A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching

Paul W Eastwick¹, Jehan Sparks², Eli J Finkel³, Eva M Meza¹, Matúš Adamkovič⁴, Peter Adu⁵, Ting Ai⁶, Aderonke A Akintola⁷, Laith Al-Shawaf⁸, Denisa Apriliawati⁹, Patrícia Arriaga¹⁰, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud¹¹, Gabriel Baník¹², Krystian Barzykowski¹³, Carlota Batres¹⁴, Katherine J Baucom¹⁵, Elizabeth Z Beaulieu¹⁵, Maciej Behnke¹⁶, Natalie Butcher¹⁷, Deborah Y Charles¹⁸, Jane Minyan Chen¹⁹, Jeong Eun Cheon²⁰, Phakkanun Chittham²¹, Patrycja Chwiłkowska¹⁶, Chin Wen Cong²², Lee T Copping¹⁷, Nadia S Corral-Frias²³, Vera Ćubela Adorić²⁴, Mikaela Dizon²⁵, Hongfei Du²⁶, Michael I Ehinmowo²⁷, Daniela A Escribano⁶, Natalia M Espinosa²⁸, Francisca Expósito²⁹, Gilad Feldman³⁰, Raquel Freitag³¹, Martha Frias Armenta³², Albina Gallyamova³³, Omri Gillath⁶, Biljana Gjoneska³⁴, Theofilos Gkinopoulos³⁵, Franca Grafe³⁶, Dmitry Grigoryev³³, Agata Groyecka-Bernard³⁷, Gul Gunaydin³⁸, Ruby Ilustrisimo³⁹, Emily Impett⁴⁰, Pavol Kačmár⁴¹, Young-Hoon Kim²⁰, Mirosław Kocur⁴², Marta Kowal⁴², Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor⁴³, Jackson G Lu⁴⁴, Marc Y Lucas⁴⁵, Wojciech P Małecki⁴⁶, Klara Malinakova⁴⁷, Sofia Meißner³⁶, Zdeněk Meier⁴⁷, Michal Misiak⁴², Amy Muise⁴⁸, Lukas Novak⁴⁷, Jiaqing O⁴⁹, Asil A Özdoğru⁵⁰, Haeyoung Gideon Park⁴⁰, Mariola Paruzel¹⁶, Zoran Pavlović⁵¹, Marcell Püski⁵², Gianni Ribeiro⁵³, S Craig Roberts⁴², Jan P Röer³⁶, Ivan Ropovik⁵⁴, Robert M Ross⁵⁵, Ezgi Sakman⁵⁶, Cristina E Salvador²⁸, Emre Selcuk³⁸, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling⁵⁷, Agnieszka Sorokowska³⁷, Piotr Sorokowski⁴², Ognen Spasovski⁵⁸, Sarah C E Stanton²⁵, Suzanne L K Stewart⁵⁹, Viren Swami⁶⁰, Barnabas Szaszi⁵², Kaito Takashima⁶¹, Peter Tavel⁴⁷, Julian Tejada⁶², Eric Tu⁴⁸, Jarno Tuominen⁶³, David Vaidis⁶⁴, Zahir Vally⁶⁵, Leigh Ann Vaughn⁶⁶, Laura Villanueva-Moya²⁹, Dian Wisnuwardhani⁶⁷, Yuki Yamada⁶⁸, Fumiya Yonemitsu⁶⁹, Radka Žídková⁴⁷, Kristýna Živná⁴⁷, Nicholas A Coles⁷⁰

