When and Why Do Ideal Partner Preferences Affect the Process of Initiating and Maintaining ...

21 Pages·2011·0.21 MB·English

by  Eli Finkel

JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology ©2011AmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2011,Vol.●●,No.●,000–000 0022-3514/11/$12.00 DOI:10.1037/a0024062
When and Why Do Ideal Partner Preferences Affect the Process of
Initiating and Maintaining Romantic Relationships?
Paul W. Eastwick Eli J. Finkel and Alice H. Eagly
TexasA&MUniversity NorthwesternUniversity
Threestudiesexploredhowthetraitsthatpeopleideallydesireinaromanticpartner,oridealpartner
preferences,intersectwiththeprocessofromanticrelationshipinitiationandmaintenance.Twoattrac-
tionexperimentsinthelaboratoryfoundthat,whenparticipantsevaluatedapotentialromanticpartner’s
writtenprofile,theyexpressedmoreromanticinterestinapartnerwhosetraitsweremanipulatedtomatch
(vs.mismatch)theiridiosyncraticideals.However,afteraliveinteractionwiththepartner,thematchvs.
mismatchmanipulationwasnolongerassociatedwithromanticinterest.Thispatternappearedtohave
emerged because participants reinterpreted the meaning of the traits as they applied to the partner, a
contexteffectpredictedbyclassicmodelsofpersonperception(S.E.Asch,1946).Finally,alongitudinal
studyofmiddle-agedadultsdemonstratedthatparticipantsevaluatedacurrentromanticpartner(butnot
apartnerwhowasmerelydesired)morepositivelytotheextentthatthepartnermatchedtheiroverall
pattern of ideals across several traits; the match in level of ideals (i.e., high vs. low ratings) was not
relevant to participants’ evaluations. In general, the match between ideals and a partner’s traits may
predictrelationaloutcomeswhenparticipantsarelearningaboutapartnerintheabstractandwhenthey
areactuallyinarelationshipwiththepartner,butnotwhenconsideringpotentialdatingpartnersthey
havemetinperson.
Keywords:idealpartnerpreferences,personperception,relationships,attraction
Themostattractive,charismatic,andcongenialpersonwhoyou generalmassesbecausetheydesireothercharacteristicsinanideal
knowwillstillfailtoinspireromanticdesireineveryonethatheor partner.Alternatively,oncetheskeptics(finally)encounterpoten-
she meets. Although most will swoon, at least a few will be tial romantic partners who do match their idiosyncratic ideals,
immune to his or her charms, a phenomenon that inspires the presumablytheywouldexperiencestrongromanticdesire.
question:Whydopeopledifferintheextenttowhichtheydesire Research on ideal partner preferences stretches back to the
a particular person as a romantic partner? A complete answer is middleofthelastcentury(Hill,1945)andisexemplifiedbyBuss’
surely multifaceted, but perhaps the most intuitive answer is that (1989) ambitious survey of mate preferences across 37 cultures.
people differ in the extent to which various characteristics are Thisliteraturehasoftenexaminedwhethermenandwomendiffer
importanttotheminanidealromanticpartner.Thatis,theskeptics in the importance they place on certain traits in a partner and
might be less desirous of your charismatic acquaintance than the whetherthosedifferencesvaryasafunctionofmatingcontext(Li
&Kenrick,2006)orthesocietaldivisionoflabor(Eagly&Wood,
1999). Recently, scholars have started to explore the “down-
stream” consequences of ideal partner preferences: Are people
PaulW.Eastwick,DepartmentofPsychology,TexasA&MUniversity; more likely to desire a romantic partner to the extent that the
EliJ.FinkelandAliceH.Eagly,DepartmentofPsychology,Northwestern partnermatchestheirideals?Forexample,Fletcherandcolleagues
University. foundthatparticipantstendedtoreportgreaterrelationshipquality
ThisworkincludesresearchconductedaspartofPaulW.Eastwick’s
andwerelesslikelytoendtheirrelationshiptotheextentthattheir
doctoral thesis at Northwestern University under the direction of Eli J.
current partner matched their ideals (Fletcher, Simpson, &
Finkel and Alice H. Eagly. This research was facilitated by a National
Thomas, 2000; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). Yet,
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to Paul W.
Eastwick. We thank Michael Bailey, Galen Bodenhausen, and Wendi evidence from attraction contexts paints a different picture: One
Gardnerforprovidingvaluablesuggestionsaboutthisprogramofresearch studyofspeed-datersfoundthatparticipants’idealpartnerprefer-
andfortheirfeedbackonearlierdraftsofthismanuscript.Inaddition,we ences did not predict their romantic interest either at the speed-
thankthefollowinghard-workingresearchassistants:EricAnicich,Deniz dating event itself or during the following month (Eastwick &
Ayadin, Amy Berg, Rita Biagioli, Stacy Congdon, Adam Crum, Moira Finkel,2008;seealsoTodd,Penke,Fasolo,&Lenton,2007).
Haller,MarieHeffernan,BryanHerzog,JoanHoedeman,HeatherHolly, Inanattempttoreconcilethesediscrepantfindings,thepresent
ArthurHsu,PedroJimenez,ElizabethKacel,EmilyKingsley-Ma,Maria
set of three studies sought to clarify the role that ideal partner
Lei,ChrisOakley,EricONeill,MaxSutton-Smolin,andPeteTsambarlis.
preferencesplayindeterminingwhompeopleselectandretainas
Finally,wethankSteveBywaterforgraciouslyallowingustocollectthe
romantic partners. Specifically, these studies tested whether the
Study3data.
CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoPaulW. match between one’s ideal partner preferences and the traits that
Eastwick, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX, one perceives in a romantic partner (i.e., ideal-perceived trait
77843-4235.E-mail:[email protected] match, or what Fletcher et al., 2000, called “ideal-perception
1
2 EASTWICK,FINKEL,ANDEAGLY
consistency”)predictsrelationaloutcomesacrossseveraldifferent point. In an effort to clarify and organize this literature, we offer
contexts. Theory and prior research on this topic suggested two distinctions between two pairs of contexts—one rooted in attrac-
possible pairs of contexts that might reveal differences in the tion research (e.g., Gold, Ryckman, & Mosley, 1984) and one
predictivevalidityoftheideal-perceivedtraitmatch.Thefirstpair rootedinrelationshipsresearch(e.g.,Fletcheretal.,1999).Given
ofcontexts,examinedinStudies1and2,consistsoftwopossible established social psychological theory and prior empirical find-
ways of meeting and learning about a potential romantic part- ings,weanticipatethattheideal-perceivedtraitmatchwillpredict
ner: viewing a written profile versus interacting face-to-face. relationaloutcomesinsomecontextsbutnotinothers.
