Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020 Nov;46(11):1581-1595. doi: 10.1177/0146167220910323. Epub 2020 Mar 11.
Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018) advanced recommendations for "best practices" in testing the predictive validity of individual differences in the extent to which perceptions of partners match ideal standards (ideal-partner matching). We respond to their article evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different tests, presenting new analyses of existing data, and setting out conclusions that differ from Eastwick et al. We (a) argue that correlations between ideal standards for attributes in partners and corresponding partner perceptions are relevant to the ideal standards model (ISM), (b) show that important methodological and statistical issues qualify their interpretations of prior research, (c) illustrate a new analytic approach used in the accuracy literature that tests (and controls for) confounds highlighted by Eastwick et al., and (d) provide evidence that the direct-estimation measure of ideal-partner matching is a valid and useful method. We conclude with a cautionary note on the concept of best practices.
伊斯威克、芬克尔和辛普森（2018 年）提出了“最佳实践”的建议，以测试感知伴侣与理想标准的匹配程度（理想伴侣匹配）的个体差异的预测有效性。我们对他们的文章进行了回应，评估了不同测试的优缺点，对现有数据进行了新的分析，并得出了与伊斯威克等人不同的结论。我们（a）认为，伴侣属性的理想标准与相应伴侣感知之间的相关性与理想标准模型（ISM）有关；（b）表明，重要的方法学和统计学问题限制了他们对先前研究的解释；（c）说明了准确性文献中使用的一种新的分析方法，该方法测试（并控制）了伊斯威克等人强调的混淆因素；（d）提供了证据表明，理想伴侣匹配的直接估计测量是一种有效和有用的方法。最后，我们对最佳实践的概念提出了一个警示。
