Matchmaking companies sell a simple idea: tell us enough about yourself, and we'll find the person who fits. Put to the test, it fell apart. Single people filled in more than 100 questions about their traits and what they wanted in a partner, then went speed dating. With all that information, a computer could predict who would be popular in general. It could not predict which two people would click.
The same team then went after the bigger question. Pooling records from 43 groups of couples followed over time, they asked what predicts whether a relationship is a happy one. The answer was almost the reverse of the matchmakers' pitch. Personality mattered less than what happens between two people once they're together. That's good news if you're looking for a life partner, because those are things you can see, and things you can build. Some of the clearest signs are small: how someone reacts to your good news, how the first real disagreement goes, and what drew you to them in the first place.
The partner on paper
A checklist feels sensible. Same values, same sense of humour, the right job, the right height. But if more than 100 traits failed to say who'd spark with whom, a list of ten stands little chance.
What a list can do is rule out the obvious mismatches: wanting children or not, where you want to live, how you handle money. Myra Strober and Abby Davisson's walks through those big shared decisions. Beyond that, the person who ticks every box can leave you cold, and the one who misses half of them can turn out to be home. The useful information arrives after you meet, in how they treat you and how you feel around them.
What you choose a partner for matters too. Among more than 3,000 American adults who had married, those who said their partner's looks were important to them when they got engaged had about a 30 percent higher risk of divorcing later, and those for whom wealth mattered, about a third higher.
Time and knowledge pointed the other way. People who said they knew their spouse "very well" at the proposal had a divorce risk about 44 percent lower, and couples who dated for three years or more before getting engaged, about a quarter lower than those who dated for less than a year. These are links rather than proof, and they all say the same thing: what you learn over time beats what you see at first.
Where you meet matters less than people fear. Among more than 19,000 Americans who married between 2005 and 2012, more than a third had met online, and those marriages were slightly less likely to break up and slightly happier than ones that began offline. The survey was paid for by a dating site, so take the small edge lightly, but an app is no worse a start than a bar.
The five that matter most
Back to the 43 groups of couples from the start: five features of the relationship itself stood out.
Believing they're committed. Top of the list was how committed you think your partner is. Not their words on a good night, but your sense that they're in it for the long haul.
Commitment holds up better when it's a choice you both made. Among 1,050 people married within the previous ten years, those who moved in together before getting engaged reported a little less satisfaction and commitment, and more negative communication, than those who waited. Moving in after the engagement did as well as waiting for the wedding. Sharing a flat because both leases ran out at once is a slide. Agreeing on what you're building is a decision.
Feeling appreciated. Feeling noticed and valued for what you bring, the small things as well as the big ones. Appreciation also spreads. People who felt appreciated by their partner appreciated them more in return, and the more appreciative were more attentive to their partner's needs, more committed and more likely to still be together over time. Outside observers could see the difference in how they behaved.
A sex life you're both happy with. Sexual satisfaction was among the top five, which makes it a subject to raise early and honestly. Satisfaction is the point, and keeping score misses it: across more than 30,000 people, sex went with greater well-being up to about once a week, and more often than that added nothing.
Believing they're happy too. Your sense of how satisfied your partner is shaped your own happiness. People read each other closely. A little rose tint helps here. When dating couples were followed for a year, the ones who saw each other in the most generous light were the most likely to stay together, even through conflicts and doubts. Their satisfaction grew, their conflicts eased, and over time partners came to see themselves the way they were seen. Seeing someone slightly better than they see themselves works more like a forecast than a mistake.
Low conflict. Disagreements happen, but they stay in proportion and the relationship is about more than them.
Two things about this are striking. Your own view of the relationship predicted its quality far better than your partner's ratings did. And once people's view of the relationship was known, their personalities added almost nothing. How it feels between you carries more weight than who either of you is on paper.
How lasting couples fight
Low conflict still includes conflict. When married couples were followed for four years, what marked out the couples who drifted toward separation was the balance of their arguments: more negative than positive, with more defensiveness, more stubbornness and more withdrawal. The couples who lasted still disagreed, but kept enough warmth and goodwill in the mix to outweigh the sharp moments.
So watch how a new partner handles the first real disagreement. Do they listen, or defend? Do they come back to it, or shut down? That tells you more than how they behave when everything's easy.
Money deserves its own warning. Among 4,574 couples followed over time, arguments about money predicted divorce more strongly than any other kind of disagreement, and once those arguments were counted, how well off the couple was made no difference. The damage came from the fighting, whatever the bank balance. John Gottman's lays out the habits of couples who make it.
How they handle your good news
Beyond the five, two everyday habits stand out, and the first rarely makes anyone's checklist. When dating couples took turns talking about something good that had happened to them, how the other partner responded predicted how the relationship was doing two months later, and whether it had ended. It mattered more than how they responded to bad news.
The difference is between "That's brilliant, tell me everything" and a distracted "Nice," or worse, a reason it might not work out. A partner who's glad about your wins is a partner who's on your side.
