The rom-com effect: Inflating unrealistic expectations of real-world romances

Romantic comedies, or rom-coms, are known for their flawless, entertaining depictions of the real world. The plots centre on attractive characters who are certain to obtain fairytale romances and happily ever afters. This is part of the reason why the genre is popular; viewers know that happiness and hope is a guarantee. And therein lies the issue. The characters and relationships portrayed in rom-coms repeatedly idealise the construction and operation of romantic relationships. Characters encapsulate well-known stereotypes, which rarely simulate real-life people or their situations, and while the ethnicity of lead characters is now varied, representation of other minority groups is lacking, if at all present. It is these improbable foundational features of rom-coms that bolster viewer’s unrealistic expectations of romantic relationships in the real-world.

Galloway¹ acknowledges that the premise of rom-coms results in viewers having idealised expectations when it comes to love and intimacy. Unlike other film genres such as horror, thriller and action, rom-coms parody a reality closer to truth but with the romantic fairytale ending. These films could happen in real-life. Marry Me (2022) is a rom-com set in New York and focuses on a successful female pop star who has difficulties in sustaining relationships. It’s the real world with no sign of dragons, ghosts or clowns hiding in drains. Except, of course, when girl meets boy for the first time while she is performing at her concert where they then get married. This kind of plot twist voids any comparability with the real-world. As women are the primary audience of rom-coms, Galloway argues that they are disproportionally influenced to have idealised expectations, and the more of these movies they watch, the more these expectations will be endorsed by way of fantasising. Unfortunately for viewers, the characters and plots of these films are stereotyped and completely unrealistic. They don’t allow for nuance in personalities, imperfection of the moment or a reality without a hair and makeup team. And they operate at the exclusion of many minority groups.

While there is consensus that rom-coms influence viewers, the degree to which they do and how is debated. Psychology professors Eastwick and Finkel² state that rom-coms sometimes reflect the real-world accurately and that there are positive messages for viewers to contemplate. Couples can learn how to better communicate as a relationship progresses (Cal Weaver learning to be more attentive to his wife in Crazy, Stupid, Love [2011]) and that some people are dateable while others are not (Mira Ray’s dating experience after the death of her husband in Love Again [2023]). Rom-coms can rarely be categorised as either positive or negative influences; they get things both right and wrong. However, Eastwick and Finkel acknowledge that the guaranteed happy ending after the couple overcome a small obstacle is unrealistic and causes concern regarding relationship expectations. In the real-world, couples cannot overcome every obstacle. Sometimes the best course of action is for a couple to split-up, so that all parties might find happiness and love elsewhere.

A viewer doesn’t select a rom-com by chance; they’re chosen because of their predictability. Neuroscientist Aditi Subramaniam³ asserts that knowing a chosen film will deliver a familiar, happy storyline gives viewers a sense of control and comfort, and that having a touch of non-supernatural magic is pleasant to experience as an adult. She also states that representation in rom-coms has changed for the better with more diverse characters being visible to express universally understood emotions. It doesn’t matter where in the world you live or what cultures you belong to, we all crave connection particularly in the form of romantic relationships. And this is why rom-coms need to show diversity with characters; everyone should have the opportunity to see a version of themselves obtaining love and happiness.

While idealised content is a requirement for the happy buzz rom-coms promise to deliver, overused clichés and stereotyped characters reinforce dangerous personal standards. Characters of rom-coms are idealised⁴, which signifies the need for certain traits to achieve love and happiness. The Life List (2025) is a recent release that fully encapsulates the traditional rom-com stereotype; the leads are young, wealthy, educated and attractive, and at the end of the film the two lead characters declare their love for each other and begin a new relationship. While encouraging viewers to take chances and to pursue self-fulfilment is lovely, the reality of making such decisions is unlikely to result in anything like seen in the film. Abandoning a relationship to subsequently find oneself being pursued by two new attractive men, which materialises in a love connection, while finding satisfaction in new experiences and inheriting a small fortune, is a scenario seen in fiction only. In fact, the film’s core message to make drastic changes to increase life satisfaction did result in real world breakups. Viewers were inspired to make drastic changes in their life, but what they did was suddenly end relationships inspired by the idealised premise of a movie that was only ever going to end in the best-case scenario, which is a guarantee the real-world cannot provide.

Media-generated and socially-acceptable beauty standards are perpetuated through the aesthetics of stereotyped rom-com characters, which acts as a safety net to ensure love prevails over flawed character traits. The characters in rom-coms are primarily depicted as young and attractive⁴ and female characters especially have to meet specific aesthetic requirements, whereas the male equivalent, though still stereotyped, has evolved⁵. Characters can be arrogant, disrespectful, obsessive or manipulative, but give them the perfect beach body, wavy blonde hair and a smile that could charm Ebenezer Scrooge and they are a prize catch indeed; for example, Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson in How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days (2003). This is detrimental to people who differ from the stereotype and disproportionally affects women who are the primary viewers of these films. Women are also heavily targeted and conditioned to aspire to achieve physical perfection⁶ through the internet and social media, which is then reinforced through these characters. Body dysmorphia, self-harm and depression are some of the real-world consequences for trying to achieve what is sold by rom-coms as a requirement to obtain ultimate happiness; to find your soulmate you must be Kate Hudson-beautiful. The perfect specimens seen in films are not real and are the culmination of a wardrobe department, hair and makeup team, lighting, special effects, filters and editing. Therefore, it is impossible to ever achieve a look akin to what is seen on-screen.

There are films that offer real alternatives to the glamorous and affluent stereotyped characters normally seen in rom-coms. These alternatives allow viewers to accept themselves and their bodies as they are, while reminding them that we’re all deserving of love and happiness. Good Luck to you, Leo Grande (2022) highlights the disconnect that women feel with their bodies as they age and how they feel men view them sexually. It also addresses the stigmatisation of sex workers⁸ and their actual contribution to healthy, adult sexual relationships. This film provides evidence that rom-coms can be quality, relatable, idealistic films without having stereotyped characters and unrealistic storylines that spruik life and body transformations. Although, this film is an anomaly in the genre. Research indicates that when the issue of age is brought into rom-coms, women are often subjected to negative stereotyping and reduced visibility that diminishes their desirability and adversely represents their function within a relationship⁹. Older female characters in rom-coms often fill the supporting role to the younger leads. Monster-in-Law (2005), Because I Said So (2007) and Crazy, Rich Asians (2018) all include accomplished, older female actors who play mothers that seem to have nothing better to do than meddle in their children’s relationships. These characters are portrayed as getting to 50+ years of age with little personal desire for intimacy and wishing only to fulfil their role as the doting (or meddling) mother or grandmother. Women at this age still want to feel sexy and desirable. They want to have romantic dates and be pursued, and yes, have sex. But we don’t see this in rom-coms and perhaps this exclusion reinforces the idea that women stop wanting sex as they age. Women don’t stop wanting sex; they stop wanting it with their current partner. And there’s a whole host of reasons why that might be and rom-coms could be used to explore these issues.

Rom-coms infrequently contain characters that identity with or represent minority groups, and even then, only some groups are represented. Rarer still do they get to play the protagonist. Of the 24 rom-coms on Rotten Tomatoes ‘50 Best new rom-com and romance movies’ list, only five of the films included main characters that were not Caucasian, only two films had main characters that identified as gay or lesbian and none showed any characters with physical or cognitive disabilities. These characters are still predominately portrayed as white, heterosexual, middle class people without disabilities. The list contains mostly American and British films, and it does demonstrate an attempt to show different ethnicities that characterises the multi-cultural societies of the USA and the UK. However, while both nations acknowledge their disabled communities with government agencies and national strategies, the reduced or omitted visibility of people with disabilities in rom-coms excludes them from sharing in the celebration of love and happiness. Me Before You (2016) is one of few examples of a lead character with a physical disability, but again the characters are stereotypically attractive and one is extremely wealthy. Plus, the ending doesn’t work out so well for the character with a disability, so it is not the most idealised scenario for the disabled community.

There has been inclusivity growth within the genre. One of the main characters in I Love You Too (2010) has dwarfism, which is a physical difference not typically respected in pop culture⁹, while Wedding Banquet (2025) and A Nice Indian Boy (2024) both cover themes relevant to LGBTIQ+ and multi-cultural communities. Though, when it does come to gay representation, the ‘gay best friend (GBF)‘ does accompany the leading female protagonist in several films. As the female character’s romance plays out, the GBF sits on the sidelines cheering her on, while his own story is ignored. It is argued that the inclusion of a GBF in film and TV is to support heterosexual relationships under the guise of supporting the LGBTIQ+ community, whilst also treating gay men like an accessory¹⁰. Picture This (2025), Sweethearts (2024), The Greatest Hits (2024) and My Oxford Year (2025) all feature a ‘gay best friend’. These movies imply that the GBF is there to support their straight female friend find the love of her life while never finding it for themselves.

