Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis.

Eastwick, Paul W., Luchies, Laura B., Finkel, Eli J., Hunt, Lucy L.·2014·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/a0032432
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A central element of interdependence theory is that people have standards against which they compare their current outcomes, and one ubiquitous standard in the mating domain is the preference for particular attributes in a partner (ideal partner preferences). This article reviews research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences and presents a new integrative model that highlights when and why ideals succeed or fail to predict relational outcomes. Section 1 examines predictive validity by reviewing research on sex differences in the preference for physical attractiveness and earning prospects. Men and women reliably differ in the extent to which these qualities affect their romantic evaluations of hypothetical targets. Yet a new meta-analysis spanning the attraction and relationships literatures (k = 97) revealed that physical attractiveness predicted romantic evaluations with a moderate-to-strong effect size (r = ∼.40) for both sexes, and earning prospects predicted romantic evaluations with a small effect size (r = ∼.10) for both sexes. Sex differences in the correlations were small (r difference = .03) and uniformly nonsignificant. Section 2 reviews research on individual differences in ideal partner preferences, drawing from several theoretical traditions to explain why ideals predict relational evaluations at different relationship stages. Furthermore, this literature also identifies alternative measures of ideal partner preferences that have stronger predictive validity in certain theoretically sensible contexts. Finally, a discussion highlights a new framework for conceptualizing the appeal of traits, the difference between live and hypothetical interactions, and the productive interplay between mating research and broader psychological theories.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032432

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-05
Volume
140
Issue
3
Pages
623-665
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/a0032432
OpenAlex
W2086244897
Cited by
341
References
22
FWCI
29.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.