Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.

12126

The Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preferences in

Relationship Formation: What We Know, What We Don’t
Know, and Why It Matters
Lorne Campbell* and Sarah C. E. Stanton
University of Western Ontario

Abstract
A great deal of research on interpersonal attraction implicitly assumes that stated ideal partner preferences
guide the mate selection, and therefore relationship formation, process. Nevertheless, recent research has
yielded contradictory results. Whereas some research has failed to demonstrate that ideal partner
preferences influence attraction to actual potential romantic partners, other studies have provided
empirical evidence for the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences following interactions with
potential romantic partners. A new meta-analysis on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences
concluded that people may not preferentially pursue potential partners that more closely match their stated
preferences. This conclusion has significant implications for several empirical literatures that have relied on
self-reported ideal partner preferences to test hypotheses. We demonstrate, however, that the majority of
the research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences, and thus research included in this
meta-analysis, focuses on interpersonal attraction or later relationship processes and not on individuals
transitioning into actual new relationships. We suggest that research that directly focuses on the transition
into actual relationships is needed before firm conclusions can be made regarding the predictive validity
of ideal partner preferences in the formation of new relationships.

A great deal of theoretical and empirical work has focused on what individuals are looking for in
potential romantic partners (Fletcher, Simpson, Campbell, & Overall, 2013; Simpson & Campbell,
2013; Sprecher, Wenzel, & Harvey, 2008). Numerous studies conducted over several decades and
across many different cultures have asked participants to indicate their ideal partner preferences for
various traits and characteristics (e.g., Burriss, Welling, & Puts, 2011; Buss, 1989; Buss & Barnes,
1986; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Feingold, 1992; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Fletcher,
Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, &
Linsenmeier, 2002; Penton-Voak et al., 1999; Regan, 1998; Singh, 1993; Sprecher, Sullivan, &
Hatfield, 1994; Townsend & Levy, 1990; Wilbur & Campbell, 2010). Implied in this body
of research is that ideal partner preferences guide the mate selection process, and thus knowing
what individuals say they want in a potential partner should be associated with the actual qualities
of their future partners. If such a link did not in fact exist, the results of this large body of research
would simply be unable able to provide insight into the process of relationship formation, largely
undermining the value of these studies (see Campbell, Pink, & Stanton, in press).
A critical question to ask, therefore, is do individuals form relationships with others who
more closely match their stated ideal partner preferences? Surprisingly, there is not a great deal
of research addressing this question, and the existing research is inconsistent. Research
supporting a link between preferences and actual mate choice (i.e., relationship formation)
has typically used retrospective methods to assess if the behaviors in one sample of participants
correspond to preferences reported by another sample of participants. For example, Pérusse
(1994; see also 1993) obtained reports of actual recent mating behaviors from a large

