Initial impressions of compatibility and mate value predict later dating and romantic interest

Abstract

Romantic first impressions seem to linger, but why? Few studies have investigated how romantic desire during initial interactions predicts later relational outcomes (e.g., later romantic interest, contact attempts) using a design that can tease apart different possible mechanisms (e.g., mate value, selectivity, compatibility). Across three speed-dating studies ( n = 559) with longitudinal follow-ups (including college and community samples, and a sample of men who date men), we investigated whether different components of initial romantic impressions predicted later romantic outcomes and relationship initiation. Using the social relations model, we partitioned initial desire at speed dating (determined from 6,600+ total dates) into partner effects (a date’s consensual desirability, e.g., mate value), actor effects (a participant’s general desirousness, e.g., selectivity), and relationship effects (a participant’s unique liking for a date over and beyond partner and actor effects, e.g., compatibility) to predict later evaluations (romantic interest, physical attraction, and desire to know better) and behaviors (direct messaging and going on dates). Meta-analyses across the three studies showed that, across 6,100+ follow-up reports, partner and relationship effects were especially strong predictors of relationship initiation variables. Consistent with evolutionary models of human pair bonding, these findings suggest that both consensually desirable traits and unique impressions of compatibility have lingering effects on relationship development, even from the moment that two potential partners meet.

Individual attractiveness preferences differentially modulate immediate and voluntary attention

“…Future research should aim to disentangle and quantify the effects of general attractiveness and individual attractiveness preferences on attention. For example, a recent study on dating behavior 41 showed that both general and individual preferences uniquely contribute to date outcome, but whether this is also the case for attentional processes remains unknown.…”

“…In fact, a large-scale study showed no evidence that different initial meeting contexts (e.g., bars, church, online) influence divorce rates 87 . In a speed-date context, it has been shown that first impressions, which are asserted by some to reflect short-term mate choice processes, still predict long-term romantic interest 41 . In conclusion, our findings should not be interpreted as the product of uniquely long- or short-term mate choice processes.…”

“…However, recent research has emphasized that it is important to disentangle shared and idiosyncratic contributions to judgments 38 because ample evidence shows that beauty is—at least partly—in the eye of the beholder, as agreement on attractiveness is about 50% 39 , 40 . Importantly, such individual preferences can also influence date success, i.e., willingness to meet again after a first date 41 . These inter-individual variations are possibly the result of differences in environments 42 , such as culture 43 and close social relationships 40 .…”

Initial compatibility during a “Speed‐Dating” test predicts postpairing affiliation in titi monkeys (Plecturocebus cupreus)

“…This is because initial impressions tend to linger: How individuals perceive each other when they first meet predicts how they think, feel, and behave towards each other in the future (Harris & Garris, 2008). In humans, first impressions (even based on short initial interactions) are especially important in the context of dating and romantic relationships, shaping who people pursue as romantic and/or sexual partners (Baxter, Maxwell et al, 2022; Eastwick et al, 2021; Reis et al, 2011). Studies in non‐human species have shown that initial impressions also play an important role in guiding social decisions and affective evaluations as well ( capuchins , squirrel monkeys , and dogs : Anderson et al, 2017; marmosets : Brügger et al, 2021; Kawai et al, 2019; ravens : Müller et al, 2017).…”

“…Thus far, most studies of mate choice (in both humans and nonhuman species) have been premised on the partner effect (i.e., mate value, sexual strategies, etc.). However, there is growing evidence (primarily from human studies) that compatibility also contributes to mate choice and relationship formation (e.g., see Baxter, Maxwell et al, 2022; Eastwick & Hunt, 2014; Eastwick et al, 2021; Zeevi et al, 2022), suggesting that partner and relationship effects may be competing factors that influence how humans (and potentially other pair‐bonding species) evaluate potential mates. For example, according to some evolutionary models of human mating (Eastwick et al, 2019; Hazan & Diamond, 2000), humans evolved to select mates that were genetically‐fit (partner effects) and that they were initially compatible with (relationship effects), as initial compatibility would likely translate to long‐term compatibility, and long‐term partnerships were necessary for mates to successfully rear their offspring (and also to ensure their own survival).…”