Mate Preferences for Warmth-Trustworthiness Predict Romantic Attraction in the Early Stages of Mate Selection and Satisfaction in Ongoing Relationships

Abstract

People seek warm and trustworthy individuals as long-term mates for numerous reasons. Indeed, such individuals are prone to cooperation, have strong parenting skills, have the ability to fulfill our need to belong, and may provide a relationship that is characterized by greater closeness, protection, acceptance, and safety. Although prior work has shown that both sexes indicate equally strong preferences for these traits in potential mates, few studies have examined whether people actually respond favorably to partners high in warmth-trustworthiness in live mating contexts. We, thus, demonstrated that people’s stated preferences for warmth-trustworthiness (a) predicted their attraction to potential mates in a live mate-selection context (Study 1) and (b) interacted with their partners’ actual traits to predict satisfaction with their marriages (Study 2). Together, these studies demonstrate the importance of partner traits associated with warmth and trustworthiness and add to recent research suggesting that people can accurately report their romantic-partner preferences.

Keywords

warmth-trustworthiness mate preferences speed-dating marital satisfaction longitudinal design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Blurton Jones

N. G.

Marlowe

F. W.

Hawkes

O’Connell

J. F.

(2000). Paternal investment and hunter gatherer divorce rates. In Cronk

Irons

Chagnon

(Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 65-86). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

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.

Bramlett

M. D.

Mosher

W. D.

(2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147-158.

Buckels

E. E.

Beall

A. T.

Hofer

M. K.

Lin

E. Y.

Zhou

Schaller

(2015). Individual differences in activation of the parental care motivational system: Assessment, prediction, and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 497-514.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Buss

D. M.

(1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663-688.

Buss

D. M.

(1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors in interactional context. Journal of Personality, 60, 477-499.

10.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

11.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

12.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346-361.

13.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Larsen

R. J.

(2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.

14.

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.

15.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.

16.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S.

N. P.

Valentine

K. A.

(2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 540-550.

17.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

18.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Tither

J. M.

O’Loughlin

Friesen

Overall

(2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.

19.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.

20.

Gerlach

T. M.

Arslan

R. C.

Schultze

Reinhard

S. K.

Penke

(2019). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 313-330.

21.

Hrdy

S. B.

(2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

22.

Jonason

P. K.

N. P.

Cason

M. J.

(2009). The “booty call”: A compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460-470.

23.

Jonason

P. K.

Valentine

K. A.

N. P.

Harbeson

C. L.

(2011). Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759-763.

24.

Kagel

McGee

(2014). Personality and cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma games. Economics Letters, 124, 274-277.

25.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.

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.

27.

Kenrick

D. T.

Sadalla

E. K.

Groth

Trost

M. R.

(1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.

28.

Koole

S. L.

Jager

van den Berg

A. E.

Vlek

C. A. J.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

(2001). On the social nature of personality: Effects of extraversion, agreeableness, and feedback about collective resource use on cooperation in a resource dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 289-299.

29.

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.

30.

N. P.

Valentine

K. A.

Patel

(2011). Mate preferences in the U.S. and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 291-294.

31.

N. P.

Yong

J. C.

Tov

Sng

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Valentine

K. A.

. . . Balliet

(2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757-776.

32.

Lippa

R. A.

(2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193-208.

33.

H. J.

Zhu

Chang

(2015). Good genes, good providers, good fathers: Economic development involved in how women select a mate. Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 9, 215-228.

34.

Luo

Zhang

(2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933-964.

35.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

Jackson

G. L.

Karney

B. R.

(2014a). Men still value physical attractiveness in a long-term mate more than women: Rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 435-440.

36.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

Jackson

G. L.

Karney

B. R.

(2014b). Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 418-428.

37.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

Maner

J. K.

(2017). Women like being valued for sex, as long as it is by a committed partner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 475-488.

38.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641-666.

39.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.

40.

Osgood

C. E.

Suci

G. J.

Tannenbaum

P. H.

(1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

41.

Prinzie

Stams

G. J. J.

Dekovic

Reijntjes

A. H.

Belsky

(2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351-362.

42.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Congdon

R. T.

(2013). HLM 7.01 for windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

43.

Schmitt

D. P.

Realo

Voracek

Allik

(2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168-182.

44.

Shackelford

T. K.

Schmitt

D. P.

Buss

D. M.

(2005). Mate preferences of married persons in the newlywed year and four years later. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1262-1270.

45.

Shonkoff

J. P.

(2015). The neurobiology of early childhood development and the foundation of a sustainable society. In Marope

P. T. M.

Kaga

(Eds.), Investing against evidence: The global state of early childhood care and education (pp. 55-72). Paris, France: UNESCO.

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

0.10 MB