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis.
² Behavioral Decision Making Group, University of California, Los Angeles, Anderson School of Management.
³ Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
⁴ Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences.
⁵ Wellington Faculty of Health, School of Health, Victoria University of Wellington.
⁶ Department of Social Psychology, University of Kansas.
⁷ Department of Psychology, Redeemer's University.
⁸ Department of Psychology, University of Colorado.
⁹ Department of Psychology, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga.
¹⁰ Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon.
¹¹ Institut de Psychologie, Universite Paris Cite.
¹² Department of Educational Psychology and Psychology of Health, Pavol Jozef Safarik University.
¹³ Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University.
¹⁴ Department of Psychology, Franklin and Marshall College.
¹⁵ Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
¹⁶ Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, Teesside University.
¹⁸ Department of Psychology, Christ University.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Wellesley College.
²⁰ Department of Psychology, Yonsei University.
²¹ Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University.
²² Department of Social Science, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology.
²³ Department of Psychology, Universidad de Sonora.
²⁴ Department of Psychology, University of Zadar.
²⁵ Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh.
²⁶ Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Normal University.
²⁷ Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan.
²⁸ Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University.
²⁹ Departament of Social Psychology, University of Granada.
³⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong.
³¹ Departamento de Letras Vernaculas, Universidade Federal de Sergipe.
³² Department of Law, Universidad de Sonora.
³³ Center for Sociocultural Research, HSE University.
³⁴ Devision of Neuroinformatics in Function of Sustainable Development, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
³⁵ Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow.
³⁶ Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University.
³⁷ Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw.
³⁸ Psychology Program, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabanci University.
³⁹ Department of Psychology, University of San Carlos.
⁴⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Toronto.
⁴¹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Safarik University in Kosice.
⁴² IDN Being Human, Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw.
⁴³ Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines.
⁴⁴ Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
⁴⁵ Department of Anthropology and Psychology, Universidad de Sonora.
⁴⁶ IDN Being Human, Institute of Polish Studies, University of Wroclaw.
⁴⁷ Olomouc University Social Health Institute, Palacky University Olomouc.
⁴⁸ Department of Psychology, York University.
⁴⁹ Health and Social Sciences Cluster, Singapore Institute of Technology.
⁵⁰ Department of Psychology, Marmara University.
⁵¹ Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade.
⁵² Institute of Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University.
⁵³ School of Psychology, University of Queensland.
⁵⁴ Institute for Research and Development of Education, Faculty of Education, Charles University.
⁵⁵ Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University.
⁵⁶ Department of Psychology, Bilkent University.
⁵⁷ Department of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University.
⁵⁸ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje.
⁵⁹ School of Psychology, University of Chester.
⁶⁰ School of Psychology, Sport, and Sensory Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University.
⁶¹ Graduate School of Human-Environment Studies, Kyushu University.
⁶² Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade Federal de Sergipe.
⁶³ Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku.
⁶⁴ Department of Psychology, Centre for Learning Leadership and Excellence, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Universite de Toulouse.
⁶⁵ Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University.
⁶⁶ Department of Psychology, Ithaca College.
⁶⁷ Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia.
⁶⁸ Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University.
⁶⁹ College of Engineering, Shibaura Institute of Technology.
⁷⁰ Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

PMID: 39480282
PMCID: PMC12622239
DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000524

A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching

Paul W Eastwick et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2025 Jan.

. 2025 Jan;128(1):123-146.

