Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
194
Perceptions of Ideal and Former Partners’ Personality and
Similarity
Pieternel Dijkstra
Dick P. H. Barelds
1
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Abstract
The present study aimed to test predictions based on both the ‗similarity-attraction‘
hypothesis and the ‗attraction-similarity‘ hypothesis, by studying perceptions of ideal
and former partners. Based on the ‗similarity-attraction‘ hypothesis, we expected
individuals to desire ideal partners who are similar to the self in personality. In addition,
based on the ‗attraction-similarity hypothesis‘, we expected individuals to perceive
former partners as dissimilar to them in terms of personality. Findings showed that,
whereas the ideal partner was seen as similar to and more positive than the self, the
former partner was seen as dissimilar to and more negative than the self. In addition, our
study showed that individuals did not rate similarity in personality as very important
when seeking a mate. Our findings may help understand why so many relationships end
in divorce due to mismatches in personality.
Keywords: Ideal Partner, Former Partner, Personality, Similarity.
In the last few decades numerous studies have been carried out on the
characteristics individuals value most in a mate. Several studies have, for instance,
shown that individuals, particularly men, highly value a potential mate‘s physical
attractiveness (e.g., Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001). Much more scarce
are studies that relate individuals‘ own characteristics to those they desire in a potential
mate. With regard to these ‗relative‘ mate preferences two hypotheses have been
presented. First, according to the ‗similarity-attraction hypothesis‘ the more similar two
individuals are, the higher the attraction between them will be (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Byrne
& Nelson, 1965). It is usually reassuring and comforting to meet others who are like
ourselves. Similar others do not only validate our beliefs about the world and ourselves
but also facilitate harmonious interactions, reducing the risk of conflicts and
disagreements (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Morry, 2005; Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka, &
Finkel, 2009). The second hypothesis is usually referred to as the ‗complementarity
1
Corresponding author: Dick P.H. Barelds, University of Groningen, Department of Psychology, Grote
Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands. Email: d.p.h.barelds@rug.nl. Telephone: (+) 31
503637613.
195
hypothesis‘. According to this hypothesis, individuals feel most attracted to potential
partners who complement them, an assumption that reflects the saying that ―opposites
attract‖ (e.g., Antill, 1983). Complementary individuals are assumed to be so attractive
because they enhance the likelihood that one‘s needs will be gratified (e.g., De Raad &
Doddema-Winsemius, 1992). For example, young women who lack economic resources
may feel attracted to older men who have acquired economic resources and therefore
may be good providers (Eagly & Wood, 1999).
Studies on mate selection have consistently found support for the ‗similarity-
attraction hypothesis‘. Homogamy has been reported for numerous characteristics, such
as physical attractiveness, attachment style, political and religious attitudes, socio-
economic background, level of education and IQ (Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Luo &
Klohnen, 2005), and personality characteristics such as extraversion, agreeableness, and
openness to experience (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007; Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford,
1997; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008; McCrae et al., 2008; Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008). In
contrast, support for the ‗complementarity hypothesis‘ is much scarcer. Although many
individuals occasionally feel attracted to ‗opposites‘, attractions between opposites
often do not develop into serious intimate relationships and, when they do, these
relationships often end prematurely (Felmlee, 2001).
The importance of similarity in personality
Mismatches in personality are often one of the major causes of divorce (e.g.,
Amato & Previti, 2003). In a study conducted among divorcees (n = 8,145) in The
Netherlands, where the present study was conducted, about 40% reported dissimilar
personalities as the major cause of their break-up (De Graaf, 2006; publication by the
Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics). For individuals who seek a mate for a long-term,
harmonious relationship, finding a similar mate is therefore important, or at least,
should be. In general, however, partners have been found to have only somewhat
similar personalities (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007; Botwin et al., 1997; Dijkstra &
Barelds, 2008; McCrae et al., 2008; Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008). Several explanations
have been forwarded for this discrepancy. For instance, Barelds and Dijkstra (2007)
argue that individuals usually do not take the time to get to know each other properly
before they get romantically involved. Indeed, these authors showed that individuals
196
who took the time to get to know each other‘s personalities and became friends before
they got romantically involved - in contrast to those who became romantically involved
relatively quickly - ended up with a partner with a more similar personality. Other
studies suggest that people are simply unaware of or confused about the characteristics
that are important in a mate (e.g., Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008).
The present study builds on and extends work by Dijkstra and Barelds (2008).
