The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but...

7/30/2019 The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but Prescient

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-self-fulfilling-nature-of-positive-illusions-in-romantic-relationships 1/26

The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic

Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but Prescient

S a n d r a L . M u r r a yU n iv e r s it y o f M ic h ig a n

J o h n G . H o l m e sUniversi ty of Water loo

D a l e W . G r i f f i nUniversi ty of Sussex

It is propo sed that satisfying, stable relationship s reflect intima tes' ability to see imperfect part ners

in idea lized ways. In th is study o f the long-term benefits (or possible costs) o f positive illusions, bothmemb ers of dating couples compl eted measures of idealization and well-being 3 times in a year. Path

analyses revealed th at idealization had a v ariety of self-fulfilling effects. Relationships were mo st

likely to p ersis t--eve n in the face of conflicts and dou bts --w hen intimates idealized one anotherthe most. In timate s who idealized one another more initia llyalso rep ort ed relatively greater increases

in satisfaction and decreases in conflicts and doubts over the year. Finally, individuals even came toshare their part ners ' idealized images of them. In summary, in timate s who idealized one another

appe ared mo re prescie nt than blind, actually creating the relationships the y wished for as romances

progressed.

L o v e t o f a u l t s i s a l w a y s b l i n d ,

Always is to jo y inclin'd,

Lawless, wing'd, and unconfin 'd,

And breaks all chains from every mind.

--W illiam Blake, Poems (1791-1792)from Blake's Notebook

Re a l i t y o r p a ro d y ? In ma n y w a ys , Bla k e ' s mu s in g s d e p ic t t h e

rom ant ic idea l . Swept up in the exp er ience of love , t rust ing , sa t -

i sf ied indiv idua ls embel l i sh the i r par tne rs ' v i r tues, whi le char i -

tab ly , perhaps sensib ly , turn ing a b l i nd eye to the i r fau l ts (e .g .,

Mu rray & Holmes, 1993, 1994) . Se t t ing Blake 's idea l aside ,

most psychologists be l ieve tha t last ing sa t isfact ion depends on

indiv idua ls understanding the i r par tner s ' rea l s t rengths and

fra i l t ies (e .g . , Brickm an, 1987; Swarm, De La Ronde , & Hixon,

1994; Swarm, Hixon, & De La Ronde , 1992) . Afte r a ll , because

few indiv idua ls rea lly a re perfec t , t ime should inevi tab ly revea l

just how roman t ic par tners fa l l shor t of each o thers ' hopes.

Upo n such rea l iza t ions, lovers should then end up d is appoi n ted

and d is i l lusioned.

Do posi t ive i l lusions inevi tab ly breed d iscontent? Or might

idea l iza t ion ac tua l ly promo te la te r happiness? F or instance , see-

ing a par tner 's fau l ts throug h the rosy f i l te rs provided by on e 's

idea ls might minimize the potent ia l for confl ic t . In t imates

might even c rea te the in te rperso na l rea l i t ies they desi re by ide-

a l iz ing the i r par tne rs (e .g . , Snyder, Tanke , & Bersche id , 1977) .

In such ways, idea l iza t ion might ac tua l ly insula te in t imates

aga inst the v ic issi tudes of t ime ra ther than se t them up for d is-

appo in tme nt . In th is a r t ic le we examine these issues, focusing

on the long-te rm benef i ts (and possib le costs) of posi t ive i l lu-

sions in da t ing re la t ionships.

Sandr a L. Murray, Dep artm ent o f Psychology, University of Michi-gan; John G. Holmes, De part men t of Psychology, University of Water-

loo, Waterloo, Ontari o, Canad a; Dale W. Griffin, D epar tmen t of Cog-

nitive and Com puting Sciences, University o f Sussex, Falmer, Brighton,

England.

This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted by SandraL. M urray to the University of Waterloo. The a rticle was prepar ed withthe support of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada (SSHRC) Postdoctoral Fellowship and two SSHRC research

grants.We are greatly indebted to Harry Reis and Mark Zanna for their

thoughtful comments on this research. We would also like to thankMar y Dooley for her assistance in c onducting this research.

Correspondence concerning th is article should be addressed to San-

dra L. Murray, who is now at the D epart men t of Psychology, Park Hall,

State University of New Y ork, Buffalo, New York 14260-4110. Elec-

tronic m ail may be sent via the Interne t to [email protected].

S e e k i n g S e c u r i t y: T h e I d e a l i z a t i o n P r o c e s s

Posi t ive i l lusions may b e a roma nt ic necessi ty . Consider the

di le mm a indiv idua ls face as a romance deve lops. The a l lure of

a par tner 's v i r tues draws in t imates in to re la t ionships, c rea t ing

fee lings of hope and s ecur i ty tha t be l ie the lack of more repre-senta t ive exper iences (e .g . , Brehm , 1988; Brickman, 1987) .

La te r, in te rac t ion across broader , mor e confl ic tua l domains re -

veals a partne r's frailt i es (e.g., Braiker & Kelley, 1979; Levinger,

1983) . Even in marr iage , in t imates may cont inue to uncover

sources of nega t iv i ty and confl ic t as new d emand s surface , such

as ba lanc ing chi ldren and career . These inevi tab le d isap-

poin tmen ts may then threa ten fee l ings of secur i ty by ra is ing the

fear tha t o ne 's par tne r rea l ly i sn ' t the " r i ght" person a f te r al l .

Such doubts a re t roublesome for most in t imates, prec ise ly

because nega t iv i ty typica l ly surfaces when the i r hopes a re a l -

Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, Vol. 7 I, No. 6, 1155-1180Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/96/$3.00

1 1 5 5



1 1 5 6 M U R R A Y , H O L M E S , A N D G R I F F I N

r e a dy i nv e s t e d i n t he i r r e l a t i ons h i p s , To a dd a f u r t he r i r ony , i n -

d i v i d u a l s m a y o n l y d i s c o v e r a p a r t n e r ' s m o r e s e r i o u s f a u l t s

wh e n t he b a r r i e r s t o d i s s o l u t i on ha ve a l s o i nc r e a s e d ( e . g ., a pe r -

c e i ve d la c k o f a l t e r na t i ve pa r t ne r s , t he a r r i va l o f c h i l d r e n ) . I n

t h e f a c e o f th i s " r o m a n t i c t r a p , " i n d i v i d u a l s n e e d t o r e a c h s o m e

s o r t o f c o gn i t iv e r e s o l u t io n b e t w e e n t h e i r h o p e s a n d d o u b t s i n

o r d e r t o ju s t i f y t h e ir c o n t i n u i n g c o m m i t m e n t s ( e .g . , A b e l s o n ,1959 ; Eps t e in , 1982 ; Fe st inger , 1957 ) . A pa r t f r om s e e k i ng c og -

n i t i ve c la r i t y , ind i v i dua l s ma y a l s o s t r ugg l e t o que l l f e e l ings o f

e mo t i ona l vu l ne r a b i l i t y ( e . g . , Ba ume i s t e r & Le a r y , 1995 ;

H o l m e s & R e m p e l , 1 9 8 9 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , a t t a c h m e n t t h e o ri s t s

c on t e nd t h a t i nd i v i dua l s a r e s t r ong l y mo t i v a t e d t o s e e k fe e l ings

o f s a f e t y a nd s e c u r i t y i n t he i r r e l a t i ons h i p s ( e . g . , Bowl by , 1977 ,

1 9 8 2 ) . B u t s u c h a t t a c h m e n t c o n c e r n s a r e f r u s t r a t e d b y i n t i -

m a t e s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r i sk s p o s e d b y d e p e n d i n g o n a l es s

t h a n p e r f e c t p a rt n e r .

A c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s r e a l w e a k n es s e s m a y d o

l i tt l e t o r e s o l ve t he t e n s i on be t we e n i n t i ma t e s ' ho pe s a nd f e a rs .

