Who Fancies Whom? Investigating Adolescent Romantic Interests

Abstract

Having or being a crush is a little-studied aspect of adolescent romantic experiences. Guided by sexual selection theory, this study addresses the question of “who fancies whom?” by examining which adolescents are most fancied, who fancies others the most, and how romantic interest relates to (dis)similarities between individuals. Cross-sectional data were collected from the Peers and Emergence of Adolescent Romance (PEAR) study, which included 1,895 participants from a large secondary school with four locations in the northern Netherlands. To account for the interdependence of social network ties, Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) were used to examine how individual characteristics and dyadic perceptions (including popularity, physical attractiveness, and aggression), as well as contextual factors, such as being in the same grade and school location, are jointly associated with patterns of romantic interest within peer networks. Results showed that adolescents were more likely to be fancied if they were considered popular and had more friendship connections. Physical aggression also increased the likelihood of being fancied. Adolescents who were more socially engaged, including those with larger friendship networks or relationally aggressive behaviors, nominated more peers as crushes, whereas popular students were more selective. Proximity and shared school context were also associated with nomination patterns. Overall, these findings demonstrate how social visibility, status, and individual strategies of romantic pursuit are associated with early adolescent crush patterns, consistent with sexual selection processes.

Keywords

social networks adolescent romance crushes reputation ERGMs

Introduction

Romantic experiences during adolescence encompass a wide spectrum, ranging from fantasies and brief non-romantic sexual encounters to established relationships. Romantic relationships, which are acknowledged, ongoing, and voluntary interactions, have historically received the most scholarly attention (Collins, 2003; Furman, 2018; McMillan et al., 2026). However, adolescent romantic experiences often begin with one-sided attractions, commonly called crushes. Approximately half of early adolescents report having a crush (Bowker et al., 2012), yet relatively little is known about their developmental significance, including the social and emotional experiences of being the object of a crush (Furman, 2018).

Crushes are a central feature of adolescent development, reflecting emerging romantic interest, identity exploration, and sensitivity to peer evaluation. In this study, a “crush” is defined as a self-reported romantic interest in a peer, operationalized through peer nominations of individuals one “fancies”, “has a crush on” or “would like to date”. Studying crushes is valuable because they are both common and emotionally intense, and can shape adolescents’ self-concept and peer dynamics even when they do not develop into relationships (Adams-Price & Greene, 1990). Crushes often emerge within mixed-gender social contexts, which provide opportunities to explore romantic and social dynamics. Unlike established relationships, crushes are often unreciprocated and may occur outside an individual’s closest friend group, allowing for experimentation while minimizing social risk and maintaining peer group stability (Furman, 2018; McMillan et al., 2022). Thus, crushes represent a distinct and meaningful facet of adolescent romantic development.

A useful framework for understanding these dynamics is sexual selection theory (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Trivers, 1972), which emphasizes how evolutionary pressures shape mate choice and competition. From this perspective, adolescents vary in mate value, defined as the constellation of traits (e.g., physical appearance and popularity) that increase their likelihood of attracting and maintaining romantic interest (Brase & Guy, 2004; Fisher et al., 2008; Sugiyama, 2004). Importantly, traits signaling mate value can operate at two interrelated levels: dyadic perceptions, reflecting an individual’s evaluation of a peer (e.g., “I see this person as attractive”), and reputational consensus, reflecting broader peer recognition (e.g., “many peers see this person as attractive”). Both levels can shape crush nominations, whether based on personal preference or the peer’s social desirability. Sexual selection theory highlights how social visibility and status shape both individual judgments and collective reputations. In this study, social visibility is conceptualized as the extent to which an adolescent is noticeable within the peer network, encompassing attributes such as popularity, number of friendship ties, and physical attractiveness. Social status is treated more specifically as peer-nominated popularity, reflecting an individual’s position within the social hierarchy.

Because these processes occur within interconnected peer structures, social network approaches are particularly well-suited to examine how individual characteristics, dyadic perceptions, and group-level reputations relate to patterns of romantic attraction. Specifically, Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) allow us to model who nominates whom as a crush while accounting for the interdependence of these ties.

Purpose of the Present Study

This study investigates the factors associated with adolescent crush nominations, addressing the question of “who fancies whom?” Specifically, we examine which adolescents are most likely to be the recipient of crushes, who tends to nominate others as crushes, and how similarities or differences between adolescents relate to patterns of romantic interest. By focusing on measurable indicators of social visibility, status, mating effort, and selectivity, we aim to provide a theoretically grounded understanding of early romantic interest. Moreover, by distinguishing between dyadic perceptions and reputational measures, we seek to clarify the mechanisms through which adolescent characteristics shape romantic nominations within social networks.

Theoretical Background

Sexual selection theory provides a powerful framework for understanding why some adolescents are more often the targets of romantic interest than others. From an evolutionary perspective, human mating behavior reflects adaptations shaped by the need to attract partners and compete with rivals (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). During adolescence, signals of mate value are especially salient, as peers begin to evaluate one another not only as friends but also as potential partners (Brase & Guy, 2004; Furman, 2018).

Adolescents signal and assess mate value across several key domains. Social visibility and status strongly influence romantic opportunities, aligning with sexual selection theories that link status and dominance to attractiveness (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). Aggression often functions as intrasexual competition: physical aggression can showcase strength but risks lowering appeal, whereas relational aggression can strategically damage rivals’ reputations and, in turn, elevate one’s own mate value (Vaillancourt & Krems, 2018; Volk et al., 2015). Physical attractiveness signals underlying qualities such as health and fertility, which are central to mate preferences across cultures (Hönekopp et al., 2007; Sugiyama, 2004). Age and gender norms also shape perceived desirability (Kenrick et al., 1996), whereas similarity between partners reflects assortative mating tendencies that support compatibility (Cooperman & Waller, 2022). Together, these domains illustrate how sexual selection pressures may operate in adolescent peer contexts.

Social Relationships

From a sexual selection perspective, physical and social proximity increase opportunities for interaction, which is a condition for mate choice. Adolescents are more likely to develop romantic interest in those with whom they share daily settings, such as classrooms, extracurricular activities, or neighborhoods (Aron et al., 1989; Rosenfeld et al., 2019). Frequent interaction increases exposure and social visibility, making peers more likely to be noticed and evaluated as potential romantic interests.

