Paul W Eastwick, Jehan Sparks, Eli J Finkel, Eva M Meza, Matúš Adamkovič, Peter Adu, Ting Ai, Aderonke A Akintola, Laith Al-Shawaf, Denisa Apriliawati, Patrícia Arriaga, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Carlota Batres, Katherine J Baucom, Elizabeth Z Beaulieu, Maciej Behnke, Natalie Butcher, Deborah Y Charles, Jane Minyan Chen, Jeong Eun Cheon, Phakkanun Chittham, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Chin Wen Cong, Lee T Copping, Nadia S Corral-Frias, Vera Ćubela Adorić, Mikaela Dizon, Hongfei Du, Michael I Ehinmowo, Daniela A Escribano, Natalia M Espinosa, Francisca Expósito, Gilad Feldman, Raquel Freitag, Martha Frias Armenta, Albina Gallyamova, Omri Gillath, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Franca Grafe, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Gul Gunaydin, Ruby Ilustrisimo, Emily Impett, Pavol Kačmár, Young-Hoon Kim, Mirosław Kocur, Marta Kowal, Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor, Jackson G Lu, Marc Y Lucas, Wojciech P Małecki, Klara Malinakova, Sofia Meißner, Zdeněk Meier, Michal Misiak, Amy Muise, Lukas Novak, Jiaqing O, Asil A Özdoğru, Haeyoung Gideon Park, Mariola Paruzel, Zoran Pavlović, Marcell Püski, Gianni Ribeiro, S Craig Roberts, Jan P Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M Ross, Ezgi Sakman, Cristina E Salvador, Emre Selcuk, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Ognen Spasovski, Sarah C E Stanton, Suzanne L K Stewart, Viren Swami, Barnabas Szaszi, Kaito Takashima, Peter Tavel, Julian Tejada, Eric Tu, Jarno Tuominen, David Vaidis, Zahir Vally, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Laura Villanueva-Moya, Dian Wisnuwardhani, Yuki Yamada, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Radka Žídková, Kristýna Živná, Nicholas A Coles
{"title":"理想伴侣偏好匹配预测有效性的全球测试。","authors":"Paul W Eastwick, Jehan Sparks, Eli J Finkel, Eva M Meza, Matúš Adamkovič, Peter Adu, Ting Ai, Aderonke A Akintola, Laith Al-Shawaf, Denisa Apriliawati, Patrícia Arriaga, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Carlota Batres, Katherine J Baucom, Elizabeth Z Beaulieu, Maciej Behnke, Natalie Butcher, Deborah Y Charles, Jane Minyan Chen, Jeong Eun Cheon, Phakkanun Chittham, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Chin Wen Cong, Lee T Copping, Nadia S Corral-Frias, Vera Ćubela Adorić, Mikaela Dizon, Hongfei Du, Michael I Ehinmowo, Daniela A Escribano, Natalia M Espinosa, Francisca Expósito, Gilad Feldman, Raquel Freitag, Martha Frias Armenta, Albina Gallyamova, Omri Gillath, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Franca Grafe, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Gul Gunaydin, Ruby Ilustrisimo, Emily Impett, Pavol Kačmár, Young-Hoon Kim, Mirosław Kocur, Marta Kowal, Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor, Jackson G Lu, Marc Y Lucas, Wojciech P Małecki, Klara Malinakova, Sofia Meißner, Zdeněk Meier, Michal Misiak, Amy Muise, Lukas Novak, Jiaqing O, Asil A Özdoğru, Haeyoung Gideon Park, Mariola Paruzel, Zoran Pavlović, Marcell Püski, Gianni Ribeiro, S Craig Roberts, Jan P Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M Ross, Ezgi Sakman, Cristina E Salvador, Emre Selcuk, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Ognen Spasovski, Sarah C E Stanton, Suzanne L K Stewart, Viren Swami, Barnabas Szaszi, Kaito Takashima, Peter Tavel, Julian Tejada, Eric Tu, Jarno Tuominen, David Vaidis, Zahir Vally, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Laura Villanueva-Moya, Dian Wisnuwardhani, Yuki Yamada, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Radka Žídková, Kristýna Živná, Nicholas A Coles","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>N</i> = 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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching.\",\"authors\":\"Paul W Eastwick, Jehan Sparks, Eli J Finkel, Eva M Meza, Matúš Adamkovič, Peter Adu, Ting Ai, Aderonke A Akintola, Laith Al-Shawaf, Denisa Apriliawati, Patrícia Arriaga, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Carlota Batres, Katherine J Baucom, Elizabeth Z Beaulieu, Maciej Behnke, Natalie Butcher, Deborah Y Charles, Jane Minyan Chen, Jeong Eun Cheon, Phakkanun Chittham, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Chin Wen Cong, Lee T Copping, Nadia S Corral-Frias, Vera Ćubela Adorić, Mikaela Dizon, Hongfei Du, Michael I Ehinmowo, Daniela A Escribano, Natalia M Espinosa, Francisca Expósito, Gilad Feldman, Raquel Freitag, Martha Frias Armenta, Albina Gallyamova, Omri Gillath, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Franca Grafe, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Gul Gunaydin, Ruby Ilustrisimo, Emily Impett, Pavol Kačmár, Young-Hoon Kim, Mirosław Kocur, Marta Kowal, Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor, Jackson G Lu, Marc Y Lucas, Wojciech P Małecki, Klara Malinakova, Sofia Meißner, Zdeněk Meier, Michal Misiak, Amy Muise, Lukas Novak, Jiaqing O, Asil A Özdoğru, Haeyoung Gideon Park, Mariola Paruzel, Zoran Pavlović, Marcell Püski, Gianni Ribeiro, S Craig Roberts, Jan P Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M Ross, Ezgi Sakman, Cristina E Salvador, Emre Selcuk, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Ognen Spasovski, Sarah C E Stanton, Suzanne L K Stewart, Viren Swami, Barnabas Szaszi, Kaito Takashima, Peter Tavel, Julian Tejada, Eric Tu, Jarno Tuominen, David Vaidis, Zahir Vally, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Laura Villanueva-Moya, Dian Wisnuwardhani, Yuki Yamada, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Radka Žídková, Kristýna Živná, Nicholas A Coles\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pspp0000524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 (<i>N</i> = 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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of personality and social psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of personality and social psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000524\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000524","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching.
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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