W h a t c o m f o r t is t o b e g a i n e d f r o m t h e k n o w l e d g e th a t o n e ' s

p a r t n e r i s b o t h i n e x p re s s iv e a n d s t u b b o r n ? I n s t e a d , s u s t a i n in g a

s e ns e o f fe l t s e c u r i t y m a y ne c e s s i t a t e we a v i ng a n e l a bo r a t e s t o r y( o r f i c t i o n ) th a t b o t h e m b e l li s h e s a p a r t n e r ' s v i r t u e s a n d m i n i -

m i z e s h i s o r h e r fa u l ts ( M u r r a y & H o l m e s , 1 99 3 , 1 9 9 4 ) . F o r

i n s t a n c e, H i l l a r y m i g h t q u e l l h e r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t i n B i l l' s i n e x -

p r e s s i ve ne s s by r e ga r d i n g i t a s a s i gn o f h is s t r ong a nd s i l en t

n a t u r e . O r s h e m i g h t t r y t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t hi s f a u lt b y e m b e l -

l i s h i ng B i l l ' s t o l e r a nc e .

G i v e n s u c h m o t i v a t i o n s a n d t h e p o e t i c l i ce n s e in h e r e n t i n t h e

s t o r y t e l l i ng p r oc e s s , t r u s t i ng , s a t i s fi e d i n t i ma t e s s hou l d c om e t o

s e e t he i r pa r t ne r s i n qu i t e i de a l i z e d wa ys ( e .g . , Ha l l & Ta y lo r,

1 9 7 6 ; J o h n s o n & R u s b u l t , 1 9 8 9 ; M u r r a y & H o l m e s , 1 9 9 3 ,

1 9 9 4 ; S i m p s o n , I c k e s, & B l a c k st o n e , 1 9 9 5 ; V a n L a n g e & R u s -

bu l t , 1995 ) . H owe ve r , i f i n t i ma t e s a r e e ve n r e a s ona b l y a c c u r a t e

s oc i a l pe r c e i ve r s , a pa r t ne r ' s a c t ua l qua l i t i e s s hou l d a l s o c on -

s t r a i n pe r c e p t i on . Af t e r a l l , on l y c ha r a c t e r s i n f a i r y t a l e s c a n

a c t ua l l y t u r n f r ogs i n t o p r i n c e s o r p r i nc e s s e s . Pu t a d i f f e r e n t

w a y, s o m e c o m b i n a t i o n o f i ll u s io n ( o r m o t i v a t e d m i s u n d e r -

s t a nd i ngs ) a nd r e a l i t y ( o r unde r s t a nd i ng ) l i ke l y unde r l i e s i nd i -

v i d u a l s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e ir p a r t n e r s , a s t h e f o ll o w i n g e q u a t i o n

i l lus t ra tes :

Ac t o r ' s Pe r c e p t i ons = P a r t ne r ' s Re a l i t y + Ac t o r ' s I l l u s ion .

F o r e x a m p l e , H i l l a r y ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f B il l s h o u l d p a r t l y r e f le c t

he r know l e dge o f B i l l ' s r e a l qua l i t i e s a nd pa r t l y r e f l e c t he r " i l lu -

s i o n s " o r h o p e s . W e r e c e n t ly e x a m i n e d t h i s h y p o t h e s is i n s a m -

p l e s o f d a t i n g a n d m a r r i e d c o u p l e s ( M u r r a y , H o l m e s , & G r i f fi n ,

1996 ) . I n t h i s s t udy , i n t i ma t e s r a t e d t he ms e l ve s , t he i r own pa r t -

ne r s , t he i r i de a l pa r t ne r , a nd t he t yp i c a l pa r t ne r on a va r i e t yo f v i r t ue s a nd f a u l t s ( e . g ., " r e s pons i ve , " " c r i t i c a l " ) . We t he n

c r e a t e d i n d i ce s o f " i l l u s o r y " a n d " r e a l i t y - b a s e d " c o m p o n e n t s

o f p e r c e p t i o n u s i n g th e b e n c h m a r k s j u s t d e s c r ib e d . T o c o n t i n u e

w i t h o u r o r i g i n a l e x a m p l e , t h e a c t o r ' s ( H i l l a r y ' s ) p e r c e p t i o n s

r e f e r r e d t o he r r a t i ngs o f B il l. Th e pa r t ne r ' s ( B i l l ' s ) r e a l it y r e -

f e r r e d t o B i l l' s ra t i ngs o f h i ms e l f . The a c t o r ' s ( H i l l a r y ' s ) i l l u -

s i ons r e f e r r e d t o t h e qua l i t i e s t ha t H i l l a r y s a w i n B i l l t ha t B i ll

d i d n o t s e e i n h i m s e l f - - a r e s i d u a li z e d m e a s u r e o f i ll u s io n s

( H i l l a r y ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f B il l, c o n t r o l l i n g f o r h i s p e r c e p t io n o f

h i m s e l f ) , j

A s h y p o t h e s i z e d , i m p r e s s i o n s o f a p a r t n e r a p p e a r e d t o r e f l e ct

a m i x t u r e o f " r e a l i t y " a n d " i l l u s i o n " i n b o t h d a t in g a n d m a r i t a l

r e l a t i ons h i p s . The pa r t ne r ' s a c t ua l o r s e l f - pe r c e i ve d qua l i t i e s

d i d p l a y a l im i t e d r o l e in s ha p i ng t he a c t o r ' s pe r c e p t ions . I nd i -

v i dua l s w i t h m or e pos i t i ve s e lf - c onc e p t s we r e a l s o he l d i rt h i gh

r e ga r d b y t he i r pa r t ne r s , whe r e a s t he opp os i t e wa s t r ue f o r i nd i -

v i d u a l s w i t h m o r e n e g a ti v e s e lf - co n c e p ts . B u t e v e n a m o n g m a r -

r i e d c o u p l e s, t h e s e " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " o r a c c u r a c y c o r r e l a t io n s

we r e on l y m ode r a t e i n s i z e, r a i s i ng t he pos s i b i li t y t ha t s om e de -g r e e o f pos i t ive i ll u s i on ( o r mo t i va t e d mi s u nde r s t a nd i ng ) a l s o

s ha pe d pe r c e p t i ons .

Projecting Self and Ideals

I f t he de s i r e f o r s e c u r i t y mo t i va t e s ide a l i z a t ion , c e r t a i n ho pe s

o r w i sh e s s h o u l d s h a p e t h e n a t u r e o f th e s e m o t i v a t e d m i s u n -

de r s t a nd i ngs . Fo r in s t a nc e , be l i e v i ng a pa r t ne r m i r r o r s on e ' s i m-

a ge o f t he i de a l pa r t n e r ma y a l low one t o f ee l s a fe a nd s e c u r e i n

one ' s c om m i t m e n t ( e .g . , Mur s t e i n , 1967 , 1971 ) . A l s o , s ee i ng

one s e l f in on e ' s pa r t ne r ma y f o s t e r a s e ns e o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y a nd

a s s u m e d s i m i l a ri t y c r i ti c a l f o r fe e li n g se c u r e ( H o l m e s & R e m -

pe l , 1989 ) . O ur c r o s s - s e c t i ona l s t udy ( Mu r r a y e t a l ., 199 6 ) r e -

ve a l e d t ha t i nd i v i dua l s ' s e l f - i ma ge s a nd s c he ma s f o r t he i de a lpa r t ne r a ppe a r e d t o s ha pe t he i r i l l u s i ons : The mor e pos i t i ve

t he i r i de a l s a nd s e l f - i ma ge s , t he mor e i de a l i z e d t he i r i mpr e s -

s i ons o f t he i r pa r t ne r s .

F u r t h e r m o r e , w o r k i n g m o d e l s o f s e l f a n d o t h e r w e r e c l o se l y

t i e d , a s a t t a c h me n t t he o r i s t s ha ve a r gue d ( e . g ., Bowl by , 1982 ) .

I nd i v i dua l s w i t h a s t r onge r s e ns e o f s e l f - wor t h s e t h i ghe r i de al s

a nd pe r c e i ve d mo r e v i r t ue s i n t he i r pa r t ne r s , w he r e a s i nd i v i du -

a l s w i t h a we a ke r s e ns e o f s e l f -wor t h e xpe c t e d l e s s f r om a n i de a l

p a r t n e r a n d p e r c e iv e d f e w e r v i r t u e s i n t h e i r o w n p a r t n e r s . T h u s ,

i n d i v id u a l s m o r e s e c u r e i n t h e i r o w n s e n se o f s e lf w e r e m o r e

ge ne r ou s i n t he i r de p i c t i ons o f t he i r pa r t ne r s , ov e r l ook i ng f a u lt s

a nd e m be l l i s h i ng v i r t ue s . Conve r s e ly , t he p r o j e c t i on o f pe r s ona l

i n s e c u r i t i e s a ppe a r e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h i n t i ma t e s s e e i ng t he be s t

i n t he i r pa r t ne r s ( e . g ., Ka r ne y , Br a dbu r y , F i nc h a m , & Su l li va n ,1 9 9 4 ) .