Keeping it new
The second habit is novelty, and the reason it matters runs deeper than boredom. When newlyweds were followed for 13 years, a rise in arguments over the first two years did little to mark out the couples who later divorced. Disillusionment did: love fading, less affection shown, less belief that the partner responds to you, and more mixed feelings. And the couples who divorced after seven years or more had started out the most affectionate of all, with about a third more affection as newlyweds than couples who went on to be happily married. A blazing start sets a high bar, and the fade from it is felt all the more.
Relationships tend to lose some shine after the honeymoon months, and boredom is part of the reason. When couples spent just seven minutes on a new and slightly exciting task together, their rating of the relationship rose, compared with couples given something ordinary to do. Couples who said they did exciting things together in daily life were more satisfied too.
Skydiving is optional. A new walk, a class neither of you has tried, a trip somewhere unfamiliar. Novelty shared is closeness built.
What you bring
The relationship is two people, and one of them is you. Among personal traits, the strongest predictors of a happy relationship were your own life satisfaction, low mood, and how anxious or avoidant you are about closeness. A partner is a poor cure for an unhappy life, and an anxious or avoidant style can make a good relationship feel shaky.
Those things can move. Attachment security tends to grow in a steady relationship: newlyweds became more secure over their first two years on average. Looking after your own life, your friendships and your work makes you a better partner, and a better judge of who's good for you. Stan Tatkin's shows how two different attachment styles can learn to feel secure together. And keep the people who know you in the picture: relationships that friends and the partner's family approved of were less likely to end.
Finding the one
"A Diamond is Forever" was once named the best advertising slogan of the 20th century. When the line was borrowed as the title of that survey of 3,000 marriages, the findings ran the other way: spending more on the ring and the wedding went with shorter marriages, and among women married more recently, those who spent $20,000 or more on the wedding had 3.5 times the divorce risk of those who spent $5,000 to $10,000. Bigger guest lists and a honeymoon went with longer ones. What you build together lasts. The price tag is no guide.
A checklist finds you someone who looks right. A lasting partner shows up in what the checklist leaves out: whether they seem committed, whether you feel appreciated, whether disagreements stay warm, whether they light up at your good news, and whether life together keeps some newness in it.
Closeness can be built on purpose, too. Pairs of strangers who spent 45 minutes taking turns with questions that grew slowly more personal felt closer afterwards than pairs who spent the time on small talk. Pairing people who agreed on important issues added nothing. So swap the job-interview questions for better ones: what would you like to be known for, what are you most grateful for, which memory do you treasure most.
On your next few dates, share something good that happened to you this week, and watch closely how they respond. That moment will tell you more than any checklist.
Keep choosing the same kind of wrong person? Why You Keep Falling for the Wrong Person — the attraction patterns that keep pulling you towards the wrong partner.
Arguments that keep getting bigger? Why Conflict Escalates in Relationships Even When Both People Want It to Stop — what turns small disagreements into big ones, and how to step out of the loop.
Know someone writing a checklist for their future partner? Send them this. How a date reacts to their good news may tell them more than the list.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about relationships.
Affiliate Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, All For Life earns from qualifying purchases, at no extra cost to you. We only link to products we would recommend without the commission.
Sources
Joel S, Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science 28(10):1478–1489. doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714580
Joel S, Eastwick PW, Allison CJ, et al. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. PNAS 117(32):19061–19071. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117
Francis-Tan A, Mialon HM (2015). "A Diamond Is Forever" and other fairy tales: the relationship between wedding expenses and marriage duration. Economic Inquiry 53(4):1919–1930. doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12206
Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Gonzaga GC, Ogburn EL, VanderWeele TJ (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. PNAS 110(25):10135–10140. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222447110
Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: a replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology 23(1):107–111. doi.org/10.1037/a0014358
Gordon AM, Impett EA, Kogan A, Oveis C, Keltner D (2012). To have and to hold: gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(2):257–274. doi.org/10.1037/a0028723
Muise A, Schimmack U, Impett EA (2016). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(4):295–302. doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616462
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Griffin DW (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(6):1155–1180. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
Gottman JM, Levenson RW (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(2):221–233. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
Dew J, Britt S, Huston S (2012). Examining the relationship between financial issues and divorce. Family Relations 61(4):615–628. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00715.x
Gable SL, Gonzaga GC, Strachman A (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(5):904–917. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904
Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ (2001). The connubial crucible: newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(2):237–252. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237
Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN, McKenna C, Heyman RE (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(2):273–284. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273
Davila J, Karney BR, Bradbury TN (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(5):783–802. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.783
Felmlee DH (2001). No couple is an island: a social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces 79(4):1259–1287. doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0039
Voice of America (2007). 'A Diamond Is Forever': How Four Words Changed an Industry. learningenglish.voanews.com
Aron A, Melinat E, Aron EN, Vallone RD, Bator RJ (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: a procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(4):363–377. doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003