Dijkstra and Barelds (2008) found that singles looking for a long-term mate, as can be
expected on basis of the ‗similarity-attraction‘ hypothesis, looked for someone similar
in terms of extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, conscientiousness and
openness to experience. Nonetheless, when individuals were asked about their
preferences for a similar or complementary mate, they found that the majority of
individuals (86%) indicated that they desired a complementary partner rather than a
similar one. The problem with this study, however, was that the authors asked people
about their mate preferences in general, not, more specifically, about their mate
preferences with regard to personality. A possible explanation for their (seemingly)
contradictive findings is therefore the possibility that individuals took the general
question about similarity/complementarity to be about other characteristics than
personality, such as age, height, intelligence or religion. The first aim of the present
study was therefore to replicate and extend Dijkstra and Barelds‘ (2008) study, by
assessing both partner criteria in terms of personality and the importance individuals
attach to a partner‘s similarity specifically with regard to personality.
We would like to argue that, in general, individuals who are seeking a mate tend
to underestimate the importance of finding a partner with a similar personality. When
asked about their preferences for a mate people may partially draw upon lay theories of
romantic attraction rather than their true desires for a mate. In general, the notion that
―opposites attract‖ is a relatively popular lay theory of romantic attraction: people often
think that individuals who possess complementary characteristics are highly attractive
as a partner (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). In contrast, looking for someone who is
similar to oneself may be perceived as ―boring‖. These popular lay theories may
confuse people and lead them away from their true partner desires (Dijkstra & Barelds,
2008). As a result, individuals may underestimate the importance of finding a similar
mate in terms of personality. It is important to examine this issue. If indeed individuals
underestimate the importance of having someone with a similar personality as a
197
potential long-term partner, it may help explain why people often start relationships
with individuals with such different personalities than they have themselves, increasing
their chances of relationship break-up.
Similarity and former partners
To date, studies on partner similarity have exclusively focused on perceived
similarity in the current or ideal partner (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007; Buunk &
Bosman, 1986; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008; Klohnen & Luo, 2003), neglecting
perceptions of similarity of former partners. With regard to former partners, another
hypothesis seems to be relevant. In addition to the ‗similarity-attraction‘ hypothesis, the
‗attraction-similarity‘ hypothesis has been postulated (Morry, 2003; 2005). This latter
hypothesis claims that attraction (i.e., love, liking) leads to heightened perceptions of
similarity. According to Morry (2005), in ongoing relationships, projection of the self
onto the other person is the result of the attraction between two individuals, with higher
attraction leading to higher perceived similarity. Whereas the ‗similarity-attraction‘
hypothesis seems to be most relevant in those situations in which individuals do not
know each other (very well), the ‗attraction-similarity‘ seems to apply mainly to
relationships that already exist. It must be noted, however, that the effect of attraction
on similarity does not preclude the effect of similarity on attraction. In fact, a mutual
effect is the most likely scenario. Byrne, Lamberth, Palmer, and London (1969) found
that recent information about attitude similarity influenced liking more than earlier
information about attitude similarity, indicating that similarity influences attraction. At
the same time, research on projection indicates that attraction also influences
perceptions of similarity (Morry, 2003; Morry et al., 2005).
Because the relationship with the former partner already exists, sometimes even
for a long time, the ‗attraction-similarity‘ hypothesis seems to be highly relevant for the
understanding of perceptions of former partners. In most cases, individuals do not feel
attracted any more to their former partner. A survey study in The Netherlands showed
that, the first two years following the divorce, about 60% of ex-partners described their
contact as hostile and recently had engaged in serious conflicts with their ex-spouse
(Fischer, De Graaf & Kalmijn, 2005). Research also shows that people tend to devalue
former partners. Gray and Silver (1990; see also Amato & Previtti, 2003), for instance,
198
found that participants thought they were less responsible for the break-up than the ex-
spouse, and portrayed themselves more as a victim (and less as a villain) compared to
their ex-spouse. In terms of personality, Geher and colleagues (2005) found that,
compared to the current partner, individuals rated their former partner as less open, less
conscientious, less agreeable, more neurotic and as having a more problematic
attachment style. Geher and colleagues (2005), however, asked participants to provide
ratings of their current and former partner‘s, but not self-ratings. As a result, they could
not relate ratings of the former partner to self-ratings and establish levels of similarity
between participants and their former partners. We do not know of a single study that
assessed similarity between individuals and their former partner. Examining this issue is
important, however. It may help understand why people often devalue their former
partners, and why they may hate the ones they formerly loved. The third goal of the
present study was therefore to examine the level of similarity between the self and the
former partner. Based on the ‗attraction-similarity‘ hypothesis, we expected former
partners to be perceived as dissimilar to the self in personality.
