A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Other Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Source: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| Download full: | http://hdl.handle.net/10071/33459 |
Summary: | Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of ? = .19 and an effect of ? = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small (average ? = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. |
| id |
RCAP_a8bd65f1a2b0c7a0099822f8b31f8050 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/33459 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
| network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
| spelling |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matchingAttractionClose relationshipsHuman matingIdealsMatching hypothesisIdeal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of ? = .19 and an effect of ? = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small (average ? = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed.American Psychological Association2025-02-19T15:24:53Z2025-01-01T00:00:00Z20252025-02-19T15:20:54Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/33459eng0022-351410.1037/pspp0000524Eastwick, P. W.Sparks, J.Finkel, E. J.Meza, E. M.Adamkovič, M.Adu, P.Ai, T.Akintola, A. A.Al-Shawaf, L.Apriliawati, D.Arriaga, P.Aubert-Teillaud, B.Banik, G.Barzykowski, K.Batres, C.Baucom, K. J.Beaulieu, E. Z.Behnke, M.Butcher, N.Charles, D. Y.Chen, J. M.Cheon, J. E.Chittham, P.Chwiłkowska, P.Cong, C. W.Copping, L. T.Corral-Frias, N. S.Adoric, V. C.Dizon, M.Du, H.Ehinmowo, M. I.Escribano, D. A.Espinosa, N. M.Expósito, F.Feldman, G.Freitag, R.Frias Armenta, M.Gallyamova, A.Gillath, O.Gjoneska, B.Gkinopoulos, T.Grafe, F.Grigoryev, D.Groyecka-Bernard, A.Gunaydin, G.Ilustrisimo, R.Impett, E.Kačmár, P.Kim, Y.-H.Kocur, M.Kowal, M.Krishna, M.Labor, P. D.Lu, J. G.Lucas, M. Y.Małecki, W.Malinakova, K.Meißner, S.Meier, Z.Misiak, M.Muise, A.Novak, L.O, J.Özdoğru, A. A.Park, H. G.Paruzel, M.Pavlović, Z.Püski, M.Ribeiro, G.Roberts, S. C.Röer, J. P.Ropovik, I.Ross, R. M.Sakman, E.Salvador, C. E.Selcuk, E.Skakoon-Sparling, S.Sorokowska, A.Sorokowski, P.Spasovski, O.Stanton, S. C. E.Stewart, S. L..K.Swami, V.Szaszi, B.Takashima, K.Tavel, P.Tejada, J.Tu, E.Tuominen, J.Vaidis, D.Vally, Z.Vaughn, L. A.Villanueva-Moya, L.Wisnuwardhani, D.Yamada, Y.Yonemitsu, F.Žídková, R.Živná, K.Coles, N. A.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-02-23T01:17:53Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/33459Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T20:39:25.552521Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| title |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| spellingShingle |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching Eastwick, P. W. Attraction Close relationships Human mating Ideals Matching hypothesis |
| title_short |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| title_full |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| title_fullStr |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| title_full_unstemmed |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| title_sort |
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching |
| author |
Eastwick, P. W. |
| author_facet |
Eastwick, P. W. Sparks, J. Finkel, E. J. Meza, E. M. Adamkovič, M. Adu, P. Ai, T. Akintola, A. A. Al-Shawaf, L. Apriliawati, D. Arriaga, P. Aubert-Teillaud, B. Banik, G. Barzykowski, K. Batres, C. Baucom, K. J. Beaulieu, E. Z. Behnke, M. Butcher, N. Charles, D. Y. Chen, J. M. Cheon, J. E. Chittham, P. Chwiłkowska, P. Cong, C. W. Copping, L. T. Corral-Frias, N. S. Adoric, V. C. Dizon, M. Du, H. Ehinmowo, M. I. Escribano, D. A. Espinosa, N. M. Expósito, F. Feldman, G. Freitag, R. Frias Armenta, M. Gallyamova, A. Gillath, O. Gjoneska, B. Gkinopoulos, T. Grafe, F. Grigoryev, D. Groyecka-Bernard, A. Gunaydin, G. Ilustrisimo, R. Impett, E. Kačmár, P. Kim, Y.