Scientists rewired people’s romantic “type” using a made-up trait—here’s what happened next

People often say they have a “type” when it comes to romantic partners. But how do these ideal traits actually influence how we see others—and even who we choose to date? A new study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin offers experimental evidence that ideal partner preferences don’t just reflect who we are drawn to; they also seem to change how we perceive others and where we direct our romantic efforts. The findings suggest that ideals can lead people to see their current partners in a more flattering light and gravitate toward environments that feature partners who match their preferences.

There is a large body of research exploring what traits people say they want in a romantic partner—things like kindness, intelligence, or physical attractiveness. Past studies have found that these ideal preferences are linked to important outcomes, such as satisfaction and commitment. But most of this evidence has been correlational, meaning it can’t determine whether ideals cause these outcomes or merely reflect them.

To address this gap, researchers Ariana da Silva Frost and Paul Eastwick set out to design an experiment that could directly manipulate people’s ideal partner preferences and observe the resulting effects. Their goal was to determine which of four competing theories best explains how ideals influence perceptions, preferences, and behavior in romantic relationships.

Across two large experiments, the researchers tested how people’s ideal partner preferences could be shaped through experience, and how those altered ideals affected their perception of others. Both studies focused on individuals who were attracted to men and were currently in relationships.

The team used a gamified approach called “DateFest,” adapted from previous psychological paradigms, to manipulate participants’ preferences for a novel trait. In the first study, they invented a term—“Reditry”—to represent a trait that was actually babyfacedness or youthfulness. In the second study, they dropped the fictional label and used the real word “youthfulness.”

Free daily newsletter

During the DateFest game, participants encountered images of 24 potential dating partners and had to decide whether or not to go on a hypothetical date with each one. Unknown to the participants, the game was rigged so that in one version of the study, people with higher Reditry (or youthfulness) tended to lead to more positive experiences, while in another version, this trait was only weakly linked to positive outcomes. This allowed the researchers to manipulate how much participants “learned” to value the trait, based on the outcomes of their choices.

After the game, participants answered a variety of questions about their preferences, their current romantic partner, and their perceptions of other people they knew.

The first study included 1,639 participants, the majority of whom were women, with an average age of 28. All were currently in romantic relationships and primarily attracted to men. Participants were randomly assigned to experience either a strong or weak version of the Reditry preference manipulation.

In the second study, 2,027 participants completed the same tasks, except the manipulated trait was explicitly described as youthfulness rather than using a fabricated label. This study also included additional measures to assess whether the effects could be attributed to participants trying to please the researchers or responding to demand characteristics.

In both studies, the researchers assessed four potential outcomes: whether participants perceived their current partner as higher in the target trait, whether the trait influenced their relationship satisfaction, whether it changed how they saw other people in their lives, and whether it influenced hypothetical choices to enter environments with more potential partners who matched the trait.

Across both studies, the strongest and most consistent finding was that participants who were led to value Reditry or youthfulness more also came to believe that their current partner possessed more of that trait. This finding supports what the researchers call the “motivated projection” theory—the idea that people see what they want to see in their romantic partners.

There was also support for what the researchers term “situation selection.” Participants who came to value the trait more strongly expressed greater interest in joining a hypothetical dating website filled with potential partners high in that trait. This suggests that ideals may influence how people shape their romantic opportunities, not just how they evaluate individuals.

The results for the third theory, “perceiver effects,” were more mixed. Participants who were led to value the trait more also tended to believe that their friends and themselves had more of the trait, but this effect did not always extend to strangers or disliked individuals.

The weakest support was found for the idea that people are more satisfied in their relationships when their partner matches their ideals—known as the “preference-matching” or trait-weighting model. This effect emerged in the first study when the trait was labeled “Reditry,” but disappeared in the second study when it was labeled “youthfulness.” The researchers suggest this inconsistency may reflect the difficulty of detecting such effects when the trait has clear real-world meaning or is more resistant to reinterpretation.

Interestingly, the studies also showed that manipulating how much participants valued a trait could alter their interpretation of that trait. For example, participants who were induced to value youthfulness were more likely to interpret it in a positive way (as energetic or active) rather than a negative one (as immature or childish).

But there are limitations to keep in mind. First, both studies focused exclusively on people attracted to men and used male facial stimuli, meaning the results may not generalize to those attracted to women or nonbinary individuals. Second, all participants were in relationships, so the hypothetical nature of some tasks (like the dating website scenario) may have limited their ecological validity.

The traits selected for manipulation—babyfacedness and youthfulness—also have unique characteristics that may not apply to all partner ideals. Future research could apply similar methods to other traits such as ambition, kindness, or physical attractiveness.

Additionally, while these experiments provide strong evidence that ideals influence perception and decision-making, the underlying psychological mechanisms remain unclear. More work is needed to understand exactly how motivated reasoning and belief formation interact in shaping romantic perceptions.

The study, “Experimental Tests of the Role of Ideal Partner Preferences in Relationships,” was authored by Aline da Silva Frost and Paul W. Eastwick.