The present study
In sum, the present study examined three hypotheses, that is, the prediction that
individuals seek a similar mate in terms of personality (Hypothesis 1), the prediction
that people attach relatively low importance to similarity in personality (Hypothesis 2),
and the prediction that former partners are perceived as being dissimilar in personality
to the self (Hypothesis 3). Studies on mate selection usually focus on the mate
preferences of relatively young individuals (i.e., those in their twenties and early
thirties). Although indeed many people in this age category are eligible, the last couple
of decades have shown a clear increase in the number of ‗older‘ single people. For
example, whereas in 1996 in The Netherlands 300.000 men between 34 and 54 years
were single, this number had risen to 419.000 in the year 2006, most of which do seek a
long-term partner (De Graaf, 2006). The present study therefore aimed at examining a
group of single individuals that is heterogeneous with regard to age, including younger,
middle-aged and older individuals.
199
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 871 (612 women, 259 men) members of two dating sites, one
for college-educated singles under fifty looking for a long-term mate
(www.match4me.nl; n = 421) and one for singles over fifty looking for a long-term
mate (www.50plusmatch.nl; n = 450). Mean age was 50.18 years (SD = 11.32, range
19-78). Participants were, by means of an email message, invited to participate in an
online study on relationships.
Measures
Personality. Personality characteristics were assessed by an abridged version of
Shafer‘s 30-item bipolar rating scale designed to measure the Five-Factor Model of
personality. Ten items – two for each factor - were selected that Shafer (1999) found to
have the highest factor loadings. The same ten item instrument was used in a study by
Dijkstra and Barelds (2008) on partner preferences. The items that were selected were:
Openness —―uncreative–creative‖ and ―unartistic-artistic‖, Conscientiousness —―lazy–
hardworking‖ and ―unresponsible-responsible; Extraversion —―shy–outgoing‖ and
―quiet-talkative‖; Agreeableness —―headstrong–gentle‖ and ―vengeful-forgiving‖; and
Neuroticism — ―at ease-nervous‖ and ―unagitated-tense‖. The response scale was a
five-point semantic differential type scale ranging from one (the left trait in the trait-pair
describes me very well) to 5 (the right trait in the trait-pair describes me very well). For
each of the five factors greater values indicated higher levels of extraversion,
neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness respectively.
The participants answered the personality items three times in total, thus
providing self-ratings, ratings of their ideal partner and ratings of their former partner.
With regard to the ratings of their ideal partner, participants were asked to rate the
personality characteristics of their ideal long-term partner. In addition, participants were
asked to what extent their most recent former long-term partner possessed these
personality characteristics. Cronbach‘s alphas (across ratings, i.e., self, ideal partner and
former partner) were .77 for Neuroticism, .71 for Extraversion, .83 for Openness, .75 for
Agreeableness, and .60 for Conscientiousness.
200
To examine the internal validity of this instrument, a Principal Components
Analysis with Varimax rotation was first conducted (across ratings), extracting five
factors. Congruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) were then computed between the
obtained rotated factor structure and the expected (a priori) structure (simple structure).
These congruence coefficients (with a theoretical maximum of 1.00) were .95 for
Neuroticism, .97 for Extraversion, .98 for Openness, .86 for Agreeableness, and .96 for
Conscientiousness. These values indicate a strong correspondence between factors (e.g.,
Haven & Ten Berge, 1978; Lorenzo-Seva & Ten Berge, 2006), and therefore strongly
support the internal validity of this instrument.
