Kim Mills: For many of us, the movies offer us our earliest lessons in love. From meet cutes in coffee shops to musical serenades to dramatic airport chase scenes, romantic comedies have long shaped our expectations about what love and romance might—or ought to—look like. But how much do rom-coms get right about relationships and how much do they get wrong? And why are these types of movies often so emotionally satisfying?
Today we’re going to talk to two psychologists who study the science of attraction, commitment and love about the real life lessons we can take from onscreen love stories. So what are the biggest dating and relationship myths that movies perpetuate? And conversely, what do they get right? How does pop culture shape society’s ideas about love and relationships? And how well do your favorite characters’ love stories hold up when analyzed through the reductive lens of science?
Welcome to Speaking of Psychology, the flagship podcast of the American Psychological Association that examines the links between psychological science and everyday life. I’m Kim Mills.
We have two guests today. First is Dr. Paul Eastwick, a professor of psychology at the University of California Davis, where he runs the Attraction and Relationships Research Lab. He studies how people initiate romantic relationships and the psychological mechanisms that help partners remain committed and attached. He’s the author of more than 80 scientific papers and is working on a book entitled Bonded by Evolution, set to be published in 2026.
Next is Dr. Eli Finkel, a social psychologist at Northwestern University, where he has appointments in the psychology department and the Kellogg School of Management. He studies romantic relationships and American politics and is author of the bestselling book The All or Nothing Marriage: How the Best Marriages Work.
Dr. Finkel and Dr. Eastwick are cohosts of the podcast Love Factually, which employs the science of relationships to examine popular romantic comedies and dramas. The podcast examines what these movies get right and wrong compared with how relationships work in the real world.
Dr. Eastwick, Dr. Finkel, thank you for joining me today.
Paul Eastwick, PhD: Thanks so much for having us, Kim.
Eli Finkel, PhD: Thank you.
Mills: Let’s start by talking about how this podcast came about. How did you two scientists get the idea to do a podcast together about romantic comedies? And what was your goal when you started?
Finkel: It started—we talk about movies and psychology all the time. We’ve been doing research together for literally decades. And then on the side we had this interest in film, and we realized that we could combine these interests into a podcast that uses relationship science to evaluate the themes that romantic films send into our culture. And we thought it was a great opportunity, almost like a Trojan horse, for getting people who are interested in relationships, interested in movies, to learn a little bit about the science along the way.
Mills: Who is your target audience and are you reaching it?
Eastwick: I’d like to think that we are. I mean, what I think about with any kind of outreach efforts is that in psychology, there are so many people out there who have, I think, good ideas about the way the human mind works, the way that people relate to each other, but they don’t certainly have the scientific backing to know that there’s support for some of these things and not for other things. And so I think about our job as like, Look, we’re trying to give people a little bit of a foundation, a little bit of a backbone, so that they can better scaffold some of these ideas that they have about the world onto what they’re seeing out there in the culture. So is that people who have psychology undergraduate degrees? Probably to some extent. Is it going to be movie lovers? Certainly. But anybody who’s thought in any way about how the movies might or might not reflect their own romantic experiences, we think we have something to offer these folks.
Mills: Well, speaking of that reflection overall, do you find that most romantic comedies are doing a good job reflecting how real relationships work, or are they more fantasy than reality?
Finkel: I love the question, and one thing that’s always tempting as a rigorous social scientist is to be a little bit of a buzzkill, to talk about the myths. And look, it is not hard to find them. These tropes that you see in all of these rom-coms, many of them are false. One of the things that’s embedded in our show, every episode of Love Factually has a structure. Almost every episode of Love Factually is about a specific movie, and there’s a structure that we adopt. And one of the things that we decided early has been one of the things that has made it so fun to do the show is we have one section, one major section of every episode: What does the movie get? And this is the sort of thing that forces us not to stand from on high and throw darts at Ryan Gosling, right? We get to say, Okay, so here’s a movie, it’s a rom-com. What are the ideas that align well with what the scientific evidence suggests is how relationships really work?
And then we have a section that’s right after that, that’s alright, well, what misconceptions are in the movie? Or what could the movie have done a little better? And so if we have to answer the question in general, are rom-coms doing a service or a disservice to society? I don’t think I have an easy answer to that because a lot of the ideas are in fact good representations of how a couple learns over time what each other’s patterns are and how they develop a unique language that they refer back to later. Lots of rom-coms are great at that, and yet they lean into a lot of tropes—that some people are dateable and some people are not. And so by and large, the genre is doing some real service to the wellbeing of society in terms of the message it’s sending and some real disservice to society in terms of the messages that they’re sending.
