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.

People often form pair bonds that sustain over an extended period of time (Hazan & Diamond, 2000). Not only do such pair bonds benefit reproduction (Symons, 1979), they play a crucial role in people’s overall physical and mental health (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007; Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014). Indeed, merely being married reduces mortality risk (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). In fact, the effect of poor relationship quality on mortality is as strong as the effects of better-known risk factors, such as smoking and alcohol use, and even stronger than other important factors, such as sedentariness and obesity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Although numerous factors can affect relationship quality (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), individual characteristics of the partners themselves play a significant role (McNulty, 2013). Given the benefits associated with maintaining satisfying long-term relationships, it is important that intimates choose suitable long-term relationship partners.

Nevertheless, there are fundamental differences in the way that people make such choices. One notable way people differ in decision making is the extent to which they labor over and attempt to maximize their outcomes. Drawing on the theory of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955), Schwartz and colleagues (2002) provided evidence that some people aim to make the best choices and, even after making their choices, continue to exhaustively consider all possible alternatives (i.e., maximizers), whereas other people aim to make choices that meet their standards without necessarily being the best (i.e., satisficers). For example, maximizers are more likely to flip through all available radio stations to find the one playing the “best” song and may even continue to check other stations, whereas satisficers are more likely to settle on the first station that is playing a “good enough” song.

In the context of romantic relationships, then, maximizers should attempt to evaluate all possible potential partners and aim to choose the “best” partner while continuing to evaluate alternative partners. Satisficers, in contrast, should seek out partners that meet their standards, or are considered “good enough” partners, without continuing to evaluate other options. Indeed, when evaluating online dating profiles, maximizers examine more profiles than do satisficers (Yang & Chiou, 2010; see also Schwartz, 2004). Maximization, however, should predict more than merely laboring over a choice. Given that people in relationships face alternative partners on a daily basis (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Lydon & Karremans, 2015; McNulty, Meltzer, Makhanova, & Maner, 2018; Rusbult, 1980), the tendency to continually consider options may have important implications for how people evaluate their relationships—and this may be especially true in the context of long-term relationships, where people consider significantly more options over an extended period of time. Indeed, a large body of research demonstrates that maximizing tendencies are negatively associated with people’s satisfaction in a variety of decision-making domains (Besharat, Ladik, & Carrillat, 2014; Bruine de Bruin, Dombrovski, Parker, & Szanto, 2016; Dahling & Thompson, 2012; Newman, Schug, Yuki, Yamada, & Nezlek, 2018).

The goal of the present research was to examine whether people’s tendencies to maximize versus satisfice are associated with their relationship outcomes, and whether such an association depends on the qualities or traits of their partners. In pursuit of this goal, the remainder of this introduction is divided into three sections. The section “Maximization in the Context of Long-Term Romantic Relationships” reviews rational choice theory and highlights the potential negative implications of maximization for people’s long-term romantic relationships. The section “The Moderating Role of Important Partner Qualities” raises the possibility that the association between people’s maximizing tendencies and their long-term relationship outcomes may be moderated by their partners’ readily observable traits—specifically, their physical attractiveness and status. Given the sex-differentiated implications of partner physical attractiveness and partner status for long-term relationship outcomes, this section additionally raises the possibility that any such effects may be further moderated by sex. The section “Overview of the Current Study” summarizes the current research, which uses data from two independent, 3-year longitudinal studies of newlywed couples to test the prediction that people’s maximizing tendencies moderate the sex-differentiated association between partner physical attractiveness and intimates’ marital satisfaction trajectories as well as the sex-differentiated association between partner status and intimates’ marital satisfaction trajectories.

Overview of the Current Study The current study aimed to test whether the associations between two readily observable partner traits—physical attractiveness and status—and intimates’ long-term relationship satisfaction would depend on intimates’ sex and maximizing tendencies. Given that newly married couples recently made the ultimate relationship decision (i.e., choosing a lifelong partner), newlywed couples may be the most ideal sample in which to examine these associations. Indeed, couples often experience dramatic changes during the early years of marriage (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010), and these changes strongly impact subsequent marital success (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001). Thus, we pooled the data from two independent, 3-year longitudinal studies of newlywed couples2 to test our predictions. At baseline in both studies, husbands and wives completed measures of maximizing tendencies and marital satisfaction, and we obtained objective measures of both partners’ physical attractiveness and status. Then, every 4 to 6 months for the subsequent 3 years, husbands and wives again completed a measure of marital satisfaction. Given both studies’ parallel designs, we combined and simultaneously analyzed all data to maximize power (and, as will be seen in the “Results” section, our key effects were not moderated by study). We predicted that partner physical attractiveness would differentially predict maximizing (but not satisficing) men’s and women’s marital satisfaction. Likewise, we predicted that partner status would differentially predict maximizing (but not satisficing) men’s and women’s marital satisfaction. Notably, these associations could potentially emerge on intimates’ initial satisfaction and/or changes in their satisfaction over time.

