Eastwick Paul W, Sparks Jehan, Finkel Eli J, Meza Eva M, Adamkovič Matúš, Adu Peter, Ai Ting, Akintola Aderonke A, Al-Shawaf Laith, Apriliawati Denisa, Arriaga Patrícia, Aubert-Teillaud Benjamin, Baník Gabriel, Barzykowski Krystian, Batres Carlota, Baucom Katherine J, Beaulieu Elizabeth Z, Behnke Maciej, Butcher Natalie, Charles Deborah Y, Chen Jane Minyan, Cheon Jeong Eun, Chittham Phakkanun, Chwiłkowska Patrycja, Cong Chin Wen, Copping Lee T, Corral-Frias Nadia S, Ćubela Adorić Vera, Dizon Mikaela, Du Hongfei, Ehinmowo Michael I, Escribano Daniela A, Espinosa Natalia M, Expósito Francisca, Feldman Gilad, Freitag Raquel, Frias Armenta Martha, Gallyamova Albina, Gillath Omri, Gjoneska Biljana, Gkinopoulos Theofilos, Grafe Franca, Grigoryev Dmitry, Groyecka-Bernard Agata, Gunaydin Gul, Ilustrisimo Ruby, Impett Emily, Kačmár Pavol, Kim Young-Hoon, Kocur Mirosław, Kowal Marta, Krishna Maatangi, Labor Paul Danielle, Lu Jackson G, Lucas Marc Y, Małecki Wojciech P, Malinakova Klara, Meißner Sofia, Meier Zdeněk, Misiak Michal, Muise Amy, Novak Lukas, O Jiaqing, Özdoğru Asil A, Park Haeyoung Gideon, Paruzel Mariola, Pavlović Zoran, Püski Marcell, Ribeiro Gianni, Roberts S Craig, Röer Jan P, Ropovik Ivan, Ross Robert M, Sakman Ezgi, Salvador Cristina E, Selcuk Emre, Skakoon-Sparling Shayna, Sorokowska Agnieszka, Sorokowski Piotr, Spasovski Ognen, Stanton Sarah C E, Stewart Suzanne L K, Swami Viren, Szaszi Barnabas, Takashima Kaito, Tavel Peter, Tejada Julian, Tu Eric, Tuominen Jarno, Vaidis David, Vally Zahir, Vaughn Leigh Ann, Villanueva-Moya Laura, Wisnuwardhani Dian, Yamada Yuki, Yonemitsu Fumiya, Žídková Radka, Živná Kristýna, Coles Nicholas A
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis.
Behavioral Decision Making Group, University of California, Los Angeles, Anderson School of Management.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2025 Jan;128(1):123-146. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000524. Epub 2024 Oct 31.
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 ( = 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).
理想伴侣偏好（即对诸如吸引力或智力等属性的合意性评级）是跨学科人类交配文献中众多基础研究结果的来源。最近，关于理想伴侣偏好匹配的预测效度研究（即人们是否对与自己理想匹配或不匹配的伴侣给予积极评价？）陷入了几个问题。首先，文章呈现出不一致的分析和报告做法。其次，全球各实验室得出了不同的研究结果，这可能是因为它们抽样的关系背景和/或人群不同。这份与心理科学加速器合作的注册报告，采用了涵盖43个国家和22种语言的高功效设计（N = 10,358）来估计偏好匹配效应大小。最严格的测试在整个样本以及有伴侣和单身参与者中分别发现了显著的偏好匹配效应。综合35个性状得出的“校正模式指标”显示零阶效应β = 0.19，当与规范的偏好匹配指标一起纳入时效应β = 0.11。“水平指标”（交互作用）测试中的特定性状显示效应非常小（平均β = 0.04）。对于在进入恋爱关系之前就报告了理想伴侣的有伴侣参与者，效应大小相似，并且没有一致的证据表明个体差异会调节任何效应。对陈述偏好和显示偏好的比较揭示了性别差异和相似之处：对于吸引力，男性和（尤其是）女性的陈述偏好低估了显示偏好（即他们认为吸引力不如实际重要）。对于收入潜力，男性的陈述偏好低估了——而女性的陈述偏好高估了——显示偏好。文中讨论了这些结果对人类交配文献的启示。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2025美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