Thesecondpairofcontexts,examinedinStudy3,referstotwo
phases or stages of relationship involvement: desiring versus Context Pair 1:
actually having a relationship with a romantic partner. We
Meeting “On Paper” Versus in a Live Interaction
predictedthatthematchbetweenidealsandtheperceivedtraits
inaromanticpartnerwouldpredictrelationshipoutcomeswhen In contemporary Western culture, it is common for people to
participants(a)evaluateawrittenprofilebutnotalivepotential meet and evaluate each other in person before they become in-
partnerand(b)evaluateacurrentpartnerbutnotapartnerwith volvedinaromanticrelationship,andmanyparadigmaticstudies
whom they merely desire a relationship. of attraction reflect this norm by having participants evaluate
potential romantic partners whom they have just met in person
The Structure and Function of Ideal Partner (e.g.,Byrne,Ervin,&Lamberth,1970;Goldetal.,1984;Walster,
Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966; White, Fishbein, & Rut-
Preferences
stein,1981).Attimes,however,peopleevaluatepotentialromantic
Classicinterdependencetheoryperspectivessuggestthatpeople partners after merely hearing or reading about a brief description
compare the outcomes (i.e., costs and rewards) they receive in a of the individual; the classic personal ad study (e.g., Harrison &
particular relationship with the outcomes that they deserve or Saeed, 1977) and recent investigations of online dating (e.g.,
expect (i.e., comparison level; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). These Hitsch, Hortac¸su, & Ariely, 2010) shed light on this method of
expectationsareinfluencedbyavarietyofdispositionalandsitu- meetingpotentialpartners.
ationalfactors,includingthetraitsthatpeoplebringtomindwhen Yet,thesetwoattractioncontextsmaydifferinimportantways.
theyenvisiontheiridealrelationshippartner(Fletcheretal.,1999). Peopleoftenprocessandevaluateastimulusdifferentlywhenthey
After all, a romantic partner’s positive (e.g., warm) and negative haveonline,immediate,anddirectexperiencewithit(e.g.,inter-
(e.g., demanding) traits have interpersonal consequences for the actingwithanobjectinthe“hereandnow,”usingthefeaturesof
self(Leary,1957;Wiggins,1979),andthuspeopleevaluatetheir a consumer product) than when they have offline, delayed, or
relationship partners differently depending on the traits that they indirectexperiencewithit(e.g.,consideringahypotheticalobject,
perceive in those partners. Importantly, when people consider reading a consumer product description). For example, people
romanticpartnersintheabstract,theydifferintheirbeliefsabout prefer consumer products that provide an enjoyable experience
howapartner’straitswillaffecttheirownlifeoutcomes,andthese (e.g., ease of use) when they interact with it directly, but they
beliefsaffecttheextenttowhichtraitscharacterizepeople’sideal prefer products that have an appealing description (e.g., many
romantic partners (Eagly, Eastwick, & Johannesen-Schmidt, features)whentheyinteractwithitindirectly(R.W.Hamilton&
2009). This idiosyncratic variation in ideals is at the core of the Thompson,2007).Consistentwithconstrualleveltheory(Trope&
processesexploredinthisarticle. Liberman, 2003, 2010), direct experience with an attitude object
The present research examined the circumstances under which triggers a concrete, low-level mental construal, whereas indirect
relational outcomes (e.g., romantic desire, commitment) are pre- experience with an attitude object triggers an abstract, high-level
dicted by the match between (a) the traits that characterize one’s mental construal. Importantly, people make evaluations using
ideal romantic partner and (b) one’s perception of the traits of a global trait concepts (like those assessed in research on ideal
specific individual who is or has the potential to be a romantic partner preferences; e.g., friendliness, creativity, extraversion)
partner. We refer to this predictive association between ideal- wheninahigh-levelmentalconstrual,buttheymakeevaluations
perceived trait match and relational outcomes as the predictive usingspecific,contextualizedbehaviorswheninalow-levelmen-
validity hypothesis for ideal partner preferences. One straightfor- tal construal (Nussbaum, Trope, & Liberman, 2003; see also
wardtestofthepredictivevalidityhypothesisisthatthepresence Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Semin & Fiedler, 1988). In light of this
of a trait in a partner should better predict relational outcomes distinction, we expect that ideal partner preferences for traits
amongparticipantswhoideallydesireitthanamongthosewhodo would have a stronger impact on participants’ evaluations in an
not. For example, given that men rate physical attractiveness as indirect,abstractcontext(i.e.,readingadescriptionofapotential
more important in a mate than women do, a partner’s physical partner) than in a direct, concrete context (i.e., meeting a live
attractiveness should better predict romantic desire among men potentialpartner).
thanamongwomen(seeEastwick&Finkel,2008).Indeed,Buss The previous literature provides some preliminary support for
(1989)recognizedtheimportanceofsuchpredictivevaliditytests: this hypothesis. One recent study found that the ideal-perceived
“Personal preferences, if they are to bear the conceptual impor- traitmatchforqualitiessuchas“well-groomed,”“seductive,”and
tance ascribed to them in this study, should be reflected to some “conventional” predicted participants’ romantic interest in
degreeinactualmatingdecisions”(p.9). opposite-sex photographs (Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009). In addi-
Despite the theoretical plausibility of the hypothesis that the tion, when heterosexual participants view Internet dating profiles
match between ideals and a partner’s traits should predict rela- orpersonalads,thephysicalattractivenessofthestimulipredicts
tional outcomes, prior studies reveal discrepant findings on this men’sevaluationsmorethanwomen’s,andtheearningprospects
IDEALPARTNERPREFERENCES 3
ofthestimulipredictwomen’sevaluationsmorethanmen’s(Fe- Ontheotherhand,perhapsthekeyvariableisnothowwelltwo
ingold,1990,1992;Hitschetal.,2010;Townsend&Wasserman, peopleknoweachotherbutratherthestatusoftheirrelationship—
1998).Giventhatparallelsexdifferencesemergeforidealpartner that is, whether the individuals are involved in a romantic rela-
preferences (Buss, 1989), these data imply that ideals for these tionship or not. In live attraction contexts, people’s judgments
traitsinfluencedromanticinterestintheseparadigms.Incontrast, aboutpotentialpartnersmaynotbeinfluencedbycarefuldeliber-
these sex differences tend to disappear when participants report ation, but rather by the spontaneous affect that those partners
their romantic interest in individuals with whom they have inter- inspire (Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, in press). Further-
acted(Eastwick&Finkel,2008;Feingold,1990;Speed&Gang- more, even when people are romantically interested in (but not
estad, 1997). Therefore, we hypothesized that social interaction officially dating) a potential partner for a lengthy period of time,
with potential partners may reduce the influence of the ideal- interdependencebetweenthemtypicallyremainslowbecausetheir
perceived trait match on romantic interest. Studies 1 and 2 com- day-to-dayactivitiesandtheirfuturesarenotstronglyintertwined
pared the “on paper” (e.g., evaluating a written profile) and live (Solomon&Knobloch,2004).Withlittleinterdependence,people
paradigms and explored whether a brief live interaction with a may not be motivated to evaluate their “relationship” outcomes
potential partner would be sufficient to eliminate any predictive against their standards because the romantic relationship to be
effect of the ideal-perceived trait match. Furthermore, Study 2 evaluateddoesnot(yet)exist,andthereforenomajorlifesacrifices
explored one possible mechanism for this effect: Perhaps a live (e.g., forsaking desirable alternatives, moving to a new location)
interaction affords people the opportunity to contextualize a po- arerequiredtosustainit(Agnew,VanLange,Rusbult,&Langs-
tential partner’s traits as part of a whole person (Asch, 1946), ton,1998).Butoncearelationshiphasbegunandacoupleidentity
whichinturnmakesthecomparisonbetweenapartner’straitsand has been forged, interdependence is likely to increase as two
abstractidealslessstraightforward. partnerscoordinatelifeactivitiesandencounterchoicepoints(e.g.,
the decision to move in together) that force them to carefully
evaluatetheirrelationshipagainsttheirstandards(Gagne´&Lydon,
Context Pair 2: Having Versus Not Having a 2004).Drawingfromthislogic,inStudy3,wehypothesizedthat
Romantic Relationship With a Partner the ideal-perceived trait match would predict relational outcomes
amongparticipantswhoareevaluatingacurrentromanticpartner
In contrast to the typical attraction paradigm in which partici- butnotadesiredromanticpartnerwithwhomtheydonotofficially
pantsevaluateromantictargetswhomtheyhavemetonlybriefly havearelationship.
