Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using the HEXACO Model of Personality, we explored two kinds of ideal partner preferences regarding personality traits, namely, to what extent people prefer partners similar to themselves (similarity preference) and to what extent people prefer partners with more desirable trait levels than themselves (aspirational assortative preference). We conducted five studies (overall N > 900) across four countries (China, Denmark, Germany, and the USA), looking at both HEXACO factors and facets, using both self–report questionnaires and real–life data (personal profiles from a dating website), and comprising both student and more heterogeneous samples. The results provided support for both kinds of ideal partner preferences, with important differences across traits. Specifically, similarity preference was supported by all studies concerning all HEXACO traits, and aspirational assortative preference was supported by all four self–report studies (though not the dating website study) concerning all HEXACO traits except for Openness to Experience. Concerning differences in preferences among the HEXACO traits, similarity preference was particularly pronounced for Honesty–Humility and Openness to Experience, moderate for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and less pronounced for Emotionality and Extraversion. Aspirational assortative preference, by contrast, was particularly pronounced for Emotionality, Extraversion, and Agreeableness, moderate for Honesty–Humility, and inconsistent for Conscientiousness. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

HEXACO ideal partner preference ideal standards mate preference singles

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashton

, & Lee

(2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878.

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907.

Bahns

A. J.

, Crandall

C. S.

, Gillath

, & Preacher

K. J.

(2017). Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000088.

Black

, Gates

, Sanders

, & Taylor

(2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography, 37, 139–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/2648117.

Botwin

M. D.

, Buss

D. M.

, & Shackelford

T. K.

(1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1997.tb00531.x.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.

Byrne

, & Clore

G. L.

(1967). Effectance arousal and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024829.

Campbell

, Chin

, & Stanton

S. C. E.

(2016). Initial evidence that individuals form new relationships with partners that more closely match their ideal preferences. Collabra, 2, 2. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.24.

Condon

J. W.

, & Crano

W. D.

(1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.54.5.789.

10.

Conroy–Beam

, & Buss

D. M.

(2016). Do mate preferences influence actual mating decisions? Evidence from computer simulations and three studies of mated couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000054.

11.

Diedenhofen

, & Musch

(2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One, 10, e0121945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945.

12.

Dijkstra

, & Barelds

D. P.

(2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 147470490800600420, 147470490800600, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600406.

13.

Dunlop

P. D.

, Telford

A. D.

, & Morrison

D. L.

(2012). Not too little, but not too much: The perceived desirability of responses to personality items. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.004.

14.

Eastwick

P. W.

, Finkel

E. J.

, & Eagly

A. H.

(2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024062.

15.

Eastwick

P. W.

, Luchies

L. B.

, Finkel

E. J.

, & Hunt

L. L.

(2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432.

16.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.87.5.631.

17.

Figueredo

A. J.

, Sefcek

J. A.

, & Jones

D. N.

(2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004.

18.

Filip–Crawford

, & Neuberg

S. L.

(2016). Homosexuality and pro–gay ideology as pathogens? Implications of a disease–spread lay model for understanding anti–gay behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 332–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315601613.

19.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

, & Simpson

J. A.

(2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–8721.00070.

20.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

, Simpson

J. A.

, Thomas

, & Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.76.1.72.

21.

Funder

D. C.

, & Dobroth

K. M.

(1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.52.2.409.

22.

Furr

R. M.

(2010). The double–entry intraclass correlation as an index of profile similarity: Meaning, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903379134.

23.

Gaunt

(2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2006.00414.x.

24.

Gerlach

T. M.

, Arslan

R. C.

, Schultze

, Reinhard

S. K.

, & Penke

(2017). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000170.

25.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Moshagen

, & Zettler

(2016). Prediction consistency: A test of the equivalence assumption across different indicators of the same construct. European Journal of Personality, 30, 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2085.

26.

Kenrick

D. T.

, Groth

G. E.

, Trost

M. R.

, & Sadalla

E. K.

(1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self–appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.64.6.951.

27.

Kiecolt–Glaser

J. K.

, & Newton

(2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.127.4.472.

28.

King

L. A.

(2010). Editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 104–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018175.

29.

Kuncel

N. R.

, & Tellegen

(2009). A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2009.01136.x.

30.

