This article analyzes why, in family sociology, the development of problems for theorizing and research has not led to many cumulative solutions. Cumulative solutions require serial progressions to problem development that are not much evident in family sociology. Problem development has a serial progression when the very framing of a question for research is conditional on the results of previous research. The program of research on mate selection is reviewed in terms of its pattern of problem development. I conclude that the scientific significance of the problem of mate selection has not been established by its research literature. The literature on mate selection is taken to be representative of the way in which programs of research in family sociology have shown incremental but not cumulative growth. Implications for theorizing in family sociology are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, B. N. 1979 “Mate selection in the United States: A theoretical summarization,” pp. 256-267 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories about the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
2.
Bartz, K. W. and F. I. Nye1970“Early marriage: A propositional formulation.”J. of Marriage and the Family32: 258-268.
3.
Berger, J. , B. P. Cohen, and M. Zelditch 1966 “Status characteristics and expectation states,” pp. 29-46 in J. Bergeret al. (eds.) Sociological Theories in Progress, vol. 1. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
4.
Berger, J. , B. P. Cohen, and M. Zelditch1972“Status characteristics and social interaction.”Amer. Soc. Rev.37: 241-255.
5.
Bersheid, E. and W. Graziano 1979 “The initiation of social relationships and interpersonal attraction,” pp. 31-60 in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.) Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Bowerman, C. 1964 “Prediction studies,” pp. 215-246 in H. T. Christensen (ed.) Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
7.
Burgess, R. L. and T. L. Huston (eds.) 1979 Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Burr, W. R. 1973 Theory Construction and the Sociology of the Family. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Burr, W. R. , G. K. Leigh, R. D. Day, and J. Constantine 1979 “Symbolic interaction and the family,” pp. 42-111 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary theories about the Family, vol. 2. New York: Free Press.
10.
Cohen, B. P. 1980 “The conditional nature of scientific knowledge,” pp. 71-110 in L. Freese (ed.) Theoretical Methods in Sociology: Seven Essays. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
11.
Coombs, R. H.1961“A value theory of mate selection.”Family Life Coordinator10: 51-54.
12.
Cuber, J. F. and P. B. Harroff 1965 The Significant Americans: A Study of Sexual Behavior Among the Affluent. New York: Appleton-Century.
13.
Freese, L.1974“Conditions for status equality in informal task groups.”Sociometry37: 174-188.
14.
Freese, L.1976“The generalization of specific performance expectations.”Sociometry39: 194-200.
15.
Freese, L. 1980 “Formal theorizing,” pp. 187-212 in A. Inkeleset al. (eds.) Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 6. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review.
16.
Freese, L. and B. P. Cohen1973“Eliminating status generalization.”Sociometry36: 177-193.
17.
Freese, L. and J. Sell 1980 “Constructing axiomatic theories in sociology (parts 1 and 2),” pp. 263-368 in L. Freese (ed.) Theoretical Methods in Sociology: Seven Essays. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
18.
Gecas, V. 1982 “The Self Concept,” pp. 1-33 in R. H. Turner and J. F. Short (eds.) Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 8. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
19.
Goode, W. J. 1959 “The sociology of the family,” pp. 178-196 in R. F. Mertonet al. (eds.) Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Goode, W. J. , E. H. Hopkins, and H. M. McClure 1971 Social Systems and Family Patterns: A Propositional Inventory. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
21.
Hatfield, E. , M. K. Utne, and J. Traupmann 1979 “Equity theory and intimate relationships,” pp. 99-133 in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.) Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
22.
Holman, T. B. and W. R. Burr1980“Beyond the beyond: The growth of family theories in the 1970's.”J. of Marriage and Family42: 729-741.
23.
Judson, H. F. 1979 The Eighth Day of Creation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
24.
Kemper, T. D.1966“Mate selection and marital satisfaction according to sibling type of husband and wife.”J. of Marriage and the Family28: 346-349.
25.
Kerckhoff, A. C. and F. D. Bean1967“Role related factors in person perception among engaged couples.”Sociometry30: 176-186.
26.
Kerckhoff, A. C. and K. E. Davis1962“Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection.”Amer. Soc. Rev.27: 295-303.
27.
Klein, D. M. and R. Hill 1979 “Determinants of family problem-solving effectiveness,” pg. 493-548 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories about the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
28.
Laudan, L. 1977Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
29.
Levinger, G.1965“Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review.”J. of Marriage and the Family27: 19-28.
30.
Levinger, G. 1979 “A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships,” pp. 169-193 in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.) Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
31.
Lewis, R. A.1972“A developmental framework for the analysis of premarital dyadic interaction.”Family Process11: 17-48.
32.
Lewis, R. A. and G. B. Spanier 1979 “Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage,” pp. 268-294 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories about the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
33.
Murstein, B. I.1970“Stimulus-value role: A theory of marital choice.”J. of Marriage and the Family37: 465-481.
34.
Murstein, B. I.1974“Sex drive, person perception, and marital choice.”Archives of Sexual Behavior3: 331-348.
35.
Murstein, B. I. 1976 Who Will Marry Whom? Theories and Research in Marital Choice. New York: Springer-Verlag.
36.
Nye, F. I. 1979 “Choice, exchange, and the family,” pp. 1-41 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories about the Family, vol. 2. New York: Free Press.
37.
Ramsoy, N. R.1966“Assortative mating and the structure of cities.”Amer. Soc. Rev.31: 773-783.
38.
Reiss, I. L. and B. C. Miller 1979 “Heterosexual permissiveness: A theoretical analysis,” pp. 57-100 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories about the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
39.
Selfors, S. A. , R. K. Leik, and E. King1962“Values in mate selection: Education vs. religion.”Marriage and Family Living24: 399-401.
40.
Shepard, J. W. and H. D. Ellis1972“Physical attractiveness and selection of marriage partners.”Psych. Reports30: 1004-1005.
41.
Snyder, E. C.1964“Attitudes: A study of homogamy and mate selectivity.”J. of Marriage and the Family26: 332-336.
42.
Spanier, G. B. and R. A. Lewis1980“Marital quality: A review of the seventies.”J. of Marriage and the Family42: 825-839.
43.
Toman, W. 1976 Family Constellation: Its Effects on Personality and Social Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
44.
Trost, J.1967“Some data on mate selection: Homogamy and perceived homogamy.”J. of Marriage and the Family29: 739-755.
45.
Winch, R. F. 1958 Mate-Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs. New York: Harper & Row.