Beyond opportunity, popularity can be viewed as a manifestation of social status (van den Berg et al., 2020), reflecting an adolescent’s place in the social hierarchy (Marks et al., 2012), and signaling characteristics valued by peers, such as being attractive, well-known, and successful (Cillessen & van den Berg, 2012). In line with sexual selection theory, popularity functions as a marker of social status that can enhance perceived mate value by signaling dominance, social competence, and access to peer resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buston & Emlen, 2003; Lee et al., 2018; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). Popular adolescents may also be more visible across peer contexts and more likely to participate in mixed-gender groups, increasing opportunities for romantic interaction (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2008; Savickaité et al., 2020). Thus, popularity operates as a social signal of mate value, shaping both the likelihood of receiving and extending crush nominations.

In addition to popularity, the size and composition of one’s friendship network can influence romantic opportunities. Having a large and diverse network of friends increases social visibility, facilitates introductions, and expands access to new peer groups beyond one’s immediate circle (Bode & Kushnick, 2021). Mixed-gender peer groups are especially important contexts for romantic interactions to emerge (Savickaité et al., 2020). Whereas popularity reflects an individual’s hierarchical position, network size captures the breadth of their social reach, and each provides distinct advantages for adolescent mate selection. Accordingly, adolescents with larger friendship networks are more likely to encounter more cross-gender interactions, increasing their chances of both being fancied and fancying others.

Aggressive Behaviors

Aggression refers to behaviors intended to harm others (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and can take physical and relational forms. Physical aggression involves overt acts, such as hitting, kicking, or slapping, whereas relational aggression refers to behaviors intended to damage others’ social relationships or social standing, such as gossiping, social exclusion, or spreading rumors (Björkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). From a sexual selection perspective, aggression can function as a strategy to compete for mates by deterring rivals or enhancing one’s own standing within the peer group (Archer, 2009; Volk et al., 2015). During adolescence, a period marked by heightened peer competition (Steinberg, 2008), such behaviors may serve as signals of dominance or desirability.

Evidence regarding physical aggression in romantic contexts is mixed. Some studies link boys’ physical aggression to greater dating or sexual activity (Dane et al., 2016), possibly because it signals strength, physical prowess, or competitive ability (Vaillancourt et al., 2013). However, other research associates physical aggression with lower dating success, as it conflicts with preference for prosocial partners (Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2012; Ha et al., 2010; Hattori et al., 2013; Takayanagi et al., 2024; Walter et al., 2020). Taken together, these findings suggest that physical aggression may function as a signal of dominance and competitiveness in some peer contexts, even if it is not universally preferred in long-term partners. In early adolescent settings, where peer status and visibility are salient, such signals may increase attention from others, increasing the likelihood of receiving crush nominations. In addition, if physical aggression reflects a broader orientation toward competition and social dominance, it may also be associated with greater mating effort, leading some adolescents to nominate more peers as potential romantic interests. Accordingly, physical aggression is expected to be associated with a higher likelihood of receiving and sending crush nominations.

Relational aggression appears more consistent with sexual selection strategies, as it allows adolescents to undermine rivals while enhancing their own social visibility. It has also been linked to earlier dating debut, higher dating frequency, and greater sexual activity for both girls and boys (Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2012; Volk et al., 2015). Because it is indirect, it may reduce the risk of retaliation while maintaining opportunities to signal social dominance (Campbell, 2013). This can help maintain or elevate social status, thereby enhancing perceived mate value (Vaillancourt & Krems, 2018). Among adolescent girls, it is often associated with popularity, suggesting a role in securing a favorable position in the peer hierarchy (Zwaan et al., 2013). Based on these patterns, relational aggression is expected to be associated with both sending and receiving crush nominations.

Physical Attractiveness

Adolescents rate physical attractiveness as an important trait (Regan & Joshi, 2003). From a sexual selection perspective, physical attractiveness signals health, fertility, and genetic quality (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Hönekopp et al., 2007; Mengelkoch et al., 2022; Sugiyama, 2004). Attractiveness can also contribute to social status, which can increase visibility and access to romantic opportunities (Vaillancourt & Krems, 2018). Accordingly, adolescents perceived as more physically attractive are expected to receive more crush nominations.

Demographic Factors

Age plays an important role in adolescent romantic preferences. From a sexual selection perspective, older individuals may be preferred because age can signal maturity, social competence, and access to resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Consistent with this, females tend to prefer same-age or older males, whereas males are open to dating both younger and older females (Kenrick et al., 1996). These patterns suggest that older adolescents are more likely to receive crush nominations.

Gender differences also reflect sexual selection pressures and social norms. Sexual selection theory posits that males and females adopt different mating strategies: males may pursue multiple partners, whereas females tend to be more selective (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kågesten et al., 2016). Based on this framework, boys are expected to nominate more crushes, whereas girls are expected to receive more nominations and be more selective.

Similarity in Romantic Interest

A universal finding regarding mate preferences is the tendency toward similarity, often described as assortative mating. Choosing similar partners may promote compatibility and reduce conflict (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Cooperman & Waller, 2022; Markey & Markey, 2007; Trivers, 1972).

Adolescents also report valuing similarity in preferences and visible traits (Hattori et al., 2013), and similarities in characteristics such as popularity and attractiveness often emerge before romantic relationships begin (Simon et al., 2008). One explanation is that adolescent romantic relationships often emerge from mixed-gender peer groups, where homophily processes promote similarity (Connolly et al., 2004; McMillan et al., 2026; Simon et al., 2008). Friends may also influence partner selection by acting as gatekeepers, endorsing or discouraging certain relationships, which reinforces similarity (Bode & Kushnick, 2021; Simon et al., 2008; Suleiman & Deardorff, 2015). Together, these mechanisms suggest that adolescents are more likely to nominate peers who resemble them, increasing the likelihood of similarity in crush nominations.

