To explore how vocational self-concepts align with ideal partner preferences, we collected data from two Croatian heterosexual samples: 271 couples and 335 single participants. Using the same inventory, participants rated their own vocational interests and those desired in an ideal partner. We assessed trait-level and profile-level similarities between self and ideal-partner interests in both samples. In couples, we additionally examined actual partner congruence (similarity between one’s own and partner’s self-reported interests), ideals agreement (similarity between partners’ ideal-partner preferences), and partner–ideal congruence (the match between an individual’s ideal and their partner’s actual vocational interests). Results revealed both assortative (similar-to-self) and aspirational (higher-than-self) ideal-partner preferences. Gendered preferences followed a complementary pattern, aligned with established gender differences in vocational interests, most pronounced in women’s preferences for partners high in Realistic and Conventional interests, and in men’s preferences for partners high in Social and Artistic interests. Among couples, partner–ideal congruence showed a strong normative component, while its distinctive (couple-specific) component modestly predicted men’s relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that vocational interests meaningfully inform partner preferences among single and coupled individuals and contribute to relationship dynamics.
AronA.LewandowskiG. W.Jr.MashekD.AronE. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). Oxford University Press.
2.
BahnsA. J.CrandallC. S.GillathO.PreacherK. 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(2), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000088
3.
BanovK.KrapicN.KardumI. (2022). Vocational interests and relationship satisfaction: An actor-partner interdependence model. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, Article 111440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111440
4.
BanovK.KrapicN.KardumI. (2023). Do vocational interests matter for the selection of romantic partners? Evidence from variable- and couple-centered approaches. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 72(2), 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12396
5.
BanovK.KrapicN.KardumI. (2024). Actor, partner and (dis)similarity effects of vocational interests on work-family interface. Journal of Career Assessment, 33(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727241247184
6.
BeltzA. M.SwansonJ. L.BerenbaumS. A. (2011). Gendered occupational interests: Prenatal androgen effects on psychological orientation to things versus people. Hormones and Behavior, 60(4), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.06.002
7.
BlaževM.PopovićD.ŠverkoI. (2024). Longitudinal patterns in gender-typed career interests and career stereotypes among boys and girls in middle adolescence. Journal of Career Assessment, 33(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727241267757
8.
BrauerK.SendatzkiR.GanderF.RuchW.ProyerR. T. (2022). Profile similarities among romantic partners’ character strengths and their associations with relationship- and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 99, Article 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104248
CampbellL.FletcherG. J. (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
11.
ClassB.DingemanseN. J. (2022). A variance partitioning perspective of assortative mating: Proximate mechanisms and evolutionary implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 35(4), 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13998
12.
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
CroftA.SchmaderT.SchallerM. (2020). Breadwinner seeks bottle warmer: How women’s future aspirations and expectations predict their current mate preferences.Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 82(11–12), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01080-6
15.
CsajbókZ.BerkicsM. (2022). Seven deadly sins of potential romantic partners: The deal breakers of mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, Article 111334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111334
16.
CunninghamS. J.RussellP. A. (2004). The influence of gender roles on evolved partner preferences. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6(2–3), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660412331332909
17.
DiedenhofenB.JochenM. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One, 10(6), Article e0131499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131499
18.
DriebeJ. C.SternJ.PenkeL.GerlachT. M. (2024). Probing the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences for future partner traits and relationship outcomes across 13 years. European Journal of Personality, 38(4), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231213797
19.
DuY. Y. L.WeeS.RoundsJ. (2025). Gender differences in vocational interests across 57 countries: A test of the interest–gender-equality paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241280321
20.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (pp. 1–3). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183
21.
EastwickP. W.SparksJ.FinkelE. J.MezaE. M.AdamkovičM.AduP.AiT.AkintolaA. A.Al-ShawafL.ApriliawatiD.ArriagaP.Aubert-TeillaudB.BaníkG.BarzykowskiK.BatresC.BaucomK. J.BeaulieuE. Z.BehnkeM.ButcherN.ColesN. A. (2025). A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(1), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000524
22.
EtzelJ. M.LüdtkeO.WagnerJ.NagyG. (2019). Similarity of vocational interest profiles within families: A person‐centered approach for examining associations between circumplex profiles. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12418
23.
FalesM. R.FrederickD. A.GarciaJ. R.GildersleeveK. A.HaseltonM. G.FisherH. E. (2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041
24.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00070
25.
FurrR. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1267–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00521.x
26.
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(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000170
27.
GuvensoyI.ErdemG. (2023). The effects of ideal standards and parental approval on mate choice among emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(1), 174–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221114029
28.
HalbeslebenJ. R. B.ZellarsK. L.CarlsonD. S.PerrewéP. L.RotondoD. (2010). The moderating effect of work-linked couple relationships and work–family integration on the spouse instrumental support-emotional exhaustion relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020521
29.
HanS.QianY. (2021). Concentration and dispersion: School-to-work linkages and their impact on occupational assortative mating. The Social Science Journal, 61(4), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1851560
30.