(ifatall),relationshipsresearchersfrequentlyassessparticipants’
impressions,feelings,andthoughtsaboutpeoplewithwhomthey
The Present Research
have an enduring relationship (Berscheid & Regan, 2005). Re-
searchinspiredbytheidealstandardsmodel(Fletcher&Simpson, Three studies examined the predictive validity of the match
2000) has examined the functioning of ideal partner preferences between participants’ ideal partner preferences and the traits of a
withinthisenduring-relationshipparadigm,specificallyaddressing potential or actual romantic partner. Studies 1 and 2 emulated
howtheideal-perceivedtraitmatchaffectspeople’sevaluationsof classic attraction paradigms (e.g., Gold et al., 1984; White et al.,
theircurrentromanticpartner(Fletcheretal.,2000,1999;Overall, 1981)toexaminethepredictivevalidityhypothesisinthefirstpair
Fletcher, & Simpson, 2006). As noted above, this program of ofcontexts.Specifically,weexaminedrelationshipinitiationinthe
research has demonstrated that the extent to which participants’ laboratoryandmanipulatedboth(a)themannerinwhichpartici-
romantic partners match their ideal partner preferences predicts pantsmetapotentialromanticpartner(“onpaper”vs.“inperson”)
relationship quality and stability. These findings are consistent and (b) the degree to which the partner’s attributes matched the
with the interdependence theory perspective that people compare participants’idealsinthesetwostudies.Study2alsoexploredthe
their relationship outcomes with their idiosyncratic standards for possibility that participants reinterpret the meaning of a potential
what a relationship should provide and that the results of this romantic partner’s traits after a live interaction and that this con-
comparisoncolortheirfeelingsabouttheirpartnerandtheirrela- textualizationprocessinterfereswiththeirabilitytocomparethose
tionship(Thibaut&Kelley,1959). traitswiththeiridealpreferences.
But should the ideal standards model apply to all contexts in Study 3 drew from relationship research paradigms (e.g.,
whichpeopleevaluatesomeoneforwhomtheyexperienceroman- Fletcheretal.,2000;Rusbult,1980)byexaminingpeople’seval-
ticinterestintheirdailylife?Considertheevaluationofadesired, uationsofanindividualforwhomtheyexperienceromanticinter-
butnotcurrent,romanticpartner:Ontheonehand,itiscertainly estintheirdailylife.Inthisstudy,anoldersampleofparticipants
plausible that people would evaluate this potential partner favor- who were either single or involved in a romantic relationship
ablyorunfavorablydependingontheextenttowhichthepartner offered a test of the predictive validity hypothesis across the
matchedtheirideals.Althoughthishypothesiswasnotsupported secondpairofcontexts:Doestheideal-perceivedtraitmatchbetter
by speed-dating research (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Todd et al., predict relationship-relevant outcomes if participants have (vs.
2007),perhapsspeed-daterssimplylackthetimeandinformation havenot)establishedarelationshipwithapartner?Inaskingsingle
necessary to thoughtfully evaluate each other in that context. If participantstoevaluateindividualswithwhomtheydesiretohave
people instead interact with potential partners over a period of aromanticrelationship,thisstudyservesasabridgebetweenthe
months or years and achieve confidence in the partners’ charac- typical attraction research paradigm, which examines initial im-
teristics,thenperhapstheideal-perceivedtraitmatchwouldpredict pressions of potential romantic partners, and the typical relation-
relational outcomes (e.g., romantic passion) regarding a desired shipsresearchparadigm,whichexaminesparticipants’evaluations
partner. ofestablishedrelationshippartners.
4 EASTWICK,FINKEL,ANDEAGLY
Inoneofthemorecomprehensivestudiesofthestructureand strongly agree) on a questionnaire at the end of the study. The
content of people’s ideal partner preferences, Fletcher and remaining 100 participants (45 men, 55 women) were 18.8 years
colleagues (1999) developed an extensive list of the traits that oldonaverage(SD(cid:2)0.7years);theracial/ethnicbreakdownwas
appeal to people in an ideal romantic partner; we drew heavily 4%AfricanAmerican,19%AsianAmerican,67%Caucasian,4%
fromthesetraitsinStudies1and3.However,peoplealsohave Hispanic, and 6% “other.” Single participants were selected for
idealsfortraitsthatarenotnormativelydesirable.Forexample, thestudy(usingdatacollectedatamass-testingsessionearlyin
people differ in the extent to which they find various negative the academic quarter) so that the experimental procedures
qualities to be undesirable (vs. tolerable) in an ideal romantic wouldbemaximallyinvolving.Thisstudyusedthreemaleand
partner (e.g., neuroticism; Figueredo, Sefcek, & Jones, 2006; three female confederates who worked in opposite-sex pairs.
Zentner,2005).Also,forothertraits,peoplevaryconsiderably Thememberofthepairwhowasthesamesexastheparticipant
intheiridealratingsevenifthetraitisnormativelyneutral(e.g., served as the experimenter, whereas the opposite-sex member
political conservatism; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Watson et al., of the pair served as the confederate.
2004). To ensure that our results generalize beyond positive Procedure. Atthebeginningoftheacademicquarter,partic-
traits, we included some of these less normatively desirable
ipants completed several questionnaires as part of a mass-testing
traits in Studies 2 and 3. Finally, although the focus in the
session.Oneofthequestionnairesaskedwhetherparticipantswere
present article was on the predictive validity of participants’
currently involved in a romantic relationship. Another question-
idiosyncratic preferences for particular characteristics in an
naire contained the trait list, which included a variety of traits
ideal romantic partner, we tested for sex differences in these
(takenfromFletcheretal.,1999)suchas“ambitious,”“generous,”
processes because they have been prominently featured in this
“trustworthy,” “affectionate,” “broad-minded,” and “spontane-
literature.
ous”.1 Participants were asked to select from the trait list (a) the
three characteristics that were absolutely essential or most desir-
Study 1 able in an ideal romantic partner and (b) the three characteristics
thatweretheleastessentialorleastdesirableinanidealromantic
Study1providedanexperimentaltestofthepredictivevalidity
partner.
hypothesis:Willparticipantsexpressgreaterromanticinterestina
Participants arrived for the experiment and were greeted by a
potential romantic partner to the extent that the partner matches
same-sex experimenter in a small waiting area. An opposite-sex
theirromanticideals,andwilltheinfluenceoftheideal-perceived
confederatewalkedintothewaitingareaapproximately30slater,
trait match depend on whether the participant experiences the
and the participant observed a verbal exchange between the con-
confederate indirectly or directly (R. W. Hamilton & Thompson,
federate and experimenter verifying that the confederate was an
2007)? The previous literature suggests that the ideal-perceived
additional participant for whom they were waiting. The experi-
trait match may predict participants’ romantic interest in indirect
menterthenledtheconfederateandtheparticipanttotwoseparate
contexts such as online profiles or personal ads (Wood & Brum-
roomsinthelaboratorytocompletetheconsentprocess.
baugh, 2009), but not in direct contexts such as live attraction
The experimenter then explained that the participant would be
settings in which participants are reporting on potential partners
interactingwithasingle(i.e.,romanticallyunattached)participant
whomtheyhaverecentlymet(Eastwick&Finkel,2008;Toddet
whom the participant had seen arrive just moments ago (i.e., the
al., 2007). To examine this phenomenon more closely than has
confederate).Theexperimenterexplainedthatduringtheinterac-
priorresearch,weconductedanexperimentinwhichparticipants
tion,theparticipantshould“trytoimaginethatyouareonashort
interactedwithanopposite-sexconfederate.Participants’romantic
date with this person and you are trying to determine whether or
interest in this confederate was assessed twice: once after partic-
ipants had been provided with written information that the con- notyouwouldlikethispersonasaromanticpartner.”Theexper-
federate either did or did not match their ideal preferences and imenter then presented the participant with a sheet that, as the
onceimmediatelyafterabriefliveinteraction.
