Maximizing men ("No matter what I do, I have the highest standards for myself") who had attractive wives more satisfied at start of their marriages; maximazing women who had high status husbands experienced less steep declines in satisfaction over time

Maximizing Tendencies in Marriage: Accentuating the Implications of Readily Observable Partner Characteristics for Intimates’ Satisfaction. Juliana E. French, Andrea L. Meltzer.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, March 5, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219832337

Abstract: People differ in their tendencies to labor over decisions and to make choices that maximize their outcomes—a difference known as maximization. Here, we used two independent, 3-year longitudinal studies of newlywed couples to demonstrate that this individual difference in decision making has important implications for romantic relationships. Consistent with the idea that maximizers are more likely to compare their current romantic partners to potential alternative partners’ readily observable qualities, such as their physical attractiveness and status, results demonstrated that intimates’ maximization moderated the implications of these sex-differentiated variables for marital satisfaction. Specifically, maximizing men who had attractive (vs. unattractive) wives were more satisfied at the start of their marriages. Likewise, maximizing women who had high (vs. low) status husbands experienced less steep declines in satisfaction over time. These findings demonstrate that maximization has important implications for long-term romantic relationships by accentuating the effects of readily observable partner qualities on relationship outcomes.

Keywords: maximizing tendencies, physical attractiveness, status, sex differences, marriage

Discussion

Rationale and Summary of Results

After choosing a long-term partner, intimates face a barrage of potential alternative partners. Given that maximizers (vs. satisficers) more frequently attend to such potential alternatives and compare the readily observable, desirable traits of those alternatives (e.g., physical attractiveness, status) to their current partners’ traits, they may be at greater risk of experiencing poorer relationship outcomes, to the extent that their partners compare less favorably to such alternatives. Nevertheless, if their partners compare more favorably to such alternatives, maximizers (vs. satisficers) may experience better relationship outcomes. Given the sex-differentiated preferences for partner physical attractiveness and partner status (e.g., Buss, 1989; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Kenrick et al., 1990; Li et al., 2002; Meltzer et al., 2014b; but also see Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), we predicted that maximizing men (vs. women) would be more satisfied to the extent that their partners are relatively attractive, and that maximizing women (vs. men) would be more satisfied to the extent that their partners have relatively high status. We pooled the data from two independent, 3-year longitudinal studies of newlywed couples to test these predictions. Results were consistent with predictions. Maximizing men (vs. women) were more satisfied at the start of their marriages to the extent that they had physically attractive partners; in contrast, satisficing men and women were no more or less satisfied at the start of their marriages to the extent that they had physically attractive partners. Likewise, maximizing women (vs. men) experienced less steep declines in marital satisfaction across the first three years of marriage to the extent that their partners had high incomes; in contrast, satisficing men and women experienced no more or less steep declines in marital satisfaction to the extent that their partners had high incomes. It is worth noting, however, that our higher order associations emerged as marginally (rather than traditionally) significant; results should thus be interpreted with caution until they can be replicated.

An astute reader may have noticed that maximizing women with attractive (vs. unattractive) partners were relatively less satisfied at the start of their marriages, and maximizing men with high (vs. low) status partners experienced relatively steeper declines in satisfaction over time. Although we did not predict such simple effects a priori, these findings are consistent with other research. Other scholars have demonstrated, for example, that women with attractive (vs. unattractive) partners are more concerned about sexual infidelity (White, 1980), which appears to be a valid concern—attractive, partnered men not only desire more frequent extra-pair relations (White, 1980), they engage in more frequent sexual infidelity (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997; cf. Rhodes, Morley, & Simmons, 2013). Likewise, other scholars have demonstrated that increases in partnered women’s income leads to declines in their partners’ overall well-being over time (Rogers & DeBoer, 2001), and is associated with an increased likelihood of marital dissolution (Ono, 1998; Teachman, 2010). As the current work demonstrates, however, individual differences such as women’s maximizing tendencies can moderate these associations. Indeed, partner attractiveness was negatively associated with maximizing wives’ initial marital satisfaction but unassociated with satisficing wives’ initial marital satisfaction, and partner income was positively associated with maximizing husbands’ declines in marital satisfaction but unassociated with satisficing husbands’ declines in marital satisfaction.