The failure to include multiple stories from the perspectives of a diverse range of people establishes what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie¹² refers to as ‘a single story‘; that is, only one version of a type of person exists and it defines everyone else like them. This does not just apply for those on the outside looking in, but those within minority groups who see themselves represented in only one kind of story, if they are represented at all. A person in a wheelchair, for example, cannot see themselves finding romance. This is why diversity is needed in rom-coms, and not, as others argue, just to avoid cancel culture and to keep up with woke ideologies. Having multiple films that focus on characters from minority groups will give viewers multiple perspectives to learn from, while giving a wider representation of those within the group. The reality is not everyone sees a version of themselves depicted in rom-coms. But there are films attempting to change this. In Ode to Joy (2019) Charlie has a neurological disorder that has been stopping him from falling in love. This film acknowledges Charlie’s disability as part of the story and demonstrates to viewers that disabilities aren’t barriers to love unless we allow them to be.

Rom-coms can be lovely movies. They exist to provide a sense of comfort and light-hearted fun and to give viewers a sense of hope about finding love. But they can also be harmful in the unrealistic expectations they help to construct of real-world relationships. Beauty standards seen on-screen can never be reached, though it is encouraged, nor is there a financial safety net to catch people if they should fall while taking leaps of faith in love and life. And there are so many viewers that are yet to see themselves represented in these films. Ethnic diversity may be on the rise, but LGBTIQ+ representation is limited, and characters with disabilities are barely acknowledged. There needs to be change here and not in the form of tokenistic, supporting roles. We need films where the main characters reflect everyday people from all walks of life; wheelchairs, queerness, wrinkles and all. It is up to us as viewers to seek out content that embraces love in all its forms. Because love isn’t just for the wealthy, the super-hot and the young. Love is for anyone with a kind soul and an open heart, and we need to see more of this in rom-coms.

References

1. Galloway, L. F. E. (2013). Does movie viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about love and marriage? [Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. University Libraries. https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2828&context=thesesdissertations ↩︎
2. Mills, K. (2025, July). What the movies get right (and wrong) about relationships, with Paul Eastwick, PhD, and Eli Finkel, PhD (No. 342) In Speaking of Psychology. https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/relationship-truths-myth ↩︎
3. Subramaniam, A. (2022, Dec 8). Why we love rom-coms and Christmas movies. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/parenting-neuroscience-perspective/202212/why-we-love-rom-coms-and-christmas-movies ↩︎
4. Cohen, M. T. (2024, Nov 29). Rom-coms: Can a movie genre impact our perceptions of love? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/finding-love-the-scientific-take/202411/rom-coms-can-a-movie-genre-impact-our-perceptions-of ↩︎
5. Goldberg, M. (2024). Then and now: Comparing the representations of gender, race, and class in rom-coms from the 1990’s to today [Unpublished honours thesis, Bridgewater State University]. https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1669&context=honors_proj ↩︎
6. Roskelley, A. R. (2016). The modern Mr. Darcy: An analysis of leading men in contemporary romantic comedy film[Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University]. Scholars archive. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7073&context=etd ↩︎
7. Foster, D. (2019, May 14). We’re deluged with images of ‘beauty’. No wonder so many of us feel so bad. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/13/images-beauty-feel-bad-adverts-social-media ↩︎
8. Karandikar, S., Kieninger, K., Ploss, A., & Walkowski, L. (2024). “Helping professionals, hear us out!” What sex workers want you to understand about their work. Journal of Social Science Research, 51(2), 447-465. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2024.2426468 ↩︎
9. De Sutter, F., & Van Bauwel, S. (2023). Uncovering the hidden bias: A study on ageism in Hollywood’s portrayal of ageing gemininities in romantic comedies (2000-2021). DiGeSt – Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 10(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21825/digest.85865 ↩︎
10. Keenahan, D. (2017). Friday essay: the female dwarf, disability, and beauty. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-female-dwarf-disability-and-beauty-84844 ↩︎
11. Pampanin, M. (2014, Jan 31). Recasting the role of gay best friend (GBF). Chapman University. https://news.chapman.edu/2014/01/31/recasting-the-role-of-gay-best-friend-gbf/ ↩︎
12. Adichie, C. N. (2009, July). The danger of a single story, TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story ↩︎