Chasing Prince Charming: Partnering consequences of holding unrealistic standards for a spouse

Abstract

Although social scientists have generally assumed that people's standards for a spouse shape their marital behavior, systematic investigations of the role of mate standards in partnering have been rare. Using survey data collected from 471 unmarried individuals and their peer informants, this study used a novel, residual‐based approach to quantify the attainability (rather than the absolute stringency) of people's standards for a spouse. Regression analyses using this index of unrealistic criteria revealed that holding less realistic standards for a marriage partner was associated with several indicators of a propensity to delay or forgo marriage, including greater difficulty establishing high‐quality romantic relationships, lower expectations to marry one's current partner, and lower levels of psychological and behavioral investment in marrying.

Mate preferences in emerging adulthood and beyond: Age variations in mate preferences and beliefs about change in mate preferences

“…For a contextual variable, we consider participants’ perception of partner availability . Individuals are likely to be aware of their “field of eligibles” (Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962) and the likelihood that they can obtain a compatible partner in their mate searching efforts (Bredow, 2015). We speculate that those who have a more positive attitude about finding a compatible partner will have higher standards for a mate than will those who have a more pessimistic attitude (Sprecher & Regan, 2002).…”

“…People of college age also are more likely than those who are older to have unrealistic views of marriage (Cobb, Larson, & Watson, 2003), which may also be associated with expecting a partner to have many desirable traits. Alternatively, older single adults (e.g., those in their 30s) may be particularly selective, and this could be the reason they are currently unpartnered (Bredow, 2015; Lewis & Moon, 1997). Therefore, we pose our first research question (RQ1): What is the association of age with overall mate selectivity?…”

Steadfast Standards or Fluctuating Fancies? Stability and Change in People’s Mate Criteria Over 27 Months

“…Our study is the first, however, to formally test these propositions using multiwave data. Consistent with the notion that people's standards should be sensitive to changes in their partnering circumstances (Bredow, 2015), three out of four proposed moderators predicted mate standards' temporal stability in the expected manner, including age, changes in perceived mate value, and relationship events. At the same time, no single variable moderated all four indices of stability, revealing a nuanced picture of change where certain factors uniquely influenced certain types of stability.…”

“…In addition to examining the baseline stability of people's mate criteria, a second key objective of our research was to identify and test potential moderators of mate preferences' temporal stability. As noted earlier, both evolutionary and social-cognitive theories of mate selection suggest that people's preferences should be sensitive to changes in their partnering circumstances and highlight conditions under which such shifts are expected to occur (Bredow, 2015). However, aside from work demonstrating short-term shifts in mate preferences (e.g., those experienced across the menstrual cycle; Wood, Kressel, Joshi, & Louie, 2014), most forecasted moderators of change in people's criteria have not been tested.…”

“…Building on evidence that people’s own mate value is a principal factor contributing to between-person differences in criteria for a romantic partner (e.g., Bredow, 2015; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993), a second variable likely to affect the temporal stability of people’s standards is the constancy of their desirability as a mate. Although there is variability in the extent to which people’s reported criteria reflect their self-appraisals (Bredow, 2015), both evolutionary and social exchange accounts of mate selection suggest that people’s preferences will best aid partnering when they are calibrated to match their own overall mate value (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Murstein, 1976). Because individuals are presumed to desire the best partner possible, but are likely to be rejected by prospects who are considerably more desirable than themselves, it is neither reproductively adaptive nor optimally rewarding for people to maintain criteria that fall notably above or below their own value.…”