Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mate preferences often fail to correspond with actual mate choices. We present a novel explanation for this phenomenon: People overestimate their willingness to reject unsuitable romantic partners. In two studies, single people were given the opportunity to accept or decline advances from potential dates who were physically unattractive (Study 1) or incompatible with their dating preferences (Study 2). We found that participants were significantly less willing to reject these unsuitable potential dates when they believed the situation to be real rather than hypothetical. This effect was partially explained by other-focused motives: Participants for whom the scenario was hypothetical anticipated less motivation to avoid hurting the potential date’s feelings than participants actually felt when they believed the situation to be real. Thus, other-focused motives appear to exert an influence on mate choice that has been overlooked by researchers and laypeople alike.

Keywords

judgment and decision making mate selection empathy gap romantic relationships dating rejection open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Wotman

S. R.

Stillwell

A. M.

(1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

M. L.

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.

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.

Luchies

L. B.

Finkel

E. J.

Hunt

L. L.

(2013). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623–665.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Holt-Lunstad

Birmingham

Jones

B. Q.

(2008). Is there something unique about marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 239–244.

Impett

E. A.

Gable

S. L.

Peplau

L. A.

(2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

Lenton

A. P.

Francesconi

(2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21, 528–533.

Loewenstein

(1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.

10.

Loewenstein

Small

(2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 112, 112–126.

11.

Perilloux

Buss

D. M.

(2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164–181.

12.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

13.

Rand

D. G.

Nowak

M. A.

(2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 413–425.

14.

Rasinski

H. M.

Geers

A. L.

Czopp

A. M.

(2013). “I guess what he said wasn’t that bad”: Dissonance in nonconfronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 856–869.

15.

Righetti

Finkenauer

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). Low self-control promotes the willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24, 1533–1540.

16.

Teper

Inzlicht

Page-Gould

(2011). Are we more moral than we think? Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22, 553–558.

17.

Todd

P. M.

Penke

Fasolo

Lenton

A. P.

(2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 15011–15016.

18.

Van Boven

Loewenstein

Dunning

(2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 130–141.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB