The Psychology of Soulmates — Destiny or Growth?
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
Knee (1998) distinguished two implicit theories of relationships. People who hold 'destiny beliefs' assume partners are either meant to be or not, so a good relationship should feel right from the start. People who hold 'growth beliefs' assume relationships develop through effort over time. His research found growth-oriented people coped better with conflict and stayed committed through rough patches, while destiny-oriented people were more likely to disengage when difficulties arose.
The soulmate idea also touches on how we see our partners. Murray, Holmes and Griffin (1996) found that happy couples tend to hold 'positive illusions' — they view their partners a little more favorably than the partners view themselves. Crucially, these idealized views predicted greater satisfaction and stability over time, suggesting that seeing the best in someone can become partly self-fulfilling.
What this does not show is that a single predestined match exists out there. The research is about belief and perception, not cosmic pairing. Hatfield and Sprecher's (1986) work on passionate love is relevant too: the intense, almost fated feeling of early love is real and powerful, but it is an early phase that naturally cools, not proof that two people were uniquely made for each other.
The mechanism
Why this happens
The soulmate narrative is appealing because it offers certainty and meaning. If someone is 'the one,' the risky leap of love feels safer and more significant. This taps into a basic human desire to believe our most important choices are guided rather than arbitrary, which is why the idea recurs across cultures and eras.
Early passionate love (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986) reinforces the feeling. The intensity, preoccupation, and sense of rightness in the first months can genuinely feel like destiny. Understood psychologically, this is the passionate-love phase of attachment doing its bonding work — compelling and real, but not evidence of a unique predestined match.
Whether the belief helps or harms depends on how it is held. Knee's (1998) findings suggest destiny beliefs become a liability when 'it doesn't feel perfect' gets read as 'this wasn't meant to be.' Murray and colleagues (1996) show the flip side: gently idealizing a partner can strengthen a bond, as long as the illusions stay tethered to who the person actually is.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
Two people feel an instant, electric connection and conclude they are soulmates. Months later, when ordinary friction appears, the destiny-minded partner may take the conflict as a sign they were wrong about each other, while a growth-minded partner reads the same friction as normal and workable.
A long-married couple often describes their bond as built rather than found — they did not start out perfectly matched but grew compatible through years of choices, repair, and shared experience. This fits the growth-belief pattern far more than the lightning-strike soulmate story.
Someone who keeps leaving relationships the moment they stop feeling magical may be holding a strong destiny belief, chasing the early-love high and treating its natural fade as evidence of a mismatch rather than a normal transition into deeper attachment.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The biggest misconception is that a true soulmate relationship should be easy. Knee's (1998) research points the other way: people who expect a right relationship to be effortless tend to give up sooner, while those who expect to work at it tend to last. Difficulty is not proof of a wrong match.
Another error is treating idealization as harmless fantasy. Murray and colleagues (1996) suggest some positive bias helps a relationship, but illusions that drift far from reality — ignoring real incompatibility or red flags — set people up for disappointment when the idealized image collapses.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
How someone frames love quietly shapes their relationships. Leaning toward a growth view — that compatibility is partly built, that conflict is normal and survivable — tends to support commitment through the inevitable hard seasons, whereas a rigid destiny view can make ordinary problems feel like fatal verdicts.
At the same time, the soulmate impulse is not all bad. Choosing to see and appreciate the best in a partner, in the spirit of Murray and colleagues' (1996) positive illusions, can deepen a bond and become partly self-fulfilling — provided that generous view stays honest about who the person really is.
Where it varies
The nuance
Destiny and growth beliefs are not strictly either-or, and they are not gendered traits — both men and women hold them in varying mixes. Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) is relevant: how a person thinks about love tends to vary far more by individual outlook and experience than by their sex.
Most people carry a blend of both beliefs, and the same person can lean one way early in love and another as a relationship matures. The healthiest stance for many seems to be valuing the feeling of connection while still expecting to build the relationship deliberately over time.
Questions people ask about this
Does science support the idea of soulmates?
Research does not show that a single predestined match exists. What it studies is the belief in soulmates and its effects. Findings suggest that strong destiny beliefs can make people give up faster when problems arise, while viewing love as something built tends to support lasting relationships.
Is believing in a soulmate bad for relationships?
Not inherently, but it depends on how it is held. Knee's research suggests trouble comes when people expect a true match to feel effortless and read normal conflict as a sign of mismatch. A flexible belief that still expects effort tends to be healthier than a rigid one.
Why does early love feel like destiny?
Early passionate love brings intense preoccupation and a sense of rightness that can genuinely feel fated. Psychologically this is the passionate-love phase of bonding, which is real but naturally cools over time. The fading of that intensity is normal and does not mean the match was wrong.
Can two people grow into being a good match?
Research on growth beliefs suggests many couples become compatible through effort, repair, and shared experience rather than starting out perfectly matched. Long-lasting couples often describe their bond as built over time. This view tends to help partners stay committed through difficult periods.
Is it healthy to idealize your partner?
Some positive bias appears to help. Studies find that happy couples often see their partners a little more favorably than the partners see themselves, which can strengthen the bond. The risk comes when idealization ignores real incompatibility or red flags rather than gently highlighting genuine strengths.
Do men and women think about soulmates differently?
Beliefs about destiny versus growth vary far more between individuals than between genders. Both men and women hold them in different mixes shaped by personality and experience. It is more useful to know how a specific person thinks about love than to assume a pattern based on their sex.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 360–370.
- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98.
- Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9(4), 383–410.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.