Charisma is often viewed as a desirable trait in romantic partners, yet little research has examined whether charismatic individuals and their partners have more satisfying romantic relationships. Drawing on evidence from leadership and workplace contexts suggesting that charismatic people tend to navigate conflict in a more constructive way, we examined associations between trait charisma, conflict resolution strategies, and romantic relationship satisfaction. Since effective conflict resolution is key to satisfying and long-lasting romantic relationships, this research examined whether charisma is linked to greater relationship satisfaction through the use of more constructive and fewer destructive conflict resolution strategies. Across five studies—including cross-sectional, weekly, and daily experience sampling methods ( N = 1,606)— higher trait charisma was consistently associated with greater self-reported use of constructive conflict resolution strategies, higher relationship satisfaction and better perceived conflict resolution. However, the results did not consistently show that charisma was linked with less destructive conflict resolution strategies. Associations between one partner’s charisma and the other partners’ satisfaction were small and did not consistently replicate across studies, providing limited evidence that having a charismatic partner is linked to better relationship outcomes. Associations between charisma, constructive conflict strategies, and a person’s own relationship satisfaction generally remained when controlling for extraversion, agreeableness, and narcissism, although the magnitude of unique effects was modest. Overall, the findings suggest that charisma is most consistently linked to individuals’ own reports of constructive conflict strategies and relationship satisfaction, with weaker and less consistent links to partners’ outcomes.

Romantic chemistry is a widely referenced yet poorly assessed construct in psychology research. We aimed to develop and psychometrically validate the Romantic Chemistry (RoCh) scale, a measure designed to assess the perceived reciprocal connection between current or potential romantic partners—a construct that may have implications for relationship maintenance and overall well-being. Across four studies with single and partnered individuals and romantic couples, we used a hybrid bottom-up and theory-guided approach grounded in the Interpersonal Chemistry Model to generate, refine, and validate scale items. In Studies 1a (n = 200) and 1b (n = 201), lay definitions and theory-driven content informed an initial item pool. Study 2 (n = 1,094) applied exploratory factor analysis and item response theory to refine the scale and examine its dimensional structure. Study 3 (n = 1,113) confirmed a multidimensional structure comprising five components—compatibility, comfortability, unique connection, positive interaction, and sexual attraction—and demonstrated strong internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, incremental validity beyond related constructs, and measurement invariance across relationship status, gender, and sexual orientation. Short-form versions of the RoCh scale had good psychometric properties. Study 4 evaluated the scale among married couples (n = 134 couples), establishing dyadic measurement invariance and convergence between partners’ reports. Romantic chemistry emerged as a shared, couple-level construct associated with relationship outcomes, such as commitment and sexual frequency. Findings support the RoCh scale as a reliable and valid measure of romantic chemistry, a construct whose role in fostering high-quality relationships warrants further investigation.

Although romantic chemistry is often referred to in popular culture in Western societies, usually to describe an intense connection between two people, it has received limited attention in academic research. One limitation in previous research and a barrier to future research is the lack of a comprehensive definition of romantic chemistry. In the current study (N = 200 single and partnered people [88 women, 110 men, 2 non-binary participants], age range = 21–76), we examined the common categories in laypeople’s definitions of romantic chemistry and assessed if people differed in how they described romantic chemistry based on demographic factors (i.e., gender, relationship status, relationship length, age, parental status). Two coders conducted a content analysis of participants’ open-ended definitions of romantic chemistry using an inductive coding strategy. We found that people described romantic chemistry using nine distinct categories (from most to least common): positive interaction, mutuality, comfort, compatibility, similarity, unexplainable spark, sexual attraction, intense fixation, and physiological response. Largely, participants did not differ in how they defined romantic chemistry based on demographic factors. Our findings provide a comprehensive description of romantic chemistry that can assist the development of a measure of romantic chemistry and ultimately test the role of perceived chemistry in relationship initiation and maintenance.