Participants should express more romantic interest in the ideal
1Thefirst61participantstocompletethestudyviewedatraitlistmade
relativetothenonidealconfederateafterexaminingtheconfeder-
upof35traits,whereasthefinal39participantsviewedatraitlistof21
ate’s written profile. However, this difference should not emerge
traits.Weattemptedtoselecttraitsthatwouldnotbecommunicatedclearly
afterinteractingwiththeconfederate,eveniftheinteractioncon-
duringtheliveinteractionsothattheinteractionwouldneitherconfirmnor
tainedlittleinformationthatcouldconfirmorcontradictwhatthe contradict the information contained in the profile. At the end of the
participantlearnedintheprofile.Inotherwords,wehypothesized experimentalsession,thefirst61participantsratedeachofthe35traitsin
thatitistheliveinteractionitselfthatinterfereswiththeeffectof termsofhowmuchtheylearnedabouttheconfederateduringtheinterac-
theideal-perceivedtraitmatchonromanticinterest. tionwithrespecttothattraitonascalerangingfrom1(“Ilearnednothing
aboutthischaracteristic”)to9(“Ilearnedagreatdealaboutthischar-
acteristic”).Onlyonetraitreceivedascorehigherthana6.0(“commu-
Method
nicative,”whichwasincludedaspartofaprofileforonlytwoparticipants
andwhoseremovaldidnotaffectthefindings).Inaddition,the14traits
Participants. Participants were 106 undergraduates who
thataverageda3.0oraboveonthisitemwerenotincludedinthelistof21
completed the experiment as part of a course requirement. Four
traits administered to the final 39 participants. Adummycodeindicating
participants were excluded from analyses for failing the manipu-
whethertheparticipantwaspartofthefirstsetof61participantsorthesecond
lation check, and two participants were excluded because they setof39participantsdidnotsignificantlyinteractwitheithertheassessment
respondedwitha“1”tothestatement“Iamexclusivelyattracted or the ideal-perceived trait match manipulation to predict the dependent
to members of the opposite sex” (1 (cid:2) strongly disagree, 9 (cid:2) variable,norwasthemaineffectofthedummycodesignificant.
IDEALPARTNERPREFERENCES 5
experimenter explained, contained the confederate’s selection of Idealpreferencesquestionnaire. Participantsratedtheextent
threetraitsthatbestdescribedhim-orherself(referredtohereinas to which the traits on the trait list described their ideal romantic
the profile). The participant was also presented with the full trait partneronascalerangingfrom1(notatall)to9(extremely).
listof35or21traits(seeFootnote1).Intheidealcondition(n(cid:2)
53), the confederate’s first and third traits were two of the three Results
traitsthattheparticipanthadselectedasbeingthemostessentialin
a romantic partner. In the nonideal condition (n (cid:2) 47), the con- Weconductedatwo-wayIdeal-PerceivedTraitMatch(idealvs.
federate’sfirstandthirdtraitsweretwoofthethreetraitsthatthe nonideal) (cid:4) Assessment (postprofile vs. postinteraction) mixed
participant had selected as being the least essential in a romantic model analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the dependent variable
partner.(Themiddletraitwasalwaysarandomtraitthatwasnot Romantic Interest; Ideal-perceived trait match was a between-
listed by the participant as either most or least essential.) The subjects factor, and assessment was a within-subjects factor. We
confederatehandwrotethetraitsontheprofilebeforeeachexper- included a dummy code for the male/female confederate/
imental session but did not know whether the profile was the experimenter pair and the Dummy (cid:4) Assessment interaction as
covariates in all analyses. Means for the dependent variable Ro-
participant’sidealornonideal.Theexperimenteraskedthepartic-
manticInterestarepresentedinFigure1.
ipant to look over the profile for a minute and “imagine what
Neither the main effect of ideal-perceived trait match, F(1,
he/she might be like.” After the minute had elapsed, the experi-
96) (cid:2) 2.27, p (cid:2) .135, nor the main effect of assessment, F(1,
menter returned, took the confederate’s profile and the trait list,
96)(cid:2)1.08,p(cid:2).302,wassignificant.However,ashypothesized,
andgavetheparticipantthefirstpartnerimpressionquestionnaire.
thetwo-wayinteractionwassignificant,F(1,96)(cid:2)4.50,p(cid:2).036.
Then, the experimenter brought the participant into another
To examine the nature of this two-way interaction, we examined
roomwheretheconfederatewasseatedatasmallconferencetable.
themaineffectofideal-perceivedtraitmatchwithineachlevelof
The experimenter motioned for the participant to sit across the
assessment. At the first assessment, when participants had seen
table, facing the confederate. The participant and the confederate
only the profile, there was a significant effect of ideal-perceived
would each describe a set of four Thematic Apperception Test traitmatchconditiononRomanticInterest,F(1,96)(cid:2)11.05,p(cid:2)
(TAT;Murray,1971)picturesforoneanother;thesepictureswere
.001: Participants were more romantically interested in the ideal
face-down in front of the participant and the confederate on the
than the nonideal confederate after seeing the profile. However,
table. The experimenter explained that they should not show the
theeffectofideal-perceivedtraitmatchonRomanticInterestwas
picturetotheotherparticipantbutjust“todescribeitasobjectively nonsignificant at the second assessment, F(1, 96) (cid:2) 0.11, p (cid:2)
as you can” for 30 s. The experimenter instructed the participant .746: After the live interaction, participants no longer discrimi-
andtheconfederatetotaketurnsuntiltheyhaddescribedalleight natedbetweentheidealandthenonidealconfederate.Thesefind-
pictures,askedtheconfederatetogofirst,thenlefttheroom.The ings are consistent with the possibility that interacting with a
confederate had memorized a description for the four pictures potential romantic partner interferes with the effect of the ideal-
(constant across all six confederates); these descriptions were perceivedtraitmatchonparticipants’romanticinterestinapoten-
designedtosoundnatural.Theexperimenterreturnedonceallthe tialpartner.
pictures had been described and took the participant back to the Within the ideal condition alone, the effect of assessment was
otherlaboratoryroom.Theexperimenterthengavetheparticipant nonsignificantly negative, F(1, 96) (cid:2) 0.63, p (cid:2) .429, but within
thesecondpartnerimpressionquestionnaire;aftercompletingthis thenonidealcondition,thiseffectwassignificantlypositive,F(1,
questionnaire, the participant completed the ideal preferences 96) (cid:2) 4.66, p (cid:2) .033. In other words, the reason that the ideal-
questionnaireandwasdebriefedandthanked.2 perceived trait match manipulation did not predict Romantic In-
Materials. terest at the postinteraction assessment was largely because par-
Partner impression questionnaire. Participants completed ticipantsinthenonidealconditionboostedtheirRomanticInterest
eight items (taken from Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Eastwick, ratingsoftheconfederate.Inamodelthatincludedthethree-way
interactionwithparticipantgender(Ideal-PerceivedTraitMatch(cid:4)
Richeson, Son, & Finkel, 2009) on the partner impression ques-
Assessment(cid:4)Sex)andalllowerorderterms,nosignificantterms
tionnaireontwoseparateoccasions:onceafterviewingtheprofile
involvingsexemerged.