Laland

K. N.

, Odling–Smee

, & Feldman

M. W.

(2001). Cultural niche construction and human evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420–9101.2001.00262.x.

31.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO personality inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040–3590.18.2.182.

32.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00512.x.

33.

Lee

, Ashton

M. C.

, Ogunfowora

, Bourdage

J. S.

, & Shin

K.–H.

(2010). The personality bases of socio–political attitudes: The role of Honesty–Humility and Openness to Experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.08.007.

34.

Lee

, Ashton

M. C.

, Pozzebon

J. A.

, Visser

B. A.

, Bourdage

J. S.

, & Ogunfowora

(2009). Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well–acquainted persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014059.

35.

N. P.

, Bailey

J. M.

, Kenrick

D. T.

, & Linsenmeier

J. A. W.

(2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.82.6.947.

36.

Liu

, Ludeke

S. G.

, & Zettler

(2017). The HEXACO correlates of authoritarianism's facets in the U.S. and Denmark. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.015.

37.

Luo

(2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, e12337. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337.

38.

Luo

, & Klohnen

E. C.

(2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple–centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.88.2.304.

39.

Malouff

J. M.

, Thorsteinsson

E. B.

, Schutte

N. S.

, Bhullar

, & Rooke

S. E.

(2010). The five–factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta–analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004.

40.

Olver

J. M.

, & Mooradian

T. A.

(2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191–8869(02)00145–9.

41.

Parks–Leduc

, Feldman

, & Bardi

(2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta–analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548.

42.

Regan

P. C.

, Levin

, Sprecher

, Christopher

F. S.

, & Gate

(2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short–term sexual and long–term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01.

43.

Rogers

K. H.

, Wood

, & Furr

R. M.

(2018). Assessment of similarity and self–other agreement in dyadic relationships: A guide to best practices. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712615.

44.

Rusbult

C. E.

, Martz

J. M.

, & Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475–6811.1998.tb00177.x.

45.

Samuel

D. B.

, & Widiger

T. A.

(2011). Conscientiousness and obsessive–compulsive personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2, 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021216.

46.

Santtila

, Sandnabba

N. K.

, Harlaar

, Varjonen

, Alanko

, & von der Pahlen

(2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.08.006.

47.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065–2601(08)60281–6.

48.

Schwartz

S. H.

, Cieciuch

, Vecchione

, Davidov

, Fischer

, Beierlein

, … Konty

(2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.

49.

Schwarzer

(2007). meta: An R package for meta–analysis. R News, 7, 40–45.

50.

Sela

, Mogilski

J. K.

, Shackelford

T. K.

, Zeigler–Hill

, & Fink

(2017). Mate value discrepancy and mate retention behaviors of self and partner. Journal of Personality, 85, 730–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12281.

51.

Spielmann

S. S.

, MacDonald

, Maxwell

J. A.

, Joel

, Peragine

, Muise

, & Impett

E. A.

(2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1049–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034628.

52.

Symons

(1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

53.

Thibaut

J. W.

, & Kelley

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of group. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

54.

Thielmann

, Hilbig

B. E.

, & Zettler

(2018). Seeing me, seeing you: Testing competing accounts of assumed similarity in personality judgments.

55.

Tingley

, Yamamoto

, Hirose

, Keele

, & Imai

(2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59, 1–38.

56.

Toma

C. L.

, Hancock

J. T.

, & Ellison

N. B.

(2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self–presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067.

57.

Trivers

R. L.

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

B. G.

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

58.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908.

59.

Watson

, Beer

, & McDade–Montez

(2014). The role of active assortment in spousal similarity: Active assortment and spousal similarity. Journal of Personality, 82, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12039.

60.

Zettler

, & Hilbig

B. E.

(2015). Honesty and humility. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 169–174). Oxford: Elsevier, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978–0–08–097086–8.25068–X.

61.

Zettler

, Lang

J. W. B.

, Hülsheger

U. R.

, & Hilbig

B. E.

(2016). Dissociating indifferent, directional, and extreme responding in personality data: Applying the three–process model to self– and observer reports. Journal of Personality, 84, 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12172.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB

0.63 MB

Similar to And/Or Better than Oneself? Singles’ Ideal Partner Personality Descriptions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material