The Association Between Romantic Rejection and Change in Ideal Standards, Ideal Flexibility, and Self-Perceived Mate Value
Abstract
Abstract. Research has shown that ideal romantic standards predict future partner characteristics and influence existing relationships, but how standards develop and change among single individuals has yet to be explored. Guided by the Ideal Standards Model (ISM), the present study sought to determine whether repeated experiences of romantic rejection and acceptance over time were associated with change in ideal standards, ideal flexibility, and self-perceived mate value (N = 208). Results suggest repeated experiences of rejection correspond to decreases in ideal standards and self-perceived mate value and increases in ideal flexibility, though no effects emerged for acceptance. Given the predictive nature of ideal standards and the link rejection has with such, findings from this study contribute to a greater understanding of relationship formation processes.
References
2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X
(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
(2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8805–8810. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533220100
(2017). Ideal standards, acceptance, and relationship satisfaction: Latitudes of differential effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01691
(2016). Initial evidence that individuals form new relationships with partners that more closely match their ideal preferences. Collabra: Psychology, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.24
(2013). Inferring a partner’s ideal discrepancies: Accuracy, projection, and the communicative role of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033009
(2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274006
(2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003
(2017). Factor, factor, on the whole, who’s the best fitting of all?: Factors of mate preferences in a large sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044
(2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411417545
(2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35-year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9
(2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 835–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.004
(2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933
(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
(2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347
(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
(2014). The mating sociometer and attractive others: A double-edged sword in romantic relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.872594
(2010). The mating sociometer: A regulatory mechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018188
(1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951
(2003).
(An evolutionary-psychological approach to self-esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions . In G. J. FletcherM. S. ClarkEds., Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 411–436). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998557.ch162003). Mate Value Inventory-11. [Database record] Retrieved from PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t10286-000
(1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-v
(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(00)80003-9
(1995).
(Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive . In M. H. KernisEd., Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1280-0_72006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 662–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662
(2010). All you need is love: Is the sociometer especially sensitive to one’s mating capacity? European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.619
(2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003
(2007).
(How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions . In G. GeherM. MillerEds., Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37–75). New York, NY: Psychology Press.1998a). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v10n01_04
(1998b). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412004
(2016). The effect of mate value feedback on women’s mating aspirations and mate preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.007
(2012). The influence of mate-rejection on self-perceived mate value: Testing the mating sociometer. Advances in Psychology, 2, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2012.25038
(2001).
(The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships . In G. J. FletcherM. S. ClarkEds., Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998557.ch42007). Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 513–522. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-06914-014
(2007). Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate’s qualities. Studia Psychologica, 49, 251–263. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17121-006
(2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011–15016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705290104
(1972).
(Parental investment and sexual selection . In B. CampbellEd., Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129266-72015). Heterosexual rejection and mate choice: A sociometer perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01846
(