andonceafterinteractingwiththeconfederate.Theeightpostin-
On the ideal preferences questionnaire, participants rated the
teraction items were subjected to a factor analysis (principal axis
extenttowhichaseriesoftraitscharacterizedtheiridealromantic
factoring with promax rotation), and a one-factor solution was
suggestedbyparallelanalysis(Fabrigar,Wegener,MacCallum,&
Strahan,1999).Therefore,themaindependentvariableRomantic 2Thefirst61participantsreceivedoneoftwosetsofinstructionsjust
Interestwastheaverageoftheeightitems(e.g.,“Ireallylikemy beforecompletingthesecondpartnerimpressionquestionnaire.Onesetof
interactionpartner,”“Iwouldbeinterestedingoingonadatewith instructionswasrelativelyneutral,whereasthesecondsetencouragedthe
my interaction partner,” “My interaction partner and I would participanttothinkabouthowtheconfederate’scharacteristicscompared
probablyhavearealconnection”).Theseitemswereansweredon withhisorherideals.Ofthefinal39participants,halfwaitedfor1minute
aftereveryotherTATdescriptionwhiletheconfederatecompletedasetof
a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree)
anagrams.Thismanipulationtestedwhetheraseriesofdelayswouldgive
((cid:3) (cid:2) .88; M (cid:2) 5.06, SD (cid:2) 1.05, range (cid:2) 2.1–7.6). The partner
participantsmoretimetocomparetheconfederatewiththeirideals.Neither
impressionquestionnairethatfollowedtheprofilealsocontaineda
of these manipulations significantly moderated the Ideal-Perceived Trait
manipulationcheckaskingparticipantstorecallthethreetraitsthat Match (cid:4) Assessment interaction (ps (cid:5) .235), and so the results are
werewrittenontheprofile. collapsedacrossthem.
6 EASTWICK,FINKEL,ANDEAGLY
momentslater,theideal/nonidealmanipulationceasedtoinfluence
the participant’s romantic interest; that is, participants then ap-
pearedtodesiretheidealandnonidealconfederateequally.Having
aninteractionwithapotentialromanticpartnerthusinterferedwith
the effect of the ideal-perceived trait match on participants’ ro-
manticinterest.Inattractionsettings,theextenttowhichapoten-
tial romantic partner matches one’s ideals may better predict
relationshipinitiationprocessesinindirectcontexts(e.g.,adating
profile) than direct ones (e.g., a live interaction). This effect is
consistentwithpriorstudiesrevealingthatgeneraltraitconstructs,
like those for which researchers typically assess ideal partner
preferences, better predict participants’ evaluations of abstract
ratherthanconcretetargets(Nussbaumetal.,2003).
Given that people are adept social perceivers (Ambady &
Rosenthal,1993),participantspresumablygleanedadditionaltrait
Figure1. Study1resultsforthedependentvariableRomanticInterest.
informationfromtheirinteractionwiththeconfederatedespitethe
heavilyconstrainednatureoftheexperimentalsituation.3Butthis
newinformationdidnotcauseparticipantstodoubtthevalidityof
partner. We calculated participants’ ideal score as the average of
the profile traits, as evidenced by participants’ beliefs that the
the two traits that had been listed by the participant at the mass-
manipulatedideal/nonidealtraitsaccuratelydescribedtheconfed-
testingsessionasmostessential(idealcondition)orleastessential
erate both before and after the interaction. Nevertheless, the fact
(nonidealcondition)inaromanticpartnerandthatappearedonthe
that the simple effect of assessment (postprofile vs. postinterac-
profile. These two traits had effectively been the source of the
tion) significantly changed in the nonideal (but not in the ideal)
manipulation; indeed, the effect of ideal-perceived trait match
condition on ideal score was highly significant (M (cid:2) 8.27, condition raises a possible alternative explanation. In the ideal
Ideal
M (cid:2)5.77),F(1,95)(cid:2)131.85,p(cid:6).001.Importantly,ideal condition,participantslikelycomparedtheprofiletraitswiththeir
Nonideal
score correlated with Romantic Interest at the postprofile assess- idealsafterviewingtheprofile,andanynewpositiveinformation
ment,r(95)(cid:2).35,p(cid:6).001,butnotatthepostinteractionassess- theygatheredabouttheconfederateintheliveinteraction(i.e.,that
ment, r(95) (cid:2) .08, p (cid:2) .430. This finding is consistent with the she can speak well, etc.) did not challenge this initially positive
hypothesis that participants’ ideals for the profile traits were rel- impression. However, perhaps participants in the nonideal condi-
evant to their evaluations of the confederate after viewing the tion were no longer affected by the ideal manipulation after the
profilebutnotaftertheliveinteraction. live interaction because the information contained on the profile
It is possible that the ideal-perceived trait match condition no was overshadowed by the new, positive information about the
longer predicted participants’ Romantic Interest after the live in- confederate that was acquired during the interaction. After all,
teraction because they became less confident that the contents of participants in the nonideal condition probably considered the
theprofileaccuratelydescribedtheconfederate.Boththefirstand profiletraitstobemoreorlessneutral:Thetraitswerenotnegative
second partner impression questionnaires completed by the final anddidnotrepresentparticipants’“anti-ideals”(e.g.,neuroticism;
set of 39 participants (see Footnote 1) contained the item “The 3 Figueredoetal.,2006),nordidthesetraitsclearlyimplythatthe
characteristics chosen by my interaction partner are probably ac- confederatelackedtheparticipants’idealtraits.4Accordingtothis
curate in describing him/her.” However, participants’ reports on
alternative explanation, the new positive information acquired
thistraitaccuracyitemwerevirtuallyidenticalforthepostprofile
duringtheinteractionmadetheseneutralprofiletraitsirrelevant.
and postinteraction assessments (M (cid:2) 6.10, M (cid:2)
Assess1 Assess2
5.97), t(38) (cid:2) 0.45, p (cid:2) .655. This finding does not support the
suggestion that the interaction caused participants to distrust the 3Recallthatparticipantsknewhowattractivetheconfederatewasatthe
informationtheyhadseenontheprofile. verystartofthestudy(beforeanyimpressionswereassessed)becausethe
confederatealwaysarrivedwhiletheparticipantwaswaiting.Therefore,it
Discussion isunlikelythatattractivenessinformationoverwhelmedtheideal/nonideal
manipulation because participants already had spent several moments in
Study 1 marked an initial attempt to examine how the match thepresenceoftheconfederatebeforethestudytechnicallybegan.
betweenone’sidealsandthecharacteristicsofapotentialromantic 4Thisalternativeexplanationisrenderedlesslikelybythefactthatwe
partneraffectsromanticinterestinanexperimentalcontext.Inthis providedourparticipantswiththefulllistoftraitswhileviewingtheprofile
study, the experimenter generated a short profile that made the sothattheywouldalsoconsideralltheothertraitsthattheconfederatedid
not select; for participants in the nonideal condition, this would have
confederate appear as though he or she either matched or mis-
includedallthreeoftheparticipant’s“essential”traits.Nevertheless,itis
matched the participant’s ideal. Indeed, participants did express
conceivablethatmanyparticipantsdidnotreachthislogicalconclusion.
more romantic interest in the ideal relative to the nonideal con-
Study 2 addresses this shortcoming in that the profile clearly indicated
federate immediately after viewing the profile, suggesting that
whichtraitstheconfederatedidanddidnotselect.Study3addressesthis
participantscomprehendedthismanipulationandthatitinfluenced shortcomingbyusingratingscalestoassessapartner’straits;unlikeatrait
romantic interest in this indirect context as expected. However, thatissimplyabsentfromaprofile,alowscoreforatraitonaratingscale
when the participant had a live interaction with the confederate bydefinitionindicatesthatthepersondoesnotpossessit.