HeJ. C.KangS. K.TseK.TohS. M. (2019). Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, Article 103318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103318
31.
HitschG. J.HortaçsuA.ArielyD. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8(4), 393–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6
32.
HoffK. A.SongQ. C.WeeC. J. M.PhanW. M. J.RoundsJ. (2020). Interest fit and job satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 123, Article 103503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103503
33.
HollandJ. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
34.
HsuT. L.BarrettA. E. (2020). The association between marital status and psychological well-being: Variation across negative and positive dimensions. Journal of Family Issues, 41(11), 2179–2202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20910184
35.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
36.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.
37.
KossekE. E.PerriginoM.RockA. G. (2021). From ideal workers to ideal work for all: A 50-year review integrating careers and work-family research with a future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, Article 103504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103504
38.
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. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637842
39.
LeeschJ.KatrňákT.SkopekJ. (2024). Structural opportunities or assortative mating? – Decomposing trends and country differences in educational sorting outcomes in marriages. European Societies, 26(4), 1137–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2023.2290238
40.
LeikasS.IlmarinenV. J.VerkasaloM.VartiainenH. L.LönnqvistJ. E. (2018). Relationship satisfaction and similarity of personality traits, personal values, and attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024
41.
LiuJ.LudekeS.HaubrichJ.Gondan–RochonM.ZettlerI. (2018). Similar to and/or better than oneself? Singles’ ideal partner personality descriptions. European Journal of Personality, 32(4), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2159
42.
LiuJ.ZhangY. (2023). Singles’ similarity preferences in an ideal partner: What, when, and why. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1088591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1088591
43.
LockeK. D.BarniD.MorioH.MacDonaldG.MastorK. A.de Jesús Vargas-FloresJ.Ibáñez-ReyesJ.ReyesJ. A. S.KambleS.OrtizF. A. (2020). Culture moderates the normative and distinctive impact of parents and similarity on young adults’ partner preferences. Cross-Cultural Research, 54(5), 435–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120909380
44.
LuoS. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337
45.
MayrandK.SabourinS.SavardC. (2023). Vocational personality in romantic relationships: How vocational similarity contributes to couple functioning. Contemporary Family Therapy: International Journal, 45(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09620-7
46.
McClintockE. A. (2020). Occupational sex composition and marriage: The romantic cost of gender‐atypical jobs. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 911–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12657
47.
NyeC. D.SuR.RoundsJ.DrasgowF. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.002
48.
PredigerD. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(82)90036-7
49.
RiceL.BarthJ. M. (2017). A tale of two gender roles: The effects of implicit and explicit gender role traditionalism and occupational stereotype on hiring decisions. Gender Issues, 34(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9175-4
50.
RogersK. H.WoodD.FurrR. M. (2018). Assessment of similarity and self-other agreement in dyadic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712615
51.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
SimpsonJ. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.683
54.
SkopekJ.SchmitzA.BlossfeldH. (2011). The gendered dynamics of age preferences – Empirical evidence from online dating. Journal of Family Research, 23(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-196
55.
ŠtěrbováZ.TurečekP.KleisnerK. (2019). She always steps in the same river: Similarity among long-term partners in their demographic, physical, and personality characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 52. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00052
56.
StollG.RiegerS.LüdtkeO.NagengastB.TrautweinU.RobertsB. W. (2017). Vocational interests assessed at the end of high school predict life outcomes assessed 10 years later over and above IQ and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000117
57.
SuR.RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364
ŠverkoI.BabarovićT. (2016). Integrating personality and career adaptability into vocational interest space. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.017
60.
TraceyT. J. G. (2010). Development of an abbreviated Personal Globe Inventory using item response theory: The PGI-Short. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.007
61.
TraceyT. J. G.RoundsJ. (1996). The spherical representation of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0002
62.
WalterJ.HaunV. C. (2020). Work-related spousal support and recovery experiences among dual-earner couples - Work-Linkage as moderator. Occupational Health Science, 4(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-020-00066-1
63.
WitmerJ.RosenbuschH.MeralE. O. (2025). The relative importance of looks, height, job, bio, intelligence, and homophily in online dating: A conjoint analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17, Article 100579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100579
64.
XuH. (2023). Vocational interests: Conceptual issues, research findings, and practical implications. In WalshW. B.FloresL. Y.HartungP. J.LeongF. T. L. (Eds.), Career psychology: Models, concepts, and counseling for meaningful employment (pp. 145–167). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000339-008
65.
XuH.LiH. (2020). Operationalize interest congruence: A comparative examination of four approaches. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(4), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720909825
66.
XuH.TraceyT. J. G. (2016). Stability and change in interests: A longitudinal examination of grades 7 through college. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.002
67.
YuW.KuoJ. C. L. (2021). Gender-atypical occupations and instability of intimate unions: Examining the relationship and mechanisms.Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7, Article 237802312110001. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121100017
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.
