Though people report idiosyncratic desires for particular traits in an ideal romantic partner, few studies have examined whether these ideals predict important long-term relationship outcomes. The present 3.5-year longitudinal study of newlywed couples used survival analysis to investigate whether the match between participants’ ideal preferences and the traits they perceive in their partner predict the likelihood of divorce. Results depended entirely on whether the match was conceptualized as a match in level (e.g., high ideal preference for a trait with the presence of the trait in the partner) or in pattern (e.g., the within-person correlation of ideals with a partner’s traits across all traits). The match between the pattern of ideals and traits negatively predicted divorce with an effect size larger than most established divorce risk factors. However, the match in level was unrelated to divorce, suggesting that perspectives emphasizing ideals for the level of traits may encounter predictive validity problems.
AmatoP. R. (2000). Consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.
2.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.
3.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
4.
CollinsN. L.ReadS. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.
5.
CronbachL. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
6.
DigbyP. G. N. (1983). Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Biometrics, 39, 753–757.
7.
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, 403–414.
8.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
9.
EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.FinkelE. J.JohnsonS. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993–1011.
10.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. 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.
11.
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.
12.
EysenckH. J.EysenckS. B. G. (1978). Manual for the Eysenck personality questionnaire. Sevenoaks, Kent, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
13.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
14.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105.
15.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.
16.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
17.
GagnéF.LydonJ. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322–338.
18.
HamiltonD. L.ZannaM. P. (1974). Context effects in impression formation: Changes in connotative meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 649–654.
19.
HillR. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.
20.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
21.
KenrickD. T.GrothG. E.TrostM. R.SadallaE. 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.
22.
KnoblochL. K.SolomonD. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 115–130.
23.
LiN. P.KenrickD. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.
24.
MoldenD. C.LucasG. M.FinkelE. J.KumashiroM.RusbultC. (2009). Perceived support for promotion focused and prevention focused goals: Associations with well being in unmarried and married couples. Psychological Science, 20, 787–793.
25.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.
26.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.
27.
ShowersC. J.KevlynS. B. (1999). Organization of knowledge about a relationship partner: Implications for liking and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 958–971.
28.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
SolomonD. H.KnoblochL. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795–816.
30.
SprecherS.SullivanQ.HatfieldE. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.
31.
SwannW. B.De La RondeC.HixonJ. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869.
32.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
33.
ToddP. M.PenkeL.FasoloB.LentonA. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011–15016.
34.
TownsendJ. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology & Sociobiology, 10, 241–253.
35.
WiedermanM. W.AllgeierE. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation?Ethology & Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.
36.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