I t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h is e v i d e n c e f o r p ro j e c t i o n t r a n -

s c e nde d t he e f f e c t s o f a c t ua l s i mi l a r i t y . Tha t i s , i n t ima t e s w i t h

h i g h e r s el f -e s te e m w e r e n o t a n y m o r e l ik e ly t o h a v e p a r t n e r s

wi t h h i gh s e l f - e st e e m. So t he l i nk be t we e n r o s y s e l f - ima ge s a nd

i de a l i z a t i on c a nno t be e xp l a i ne d by t he s e i nd i v i dua l s ha v i ng

pa r t ne r s who a r e e a s i e r t o i de a l i z e . Nor d i d t he e v i de nc e f o r

p r o j e c t i on s i mp l y r e f l e c t a Po l l ya nna e f f e c t . We s t i l l f ound

s t r ong e v i de nc e f o r i de a l iz a t i on e ve n wh e n w e c on t r o l l e d f o r i n -

d i v i dua l s ' g e ne r a l t e nde n c y t o s e e o t he r s i n m or e o r l e ss pos it i ve

t e r ms . Mos t c r i t i c a l , we f ound t h i s e v i de nc e f o r pos i t i ve i l l u -

s i ons u s i ng a r e a l i t y be n c hm a r k ( t he pa r t n e r ' s s e l f - pe r c e p t ions )

t h a t w a s a l r e a d y c o l o r e d b y a d e g r e e o f s e l f- e n h a n c e m e n t ( e , g .,

T a y l o r & B r o w n , 1 9 8 8 ) .

At this p oin t a cav eat is in order. In using B ill's self-perceptions as a"reality" benchmark, we are n ot arguing that individuals possess true

insight into the actual nature of heir own attributes. Instead, numero usstudies suggest tha t individuals' self-perceptions are colored by som e

degree of po sitive i l lusion (e.g. , Alicke, 1985; Brow n, 1986; Greenwald,1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988). But given this evidence of self-aggran-dizement, self-perceptions may prove a very conservative benchmarkfor indexing a partner's illusions (i.e., HiUary's illusions about Bill musttranscend his own illusions about himself). Further, using a partner's

self-perceptions as a b aseline operationally defines the concept of "u n-derstanding," which has been central in theoretical debate.



SPECIAL I SSUE: LOV E I S PRESCIENT 115 7

C ons t ruc t ing Se c u r i t y

A s e ns e o f r e l a t i ons h i p s e c u r i t y a nd we l l - be i ng doe s i nde e d

a pp e a r t o ne c e s s i t a t e a c e r t a i n de g r e e o f i l l u s i on ( o r i na c -

c u r a c y ) . O u r c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d y ( M u r r a y e t a l . , 1 9 9 6 ) r e -

ve a l e d t ha t i nd i v i dua l s w e r e mo r e s a t i sf i e d i n t he i r r e la t i ons h i p s

w h e n t h e y s a w v i r tu e s i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r s d i d

no t s e e i n t he m s e l v e s - - a "p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i ons " e f fe c t. Be i ng ide -

a l i z e d a l s o be ne f i t e d we l l - be ing . Tha t i s , ind i v i dua l s we r e ha p -

p i e r i n t h e i r re l a t io n s h i p s w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s l o o k e d b e y o n d

t he " r e a l i t y " o f t he i r s e l f -pe r c e i ve d fr a i lt i e s a nd s a w t he b e s t i n

t h e m - - a " r e f l e c te d i l l u s io n s " e f fe ct . A c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g

a pa r t ne r ' s s e l f - v i e ws r a r e l y p r e d i c t e d s a t i s f a c t i on , i n c on t r a s t

t o Sw a nn e t a l ' s ( 1992 , 199 4 ) v i e ws on t he be ne f i t s o f s e l f- ve r i-

f i c a t i on . Whe n i t d i d , i n t i ma t e s we r e a c t ua l l y l e s s ha ppy whe n

t he y a g r e e d w i t h t he i r p a r t ne r s ' r e l a ti ve l y ne ga t i ve se lf -v ie ws .

I n s t e a d , s y s t e m a t i c ina c c u r a c i e s - - - i n t he f o r m o f pos i t ive i ll u -

s i o n s - p r e d i c t e d g re a te r, c o n c u r r e n t h a p p i n es s a m o n g b o t h

d a t i n g a n d m a r r i e d c o u p l e s ( M u r r a y e t a l ., 1 9 9 6 ) .

Sw a nn e t a l ., 19 94 ) . Fo r in s t a nc e , a c c u r a t e l y unde r s t a nd i n g

d i f f e r e nc e s i n pe r s ona l i t i e s o r ne e ds s hou l d f a c i l i t a t e a d j u s t -

m e n t , t h e r e b y p r e e m p t i n g l a te r d i ff ic u l ti e s a n d e n s u r i n g c o n t i n -

ue d s a t i s fa c t i on .

J u s t a s i de a l iz i ng a pa r t ne r ma y pos e c e r t a i n l ong - t e r m r i sk s ,

t he be ne f i t s o f be i ng i de a l i z e d mi g h t a l s o be g i n t o f a de a s t i me

p a s se s . I n t i m a t e s m i g h t b e g i n t o r e s e n t t h e b u r d e n o f li v in g u pt o t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' i d e a li z e d i m a g e s o f t h e m ( e v e n i f s u c h p o s i t iv e

r e ga r d onc e p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r we l l - be i ng ) . Swa nn a nd h i s c o l -

l e a gue s a r gue d t ha t i nd i v i dua l s i n l onge r - t e r m r e l a t i ons h i p s

w a n t t h e i r p a r t n e r s t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d v a l i d a t e t h e ir " r e a l " q u a l -

i t i e s . Eve n t hough da t i ng i nd i v i dua l s we r e ha pp i e r whe n t he i r

p a r t n e r s i d e al iz e d t h e m , S w a n n e t a l. ( 1 9 9 4 ) f o u n d t h a t m a r -

r i e d i nd i v i dua l s r e s i s t e d s uc h g r ound l e s s f l a t te r y a nd w e r e a c t u -

a l ly h a p p i e r w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s s a w t h e m a s t h e y s a w th e m -

s e l ve s . Suc h f i nd i ngs s ugge s t t ha t a c c u r a t e l y unde r s t a nd i ng a

pa r t ne r ' s qua l i t i e s ma y be i nc r e a s i ng l y c r i t i c a l f o r c on t i nue d

s a t i s f a c ti on a s r oma nc e s p r og r e s s .

A P e r m a n e n t P e a c e? T h e D i s a p p o i n t m e n t M o d e l

It is the expectation of seeing [one's beloved] that has producedthis unpleasant e f f ec t . . . W hat happens i s tha t the imagination ,

violently wrenched out of delicious reveries in which every stepbrings happiness, is dragged back to stern reality.--Stendhal, OnLove

Pos i t i ve i l l u s i ons , t he n , a f f o r d a t l e a s t a t e mpor a r y s e ns e o f

s e c u r i t y o r p e a c e . B u t S t e n d h a l ' s m u s i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t s u c h

i ma g i na t i ve r e ve r i e s a r e u l t i ma t e l y b e t r a ye d by s t e r ne r r e a l it ie s .

