Maybe you’ve heard of the ‘Reacher-Settler’ theory before. Since its initial mention in the tv series How I Met Your Mother (Malins, G. & Harris, N.P., 2010), it’s made the rounds in popular psychology circles. This theory suggests that in every romantic relationship there is a designated ‘reacher’ and a ‘settler’, with the ‘reacher’ being seen as the individual pursuing someone who is out of their league, while the ‘settler’ is seen as lowering their standards for their partner. These comparisons usually involve stereotypically valuable attributes like attractiveness or wealth.
At a glance, the ‘reacher-settler’ theory poses a number of issues. To begin with, it perpetuates the idea that the reacher is somehow less valuable than the settler based on an arbitrary yardstick (like attractiveness, or wealth). This view becomes problematic when individuals go on to assume that reachers need to compensate for their shortcomings in some way – something that can can negatively affect their self-esteem. Hoplock et al. (2019) found evidence of this compensatory script in their research involving more attractive females in (heterosexual) relationships. Individuals assumed that the less attractive (male) partner needed to offer a different benefit of equal value, such as wealth.
In general, social scripts can inform and influence both our expectations and the way in which we behave in relationships (Hoplock et al., 2019). These scripts span from attachment-related scripts that determine whether an individual approaches their partner in moments of distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), to exchange scripts, which involve how we view giving and receiving benefits.
The same study by Hoplock et al. (2019) also found individuals believed that more attractive females in particular would feel less committed to their partners. In the same case, this perceived gap in physical attractiveness could only be compensated by the male with wealth or status, but not a good personality.
So, nice guys finish last? Is that really what we’re going with? The tricky thing about these studies is that they draw very general conclusions about a very subjective and personal thing, namely attraction, and – ultimately – love. Furthermore, studying social psychology can in its very nature be an impossible process, because everything is, to a certain degree, influenced by social settings. Individuals’ judgements on couples may be diluted by personal biases or reflect what they expect to stereotypically be the case, as opposed to what they themselves deem important in a relationship. In other words, questionnaire responses about other relationships can’t and shouldn’t be equated to personal preferences on what constitutes a good romantic partner. So, let’s pivot and take a look at what individuals within the relationships are saying.
Conroy-Beam et al. (2016) found that mate value discrepancies were more predictive of romantic relationship satisfaction than mate preference fulfilment – whether they match our preferences for an ideal partner. Only for individuals higher in mate value whose partners were less desirable than their alternative options, did relationship satisfaction decline. In other words, our quote-on-quote ‘settlers’ were less satisfied when they felt that there were (a lot of) better options out there, something not observed amongst the ‘reachers’. To add insult to injury, the happiness of participants with less desirable partners was contingent on whether their partner fulfilled their ideal preferences better than most potential mates. Once again, this was not the case for the reachers. It seems that individuals deemed more desirable can afford to be more selective in their choice of partner, and that a mismatch between them and their partner can lead to them feeling dissatisfied.
The underlying message in these research findings is the importance of social exchange. While the comparison of dating to a market process doesn’t sound very romantic, the reality is that as people, we often engage in some form or another of social exchange. Not only this, but these processes can underscore the entire timeline of (romantic) bonds – from forming them to maintaining them. According to Rusbult’s investment theory, individuals assess their current relationships by comparing their expectations to an ‘outcome value’ (Rusbult, 1980). This value is the sum of different characteristics including things like intelligence, physical appearance, and sense of humour. An individual’s level of commitment will depend on this outcome value, the next best available alternative, and their own investments in the relationship. More importantly, Rusbult also suggests that the perception of an imbalance in relational benefits can lead to instability in relationships. It makes sense that the bonds we form based on what we see as being a mutually beneficial relationship will last longer and leave us feeling more satisfied.
Taking this further, if we consider long term relationships, it’s unlikely that being attractive or successful are the only defining features of a fulfilling partnership. Current relationship satisfaction also depends on how satisfied we expect to be with it in the future. For example, individual differences in neuroticism can mean more pessimistic views of the future, while an insecure attachment style will also leave an individual feeling less sure about their relationship, regardless of their other redeeming qualities (Baker et al., 2018).
So is the ‘reacher-settler’ theory legitimate? To me, it presents a very black-and-white view on relationships and feels like it misses the mark, creating this false dichotomy that one must be the reacher and the other the settler. What about compatibility or respect? It makes sense that aspects like these go largely ignored because they’re so difficult to define and consequently research. What makes a relationship work is often invisible to the outsider’s eye. My biggest issue though is that narratives like this reinforce a competitive view on relationships, as if there were always a compromise at play. It feels counterproductive. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from Erich Fromm’s view on ‘real’ love, which moves away from the question of whether someone fulfils our personal needs and instead focuses on our capacity to give and share (Fromm, 2007). In his eyes, most of us are far too concerned with how to be lovable, rather than how to actively love, and maybe therein lies the problem. <<
References
– Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2017). Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 700.
– Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(6), 440-448.
– Fromm, E. (2007). Art of Loving. Joanna Cotler Books.
– Hoplock, L. B., Stinson, D. A., & Joordens, C. T. (2019). ‘Is she really going out with him?’: Attractiveness exchange and commitment scripts for romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 181-190.
– Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951.
– Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2011). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
– Malins, G. (Writer), & Harris, N.P. (Director). (2010, January 18). Jenkins (Season 5, Episode 13) [TV series eipisode]. How I Met Your Mother. CBS.
– Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological inquiry, 18(3), 139-156.
– Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of experimental social psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
Maybe you’ve heard of the ‘Reacher-Settler’ theory before. Since its initial mention in the tv series How I Met Your Mother (Malins, G. & Harris, N.P., 2010), it’s made the rounds in popular psychology circles. This theory suggests that in every romantic relationship there is a designated ‘reacher’ and a ‘settler’, with the ‘reacher’ being seen as the individual pursuing someone who is out of their league, while the ‘settler’ is seen as lowering their standards for their partner. These comparisons usually involve stereotypically valuable attributes like attractiveness or wealth.
At a glance, the ‘reacher-settler’ theory poses a number of issues. To begin with, it perpetuates the idea that the reacher is somehow less valuable than the settler based on an arbitrary yardstick (like attractiveness, or wealth). This view becomes problematic when individuals go on to assume that reachers need to compensate for their shortcomings in some way – something that can can negatively affect their self-esteem. Hoplock et al. (2019) found evidence of this compensatory script in their research involving more attractive females in (heterosexual) relationships. Individuals assumed that the less attractive (male) partner needed to offer a different benefit of equal value, such as wealth.
In general, social scripts can inform and influence both our expectations and the way in which we behave in relationships (Hoplock et al., 2019). These scripts span from attachment-related scripts that determine whether an individual approaches their partner in moments of distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), to exchange scripts, which involve how we view giving and receiving benefits.
The same study by Hoplock et al. (2019) also found individuals believed that more attractive females in particular would feel less committed to their partners. In the same case, this perceived gap in physical attractiveness could only be compensated by the male with wealth or status, but not a good personality.
So, nice guys finish last? Is that really what we’re going with? The tricky thing about these studies is that they draw very general conclusions about a very subjective and personal thing, namely attraction, and – ultimately – love. Furthermore, studying social psychology can in its very nature be an impossible process, because everything is, to a certain degree, influenced by social settings. Individuals’ judgements on couples may be diluted by personal biases or reflect what they expect to stereotypically be the case, as opposed to what they themselves deem important in a relationship. In other words, questionnaire responses about other relationships can’t and shouldn’t be equated to personal preferences on what constitutes a good romantic partner. So, let’s pivot and take a look at what individuals within the relationships are saying.
Conroy-Beam et al. (2016) found that mate value discrepancies were more predictive of romantic relationship satisfaction than mate preference fulfilment – whether they match our preferences for an ideal partner. Only for individuals higher in mate value whose partners were less desirable than their alternative options, did relationship satisfaction decline. In other words, our quote-on-quote ‘settlers’ were less satisfied when they felt that there were (a lot of) better options out there, something not observed amongst the ‘reachers’. To add insult to injury, the happiness of participants with less desirable partners was contingent on whether their partner fulfilled their ideal preferences better than most potential mates. Once again, this was not the case for the reachers. It seems that individuals deemed more desirable can afford to be more selective in their choice of partner, and that a mismatch between them and their partner can lead to them feeling dissatisfied.
The underlying message in these research findings is the importance of social exchange. While the comparison of dating to a market process doesn’t sound very romantic, the reality is that as people, we often engage in some form or another of social exchange. Not only this, but these processes can underscore the entire timeline of (romantic) bonds – from forming them to maintaining them. According to Rusbult’s investment theory, individuals assess their current relationships by comparing their expectations to an ‘outcome value’ (Rusbult, 1980). This value is the sum of different characteristics including things like intelligence, physical appearance, and sense of humour. An individual’s level of commitment will depend on this outcome value, the next best available alternative, and their own investments in the relationship. More importantly, Rusbult also suggests that the perception of an imbalance in relational benefits can lead to instability in relationships. It makes sense that the bonds we form based on what we see as being a mutually beneficial relationship will last longer and leave us feeling more satisfied.
Taking this further, if we consider long term relationships, it’s unlikely that being attractive or successful are the only defining features of a fulfilling partnership. Current relationship satisfaction also depends on how satisfied we expect to be with it in the future. For example, individual differences in neuroticism can mean more pessimistic views of the future, while an insecure attachment style will also leave an individual feeling less sure about their relationship, regardless of their other redeeming qualities (Baker et al., 2018).
So is the ‘reacher-settler’ theory legitimate? To me, it presents a very black-and-white view on relationships and feels like it misses the mark, creating this false dichotomy that one must be the reacher and the other the settler. What about compatibility or respect? It makes sense that aspects like these go largely ignored because they’re so difficult to define and consequently research. What makes a relationship work is often invisible to the outsider’s eye. My biggest issue though is that narratives like this reinforce a competitive view on relationships, as if there were always a compromise at play. It feels counterproductive. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from Erich Fromm’s view on ‘real’ love, which moves away from the question of whether someone fulfils our personal needs and instead focuses on our capacity to give and share (Fromm, 2007). In his eyes, most of us are far too concerned with how to be lovable, rather than how to actively love, and maybe therein lies the problem. <<