Social Network Approach

Traditional statistical methods assume independence between observations, an assumption that fails in social networks where data are inherently interdependent. For example, adolescent crush nominations are often shaped by broader network dynamics. Social network theory addresses these dependencies by recognizing that behavior is associated not only with individual characteristics but also with relational patterns such as reciprocity (Rawlings et al., 2023; Robins, 2015). This means that an adolescent’s romantic interest is partly shaped by how others in the network behave and are connected.

To account for these interdependencies, we use ERGMs, which estimate the likelihood of ties between individuals while simultaneously considering individual attributes (e.g., popularity or aggression) and network structures (e.g., reciprocity). This approach allows us to examine how personal characteristics, dyadic perceptions, and the broader social context are jointly associated with crush nominations.

The Current Study

Although adolescent romantic relationships have received much attention, we know little about the process of fancying someone. Building on sexual selection theory, this study examines factors associated with adolescent crush nominations using a social network perspective. Specifically, we analyze which adolescents are more likely to be fancied, who tend to fancy others, and how these patterns relate to similarities and differences.

We focus on key domains highlighted in the literature, including social relationships, aggression, physical attractiveness, demographic factors, and similarity, to provide a theoretically grounded account of early romantic interest.

Guided by sexual selection theory, two groups of hypotheses were formulated to capture different mechanisms of attraction. The first group concerns mate choice based on visibility and status:

H1a

Adolescents perceived as popular at the dyadic level will receive more crush nominations.

H1b

Adolescents perceived as physically attractive at the dyadic level will receive more crush nominations.

H1c

Adolescents with more friendship ties will receive more crush nominations.

The second group of hypotheses focuses on mating effort and selectivity in romantic interest:

H2a

Adolescents with higher levels of reputational aggression will nominate more peers as crushes and will receive more nominations.

H2b

Adolescents perceived as aggressive at the dyadic level will receive more crush nominations.

H2c

Boys will nominate more crushes than girls.

H2d

Adolescents with higher reputational popularity will nominate fewer crushes.

Gender differences were also explored for variables found to be significant, as sexual selection theory suggests that males and females may differ in the traits they value and in the cues they display to attract potential partners. Specifically, males may place greater emphasis on physical attractiveness, whereas females may place greater emphasis on social dominance. Examining these differences allows us to assess whether the associations observed in the network operate similarly for boys and girls.

Methods

Data

We used data from the Peers and the Emergence of Adolescent Romance (PEAR) study, a survey of adolescents’ romantic and sexual relationships. The survey was conducted with students from four locations of a high school in a geographically isolated, semirural area in the northern Netherlands (population ∼ 35,000). This region is more ethnically and culturally homogeneous than other parts of the country, with less than 5% of the population being non-Dutch, although the average family income aligns with the national average (La Roi et al., 2020). Active consent was obtained from participants, whereas parents provided passive consent (opt-out). Students completed paper-and-pencil surveys in their classrooms, and our analyses focus on data collected in November 2014. Of the 2,159 students enrolled in the school, 1,895 participated in the survey (50.8% girls; 49.2% boys), resulting in a participation rate of 87.8%, with ages ranging from 11 to 20 years (Mean = 14.8; SD = 1.6; Median = 14.75).

We define the network boundary at the school level, aggregating the four locations into a single network, because students socialize and spend time together outside class in their neighborhoods, often across locations, making cross-location ties plausible, especially given the relatively small population and its geographically isolated location. Analyzing separate location/grade subnetworks would censor valid cross-location ties and distort the opportunity structure. Instead, our ERGMs control for same location and same grade (and related opportunity covariates) while still allowing between-location nominations, thereby representing the social ecology that students experience.

Measures

Two types of measures were used, self-reports and peer nominations.

Peer Nominations

Participants had a list of all students from the four school locations, each identified by a unique code. As they completed the questionnaire, they followed name generator prompts and could nominate an unlimited number of peers (as crushes, popular peers, physically aggressive peers, relationally aggressive peers, physically attractive peers and best friends) (Table 1). Crushes were assessed using a peer nomination item asking students to indicate peers they “fancy”, “have a crush on”, or “would like to date”. This operationalization aligns with prior peer nomination research on adolescent romantic interest (Bowker et al., 2012). Participants recorded the corresponding codes, ensuring anonymity. The average indegree was computed for each variable, defined as the mean number of nominations received per student.

Table 1.

Peer Nomination Variables

Variable	Name generator	Average indegree (SD)
Crushes	“Who do you fancy/have a crush on/would like to date (we do not mean someone you are currently dating)?”	0.66 (1.13)
Popularity	“Who do you think is popular?”	2.54 (3.55)
Physical aggression	“Who often quarrels and/or initiates fights?”	0.91 (2.05)
Relational aggression	“Who spreads gossip/rumors about others?”	1.15 (1.87)
Physical attractiveness	“Who is good-looking?”	1.84 (2.44)
Best friends	“Who are your best friends?”	6.15 (3.51)

Note. Indegree is defined as the number of incoming peer nominations received by each participant for a given attribute.

Age and Gender

Age was self-reported by participants. An age difference effect was assessed by calculating the difference in the ages of the students in each dyad. Positive values indicate larger age differences, whereas negative values reflect smaller differences, pointing to greater age similarity. Gender was self-reported by participants, with options being boy or girl (boys coded by 0, and girls coded by 1). When asked to report their gender, students could also provide an open-ended response (i.e., “other, namely:”), but this category was not selected by any of the respondents in our sample.

Opportunity

The opportunity structure was assessed by measuring whether two students attend the same grade and the same school location.

Analytical Strategy

Analyses were conducted using ERGMs, which model the probability of ties between individuals while accounting for the interdependence inherent in network data. This approach allows us to examine how individual attributes, dyadic perceptions, and structural effects (e.g., reciprocity), are jointly associated with the likelihood of crush nominations (Rawlings et al., 2023).

ERGMs were implemented in R, by using the statnet package (Handcock et al., 2008). As many effects were included in each model, the system library doParallel was used for parallel processing to reduce computation time. The extensive number of effects to be studied (30 in total) made it necessary to split the analysis into three different ERGMs, as convergence problems arose with increasing effects. All ERGMs included edges (indicating the likelihood of crush tie), mutual (indicating the likelihood of getting nominated back), and isolates (to capture the proportion of students with no romantic activity; i.e., students without sent or received crush nominations) effects. Triadic closure effects, such as geometrically weighted edgewise shared partners (gwesp effect), were not included because the crush network was sparse, with over 99% of all triads being empty (for more details see Supplemental Materials, Part 1), and due to crush nominations being mostly cross-gender dyadic interactions, leaving virtually no closed triads. Unlike friendship networks, closure tendencies are negligible in this context and unnecessary for modeling.

All models also included the effect of being in the same school location and grade (nodematch effect), as well as having the same gender (nodematch effect), the effect of gender on receiving (nodeifactor effect) and sending (nodeofactor effect) nominations, age difference (absdiff effect), and the effect of age on receiving (nodeicov effect) and sending (nodeocov effect) nominations.

Model 1 included all reputational variables from a dyadic perspective (edgecov effect). This model examined whether an individual’s perception of a peer (e.g., perceiving someone as popular) was associated with a higher likelihood of nominating that peer as a crush. Model 2 included reputational variables from a broader peer perspective. Specifically, it examined whether an individual’s overall reputation within the network (based on peer nominations) was associated with the likelihood of receiving (nodeicov effect) or sending nominations (nodeocov effect), as well as whether differences (absdiff effect) between peers played a role. These reputational variables were based on the number of nominations received (indegree) and normalized by the maximum number of possible nominations within the same grade.

Model 1 and Model 2 complement each other, allowing us to distinguish between the role of individual perceptions and broader peer reputations in crush nominations. Model 3 included all effects that were significant in Models 1 and 2, allowing them to compete within the same model. By modeling all significant effects together, Model 3 provides a more conservative and robust test of the factors associated with the crush network. Regarding the general interpretation of the effects, ERGMs provide log-odds (logit) coefficients, which can be exponentiated to convert them into odds ratios, with Odds ratio = e^estimate.

Goodness-of-Fit was adequate for all models, as assessed by Model statistics, Indegree, Outdegree and Edge-wise plots (for more details see Supplemental Materials, Part 2). Indicators of fit (AIC) and parsimony (BIC) were similar across models, with Model 3 showing the best fit (AIC = 21,539 and BIC = 21,793).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

In the sample, 35.3% of participants (669 out of 1,895, 53.2% boys) reported having at least one crush. The mean number of sent nominations (outdegree) was 0.75 (SD = 1.64). Among participants who nominated a crush, most nominated only one person (55.2%) or two people (22.3%). The prevalence of being nominated as a crush was 38.8% (736 out of 1,895, 47.7% boys), with a mean number of received nominations (indegree) of 0.67 (SD = 1.14). Most participants received one (61.5%) or two nominations (22.4%).

Participants could be classified into four categories: isolates (neither nominating nor being nominated; 42.0%), those who were only nominated (22.7%), those who only nominated others (19.2%), and those who both nominated and were nominated (16.1%). Regarding the type of crush, 88.1% of participants reported exclusively cross-gender crushes, 6.5% reported only same-gender crushes, and 5.4% reported same and cross-gender crushes. Reciprocity was rare: only 11.8% of participants who nominated a crush experienced reciprocity (79 out of 669 participants), with most having only one reciprocated crush. Among participants in a romantic relationship (n = 39), 38.5% reported having a crush on someone other than their partner. These descriptive patterns highlight that crush nominations were relatively uncommon, largely unreciprocated, and predominantly directed toward peers of a different gender.

Structural and Opportunity Effects

Across all ERGMs (Table 2 and 3), the edges effect was negative and significant, indicating a generally low likelihood of nominating someone as a crush. This pattern aligns with the descriptive findings showing that only about one-third of participants reported at least one crush. Mutual nominations were positive and significant in all models. The odds of a reciprocal crush were between 17 and 21 times higher than those of a non-reciprocal one, indicating that when a crush was mutual, it occurred much more often than expected by chance. The isolates effect was also positive and significant, reflecting the large proportion of students (42.0%) who neither nominated nor were nominated by anyone.

Table 2.

ERGM Estimates for the Crush Network: Dyadic Reputational Perceptions (Model 1) and Broader Peer Reputations (Model 2)

	Model 1			Model 2
	Estimate	SE	Odds ratio	Estimate	SE	Odds ratio
Edges	−7.766***	0.225	0.000	−8.411***	0.226	0.000
Mutual	3.036***	0.171	20.819	2.812***	0.175	16.637
Isolates	1.271***	0.066	3.563	1.438***	0.067	4.210
Same location	1.250***	0.091	3.489	1.487***	0.096	4.424
Same grade	1.942***	0.072	6.970	1.991***	0.072	7.320
Gender
Same gender	−0.116*	0.052	0.891	−0.114*	0.052	0.892
Gender on being fancied	0.130**	0.049	1.139	0.159**	0.053	1.172
Gender on fancying others	−0.151**	0.049	0.860	−0.228***	0.054	0.796
Age
Age difference	−0.262***	0.029	0.770	−0.261***	0.029	0.770
Age on being fancied	0.051*	0.022	1.052	0.066**	0.021	1.068
Age on fancying others	−0.095***	0.022	0.910	−0.091***	0.021	0.913
Dyadic perceptions
Popular & fancying	1.134***	0.271	3.108
Physical attractiveness & fancying	0.668	0.344	1.950
Physical aggression & fancying	0.873*	0.404	2.394
Relational aggression & fancying	0.415	0.460	1.514
Broader peer perceptions
Popularity
difference				0.002	0.010	1.002
on being fancied				−0.004	0.011	0.996
on fancying others				−0.029**	0.011	0.971
Physical attractiveness
difference				0.011	0.014	1.011
on being fancied				−0.005	0.015	0.995
on fancying others				0.033*	0.015	1.034
Physical aggression
difference				0.022	0.017	1.022
on being fancied				0.016	0.016	1.016
on fancying others				−0.011	0.016	0.989
Relational aggression
difference				−0.004	0.014	0.996
on being fancied				0.011	0.015	1.011
on fancying others				0.043**	0.014	1.044
Number of friends
difference				−0.013*	0.006	0.987
on being fancied				0.033***	0.006	1.033
on fancying others				0.018**	0.006	1.018
AIC	21708			21560
BIC	21909			21907
MC Std. Err.	0.725			0.629

Notes. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 3.