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

486 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation

representative sample of heterosexual men and women and found that men’s status, and
women’s age, was associated with their number of partners in the recent past, respectively.
Additionally, two large-scale epidemiological studies have shown that more physically attractive
women tend to marry men of higher occupational status (Elder, 1969; Taylor & Glenn, 1976).
These results are consistent with research suggesting that women particularly value status and
resources, and men youth and beauty, in potential partners (e.g., Buss, 1989). Relatedly, using
a multi-method approach, Kenrick and Keefe (1992) demonstrated that men both preferred and
married women who were progressively younger than themselves as they aged, whereas
women both preferred and married men who were slightly older than themselves regardless
of their own age. One limitation of this body of research is that it is not possible to determine
if the preferences of participants actually influenced their mate choices (i.e., the correspondence
between individual’s initial preferences and characteristics of their actual partners was
not assessed).
More recently, research has addressed this question by assessing the association, if any,
between stated ideal partner preferences and initial attraction to actual interaction partners
(i.e., potential romantic partners). Utilizing a speed-dating paradigm where groups of men
and women interacted for short periods of time with a number of actual potential partners,
Eastwick and Finkel (2008) failed to document evidence that individual’s ideal preferences
reported prior to the speed-dating event predicted attraction to their interaction partners
(see also Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton, 2007). Additionally, Eastwick, Finkel, and Eagly
(2011) found, in a laboratory setting, that participants were more attracted to a study confederate
when his/her written profile was created to more closely match their own ideal partner
preferences, but this link disappeared following an actual interaction between participants and
the confederate. Interestingly, it seemed as though participants changed the meaning of their
ideal preferences to be characteristic of the confederate following the face-to-face interaction.
On the other hand, Li et al. (2013) employed online messaging and a modified speed-dating
paradigm across three studies (Studies 2–4), manipulating variability in social status and
physical attractiveness, and did find evidence that individuals reporting stronger preferences
for social status and attractiveness prior to the interaction tasks also valued these traits more in
their actual choices (see also Fletcher, Kerr, Li, & Valentine, 2014). Whereas Eastwick and
Finkel (2008) suggested that people lack introspective awareness of what influences their mate
choices, the results of Li et al. (2013) suggest that perhaps people do possess such introspective
awareness.
Firm conclusions, of course, are difficult to make from the results of a few empirical studies.
That is one reason why the definitive meta-analysis on the predictive validity of ideal partner
preferences for a few different outcomes was recently conducted by Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel,
and Hunt (2014). This meta-analysis aimed to help answer two broad questions: (a) Do sex
differences in reported mate preferences translate into sex differences in how people evaluate
actual potential, or current, partners? and (b) In what relationship context(s) might reported
mate preferences predict attraction to actual potential, or current, partners that vary in how
closely they match these preferences? The second question more closely aligns with the one
we asked at the outset of our paper: Do individuals tend to initiate relationships with others
who more closely match their ideal preferences? The results of Eastwick et al.’s meta-analysis
suggest that individuals are more satisfied with current romantic partners when they perceive
their partners to more closely match their ideal preferences, and single individuals are more
attracted to hypothetical partners that more closely match their preferences. The preferences of
single individuals, however, were not shown to predict how attracted they were to actual poten-
tial partners following live interactions with them. This pattern of results led the authors to the
following conclusion:

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation 487

From our perspective, the central lesson for future studies of ideal partner preferences is that researchers
should not assume that the interpersonal implications of ideals are straightforward. That is, just because
participants claim to value particular qualities in a mate does not mean that they will preferentially
pursue partners who possess such qualities. 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, pp. 646–647; italics added).

According to Eastwick et al. (2014), therefore, the predictive validity of ideal partner
preferences does not extend to relationship initiation or formation, meaning that theoretical
and empirical work that has relied on the capacity of ideal partner preferences to predict
mate selection may be invalid. This conclusion is already gaining some traction; for example,
it partially influenced the selection criteria for studies in a recent meta-analysis on the
association between women’s ovulatory status and dating behavior. Gildersleeve, Haselton,
and Fales (2014) reasoned

…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, 2014; Todd
et al., 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).

Gildersleeve et al. thus created two samples of studies in their meta-analysis, one that was
“broad” and included studies relying on stated partner preferences as the primary dependent
variable, and one that was “narrow” and did not include these studies. They predicted that
the narrow sample would be more likely to yield results consistent with their hypotheses.
According to Gildersleeve et al.,

Although the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis was somewhat stronger
in the narrow sample, it remained robust in both of the broader samples. (p. 49).

