Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:23:38.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Desperate to connect: Men’s dependence on romantic relationship in a competitive mating landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2026

Virgil Zeigler-Hill Open the ORCID record for Virgil Zeigler-Hill [Opens in a new window]
Virgil Zeigler-Hill*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA zeiglerh@oakland.edu https://www.zeigler-hill.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary builds on Wahring et al.’s model of male emotional dependency by integrating mating market dynamics. It argues that men’s reliance on romantic partners, combined with competitive pressures and limited emotional networks, creates a volatile psychological landscape. Romantic failure, in this context, can deeply threaten self-worth – fueling distress, behavioral issues, and, in extreme cases, ideological radicalization.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e130
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Wahring et al. offer a valuable and empirically grounded model of men’s heightened dependence on romantic relationships. Drawing from diverse theoretical frameworks, they illustrate how men, more than women, often rely on romantic partners for emotional intimacy, validation, and social support. Their model effectively situates this dependency in terms of various “inputs” (e.g., sexual concerns) and “outputs” (e.g., the appeal of initiating a relationship).

One of the most compelling aspects of their analysis is the attention given to men’s weaker non-romantic emotional networks – such as fewer, less intimate friendships and less robust familial or community ties. Although women often cultivate emotionally rich support systems, men frequently centralize their emotional and psychological well-being within their romantic relationships. In the absence of such a relationship, men are particularly vulnerable to loneliness, isolation, and mental health challenges (Barreto et al., Reference Barreto, Victor, Hammond, Eccles, Richins and Qualter2021; Umberson, Lin, & Cha, Reference Umberson, Lin and Cha2022).

The missing context: mating market competition

To deepen the framework offered by Wahring et al., I think it may be helpful to integrate the role of mating market dynamics, particularly how competitive pressures interact with men’s relational dependency to amplify their psychological vulnerability. Men are not only seeking connections – they are doing so in an environment that is intensely competitive, selective, and socially consequential.

This combination of emotional dependency and mating market competition may create a unique and volatile psychological landscape. Men are under pressure to secure and maintain romantic partnerships, not just for intimacy, but for social validation, self-worth, and in evolutionary terms, reproductive viability. When romantic success is elusive or threatened, the resulting emotional fallout may be often more intense than for those with broader sources of support.

Evolutionary pressures and modern risk

From an evolutionary perspective, reproductive success has historically been more variable for men than for women. Although most women throughout evolutionary history have reproduced, only a subset of men passed on their genes (Betzig, Reference Betzig2012), intensifying male intrasexual competition and embedding deep psychological patterns around status, mate access, and identity.

In modern mating markets, these evolutionary pressures are viewed through the lens of social exchange (Baumeister & Vohs, Reference Baumeister and Vohs2004). Variables like local sex ratios, income inequality, and education disparities shape perceived mate value and exacerbate competitive stress (Brooks, Russo-Batterham, & Blake, Reference Brooks, Russo-Batterham and Blake2022). In such a landscape, failure to form or sustain a romantic relationship may carry social and psychological consequences.

Intersexual selection and the experience of rejection

Women’s greater selectivity in partner choice (Trivers, Reference Trivers and Campbell1972) further sharpens this competition. Traits like ambition, emotional intelligence, physical fitness, and financial stability are highly valued. As a result, romantic success becomes not just fulfilling, but symbolic – proof of being chosen, a deeply validating experience for many men.

For men with lower perceived mate value, the mating market may feel like a zero-sum game. On dating platforms, a small percentage of men receive the majority of attention (Neyt, Vandenbulcke, & Baert, Reference Neyt, Vandenbulcke and Baert2019), creating the perception of chronic romantic scarcity. In these contexts, rejection is not merely disappointing – it often signals deep social inadequacy and may trigger emotional responses such as shame, anger, anxiety, and hopelessness (e.g., Andrighetto, Riva, & Gabbiadini, Reference Andrighetto, Riva and Gabbiadini2019).