ERGM Estimates for the Crush Network: Combined Significant Effects (Model 3)

	Estimate	SE	Odds ratio
Edges	−8.338***	0.217	0.000
Mutual	2.838***	0.173	17.075
Isolates	1.434***	0.067	4.196
Same location	1.447***	0.095	4.249
Same grade	1.976***	0.072	7.212
Gender
Same gender	−0.118*	0.052	0.889
Gender on being fancied	0.135**	0.049	1.144
Gender on fancying others	−0.241***	0.052	0.786
Age
Age difference	−0.262***	0.029	0.769
Age on being fancied	0.066**	0.021	1.068
Age on fancying others	−0.091***	0.021	0.913
Dyadic perceptions
Popular & fancying	1.321***	0.229	3.746
Physical aggression & fancying	0.873*	0.370	2.394
Broader peer perceptions
Popularity
on fancying others	−0.029***	0.008	0.972
Physical attractiveness
on fancying others	0.037**	0.012	1.038
Relational aggression
on fancying others	0.047***	0.008	1.048
Number of friends
difference	−0.011	0.006	0.989
on being fancied	0.036***	0.005	1.036
on fancying others	0.019***	0.005	1.019
AIC	21539
BIC	21793
MC Std. Err.	0.612

Notes. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Opportunity effects showed that adolescents were more likely to nominate someone they encountered frequently. Being in the same grade and attending the same school location both significantly increased the likelihood of a crush nomination. The odds of nominating someone were approximately seven times higher when adolescents were in the same grade and three to four times higher when they attended the same school location.

Gender and Age Effects

Crush nominations were predominantly cross-gender, consistent with the descriptive findings showing that most adolescents reported having crushes on peers of a different gender. Across models, there was a consistent tendency for boys to nominate more crushes than girls and for girls to receive more nominations than boys.

Age-related effects indicated that nominations were more likely between adolescents of similar age, as reflected by a negative age difference effect. Older adolescents tended to receive more crush nominations, whereas younger adolescents were more likely to nominate others.

Mate Choice Based on Visibility and Status

The first set of hypotheses examined whether adolescents with greater social visibility and status were more likely to be nominated as a crush. In Model 1 (Table 2), which tested dyadic perceptions, adolescents were about three times more likely to nominate a peer they personally perceived as popular (Odds Ratio = 3.108, p < .001). This effect remained significant in the final combined model (Model 3, Table 3), indicating that personal perceptions of popularity were a consistent predictor of receiving crush nominations.

Model 2 (Table 2) included reputational measures based on peer consensus. Adolescents with higher reputational popularity were less likely to nominate others as crushes (Odds Ratio = 0.971, p < .01), but those with a greater number of friends were more likely to send (Odds Ratio = 1.018, p < .01) and to receive nominations (Odds Ratio = 1.033, p < .001). These effects remained significant in the final model.

Taken together, Model 3 showed that adolescents who were perceived as popular at the dyadic level were more likely to receive crush nominations. Adolescents with a greater number of friends were more likely to both send and receive nominations. No evidence was found that physical attractiveness was associated with receiving crush nominations. However, an additional finding indicated that higher physical attractiveness was associated with a greater likelihood of sending more nominations.

Mating Effort and Selectivity

The second set of hypotheses examined whether adolescents’ mating effort and selectivity were associated with crush nominations. In Model 1, adolescents were about two times more likely to nominate a peer they personally perceived as physically aggressive (Odds Ratio = 2.394, p < .05). Dyadic perceptions of physical aggression remained associated with a higher likelihood of crush nominations in Model 3.

In Model 2, adolescents with higher reputational relational aggression were more likely to send crush nominations (Odds Ratio = 1.044, p < .01), whereas adolescents with higher reputational popularity were less likely to send nominations (Odds Ratio = 0.972, p < .01). These effects also remained significant in Model 3.

Taken together, higher reputational relational aggression was associated with sending more crush nominations, but not with receiving nominations, and reputational physical aggression was not associated with either sending or receiving crush nominations. Physical aggression at the dyadic level, but not relational aggression, was associated with a higher likelihood of nominating someone as a crush. Boys were more likely than girls to nominate others as crushes, and adolescents with higher reputational popularity sent fewer nominations.

(Dis)similarity Effects

We examined whether adolescents tended to nominate crushes who were similar or different from themselves on key attributes. Consistent with previous results, adolescents were more likely to nominate peers of similar age. Among the reputational variables included in Model 2, only difference in the number of friends was significant (Odds Ratio = 0.987, p < .05), indicating a tendency for adolescents with comparable levels of social connectedness to nominate one another. However, this effect did not remain significant in the final combined model (Model 3), indicating that the association between similarity in number of friends and crush nominations was not robust once other characteristics were included.

Supplemental Analyses

Significant variables from Model 3 were tested for gender interactions. Among the seven tested variables, only relational aggression showed a significant gender interaction, with boys who were more relationally aggressive sending more nominations than girls (for more information see Supplemental Materials, Part 3).

Discussion

This study examined the general question of “who fancies whom?”, assessing which adolescents are most fancied, who fancies others the most, and how romantic interest relates to (dis)similarities between individuals. This was studied using a social network approach, which accounts for the interdependence of relational data. Unlike traditional statistical approaches that assume independent observations, this approach explicitly models how one adolescent’s nomination is embedded within a broader network of peer relations, providing a more accurate description of romantic interest patterns.

Studying crushes is valuable because they are both common and emotionally intense, and they can shape adolescents’ self-concept and peer dynamics even when they do not develop into relationships. Early romantic interest often emerges within mixed-gender peer contexts, providing opportunities to explore social and romantic dynamics. In this sense, crushes represent a low-risk developmental context in which adolescents can explore attraction, status, and peer evaluation. By focusing on these early interactions, this study offers insight into the mechanisms associated with adolescent attraction and the role of social visibility and mating effort in shaping peer relationships.