IDEALPARTNERPREFERENCES 7
In an attempt to address this possibility, we examined nega- they were not currently hungry and not feeling poor (Nelson &
tive(i.e.,“anti-ideals”)aswellaspositivetraitsinStudies2and Morrison,2005).Totestwhetherthebrieflaboratoryinteractionin
3.IftheStudy1participantsinthenonidealconditionwereable Study1alteredparticipants’idealpartnerpreferences,inStudy2,
tooverlooktheprofiletraitsbecausethosetraitswereneutralor we assessed ideal preferences both after the profile and after the
mildly positive, then the ideal-perceived trait match manipula- liveinteraction.
tion should produce a significant effect on romantic interest
aftertheliveinteractioniftheprofilecontainsstronglydisliked Changing the Meaning of a Partner’s Traits
traits in the nonideal condition. That is, it should be more
A second possible explanation for the Study 1 findings is that
difficultfornew,positiveinformationgleanedduringaminimal
the live interaction with the confederate could have changed the
interactiontooverwhelmnegativeandundesirableprofiletraits
meaning of the traits that were presented on the profile. This
(e.g., indecisive, easily upset) if indeed ideals serve as a stan-
hypothesisfollowsfromAsch’s(1946)classictheoreticalperspec-
dard that people use to make judgments of romantic interest.
tive on person perception. Asch’s approach emphasized that a
Alternatively, if the ideal-perceived trait match does not influ-
target’straitscollectivelyformaparticularstructureandthatone’s
ence participants’ romantic interest judgments once a live in-
impression of a target emerges from the organization of the full
teraction has taken place, as we have hypothesized, then a
constellation of traits. Asch (1946) found that participants could
profilethatincorporatesnegativetraitsshouldproducethesame
quicklyintegrateavarietyofdifferentcharacteristicsaboutatarget
interaction pattern as Study 1.
individual and then verbally describe this coherent, unified im-
pression.Aschassertedthat“thecharacteristicsformingthebasis
Study 2
of an impression do not each contribute a fixed, independent
meaning”(p.268);rather,participants’interpretationofatarget’s
Study 2 tested two possible explanations for why participants’
traitsshiftdependingontheoverallstructureofwhichtheyarea
romantic interest judgments in Study 1 were affected by the
part. One concrete empirical prediction that derives from this
ideal-perceivedtraitmatchmanipulationaftermeetingapotential
perspective is the change of meaning hypothesis, which suggests
partner “on paper” but not after having a live interaction. As the
thatparticipantswillshifttheconnotativemeaningofanattribute
following paragraphs explain, one possibility is that participants
tobecongruentwiththeiroverallimpressionofanindividual.In
might have altered the degree to which the profile traits were
one demonstration of this process, D. L. Hamilton and Zanna
characteristic of their ideal romantic partner after meeting the
(1974) found that participants indeed shifted the meaning of a
confederate,andthesecondisthatparticipantsmighthavealtered
target’s traits depending on their impression of that target. For
theirinterpretationofthemeaningoftheprofiletraitsaftermeet-
example, when the target individual had positive traits overall,
ingtheconfederate.
participants rated the target’s attribute “proud” as being close in
meaning to “confident,” whereas when the target individual had
Changing Ideal Partner Preferences
negativetraitsoverall,participantsrated“proud”asbeingclosein
meaningto“conceited.”
In principle, participants could have changed what traits they
Inthepresentstudy,weexaminedwhetherparticipantssimilarly
valued in an ideal romantic partner after the live interaction with
shifted the meaning of the traits that described the confederate.
theconfederate.Forexample,imaginethataparticipanthadlisted
When traits are presented clearly and unambiguously in simple
“spontaneous”and“ambitious”asbeingleastessentialinanideal
experimentalstimuli(e.g.,aromantictarget’sprofile,photographs,
romanticpartnerandthattheparticipanthadseenthetraits“spon-
writtendescriptions),thereislittleadditionalcontexttothetarget,
taneous,” “affectionate,” and “ambitious” on the profile (i.e., the
andthecomparisonbetweenatraitandone’sidealsmaybefairly
participant is in the nonideal condition). Presumably, the partici-
straightforward.5 However, a live interaction might convey addi-
pantwouldhaveprovidedalowratingofromanticinterestinthe
tional information that contextualizes each trait and impedes this
confederate after viewing the profile. Then imagine that the con-
comparisonprocess(Reis,Maniaci,Caprariello,Eastwick,&Fin-
federatemakesarelativelypositiveimpressionontheparticipant
kel,2011).Wehypothesizedthatidealsmaynotpredictromantic
duringtheliveinteraction.Now,theparticipantmaythinkthatit
interestafteraliveinteractionbecausethemeaningsoftheprofile
is not so bad that the confederate described him- or herself as
traits change in the wake of the interaction and are therefore no
“spontaneous”and“ambitious.”Asaconsequence,theparticipant
longerdirectlycomparablewiththeparticipant’sidealsasreported
could elevate the desirability of these traits in an ideal romantic
before the experiment. Participants’ estimates of the meaning of
partner.
the profile traits (as these traits applied to the confederate) were
Althoughidealpartnerpreferencescouldbemalleableintheory,
assessedaftertheparticipantviewedtheprofileandagainafterthe
only recently have studies examined momentary changes in the
liveinteraction.Iftheliveinteractionprovidesabroaderstructure
qualities that participants desire in an ideal romantic partner. As
or context for interpreting the confederate’s traits, then partici-
one example, participants who were experimentally assigned to
pants’ratingsofthemeaningoftheprofiletraitswillshifttobein
considerafutureinwhichtheyweretheirfamily’sprimarywage-
earner placed more importance on a younger mate with cooking
andhousekeepingskillsandlessimportanceonfinancialprospects
5Asch’s(1946)studiesallinvolvedparticipantsformingimpressionsof
in a mate relative to participants who were experimentally as-
targetindividuals“onpaper,”butAsch’stargetindividualswerespecifi-
signedtoconsiderthemselvesplayingadomesticrole(Eaglyetal., cally created to convey a broader structure; many simple experimental
2009). Another study found that men were more likely to report stimuli will surely be too impoverished to generate Asch-like context
thattheiridealromanticpartnerwasunderweighttotheextentthat effects.
8 EASTWICK,FINKEL,ANDEAGLY
linewiththeiroverallimpressionoftheconfederate.Therefore,the ativeinterpretationofeachoftheprofiletraits.Forexample,ifthe
connotativemeaning(i.e.,positivity)ascribedtotheprofiletraits trait “daring” had been circled on the profile, the participant
shouldshowapatternthatissimilartothedependentmeasureof wouldhavereadthefollowing:“Theotherparticipantreported
Romantic Interest: Participants should report that the ideal traits that the trait daring was characteristic of him/her. Do you
haveamorepositivemeaningthanthenonidealtraitsafterviewing personallythinkthismeansthattheotherparticipantisreckless
the profile, and this difference should be smaller after the live orthathe/sheiscourageous?”Theparticipantwouldthenhave
interaction. circledanumberrangingfrom(cid:7)4(reckless)to4(courageous).