Eastwick: And I think the key thing is that every movie’s got both of these in it. It’s very rare that when we sit down to record and we compare notes, we try not to compare notes until just before we’re starting to record. And so it’s very rare that I’m like, Dude, I have nothing in the “gets right” section. I hope you have something here. Because most of the movies you can pick out things that are correct or useful or at least dancing around something that’s correct and useful. And same thing I would say maybe especially when we cover some of the beloved classics, I think maybe it was like Brokeback Mountain, I can’t remember now. But when we sat there and we’re like, I don’t think this movie gets anything wrong, what are we going to talk about? So you feel like you’re grasping at things, but for the most part there’s a mix and that’s kind of what makes this exciting.
Mills: How do you pick the films that you’re going to talk about?
Eastwick: We pull from a few different sources. Look, we try to pick movies that we think people have seen and or will remember fondly. We haven’t gone back yet more than a few decades. I do expect we’ll go further back in time eventually and pick off some of the old greats. But other than that, honestly, we’re just trying to keep a mix of tones. We’ll do some really thoughtful pensive pieces. I mean, I just mentioned Brokeback Mountain, but we also try to get the goofy romantic comedies. We did 27 Dresses not that long ago, so we really do try to mix it up. We even covered Materialists recently, which is in theaters now. That was actually one of the first times that we attempted that. That’s a little tricky because we like to get audio in there, and that was a little challenging, but we just try to vary up the styles, vary up the genres with the hope that hey, people are going to find a few things that they like and they can start with those episodes.
Mills: So your first episode was about When Harry met Sally. Let’s start there. And Sally’s love-hate, friendship-relationship dynamic, realistic, whatever. Yeah. I mean, does this movie get any of it right?
Finkel: Yeah. I mean, this movie has timeless insights into the nature of relationships. One of the things that we talked about on that episode is the friends to lovers pathway. This is one of the ideas in the relationship space, in relationship science, that talks about, well, how do relationships start? And a lot of the rom-coms, I think, get this—if not wrong, they work with the improbable or less likely case where it’s like a meet-cute and they eyed each other across the room and fell in love. Of course that does happen, but the much more typical case, even today, even in the era of online dating, is that somebody emerges from your existing social milieu and then over time you are like, Huh, there’s some interest here. And Harry and Sally are sort of ideal exemplars of this idea that, look, they disliked each other at first, five years passed, then they had another weird interaction, another five years passed, and then they were buddies for a while, and then it was like, Whoa, there’s something more here. And yeah, that’s a beautiful thing to illustrate on screen and very well aligned with how a lot of relationships really started.
Eastwick: One of the things about that movie that I think is absolutely fascinating with respect to this question is that our memories of that movie, our collective memories of that movie, I think don’t exactly match the science. Because what a lot of people remember is the lesson men and women can’t be friends, which I would say no, the science debunks that just fine, but that’s not actually what happens. They’re friends in the movie, they’re friends for years before the romantic stuff really starts to kick in. And I think that’s one of these interesting cases and why the movies are so interesting to analyze—because sometimes what the movies get wrong is not what’s literally on the page, but the way that it lingered in the culture kind of spun things in an odd direction. And so that’s things that we try to pull on too, to try to say, Hey, if we were watching this movie today, I think we’d say this gets it pretty right. It’s our memories of the thing that got it wrong.
Mills: So is your goal eventually to have a gig in Hollywood where you’re advising script writers?
Finkel: Funny—what about you? Do you want it? I don’t know. I never actually thought about it. I’ll support you, but I think it’d be fun. It might be fun to consult with some of these A-list screenwriters, directors, actors, and so forth. My guess is that, Paul, you and I might not have the best instincts for what necessarily makes a good movie. We’re probably better at critiquing.
Eastwick: Yeah. But what’s interesting, and again, why I love returning to the movies for these things is look, what the movies do that the science doesn’t do as well is it captures the specifics and the particulars that make different relationships feel lived in. And I mean, that’s these writer’s job, that’s the director’s job, that’s the actor’s job is to make it feel alive. Like this is something you’ve encountered, something you might experience yourself. And look, oftentimes in the science, we’re in the business of describing overall trends. Okay, what happens on average? But I will say a lot of relationships, research is trying to move in this direction of trying to capture more of the particulars, more of the idiosyncrasies of particular relationships. You could point to a little bit of qualitative stuff is starting to become a little bit more in vogue now. But there are different ways that we’re trying to do as good a job of capturing what feels real about relationships, trying to catch up to what the movies are doing.