A t t e s t i ng t o t h i s pe s s i mi s t i c pe r s pe c t i ve , C . Ke ll y , Hus t on , a nd

C a t e ( 1 9 8 5 ) f o u n d t h a t e n g a g e d i n t i m a t e s w h o w e r e i n i t i a l l y

mo s t i n l ove a c t ua l l y s u f f e r e d t he g r e a t e s t de c l i ne s i n l ove a f t e r

ma r r i a ge . Fu r t h e r i l l u s t r a t i ng t he pos s i b l e pe r il s o f b l ind i de a l -i z a t i on a r e f i nd i ngs t ha t c on f l i c t s t ha t t yp i c a l l y ha ve l i tt l e be a r -

i n g o n r e p o r t s o f l ov e a n d s a t i s fa c t io n p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e p r e d i c t

de c l i ne s i n s a t i s fa c t i on a f t e r ma r r i a ge ( Br a i ke r & Ke ll ey , 1979 ;

C . Ke l l y e t a l ,, 1985 ; M a r km a n , 1979 , 1981 ) . Suc h f i nd i ngs s ug -

ge s t t ha t t he be ne f i t s o f unde r s t a n d i ng a p a r t ne r ' s r e a l qua l i ti e s

m a y o n l y s u rf a c e l a te r i n r o m a n c e s , w h e n s u c h r e a l i sm p r o t e c t s

i n t i m a t e s f r o m d i s a p p o i n t m e n t .

Pos i t ive i l l u s ions t he n mi g h t on l y p r ov i de a f a l s e s e ns e o f se -

c u r i t y t ha t a c t ua l l y c r e a t e s ( o r a t l e a s t he i gh t e ns ) t he po t e n t i a l

f o r e v e n tu a l d i s a p p o i n t m e n t a n d d i st re s s. A s o n e p o s s i b le

me c ha n i s m f o r s uc h " s e l f - de f e a t i ng" e f f e c t s , i de a l i z i ng a pa r t -

ne r mi gh t b l i nd i n t i ma t e s t o r e a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o r i nc ompa t i b i l i -

t i es , s uc h a s d i f f e r i ng de s ir e s f o r c l o s e ne s s ve r s us d i s t a nc e ( e . g .,

C h r i s t e n s e n & H e a v e y, 1 9 9 3 ) . V i e w i n g p a r t n e r s t h r o u g h t h e

r o s y f i lt e r p r ov i d e d by t he i r i de a l s , i nd i v i dua l s ma y s i mp l y a s -

s u m e c o m p a t i b i l it y o n s u c h d i m e n s i o n s e v e n w h e r e l a t e n t c o n -

f l ic t s e x i s t. H o l d i ng h i gh , p e r ha p s un r e a l i s t i c , i de a l s mi gh t a l s o

c o n t r i b u t e t o l a t e r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t w h e n i n c r e a s e d i n t e r d e p e n -

de nc e r e ve a l s how a pa r t n e r f a l l s s ho r t o f s uc h s t a nd a r ds ( e . g . ,

H i gg i n s , 1 987 ) . F i na l l y , a pa r t ne r ' s f a u l t s ma y be g i n t o a ppe a r

l e s s e nde a r i ng o r e xc us a b l e whe n s uc h i n i t i a l , c ha r i t a b l e c on -

s t r ua l s a r e pu t t o t he t e s t ove r t i me . T he s t r ugg l e t o a da p t t o

v i o l a t e d hope s a nd ne wl y d i s c ove r e d d i f f er e nc e s ma y t he n

he i gh t e n c on f l i c t s a nd r e po r t s o f a mb i va l e nc e . I n c on t r a s t , i n t i -

m a t e s w h o m o r e a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' r ea l a t-

t r i bu t e s m a y e xpe r i e nc e a mo r e l a s t i ng s e ns e o f s e c u r i t y ( e .g . ,

A S e l f -F u l fi ll in g P r o p h e c y ? T h e W i s h - F u l f i l lm e n t M o d e l

Suc h a pe r s pe c t i ve , howe ver , i gno r e s t he l i nk b e t we e n pos i t i ve

i l l u s i ons a nd s a t i s f a c t i on i n ma r r i a ge t ha t we r e po r t e d e a r l i e r

( M u r r a y e t a l. , 1 9 9 6 ) . D e s p i te t h e r i g o r s o f t i m e , m a r r i e d i n t i -

m a t e s w e r e h a p p i e r w h e n t h e y i d e a li z e d o n e a n o t h e r, n o t w h e n

t h e y m o r e a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t o o d o n e a n o t h e r. A l s o , o t h e r s t u d -

i e s ha ve s hown t h a t da t i ng r e l a t i ons h i p s a r e m or e l i ke l y t o pe r -

s i st a nd s t a y s a t is f y i ng whe n i n t i m a t e s s e e t he i r pa r t ne r s a s

m u c h m o r e d e s i r a b l e t h a n a n y o t h e r c o n c e i v a b l e p a r t n e r

( Fe l ml e e , Sp r e c he r , & Ba s s in , 1990 ; J oh ns o n & Rus bu l t , 1989 ;

S i m ps on , 1987 ) . Su c h f i nd ings s ugge s t t ha t i de a l i z a t i on ma y

p r o m o t e c o n t i n u e d s a t is f a c ti o n a n d s t ab i l it y a s d a t i n g r e l a t i o n -

s h i p s p r og r e ss . W hy m i gh t t h i s be the c a s e ?

Pos i t ive i l lu s i ons m a y a c t a s a r e s ou r c e o f goodwi l l o r c on f i -de nc e t ha t a c t ua l l y a l l ows i n t i ma t e s t o c ope mor e e f f e c t i ve l y

wi t h ( o r a t l e a s t t o l e r a t e ) d i s a ppo i n t me n t s a s t i me pa s s e s . Fo r

e x a m p l e , i n t i m a t e s a r e b e t t e r a b l e t o w e a t h e r f e e li n g s o f a m b i v -

a l e n c e i f t h e i r c o m m i t m e n t i s s u f fi c ie n t ly s t ro n g ( T h o m p s o n &

Hol m e s , 1995 ) . Eve n i n m a r r i a ge , pos i t i v i t y a ppe a r s t o r e gu l a t e

o r mo de r a t e t h e e f f e ct s o f ne ga t iv i t y . M a r r i e d i n t i ma t e s a r e

m o r e l i k el y t o r e m a i n c o m m i t t e d a n d h a p p y a s l o n g as p o si t iv e

i n t e r a c t i ons ou t we i gh ne ga t i ve one s by a r a t i o o f a t l e a s t fi ve t o

o n e ( G o t t m a n , 1 9 9 4 ; G o t t m a n & L e v e n s o n , 1 9 9 2 ) . N e w l y w e d

wi ve s we r e a l s o le s s d i s t u r be d by t he i r hus b a nd s ' c om pl a i n t s

w h e n t h e y o c c u r r e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a w a r m , a f f ec t i o na t e re l a -

t i o n s h ip ( H u s t o n & C h o r o s t , 1 9 9 4 ) . W e p r e d i c t t h a t p o s it iv e

i l l u s i ons w i l l p l a y a s i mi l a r r o l e i n i n s u l a t i ng da t i ng i n t i ma t e s

f r o m t h e h a r m f u l e f fe c ts o f c o n f li c t a n d d o u b t - - t h e bufferinghypothesis.

As a f u r t he r pos s i b l e me c ha n i s m f o r s uc h " s e l f - f u l f i l l i ng"

e f f e c t s , i de a l i z i ng a pa r t ne r ma y mo t i va t e i n t i ma t e s t o t r a ns -

f o r m t h e m e a n i n g o f a p p a r e n t f a u lt s o r c o n fl i ct s a n d t h u s d i -

m inis h the i r s igni f icance (e .g . , Kel ley , 1 979 ) . For ins tance , see-

i ng a pa r t ne r ' s be ha v i o r s t h r ough t he r o s y f i l t e r s p r ov i de d by

o n e ' s i d e a ls m a y e n c o u r a g e t o l e r an c e i n t h e f a c e o f tr a n s g r e s-

s i ons ( e . g ., Ru s bu l t , Ve r e t t e , W hi t ne y , S l ov i k , & L i pk us , 1991 ) .

