Loyal, funny, hot — you’ve probably got a wish list for your dream partner. But does checking all your boxes actually lead to happily ever after? In this episode, we dive into a massive global study that put the “ideal partner” hypothesis to the test. Do people really know what they want, and does getting it actually make them happier? We explore surprising statistical insights from over 10,000 romantics in 43 countries, from mean-centering and interaction effects to the good-catch confounder. Along the way, we dig into dessert metaphors, partner boat-count regression models, and the one trait that people say doesn’t matter — but secretly makes them happiest.

Statistical topics

• Regression
• Random Slopes and Intercepts (Random Effects) in Regression
• Standardized Beta Coefficients in Regression
• Interaction Effects in Regression
• Mean Centering
• Exploratory Analyses

Methodological morals

“Good science bares it all.”

“When the world isn’t one size fits all, don’t fit just one line; use random slopes and intercepts.”

References

• Eastwick PW, Sparks J, Finkel EJ, Meza EM, Adamkovič M, Adu P, Ai T, Akintola AA, Al-Shawaf L, Apriliawati D, Arriaga P, Aubert-Teillaud B, Baník G, Barzykowski K, Batres C, Baucom KJ, Beaulieu EZ, Behnke M, Butcher N, Charles DY, Chen JM, Cheon JE, Chittham P, Chwiłkowska P, Cong CW, Copping LT, Corral-Frias NS, Ćubela Adorić V, Dizon M, Du H, Ehinmowo MI, Escribano DA, Espinosa NM, Expósito F, Feldman G, Freitag R, Frias Armenta M, Gallyamova A, Gillath O, Gjoneska B, Gkinopoulos T, Grafe F, Grigoryev D, Groyecka-Bernard A, Gunaydin G, Ilustrisimo R, Impett E, Kačmár P, Kim YH, Kocur M, Kowal M, Krishna M, Labor PD, Lu JG, Lucas MY, Małecki WP, Malinakova K, Meißner S, Meier Z, Misiak M, Muise A, Novak L, O J, Özdoğru AA, Park HG, Paruzel M, Pavlović Z, Püski M, Ribeiro G, Roberts SC, Röer JP, Ropovik I, Ross RM, Sakman E, Salvador CE, Selcuk E, Skakoon-Sparling S, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Spasovski O, Stanton SCE, Stewart SLK, Swami V, Szaszi B, Takashima K, Tavel P, Tejada J, Tu E, Tuominen J, Vaidis D, Vally Z, Vaughn LA, Villanueva-Moya L, Wisnuwardhani D, Yamada Y, Yonemitsu F, Žídková R, Živná K, Coles NA. A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2025 Jan;128(1):123-146. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000524
• Love Factually Podcast: https://www.lovefactuallypod.com/

Kristin and Regina’s online courses: 

Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  

Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis 

Medical Statistics Certificate Program  

Writing in the Sciences 

Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program 

Programs that we teach in:

Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program 

Find us on:

Kristin –  LinkedIn & Twitter/X

Regina – LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com

• (00:00) –
• (00:00) – Intro
• (04:57) – Actual dating profile wishlists vs study wishlists
• (09:12) – Juicy paper details
• (18:31) – What the study actually asked – wishlist, partner resume, relationship satisfaction
• (24:10) – Linear regression illustrated through number of boats your partner has
• (30:37) – Standardized regression coefficients illustrated through spouse height concordance
• (34:52) – Good catch confounder: We all just want the same high-quality ice cream / mate
• (39:46) – Does your personalized wishlist matter? Results
• (42:01) – Wishlist regression interaction effects: like chocolate and peanut butter
• (45:51) – Partner traits result in happiness bonus points
• (49:51) – What do we say we want – and what really makes us happy? Surprise
• (54:10) – Gender stereotypes and whether they held up
• (56:51) – Random effects models and boats again
• (59:30) – Other cool things they did
• (01:00:41) – One-minute paper summary
• (01:02:23) – Wrap-up, rate the claim, methodological morals