Mills: Are there any particular movies that you feel really most accurately depict how relationships work in the real world?
Finkel: One of the things that we’ve done in the show is at the end of each episode, we get to be film critics and we give a number of stars from one to five. How good is the movie according to Paul Eastwick or according to Eli Finkel in the standard film critic way. But at Paul’s insight, we do a second thing, which is we offer a rating called the Rusbult, R-U-S-B-U-L-T. It’s named after my advisor and one of the really founding mothers of relationship science, a woman named Caryl Rusbult. And what we do with that is evaluate from 1 to 5 Rusbults, how well aligned were the messages in the film with the scientific evidence base as far as it exists. I bring that up because, Paul, I haven’t kept formal tabs on this, but we’ve had a whole bunch that got 5 Rusbults, where we both gave it 5.
Eastwick: I think it’s definitely happened. I mean, La La Land was one. We really thought that that absolutely nailed the full arc of the relationship. What is it that brings people together, makes them feel like they’re part of a team and working together towards their goals? And then how does that process go awry sometimes? I mean, that’s really one that captured the whole arc and that one sticks with me. I mentioned Brokeback a second ago. That’s another one that devastating, heartbreakingly, realistic, brilliant. And there are a few others too. Marriage Story was another one that I think we were both like, oh my gosh.
Finkel: Kim, the La La Land example is also relevant to the issue that you were bringing up earlier where we talked about the science is pretty good at talking about statistical effects. There’s a correlation of 0.3 between this predictor variable and this outcome variable. And that’s in a sense, the opposite of the–Paul, I think you used the word the phrase lived in experience. But La La Land does this gorgeous thing. So a lot of people have probably seen this movie. This is Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, and Ryan Gosling is obsessed with jazz, like classical jazz, like the old-fashioned way, the way it’s supposed to be done. And he and Emma Stone are building this relationship. And fairly early on she says, Look, I should get this out of the way. I don’t like jazz. Now, he has already said–Ryan Gosling’s character has already said to his sister, Don’t set someone–Don’t set me up with a woman who’s not interested in jazz. We’d have nothing to talk about. What’s gorgeous about that movie is the minute that Emma Stone says, I’m not into jazz, he says, Wait a minute. And he says, What are you doing right now? And then they go to a jazz club and she gets to witness jazz through his eyes and she’s thrilled with it.
And that’s the sort of thing, it’s like that’s an interesting way of depicting this idea that our stated preferences, the things that we think are really important to us might not be especially big predictors of what actually attracts us face-to-face. It turns out, Paul and I have done a lot of research on this topic. A lot of other scholars have as well, but we’ve never depicted it with the sort of grace and elegance of Ryan Gosling taking Emma Stone to a jazz club. And so there’s a nice intersection of what does the art afford in terms of the insights and messages that it sends, and how does that interface across this divide of like, well, art isn’t science and science isn’t art, but they have this dialectic that we get to unpack on the show. It’s a pleasure to do.
Mills: Do movies give us an unrealistic idea of how relationships should work, or do they actually help people have better relationships? Do we know?
Eastwick: I guess I’d say one of the tropes or one of the ideas that I would worry about is that with a lot of romantic movies, they want to end on a high note. And so you end with the couple getting together or of not getting together for the first time, overcoming a little hiccup on the way towards being at the altar or being together in a more solidified way. Right? Twenty-seven Dresses does this. I mean, Groundhog Day, there are many, many movies where the end is sort of the couple finally coming together in a semi-permanent way.
And I think one issue there is that it kind of implies happily ever after of sorts or that we got through the tricky part and everything from here is going to be smooth sailing, and that’s just not actually how it works. That’s not what the data show—that rocky periods often emerge. And a lot of times, a happy, fun movie doesn’t want to be a downer in that way. And so I do think it’s easy to come away with a misleading understanding of the arc of these things and where the challenges lie. Yes, there are often challenges as relationships get off the ground, but there are going to be some things that come in later too.
Mills: Let’s turn from the good and happy movies to the bad. Do you have examples that perpetuate harmful relationship myths or get some aspect of relationship science completely wrong, and I’m thinking of Fatal Attraction, for example.