Guided by sexual selection theory, this study focused on two key mechanisms of attraction. The first, mate choice based on visibility and status, considers that adolescents may be more likely to be fancied if they are socially visible or hold a high status within the peer group. The second, mating effort and selectivity, emphasizes individual differences in pursuing romantic partners, including tendencies to nominate others as crushes and the selectivity displayed in these choices. By examining these mechanisms, the study provides insight into how individual characteristics, social behaviors, and opportunity structures jointly shape early romantic interest within peer networks.

Who Are Fancied?

In line with sexual selection theory, adolescents may be fancied due to visibility, status or traits that signal social dominance or competence. Our findings highlight that visibility operates primarily at the level of individual perception rather than shared reputation.

Popularity is Strongly Related to Romantic Attraction at the Dyadic Level

Adolescents who perceived a peer as popular were more likely to fancy that person, highlighting the importance of dyadic-level visibility in guiding romantic interest. This aligns with research emphasizing that socially prominent peers attract attention (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2008) and with sexual selection theory, which views status as a marker of success and social dominance (Lee et al., 2018). In contrast, broader reputational popularity was not related, suggesting general social reputation matters less than individual perceptions. This finding supports Hypothesis H1a and suggests that romantic attraction may be driven more by subjective, interaction-based impressions than by widely shared reputational consensus.

Physical Attractiveness is Not Related to Being More Fancied

Contrary to expectations and prior findings (Regan & Joshi, 2003), physical attractiveness was not related to being fancied (neither at a dyadic nor general reputational level). This suggests that, in this sample, social visibility and friendship connections played a stronger role in guiding adolescent romantic interest than physical appearance alone. An explanation is that, in relatively stable and familiar peer environments, such as the present semi-rural Dutch school context, the importance of different components of social visibility varies. Although physical attractiveness is an aspect of visibility, other elements, such as friendship connections and day-to-day social presence, may be more salient in shaping romantic interest. Additionally, physical attractiveness may not operate as a universal determinant of adolescent crushes, as preferences can be heterogeneous and shaped by local peer norms. This result does not support Hypothesis H1b.

Adolescents With More Friendship Nominations are More Likely to Be Fancied

Adolescents with higher numbers of friendship nominations were more likely to be nominated as a crush, consistent with the idea that individuals embedded in larger friend groups are more visible within the peer context, increasing their likelihood of receiving crush nominations (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2008). From a sexual selection perspective, being well-connected may also signal competence, status, and access to desirable social resources, all of which can enhance perceived mate value and attractiveness to peers. This finding supports Hypothesis H1c.

Physical Aggression, but Not Relational Aggression, is Related to a Higher Likelihood of Being Fancied at a Dyadic Level

Adolescents who were perceived as physically aggressive at the dyadic level were more likely to be nominated as a crush. Although some research links aggression to lower romantic desirability (Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2012), sexual selection perspectives suggest that certain forms of aggression may function as signals of dominance or competitive ability, which can enhance perceived attractiveness during adolescence (Volk et al., 2015). In early adolescence, such behaviors may be interpreted as assertiveness or social dominance rather than purely negative traits, particularly in peer contexts where status hierarchies are still emerging. Relational aggression at the dyadic level was not related to being fancied, suggesting that indirect aggression may be less visible or less strongly associated with dominance cues. These results partially support Hypothesis H2b but not H2a.

Older Students Were More Likely to Be Nominated as Crushes

Age was positively associated with being fancied, with older adolescents receiving more crush nominations. This finding aligns with prior research showing adolescent preference for older partners (Kenrick et al., 1996) and is consistent with sexual selection theory, in which age signals maturity, experience, and resource potential. Being older may therefore enhance perceived mate value in early romantic contexts, as adolescents seek partners who appear more capable of providing social and developmental benefits.

Who Fancies Others?

In line with sexual selection theory, adolescents differ in the effort they invest in pursuing romantic interest and in the selectivity with which they choose potential partners. Mating effort reflects strategies to identify and approach desirable peers, whereas selectivity reflects limiting nominations based on perceived mate value or social status. Examining which adolescents are most active in nominating crushes reveals how these individual differences shape early romantic exploration, influence peer dynamics, and provide a safe context for experimenting with romantic interactions.

Relational Aggression is Associated With Sending More Crush Nominations, Especially Among Boys

Adolescents who engaged in relationally aggressive behaviors were more likely to nominate peers as crushes. This pattern was particularly evident among boys, suggesting that relational aggression may function as a strategy to navigate peer hierarchies while pursuing potential romantic partners (Card et al., 2008). From a sexual selection perspective, these behaviors may signal social intelligence and competitive ability, reflecting strategies of mating effort rather than guaranteeing higher romantic success. This finding provides partial support for Hypothesis H2a.

Boys Nominate More Crushes than Girls

Consistent with sexual selection theory and gendered socialization processes, boys were more likely than girls to report multiple crushes (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kågesten et al., 2016), reflecting greater mating effort, whereas girls appeared more selective, likely due to reputational concerns. This finding supports Hypothesis H2c.

Popular Adolescents Nominate Fewer Crushes

Popularity was negatively associated with sending crush nominations, suggesting that higher-status adolescents are more selective, focusing on fewer high-quality partners to maintain social standing and maximize potential social benefits (Buston & Emlen, 2003). This pattern aligns with Hypothesis H2d.

Adolescents With More Friends Nominate More Crushes

Those with larger friendship networks tended to nominate more peers as crushes, likely reflecting greater social engagement, visibility, and opportunities for interaction. From a sexual selection perspective, well-connected adolescents may develop stronger social skills and confidence, whereas increased exposure and familiarity with peers support early romantic interest (Bode & Kushnick, 2021).

Physically Attractive Adolescents Send More Crush Nominations

Adolescents perceived as physically attractive based on general reputational perceptions, were more likely to nominate others as crushes. Although initially counterintuitive, this finding suggests that higher perceived mate value may be associated not only with being desired but also with greater confidence or willingness to initiate romantic interest. Physically attractive adolescents may face fewer social costs when expressing attraction, or may have broader social exposure, increasing both opportunities and inclination to nominate others as crushes.

(Dis)similarities in Crush Patterns

A well-established pattern in partner selection is the preference for similarity, with individuals often drawn to others who share key traits (Cooperman & Waller, 2022). Among adolescents, this occurs in areas such as popularity, attractiveness, and other reputational characteristics (Simon et al., 2008), fostering compatibility and increasing the likelihood of romantic interest. This study examined whether adolescents were more likely to fancy peers similar in age and reputational traits.

Similar Age Increases the Likelihood of Romantic Interest

Adolescents were more likely to report a crush on peers closer to their own age. This pattern likely reflects opportunity structures, as most crushes occurred within the same grade, where age differences tend to be minimal. From a sexual selection perspective, similar age may facilitate coordination of social activities, shared experiences, and synchronized developmental timing, enhancing compatibility. These findings align with prior work showing age similarity as a factor in adolescent partner selection (Simon et al., 2008).

Similarity in Reputational Characteristics did Not Increase the Likelihood of Romantic Interest

Similarity in popularity, physical attractiveness, aggression, or number of friends was not significantly associated with being fancied. This suggests that adolescent crushes may be more aspirational than similarity-based, often directed toward higher-status or socially visible peers rather than toward similar others. These results diverge from studies showing roles for popularity or attractiveness in dating dynamics (Kreager et al., 2015), but align with sexual selection perspectives in which individuals strategically pursue partners who maximize social or mating advantages rather than similarity. Initially, similarity in the number of friends was included in one model, but it was not significant after accounting for the other effects. This suggests that other visibility characteristics are more strongly related to romantic interest than homophily.

Opportunity is Related to Higher Chances of Being Nominated as a Crush

Adolescents were more likely to fancy peers who shared the same location and grade, highlighting the role of structural opportunity in shaping early romantic interest (Bode & Kushnick, 2021). Frequent interactions in shared spaces, such as classrooms or school events, increase familiarity and exposure, allowing adolescents to observe and assess mate value. This pattern may be particularly pronounced in the Dutch semi-rural context, where adolescents’ social environments are relatively bounded and repeated interactions within the same peer group intensify familiarity and visibility. Importantly, these structural factors should be seen as correlates of reported attraction rather than intrinsic determinants of desirability.

Limitations and Future Research

This study’s cross-sectional design limits causal inferences and temporal ordering among individual traits, social behaviors, and romantic attraction. Self-reports may also introduce bias through social desirability (Rickwood & Coleman-Rose, 2023) or limited self-awareness. Because the sample consisted of Dutch adolescents in a relatively homogeneous and semi-rural setting, the results may not generalize to more urban or culturally diverse contexts. Future studies could address these limitations by incorporating longitudinal designs, more diverse samples, and additional behavioral measures.

Future research could also include personality traits not captured here, such as introversion/extroversion and empathy, or sense of humor, which may influence romantic attraction. Research should also move beyond predominantly heterosexual frameworks to explore the romantic experiences and preferences of non-heterosexual adolescents, whose crush patterns may be shaped by different social norms, visibility cues, and opportunities for interaction. Expanding the scope in these directions would yield a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of early romantic interest.

From an evolutionary perspective, longitudinal and cross-cultural approaches could also clarify whether the observed attraction patterns reflect early expressions of sexual selection processes, including preferences for socially visible, confident, or dominant peers. Understanding how these mechanisms interact with contextual factors such as school environments and peer norms could illuminate the developmental pathways through which adolescent romantic behaviors align or diverge from broader sexual selection tendencies.

Conclusion

This study describes patterns of adolescent romantic attraction by examining who are fancied, who fancies others and how (dis)similarities are associated with romantic interest. Individual characteristics such as age, popularity, and number of friends were associated with being fancied, underscoring the role of social visibility and status in early romantic attraction. The association between physical aggression and being fancied suggests that some adolescents may signal dominance or confidence through behaviors that carry social costs, consistent with sexual selection perspectives on social signaling and mate competition.

Adolescents who were more socially engaged, including those with higher relational aggression and more friends, were more likely to fancy others, whereas more popular adolescents appeared more selective in their romantic pursuits. These patterns point to the interplay between mating effort, selectivity, and an individual’s position within the peer network.

Structural opportunities also played an important role. Adolescents were more likely to fancy peers within the same location and grade, emphasizing how familiarity, exposure, and shared environments are linked to romantic interests. Similarity in traits such as popularity and attractiveness did not relate to mutual interest; instead, proximity and social visibility were more central. By focusing on adolescent crushes, this study highlights how early romantic interest is related to social visibility, status, and opportunity structures, reflecting sexual selection processes that favor socially prominent or dominant peers. These insights complement existing research on formal dating relationships by revealing how attraction emerges within everyday peer contexts before relationships form.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material - Who Fancies Whom? Investigating Adolescent Romantic Interests

Supplemental Material for Who Fancies Whom? Investigating Adolescent Romantic Interests by Melissa González-Loyola, Diego Palacios and René Veenstra in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Chaim la Roi, and Ruta Savickaitė for their assistance with data collection.

ORCID iDs

Melissa González-Loyola

Diego Francisco Palacios Farias

René Veenstra

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The data collection for this project was funded by the NWO Research Talent Program (project number: 406-12-022). This work was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID)/Scholarship Program/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2023 – 72230088.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Science Statement

As part of IARR's encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research cannot be publicly shared due to the inclusion of sensitive information about adolescents. The data are available upon request to the third author by emailing d.r.veenstra@rug.nl, and in accordance with ethical approvals. The materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request from the third author by emailing d.r.veenstra@rug.nl.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adams-Price

Greene

A. L.

(1990). Secondary attachments and adolescent self concept. Sex Roles, 22(3-4), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288191

Archer

(2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09990951

Arnocky

Vaillancourt

(2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000207

Aron

Dutton

D. G.

Aron

E. N.

Iverson

(1989). Experiences of falling in love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407589063001

Björkqvist

(1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420988

Bode

Kushnick

(2021). Proximate and ultimate perspectives on romantic love. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 573123. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.573123

Bowker

J. C.

Spencer

S. V.

Thomas

K. K.

Gyoerkoe

E. A.

(2012). Having and being an other-sex crush during early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.11.008

Brase

G. L.

Guy

E. C.

(2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559

10.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

11.

Buston

P. M.

Emlen

S. T.

(2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(15), 8805–8810. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533220100

12.