Implications and Future Directions

These results have several important theoretical implications. Perhaps most notably, the current research demonstrates the critical implications of an important individual difference in decision-making styles for long-term romantic relationships—maximization. The choice of a long-term partner is a relatively enduring one that has notable implications for people’s overall physical and mental health (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Proulx et al., 2007; Robles et al., 2014). For these reasons, decision making in this domain is critical; thus, it is likely that people attend to certain qualities in potential partners that will maximize their outcomes. Nevertheless, there are individual differences in such maximizing tendencies, and the current research provides novel evidence that such differences have implications for long-term relationship outcomes. Moreover, the current findings suggested that maximizers are not always successful in maximizing their outcomes. Indeed, maximizing men with unattractive partners were relatively dissatisfied with their marriages, and maximizing women with low-status partners experienced relatively steeper declines in marital satisfaction over time. These negative outcomes are likely due to maximizers’ tendencies to frequently attend to relationship alternatives (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). Although we were unable to directly test this mechanism in the current research, future research may benefit from doing so. Future research may also benefit from continuing to examine additional ways that maximization influences romantic relationships. For example, given men’s relative preference for sexual novelty (Little, DeBruine, & Jones, 2014), maximizing men (vs. women) may be at greater risk of lower sexual satisfaction in their long-term relationships, though this effect may be buffered by their partners’ willingness to introduce sexual novelty. Likewise, maximization may play an important role in individuals’ decision to marry such that maximizers may engage in longer courtships or be more hesitant to agree to marriage.

The current research also has implications for our understanding of maximization more generally. In contrast to most previous research demonstrating that maximizers (vs. satisficers) experience more negative outcomes following decision-making processes (Besharat et al., 2014; Bruine de Bruin et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2018), the current studies are among the first (at least to our knowledge) to demonstrate that some maximizers can actually experience more positive outcomes—especially in decision-making domains where an exhaustive search of all possibilities is impossible (Newman et al., 2018; Schwartz et al., 2002). Indeed, maximizing men were more satisfied to the extent that they had attractive partners, and maximizing women were more satisfied to the extent that they had high-status partners. Future research may benefit from further exploring other domains in which maximizers experience similar positive outcomes.

Readers familiar with the maximization literature may have noticed that, in the current research, maximization was, on average, unassociated with intimates’ initial satisfaction or changes in marital satisfaction (see the simple effects of maximization in Tables 2 and 3). Decisions regarding who to marry are critically important, and may be one of the most important decisions that people make in their lives. Given the enduring nature of such a decision, it is possible that newly married couples are less susceptible to such negative outcomes (at least at the beginning) because they may more heavily weigh the potential costs and benefits of their decision, and because they hold relatively positive illusions (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). Indeed, we are unaware of other research that has examined the implications of maximization for such important life decisions. Although Mikkelson and Pauley (2013) demonstrated that maximizers (vs. satisficers) were less satisfied with their relationships, they utilized samples of undergraduate women, and the implications of choosing dating partners in young adulthood are notably less consequential than the implications of choosing marriage partners in adulthood. Of course, in the current research, the null association between intimates’ maximizing tendencies and their relationship outcomes were moderated by the quality of their partners.

The current findings also help reconcile inconsistencies in support for evolutionary-based theories such as sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972). According to such theories, partner attractiveness should more positively impact men’s (vs. women’s) long-term relationship outcomes, and partner status should more positively impact women’s (vs. men’s) long-term relationship outcomes. Although such effects have emerged in numerous studies (e.g., Li et al., 2013; Meltzer et al., 2014b), they have failed to emerge in other studies (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Eastwick et al., 2014). It is worth noting that the sex-differentiated effect of partner attractiveness trended toward significance in the current research, and the sex-differentiated effect of partner status emerged in the predicted direction. Nevertheless, both effects emerged more strongly for maximizers than for satisficers. It may thus be that unknown sample differences in maximization have accentuated sex differences in prior studies that demonstrated the predicted effect (e.g., Li et al., 2013; Meltzer et al., 2014b) and attenuated those differences in research that failed to demonstrate the predicted effect (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008, though see Meltzer et al., 2014a). Considering maximizing tendencies and other important individual differences in future research may provide more consistent results.

