Despite the large literature on ideal partner preferences, the consequences of ideals have rarely been tested experimentally. We developed a conditioning paradigm that paired positive experiences with novel (“Reditry,” Study 1) and familiar (“youthfulness,” Study 2) traits to reliably manipulate ideal partner preferences among participants attracted to men. We then conducted the first experimental tests of four theoretical perspectives: motivated projection (ideals cause the belief that a partner possesses the trait); preference-matching (trait-weighting) (ideals cause satisfaction with a partner to the extent that people think their partner possesses the trait); perceiver effects (ideals cause people to believe everyone possesses that trait); and situation selection (ideals cause people to seek situations where they can meet partners with the trait). The motivated projection and situation selection accounts received very strong support, the perceiver effects account received some support, and the preference-matching (trait-weighting) account received support in one study. Implications for motivational processes in relationships are discussed.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
2.
BarangerD. A. A.FinsaasM. C.GoldsteinB. L.VizeC. E.LynamD. R.OlinoT. M. (2023). Tutorial: Power analyses for interaction effects in cross-sectional regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 25152459231187531.
3.
BrandnerJ. L.BraseG. L.HuxmanS. A. J. (2020). “Weighting” to find the right person: compensatory trait integrating versus alternative models to assess mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4), 284–292.
4.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
5.
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(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000054
6.
Conroy-BeamD.WalterK.DuarteK. (2022). What is a mate preference? Probing the computational format of mate preferences using couple simulation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 43(6), 510–526.
7.
da Silva FrostA.LedgerwoodA. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
8.
da Silva FrostA.WangY. A.EastwickP. W.LedgerwoodA. (2024). Summarized attribute preferences have unique antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(4), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001242
9.
EaglyA. H.EastwickP. W.Johannesen-SchmidtM. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329696
10.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.EaglyA. 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.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2019). Best practices for testing the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 167–181.
13.
EastwickP. W.LuchiesL. B.FinkelE. JHuntL. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623–665.
14.
EastwickP. W.SmithL. K.LedgerwoodA. (2019). How do people translate their experiences into abstract attribute preferences?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103837
15.
EastwickP. W.SparksJ.FinkelE.MezaE.AdamkovicM.AduP.AiT.AkintolaA. A.Al-ShawafL.ApriliawatiD.ArriagaP.Aubert-TeillaudB.BanikG.BarzykowskiK.BatresC.BaucomK. J.BeaulieuE. Z.BehnkeM.ButcherN.. . . ColesN. (2025). A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(1), 123–146.
16.
FalkA.HeckmanJ. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168244
17.
FazioR. H.EiserJ. R.ShookN. J. (2004). Attitude formation through exploration: Valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.293
18.
FazioR. H.PietriE. S.RocklageM. D.ShookN. J. (2015). Positive versus negative valence: Asymmetries in attitude formation and generalization as fundamental individual differences. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 97–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.09.002
19.
FinsaasM. C.BarangerD. A.GoldsteinB. L.VizeC.LynamD.OlinoT. M. (2021). InteractionPoweR Shiny App: Power analysis for interactions in linear regression. https://mfinsaas.shinyapps.io/InteractionPoweR/
20.
FletcherG. J.OverallN. C.CampbellL. (2020). Reconsidering “best practices” for testing the ideal standards model: A Response to Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018). Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(11), 1581–1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220910323
21.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00070
22.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
23.
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.
24.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/4615733
25.
JoelS.MacDonaldG. (2021). We’re not that choosy: Emerging evidence of a progression bias in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211025860
26.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.
27.
KilleD. R.ForestA. L.WoodJ. V. (2013). Tall, dark, and stable: Embodiment motivates mate selection preferences. Psychological Science, 24(1), 112–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457392
LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Toward an integrative framework for studying human evaluation: Attitudes towards objects and attributes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 378–398.
30.
LevesqueH. J.DavisE.MorgensternL. (2012). The Winograd schema challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 552–561). Rome, Italy.
31.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
32.
Ma-KellamsC. (2021). Using true experiments to study culture: Manipulations, measurement issues, and the question of appropriate control groups. Methods in Psychology, 4, 100046.
33.
MookD. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American psychologist, 38(4), 379–387.
34.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2010). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. Oxford University Press.
35.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996a). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79
36.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
37.
NelsonL. D.MorrisonE. L. (2005). The symptoms of resource scarcity: Judgments of food and finances influence preferences for potential partners. Psychological Science, 16(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00798.x
38.
NicholsA. L.ManerJ. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(2), 151–165.
39.
PearlJ. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
40.
PodsakoffN. P.PodsakoffP. M. (2019). Methods for testing moderation: The past, present, and future. In JohnsonR. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of testing and measurement in psychology (pp. 341–360). Cambridge University Press.
41.
RauR.CarlsonE.BackM.BarrantiM.GebauerJ. E.HumanL. J.LeisingD.NestlerS. (2021). What is the structure of perceiver effects? On the importance of global positivity and trait-specificity across personality domains and judgement contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000278
42.
RauR.Lawless DesJardinsN. M.NiemeyerL. M.BackM. D.SrivastavaS.NestlerS. (2022). Perceiver effects in first impressions reflect generalized stereotypes: Evidence of consistency across time, groups, and contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(7), 1138–1150.
43.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.FazioR. H. (1992). On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an object’s attraction of visual attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.198
44.
RusbultC. E.BuunkB. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202
45.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
46.
SchellenbergJ. A. (1960). Homogamy in personal values and the “Field of eligibles.”Social Forces, 39(2), 157–162.
47.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
48.
SrivastavaS.GuglielmoS.BeerJ. S. (2010). Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017057
49.
TaylorS. E.BrownJ. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being:A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
50.
WeissR. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention In VincentJ. P. (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229–271). JAI Press.
51.
WilsonT. D.AronsonE.CarlsmithK. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 51–81). Wiley.
52.
YzerbytV.MullerD.BataillerC.JuddC. M. (2018). New recommendations for testing indirects effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component paths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, 115(6), 929–943.
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.
