Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018) advanced recommendations for “best practices” in testing the predictive validity of individual differences in the extent to which perceptions of partners match ideal standards (ideal-partner matching). We respond to their article evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different tests, presenting new analyses of existing data, and setting out conclusions that differ from Eastwick et al. We (a) argue that correlations between ideal standards for attributes in partners and corresponding partner perceptions are relevant to the ideal standards model (ISM), (b) show that important methodological and statistical issues qualify their interpretations of prior research, (c) illustrate a new analytic approach used in the accuracy literature that tests (and controls for) confounds highlighted by Eastwick et al., and (d) provide evidence that the direct-estimation measure of ideal-partner matching is a valid and useful method. We conclude with a cautionary note on the concept of best practices.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.
2.
BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively and less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589–594.
3.
BredowC. A.HamesN. (2019). Steadfast standards or fluctuating fancies? Stability and change in people’s mate criteria over 27 months. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 671–687.
4.
BrumbaughC. C.WoodD. (2013). Mate preferences across life and across the world. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 100–107.
5.
Buyukcan-TetikA.CampbellL.FinkenauerC.KarremansJ. C.KappenG. (2017). Ideal standards, acceptance, and relationship satisfaction: Latitudes of differential effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1691. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01691
6.
CampbellL.ChinK.StantonS. C. (2016). Initial evidence that individuals form relationships with partners that more closely match their ideal preferences. Collabra, 2, 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.24
7.
CampbellL.FletcherG. J. O. (2015). Romantic relationships, ideal standards, and mate selection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.007
8.
CampbellL.OverallN.RubinH.LackenbauerS. D. (2013). Inferring a partner’s ideal discrepancies: Accuracy, projection, and the communicative role of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 217–233. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0033009
9.
Conroy-BeamD.BussD. 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.
10.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2018). Best practices for testing the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 79–99.
11.
EastwickP. W.LuchiesL. B.FinkelE. J.HuntL. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623–665.
12.
EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Sex-differentiated effects of physical attractiveness on romantic desire: A highly powered, preregistered study in a photographic evaluation context. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 1–27.
13.
FletcherG. J. O.KerrP. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658.
14.
FletcherG. J. O.KerrP. S. G.LiN. P.ValentineK. 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.
15.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ.CampbellL.OverallJ. C. (2019). The science of intimate relationships. Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ.ThomasG. (2000). Ideals, perceptions and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.
17.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
18.
GangestadS. W.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.
19.
GerlachT. M.ArslanR. C.SchultzeT.ReinhardS. K.PenkeL. (2019). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 313–330.
20.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
21.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
22.
LamB. C. P.CrossS. E.WuT.-F.YehK.-H.WangY.-C.SuJ. C. (2016). What do you want in a marriage? Examining marriage ideals in Taiwan and the United States. Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 703–727.
23.
LiN. P.YongJ. C.TovW.SngO.FletcherG. J. O.ValentineK. A.BallietD. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776.
24.
McClellandG. H.JuddC. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
25.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J. O.KennyD. A. (2012). When bias and insecurity promote accuracy: Mean-level bias and tracking accuracy in couples’ conflict discussions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 642–655.
26.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 662–685.
27.
RogersK. H.WoodD.FurrR. 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.
28.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
29.
SimpsonJ.FletcherG. J. O.CampbellL. (2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Blackwell.
30.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley.
31.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.
32.
WestfallJ.YarkoniT. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0152719.
33.
WoodD.BrumbaughC. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1226–1244.
34.
WoodD.FurrR. M. (2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 79–99.
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.
