Can Your “Type” Be Rewired? What Relationship Science Says About Attraction
Sunday, August 24, 2025.
We all think we have a “type.”
Maybe They’re tall and outdoorsy. Maybe it’s the witty bookworm. Maybe it’s someone with an unnerving ability to fold fitted sheets.
Whatever the list looks like, we treat it as if it’s set in stone.
But what if your type isn’t destiny? What if it’s more like clay—malleable, rewritable, and shaped by experience?
That’s exactly what a new study in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin found.
Researchers didn’t just ask people about their romantic preferences—they actually rewired them. And the results tell us a lot about how attraction, perception, and relationship satisfaction really work.
Why We Care So Much About “Types”
In relationship psychology, ideal partner preferences are a big deal. We say we want kindness, intelligence, ambition, or physical attractiveness. Decades of research shows these ideals are tied to relationship satisfaction, commitment, and even whether couples go the distance (Campbell & Fletcher, 2015).
But here’s the snag: just because someone says they value kindness or ambition doesn’t mean they’ll actually pick it in the wild. Real-life attraction is famously messy. Your list says “tall, dark, and handsome,” but your heart falls for “funny, freckled, and keeps a compost pile.”
That mismatch has fueled years of debate. Do ideals truly guide our choices, or do we bend them to fit the partner we’ve already chosen?
The Clever Experiment That Tested Attraction
To settle this, researchers Aline da Silva Frost and Paul Eastwick created DateFest, a gamified dating simulation.
In Study 1, they invented a nonsense word—“Reditry”—to represent youthfulness/babyfacedness.
In Study 2, they dropped the disguise and called the trait “youthfulness.”
Participants (all attracted to men, all in relationships) were shown photos of potential partners and asked if they’d hypothetically date them. The game was secretly rigged so that people high in the target trait led to better “outcomes.”
Translation: the game taught participants to value that trait more.
After the game, researchers measured:
Motivated Projection – Do you see more of the trait in your current partner?
Preference-Matching – Are you more satisfied if your partner seems to match your ideals?
Perceiver Effects – Do you see the trait everywhere (in friends, in yourself)?
Situation Selection – Are you more likely to enter spaces where people have the trait?
What Happened: Attraction Through a New Lens
Two big effects stood out:
Motivated Projection. People started seeing more of the valued trait in their partners. In other words, once they learned to prize youthfulness, suddenly their partner looked more youthful. That’s not magic—it’s the mind reshaping perception.
Situation Selection. Participants showed more interest in environments (like a dating site) filled with people high in the trait.
The other theories got less support.
Preference-matching—the idea that people are happier when their partner objectively matches their ideals—was inconsistent. Perceiver effects (seeing the trait in friends or oneself) popped up but weren’t universal.
Bottom line: our “types” matter, but not in the way we think.
They don’t function as shopping lists. They act as lenses that change how we see our partner—and as steering wheels that guide us toward certain social spaces.
How Ideals Reframe Traits
Here’s where it gets fascinating: people didn’t just notice the trait more—they also rebranded it.
Youthfulness shifted from “immature” or “childlike” → to “energetic” and “vibrant.”
Once you value a trait, you’re more likely to describe it positively.
Think about how this plays out in real life. A stubborn partner becomes “steadfast.” A messy partner becomes “creative.” A talkative partner becomes “warm.” This reframing can be a tool in long-term love—if it’s grounded in reality and not used to excuse harmful behavior.
Why Checklists Rarely Predict Chemistry
This study adds weight to a bigger truth: our lists don’t predict who we fall for.
Speed-dating research shows that stated ideals (“I want someone ambitious”) predict actual attraction only weakly, if at all (Eastwick et al., 2011; Luo & Zhang, 2009).
The real drivers of chemistry are responsiveness, humor, timing, and how you fight and repair—not whether your partner ticks every box.
That doesn’t mean ideals don’t matter. It means they’re flexible—and often reshaped after we’ve already chosen someone.
Takeaways for Real Relationships
So what can couples (and therapists) do with this knowledge?
Pick your lens. The study shows that what we value, we see. If you focus only on flaws, that’s what fills the screen. Experiment with valuing humor, curiosity, or resilience—and watch how it shifts what you notice.
Reframe, don’t deny. Traits have multiple interpretations. Choose the one that builds connection, but don’t sugarcoat harm.
Design your environment. If you want more playfulness, don’t wait for it to show up in your living room. Join a dance class, play games, cook something messy. Ideals thrive where they’re fed.
Loosen the checklist. Attraction is more about lived experience than lists. Pay attention to how safe, seen, and understood you feel—not whether your partner meets every “must-have.”
Limitations (Because Science Always Has Some)
Narrow sample. Participants were attracted to men and in relationships. Results may not generalize across orientations or single daters.
Trait choice. Youthfulness/babyfacedness is loaded—culturally, socially, and biologically. Other traits (kindness, ambition, humor) may play differently.
Lab vs. life. Hypothetical dating games don’t perfectly capture messy, real-world romance.
Even so, the study makes one thing clear: our types aren’t fixed. They’re flexible, and that flexibility is part of what keeps relationships alive.
FAQs About Attraction and “Types”
Can your type really change?
Yes. This study shows preferences are flexible. Life experience, culture, and even clever experiments can shift what you value.
Do people grow into their partners?
Often. Ideals can bend to match the partner you’ve chosen, especially when you’re motivated to see them positively.
Is it bad to idealize your partner?
Not necessarily. “Positive illusions” can stabilize relationships. The key is balancing idealization with reality—seeing your partner’s flaws but not letting them dominate the picture.
Does having a list of traits work?
Lists are fine, but don’t expect them to predict real chemistry. Relationships live in responsiveness, repair, humor, and emotional safety—not in bullet points.
Final Thoughts
Attraction isn’t a fixed script; it’s more like jazz—improvised, adaptive, shaped by what we value in the moment and how we choose to see it.
This study reminds us that our “types” aren’t destiny.
They can bend, shift, and even be rewritten to fit the person in front of us.
That flexibility isn’t weakness; it’s what allows long-term love to survive life’s changes. When we learn to consciously choose our lens—and place ourselves in the right environments—we don’t just find love, we find we can also grow it too.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Campbell, L., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). Romantic relationships, ideal standards, and mate selection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.011
da Silva Frost, A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2025). Experimental tests of the role of ideal partner preferences in relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251339575
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Relationship ideals: Their structure, function, and consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023881
Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 933–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1997). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 586–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236003