Finally, future research may benefit from considering the function of individual differences in maximizing tendencies—that is, why some people expend the time and energy necessary to labor over their decision making, such as choosing a suitable long-term partner, whereas other people do not. It may be that such individual differences reflect differences in individual needs, such as those stemming from different life histories. According to life history theory, the harshness and unpredictability of people’s childhood environments can affect their psychological and behavioral functioning in adulthood (e.g., Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Simpson, Griskevicius, Kuo, Sung, & Collins, 2012). People who are exposed to unpredictable early environments tend to be more opportunistic, be more impulsive, and are more likely to seek immediate gratification; thus, they may also be more likely to adopt satisficing tendencies when choosing a relationship partner. That is, they may be more likely to choose a “good enough” partner. People who are exposed to stable early environments, in contrast, tend to be long-term planners who delay gratification for later and potentially larger payoffs; thus, they may be more likely to adopt maximizing tendencies when choosing a relationship partner. That is, they may consider all possible partners in hopes of choosing the “best” partner. In other words, people’s maximizing tendencies may be a result of their early environmental exposure. Future research may benefit from examining this possibility, as well as whether early environmental experiences similarly moderate the effects of partner physical attractiveness and partner status on long-term relationship outcomes.

Strengths and Limitations

Several strengths of this research enhance our confidence in the findings reported here. First, the studies drew from, and did not vary across, two independent studies of marriage, which allowed for increased power. Second, in contrast to using newly formed or hypothetical relationships, the current study utilized samples of participants who were all young, married couples for whom the measured outcomes were real and consequential. Finally, analyses in the current study controlled numerous potential confounds (i.e., own attractiveness, own income, partner age, partner extraversion, and partner student status), helping to decrease the possibility that the results were spurious or suppressed due to associations with those variables. Nevertheless, supplemental analyses also demonstrated that the key effects continued to emerge in uncontrolled models.

Despite these strengths, several factors limit interpretations of the current findings until they can be replicated and extended. First, whereas the relative homogeneity of our two samples enhances our confidence in the pattern of associations that emerged, this lack of variability limits our ability to generalize these findings to other samples of couples (e.g., short-term couples, older married couples, nonheterosexual couples). Maximizing tendencies, for example, may similarly affect relatively shorter term relationships (e.g., dating relationships). Likewise, it is possible that maximizing tendencies may not moderate the association between partner attractiveness and relationship satisfaction among older couples. Given that the current predictions were derived from evolutionary perspectives and the notion that partner attractiveness is important to relationship outcomes due to its association with fertility and successful reproduction, partner attractiveness may no longer differentially affect older men’s and women’s long-term relationships (for a related discussion, see Meltzer et al., 2014a). Future research may benefit from examining this possibility and the extent to which the current findings generalize. Second, although we had a priori, theoretically driven predictions for two different traits that should matter for intimates’ relationship satisfaction in contextually different ways, the predicted effects emerged as marginally (rather than traditionally) significant. Nevertheless, there are notable challenges associated with conducting longitudinal, dyadic research (e.g., stringent inclusion criteria, resource intensiveness; see Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2015) as well as known statistical difficulties of detecting moderator effects (McClelland & Judd, 1993); thus, we believe that the results reported here warrant notable consideration. Of course, future research would benefit from replicating the current results using a larger sample that is specifically designed to test these associations. Finally, the data presented here are correlational and thus are unable to support strong causal conclusions. Although we were able to control some variables that could have been responsible for the associations observed here, other potential third variables remained uncontrolled.