These results may not be surprising, however, given the research by Li et al. (2013; see also
Fletcher et al., 2014) demonstrating that reported partner preferences do indeed influence
interpersonal attraction and, perhaps, “real-life” dating behavior.1
Meta-analyses do an excellent job of aggregating results across existing empirical research, but
the results are generalizable only to the domains investigated by this pooled research. The available
research testing the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences falls neatly into one of three do-
mains of research, as identified by Eastwick et al. (2014): (1) evaluating attraction/liking to hypo-
thetical others, (2) evaluating attraction/liking to actual face-to-face interaction partners, and (3)
evaluating satisfaction with a current romantic partner. What seems to be missing from this body
of research, then, are investigations of the formation process that occurs between domains 2 and 3;
that is, studies that go beyond assessing interpersonal attraction/liking in the short-term and focus
on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences for the actual formation of relationships
(i.e., the extent to which people enter into actual relationships with those who do or do not match
their ideal preferences). Given that the conclusion that stated ideal partner preferences are not likely
to influence the process of relationship formation significantly undermines the assumption implicit
in much of the research on interpersonal attraction, thus calling into question the value of this
corpus of knowledge for understanding human mating, it is imperative to critically evaluate the
empirical foundations of this conclusion. In other words, it is important to evaluate whether the
studies on relationship “initiation” included in Eastwick et al.’s meta-analysis actually speak to this

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
488 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation

process (i.e., the actual initiation of new relationships) in order to (a) determine if researchers can, in
fact, draw conclusions about ideal partner preferences and relationship formation, and (b) evaluate
the assumption present in the existing literature discussed at the outset of this paper.

Survey of the Available Literature

To better determine if there is indeed a paucity of research on the possible links between ideal
partner preferences and actual mate choice (i.e., the formation of new relationships), therefore
making it difficult to make firm conclusions on the predictive validity of preferences in this
context, we conducted a brief survey of the literature with a spotlight on the relationship status
of participants recruited for, as well as the apparent focus of, the body of research addressing the
predictive validity of ideal partner preferences. Our survey targeted the research that was
included in Eastwick et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis because it is an up-to-date collection that
undoubtedly and thoroughly captures the available empirical research investigating the potential
predictive validity of mate preferences.2
To conduct our survey, we first obtained copies of all published articles that were included in
Eastwick et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis. We, in addition to two objective research assistants, then
read each article and made two sets of codes. The first code focused on what we called “partic-
ipant status,” and the second code focused on what we called “research focus.” Participant status
included categories for whether participants were single when recruited, currently involved in
relationships when recruited, involved in relationships and asked about how the relationship
began/developed, and so forth. Research focus included categories of attraction/liking, later
relationship processes, and formation/initiation of new relationships. The coding scheme we
used appears in full in the legends of Figures 1 and 2. In these two figures, we present the
frequencies of the participant relationship status codes and research focus codes.
The frequencies presented in Figure 1 show that most studies included in the meta-analysis
recruited either single participants (30%) or participants currently involved in a committed
romantic relationship (52%). Some studies recruited both single and involved participants

Participant Status
6
5 1%
2%
4 7
3
2% 12%
1%
1
30%

2
52%

Figure 1 Frequencies of participant status in studies reported in the Eastwick et al. (2014) meta-analysis. 1 = single (i.e., not
currently involved in a romantic relationship) only; 2 = currently involved in a committed relationship 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 up 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
in a committed relationship recruited.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation 489

Research Focus
3
3%

1
37%

2
60%

Figure 2 Frequencies of research focus in studies reported in the Eastwick et al. (2014) meta-analysis. 1 = interpersonal at-
traction/liking; 2 = later relationship processes; 3 = formation/initiation of new relationships.

(12%), and a few studies recruited single individuals and asked about prior dating experiences
(1%), or about current dating experiences (2%), and one study recruited involved participants
and asked questions about how the relationship began and developed (1%). Only two studies
(Asendorpf, Penke, & Back, 2011; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), however, recruited participants
when they were single and attempted to follow up these participants until they transitioned into
a new relationship (2%), and these were the same two studies that were also coded as asking
about dating experiences prospectively.
The frequencies presented in Figure 2 indicate that the research foci of the bulk of the studies
included in the meta-analysis were either interpersonal attraction/liking (e.g., rating the appeal
of hypothetical or real targets, 37%) or later relationship processes (e.g., predictors of relationship
quality, 60%). Only three studies arguably attempted to assess the transition into new relationships
(3%), and these studies were also included in the “interpersonal attraction/liking” category, as the
first goal of the research was to assess reported attraction to particular interaction partners prior to
relationships forming. For example, Eastwick and Finkel (2008), as well as Asendorpf et al. (2011),
assessed interpersonal attraction following participation in a speed-dating event and then followed
up with participants to determine if any had kept in touch, gone out on dates, or formed a
relationship. The majority of participants in the Eastwick and Finkel speed-dating events,
however, did not appear to transition into new romantic relationships with other speed daters
across the one month follow-up period, and according to Asendorpf et al., 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 (p. 22).

