Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 76, No. 1, 72-89 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/99/S3.00 Ideals in Intimate Relationships Garth J. O. Fletcher University of Canterbury Jeffry A. Simpson Texas A&M University Geoff Thomas and Louise Giles University of Canterbury This research examined lay relationship and partner ideals in romantic relationships from both a social-cognitive and an evolutionary perspective. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that the qualities of an ideal partner were represented by 3 factors (partner warmth-trustworthiness, vitality-attractiveness, and status-resources), whereas the qualities of an ideal relationship were represented by 2 factors (relation- ship intimacy-loyalty and passion). A confirmatory factor analysis in Study 3 replicated these factor structures but found considerable overlap across the partner and relationship dimensions. Studies 4 and 5 produced convergent and discriminant validity evidence for all 5 factors. Study 6 indicated that the higher the consistency between the ideals and related assessments of the current partner and relationship, the more positively the current relationship was evaluated. How do people know whether they are in a good or a bad intimate relationship? On what basis do people decide whether to become more involved, live together, get married, or look for another mate? These are some of the most complex and difficult questions that relationship researchers grapple with, and a variety of theories have been developed to address them (see Fletcher & Fitness, 1996). One answer to such questions is that judgments or decisions concerning a particular relationship should be based, at least in part, on the consistency between general relationship standards or expectations, on the one hand, and perceptions of the current relationship, on the other (e.g., see Fletcher & Thomas, 1996; Rusbult, Onizuka, & Lipkus, 1993; Sternberg & Barnes, 1985). This idea is hardly new, being originally formulated by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) (as part of interdependence theory) as the contrast between what people believe they deserve in a relation- ship (comparison level) and the perceived level of awards derived from the relationship (outcomes). According to interdependence theory, comparison levels reflect the average amount of reward value that can be obtained from relationships. However, recent research and theorizing suggest that comparisons between prior standards and perceptions of current relationships are likely to be made on content-rich dimensions involving specific ideal stan- dards rather than on global dimensions reflecting general expec- tations of the rewards available in relationships. The present research examined the structure and function of romantic relation- Garth J. O. Fletcher, Geoff Thomas, and Louise Giles, Psychology Department, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; Jeffry A. Simpson, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Garth J. O. Fletcher, Psychology Department, University of Canterbury, Christ- church, Private Bag 4800, New Zealand. Electronic mail may be sent to g.fletcher@psyc.canterbury.ac.nz. ship ideals, guided by past research and theorizing drawn from both social-cognitive and evolutionary approaches. Structure and Content of Partner and Relationship Ideals A Social-Cognitive Approach From a social-cognitive standpoint, partner and relationship ideals will include chronically accessible knowledge structures that are likely to predate— and be causally related to—judgments and decisions made in ongoing relationships. There are several reasons why ideals should play a prominent role in ongoing relationships. First, intimate relationships are very important in many people's lives. Hence, it is hardly surprising that relationships are the subject of considerable lay theorizing and cognitive work (both conscious and unconscious) at both the individual and cultural levels (see Berscheid, 1994; Fletcher & Thomas, 1996). Second, there is no shortage of material from which people can develop their ideal standards. In addition to personal experience and observation of other people's relation- ships, individuals are subjected, on a daily basis, to voluminous doses of relationship-oriented information (at least in developed countries) via TV, novels, films, books, plays, and so forth. Third, ideals are appropriate knowledge structures to serve as standards against which perceptions of the relationship and partner can be gauged, subsequently influencing relationship evaluations. Fourth, ideals are located in the right kind of cognitive "niche" to exert considerable influence over current relationship cognition and behavior. This last proposition is based on the notion that stored relationship-relevant knowledge constructs tend to involve three interlocking domains: the self, the partner, and the relationship (see Baldwin, 1992; Fletcher & Thomas, 1996). Figure 1 depicts the relations among these categories and provides examples of beliefs (including ideals) that appropriately fit into each one. The major point we wish to illustrate in Figure 1 is that the 72