Clear empirical demonstrations of the theoretical principles underlying assortative mating remain elusive. This article examines a moderator of assortative mating—how well couple members knew each other before dating—suggested by recent findings related to market-based (i.e., competition) theories. Specifically, competition is pervasive to the extent that people achieve consensus about who possesses desirable qualities (e.g., attractiveness) and who does not. Because consensus is stronger earlier in the acquaintance process, assortative mating based on attractiveness should be stronger among couples who formed a relationship after a short period rather than a long period of acquaintance. A study of 167 couples included measures of how long partners had known each other before dating and whether they had been friends before dating, as well as coders’ ratings of physical attractiveness. As predicted, couples revealed stronger evidence of assortative mating to the extent that they knew each other for a short time and were not friends before initiating a romantic relationship.
BeckerG. (1991). Assortative mating in marriage markets. In BeckerG. (Ed.), A treatise on the family (Enlarged ed., pp. 108–134). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
2.
BerscheidE.DionK.WalsterE.WalsterG. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189.
3.
BussD. M. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist, 73, 47–51.
4.
DeWallC. N.LambertN. M.SlotterE. B.PondR. S.Jr.DeckmanT.FinkelE. J.. . . FinchamF. D. (2011). So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316.
5.
EastwickP. W. (2013). The psychology of the pair-bond: Past and future contributions of close relationships research to evolutionary psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 183–191.
6.
EastwickP. W.BuckA. A. (2014). Too much matching: A social relations model enhancement of the pairing game. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 246–250.
7.
EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.GlickP.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.FiskeS. T.BlumA. M.. . . VolpatoC. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614.
8.
EastwickP. W.HuntL. L. (2014). Relational mate value: Consensus and uniqueness in romantic evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 728–751.
9.
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.
10.
EllisB. J.KelleyH. H. (1999). The pairing game: A classroom demonstration of the matching phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 118–121.
11.
EscorialS.Martín-BuroC. (2012). The role of personality and intelligence in assortative mating. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 680–687.
12.
FeingoldA. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.
13.
FigueredoA. J.SefcekJ. A.JonesD. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431–441.
14.
FinkelE. J.SlotterE. B.LuchiesL. B.WaltonG. M.GrossJ. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595–1601.
15.
GodoyR.EisenbergD. T.Reyes-GarcíaV.HuancaT.LeonardW. R.McDadeT. W.TannerS. (2008). Assortative mating and offspring well-being: Theory and empirical findings from a native Amazonian society in Bolivia. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 201–210.
16.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
HitschG. J.HortaçsuA.ArielyD. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. The American Economic Review, 100, 130–163.
18.
HoutsR. M.RobinsE.HustonT. L. (1996). Compatibility and the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 7–20.
19.
HurY. (2003). Assortative mating for personality traits, educational level, religious affiliation, height, weight, and body mass index in parents of a Korean twin sample. Twin Research, 6, 467–470.
20.
KalickS. M.HamiltonT. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673–682.
21.
KalmijnM. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
22.
KalmijnM.FlapH. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79, 1289–1312.
23.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. (1984). The social relations model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
25.
LutzF. E. (1905). Assortative mating in man. Science, 22, 249–250.
26.
LykkenD. T.TellegenA. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 56–68.
27.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922.
28.
MursteinB. I. (1970). Stimulus. Value. Role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32, 465–481.
29.
MursteinB. I.ChristyP. (1976). Physical attractiveness and marriage adjustment in middle-aged couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 537–542.
30.
MyersJ. L.WellA. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
ReynoldsC. A.BakerL. A.PedersenN. L. (2000). Multivariate models of mixed assortment: Phenotypic assortment and social homogamy for education and fluid ability. Behavior Genetics, 30, 455–476.
32.
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, 357–387.
33.
Shaw TaylorL.FioreA. T.MendelsohnG. A.CheshireC. (2011). “Out of my league”: A real-world test of the matching hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 942–954.
34.
SlotterE. B.EmeryL. F.LuchiesL. B. (2014). Me after you: Partner influence and individual effort predict rejection of self-aspects and self-concept clarity after relationship dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 841–844. doi:10.1177/0146167214528992
35.
SprecherS.HatfieldE. (2009). Matching hypothesis. In ReisH.SprecherS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 1065–1067). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
TidwellN. D.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215.
37.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
38.
WatsonD.KlohnenE. C.CasillasA.Nus SimmsE.HaigJ.BerryD. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.
39.
WhiteG. L. (1980). Physical attractiveness and courtship progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 660–668.
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.