Importance of similarity. Following the self-ratings of personality, participants
were asked how important they think it is that a partner resembles them in each of the
following five domains: Personality, intelligence, attractiveness, attitudes and sense of
humor. These domains and/or similarity in these domains have been found to be
important to attraction and relationship satisfaction (personality, e.g., Barelds, 2005;
intelligence, e.g., Watson, Klohnen, Casillas, Nus Simms, Haig & Berry, 2004;
attractiveness, e.g., Yela & Sangrador, 2001; attitudes: e.g., Hatfield & Rapson, 1992;
humor: e.g., Ziv, 1989). All items were answered on five-point scales. With regard to
personality participants had to indicate how important they feel it is that a partner is
similar to them (1), or is their opposite (5). With regard to attitudes and sense of humor,
participants were asked to indicate how important it is to them that a partner is either
similar (1) or different (5). With regard to a partner‘s intelligence/attractiveness,
participants had to indicate how important it is to them that a partner is less
intelligent/attractive (1), or more intelligent/attractive (5) than they are. Note that we did
not ask participants the extent to which they prefer a partner who is similar in
intelligence/attractiveness in contrast to one who is opposite. We felt that asking
participants the extent to which they preferred a partner who is more or less
intelligent/attractive than themselves, makes more sense in terms of framing and
conveys more information about participants‘ preferences. Thus, in the case of
intelligence and attractiveness both ends of the scale refer to dissimilarity, whereas the
midpoint (3) refers to similarity.
Similarity of the former partner. In addition, participants were asked to what
extent their most recent former long-term relationship partner had resembled them in
each of five domains: Personality, intelligence, attractiveness, attitudes and sense of
201
humor (see ‗Importance of similarity‘). All items were rated on five-point scales. With
regard to personality, participants had to indicate the extent to which their former
partner was similar to them (1) or their opposite (5). Next, participants were asked the
extent to which their former partner resembled them with regard to attitudes and sense
of humor (1 = similar, 5 = different). Finally, participants rated the extent to which their
former partner was less intelligent/attractive (1) or more intelligent/attractive (5) than
they are.
Each of the measures described above was presented to participants on a new
screen (the three personality ratings were also presented on separate screens).
Participants were not able to go back to the previous screens, making it harder for
participants to compare their responses to their previous responses.
Results
Ideal partner personality
To test Hypothesis 1, the prediction that individuals prefer mates who resemble
them with regard to personality, correlational analyses were conducted relating
participants‘ own personality scores to those of their ideal romantic partner (see Table
1). Correlations were computed for men and women separately, in order to examine
potential sex differences. Previous studies have consistently found sex differences
regarding personality (e.g., Feingold, 1994), and also differences regarding the
importance of personality characteristics in the ideal mate (e.g., Botwin, Buss, &
Shackelford, 1997). We therefore decided to analyze the data separately for men and
women. Confirming Hypothesis 1, for all five personality characteristics positive
significant correlations were found (p < .001), ranging from .27 for Openness to .54 for
Conscientiousness, indicating that people clearly desired a partner who is similar to
themselves with regard to these five personality factors. A significant difference
between the correlations for men and women was found only for Neuroticism (test for
independent correlations; Z = 2.84, p < .01), with the correlation for women being
significantly higher (r = .47, p < .01) than the correlation for men (r = .29, p < .01). The
202
other correlations for men and women were highly comparable in size, and no other
significant differences were found.
Table 1. Correlations between personality scores for self, ideal partner and former partner
self vs. ideal partner
self vs. former partner
ideal vs. former partner
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.40*
.39*
.27*
.51*
.54*
-.01
-.07
.02
.05
.01
.08
-.01
.13*
.03
-.01
* p < .01
Next we examined whether, besides rank order similarity (i.e., the correlations
reported in Table 1), there also was an indication of mean level similarity between
participants‘ personality and their ideal romantic partner‘s personality. For this purpose,
mean personality scores of self and the ideal romantic partner were computed. To
examine potential sex differences, a repeated measures MANOVA using Target (self,
ideal and ex-partner) as a within subjects factor and participant Sex as a between
subjects factor was conducted on the five personality scales. The MANOVA revealed
significant multivariate main effects of Sex [F(5,865) = 10.66, p < .001] and Target
[F(10, 860) = 190.84, p < .001], as well as a significant interaction effect [Sex × Target;
F(10,860) = 14,37, p < .001]. Table 2 reports the mean scores separately for men and
women.