Finkel: Well, we haven’t done Fatal Attraction on the show. My guess is that we shouldn’t worry too much about Fatal Attraction misleading people about how relationships should work. Sending the wrong message, try this one at home, like boil the bunny right. I don’t think we’re going to see that. I actually think the more pernicious issues, and the reason why I think having people who are experts in the science of relationship comment on these things are the ideas that feel true, that feel intuitive, but aren’t accurate. Those I think are more corrosive than these Fatal Attraction issues.
And here, I think I mentioned briefly this idea that some people are 10s and some people are 2s, right? Like I mentioned that obliquely earlier. This is an idea that people generally find appealing. It’s not a crazy idea. There are people who are at least objectively, or at least by consensus, better looking than other people are. There’s truth in these ideas. The question is to what extent are some people catches and other people really not catches—you really want to avoid these people? And here I’m not talking about the Fatal Attraction sorts of people. I’m talking about the guy who’s not as good looking versus the guy who looks like Ryan Gosling.
And Paul’s done a lot of research in this space, and the idea that basic lesson from this work is sure, there’s a little bit of consensus early on about who’s appealing. That’s true. But as we get to know people better, to what degree is it the case, Kim, that everybody agrees that you’re a spectacular partner no matter who your partner is or you’re not a very good partner, no matter who your partner is. The amount of consensus about how good you are as a partner is relatively small because most of what makes a relationship successful are the ways that the two of us figure out to connect together, not about me being a 10 and you being a 10 or both of us being 6s, but about us working together to create relationships in which you’re a 10 for me, or at least an 8 for me, even if you wouldn’t necessarily be an 8 for the next person.
And so the trope that there are sort of some dateable desirable people and some people that are you really wouldn’t ever want to get stuck with, that’s much more false than it is true.
Eastwick: And just to pick up on that a little bit, look, a lot of movies, you got good guys and bad guys. I mean, that’s often what people want to see, and it’s very engrossing to think about that. But, boy, in relationships, it’s usually not quite that easy to demarcate the good guys and the bad guys, even if you think like, okay, right, so the bad guys, but what that means is that he’s sexy and charming and alluring, but really he’s trouble.
Finkel: A bad boy.
Eastwick: And you got to get through that part and realize that the nice guy was the one to be with all along. But even that, that’s not really how people are arranged in the world in terms of their relational skills. Like yeah, yes, some people are charming and some people are not. But the idea that charming people are bad relationship artists, it’s not remotely true. So the tendency to build a tension around good and evil when layered on relationships, I think that can go in some really weird places.
Mills: In one interview I read, you mentioned that the concept of negative reciprocity is reflected in some rom-coms. What does that term mean and what films depict it as part of the plot?
Finkel: This is one of the OG major ideas going back to the seventies or before in relationship science. I think most associated at this point with John Gottman, who I think is probably the most widely known relationship scientist of all time, but a lot of people have studied this. And negative reciprocity is this idea that once negativity enters an interaction between the two of us, we can’t break out of it. So it’s not just that there’s some negativity, of course relationships have some negativity, but for some of us, or sometimes it becomes like an absorbing state where I lash out at you and you lash out at me, and it’s just this cycle of negativity. And that is one of the major predictors of divorce, right? If you track people having an interaction, you’re video recording them having an interaction. One of the major problems that you say uh oh is once negativity enters, we don’t have any way of extricating ourselves.
Now you do see that in rom-coms. Sometimes you see them in the more serious romantic films. We cover some of those too. So one devastating example of negative reciprocity comes from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. One of the great movies that I’ve ever seen, one of the greatest, but you see the Jim Carrey character and the Kate Winslet character, they start having fight. And this one fight in particular where she comes home late and she’s drunk and has driven home drunk, and he’s critical about that. She makes fun of him, and he says, What are you, a wino? And she’s like, Why? No, what are you from the '50s? And they end up just escalating. And then in that movie is—I think anybody familiar with the movie knows they end up erasing each other from each other’s memories because they’re just so over each other. They’re so bad for each other. But I do think that film does a beautiful job of illustrating how once the negativity seeps in, if the climate isn’t conducive to like, We've got to stop this before it overtakes us. We can become consumed with negativity in the relationship.
Mills: And then that brings me to the question of soulmates or love at first sight, which drives a lot of movie plots. What does relationship science say about these ideas? I mean, is it a real thing or is it just something that we all wish could happen?
Eastwick: So this one’s tricky. I’ll start with the love-at-first-sight idea because look, we haven’t done the proper statistical analysis to compare how many times does love at first sight appear in the movies versus how often does it happen in real life? But my guess is that it’s going to be vastly overrepresented in the movies than in real life. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen. It certainly does happen. We’ve even looked at this in some data on people’s trajectories over time, where they’re reporting on their past relationships and then sort of reconstructing how they felt at various points in time. And yeah, there’s a solid, I don’t know, 20% of people who when they fell in love with this person, it was really there from the beginning. So it definitely happens. What I don’t love is how it seems to be reflected as a commonplace.
You just got to be at the right place at the right time. Lightning is going to strike. This happens in a number of movies where things just kind of seem to be magical from the very beginning. And I think that’s just not a helpful idea for people because then if you’re single and not loving it, you spend a lot of time thinking like, Oh, am I just not getting lucky? But you don’t think about the different ways you could have some agency over what’s going on. Now look, the dating apps have complicated all of this because now it feels like we’re dating even if what you’re really doing is swiping for 90 minutes a day, that doesn’t necessarily count as dating. So there are many complications today, but the idea that lightning is going to strike, and you’ll know it from moment one, I don’t love this idea. That’s not to say it never happens, but it’s far rarer than people think I would bet.
Finkel: One thing that I think is worth considering about this question is there are actually two questions in here. One is, does love at first sight exists? And are some people just, they meet and they’re compatible and they make it forever? And that’s great. There’s a second question of people’s theories. All of us, not just theorists, not just professional psychologists or something, but regular people, all of us have theories about how the world works. And you might have a theory about whether compatibility is just something that happens, right? Cupid takes out his arrow and he shoots it, and then you’re compatible, or he doesn’t—arrow stays in the quiver and then you don’t have a chance. People have some amount of control about whether they adopt that worldview, but that’s independent of what’s true in the world. Nonetheless, it’s studied, right? We can look at whatever’s true about the world.
We can look at the extent to which people are convinced that compatibility is something that you can just detect from the opening moments versus, for example, compatibility is something that you cultivate through effort over time. These are two very different models. It builds on classic work from Carol Dweck. This might sound like work that you’re familiar with in the relationship space. And just one of the major conclusions from that literature is if you are somebody who really has this sort of soulmate perspective on love, that if it’s going to be there right from the start, that doesn’t tend to be necessarily good or bad in terms of predicting relationship outcomes.
But it’s really thorny when you have difficulty, when you have conflict in the relationship. And the reason why it’s so difficult when you have conflict in the relationship is—why are we having conflict? Well, if you believe in soulmates, you start to say, uh oh, we’re probably not meant for each other. Whereas if you believe that compatibility isn’t something that Cupid creates with an arrow, but something that the two of us cultivate together, there’s nothing scary about conflict. It’s an opportunity to learn about each other and to resolve the conflict and end up in a more constructive space. And that’s what the research evidence shows, is that these soulmate beliefs are corrosive when things are difficult. But the fact is most of us are going to go through a difficult stage. So it’s a risky belief to hold.
Mills: So there’s a very convenient ending to a lot of fairytales, which is, and then they live happily ever after. And I’m just wondering how well or poorly movies reflect this? Because if the end of the movie or the climax of the movie, let’s say is the couple get together, well then what?
Finkel: If I had to guess at this point, I mean, we’re 27 movies in, we’ve had a few bonus episodes as well. But if I had to speculate at this point, let’s imagine that I’m speculating what it’s going to feel like after we’ve done a couple hundred of these. I think this idea might be one that troubles me the most—is the general plot arc of the stereotypical, but Disney movies and so forth is well, will they or won’t they? And maybe there’s a thing here, but then we have a big fight, but it’s all a misunderstanding, and then we figure it out, and then somebody proposes to someone in usually a very gendered sort of way, and they all live happily ever after. And look, it’s fair to say that that is a standard plot for mid-level, let’s say. I think it’s a pretty bad idea.
And Paul, I think you were alluding to some of this earlier, is it sort of implies, sure there’s some rocky bits early, but once you figure it out, everything’s going to be fine. But there’s probably like 50 or 60 years ahead. I mean, depending upon how old people are when they’re meeting and getting married or making a proposal and the idea that, well, now you’ve worked through the tough stuff is probably a corrosive idea for people to hold. I think one movie that I happen to love that I think illustrates this idea is John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything. They have these misunderstandings and then they break up and then he holds the boombox over his head and plays In Your Eyes and they end up together.
And then the very last scene, they’re on the airplane and there’s a little bit of turbulence and then things like settle. And I think that maybe is supposed to be the metaphor, well, you’ve been through the bumpy stuff and now the other 60 years are going to be just fine. That’s a pretty troubling idea because almost every one of us is going to have some difficulty. And if you feel like, wait a minute, I never thought this could happen, where is it coming from? This is a bad thing, that’s going to be harder, than if you’re like, well, of course we’re going to have ebbs and flows and we’re just going to manage them because we’re grownups and conflict is going to emerge.
