Search

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report-partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator-uses a highly powered design ( N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The "corrected pattern metric" that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β = .19 and an effect of β = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the "level metric" (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men's and (especially) women's stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men's stated preferences underestimated-and women's stated preferences overestimated-revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its potential to restrict researcher degrees of freedom has not yet been empirically verified. We used an extensive protocol to assess the producibility (i.e., the degree to which a study can be properly conducted based on the available information) of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistrations and their corresponding papers for 300 psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. These results highlight that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom remain possible in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded more producible preregistrations. We did not find that the producibility and consistency of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally preregistered more producible and consistently than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write more producible preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from their preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).