Similarly, Sprecher and Duck (1994) paired men and women together for short “dates” and
measured interpersonal attraction among other things and also documented if these matched
couples subsequently chose on their own to go on a second date, but reported that very few
couples did so. This low base rate of actual relationship initiation in these studies therefore makes
it very difficult to test the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences for the formation of
new romantic relationships. Even the research by Li et al. (2013) did not focus on actual rela-
tionship initiation but instead assessed interpersonal attraction.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
490 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation

In sum, according to our survey of the research included in the Eastwick et al. (2014) meta-
analysis, the best available empirical research on the predictive validity of ideal partner prefer-
ences does not appear to investigate the actual initiation and formation of new relationships.
Instead, this body of research focuses largely on interpersonal attraction/liking, as well as pro-
cesses in the context of committed romantic relationships. Two of the studies that did attempt
to measure the likelihood of new relationship formation (Asendorpf et al., 2011; Eastwick &
Finkel, 2008) utilized a speed-dating paradigm, and although this paradigm does have the po-
tential to study the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences for both immediate interper-
sonal attraction and the formation of new relationships, limitations of this design for testing the
predictive validity of ideal partner preferences for the initiation of new romantic relationships
are that (a) the researchers need to track study participants for a period of time that is long
enough to observe the formation of new relationships, and (b) enough new relationships need
to be formed between actual speed-dating participants (and not between a participant and
someone else that was not involved the study) to provide enough data points for analyses. Other
research paradigms could be used to determine the degree to which ideal partner preferences
influence actual mate choice (i.e., actual relationship initiation), but to date, it seems that not
enough research, if any, exists testing this possibility.
In the absence of systematic research on the transition into new relationships, therefore, it is
simply not possible to make any firm conclusions regarding the role, if any, played by ideal partner
preferences in the establishment of new relationships. Thus, the conclusions of Eastwick et al.’s
meta-analysis, in our opinion, speak with authority on the predictive validity of ideal partner
preferences on ratings of attraction/liking to hypothetical others and actual interaction partners,
as well as on indices of relationship quality in existing relationships, but are quite tentative on
the possible role of ideal partner preferences in the establishment of actual new relationships.

What Is the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preferences in Relationship Formation?

We do not yet have a systematic body of research addressing this question. No research that we
are aware of has assessed the correspondence between stated ideal preferences prior to the
formation of a relationship and the characteristics of a new relationship partner. Whereas we
suggest that Eastwick et al.’s (2014) conclusion is premature given the state of the literature, it
is also the case that no strong evidence exists suggesting that ideal partner preferences do play
a role in relationship formation. Given that the interpretation of a vast literature on interpersonal
attraction largely rests on the assumption that ideal partner preferences do guide actual mate
selection, it is critical that research begins to directly test this assumption in earnest.

Where to Go from Here?

The initiation of new romantic relationships is unquestionably a complex process that unfolds
over time, context, and even potential partners. Anecdotally, when couples that we know tell
the story of how they met and fell in love, the narrative often includes many twists and turns,
frequently including the presence of other potential partners who could have prevented the
budding romantic relationship from forming. Research that attempts to determine the degree
to which ideal partner preferences play a role in this process needs to be sensitive to this com-
plexity and should thus observe individuals over time to witness the mechanisms involved. As
an over-time process, therefore, relationship initiation and formation may not be optimally
modeled with single- or two-session correlational designs utilizing established romantic couples
or live interactions with relative strangers. These paradigms certainly yield interesting and infor-
mative findings in the realms of attraction/liking and later relationship processes but may not
convincingly account for the process of relationship initiation and formation itself. That is,

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation 491

attraction/liking in live interactions may predict whether or not one person calls or tries to ap-
proach another, but it is currently unclear the extent to which attraction/liking for another per-
son after one interaction results in the formation of a new relationship. Initiating a new
relationship might be a unique process in and of itself, one that is not fully accounted for by
attraction/liking or later relationship processes research. Consequently, it may be a leap of logic
to draw conclusions about relationship initiation processes from the current empirical literature.
More specifically, as Eastwick et al. (2014; see also 2011) suggested, self-reports of ideal part-
ner preferences across a number of traits may not translate into feelings of attraction/liking when
actually meeting and interacting with someone; instead, properties of the interaction itself are
thought to trump pre-existing ideal preferences during relationship initiation and formation.
Using the same logic, it may be equally faulty to assume that preferences for potential partners
generated from live interactions (e.g., ratings of attraction/liking) determine whether one starts a
relationship with a person. Stated differently, forming positive impressions of a potential partner
following a live interaction may not translate into forming a romantic relationship with that
person. Moreover, in some cases, two people may find each other quite unattractive and/or
strongly dislike each other when they first meet but may eventually desire to initiate a relation-
ship together (examples of this can be seen in nearly every romantic comedy, including When
Harry Met Sally, 27 Dresses, and others). Current empirical evidence examining ideal preferences
and attraction/liking and later relationship processes does not yet account for these situations.
The type of research designs we suggest to test the predictive validity of ideal partner prefer-
ences in relationship formation therefore requires bridging the literatures on interpersonal
attraction and relationship processes. Specifically, ideal mate preferences would need to be
assessed in individuals prior to them entering a relationship. Furthermore, once individuals enter
a relationship, the attributes of the new partner need to be assessed (e.g., peer reports and/or self-
reports along the same set of characteristics) as well as how the new relationship progresses over
time. This type of research could determine whether people enter relationships with individuals
who more closely match their ideal mate preferences (or particular ideal preferences, and
not others), and/or whether relationships develop more positively when greater ideal
consistency exists. This method could also be altered to focus on different types of “rela-
tionships” (e.g., short-term sexual relationships, long-term committed relationships).
This approach certainly has its challenges, including a large time commitment from researchers
as well as participants, access to the necessary available resources to support a longitudinal design,
the likelihood of some degree of participant attrition, and so forth. Nonetheless, our survey of the
presently available literature on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences in relationship
formation strongly suggests that we cannot yet answer the question we posed at the beginning of
our paper: Do individuals tend to initiate relationships with others who more closely match their
ideal preferences? Research directly addressing this question, however time-, resource-, and
method-intensive it may be, is sorely needed, not only to know whether relationship researchers
should indeed be revising their theories as suggested by Eastwick et al. (2014), but also to actually
test the assumption implicit in decades of existing research.
We close by noting that although we focused in this article on the links between ideal partner
preferences and relationship-related outcomes, our observations about the limitations of the
current state of relationship initiation research extend beyond the question of the predictive
validity of ideal preferences. Stated differently, we highlighted the ideal preferences aspect of
relationship formation because it is a topic currently garnering a notable amount of attention
in the relationship initiation field, and, as noted above, the answer to this question, whatever
it may be, has very important implications for existing and future studies on ideal partner pref-
erences; however, other research questions relating to relationship initiation would benefit from
a focus on the actual process itself as opposed to its antecedents (interpersonal attraction/liking)