W he n c on f l i c t s do oc c u r , se e i ng a pa r t n e r ' s f a u l t s i n t he be s t

p o s s ib l e l ig h t m a y p r o v i d e i n t i m a t e s w i t h t h e o p t i m i s m n e c e s -

s a r y to c o n f r o n t p r o b l e m s . A l s o , c o m i n g t o t e r m s w i t h a p a r t -

ne t ' s f r a i lt i e s by li nk i ng t he m t o g r e a t e r v i r t ue s m a y l e s se n t he



1 1 5 8 M U R R A Y , H O L M E S, A N D G R I F F I N

l i k e l i h o o d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i ll l a t e r e x p e r i e n c e r e n e w e d a m b i v -

a l e n c e o r d o u b t s a b o u t t h e s e i m p e r f e c t i o n s . I n s u c h w a y s , i d e a l -

i z in g a p a r t n e r m a y w a r d o f f l a t e r t h r e a t s a n d m i n i m i z e t h e

c h a n c e s o f i n t i m a t e s e x p e r i e n c i n g s i g n i f i c an t c o n f li c t s o r e n t e r -

t a i n in g s e r i o u s d o u b t s - - t h e transformation hypothesis.F u r t h e r m o r e , i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t e v e n c r e a t e th e i n t e r p e r s o n a l

r e a l i ti e s t h e y d e s i r e b y i d e a l i z in g t h e i r p a r t n e r s . I n t e r a c t i o n sw i t h i n t i m a t e o t h e r s a r e t h o u g h t t o s h a p e a n d e x p a n d i n d i v i d u -

a l s ' s e lf - c o n c e p ts , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d o m a i n s , s u c h a s d e v e l o p i n g

r o m a n c e s , w h e r e s e l f - k n o w l e d g e m a y b e u n c e r t a i n ( e . g . , A r o n ,

Ar o n , Tu d o r , & Ne l s o n , 1 9 9 1 ; Ar o n , P a r i s , & Ar o n , 1 9 9 5 ;

B a u m e i s t e r & T i c e , 1 9 8 6; M . R . L e a r y , T a m b o r , T e r d a l , &

Do w n s , 1 9 9 5 ; S c h le n k e r , 1 9 8 6 ; T i c e , 1 9 9 2 ) . I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e ,

i n t i m a t e s m a y c o n t i n u e t o b a s k i n t h e g l o w o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s '

r e f l e c te d a p p r a i s a l s a s t i m e p a s s e s - - c o m i n g t o s h a r e a s p e c t s o f

t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' i d e a li z e d vi ew s o f t h e m - - r a t h e r t h a n s t u b b o r nl y

c l i n g i n g t o l e s s d e s i r a b l e s e l f - i m a g e s (e . g . , S w a n n e t a l . , 1 9 9 2 ) .

S u c h e f f e c ts m i g h t e m e r g e b e c a u s e i n d i v i d u a l s c o m e t o s e e t h e i r

o w n a t t r i b u t e s t h r o u g h t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' ( m o r e f o r g i v i n g ) e y e s.

I n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t e v e n d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' s e l f-

d o u b t s o r c r i t i c i s m s , t h e r e b y b o l s t e r i n g t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' s e n s e o fs e l f- w o r t h . I n t i m a t e s m i g h t a l s o e n c o u r a g e t h e i r p a r t n e r s t o l i v e

u p t o t h e i r i d e a l i z e d s t a n d a r d s s i m p l y b y t r e a t i n g th e i r p a r t n e r s

a s s p e c i a l, u n i q u e i n d i v i d u a l s ( e .g . , S n y d e r & S w a n n , 1 9 78 ;

S n y d e r e t al . , 1 9 7 7 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e p r e d i c t t h a t i n t i m a t e s c a n

a c t u a l l y t u r n s e l f -p e r c e i v e d f r o g s in t o t h e p r i n c e s o r p r i n c e s s e s

t h e y p e rc e i ve t h e m t o b e - - t h e reflected appraisal hypothesis.

A R o l e f o r R e a l i t y : W o r k i n g M o d e l s o f S e lf

De s p i t e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s u c h " s e l f - f u l f i l l in g " e f fe c t s, c e r t a i n

r e a l i ti e s m a y p e n e t r a t e i n t i m a t e s ' d e f e n s e s a s d a t i n g r e l a t io n -

s h i ps p r o g r e s s - - p r e c i s e l y b e c a u se o f t h e l i n k b e t w e e n m o d e l s

o f s e l f a n d o t h e r s ( M u r r a y e t a l . , 1 9 9 6 ) . A s w e d i s cu s s e d , d i s p o -

s i t i o n a l in s e c u r i t i e s i n t e r fe r e w i t h i n t i m a t e s s e e i n g t h e i r p a r t -

n e r s i n t h e m o s t f l a t t e r i n g l i g ht . T h a t i s, i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h m o r e

n e g a t i v e m o d e l s o f s e l f ( i . e . , l o we r s e l f - e s t e e m ) a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o

i d e a l i ze th e i r p a r t n e r s a n d , a s a c o n s e q u e n c e , m i g h t b e l e ss

l i k e ly t o t r e a t t h e m w e l l . F o r i n s t a n c e , K a r n e y e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 )

f o u n d t h a t m a r r i e d i n t i m a t e s p r o n e t o n e g a t iv e a f fe c t a r e a l s o

m o r e l i ke l y t o m a k e b l a m i n g o r a c c u s a t o r y a t t ri b u t i o n s in t h e ir

i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h t h e i r s p o u se s . S i m i l a r ly , m o r e n e u r o t i c m a r -

r i e d i n t i m a t e s a r e i n v o l v e d i n m o r e d i s s a t i s f y in g a n d l e s s s t a b le

r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( E . L . K e l l y & Co n l e y , 1 9 8 7 ) . S u c h r e s u l t s s u g g e st

t h a t i n t i m a t e s ' c o n t i n u e d a b i l i t y t o i d e a l i z e t h e i r p a r t n e r s

s h o u l d d e p e n d o n t h e i r o w n l e v e l o f s e l f- e s t ee m b u t - - a n d t h i s i s

m o s t c r i t i c a l - - s h o u l d a l s o b e c o n s t r a in e d b y t h e i r p a rt n e r s '

l e v e l o f s e l f - r e g a r d . T h a t i s , i n t i m a t e s s h o u l d e x p e r i e n c e i n -c r e a s i n g d i ff i c u lt y i d e a l i z in g a p a r t n e r w h o s e w o r d s ( a n d p e r -

h a p s d e e d s ) b e l i e s u c h p o s i t i v e r e g a r d . I n s u m m a r y , t h e p a s s a g e

o f t i m e s h o u l d e x a c e r b a t e t h e e f fe c ts o f s e l f - es t e e m , u l t i m a t e l y

c o n s t r a i n i n g t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p o s i t iv e i l l u si o n s a n d w e l l- b e in g .

S u m m a r y o f H y p o t h e s e s

I f p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s o n l y s e t t h e s t a g e f o r d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t , i d e -

a l i z i n g a p a r t n e r s h o u l d f o r e c a s t l a t e r r e l a ti o n s h i p d i s t r e s s a n d

d i s s o l u t io n . A n d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s

" r e a l " q u a l i t i e s s h o u l d p r o t e c t s a t i s f a c ti o n a n d w a r d o f f la t e r

d i f f i c u l ti e s . Bu t i f p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s a c t u a l l y h a v e s e l f - f u l f il l i n g

( r a t h e r t h a n s e l f -d e f e a t in g ) e f fe c ts , r o m a n c e s s h o u l d p e r s i st a n d

b e c o m e r e l a ti v e ly m o r e s a t is f y i n g w h e n i n t i m a t e s i d e a l iz e o n e

a n o t h e r t h e m o s t . W e p r e d i c t t h a t i d e a l i z a t io n w i l l h a v e s u c h

s e l f - fu l f i l li n g e f f e ct s b e c a u s e o f i t s r o l e i n b u f f e r i n g i n t i m a t e s

f r o m t h e h a r m f u l e f f e c ts o f e a r l y d o u b t a n d c o n f l ic t ( t h e b u f f -

e r i n g h y p o t h e s i s ) , i n b o l s t e r i n g l a t e r s a ti s f a c ti o n a n d r e d u c i n g

l a t e r c o n f l ic t s a n d a m b i v a l e n c e ( t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n h y -

p o t h e s i s ) , a n d i n a c t u a l l y t u r n i n g i n t i m a t e s i n t o t h e s p e c i a l i n -d i v i d u a l s t h e i r p a r t n e r s p e r c e i v e ( th e r e f le c t e d a p p r a i s a l

h y p o t h e s i s ) . F i n a l l y , b e c a u s e o f t h e c o n c u r r e n t l i n k b e t w e e n

s e l f - e s t e e m a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l g e n e r o s i t y , we e x p e c t t h a t p o s i t i v e

m o d e l s o f s e l f w i l l p r o v e c r i t i c a l i n s u s t a i n i n g p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s

a n d w e l l - b e in g o v e r t i m e .