-H. Kocur, M. Kowal, M. Krishna, M. Labor, P. D. Lu, J. G. Lucas, M. Y. Małecki, W. Malinakova, K. Meißner, S. Meier, Z. Misiak, M. Muise, A. Novak, L. O, J. Özdoğru, A. A. Park, H. G. Paruzel, M. Pavlović, Z. Püski, M. Ribeiro, G. Roberts, S. C. Röer, J. P. Ropovik, I. Ross, R. M. Sakman, E. Salvador, C. E. Selcuk, E. Skakoon-Sparling, S. Sorokowska, A. Sorokowski, P. Spasovski, O. Stanton, S. C. E. Stewart, S. L..K. Swami, V. Szaszi, B. Takashima, K. Tavel, P. Tejada, J. Tu, E. Tuominen, J. Vaidis, D. Vally, Z. Vaughn, L. A. Villanueva-Moya, L. Wisnuwardhani, D. Yamada, Y. Yonemitsu, F. Žídková, R. Živná, K. Coles, N. A. |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Sparks, J. Finkel, E. J. Meza, E. M. Adamkovič, M. Adu, P. Ai, T. Akintola, A. A. Al-Shawaf, L. Apriliawati, D. Arriaga, P. Aubert-Teillaud, B. Banik, G. Barzykowski, K. Batres, C. Baucom, K. J. Beaulieu, E. Z. Behnke, M. Butcher, N. Charles, D. Y. Chen, J. M. Cheon, J. E. Chittham, P. Chwiłkowska, P. Cong, C. W. Copping, L. T. Corral-Frias, N. S. Adoric, V. C. Dizon, M. Du, H. Ehinmowo, M. I. Escribano, D. A. Espinosa, N. M. Expósito, F. Feldman, G. Freitag, R. Frias Armenta, M. Gallyamova, A. Gillath, O. Gjoneska, B. Gkinopoulos, T. Grafe, F. Grigoryev, D. Groyecka-Bernard, A. Gunaydin, G. Ilustrisimo, R. Impett, E. Kačmár, P. Kim, Y.-H. Kocur, M. Kowal, M. Krishna, M. Labor, P. D. Lu, J. G. Lucas, M. Y. Małecki, W. Malinakova, K. Meißner, S. Meier, Z. Misiak, M. Muise, A. Novak, L. O, J. Özdoğru, A. A. Park, H. G. Paruzel, M. Pavlović, Z. Püski, M. Ribeiro, G. Roberts, S. C. Röer, J. P. Ropovik, I. Ross, R. M. Sakman, E. Salvador, C. E. Selcuk, E. Skakoon-Sparling, S. Sorokowska, A. Sorokowski, P. Spasovski, O. Stanton, S. C. E. Stewart, S. L..K. Swami, V. Szaszi, B. Takashima, K. Tavel, P. Tejada, J. Tu, E. Tuominen, J. Vaidis, D. Vally, Z. Vaughn, L. A. Villanueva-Moya, L. Wisnuwardhani, D. Yamada, Y. Yonemitsu, F. Žídková, R. Živná, K. Coles, N. A. |
| author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Eastwick, P. W. Sparks, J. Finkel, E. J. Meza, E. M. Adamkovič, M. Adu, P. Ai, T. Akintola, A. A. Al-Shawaf, L. Apriliawati, D. Arriaga, P. Aubert-Teillaud, B. Banik, G. Barzykowski, K. Batres, C. Baucom, K. J. Beaulieu, E. Z. Behnke, M. Butcher, N. Charles, D. Y. Chen, J. M. Cheon, J. E. Chittham, P. Chwiłkowska, P. Cong, C. W. Copping, L. T. Corral-Frias, N. S. Adoric, V. C. Dizon, M. Du, H. Ehinmowo, M. I. Escribano, D. A. Espinosa, N. M. Expósito, F. Feldman, G. Freitag, R. Frias Armenta, M. Gallyamova, A. Gillath, O. Gjoneska, B. Gkinopoulos, T. Grafe, F. Grigoryev, D. Groyecka-Bernard, A. Gunaydin, G. Ilustrisimo, R. Impett, E. Kačmár, P. Kim, Y.-H. Kocur, M. Kowal, M. Krishna, M. Labor, P. D. Lu, J. G. Lucas, M. Y. Małecki, W. Malinakova, K. Meißner, S. Meier, Z. Misiak, M. Muise, A. Novak, L. O, J. Özdoğru, A. A. Park, H. G. Paruzel, M. Pavlović, Z. Püski, M. Ribeiro, G. Roberts, S. C. Röer, J. P. Ropovik, I. Ross, R. M. Sakman, E. Salvador, C. E. Selcuk, E. Skakoon-Sparling, S. Sorokowska, A. Sorokowski, P. Spasovski, O. Stanton, S. C. E. Stewart, S. L..K. Swami, V. Szaszi, B. Takashima, K. Tavel, P. Tejada, J. Tu, E. Tuominen, J. Vaidis, D. Vally, Z. Vaughn, L. A. Villanueva-Moya, L. Wisnuwardhani, D. Yamada, Y. Yonemitsu, F. Žídková, R. Živná, K. Coles, N. A. |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Attraction Close relationships Human mating Ideals Matching hypothesis |
| topic |
Attraction Close relationships Human mating Ideals Matching hypothesis |
| description |
Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of ? = .19 and an effect of ? = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small (average ? = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. |
| publishDate |
2025 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2025-02-19T15:24:53Z 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z 2025 2025-02-19T15:20:54Z |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10071/33459 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10071/33459 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0022-3514 10.1037/pspp0000524 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
American Psychological Association |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
American Psychological Association |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
| instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| instacron_str |
RCAAP |
| institution |
RCAAP |
| reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
| _version_ |
1833598776510513152 |