All You Need Is Love-And a Little Irrationality

Just call him Adam, a 28-year-old male who just met Jane, a 25-year-old woman, online. With a date now on set, Adam booked a restaurant well beyond his budget, one he had carefully selected and picked, but never went to. Desperate to make a good impression, he spent hours in front of his closet, carefully selecting the right clothes, slipping on his most expensive shoes, and nervously putting on his special occasion perfume. What Jane knows about Adam doesn't go far beyond his dating profile---he loves dogs, has a sense of humor, enjoys good conversations, and is an avid reader. What Jane doesn't know is... a lot. Among his friends, Adam is well known for his temper. Not even six hours ago, he had shouted at his subordinates at work over a minor mistake. The photo on his dating profile is from four years ago---not drastically outdated, but enough to hide the fact that he now carries less muscle and a little more around the waist. In truth, Adam hardly takes care of himself. On most days, he skips the expensive perfume, and sometimes even deodorant, leaving behind an odor that his coworkers regularly joke about behind his back. 

But after their first date, Jane was still unaware of these unlovable qualities. All she sees is that he's a sweet man with a soft spot for pets, someone who seems thoughtful and well read, as all he talks about are Novels and Books that Jane also finds interesting. She didn't mind that he looked a bit different from his photos; after all, Adam had presented himself not simply as his true persona, but as someone near-perfect, someone who, to Jane, is comparable to Prince Charming.

The act carried on for the next ten dates. But what about the twentieth? The fiftieth? The hundredth? Eventually, Adam began to wear out. Pretending to be someone he wasn't took its toll. Slowly but surely, the performance faded; surely there's no such thing as a Prince Charming. The fancy dinners came to an end. Instead, he began planning their dates at simpler, more modest places. He stopped wearing his expensive perfume, and the scent of his natural body odor started to reek. Jane began to notice his temper. Whenever they faced a difficult moment, Adam would raise his voice and shift the blame onto her. Ultimately,  came the betrayal. Jane discovered that Adam hadn't been faithful. Behind her back, he was still chatting with his ex, and, on more than one occasion, even meeting up with her. The mask had finally slipped, revealing someone Jane never truly knew.

It's easy for us, readers, to say she should leave him and find someone better. But things are rarely that simple, especially for two young, passionate partners like Adam and Jane. More often than not, people cling to their relationships even when the signs are clear. Even when they know their partner has unpleasant body odor, is temperamental, lacks ambition, or even worse, has been unfaithful. And yet, they stay. They hold on, fully aware of the flaws, the unlovable traits. But why exactly? Well, the answer might be as simple as The Beatles once put it: "Love, love, love."

Homo Economicus: A False Proposition 

There are thousands of Novels, hundreds of thousands of Poems, and millions of songs that try to explain what love is. Yet, mankind has never managed to agree on a universal definition of love. Even social studies has taken its turn in trying to unravel the world's greatest mystery, including the field of economics. For centuries, economists have sought to understand how people make choices when faced with limited options (Mankiw, 2007). In the context of love, then, the question becomes: why does Jane choose and continue to cling to Adam, rather than pursue a different alternative? 

For decades, economists have assumed that individuals are these self interest driven beings which they called as Homo Economicus or the "Economic Man". What economists have long attempted to do is rationalize love. Gary Becker, for instance, in his seminal 1973 paper "A Theory of Marriage: Part I", approaches romantic relationships through the lens of utility maximization. He conceptualizes marriage as a partnership in which two individuals jointly produce and consume "household commodities," with the relationship enabling gains from specialization and the division of labor between spouses (Becker, 1973). He laid the foundation that a marriage market exists, and individuals are Rational Agents who seek spouses solely according to their objective qualities. Becker's theory is that individuals tend to marry partners whose traits are complementary to their own (similar to themselves), or what Becker called "Positively assortative." (Becker, 1973)

From this perspective, Jane's affection for Adam stems from his desirable traits---his kindness, humor, and thoughtfulness (McKeever & Saunders, 2022).  That Adam and Jane, for one, are rational agents who both love one another solely because it is a fitting response to the qualities of their beloved. Love, then, is interpreted as a logical and appropriate response to these attributes. And maintaining a relationship with Adam is a decision that aligns with Jane's best interest, as it maximizes her utility given the available alternatives (Bee & Desmarais-Tremblay, 2022). 

In this case, Becker's theory might explain why Jane went on the second, third, or even fourth date. She saw in him the kind of qualities she wanted in a partner, traits that seemed to match and complement her own. But it fails to explain why Jane still stuck around for the 101st date. Not after finding out about all his unlovable traits. Not after learning he cheated. Not after realizing that Adam wasn't the person she thought he was.

We stay. We forgive. We give more than we should. And sometimes, that's not foolish---it's Human