M e t h o d

Overview

To examine how positive illusions shaped developing romances, wefollowed a samp le of 121 dat ing couples over the course o f 1 year . A tTime l , i nd iv idua l sdescr ibed themselves, their partner, their ideal part-

ner , and the typ ical par tne r on a v ar ie ty of nterpersonal a t t r ibutes . Eachindividual a lso com pleted measures of re la t ionship wel l -being (e .g . , sa t-isfaction, ambivalence, and conflict). We recontacted these couples 4-5 m onths af ter the in i t ia l session (Time 2) and again I 1-12 m onthsaf ter the in i t ia l sess ion (Tim e 3) . At each fol low-up, we asked respon-dents who were s t i l l together to com plete a shortened vers ion of theTime l questionnaire.

Par t i c ipan t s an d P rocedure

Initial session. Part ic ipants were 121 dat ing couples who p ar t ic i -pated in a s tudy o f "Thoughts and Feel ings in D at ing Relat ionships"held at the University of Waterloo. Fifty-five of these couples partici-pated in the cross-sect ional s tudy reported in Murray e t a l . (1996) .The ma jori ty of couples (N = 118) descr ibed themselves as dat ing theirpar tners exclusively . The par t ic ipa nts ' mean age was 19.5 years , andthey had been dat ing 19.0 mon ths on average.

If both mem bers of the couple were present in the lab, they were

seated a t separate tables and com pleted the quest ionnaires indepen-dent ly . I f only one m em ber o f the couple could a t tend the lab session,their par tners w ere sent quest ionnaires and le tters invi t ing them to p ar-t ic ipate in the s tudy. Again, individuals were caut ioned to comp lete thequestionnaire without discussing their responses with their partners.Respondents received either course cre dit or $6 fo r participating.

Follow-ups. At Times 2 and 3, a female research assistant individu-al ly contacted each of the m emb ers of the dat ing couples by phone. Shefirs t asked w hether the resp ondent was s t i l l dat ing the same person. I fthe re la t ionship was intact , she asked respondents to comp lete a shortquestionnaire on their thoughts and feelings about their relationships.If respondents agreed, a questionnaire and a stam ped and addressedreturn envelope were mailed to them. Upon receipt of the quest ion-

na i r e , pa r ti c ipan t s were pa id $6 and p romised a sum mary o f the r e -search findings.

Out of the or iginal sample of 121 couples, 116 couples were re-contacted and agreed to par t ic ipate in a t least one of the fol low-ups.One couple declined the invi ta t ion to par t ic ipate , and 4 couples could

not be located. Over the year, 43 couples dissolved their relationships(appro xim ately 35% of the sample ) . At T ime 2, 92 couples were s ti l ldat ing and at least one m em ber of each couple agreed to com plete thefol low-up. Both m emb ers of 73 couples re turned T ime 2 m easures . On emember of 17 couples re turned the measures , and 2 couples did notre turn the measures. At Tim e 3, 73 couples were s ti ll dat ing and at leastone member of each couple agreed to complete the fol low-up. Bothmem bers o f 58 couples r e tu rned Time 3 measu res . O ne m ember o f



S P E C I A L I S S U E : L O V E I S P R E S C I E N T 1 1 5 9

13 c ouple s r e turne d the m e a sure s , a nd 2 c ouple s d id not r e turn the

que s t ionna i r e s .

M e a s u r e s

Both the in i t i al a nd fo l low-up que s t ionna i r e s inc lude d m e a sure s of

(a ) m ode l s o f s e l f a nd o the r, inc luding m e a sure s of s e l f -perc e pt ions a nd

pe rc e pt ions of ind iv idua l s ' own pa r tne r s , the typ ic a l pa r tne r, a nd the

ideal par tner , and ( b) re la t ions hip well-being (e .g. , sa t isfac t ion, amb iv-

a le nc e , a nd c on f l i c t ) . A l l que s t ionna i r e s a ske d for the r e sponde nt ' s ge n-

der , age , and re la t ionship length. These m easures are descr ib ed below.

Any d i f f e re nc e s in que s t ionna i r e c onte nt a c ros s the t im e pe r iods a re

a lso descr ibed.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Q u a l i t i e s S c a l e . In de ve loping h i s m e a sure o f s e l fa n d

othe r m ode l s , we se le cte d pos i t ive a nd ne ga t ive a t t r ibu te s f rom the in-

terpersonal c irc le (e .g., T. Leary, 1957; Wiggins , 1979) , a m odel based

o n t h e p r i m a r y d i m e n s i o n s o f w a r m t h - h o s t i l i ty a n d d o m i n a n c e - s u b -

miss iveness . Example a t tr ibutes inc luded "kind and affec t ionate ,"

"ope n a nd d i sc los ing ," " r e spons ive to m y ne e ds , " " to le ra nt a nd a c c e pt -

ing , " "unde r s ta nding; ' "pa t i e n t , " " c r i t i c a l a nd judgm e nta l , " " c ont ro l -

l in g a n d d o m i n a n t ; " " t h o u g h t l e s s , ' " d i s ta n t a n d c o m p l a i n i n g " a n d " i r -

r a t iona l . " We a l so s ele c te d a nu m b e r o f a t tr ibu te s of te n c ons ide re d to

re pre se nt c om m odi t i e s in the soc ia l - e xc ha nge proc e s s ( e . g . , Rubin ,

1973) , suc h a s " soc ia ble , " " se l f -a s sure d ," " in te l l ige nt , " "w i t ty ; ' a nd

" la z y . " In c o m pu t ing th e t r a i t -pe rc e pt ions inde x , ne ga t ive t r a i ts we re

reverse-scored, such tha t h igher scores represented mo re favorable

perceptions .

To prov ide base l ines for assess ing posi t ive i llus ions , we asked pa r t ic i-

pa nt s to de sc r ibe the m se lve s , the i r own pa r tne r s , th e ide a l pa r tne r , a nd

the typic a l pa r tne r on th i s a t t r ibu te m e a sure ( s e e Mur ra y e t a l. , 1996,

for fur the r de ta i l s ) . Pa r t i c ipa nt s r a te d how we l l e a c h of the t r a i ts de -

scr ibed the targ et (e .g. , se lf, par tner , typica l , ide al) on a 9-po int sca le ( 1

= n o t a t a l l c h a r a c t e r i s ti c , 9 = c o m p l e t e l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) . T h e o r d e r o f

the a t t r ibu te r a t ings fo r the d i f f e re nt ta rge t s wa s pa r t ia l ly c ounte rba l -

anced ac ross par t ic ipants . We analyzed this sca le in two ways, exam in-

ing both indiv idua l s ' to ta l s core s ( a nom o the t i c a pproa c h ) a s we ll a s

the i r pe r sona l i ty prof i l e s ( a n id iogra phic a ppro a c h) .

S e l f - e s t e e m . At T im e 1 , pa r t i c ipa nt s a l so c om ple te d Rose nbe rg ' s

( 1965 ) 10- i t em Se l f -Es te e m Sc a le to prov ide a m e a sure of the i r g loba l

se lf-evaluat ions (e .g. , " I fee l tha t I am a person of worth, a t leas t on an

e qua l ba si s w i th o the r s " ) . Pa r t i c ipa nt s r e sponde d to suc h i t e m s on a 4-

p o i n t s c a l e ( 1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 4 = s t r o n g l y a g r e e ) .

A t t a c h m e n t s t y l e . At T im e s ! a nd 3 , pa r t i c ipa nt s c om ple te d Ba r -

tholom e w a nd H orowi tz ' s (1991) A t ta c hm e nt S ty le s Que s t ionna i r e .