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
492 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation

and consequents (later relationship processes). For example, research could fruitfully explore if
there are particular types of events that trigger the transition from pursuing someone to forming
a relationship with them. Similarly, the question of factors predicting who we pursue compared
to who we actually start a relationship with has yet to be answered. Studies investigating the re-
lationship initiation process could also delve into possible differences involved in initiating short-
versus long-term relationships.
Summary and Conclusions
In sum, the bulk of research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences has focused on
interpersonal attraction/liking for hypothetical or actual interaction partners, as well as relation-
ship processes in existing relationships (e.g., reported relationship quality), compared to the
actual formation of new relationships. A thorough meta-analysis recently conducted by
Eastwick et al. (2014) comprised the best and most up-to-date empirical literature on whether
or not the ideal preferences people possess influence actual mate choice. Our survey of the
studies included in this meta-analysis, however, found that the vast majority of research (97%)
fell into the categories of attraction/liking or later relationship processes, whereas only three
studies (3%) measured relationship initiation more systematically. Furthermore, the studies that
did measure relationship formation were limited by the fact that a very small number of
participants actually initiated relationships (e.g., Asendorpf et al. (2011) found on average less than
7% of participants formed relationships with other study participants following participation in
the speed-dating event), meaning it was impossible to assess the correspondence between ideal
preferences and the characteristics of new partners.
It seems, therefore, that we now have a good idea of when and how ideal partner preferences
predict interpersonal attraction/liking and later relationship processes; however, the current
understanding of when and how ideal partner preferences predict relationship initiation and
formation does not yet rest on a solid empirical foundation. Systematic investigation of this
process is critical before definitive conclusions regarding the predictive validity of ideal partner
preferences in this context are made. Thus, this is a call for research examining the actual process
of relationship initiation over and above investigations of attraction/liking and later relationship
processes, not only for explorations of the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences but for
other facets of relationship formation research as well. To be sure, the study of relationship
formation is complex and has its challenges, but there is also an opportunity for high payoff in
terms of the insight gained into relationship development processes as they unfold over time.
In order to fully understand relationship formation, researchers need to directly assess, rather than
infer about, relationship initiation processes.
Short Biographies
Lorne Campbell is an Associate Professor at the University of Western Ontario in the Depart-
ment of Psychology. His research focuses on relationship processes, including initial attraction
and relationship maintenance.
Sarah C. E. Stanton is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at the University of
Western Ontario. Her research focuses on relationship maintenance processes, including con-
texts that activate attachment related concerns of more anxious and avoidantly attached individuals,
as well how relationships can have positive effects on relationship cognition, behavior, and physiology.

Notes
* Correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Email: lcampb23@
uwo.ca

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation 493
1
Note that the research by Li et al. (2013) and Fletcher et al. (2014) discussed above were not part of this meta-analysis given
that these studies were published after the meta-analysis was conducted.
2
We wish to clarify that we are focusing squarely on the topic of the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences in
relationship formation, and not on the empirical investigation of relationship formation overall.

References
Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term
outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16–30.
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity
predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1023–1027.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
559–570.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological
Review, 100, 204–232.
Campbell, L., Pink, J. C., & Stanton, S. C. E. (in press). Ideal mate standards and romantic relationships. In J. A. Simpson & J.
F. Dovidio (Eds.), Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. 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.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of
initiating and maintaining close relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032.
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A
review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623–665.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1969). Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 34, 519–533.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 125–139.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Kerr, P. S. G., Li, N. P., & Valentine, K. A. (2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very
early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40,
540–550.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2013). The Science of Intimate Relationships. West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful?
Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659–672.
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle?
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies.
Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences:
Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A.,… Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do
predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Burt, D. M., Kobayashi, T., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999).
Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742.
Pérusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at proximate and
ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.
Pérusse, D. (1994). Mate choice in modern society: Testing evolutionary hypotheses with behavioral data. Human Nature,
5, 255–278.
Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and
gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.
Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126
494 Ideal Preferences and Relationship Initiation

Sprecher, S., & Duck, S. (1994). Sweet talk: The importance of perceived communication for romantic and friendship
attraction experienced during a get-acquainted date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 391–400.
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, H., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national
sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.
Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Handbook of Relationship Initiation. New York: Psychology Press.
Taylor, P. A., & Glenn, N. D. (1976). The utility of education and attractiveness for females’ status attainment through
marriage. American Sociological Review, 41, 484–498.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and
mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15011–15016.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and
partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371–389.
Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2010). What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 749–754.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/9 (2014): 485–494, 10.1111/spc3.12126