Eastwick: If I could defend the Say Anything version of it for a second, I think what I would note is that what is interesting about that one is that they are on a journey. They’re taking off on a journey, and it sort of makes sense as a first chapter, whereas the things that end with proposal or wedding, those are really the ones that make me more nervous. I mean, I like the inverse grand romantic gesture in 27 Dresses where she runs and does the dramatic thing to try to get him back, but that’s one of these, it ended with a wedding and everything was all good from there. That makes me especially nervous. But I hear what you’re saying about Say Anything.
Mills: So the stereotype that rom-coms are written to basically appeal to women, chick flicks, what do your friends say about you and this podcast that you’re doing about what a lot of people think of as chick flicks?
Eastwick: I don’t know the data on this exactly, but my understanding is that many of these movies are beloved by men and women. It kind of depends on where you put the line for what exactly is a romantic movie and what exactly is a romantic comedy and what’s a romantic drama. And we just covered High Fidelity too, right? That’s mostly about a guy’s arc, that’s dudes, right? So there’s a lot of variability in there. Variability.
I think there is a real misperception in the culture that women are the ones who care about relationships and stuff, and men, I don’t know, we’re dragged into it or something that’s wrong and that bad. And in fact, if anything, backwards according to some new research and synthesis out there suggesting that if anything, it’s men who think about relationships more, pursue relationships, try to get into relationships more, try to care more about maintaining their relationships, et cetera, et cetera. Because men are not so good at maintaining social support networks outside of our primary romantic relationships. So women are a little bit better at that. So I think there are plenty of men out there who find these movies appealing and are looking to think more deeply about these things.
Mills: So they’re secretly crying in the theater.
Eastwick: Oh, sure. I know they’re in there. I see you.
Mills: So fun question for each of you. What’s your favorite romantic comedy?
Eastwick: Okay, wait. Yeah, so if it’s a romantic comedy in particular, then mine is When Harry Met Sally. I would say romantic movie, I’m putting Before Sunset above it by a hair, but romantic comedy is When Harry Met Sally. I deeply love it.
Finkel: Gosh, there’s a bunch that I love. One of my favorites is Say Anything. I mentioned it earlier to sort of critique it, but John Cusack doing what he does. Cameron Crowe early in his career doing excellent work, so I’m a big fan of that one as well.
Mills: So I haven’t listened to all your podcasts, but I’m pretty sure you haven’t done Moonstruck. “Snap out of it!” When are you going to do it?
Finkel: We were just talking about it today.
Finkel: Right. I think we’re going to do it really soon.
Mills: Good.
Finkel: What’s funny about that is I hadn’t seen it in a while, and then maybe a couple years ago, I think it was a little bit before we started the podcast, I watched it again and I was like, Oh my god, Nick Cage was such a fox. I didn’t somehow remember it or encoded properly, but he’s a stone fox of that film.
Mills: Yeah. Alright, well, I’m looking forward to that one. What’s next for your podcast? What are you planning? Do you have another season coming up? What movies are you planning?
Eastwick: We just released Pride and Prejudice pretty recently, and you caught us. Moonstruck is definitely coming. And then another one that we’re going to be doing soon as another personal favorite, I’m excited to revisit it, haven’t seen it in a while, is 40-year-old Virgin.
Mills: Well, Dr. Eastwick, Dr. Finkel, thanks for joining me. This has been just a laugh riot. A lot of fun. Thank you.
Eastwick: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having us.
Mills: You can find previous episodes of Speaking of Psychology on our website at speakingofpsychology.org or on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you’ve heard, please follow us and leave a review. If you have comments or ideas for future podcasts, you can email us at speakingofpsychology@apa.org. Speaking of Psychology is produced by Lea Winerman.
Thank you for listening. For the American Psychological Association, I’m Kim Mills.
Paul Eastwick, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. He is a social psychologist who studies attraction and close relationships, and is the author of the forthcoming book Bonded by Evolution (2026). He is a cohost of the Love Factually podcast.
Eli Finkel, PhD, is a social psychology professor who studies romantic relationships and American politics, and is the author of The All-Or-Nothing Marriage. He works at Northwestern University, with appointments in psychology and the Kellogg School of Management. He is a cohost of the Love Factually podcast.