Th is sca le consis ts of four paragraphs, each descr ibing a proto typic a t-

t a c hm e nt pa t t e rn ( f e a r fu l , p re oc c upie d , s e c ure , a nd d i sm is s ing) . Pa r -

t i c ipa nt s ra te d how we l l e a c h pro to typ e de sc r ibe d the m on 7-poin t

sca le s; th i s a l lowe d us to c re a te ind ic e s of the pos i t iv i ty of m od e l s of s e l f

( " s e c u r e " a n d " d i s m i s si n g " r at i n gs m i n u s " f e a r f u l " a n d " p r e o c c u p i e d "

ra t ings ) a nd m ode ls of o the r ( " se c ure " a nd "pre o c c up ie d" r a t ings m i -

nus "d i sm is s ing" a nd " fe a r fu l " r a t ings ; s e e Gr i f f in & Ba r tholom e w,

1994) .

S a t i s f a c t i o n . The 4- i tem sa t isfac t ion sca le indexed par t ic ipants '

g loba l e va lua t ion of the i r r e la t ionships ( e .g ., " ' I a m e xt r e m e ly ha ppy

wi th m y re la t ionship ; I ha ve a ve ry s t rong r e la t ionship w i th m y

pa r tn e r " ) . Pa r t i c ipa nt s r e sponde d to the se ( a nd a l l fo l lowing) i t e m s on

9-po int sca les ( 1 = n o t a t a l l tr u e , 9 = c o m p l e t e l y t r u e ) .

A m b i v a l e n c e . The 4 - i t e m a m biva le nc e sc a le ( a da pte d f rom Bra ike r

& Ke l le y , 1979) c a pture d indiv idua l s ' e xpe r ie nc e of c onf l ic te d or c on-

fused fee lings about the ir re la t ionship s (e .g. , " I fee l somewha t confused

a bout m y fee lings towa rd m y pa r tn e r " ) .

C o n f l i c t - n e g a t i v i t y . The 5- i t e m c onf l i c t s c a le ( a da pte d f rom Bra ike r

& Kelley, 1979) in dexed th e frequen cy of overt behav iora l confl ic t and

di re c t c om m unic a t ion s of ne ga t ive a f f ec t ( e .g . , "O ur a rgum e nts of te n

involve qui t e s e rious proble m s or i s sue s" ) .

D e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s t y l e s . This 23 - i t e m sc a le inde xe d c hronic t e n-

de nc ie s to de a l w i th proble m s through ( a ) a voida nc e ( e .g ., " M y pa r tne r

som e t im e s a voids d isc uss ing proble m s in o ur r e la t ionship be c a use he /

she i s a f r a id of hur t ing m e " ) , (b ) r e c iproc a l cyc le s of c r it i c i sm a nd

bla m e (e .g ., " I f I c r i t i ci z e m y pa r tner , m y pa r tn e r t e nds to c r i t i c i z e m e

in r e turn" ) , a nd ( c ) c ons t ruc t ive e nga ge m e nt ( r e ve r se - sc ore d; e . g . ,

"Whe n I a c t in a n a ngry or hur t fu l wa y, m y pa r tne r t r i e s to f ind out

wha t i s bo the r ing m e ra the r tha n a c t ing a ngry a nd hur t t oo " ) . H ighe r

scores indica ted mo re destruct ive confl ic t s tyles . A 9- i tem v ers ion of his

scale was used in the follow-ups.

T r a i t a m b i v a l e n c e . This 8- i t e m sc a le ( a dm ini s te re d a t T im e 3) in-

de xe d indiv idua l s ' e xpe r ie nc e of c onf l i c te d fe e lings a bout the a c tua l

m e r i t o f the i r pa r tne r s ' a t t r ibu te s ( e .g . , "k ind a nd a f f e ct iona te , " " to le r -

a n t a nd a c c e pt ing" ) . Indiv idua l s r a te d e a c h a t t r ibu te on two d im e n-

sions, f i rst ra t ing how "b enefi c ia l" the a t tr ib ute was and second ra t ing

how "h a rm ful" i t wa s. Am b iva le nc e wa s c om pute d a c c ord ing to the

fo l lowing form ula de ve lope d by Thom pson, Za nna , a nd G r i f f in ( 1995 ) :

Am biva le nc e = (be ne f ic ia l + ha rm ful ) /

2 - a bsolu te va lue (be ne f ic ia l - ha rm ful ) .

R e s u l t s

T o e x p l o r e t h e s e l f- f u l fi l l in g ( o r s e l f - d e f e a ti n g ) e f f e c t s o f i d e -

a l i z a t i o n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w e c e n t e r e d o u r a n a l y s e s i n t w o

m a i n a r ea s . W e f ir st e x a m i n e d t h e c o n c u r r e n t l i n k b e t w e e n p o s -

i t i v e i l l u s io n s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d w e l l - b e i n g , r e p l i c a t i n g a n d

e x t e n d i n g o u r p r e v i o u s w o r k ( M u r r a y e t al ., 1 9 9 6 ) . W e th e n

c o n d u c t e d a s e r ie s o f l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s e s . T h e f i rs t s e t e x -

p l o r e d t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p o s i t i v e i ll u s i o n s a n d d i s s o l u t i o n ( t h e

b u f f e r in g h y p o t h e s i s) . T h e s e c o n d s e t e x a m i n e d c h a n g e s i n

w e l l -b e i n g a s a f u n c t i o n o f i d e a l iz a t i o n ( t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

h y p o t h e s i s) . T h e t h i r d s e t e x a m i n e d w h e t h e r i n t i m a t e s c a n e r e-

a t e t h e p a r t n e r s t h e y d e s i r e b y i d e a l i z i n g t h e m ( t h e r e f l e c t e d

a p p r a i s a l h y p o t h e s i s ) . A n d t h e f i n a l s e t e x a m i n e d t h e p o s s i b l y

s e l f - c o r re c t i v e n a t u r e o f i d e a l i z a t i o n , t h a t i s, h o w i n d i v i d u a l s

a d j u s t t h e i r w o r k i n g m o d e l s o f a c t u al a n d i d e a l p a r t n e r s t o r e a l-

i t y a s t i m e p a s s e s .

T a b l e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e r e l ia b i l i ti e s , m e a n s , a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a -

t i o n s f o r e a c h v a r i a b l e f or m e n a n d w o m e n a t e a c h t i m e p e r i o d .

I n d i v i d u a l s ' m e a n r a ti n g s o f th e m s e l v e s a n d t h e i r p a r t n e r s o n

t h e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Q u a l i t i e s S c a l e i n d e x e d t h e o v e r a l l p o s i t i v i t y

o f p a r t n e r s ' r e a l i ti e s a n d a c t o r s ' i m p r e s s i o n s , r e s p e ct i v e ly . I n

c o m p u t i n g t h i s t r a it - p e r c e p ti o n s i n d e x , w e r e v e r s e- s c o r ed n e g a -

t i v e t r a it s , s u c h t h a t h i g h e r s c o r e s r e p r e s e n t e d m o r e f a v o r a b l e

p e r c e p t i o n s .

A n a l y t i c S t r a te g y ." I n d e x i n g ' ' I l l u s i o n " a n d ' ' R e a l i t y "

S t r u c t u r a l e q u a t i o n m o d e l i n g w i t h a m a x i m u m l i k e l ih o o d

p r o g r a m s u c h a s L I S R E L , E Q S , o r C A L I S a l lo w s t h e s i m u l t a-

n e o u s e s t i m a t i o n o f p a th c o e ff i ci e n ts i n a n u m b e r o f d i ff e r e n t

e q u a t i o n s . W e f i rs t d e f i n e d t h e m a l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e f e m a l e

a s p a r t r e a li t y , p a r t p r o j e c t i o n , a n d p a r t u n e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e

o r e r ro r . S i m i l a r ly , w e d e f i n e d t h e f e m a l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e

m a l e a s p a r t r e a l it y , p a r t p r o j e c t i o n , a n d p a r t u n e x p l a i n e d v a r i -

a n c e o r e r ro r . T h i s m o d e l o f a c to r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s i s r e p r e s e n t e d

b y t h e f o l l o w i n g s e t o f e q u a t i o n s :

M a l e ' s P e r c e p t i o n o f F e m a l e = / ~ l F e m a l e S e l f

+ / ~ 2 M a l e S e l f + / ~ 3 M a l e ' s I d e a l + E r r o r 1

F e m a l e ' s P e r c e p t i o n o f M a l e = ~ 4 M a l e S e l f

+ f15 F e m a l e S e l f + f l6 F e m a l e ' s I d e a l + E r r o r 2 .