Participants completed this item for the three traits circled on
the profile (average interitem r (cid:2) .35). The trait meaning
Method
anchorswereidenticaltothoseselectedbyD.L.Hamiltonand
Participants. Participants were 107 undergraduates who Zanna(1974)andarepresentedinTable1:HamiltonandZanna
completedtheexperimentaspartofacourserequirement.Sixteen ensuredthatallthepositiveanchorsweremorepositivethanthe
participantswereexcludedfromanalyses(asinStudy1)forfailing four moderately likable profile traits and that all the negative
themanipulationcheck,andoneparticipantwasexcludedbecause anchors were more negative than the four moderately undesir-
she reported that she knew the confederate beforehand. (In this ableprofiletraits.Theorderinwhichthesetwomediators(ideal
study, none identified as gay or lesbian as assessed by the item partner preferences and trait meaning) were presented was
used in Study 1.) The remaining 90 participants (42 men, 48 counterbalanced.
women) were 18.6 years old on average (SD (cid:2) 0.7 years); the
racial/ethnic breakdown was 1% Arab American, 30% Asian Results
American, 57% Caucasian, 7% Hispanic, and 5% “other.” As in
Study1replication. AsinStudy1,weconductedatwo-way
Study1,allparticipantsreportedthattheyweresingleatamass-
Ideal-Perceived Trait Match (ideal vs. nonideal) (cid:4) Assessment
testingsessionearlyintheacademicquarter.Thisstudyusedtwo
(postprofile vs. postinteraction) mixed model ANOVA on the
setsofconfederatepairs.
dependent variable romantic interest; ideal-perceived trait match
Procedure. TheStudy2procedurewasidenticaltoStudy1
was a between-subjects factor, and assessment was a within-
except for two changes. First, at the beginning-of-term mass-
subjects factor. As in Study 1, we entered a dummy code for the
testingsession,participantsreportedhowwell12traitsdescribed
male/female confederate/experimenter pair and the Dummy (cid:4)
their ideal romantic partner on a scale ranging from (cid:7)4 (highly
Assessment interaction as covariates for all analyses reported
uncharacteristic) to 4 (highly characteristic). To make a direct
below. Means for Romantic Interest are presented in Figure 2,
parallelwithpriorresearchonthechangeofmeaninghypothesis,
PanelA;ingeneral,thepatternofmeanswassimilartothatfound
we used the 12 traits assessed by D. L. Hamilton and Zanna
inStudy1.Themaineffectofideal-perceivedtraitmatchwasnot
(1974).Theyclassifiedfourasmoderatelylikable(proud,daring,
quitesignificant,F(1,87)(cid:2)2.75,p(cid:2).108,butthemaineffectof
satirical,persistent),fourasneutral(excitable,outspoken,perfec-
assessment was significant, F(1, 88) (cid:2) 8.46, p (cid:2) .005, which
tionistic, and self-contented), and four as moderately undesirable
indicatesthatparticipantsoverallexpressedmoreRomanticInter-
(undecided, conforming, clownish, crafty). At the experimental
estintheconfederateaftertheliveinteractionthanafterviewing
session,theprofileviewedbytheparticipantcontainedthesethree
the profile. Most importantly, a significant Ideal-Perceived Trait
setsoffourtraits,andtheconfederatehadostensiblycircledwhich
Match (cid:4) Assessment interaction emerged, F(1, 87) (cid:2) 4.72, p (cid:2)
traitoutofeachsetoffourtraitsbestdescribedhimorher(e.g.,the
.032.AsinStudy1,participantsreportedmoreRomanticInterest
confederate might have circled daring, perfectionistic, and con-
in the ideal than in the nonideal confederate after seeing the
forming). In the ideal condition, the three traits circled on the
profile, F(1, 87) (cid:2) 12.92, p (cid:2) .001, but participants’ Romantic
profile were the traits in each set of four that the participant had
Interest ratings did not differ between the ideal and the nonideal
indicated best described his or her ideal romantic partner at the
conditionsaftertheliveinteraction,F(1,87)(cid:2)0.27,p(cid:2).605.
mass-testing session. In the nonideal condition, the three circled
AlsoasinStudy1,theeffectofassessmentwasnonsignificant
traitswerethetraitsthattheparticipantdesiredtheleastinanideal
in the ideal condition, F(1, 87) (cid:2) 0.04, p (cid:2) .842, but was
romanticpartner.Tiesforthefavoriteorleastfavoritetraitineach
significantandpositiveinthenonidealcondition,F(1,87)(cid:2)4.55,
setoffourwerebrokenrandomly.6ThesecondchangefromStudy
p(cid:2).036.Inamodelthatincludedthethree-wayinteractionwith
1wasthattheexperimenteradministeredthepreferencesandtraits
participant sex (Ideal-Perceived Trait Match (cid:4) Assessment (cid:4)
questionnaire after administering each partner impression ques-
Sex)andalllowerorderterms,theonlysignificantterminvolving
tionnaire.
sexwasthemaineffect;womenweremoreromanticallyinterested
Materials. Thepartnerimpressionquestionnairewasidenti-
intheconfederatethanmen(M (cid:2)5.09,M (cid:2)5.48),F(1,
cal to the one used in Study 2 (Romantic Interest (cid:3) (cid:2) .89; M (cid:2) Men Women
85)(cid:2)4.99,p(cid:2).028.Also,asinStudy1,participants’perceptions
5.28, SD (cid:2) 1.01, range (cid:2) 2.8–8.1). The preferences and traits
oftheaccuracyoftheprofiletraitswerevirtuallyidenticalforthe
questionnaireassessedtwopotentialmediators:idealpartnerpref-
first and second assessment (M (cid:2) 5.18, M (cid:2) 5.14),
erences and trait meaning. The 12 ideal partner preferences were Assess1 Assess2
t(89)(cid:2)0.17,p(cid:2).869.
assessedinthesamemannerasatthemass-testingsession;anal-
yses were conducted on the average of the three ideal partner
preferences that corresponded to the three traits circled on the 6Surprisingly, many of the participants gave high ratings to the trait
profile(averageinteritemr(cid:2).55).Traitmeaningwasassessedin “crafty.” It is possible that these participants interpreted crafty to mean
amannersimilartothatusedbyD.L.HamiltonandZanna(1974); “artsy” or “good with crafts,” which was not the intended meaning.
participantsprovidedratingsthatindicatedapositiveversusneg- Therefore,noneoftheconfederateprofileshadcraftycircled.
IDEALPARTNERPREFERENCES 9
Table1 (idealvs.nonideal)(cid:4)Assessment(postprofilevs.postinteraction)
Change-of-MeaningTraits mixed model ANOVA on the potential mediator ideal partner
preferences;meansarepresentedinFigure2,PanelB.Asignifi-
Trait Anchors cantinteractionwouldindicatethatthedifferenceintheextentto
which the profile traits characterized participants’ ideal romantic
Proud Conceitedvs.confident
Daring Recklessvs.courageous partner in the ideal versus nonideal condition differed depending
Satirical Cynicalvs.witty onwhethertheyratedtheiridealpartnerpreferencesafterviewing
Persistent Uncompromisingvs.diligent
the profile versus after interacting with the confederate. This
Excitable Touchyvs.lively
analysisrevealedasignificantmaineffectofideal-perceivedtrait
Outspoken Factlessvs.frank
Perfectionistic Finickyvs.conscientious match,F(1,80)(cid:2)35.57,p(cid:6).001,indicatingthattheprofiletraits
Self-contented Pompousvs.poised weremorecharacteristicofparticipants’idealromanticpartnerin
Undecided Wishy-washyvs.open-minded the ideal than in the nonideal condition. In addition, a marginal
Conforming Weakvs.cooperative
main effect of assessment emerged, F(1, 80) (cid:2) 3.33, p (cid:2) .072,
Clownish Sillyvs.humorous
Crafty (notused) suggesting that participants decreased their ideal partner prefer-
enceratingsaftertheliveinteraction.Mostimportantly,theIdeal-
PerceivedTraitMatch(cid:4)Assessmentinteractiondidnotapproach
Twopotentialmediators. Ifeitheridealpartnerpreferences significance,F(1,80)(cid:2)0.85,p(cid:2).359,indicatingthatthediffer-
or trait meaning were similarly predicted by the Ideal-Perceived ence between the ideal and nonideal condition in participants’
TraitMatch(cid:4)Assessmentinteraction,thenthoseconstructscould ratingsofthedesirabilityoftheprofiletraitsinanidealromantic
potentiallyserveasmediatorsoftheromanticinteresteffectdoc- partner did not differ across the two assessments. Indeed, the
umentedinthepresentstudyandinStudy1.Totestthesepossi- simpleeffectofideal-perceivedtraitmatchwasstrongandsignif-
bilities,wefirstconductedatwo-wayIdeal-PerceivedTraitMatch icant at both the first, F(1, 80) (cid:2) 236.50, p (cid:6) .001, and second,
Figure 2. Study 2 results for the dependent variable Romantic Interest (Panel A), potential mediator ideal
partnerpreferences(PanelB),andpotentialmediatortraitmeaning(PanelC).