Table 2. Mean personality scores for self, ideal partner and former partner (SD‘s
between brackets) by participant sex
Men
Self
Ideal partner
Former partner
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
4.20 (1.63)
a1
6.88 (1.59)
a1
6.41 (2.08)
a1
7.36 (1.64)
a1
8.14 (1.29)
a1
3.61 (1.18)
b1
7.41 (1.21)
b1
7.54 (1.51)
b1
7.91 (1.19)
b1
7.78 (1.01)
b1
6.40 (1.88)
c1
6.49 (2.18)
a1
5.82 (2.39)
c1
5.58 (2.12)
c1
7.32 (2.13)
c1
Women
Self
Ideal partner
Former partner
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
4.28 (1.58)
a1
7.78 (1.60)
a2
6.89 (2.07)
a2
7.95 (1.45)
a2
8.55 (1.11)
a2
3.09 (1.15)
b2
7.88 (1.23)
a2
7.38 (1.59)
b1
8.46 (1.19)
b2
8.55 (1.01)
a2
6.00 (2.25)
c1
6.38 (2.30)
b1
4.86 (2.48)
c2
5.45 (2.10)
c1
6.98 (2.41)
b1
Note: means with different subscript letters differ significantly between columns (p‘s < .01). Subscript
numbers refer to between sex comparisons per personality scale: Means with different subscript numbers
differ significantly between men and women (p‘s < .01)
203
Table 2 shows that men‘s ideal partners are less neurotic, more extraverted,
more open, more agreeable, but less conscientious than they are themselves. Women‘s
ideal partners are less neurotic, more open, and more agreeable than they are
themselves. In addition to seeking a similar mate, individuals in general seem to look
for a mate who possesses more positive traits than themselves. In addition, sex-
differences were found for most self-rated personality scales, with women rating
themselves more extraverted, open, agreeable and conscientious than men. Moreover,
significant sex differences were found for an ideal partner‘s personality with regard to
neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, with women generally
setting higher standards than men (except for Openness).
Perceived importance of similarity
To test the prediction that people attach relatively low importance to similarity
in personality (Hypothesis 2), mean scores were next calculated for the item that
assessed the importance of similarity in personality between participants and their ideal
partner. The means are reported in Table 3, separately for men and women. Table 3, in
addition, lists the mean scores for the other domains (intelligence, attractiveness,
attitudes and sense of humor) for which the importance of similarity was assessed.
Table 3. Mean scores on the items reflecting the importance of similarity (ideal partner) and perceived
similarity (former partner) in five domains by participant sex (SDs in parentheses)
Men
Women
Ideal partner
Former partner
Ideal partner
Former partner
Personality
Intelligence
Attractiveness
Attitudes
Sense of Humor
3.02 (.70)
a1
3.19 (.49)
a1
3.56 (.68)
a1
2.78 (.73)
a1
2.39 (.81)
a1
3.62 (.91)
b1
2.58 (.97)
b1
3.14 (1.00)
b1
3.38 (.99)
b1
3.29 (1.04)
b1
3.06 (.65)
a1
3.54 (.68)
a2
3.17 (.48)
a2
2.61 (.69)
a2
2.22 (.85)
a2
3.87 (1.00)
b2
2.98 (1.25)
b2
2.80 (.98)
b2
3.59 (1.09)
b2
3.18 (1.28)
b1
Subscript numbers refer to between subject comparisons. Means with different subscript numbers differ
significantly between men and women (p‘s < .01). Subscript letters refer to within-subject comparisons
(ideal partner vs. ex-partner). Means with different subscript letters differ significantly within sex (p‘s <
.01).
The mean scores for the personality similarity item seem to support Hypothesis
2: For both men and women the mean scores were around the theoretical midpoint of
the scale, indicating that individuals perceived similarity with regard to personality to be
of relatively little importance. Score frequencies support this conclusion: 14.9% of the
participants scored 1 or 2 (indicating a preference for a similar ideal partner), 67.6%
204
scored 3 (indicating a preference for neither a similar nor a complementary ideal
partner), and 17.4% scored 4 or 5, indicating a preference for a complementary partner.
Differences between men and women were non-significant (Χ
2
= 4.64, > p). In addition,
Table 3 shows that men valued high intelligence significantly less and high
attractiveness significantly more in an ideal mate than women, whereas women valued
similar attitudes and sense of humor in an ideal mate significantly more than men.
Former partner’s personality
To test the prediction that former partners are perceived as being dissimilar in
personality (Hypothesis 3), correlational analysis were conducted relating participants‘
own personality scores to ratings of the former partner‘s personality. In line with
Hypothesis 3, non-significant correlations were found for Neuroticism, Openness,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (|r|s < .05, p = ns; see Table 1). For Extraversion
a marginally significant negative correlation emerged (r = -.07, p < .05; see Table 1).
These findings suggest that people perceived their former partner not be similar to
themselves. Neither, however, did they perceive their former partner to be their opposite
in terms of these FFM traits. Also non-significant correlations emerged between the
ideal romantic partner‘s personality and the former partner‘s personality, with one
exception: A small significant correlation was found for Openness (r = .13, p < .001).
