroff, J. Hassan, H., & Horrocks, J. (2002). Who can separation and divorce: A 14-seasons longitudinal examination of black people and white lovers. Log regarding Public and private Matchmaking, 19, 179-202. [ Links ]
Orenstein, S. (). Brand new like algorithm Suits thinks it has receive a formula to have governing the internet dating business: A technological approach to finding Mr. otherwise Ms. Right. Company 2.0 Mag. Recovered on the away from [ Website links ]
Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Precisely the congruent survive – Identity similarities inside the people. Personality and Personal Distinctions, forty five, 533-535. [ Hyperlinks ]
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner choice: What features create folk appeal in their quick-identity sexual and you will much time-title personal partners? Journal from Mindset and Individual Sexuality, 12, 1-21. [ Hyperlinks ]
Reis, H. T. (1985). The new part of one’s self in the initiation and span of personal interaction. When you look at the W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and you may incompatible relationship (pp. 209-231). Ny: Sprinter-Verlag. [ Backlinks ]