A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

©American Psychological Association, [2024]. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: [ARTICLE DOI]”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 versus 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.Unfunde

Dataset_Closing eyes and creative thinking

Data analyzed in the Palgrave Communications article, "Close, and ye shall find: Eye closure during thinking enhances creativity"

The superiority of up/down over left/right in metaphorical association with emotion

Positive valence links to the upside and dominant side, while negative valence is associated with the downside and non-dominant side (i.e., space-valence metaphor). Previous studies indicate that the effect of the vertical-valence metaphor is more salient than that of the horizontal-valence metaphor. Furthermore, this difference in the saliency is possibly connected with whether the experimental task is related to reaction time (RT) or not. The present study empirically examined these hypotheses; we conducted both the RT and non-RT tasks (i.e., detection task and pointing task, respectively) and compared these results. We found that the effect of the vertical-valence metaphor occurred in both the RT and non-RT tasks, while the typical impact of the horizontal-valence metaphor was not found in both the tasks. Our findings suggest that the effect of the vertical-valence metaphor is salient while the impact of the horizontal-valence metaphor is not robust. Moreover, this difference in the saliency was independent of the kinds of experimental tasks

Goodness of the side of the dominant hand: A registered direct replication of Casasanto (2009)

People associate emotional valence with the side of their dominant and non-dominant hands. Specifically, positive (negative) valence is linked with the side of dominant (non-dominant) hand known as the horizontal-valence metaphor. A previous study demonstrated that participants placed a good (bad) object on the side of their dominant (non-dominant) hand (Casasanto, 2009, J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen, 138, 351–367). This phenomenon indicates that the horizontal-valence metaphor influences our behavior. However, subsequent studies reported that the effect of the horizontal-valence metaphor was not found in the other tasks. These studies raise the following question: Is the effect of the horizontal-valence metaphor robust? In the present registered report, we conducted a direct replication of Experiment 1 from Casasanto’s study (2009). We could not replicate the results of right-handers in the previous study. Moreover, most of the effect sizes in present research were small even though their results were statistically significant. Our findings throw doubt on the robustness of the horizontal-valence metaphor. #Pre-registration of the study can be found at https://psyarxiv.com/rfvp