Method Participants Participants in Study 1 were 113 husbands and 112 wives (comprising 113 heterosexual newlywed couples) participating in a broader longitudinal study in Northern Texas (one wife did not complete the maximization measure and thus could not be included in the current analyses). Participants in Study 2 were 119 husbands and wives (comprising 120 newlywed couples) participating in a broader longitudinal study in Northern Florida (one couple self-identified as a same-sex couple and, given our sex-differentiated predictions, could not be included in the current analyses). In each study, recruitment was initially planned for 12 months but was extended for one additional month (but no longer due to time and monetary limitations) to increase sample size. A post hoc power analysis that accounted for the repeated observations (multiple ratings within each participant; Snijders & Bosker, 2012) suggested that the 3,955 observations—or, effectively 856 observations—were, not surprisingly, relatively nonindependent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .48); nevertheless, the study had nearly ample power to detect the smallest, significant effect of interest (power = .75). Couples in both studies were recruited via invitations sent to couples in the surrounding area who had recently applied for marriage licenses; participants in Study 2 were additionally recruited via fliers and Facebook advertising. As part of the broader goals of the studies, eligibility required that all participants (a) had been married for less than 4 months in Study 1 and less than 3 months in Study 2, (b) were at least 18 years of age, and (c) spoke English (to ensure comprehension of the questionnaires). Study 1 additionally required that both couple members were in their first marriage. At baseline, husbands and wives in Study 1 were 27.97 years (SD = 5.61 years) and 26.96 years (SD = 4.86 years) of age, respectively, and had completed 15.20 years (SD = 2.77 years) and 15.83 years (SD = 2.86 years) of education, respectively. Seventy-one percent of husbands and 53% of wives were employed full time and 13% of husbands and wives were full-time students. The sample was relatively diverse compared with other samples of newlywed couples (Karney, Kreitz, & Sweeney, 2004); 48% of husbands and wives self-identified as Caucasian, 28% of husbands and 26% of wives self-identified as Black or African American, 16% of husbands and wives self-identified as Hispanic or Latino/a, 3% of husbands and 5% of wives self-identified as Asian, and 5% of husbands and wives self-identified as another race/ethnicity. Couples had been together for an average of 39.47 months (SD = 33.28 months) prior to marriage and 24% of the couples had children. At baseline, husbands and wives in Study 2 were 32.09 years (SD = 9.88 years) and 30.15 years (SD = 8.09 years) of age, respectively, and had completed 15.86 years (SD = 2.32 years) and 16.19 years (SD = 2.35 years) of education, respectively. Seventy-one percent of husbands and 61% of wives were employed full time and 20% of husbands and 19% of wives were full-time students. Seventy-seven percent of husbands and 78% of wives self-identified as Caucasian, 13% of husbands and 12% of wives self-identified as Black or African American, 3% of husbands and 4% of wives self-identified as Hispanic or Latino/a, 1% of husbands and wives self-identified as Asian, 2% of husbands and 5% of wives identified as having two or more ethnicities, and 4% of husbands self-identified as another race/ethnicity. Couples had been together for an average of 43.34 months (SD = 31.41 months) prior to marriage and 27% of the couples had children. Procedure After enrolling in each study, participants completed a battery of questionnaires via Qualtrics.com or through the mail prior to a laboratory session. These questionnaires included a consent form approved by each study’s local human subjects review board; measures of maximizing tendencies, income, and global marital satisfaction; additional measures beyond the scope of the current analyses; and a letter instructing all spouses to complete their questionnaires independently of one another. At their laboratory session, we took each spouse’s photograph, which provided objective information regarding intimates’ physical attractiveness (as described in the next section). All couples received US$100 for completing these questionnaires and the corresponding session. Across the subsequent 3 years, we recontacted couples at approximately 6-month (for a total of seven assessments in Study 1) or 4-month (for a total of 10 assessments in Study 2) intervals, and again mailed each spouse a global marital satisfaction questionnaire, along with a letter of instruction reminding spouses to complete their questionnaires independently. Couples received a check (Study 1 = US$30, Study 2 = US$25) after completing each follow-up assessment. Measures Physical attractiveness For each study, a group of trained research assistants (Study 1, N = 5; Study 2, N = 4) used the photographs to rate each intimate’s facial attractiveness on a scale ranging from 1 to 10, where higher ratings indicate more physically attractive faces. We centered each intimate’s face in the photo and instructed coders to rate only the facial attractiveness of each person. To ensure that each intimate’s attractiveness ratings were made independent of his or her partner’s attractiveness, coders rated all husbands first followed by all wives. As other research has suggested (see Meltzer et al., 2014a), objective ratings of physical attractiveness help minimize the influence of factors confounded with own or partner perceptions of attractiveness. Consistent with findings that people within and across cultures show very high levels of agreement regarding who is attractive (Langlois et al., 2000), our coders demonstrated adequate levels of agreement (Study 1: ICC = .82 for husbands, ICC = .92 for wives; Study 2: ICC = .85 for husbands, ICC = .86 for wives). Status Prior research has demonstrated that income is a readily observable indicator of objective status (Fieder et al., 2005; Li et al., 2002). Thus, at baseline, we assessed intimates’ yearly income. Specifically, participants indicated how much money they earned during the previous year before accounting for taxes or other deductions (reported in the thousands). One husband in Study 1 and one wife in Study 2 reported extremely high incomes (each were more than 8 standard deviations