As individuals had had a former partner who was more open, they desired a more open
ideal partner.
The means in Table 2 show that, on average, men perceived their ex-partners to
be more neurotic, less open, less agreeable, and less conscientious than themselves
whereas women perceived their ex-partners to be more neurotic, less extraverted, less
open, less agreeable and less conscientious than themselves. Note that, for both sexes,
the difference between the self and the former partner was particularly large for
Agreeableness. Thus, it seems that individuals hold relatively negative perceptions of
their former partner‘s personality. With regard to their former partner‘s personality,
only one significant sex difference was found: Ratings of the level of openness of the
ex-partner were higher for men than for women.
205
Finally, Table 3 shows that former partners were judged clearly more dissimilar
with regard to personality, attitudes and sense of humor than the ideal partner, and as
significantly less attractive and intelligent than the ideal partner. For both men and
women mean similarity scores for former partners are above the theoretical midpoint of
the scale, and therefore lean towards complementarity. The frequency distribution
supports this conclusion: 9.0% of participants scored 1 or 2 (indicating similarity),
30.1% scored 3 (indicating neither similarity nor complementarity), and a majority of
60.8% scored 4 or 5 (indicating complementarity). These results indicate that ex-
partners in general are not only judged unfavorably, but are also considered more
complementary than similar to the self.
Discussion
Our findings strongly support the ―similarity-attraction‖ hypothesis: Individuals
clearly desire a potential partner with a similar personality. Nonetheless, individuals did
not seem to attach much importance to finding a similar mate. This was not only true
when individuals were asked about their ideal mate‘s personality, but also with regard
to other characteristics of their ideal partner, such as his or her attractiveness and
intelligence. In line with Dijkstra and Barelds‘ (2008) study, our findings suggest that
people are not aware of the importance of finding a similar mate in terms of personality.
Our findings fit well with the observation that, more in general, people seem to be
confused about, or unaware of, the characteristics they value in a mate (Eastwick &
Finkel, 2008; see also Kurzban & Weeden, 2007; Todd, Penke, Fasolo & Lenton, 2007).
Eastwick and Finkel (2008) found that participants' ideal preferences, assessed before a
speed-dating event, failed to predict what inspired their actual desire at the event.
According to these authors, people often lack the introspective awareness of what
influences their judgments and behaviors in dating situations. Whatever the reason is of
this confusion or unawareness, our study shows that people often also underestimate the
importance of similarity in personality.
In addition to finding a mate with a similar personality, our study showed that
individuals seek a mate who is slightly ‗better‘ than they are: They prefer a mate who is
somewhat less neurotic, more agreeable, more conscientious, more open and more
extraverted than they are themselves. This finding is in line with Rusbult and
206
colleagues‘ (2009) assertion that individuals seek a partner who resembles their ideal
self. According to these authors, individuals feel closer to their ideal self when their
partner possesses key elements of their ideal selves, a phenomenon they refer to as the
‗Michelangelo-phenomenon‘. In addition, we found several gender differences with
regard to the ideal partner. In our opinion, the most interesting one is the finding that
women seemed to set higher standards for an ideal mate‘s personality. More than men,
women look for an agreeable, emotionally stable (i.e., low neurotic), and extraverted
long term partner. Our finding that women set higher standards for a mate than men is
consistent with results of previous studies that have shown women to be more selective
in their choice of both short term and long term mates than men (e.g., Geary, 2010).
Women seem to set especially high standards regarding characteristics that, from an
evolutionary psychological point of view, are important to them. First, high extraversion
and low neuroticism make up a broader trait that has been labeled ‗social dominance‘
(e.g., Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998), a trait that is indicative of future social status (Sadalla,
Kenrick & Vershure, 1987). In addition, women‘s relatively high standards for a
partner‘s agreeableness may reflect the importance women attach to a man‘s nurturing
ability. Whereas social dominance is important for success in the context of intrasexual
competition over scarce resources, a nurturing and agreeable personality is important in
the context of child caring and the intimate relationship with the partner.
Negative perceptions of former partners
Our study also found support for the ‗attraction-similarity hypothesis: former
partners were perceived as being dissimilar to the self in terms of personality. In
contrast to the ideal partner, individuals judged their former partner less favorably than
themselves: they perceived their ex-partner to be more neurotic, less open, less
agreeable, and less conscientious than themselves. Our findings fit well with previous
studies that have revealed negative perceptions of former partners (e.g., Fischer, De
Graaf & Kalmijn, 2005; Gray & Silver, 1990). Especially the large discrepancy between
self-ratings and ratings of former partners in terms of agreeableness seems to support
previous studies‘ claims that, in general, former partners are blamed for the relationship
break up and seen as ‗evil‘ (Amato & Previtti, 2003). Following the ‗attraction-
similarity hypothesis‘, the relatively dissimilar view individuals hold of their former
207
partner should be attributed to lowered feelings of sympathy individuals hold towards
their former partner, indicating that former partners are not actually less similar, but
only in the perception of the beholder. If this line of reasoning is correct, our study
shows that potential feelings of resentment and dislike are not limited to lowered
perceptions of agreeableness, but may be generalized to other aspects of a former
partner‘s personality. Former partners are not only seen as relatively unagreeable, but
also as relatively neurotic, less open, and less conscientious. Our finding that former
partners are perceived as being dissimilar to the self in terms of personality may,
however, also be explained differently. It is possible that individuals indeed had
partners who were dissimilar to themselves. As noted before, mismatches in personality
are a frequently mentioned cause for relationship break-up. If former partners indeed
have dissimilar personalities, our findings underline how difficult it is for many people
to select a mate with a similar personality, or, alternatively, how little value individuals
put on finding a similar partner in terms of personality.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Studies
The present study contributes to the literature for several reasons. Research on
partner personality similarity with regard to either the Big Five or the FFM factors is
scarce, especially among individuals who are in the process of looking for and attracting
a partner, as is research on how important people perceive personality similarity to be.
A noted before, studying this topic is highly relevant. It may shed light on the high
relationship break-up rates, and may especially help explain the high number of break-
ups that can be attributed to mismatches in personality. In addition, the present study
examined a large sample that was heterogeneous with regard to age, whereas most
previous studies on personality similarity have used relatively young individuals.
Finally, the present study is the first to show that former partners are perceived as
relatively dissimilar to the self. Our finding that individuals hold these perceptions of
their former partner may help understand why so many ex-partners, even though the
relationship has ended, often hold such problematic relationships.
Our study also suffers from limitations. One concerns the generalizability of our
findings. Although by now internet dating has become a socially accepted way of
finding a mate, those people who engage in it may differ from those who try to find a
208
mate differently. As a result, it is possible that our findings are not (entirely)
representative of singles that are looking for a mate. Future studies may therefore cross-
validate our findings in a group of singles who are dating in real life. In addition, the
lack of additional biographical data (e.g., ethnicity), makes it impossible to determine to
which extent this sample is representative of the population of single people in The
Netherlands. In addition, we did not have information on the length of the relationship
with the former partner, nor on the time that had passed since the break-up with the
former partner. Both these variables might have been relevant in the context of the
present study. For instance, the longer people are in a relationship with someone, the
better they should be able to accurately describe their partner‘s personality
characteristics. In addition, when a relationship break-up is relatively fresh, individuals
might experience more negative emotions than when a break-up happened a long time
ago. This in turn might affect the ratings of the former partner.
The present study‘s results, as well as the results found in previous studies (e.g.,
Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), may be used to educate people, especially singles, about
what really matters in long-term relationships, for instance, similarity in personality,
instead of complementarity. This seems especially important, because, as noted in the
introduction section, the belief that ‗opposites attract‘ is a popular one. In our opinion, it
is important for authors of articles such as the present one, to spread their findings
among the general public, for instance, through the popular media. More specifically, in
the context of the present paper, a press release went out to inform the media, and thus
the larger public, about our research findings. We hope that the present study inspires
others to study the intriguing question of why people sometimes fall in love with
individuals that differ so much from their initial desires, and increase the chances of
having a troublesome relationship.
References
Amato, P.R., & Previti, D. (2003). People's reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class,
the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626.
Antill, J.K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145-155.
Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 501-518.
209
Barelds, D.P.H. & Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among
partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and
love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479-496.
Boothroyd, L., & Perrett, D. (2008). Father absence, parent-daughter relationships and
partner preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 187-205.
Botwin, M., Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five
factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65,
107-136.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D.M. (1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assessment with
three different data sources. Behavior Genetics, 14, 111-123.
Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K., Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Larsen, R.J. (2001). A half century
of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 63, 491-503.
Buunk, B., & Bosman, J. (1986). Attitude similarity and attraction in marital
relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 133-134.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fletchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender
differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal
Relationships, 9, 271-278.