Intrasexual competition and emotional isolation

Men’s socialization patterns compound these issues. Whereas women often enjoy emotionally supportive peer relationships, men tend to form hierarchical, status-driven social groups that discourage vulnerability. This makes romantic partners not just important – but often their sole source of emotional intimacy. When a relationship ends or remains out of reach, many men may be left without a meaningful outlet for emotional expression, intensifying their distress.

Modern forms of intrasexual competition – ranging from social media comparison to hypergamy and cultural emphasis on status – further erode men’s emotional resilience. The result is a feedback loop where emotional dependency increases the emotional cost of romantic failure, and the emotional cost of failure, in turn, reinforces dependency.

The feedback loop of romantic vulnerability

Wahring et al. correctly highlight that men often suffer disproportionately from relationship loss. By integrating mating market dynamics into their model, we can better understand why: romantic failure may not simply be a personal disappointment – it may represent a perceived collapse of identity, worth, and reproductive viability. The more competitive the environment, the more tightly men may tether their sense of self to romantic success. This dependency raises the stakes – and ironically, may increase the risk of romantic failure due to anxious, avoidant, clingy, or possessive behavior.

This has the potential to create a self-perpetuating cycle: heightened dependency increases the psychological impact of failure, which reinforces the desperation for connection. This feedback loop is both emotionally taxing and socially consequential and warrants deeper empirical attention.

The incel phenomenon as an extreme outcome

One extreme manifestation of this cycle may be the emergence of the modern “incel” (involuntarily celibate) phenomenon. Although only a very small percentage of unpartnered men identify as incels, the subculture illustrates how romantic marginalization can lead to ideological radicalization. Incel forums provide a distorted form of social connection and emotional expression often at the cost of reinforcing bitterness, misogyny, and fatalism (Costello & Buss, Reference Costello and Buss2023; Glace, Dover, & Zatkin, Reference Glace, Dover and Zatkin2021).

In these subcultures, romantic exclusion is reinterpreted not just as misfortune, but as proof of a rigged system. Romantic rejection becomes a collective identity crisis, and the search for intimacy gives way to nihilism, blame, or withdrawal into parasocial alternatives like pornography.

Conclusion

Wahring et al. make a significant contribution by highlighting male emotional dependence on romantic relationships. To enhance our understanding of this phenomenon, we should consider how competitive mating markets may amplify its effects. When emotional dependency intersects with fierce competition for partners, men who struggle to form and maintain relationships may experience heightened psychological volatility.

Future research would benefit from examining both intersexual selection and intrasexual competition to better illuminate the emotional vulnerability, behavioral responses, and social implications that emerge when romantic relationships become the linchpin of male psychological well-being.

Acknowledgements

N/A.

Financial support

This project received no funding from any government agency, commercial organization, or nonprofit entity.

Competing interests

None.

References

Andrighetto, L., Riva, P., & Gabbiadini, A. ( 2019). Lonely hearts and angry minds: Online dating rejection increases male (but not female) hostility. Aggressive Behavior, 45(5), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. ( 2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. ( 2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betzig, L. ( 2012). Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: Comparative evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, R. C., Russo-Batterham, D., & Blake, K. R. ( 2022). Incel activity on social media linked to local mating ecology. Psychological Science, 33(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211036065 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costello, W., & Buss, D. M. ( 2023). Why isn’t there more incel violence?. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 9(3), 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-023-00220-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glace, A. M., Dover, T. L., & Zatkin, J. G. ( 2021). Taking the black pill: An empirical analysis of the “Incel.” Psychology of Men and Masculinities, 22(2), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyt, B., Vandenbulcke, S., & Baert, S. ( 2019). Are men intimidated by highly educated women? Undercover on Tinder. Economics of Education Review, 73, 101914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. ( 1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.Google Scholar
Umberson, D., Lin, Z., & Cha, H. ( 2022). Gender and social isolation across the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 63(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465221109634 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed