Ideal-Actual Mate Mismatch and Relational Out-comes in Romantic Couples

Year 2021, Volume: 17 Issue: 33, 47 - 66, 31.01.2021

Elçin Aktürk

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.729470

Abstract

This study aims at ascertaining how the discrepancy between people’s ideal standards and romantic partner traits are associated with relationship constructs among romantic couples. Specifically, this study aims to examine how the relationship evaluations of the parties change when a person’s romantic partner does not match the characteristics, s/he dreams or desires within the framework of the Ideal Standards Model. The main hypothesis of the study was that not only the participants’ own, but also their partner’s ideal-actual discrepancy would be negatively associated with relationship quality, basic need satisfaction and perceived partner responsiveness. A total of 154 romantic couples participated in the study. Results of Actor Partner Interdependence Model analyses revealed that both one’s own and one’s partner’s higher ideal-actual discrepancy were associated with lower perceived partner responsiveness, basic need fulfillment and relationship quality. The findings replicate and support the previous studies regarding relationship quality and provide contributions to the relevant literature in terms of need satisfaction in relationships and perceived partner responsiveness.

Keywords

ideal-actual mate mismatch, relational outcomes, romantic couples

Romantik Çiftlerde İdeal-Gerçek Eş Uyuşmazlığı ve İlişkisel Sonuçları

Abstract

Bu çalışma, kişilerin ideal standartları ile romantik partner özellikleri arasındaki uyuşmazlığın, romantik çiftlerde önemli ilişki değişkenleriyle nasıl ilişkili olduğunu tespit etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Spesifik olarak, bir kişi hayal ettiği veya arzuladığı özelliklerle uyuşmayan bir romantik partnerle birlikte olduğunda tarafların ilişki değerlendirmelerinin nasıl değiştiğini Ideal Standartlar Modeli çerçevesinde incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Temel hipotez, romantik ilişkide olan kişilerin hem kendi hem partnerlerinin ideal-gerçek partner uyuşmazlığının ilişki niteliği, ilişkide temel ihtiyaçların karşılanması ve algılanan partner duyarlılığı ile olumsuz yönde ilişkili bulunacağı şeklindedir. Bu ilişkiler, sadece kişinin kendi ilişkisel değişkenleri için değil, aynı zamanda romantik partnerinin ilişkisel değişkenleri için de beklenmektedir. Çalışmaya romantik çiftler (N = 154) katılmıştır. Aktör Partner Karşılıklı-Bağımlılık Modeli analizlerinin sonuçları, hem kişinin kendisinin hem de partnerinin ideal-gerçek uyuşmazlığının, algılanan partner duyarlılığı, ilişkide temel ihtiyaçların karşılanması ve ilişki niteliğiyle olumsuz yönde ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular ilişki kalitesi açısından önceki araştırmaları tekrarlayarak ederek desteklerken, ilişkide temel ihtiyaçların karşılanması ve algılanan partner duyarlılığı açısından ilgili alan yazına katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

ideal-gerçek eş uyuşmazlığı, ilişkisel sonuçlar, romantik çiftler

References

• Campbell, L., and Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.
• Campbell, L., Simpson, J., Kashy, D., and Fletcher, G. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447–462. doi:10.1177/ 0146167201274006
• Campbell, L., and Stanton, S.C.E. (2014) The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences in relationship formation: What we know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 485–494. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/spc3.12126
• Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
• Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
• Durante, K. M., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Gangestad, S. W., and Simpson, J. A. (2016). Pair-bonded relationships and romantic alternatives: Toward an integration of evolutionary and relationship science perspectives. In Olson J. M., ve Zanna M. P. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (p. 1–74). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
• Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., and Hunt, L. L. (2013, April 15). The predictive validity of ıdeal partner preferences: A review and meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0032432
• Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., and Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032. doi:10.1037/a0024062
• Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., and Simpson, J. A. (2019). Best practices for testing the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 167-181.
• Eastwick, P. W., and Neff, L. A. (2012). Do ideal partner preferences predict divorce? A tale of two metrics. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 667–674. doi:10.1177/1948550611435941
• Fletcher, G. J. O., and Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00070
• Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., and Thomas, G. (2000a). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. doi:10.1037/00223514.79.6.933
• Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., and Thomas, G. (2000b). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340– 354. doi:10.1177/0146167200265007
• Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., and Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
• Fletcher, G.J.O., Kerr, P.S.G., Li, N.P., and Valentine, K.A. (2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 540–550. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519481.
• Gerlach, T. M., Arslan, R. C., Schultze, T., Reinhard, S. K., and Penke, L. (2019). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000170
• Gündoğdu Aktürk, E. (2017). Ideal-actual mate mismatch and relational outcomes in romantic couples. Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Kashy, D. A., and Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.
• La Guardia, J. G., and Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49, 201-209. doi:10.1037/a0012760
• La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.
• Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., and Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 662–685. doi:10.1037/00223514.91.4.662
• Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., and Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293.
• Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science, Personal Relationships, 14, 1-23.
• Reis, H. T. (2012). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing theme for the study of relationships and well-being. In L. Campbell and T. J. Loving (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Research onCclose Relationships: The Case for Integration (p. 27–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.q
• Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., and Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek and A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (p. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., and Berscheid, E. (2000). Relationships in human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872.
• Rodriguez L. M., Hadden B. W., and Knee C. R. (2015). Not all ideals are equal: Intrinsic and extrinsic ideals in relationships. Personal Relationships, 22, 138–152. doi:10.1111/pere.12068
• Sağkal, A. S. and Özdemir, Y. (2018). Algilanan romantik ilişki kalitesi ölçeği’nin (ARİKÖ) Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmasi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 22- 40.
• Taşfiliz, D., Sagel, E.,and Selcuk, E. (2017). Algılanan partner duyarlılığında yaş farklılıkları ve iyi oluş hali ile ilişkisi. Manuscript in preparation.
• Zelenski, J. M., and Larsen, R. J. (2000). The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: A state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 178-197.