This research examined how people’s ideal friend preferences influence the friendship formation process. In an extension of prior research on romantic relationship initiation, we tested whether the match between participants’ ideals and a partner’s traits affected participants’ interest in forming a new friendship in three contexts: evaluating a potential friend’s profile, meeting in-person, and chatting online. Results revealed that participants were more interested in becoming friends with a partner whose traits matched (vs. mismatched) their ideal friend preferences when evaluating his or her profile. After a live interaction, however, the effect of the ideal-perceived trait match manipulation on participants’ friendship interest was substantially reduced in both in-person and online chatting contexts. People’s ideal friend preferences may influence their friendship interest more strongly in descriptive (i.e., indirect) than interactive (i.e., direct) contexts, a finding that mirrors prior results from the romantic domain and documents a role for domain-general relationship initiation processes.
BakemanR. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.
2.
BoaseJ.HorriganJ. B.WellmanB.RainieL. (2006). The strength of Internet ties: The Internet and e-mail aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project.
3.
BolhuisJ. J.BrownG. R.RichardsonR. C.LalandK. N. (2011). Darwin in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9, e1001109. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109
4.
BradburyT. N.KarneyB. R. (2013). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
5.
BrumbaughC. C.WoodD. (2013). Mate preferences across life and across the world. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 100–107.
6.
BussD. M. (Ed.) (2016). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
7.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K.KirkpatrickL. A.LarsenR. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.
8.
CairncrossF. (2000). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
9.
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.
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.
11.
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.
12.
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. doi:10.1037/a0032432
13.
EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Sex-differentiated effects of physical attractiveness on romantic desire: A highly powered, preregistered study in a photograph evaluation context. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 1–27.
14.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
15.
FujitaK.HendersonM. D.EngJ.TropeY.LibermanN. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278–282.
16.
HallJ. A. (2012). Friendship standards: The dimensions of ideal expectations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 884–907.
17.
HamiltonR. W.ThompsonD. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 546–555.
18.
HillR. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.
19.
KurzbanR.HaseltonM. G. (2006). Making hay out of straw: Real and imagined debates in evolutionary psychology. In BarkowJ. H. (Ed.) Missing the Revolution: Evolutionary Perspectives on Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
LamB. C.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, 703–722.
21.
LedgerwoodA. (2014). Evaluations in their social context: Distance regulates consistency and context dependence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 436–447.
22.
LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Toward an integrative framework for studying human evaluation: Attitudes toward objects and attributes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 378–398.
23.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.LibermanN. (2015). Construal level theory and regulatory scope. In ScottR.KosslynS. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
24.
LedgerwoodA.WakslakC. J.SánchezA. M.ReesH. R. (in press). A brief, distance-based intervention can increase intentions to follow evidence-based guidelines in cancer screening. Social Psychological and Personality Science, doi: 10.1177/1948550618779387.
MillerR. (2018) Intimate relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
27.
MurrayH. A. (1971). Thematic apperception test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
NussbaumS.TropeY.LibermanN. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485–497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.485
29.
OhH.CurleyS. P.SubramaniM. R. (2008). The death of distance? The influence of computer-mediated communication on perceptions of distance. ICIS 2008 Proceedings, 149.
30.
ParkL. E.YoungA. F.EastwickP. W. (2015). (Psychological) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Effects of psychological distance and relative intelligence on men’s attraction to women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1549–1573.
31.
ReevesB.NassC. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: John Wiley.
33.
SimpsonJ. A.FletcherG. J. O.CampbellL. (2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
34.
SprecherS.ReganP. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481.
35.
SteigerJ. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182.
36.
StreetS. E.MorganT. J.ThorntonA.BrownG. R.LalandK. N.CrossC. P. (2018). Human mate-choice copying is domain-general social learning. Scientific Reports, 8, 1715.
37.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2015). The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3–87). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
39.
TropeY.LedgerwoodA.LibermanN.FujitaK. (2019). Different levels of mental and social tools enable expansive versus contractive regulation(Unpublished manuscript). New York University, New York City.
40.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.
41.
WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345–411.
42.
WisemanJ. P. (1986). Friendship: Bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 191–211.
43.
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. doi:10.1037/a0015300
44.
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.
45.
WoodD.LowmanG. H.HarmsP. D.RobertsB. W. (2019). Exploring the relative importance of normative and distinctive organizational preferences as predictors of work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 270–292. doi:10.1037/apl0000356
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.
