Home Top

You SHOULD settle: Researchers find we are more satisfied with the 'best available' partner rather than holding out for the perfect mate

Surveyed 119 men and 140 in relationships for 7 and a half years
Found those who believed mate was desirable were more satisfied
Those with less desirable partners only happy if ideal criteria was met

Published: 22:45 GMT, 20 May 2016 | Updated: 22:52 GMT, 20 May 2016

View
comments

For those who refuse to settle for less than a perfect match, might never find romantic satisfaction.

A new study reveals satisfaction doesn't rely on how someone's partner compared to their ideas of a supreme mate, but how they measure up to others in the dating pool.

Researchers found those who believed their partners exhibited ideal traits and are difficult to replace were more inclined to put forth more effort and were ultimately more satisfied.

Researchers found that those who felt their partner is difficult to replace, whether it is because their partner was more desirable than themselves or closely matched their ideal traits than others in the group, reported being happier and put forth more of an effort to retain their mate.

WHY SHOULD YOU SETTLE?

The study discovered that satisfaction does not necessarily depend on how a partner compared with a person's idea of the perfect mate, but rather whether others in the mating pool better matched a person's ideal preferences.

And those who believed their mate was more desirable than themselves were satisfied – even if they didn't fit their ideal preferences.

But those with less desirable partners were only happy if their ideal criteria for a match was met and if they were better than most of the other potential mates in the group

During a follow-up study, the team tested relationship satisfaction again but this time surveyed how much energy individuals spent on maintaining it.

They found that those who felt their partner is difficult to replace, whether it is because their partner was more desirable than themselves or closely matched their ideal traits than others in the group, reported being happier and put forth more of an effort to retain their mate.

'Satisfaction and happiness are not as clear cut as we think they are,' University of Texas, Austin psychology researcher Daniel Conroy-Beam said in a recent press release.

'We do not need ideal partners for relationship bliss. Instead, satisfaction appears to come, in part, from getting the best partner available to us.'

In order to learn about what contributes to satisfaction in a relationship and how much energy is devoted to maintaining it, they recruited 119 men and 140 women who had been in relationships for an average of seven and a half years.

Surveys asked participants to rate the importance of 27 traits in an ideal mate and the extent to which they felt each trait described both their actual partner and themselves.

This method was then used to calculate each of the participants' and their partners' mate value, or desirability within the mating pool as determined by the group's average ideal preferences.

Satisfaction and happiness in their relationships was also reported in the survey.

The team discovered that satisfaction does not necessarily depend on how a partner compares with a person's idea of the perfect mate, but rather how others in the mating pool better matched a person's ideal preferences.

And those who believed their mate was more desirable than themselves were satisfied – even if they didn't fit their ideal preferences.

However, those with less desirable partners were only happy if their ideal criteria for a match was met and if they were better than most of the other potential mates in the group, said Conroy-Beam.

'Few decisions impact fitness more than mate selection, so natural selection has endowed us with a set of powerfully motivating mate preferences,' Conroy-Beam said.

'We demonstrate that mate preferences continue to shape our feelings and behaviors within relationships in at least two key ways: by interacting with nuanced emotional systems such as how happy we are with our partner and by influencing how much or little effort we devote to keeping them.'

WHY YOU SHOULDN’T WAIT FOR THE PERFECT PARTNER

Evolutionary scientists claim that the human race's survival has been helped by the fact people are risk-averse when it comes to relationships.

They say our nature - traced back to the earliest humans – has evolved so that we take the safe bet when stakes are high, such as whether or not we will mate.

If you're holding out for Mr Right, then you may be better off settling for Mr Right Now.

Researchers from Michigan State University used a computational model to trace risk-taking behaviours through thousands of generations with digital organisms.

The researchers programmed the digital organisms to make decisions in a similar way that natural organisms, such as humans, must make in real life.

The team tested a number variables that influence risk-taking behaviour and found that certain conditions influence our decision-making process.

The decision must be a rare, once-in-a-lifetime event and also have a high payoff for the individual's future – such as the odds of producing children.

How risk averse people is linked to the size of the group in which they are raised.

If raised in a small group – fewer than 150 people - people tend to be much more risk averse than those who were part of a larger community.

It turns out that primitive humans lived in smaller groups, about 150 individuals.

Because resources tend to be more scarce in smaller communities, this environment helps promote risk aversion.

The study also found that evolution doesn't prefer one single, optimal way of dealing with risk, but instead allows for a range of less, and sometimes more-risky, behaviours to evolve.

During a follow-up study, the team tested relationship satisfaction again, but this time surveyed how much energy individuals spent on maintaining it.

'Relationship dissatisfaction and mate guarding intensity, in turn, are key processes linked to outcomes such as infidelity and breaking up, both of which can be costly in evolutionary currencies,' said co-author and psychology professor David Buss.

'Mate preferences matter beyond initial mate selection, profoundly influencing both relationship dynamics and effort devoted to keeping partners.

'Mates gained often have to be retained to reap the adaptive rewards inherent in pair-bonding — an evolutionary hallmark of our species.'