Current Psychology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 194–214 | Cite as

Perceived and actual characteristics of parents and partners: A test of a freudian model of mate selection

  • Glenn GeherEmail author


The present research examined the psychoanalytic theory of mate selection (Freud, 1927) which proposes that people choose romantic partners similar to their oppositesex parents (Epstein & Guttman, 1984). This phenomenon was addressed as both an actual phenomenon that guides partner choice and as a perceived phenomenon regarding people's conceptualizations of their parents and partners. Participants were asked to describe their parents, significant others, and ideal significant others in terms of several personality characteristics. Also, actual parents and partners of subjects described themselves. For four of eight personality variables, subjects' opposite-sex parents scored similarly to their partners. Also, subjects perceived their significant others as similar to their parents across all variables. Relationship satisfaction was significantly related to the degree to which participants perceive similarity between their parents and partners. Implications for understanding how people's parents influence both actual mate selection and romantic partner perception are discussed.


Romantic Relationship Relationship Satisfaction Attachment Style Romantic Partner Template Match 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aron, R. (1974). Relationships with opposite-sexed parents and mate choice. Human Relations, 27, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, N. L. & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1990). Is parent-offspring conflict sex-linked? Freudian and Darwinian models. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 163–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein, E. & Guttman, R. (1984). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology, 31,243–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Feeney, J. A. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), Standard edition, Vol. 8 (pp. 133–142). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotelling, H. (1940). The selection of variátes for use in prediction with some comments on the general problem of nuisance parameters. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11,271–283.Google Scholar
  12. Jedlicka, D. (1980). A test of the psychoanalytic theory of mate selection. Journal of Social Psychology, 112,295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jedlicka, D. (1984). Indirect parental influence on mate choice: A test of the psychoanalytic theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kent, D. P. (1951). Subjective factors in mate selection: An exploratory study. Sociology and Social Research, 35, 391–398.Google Scholar
  15. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G. & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rothbard, J. C. & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the lifespan (pp. 31–71). In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Strauss, A. (1946). The influence of parent-images upon marital choice. American Sociological Review, 11,554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson, G. D. & Barrett, P. T. (1987). Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for Oedipal imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science, 19, 157–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Winch, R. F. (1950). Some data bearing on the Oedipus complex. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45,481–489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York atNew PaltzUSA

Personalised recommendations