Whenever researchers test multiple hypotheses, the risk that one or more of the hypotheses might be falsely supported (i.e., Type I errors) increases with the number of hypotheses evaluated (i.e., the multiplicity problem). Because most studies evaluate multiple hypotheses, the risk that at least one hypothesis is a Type I error appears substantial. However, it is necessary to evaluate how consistently multiplicity control (MC) is applied and the rationale behind its application, to understand the merit of MC in psychological research. We conducted a systematic review of MC practices in 250 articles from 10 high-impact psychology journals. There was a median of 76 hypotheses tested per article; however, only 7.5% of all hypotheses were protected by MC. The most popular type of MC was familywise error control, via the Bonferroni method. The results highlight the wide range of situations wherein multiplicity occurs, the inconsistency with which MC is applied, and the lack of rationale for MC decisions. We hope that the results will create an active discussion on the merit of MC within the field of psychology. Lorsque les chercheurs testent plusieurs hypoth & egrave;ses, le risque qu'une ou plusieurs d'entre elles soient faussement confirm & eacute;es (c'est-& agrave;-dire les erreurs de type I) augmente avec le nombre d'hypoth & egrave;ses & eacute;valu & eacute;es (c'est-& agrave;-dire le probl & egrave;me de la multiplicit & eacute;). Comme la plupart des & eacute;tudes & eacute;valuent plusieurs hypoth & egrave;ses, le risque qu'au moins l'une d'entre elles soit une erreur de type I semble important. Toutefois, il est n & eacute;cessaire d'& eacute;valuer la coh & eacute;rence du contr & ocirc;le de la multiplicit & eacute; (CM) et la logique qui sous-tend son application, afin de comprendre l'int & eacute;r & ecirc;t du contr & ocirc;le de la multiplicit & eacute; dans la recherche psychologique. Nous avons proc & eacute;d & eacute; & agrave; un examen syst & eacute;matique des pratiques de CM dans 250 articles provenant de 10 revues de psychologie & agrave; fort impact. En moyenne, 76 hypoth & egrave;ses ont & eacute;t & eacute; test & eacute;es par article ; cependant, seules 7,5 % de toutes les hypoth & egrave;ses & eacute;taient prot & eacute;g & eacute;es par le CM. Le type de CM le plus r & eacute;pandu & eacute;tait le contr & ocirc;le d'erreur global, via la m & eacute;thode de Bonferroni. Les r & eacute;sultats mettent en & eacute;vidence le large & eacute;ventail de situations dans lesquelles la multiplicit & eacute; se produit, le manque de coh & eacute;rence dans l'application de la CM et l'absence de justification des d & eacute;cisions en mati & egrave;re de CM. Nous esp & eacute;rons que les r & eacute;sultats susciteront une discussion active sur les m & eacute;rites du CM dans le domaine de la psychologie.

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report-partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator-uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The "corrected pattern metric" that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β = .19 and an effect of β = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the "level metric" (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men's and (especially) women's stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men's stated preferences underestimated-and women's stated preferences overestimated-revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Sexual satisfaction is critical for relationship quality and people hold lay beliefs (implicit theories) about what makes for satisfying sex. A common belief in Western culture is that spontaneous sex is most satisfying, but this idea has not yet been studied. In pre-registered analyses of two studies - a cross sectional (N = 303 individuals) and a 21-day daily experience study (N = 121 couples) - we found support for two distinct beliefs (spontaneous sex as satisfying; planned sex as satisfying). Across both studies, people held stronger beliefs that spontaneous sex is satisfying compared to planned sex, but stronger spontaneous sex beliefs were only associated with higher sexual satisfaction in Study 1. In Study 1, when people perceived their most recent sexual experience as planned (versus spontaneous), they felt less sexually satisfied, but this was not the case for those who endorsed stronger planned sex beliefs. In Study 2, endorsing stronger planned sex beliefs was associated with a partner's lower sexual satisfaction at baseline. There were no associations between perceptions of the extent to which sex was spontaneous and sexual satisfaction at baseline or in daily life. Future research could test whether beliefs about spontaneity and planning have value in clinical settings.

Choosing who to pursue as a romantic partner can have wide-reaching consequences. Attachment anxiety (i.e., need for reassurance) and avoidance (i.e., comfort with closeness) are associated with relationship quality and maintenance, but do people accurately perceive a date's attachment style and are these perceptions associated with dating interest? In a sample of 164 speed-daters (n = 1,869 dates), we found that people accurately perceived dates' attachment anxiety, but not their attachment avoidance. Perceiving a date as more anxiously or avoidantly attached was associated with less dating interest, and when dates were higher on attachment anxiety, accurate perceptions of anxious attachment were associated with less dating interest. Implications for partner selection and for understanding perceptions in dating relationships are discussed.

Sexuality is a key predictor of relationship satisfaction, but sexual desire and satisfaction can be difficult to maintain over time. Limited research informs who might be more likely to experience higher (compared to lower) levels of desire and sexual satisfaction in their relationships. Certain aspects of personality, such as extraversion, have been associated with sexual satisfaction and desire, but evidence linking personality to sexual outcomes has generally been mixed. A promising, yet unexplored, trait that could be linked to desire and sexual satisfaction is charisma—a combination of influence and affability that has been identified as a desirable trait when people are selecting a romantic or sexual partner. Across two studies—a cross-sectional study of individuals in relationships (N = 413) and a 21-day dyadic daily experience study (N = 121 couples)—people higher in charisma reported being more communally responsive to their partner’s needs during sex, and in turn, experience higher daily sexual desire and satisfaction. Through higher sexual communal motivation, people with a charismatic partner also reported higher sexual desire, but not sexual satisfaction. The effects were retained above and beyond general communal motivation and Big Five personality dimensions, although extraversion accounted for some of the associations. Therefore, charisma is a trait that is linked with higher sexual communal motivation, which is associated with charismatic people reporting higher desire and sexual satisfaction in their romantic relationships.