10 EASTWICK,FINKEL,ANDEAGLY
F(1,80)(cid:2)169.21,p(cid:6).001,assessments.Therefore,idealpartner interaction because they interpreted the meaning of the profile
preferences were not likely to have mediated the effect of the traitstobesimilarlypositiveinthetwoconditions.Insummary,
Ideal-PerceivedTraitMatch(cid:4)AssessmentinteractiononRoman- the results for the potential mediators suggested that, after the
ticInterest. liveinteraction,participantsdidnotchangetheextenttowhich
Second, we conducted the same mixed model ANOVA on the the profile traits characterized their ideal romantic partner;
potential mediator trait meaning (i.e., the positive vs. negative rather, they reinterpreted what it meant for the confederate to
interpretationofeachtrait);meansarepresentedinFigure2,Panel possess those traits.
C.Asignificantinteractionwouldindicatethatparticipants’inter-
pretations of the meaning of the profile traits in the ideal versus
Discussion
nonideal condition differed depending on whether they provided
theirratingsafterviewingtheprofileversusafterinteractingwith
Why did participants in Study 1 express more romantic
theconfederate.Thisanalysisrevealedasignificantmaineffectof
ideal-perceivedtraitmatch,F(1,87)(cid:2)4.96,p(cid:2).029,indicating interestintheidealthanthenonidealconfederateafterviewing
the confederate’s traits on paper but not after meeting the
that participants interpreted the ideal confederate’s traits more
confederate in person? Study 2 explored two possible explana-
positively than the nonideal confederate’s traits. In addition, this
tionsforthispattern.Onepossibilityisthatparticipants’ideals
analysis revealed a significant main effect of assessment, F(1,
87) (cid:2) 19.96, p (cid:6) .001, such that participants interpreted the actuallychangedbetweenthetimewhentheyratedtheirattrac-
tiontotheconfederatedescribedintheprofileandthetimethat
confederate’s traits to be more positive after the interaction than
theyratedtheirattractiontotheliveconfederate.However,the
after viewing the profile. Most importantly, the Ideal-Perceived
TraitMatch(cid:4)Assessmentinteractionwassignificant,F(1,87)(cid:2) present study found no evidence for this hypothesis. Partici-
6.10, p (cid:2) .015. As predicted, the participants rated the traits as pants did place more emphasis on the ideal than the nonideal
profiletraitsoverall;thismaineffectmakessensegiventhatthe
having a more positive meaning in the ideal than in the nonideal
condition after viewing the profile, F(1, 87) (cid:2) 15.30, p (cid:6) .001. ideal partner preferences for the profile traits from an earlier
mass-testingsessiondeterminedwhichtraitsservedastheideal
However, after the interaction, this difference was no longer sig-
nificant,F(1,87)(cid:2)0.18,p(cid:2).676. versusnonidealmanipulation.However,thedifferenceinideal
Thistraitmeaninginteractionhasapproximatelythesameform partner preferences between the ideal and nonideal condition
as the interaction on the dependent variable Romantic Interest. didnotchangebetweenthetwoassessmentsintheexperimental
Therefore,itispossiblethatparticipantsexpressedmoreRomantic session.
Interest for the ideal than the nonideal confederate after viewing A second possibility is that the connotative meaning of the
theprofilebutnotaftertheliveinteractionbecausetheirinterpre- profile traits changed between the time participants rated their
tation of the meaning of the confederate’s traits changed in the attraction to the profile and the time they rated their attraction
wakeoftheinteraction.Totestthismediatedmoderationhypoth- to the live confederate. In other words, perhaps participants’
esis, we first constructed a data set that contained two rows for interpretations of the profile traits were consistent with their
each participant, one corresponding to the postprofile assessment ideals after viewing the profile (i.e., the ideal traits had more
(Assess(cid:2)0)andonecorrespondingtothepostinteractionassess- positive connotations than the nonideal traits), but their inter-
ment(Assess(cid:2)1).(Theinterceptwaspermittedtovaryrandomly pretations of the traits changed to become more similar across
in this multilevel mediational analysis.) In this new data set, the theidealandnonidealconditionsaftermeetingtheconfederate.
Ideal-Perceived Trait Match (coded Ideal (cid:2) 0, Nonideal (cid:2) 1) (cid:4) Study 2 provided support for this hypothesis. Participants did
Assessmentinteractionwasagainsignificantpredictingtraitmean- indeedascribemorepositivemeaningstotheprofiletraitsinthe
ing(B(cid:2).68),t(87)(cid:2)2.53,p(cid:2).013.Inaddition,inamultilevel ideal than the nonideal condition after viewing the profile, but
regression predicting Romantic Interest from trait meaning (stan- the live interaction caused participants to shift the meaning of
dardized such that M (cid:2) 0, SD (cid:2) 1), ideal-perceived trait match, the profile traits to become more similar in the two conditions
assessment, and the Ideal-Perceived Trait Match (cid:4) Assessment (similarly positive in this case). This finding is reminiscent of
interaction, the effect of trait meaning was significant (B (cid:2) .37), otherchange-of-meaningeffectsthatreflectcontextualizedper-
t(86)(cid:2)5.24,p(cid:6).001,whereastheIdeal-PerceivedTraitMatch(cid:4) sonperceptionprocesses(Asch,1946;D.L.Hamilton&Zanna,
Assessmentinteractionwasnotsignificant(B(cid:2).22),t(86)(cid:2)1.31, 1974): The meaning of a personality trait frequently varies
p (cid:2) .192. (The effect of the Ideal-Perceived Trait Match (cid:4) depending on a target individual’s overall constellation of at-
Assessmentinteractionwithouttraitmeaningintheequationwas tributes.Thepresentfindingsareconsistentwiththepossibility
significant,B(cid:2).43,t[87](cid:2)2.32,p(cid:2).023.)Amediationaltest that the live interaction, despite its simplicity and brevity,
(Baron&Kenny,1986)indicatedthattheinclusionoftraitmean- provided participants with a broader context for understanding
ing in the equation significantly reduced the effect of the Ideal- the confederate and led them to reinterpret the profile traits to
Perceived Trait Match (cid:4) Assessment interaction on Romantic fit this overall impression. Therefore, the ideal-perceived trait
Interest(Sobelz(cid:2)2.28,p(cid:2).023). match manipulation failed to exert a significant effect on ro-
This analysis provides suggestive evidence that participants mantic interest at the second assessment because the traits for
experiencedmoredesirefortheidealthanthenonidealconfed- whichparticipantsreportedtheiridealsandthetraitsasapplied
erate after viewing the profile because they interpreted the to the confederate no longer meant the same thing. Metaphor-
meaning of the confederate’s traits to be consistent with their ically speaking, a potential partner’s traits may be like moving
ideals. However, participants did not express more Romantic targets,andinliveattractioncontexts,idealpartnerpreferences
Interestintheidealthanthenonidealconfederateafterthelive may have difficulty hitting that target on average.