1. The Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preferences in Relationship Formation
Lorne Campbell
The University of Western Ontario
In collaboration with Sarah C.E. Stanton

2. Research on Partner Preferences
Vast—over 48k Google Scholar hits to various keywords associated with interpersonal attraction
Largely self-report
Provide people a list of qualities to rate on importance
Ask people to list qualities they are looking for in a partner

5. Sprecher, Sullivan and Hatfield, 1994
Goal of Study
Table of Means
Asked a nationally representative sample of men and women in the USA how willing they would be to marry someone possessing a number of different traits
Variable
Men
Women
Not “good looking”
3.41
4.42
Younger by 5 years
4.54
2.80
Not likely to hold a steady job
2.73
1.62
Earn less than you
4.60
3.76
Earn more than you
5.19
5.93

6. Important Assumption
What people say they want in a future partner should be associated with the actual characteristics of their future partners
i.e., partner preferences somehow implicated in actual mate search/mate choice

7. Research Support: “Yes”
Buriss et al (2011)
When women prefer more masculine men as partners, they are with more masculine-looking men
Kenrick & Keefe (1992)
Age preferences for long-term partners
Age of actual marriages in diverse samples

8. Research Support: “Yes”
Elder (1969); Taylor & Glenn (1976)
More physically attractive women marry men with higher occupational status
Perusse (1993; 1994)
Large samples of men and women report on recent sexual behavior
Men: social status linked to sexual opportunities
Women: age linked to sexual opportunities

9. Research Support: “No”
Eastwick & Finkel (2008)
Speed-dating study: 4-minute “dates”
Provide preferences before “dates”; rate appeal of each “date”; answer questions 10 different times over a 30 day period following event
Match between self-evaluations of “dates” and one’s own stated preferences did not predict romantic attraction
Conclusion: people lack introspective awareness of what influence their mate choices

10. Research Support: “No”
Eastwick et al. (2011)
Match between preferences and profile of opposite-sex other predicted attraction
After interaction with this person (confederate), that association went away
Conclusion: properties of the interactions are particularly important for attraction

11. Footnote
But see Li et al., (2013) and Fletcher, Kerr, Li, & Valentine, (2014) for data suggesting that individuals’ preferences do predict actual choices using similar “get acquainted” paradigms

12. Meta-Analysis Eastwick et al. (2014) Conclusions:
(1) individuals are more satisfied with current romantic partners who more closely match their ideal preferences
(2) single individuals are more attracted to hypothetical partners who more closely match their preferences

13. Meta-Analysis Eastwick et al. (2014) Conclusions:
(3) preferences of single individuals, however, do not appear to predict how attracted those individuals were to actual potential partners following live interactions with them
“…just because participants claim to value particular qualities in a mate does not mean that they will preferentially pursue partners who possess such qualities” (p. 647).

14. 1 = single only; 2 = involved only; 3 = recruited when single and asked about prior
dating experiences; 4 = recruited when single and asked over time about actual dating
experiences; 5 = recruited when single and followed until involved in a committed
relationship; 6 = recruited when involved in a committed relationship and asked about
how the relationship began/developed; 7 = both single and involved people in a
committed relationship recruited.
* From: Campbell & Stanton (2014), DOI:  /spc

15. 1 = interpersonal attraction/liking
2 = later relationship processes
3 = formation/initiation of new relationships.
* From: Campbell & Stanton (2014), DOI:  /spc

16. Little Research Focuses on Relationship Formation
Three studies in the meta-analysis focused on relationship formation to some degree:
(1) Eastwick et al. (2008)
(2) Asendorpf et al. (2011)
the probabilities for various kinds of contact in their sample was “…6.6% for a developing romantic relationship 6 weeks after speed-dating, 5.8% for sexual intercourse at any time in the year following speed-dating, and 4.4% for reports of romantic relationships 1 year after speed-dating.”
(3) Sprecher & Duck (1994)
Very few, if any, matched couples had a second date

17. Eastwick et al. (2014)
“If the theoretical account of a particular finding contains the assumption (explicit or implicit) that the stated preference for a specific attribute translates into a revealed preference for that same attribute, the theoretical account could be in need of revision.” (Eastwick et al., 2014, p. 648; italics added)

18. This Conclusion Gaining Traction
Gildersleeve et al. (2014), in meta-analysis on the ovulatory shift hypothesis:
“…given that several studies have found that stated preferences are only weakly predictive of real-life dating behavior (see, e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2013; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton, 2007), it remains an open question whether women have explicit knowledge of and can accurately report on the mate preferences that influence their real-life attractions” (p. 32)
Joel et al. (2014)
First line of abstract: “Mate preferences often fail to correspond with actual mate choices.”

19. Too Early to Make Definitive Conclusions
No systematic empirical literature on predictive validity of ideal partner preferences in relationship formation
Cannot make conclusions in the absence of data
But, studying actual relationship formation is hard

20. Our First Empirical Effort
Assumption: preferences when single should be positively associated with the self-reported qualities of new romantic partners
Study design: obtain preferences from a lot of single people, follow them over time, try to recruit new partner when relationship forms
First original research I pre-registered:

21. Participants
Started with 450 single people, excluded 24, left with 426
Over 5 months, 167 entered new relationships
85 provided us contact information of new partner
45 accepted the invitation
38 new partners completed the survey

22. Materials
Ideal partner preferences and self-perceptions were assessed across 38 qualities (e.g., “understanding,” “good lover,” “ambitious,”) used extensively in prior research
Murray et al’s 20-item Interpersonal Qualities Scale (IQS)
Fletcher et al’s 18-item Ideal Standards Scale (ISS)
All study materials etc can be found here:

23. Primary Analyses Multilevel Modeling
Preferences and self-evaluations nested within dyad
Allows for assessing within-dyad associations (averaged across dyads)

24. Models
Model 1:
DV = new partners’ self-evaluations across 38 traits
IV = original participants’ partner preferences assessed when single
Model 2:
DV = original participants’ self-evaluations across 38 traits assessed when single
IV = new partners’ partner preferences

25. Table of Results
Table 2
Multilevel Models Testing the Effects of Original Participants’ Ideal Preferences Predicting New Partners’ Self-Perceptions (Model 1) and New Partners’ Ideal Preferences Predicting Original Participants’ Self-Perceptions (Model 2)
Analysis
Model 1
Model 2 b SE t
95% CI r
Original Analysis
Self-Evaluations Included
No Dating History Only
Stereotype Accuracy
.36
.27
.42
.30
.07
.06
.08
5.29***
4.56***
5.58***
5.21***
.22, .49
.15, .38
.27, .57
.19, .41
.14
.12
.17
.33
.25
.37
.26
.05
5.91***
4.90***
5.68***
4.97***
.22, .44
.15, .35
.24, .50
.16, .37
.16
.13
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Approximate effect sizes were computed using the formula r = √(t2/(t2 + df)) (see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2007). Degrees of freedom ranged between for models estimated with all couples, and were 1101 for the models with couples with no dating history.
***p < .001

26. Thoughts What the data imply: What the data do not imply:
In our sample, participants entered relationships with others that had qualities (self-reported) positively corresponding their preferences when single
What the data do not imply:
How this happened

27. What is Needed (1) Replication with larger sample
(2) Larger sample would also allow for tests of between-dyad associations
E.g., predicting relationship quality, stability
(3) Exactly how might preferences influence mate choice?
New research approaches needed
Go beyond attraction in the lab
But manage to assess variability in potential partner options as well as actual mate choices given these options