*General Information* The hypotheses and explorations outlined in the documents below are based on a review of existing literature. No analyses relevant to these hypotheses and explorations had been conducted on this dataset at the time these documents were posted to the Open Science Framework. For those interested in a brief overview of our predictions, the Hypotheses and Explorations documents provide the hypotheses and explorations without the rationale or analytic plan. The data used in the present analyses were originally collected for Singles Study--Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preferences, which be found in the linked OSF page (https://osf.io/me7jp/). *Operational Definitions:* Rejection is operationalized as a high percentage of unsuccessful advances (i.e., a low percentage of successful advances). Specifically, number of unsuccessful advances divided by total number of advances. Some of our rationales focus on success in advancing and associated variables, but rejection will be used as the outcome variable for the sake of consistency across hypotheses. The number of successful and unsuccessful advances were measured in each of five monthly surveys and the final survey (Campbell & Stanton, 2016). For the purposes of these analyses, we will use the Short Version of the Ideal Standards Scale (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999) to measure ideal standards (operationalized by ratings of ideal importance), ideal flexibility (operationalized by ratings of ideal flexibility), and self-perceived mate value (operationalized by self-ratings). The full dataset includes the Self and Ideal Partner Standards Scale (Campbell & Stanton, 2016), which is a combination of the Ideal Standards Scale (Fletcher et al., 1999) and Interpersonal Qualities Scale (IQS; Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 1996a). The Short Version of the Ideal Standards Scale can be derived from the Self and Ideal Partner Standards Scale. We have chosen to use the short form of the Ideal Standards Scale because it will more directly align with prior literature on ideal standards than the Self and Ideal Partner Standards Scale. The Short Version of the Ideal Standards Scale can be broken into three different domains –attractiveness-vitality, status-resources, and warmth-trustworthiness. For the purposes of the present analyses, we will focus on total scores, rather than subscales (e.g., a high score on the ideal flexibility version of the Ideal Standards Scale indicates that a person has high overall flexibility, even though people may differ in the extent to which they are flexible within each domain). As mentioned above, self-perceived mate value is operationalized by self-ratings on the Short Version of the Ideal Standards Scale (Fletcher et al., 1999). Someone who rates themselves highly on this scale will be considered to have high self-perceived mate value. Although this is not a traditional measure of self-perceived mate value, it is similar to other self-perceived mate value scales, such as the Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner, Figueredo, & Jacobs, 2003). The Self and Partner Standards Scale features items representative of qualities desirable in a mate, so one can reasonably conclude that a person who rates him or herself highly on this scale considers him or herself to be a desirable mate, and therefore has high self-perceived mate value. *Notes on statistical analyses:* All continuous predictor variables (i.e., self-perceived mate value, ideal standards, and ideal flexibility) will be mean centred prior to analyses. Men will be coded as -1, women as 1. For clarity of presentation, in the equations where we predict residualized change, we do not include the relevant Time 1 variable as a predictor variable in the notation below. Instead we say the DV is “Residual difference in ____ scores”, but in the models we run we will use the Time 2 score as the DV and enter the Time 1 score as an IV so that the other variables are predicting the residual change score.