Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39971849›Full record

ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2025

A Content Analysis of Lay Definitions of Romantic Chemistry.

Alexandra Liepmann, Eric Tu, Amy Muise

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Speaking the Public's Love Language: How Engaging with Lay Theories Can Build a Rigorous and Resonant Science of Relationships.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexandra LiepmannDepartment of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada. aliep074@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-2764
Eric TuDepartment of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Amy MuiseDepartment of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although romantic chemistry is often referred to in popular culture in Western societies, usually to describe an intense connection between two people, it has received limited attention in academic research. One limitation in previous research and a barrier to future research is the lack of a comprehensive definition of romantic chemistry. In the current study (N = 200 single and partnered people [88 women, 110 men, 2 non-binary participants], age range = 21-76), we examined the common categories in laypeople's definitions of romantic chemistry and assessed if people differed in how they described romantic chemistry based on demographic factors (i.e., gender, relationship status, relationship length, age, parental status). Two coders conducted a content analysis of participants' open-ended definitions of romantic chemistry using an inductive coding strategy. We found that people described romantic chemistry using nine distinct categories (from most to least common): positive interaction, mutuality, comfort, compatibility, similarity, unexplainable spark, sexual attraction, intense fixation, and physiological response. Largely, participants did not differ in how they defined romantic chemistry based on demographic factors. Our findings provide a comprehensive description of romantic chemistry that can assist the development of a measure of romantic chemistry and ultimately test the role of perceived chemistry in relationship initiation and maintenance.

Indexed as

CourtshipInterpersonal RelationsSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultContent analysisDatingRelationship initiationRelationship maintenanceRomantic chemistryRomantic relationships

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.