Byrne, D. (1971) The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Nelson, D. (1965). Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive
reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 659-663.
Byrne, D., Lamberth, J., Palmer, J., & London, O. (1969). Sequential effects as a
function of explicit and implicit interpolated attraction responses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 70-78.
De Graaf, A. (2006). Aantal alleenstaanden gestegen tot 2.5 miljoen [Number of singles
has risen to 2.5 million]. Webmagazine of the Central Bureau of Statistics.
Retrieved May 26th from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-
NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2006/2006-2037-
wm.htm
210
De Raad, B., & Doddema-Winsemius, M. (1992). Factors in the assortment of human
mates: Differential preferences in Germany and the Netherlands. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13, 103-114.
Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D.P.H. (2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or a
complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 595-602.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, A.P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival characteristics: An
evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158-
1166.
Eagly, A.H. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior:
Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
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.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 429-456.
Felmlee, D.H. (2001). From appealing to appalling: Disenchantment with a romantic
partner. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 263-280.
Fischer, T.F.C., De Graaf, P.M., & Kalmijn, M. (2005). Friendly and antagonistic
contact between former spouses after divorce: Patterns and determinants.
Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1131-1163.
Geary, D.C. (2010). Chosing mates. In: D.C. Geary (Ed.), Male, female: The evolution
of human sex differences (pp. 177-212). Washington, US: American
Psychological Association.
Geher, G. (2000). Perceived and actual characteristics of parents and partners: A test of
a Freudian model of mate selection. Current Psychology, 19, 194-214.
Geher, G., Bloodworth, R., Mason, J., Stoaks, C., Downey, H.J., Renstrom, K.L. &
Romero, J.F. (2005). Motivational underpinnings of romantic partner
perceptions: Psychological and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 22, 255-281.
Gil-Burmann, C., Peláez, F., & Sánchez, S. (2002). Mate choice differences according
to sex and age: An analysis of personal advertisements in Spanish newspapers.
Human Nature, 13, 493-508.
211
Gray, J.D., & Silver, R.C. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses'
divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 1180-1191.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1992). Similarity and attraction in close relationships.
Communication Monographs, 59, 209-212.
Haven, S., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (1977). Tucker’s coefficient of congruence as a measure of
factorial invariance: an empirical study. Groningen: Heymans Bulletins.
Karney, B.R., & Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 3-34.
Klohnen, E., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is
attractive--self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment
security?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.
Kurzban, R. and Weeden, J. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of
speed daters? Personal Relationships, 14, 623-632.
Langford, P.H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the Big Five? Evaluating and
abridging Shafer's (1999a) Big Five markers. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 1127-1140.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a
meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57-64.
Luo, S. & Klohnen, E.C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds:
A coupled-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
304-326.
Lutz-Zois, C.J., Bradley, A.C., Mihalik, J.L., & Moorman-Eavers, E.R. (2006).
Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: An
idiographic approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 865-
880.
McCrae, R.R., Martin, T.A., Hrebícková, M., Urbánek, T., Boomsma, D.I., Willemsen,
G., & Costa, P.T. (2008). Personality trait similarity between spouses in four
cultures. Journal of Personality, 76, 1137-1164.
Morry, M. M. (2003). Perceived locus of control and satisfaction in same-sex
friendships. Personal Relationships, 10, 495-509.
Morry, M.M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: A test
212
of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 22, 561-584.
Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Only the congruent survive - Personality
similarities in couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 533-535.
Robins, R.W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E., (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:
Both partners' personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259
Rusbult, C., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K., & Finkel, E. (2009). 'The part of me that you
bring out': Ideal similarity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 61-82.
Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual
attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
Shafer, A.B. (1999). Brief bipolar markers for the Five Factor Model of personality.
Psychological Reports, 84, 1173-1179.
Todd, P.M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., and Lenton, A.P. (2007). Different cognitive
processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 104, 15011-15016.
Tucker, L. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research
Section Report, No. 984). Washington, EC: Department of the Army.
Watson, D., Klohnen, E.C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D.S. (2004).
Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples.
Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.
Yela, C., & Sangrador, J.L. (2001). Perception of physical attractiveness throughout
loving relationships. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6, 57-75.
Ziv, A. (1989). Humor and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 759-
768.
Received: November 13
th
, 2009
Revision Received: November 17th, 2010
Accepted: November 30th, 2010