doi: 10.1037/pspp0000524. Epub 2024 Oct 31.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis.
² Behavioral Decision Making Group, University of California, Los Angeles, Anderson School of Management.
³ Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
⁴ Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences.
⁵ Wellington Faculty of Health, School of Health, Victoria University of Wellington.
⁶ Department of Social Psychology, University of Kansas.
⁷ Department of Psychology, Redeemer's University.
⁸ Department of Psychology, University of Colorado.
⁹ Department of Psychology, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga.
¹⁰ Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon.
¹¹ Institut de Psychologie, Universite Paris Cite.
¹² Department of Educational Psychology and Psychology of Health, Pavol Jozef Safarik University.
¹³ Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University.
¹⁴ Department of Psychology, Franklin and Marshall College.
¹⁵ Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
¹⁶ Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, Teesside University.
¹⁸ Department of Psychology, Christ University.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Wellesley College.
²⁰ Department of Psychology, Yonsei University.
²¹ Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University.
²² Department of Social Science, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology.
²³ Department of Psychology, Universidad de Sonora.
²⁴ Department of Psychology, University of Zadar.
²⁵ Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh.
²⁶ Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Normal University.
²⁷ Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan.
²⁸ Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University.
²⁹ Departament of Social Psychology, University of Granada.
³⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong.
³¹ Departamento de Letras Vernaculas, Universidade Federal de Sergipe.
³² Department of Law, Universidad de Sonora.
³³ Center for Sociocultural Research, HSE University.
³⁴ Devision of Neuroinformatics in Function of Sustainable Development, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
³⁵ Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow.
³⁶ Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University.
³⁷ Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw.
³⁸ Psychology Program, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabanci University.
³⁹ Department of Psychology, University of San Carlos.
⁴⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Toronto.
⁴¹ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Safarik University in Kosice.
⁴² IDN Being Human, Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw.
⁴³ Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines.
⁴⁴ Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
⁴⁵ Department of Anthropology and Psychology, Universidad de Sonora.
⁴⁶ IDN Being Human, Institute of Polish Studies, University of Wroclaw.
⁴⁷ Olomouc University Social Health Institute, Palacky University Olomouc.
⁴⁸ Department of Psychology, York University.
⁴⁹ Health and Social Sciences Cluster, Singapore Institute of Technology.
⁵⁰ Department of Psychology, Marmara University.
⁵¹ Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade.
⁵² Institute of Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University.
⁵³ School of Psychology, University of Queensland.
⁵⁴ Institute for Research and Development of Education, Faculty of Education, Charles University.
⁵⁵ Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University.
⁵⁶ Department of Psychology, Bilkent University.
⁵⁷ Department of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University.
⁵⁸ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje.
⁵⁹ School of Psychology, University of Chester.
⁶⁰ School of Psychology, Sport, and Sensory Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University.
⁶¹ Graduate School of Human-Environment Studies, Kyushu University.
⁶² Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade Federal de Sergipe.
⁶³ Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku.
⁶⁴ Department of Psychology, Centre for Learning Leadership and Excellence, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Universite de Toulouse.
⁶⁵ Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University.
⁶⁶ Department of Psychology, Ithaca College.
⁶⁷ Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia.
⁶⁸ Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University.
⁶⁹ College of Engineering, Shibaura Institute of Technology.
⁷⁰ Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

PMID: 39480282
PMCID: PMC12622239
DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000524

Abstract

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report-partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator-uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The "corrected pattern metric" that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β = .19 and an effect of β = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the "level metric" (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men's and (especially) women's stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men's stated preferences underestimated-and women's stated preferences overestimated-revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

**Figure 1 –. 60 Samples Included in the Preference-Matching Project**
Note: Locations indicate the university where the data were collected or—in the cases of online community samples—the center of the relevant country. Map created with Datawrapper (Lorenz et al., 2012).

**Figure 2 –. Results for Research Questions (RQs) 1–3**
Note: Values for ideal-trait correlations and level metric are averaged across the 35 traits. Bars depict upper and lower 95% CIs.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Abbey JD, & Meloy MG (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53, 63–70.
1. Arciniega GM, Anderson TC, Tovar-Blank ZG, & Tracey TJ (2008). Toward a fuller conception of Machismo: Development of a traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 19–33.
1. Bahns AJ, Crandall CS, Gillath O, & Preacher KJ (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, 329–355. - PubMed
1. Balzarini RN, Muise A, Dobson K, Kohut T, Raposo S, & Campbell L (2021). The detriments of unmet sexual ideals and buffering effect of sexual communal strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 1521–1550. - PubMed
1. Baranger DA, Finsaas MC, Goldstein BL, Vize CE, Lynam DR, & Olino TM (2023). Tutorial: Power analyses for interaction effects in cross-sectional regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 25152459231187531. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching

Affiliations

A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Figures

References

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources