Relationship beliefs and compatibility preferences in romantic partners

Alessia Marchi; Peter K. Jonason

doi:10.21697/sp.2023.23.1.03

Published: 2023-12-18

Vol. 23 No. 1 (2023)

Relationship beliefs and compatibility preferences in romantic partners

Alessia Marchi

, Peter K. Jonason

Studia Psychologica: Theoria et praxis

Section: Empirical Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2023.23.1.03

Abstract

Recently, we identified 24 factors (e.g., appearance, conformity, leisure) that may capture whether people want to be similar or different from their sexual and romantic partners on different qualities in 274 (n_Women = 225) Italians (Marchi et al., 2023; Personality and Individual Differences). In this brief report, we reanalyzed that data, but now turn our attention to content we did not report previously about relationship beliefs. Participants believed similarity was more important than complementary in relationships but beliefs that physical attractiveness is important may trump them both. However, belief that physical attractiveness is important was unrelated to any of the compatibility factors and complementarity beliefs were only related to three of them, while nearly two-thirds of the correlations with similarity beliefs were significant (e.g., residence, speech, intellect). We discussed our results in terms of how different generalized relationship beliefs may manifest themselves in how similar or different people want their romantic and sexual partners to be.

Keywords:

mate preferences, compatibility, complementarity, similarity, assortative mating, romantic relationships, beliefs

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Marchi, A., & Jonason, P. K. (2023). Relationship beliefs and compatibility preferences in romantic partners. Studia Psychologica: Theoria Et Praxis, 23(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2023.23.1.03

Cited by / Share

References

Baxter, L.A., & West, L. (2003). Couple perceptions of their similarities and differences: A dialectical perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 491-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075030204004
Google Scholar

Csajbók, Z., White, K.P., & Jonason, P.K. (2023). Six “red flags” in relationships: From being dangerous to gross and being apathetic to unmotivated. Personality and Individual Differences, 204, 112048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112048
Google Scholar

Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D.P. (2008). Do people know what they want?: A similar or complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 595-602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600406
Google Scholar

Goodwin, R., & Gaines Jr, S.O. (2004). Relationships beliefs and relationship quality across cultures: Country as a moderator of dysfunctional beliefs and relationship quality in three former communist societies. Personal Relationships, 11, 267-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00082.x
Google Scholar

Jach, Ł., Kubicius, D., & Jonason, P.K. (2022). “Do they fit together like the Joker and Harley Quinn?”: Joking, laughing, humor styles, and dyadic adjustment among people in long-term romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 199, 111859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111859
Google Scholar

Jonason, P.K., & March, E. (2023). The three C’s of psychological mate preferences: The psychological traits people want in their romantic and sexual partners. In J.K. Mogilski & T.K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and romantic relationships. Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197524718.013.3
Google Scholar

Jones, E. (1953). Sigmund Freud: Life and work (Vol. 2). Hogarth Press.
Google Scholar

Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American journal of Sociology, 100, 422-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/230542
Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502-512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502
Google Scholar

Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337
Google Scholar

March, E., & Jonason, P.K. (2023). What properties predict mate choice: Physical, psychological, and place. In A.D. Lykins (ed.) Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_85-1
Google Scholar

Marchi, A., Csajbók, Z., & Jonason, P.K. (2023). 24 ways to be compatible with your relationship partners: Sex differences, context effects, and love styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 206, 112134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112134
Google Scholar

Vohs, K.D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R.F. (2011). The sum of friends' and lovers' self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 138-145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385710
Google Scholar

Wu, R., Liu, Z., Guo, Q., Cai, M., & Zhou, J. (2020). Couple similarity on personality, moral identity and spirituality predict life satisfaction of spouses and their offspring. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1037-1058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00108-8
Google Scholar