above the sample mean) and thus we truncated their incomes to match the next highest income reported (US$215K). Across both studies, 11 (4.7%) husbands and 22 (9.5%) wives failed to provide their yearly incomes and thus could not be included in analyses that utilized income as a predictor (though we replaced each missing value with the sample average in analyses that utilized income as a covariate to maximize our sample size). Maximizing tendencies At baseline, we assessed intimates’ maximizing tendencies using the Maximization Scale (Schwartz et al., 2002), which assesses individual differences in the tendency to satisfice versus maximize across numerous different domains and thus captures intimates’ general maximizing tendencies. Intimates indicated the extent to which they agreed with 13 statements using a 7-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree,” 7 = “Strongly agree). Higher scores reflect a greater tendency to maximize; lower scores reflect a greater tendency to satisfice. In the current study, internal consistency of this measure was modest (Study 1: α = .70; Study 2: α = .69) but similar to what others have demonstrated (Schwartz et al., 2002). Given known issues surrounding Cronbach’s alpha (McNeish, 2018), however, this somewhat low reliability is likely an underestimate of the measure’s true reliability and, as will be seen in the “Results” section, did not undermine our ability to detect effects. Marital satisfaction At baseline and all follow-up assessments, we assessed global marital satisfaction using the Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983). Intimates indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with six general statements about their marriage (e.g., “My relationship with my partner makes me happy”). Five items ask intimates to respond according to a 7-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree,” 7 = “Strongly agree”), whereas one item asks intimates to respond according to a 10-point scale (1 = “Very unhappy,” 10 = “Perfectly happy”), yielding scores from 6 to 45. Higher scores reflect greater satisfaction with the marriage. Internal consistency was high across all assessments in both studies (all αs ≥ .90). Covariates To ensure that partner physical attractiveness, partner status, and intimates’ maximizing tendencies did not appear to be associated with intimates’ marital satisfaction only because they are associated with related factors, we assessed and controlled several covariates. Specifically, given that physical attractiveness and status are associated with age (see Meltzer et al., 2014b) and social skills/extraversion (Langlois et al., 2000; Meier, Robinson, Carter, & Hinsz, 2010), we assessed partner age and extraversion at baseline and controlled for each (Study 1 utilized the 10-item version of the International Personality Item Pool’s [Goldberg, 1999] Extraversion subscale, α = .88; whereas Study 2 utilized the 60-item version, α = .93). Across both studies, two husbands did not provide their age and one wife did not complete the extraversion measure. In addition, given that the association between partner physical attractiveness and marital satisfaction depends on intimates’ own physical attractiveness (McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008; Meltzer, McNulty, Novak, Butler, & Karney, 2011), we aimed to minimize the likelihood that any association between partner physical attractiveness, intimates’ sex, maximizing tendencies, and marital satisfaction was not due to intimates’ own attractiveness. Thus, we controlled for objective ratings of intimates’ own facial attractiveness in analyses that utilized partner attractiveness as a predictor. Likewise, to minimize the likelihood that any association between partner income, intimates’ sex, maximizing tendencies, and marital satisfaction was not due to intimates’ own income, we controlled for intimates’ own income in analyses that utilized partner income as a predictor. Finally, many intimates in both studies self-identified as full-time students, which would negatively affect the validity of yearly income as a measure of partner status; thus, we assessed and additionally controlled intimates’ student status (coded such that nonstudents = −1 and full-time students = 1) in analyses that utilized partner income as a predictor.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank James K. McNulty for granting us access to his data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation for this article was supported by start-up funds awarded to Andrea L. Meltzer from Southern Methodist University (Study 1) and by a National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1251520 awarded to James K. McNulty (Study 2).

Notes 1.

Maximizing strategies are most frequently conceptualized as a continuous individual-difference variable. Nevertheless, consistent with other scholars and for the sake of clarity, we refer to “satisficing” and “maximizing” as if they are categorically distinct constructs. 2.

These data come from two existing datasets that have been used to publish other unrelated findings (e.g., French, Meltzer, & Maner, 2017; Meltzer et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the findings reported in the present work have never been reported, and these samples are independent from those reported in Meltzer et al., 2014. 3.

The mixed-model function in SPSS utilizes the Satterwaite approximation to calculate the degrees of freedom, which allows for noninteger degrees of freedom. 4.

We imputed missing cases of our covariates with the mean of the nonmissing cases to retain the largest possible sample size. 5.

Given the dyadic nature of our data, readers may wonder whether this association is further moderated by partner maximization (for details regarding this exploratory analysis, see the supplemental material). It is worth noting, however, that such dyadic effects would likely further depend on intimates’ own readily observable qualities and thus such an analysis would require at least two additional variables (i.e., partner maximization, own attractiveness/status) and all their corresponding interaction terms. The current study is unfortunately underpowered to test such a model (i.e., a five-way interaction), but future research may benefit from exploring this possibility.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article. ORCID iD

Juliana E. French https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9464-2343