Campbell

(2013). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford University Press.

13.

Card

N. A.

Stucky

B. D.

Sawalani

G. M.

Little

T. D.

(2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x

14.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

van den Berg

Y. H. M.

(2012). Popularity and school adjustment. In Ryan

Ladd

G. W.

(Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 135–164). Information Age.

15.

Collins

W. A.

(2003). More than a myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1301001

16.

Connolly

Craig

Goldberg

Pepler

(2004). Mixed-gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402003.x

17.

Cooperman

A. W.

Waller

(2022). A multivariate study of human mate preferences: Findings from the California twin registry. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1795611

18.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x

19.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

Z. A.

Volk

A. A.

Vaillancourt

(2016). Physical and relational bullying and victimization: Differential relations with adolescent dating and sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 43(2), 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21667

20.

de Bruyn

E. H.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2008). Leisure activity preferences and perceived popularity in early adolescence. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(3), 442–457.

21.

Fisher

Cox

Bennett

Gavric

(2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347

22.

Furman

(2018). The romantic relationships of youth. In Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 410–428). Guilford.

23.

Overbeek

Engels

R. C. M.

(2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z

24.

Handcock

M. S.

Hunter

D. R.

Butts

C. T.

Goodreau

S. M.

Morris

(2008). Statnet: Software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v024.i01

25.

Hattori

W. T.

Castro

F. N.

Lopes

F. D.

(2013). Mate choice in adolescence: Idealizing romantic partners. Psico (PUCRS), 44(2), 226–234.

26.

Hönekopp

Rudolph

Beier

Liebert

Müller

(2007). Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.001

27.

Kågesten

Gibbs

Blum

R. W.

Moreau

Chandra-Mouli

Herbert

Amin

(2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS One, 11(6), Article e0157805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157805

28.

Kenrick

D. T.

Keefe

R. C.

Gabrielidis

Cornelius

J. S.

(1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67(4), 1499–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01810.x

29.

Kreager

D. A.

Molloy

L. E.

Moody

Feinberg

M. E.

(2015). Friends first? The peer network origins of adolescent dating. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12189

30.

La Roi

Dijkstra

Kretschmer

Savickaité

Veenstra

(2020). Peers homophobic attitudes in adolescence: Examining selection and influence processes in friendships and antipathies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(11), 2229–2245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01298-8

31.

Lee

K. S.

Brittain

Vaillancourt

(2018). Predicting dating behavior from aggression and self-perceived social status in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 44(6), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1102/ab.21758

32.

Markey

P. M.

Markey

C. N.

(2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507079241

33.

Marks

P. E. L.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Crick

N. R.

(2012). Popularity contagion among adolescents. Social Development, 21(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00647.x

34.

McMillan

Kreager

D. A.

Veenstra

(2026). From peers to partners: The peer-context origins of adolescent heterosexual romance. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 36(2), Article e70187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.70187

35.

McMillan

Kreager

D. A.

Veenstra

(2022). Keeping to the code: How local norms of friendship and dating inform macro-structures of adolescents’ romantic networks. Social Networks, 70(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.11.012

36.

Mengelkoch

Gassen

Prokosch

M. L.

Boehm

G. W.

Hill

S. E.

(2022). More than just a pretty face? The relationship between immune function and perceived facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1969), 20212476. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2476

37.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Long

J. D.

(2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00060-2

38.

Rawlings

C. M.

Smith

J. A.

Moody

McFarland

D. A.

(2023). Network analysis: Integrating social network theory, method, and application with R. Cambridge University Press.

39.

Regan

P. C.

Joshi

(2003). Ideal partner preferences among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13

40.

Rickwood

D. J.

Coleman-Rose

C. L.

(2023). The effect of survey administration mode on youth mental health measures: Social desirability bias and sensitive questions. Heliyon, 9(9), e20131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20131

41.

Robins

(2015). Doing social network research. Network-based research design for social scientists. Sage.

42.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. J.

Hausen

(2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17753–17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.190863

43.

Savickaité

Dijkstra

J. K.

Kreager

Ivanova

Veenstra

(2020). Friendships, perceived popularity, and adolescent romantic relationship debut. Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619847530

44.

Simon

V. A.

Aikins

J. W.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2008). Romantic partner selection and socialization during early adolescence. Child Development, 79(6), 1676–1692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01218.x

45.

Steinberg

(2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

46.

Sugiyama

(2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00083-7

47.

Suleiman

A. B.

Deardorff

(2015). Multiple dimensions of peer influence in adolescent romantic and sexual relationships: A descriptive, qualitative perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(3), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0394-z

48.

Takayanagi

J. F. G. B.

Siqueira

J. O.

Silveira

P. S. P.

Valentova

J. V.

(2024). What do different people look for in a partner? Effects of sex, sexual orientation, and mating strategies on partner preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(3), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02767-4

49.

Trivers

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129266-7

50.

Vaillancourt

Brittain

H. L.

McDougall

Duku

(2013). Longitudinal links between childhood peer victimization, internalizing and externalizing problems, and academic functioning: Developmental cascades. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(8), 1203–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9781-5

51.

Vaillancourt

Krems

J. A.

(2018). An evolutionary psychological perspective of indirect aggression in girls and women. In Coyne

S. M.

Ostrov

J. M.

(Eds.), The development of relational aggression (pp. 111–126). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190491826.003.0008

52.

van den Berg

Y. H. M.

Lansu

T. A. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2020). Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: A meta-analytic review of 20 years of research. Journal of Adolescence, 84(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.010

53.

Volk

A. A.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

Z. A.

Vaillancourt

(2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915613909

54.

Walter

K. V.

Conroy-Beam

Buss

D. M.

Asao

Sorokowska

Sorokowski

Aavik

Akello

Alhabahba

M. M.

Alm

Amjad

Anjum

Atama

C. S.

Atamtürk-Duyar

Ayebare

Batres

Bendixen

Bensafia

Bizumic

Zupančič

(2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154

55.

Zwaan

Dijkstra

J. K.

Veenstra

(2013). Status hierarchy, attractiveness hierarchy and sex ratio: Three contextual factors explaining the status–aggression link among adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412471018

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.44 MB

0.00 MB