Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:00:05.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Additional Psychometric Data for the Mate Value Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

Meghan M. Gillen ,
Brian Collisson ,
Michael Murtagh ,
Blaine L. Browne  and
Lynn E. McCutcheon
Meghan M. Gillen*
Affiliation:
Division of Social Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, Abington, Pennsylvania, USA
Brian Collisson
Affiliation:
Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California, USA
Michael Murtagh
Affiliation:
Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland, USA
Blaine L. Browne
Affiliation:
Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia, USA
Lynn E. McCutcheon
Affiliation:
North American Journal of Psychology, Winter Garden, Florida, USA
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Meghan M. Gillen, PhD, Division of Social Sciences, 1600 Woodland Road, The Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA, 19001, USA. Email: mmg204@psu.edu
Get access

Abstract

We administered a revised version of the Mate Value Scale that focuses on individuals’ perception of their romantic partner's mate value. Students (N = 330) from four universities completed surveys. The measure demonstrated good internal consistency reliability. Multiple regression analyses indicate that those who perceive their mates as possessing a higher value tended to compromise more when faced with conflict with their partners, had less anxiety in close relationships, and had more passionate love attitudes. We argue that this pattern of associations provides additional validity data in support of the Mate Value Scale.

Keywords

romantic relationshipsconflictvaliditymate valuemeasurement

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 7 , 2016 , e7
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Burnette, J.L., & Franiuk, R. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of relationships and partner fit: Predicting forgiveness in developing relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 144–148. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, W.K., & Foster, C.A. (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic relationships: An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484–495. doi:10.1177/0146167202287006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, W.K., Reeder, G.D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality. 34, 329–347. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, C.A., Neuberg, S.L., & Li, N.P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208 Google Scholar
Edlund, J.E., & Sagarin, B.J. (2014). The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 64, 72–77. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E.M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships: Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships. 9, 345–367. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.09401 Google Scholar
Franiuk, R., Shain, E.A., Bieritz, L., & Murray, C. (2012). Relationship theories and relationship violence: Is it beneficial to believe in soulmates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 29, 820–838. doi:10.1177/0265407512444374 Google Scholar
Gottman, J.M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.169 Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 15, 147–159. doi:10.1177/0265407598152001 Google Scholar
Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1997). Love and satisfaction. In Sternberg, R.J. & Hojjat, M. (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 56–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Jonason, P.K., Webster, G.D., & Gesselman, A.N. (2013). The structure and content of long-term and short-term mate preferences. Interpersona, 7, 167–179. doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i2.125 Google Scholar
Kenrick, D.T., Sadall, E.K., Groth, G., & Trost, M.R. (1990). Evolution, traits and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 48, 97–116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauer, J., & Lauer, R. (1992). Marriages made to last. In Henslin, J.M. (Ed.), Marriage and family in a changing society (4th ed., pp. 481–486). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Li, N.P., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preference for short-term mates: What, whether and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468 Google Scholar
Lukaszeski, A.W., & Roney, J.R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.008 Google Scholar
Markman, H.J., Floyd, F.J., Stanley, S.M., & Storaasli, R.D. (1988). Prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210–217. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.2.210 Google Scholar
Northrup, J.C., & Shumway, S. (2014). Gamer widow: A phenomenological study of spouses of online video game addicts. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 42, 269–281. doi: 10.1080/01926187.2013.847705 Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D., Christian, J.L., & Mendell, N.R. (1994). A closer look at the link between marital discord and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 33–41. doi:10.1521/jscp.1994.13.1.33 Google Scholar
Pillsworth, E.G. (2008). Mate preferences among the Shuar of Equador: Trait rankings and peer evaluations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 256–267. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, T.K., Schmitt, D.P., & & Buss, D.M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023 Google Scholar
Simpson, J.A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 363–372. doi:10.1177/0146167286123011 Google Scholar
Stinnett, N. (1992). Strong families. In Henslin, J.M. (Ed.), Marriage and family in a changing society (4th ed., pp. 496–507). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wei, M., Russell, D.W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D.L. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment. 88, 187–204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041 Google Scholar
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C.E., Foster, C.A., & Agnew, C.R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 Google Scholar
Yovetich, N.A., & Rusbult, C.E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacchilli, T.L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S.S. (2009). The romantic partner conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–1096.Google Scholar