T a b l e 1

R e l i a b i li t ie s , M e a n s , a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f E a c h V a r i a b le a t T i m e s 1 , 2, a n d 3

T i m e 1

M e n W o m e n

T i m e 2

M e n W o m e n

M e ~ u ~ ~ M S D M S D a M S D M S D

T i m e 3

M e n W o m e n

a M S D M S D

Self-perceptions .75 6.46 0.72 6.84 0.66 .78 6.53 0.75 6.86 0.77 .79 6.53 0.83 6.78 0.68Percep t ion o f pa r tne r .83 6 ,80 0 .85 7 .1 1 0 .83 .85 6 . 8 3 0 .85 7 .24 0 .88 .85 6 .84 0 .90 7 . 0 6 0 .90Perception of the ideal partn er .74 7.44 0.52 7 . 7 7 0.49 .76 7.50 0.59 7.80 0.47 .74 7.5 ! 0 .62 7 .7 8 0.52P ercep tion o f the ty p ica l p a r tn e r .88 5 .92 0 .89 5 . 9 8 0 . 8 1 . . . . . .87 6 .10 0 . 9 1 6.04 0 .84Self-esteem .86 3.38 0 . 4 1 3 . 2 5 0.47 . . . . . . . . . .Sat isfact ion .87 7.7 5 1.28 8.01 1.13 .92 7.8 5 1.27 8.10 1.15 .93 7.7 5 1.20 7.8 8 1.65Am bivalenc e .84 2.62 1.76 2.02 1.54 .90 2.51 1.80 1.75 1.15 .91 2.25 1.56 2.00 1.8 4Con fl ict-negativi ty .72 2.84 1.35 2.90 1.47 .77 2.90 1.47 2.99 1.46 .78 2.93 1.14 2.9 2 1.52Construct ive--destructive style .91 3.48 1.13 3.44 1.31 .86 3 . 8 2 1 . 4 1 3.71 1.47 .85 3 .8 8 1.3 4 3.64 1.42

T h e " r e a l i t y " p a t h s ( e . g ., / 3j ) t a p a c t o r s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' q u a l i t i e s (i . e ., w h a t t h e y s e e i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s t h a t

t h e i r p a r t n e r s a l s o s e e in t h e m s e l v e s ) . M i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o r i l-

l u s i o n s r e f er t o a c t o r s ' i d i o s y n c r a t i c p e r c e p t i o n s ( i . e ., w h a t t h e y

s e e i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r s d o n o t s e e i n

t h e m s e l v e s ) . T h i s r e s i d u a l i z e d m e a s u r e o f i ll u s i o n i s o b t a i n e d

b y p a r t i a l i n g t h e e f f e c ts o f t h e p a r t n e r ' s r e a l i t y o u t o f t h e a c t o r ' s

p e r c e p t i o n s ( i . e . , b y c o n t r o l l i n g f o r th e a c t o r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

t h e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f - i m a g e ) . T h e " p r o j e c t i o n " p a t h s ( e . g . , B2 , ~ 3 )

i n d e x w h e t h e r a c t o r s ' s e l f -i m a g e s o r i d e a l s s h a p e t h e n a t u r e o f

t h e s e i l l u s io n s o r m o t i v a t e d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s .

B u i l d i n g o n t h e s e e q u a t i o n s , F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s o u r b a s i c

m o d e l o f p o s i t i v e i l l u s io n s in r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( s e e M u r -

r a y e t a l . , 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e d o u b l e - a r r o w e d l in e c o n n e c t i n g m e n ' s

a n d w o m e n ' s s e l f -v i e w s t a p s s i m i l a r i t y b e tw e e n p a r t n e r s ' s e lf -

p e r c e p t i o n s . P a t h s a t h r o u g h e i n d e x t h e l i n k s b e t w e e n m o d e l so f s e l f a n d m o d e l s o f o th e r s . N o n p r i m e d p a t h s ( e . g ., a ) l e a d t o

w o m e n ' s c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s, w h e r e a s p r i m e d p a t h s ( e .g . , a ' )

l e a d t o m e n ' s c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s . P a t h s a a n d a ' t a p w h e t h e r

i n t i m a t e s ' i d e a l s r e f l e c t t h e i r o w n s e l f - im a g e s . P a t h s h a n d b ' t a p

w h e t h e r i d e a l s a r e a l s o a t t u n e d t o t h e " r e a l i t y " o f th e i r p a r t n e r s '

s e l f -p e r c e p ti o n s . P a th s e a n d e ' r e p r e s e n t " s o c i a l r e a l i t y " o r c o n -

v e r g e n c e e f f e c t s , t a p p i n g t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p e o p l e ' s r e p r e s e n t a -

t i o n s o f t h e i r P a r t n e r s a n d t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' s e l f- p e r c ep t i o n s. P a t h s

c a n d e ' i n d e x p r o j e c t i o n , a s s e s s in g w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s s ee

t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s . A n d f i n a l l y, p a t h s d a n d d ' i n d e x

i n t i m a t e s ' t e n d e n c y t o s e e p a r t n e r s t h r o u g h t h e f i lt e rs p r o v i d e d

b y t h e i r i d e a l s o r e s s e n t i a ll y t o s e e t h e m , n o t a s t h e y a r e , b u t a s

t h e y w i s h t o s e e t h e m .

P a t h s f t h r o u g h j i n d e x t h e l in k s b e t w e e n m o d e l s o f s e lf a n d

o t h e r a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p w e l l - b e in g . P a t h s i a n d i ' i n d e x s o c i a l r e -

a l i t y ef f e c ts , l i n k i n g p a r t n e r s ' a c t u a l a t t r i b u t e s t o a c t o r s ' s a t i s -

f a c t io n . P a t h s f a n d f ' i n d e x t h e d i re c t l in k s b e tw e e n a c t o r s '

s e l f - i m a g e s a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h e i d e a l p a t h s g a n d g ' i n d e x t h ed i r e c t e f f e c t s o f i d e a l s o n s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h e p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s

p a t h s h a n d h ' i n d e x t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h i d e a l i z i n g a p a r t n e r

FemaleSelf

MaleSelf

Vc

a ~__1 F] ~a ffs d~,._l Femp~ e~n h Female 's

[ Partner ] of Male J . Well-being

[ ~ ~ a l e ' s ] h ' L [ M ale's

of Female "- Well-being

Fi g u re 1 . Positive illusions an d w ell-being.



SPECIAL ISSUE: LOVE IS PRESCIENT 1161

predicts actors' satisfaction. The reflected illusions paths j an d

j' index the effects of being idealized on partn ers' satisfaction.

Estimates for the residual correlations between pairs of men's

and women's variables (e.g., ideals) were also included in the

estimation of this model and all future models, although for

simplicity, they a re not include d in the figure. 2

Each pat h in this mo del represents a partial or u niqu e effect.For example, path c represents one possible source of the wom-

an's construction or illusion--h owmuch she tends to see herself

in her partner, with the reality of his actual or self-perceived

attributes (path e) held constant. Path i represents the direct

effect of the man's "reality" on the woman's satisfaction, con-

trolling for any degree of reality matchi ng (pat h e). That is, do

the qualities that men see in th emsel ves--b ut women fail to see

in th em- -re lat e to women's satisfaction? The direct ideal path

g taps whether the qualities that women de sire --bu t fail to see

in their par tners --pred ict their satisfaction. And the projected

illusions paths h an d h' index whether actors' illusi ons or mis-

underst anding s predict their satisfaction, controlling for their

actual understanding of their "real" partners (paths e and e') .

To test this (and all subsequent) models, we used the struc-

tural equation modeling program within the CALIS (Covar-

iance Analysis of Linear Structural Equations) procedure of

SAS. Because of its ability to test the fit of competi ng models,

struct ural equati on mode ling allows us to test for gender differ-

ences in our path models by constraining certain paths to be

equal (Ken ny, 1996 ). For example, we could test whether men

and women are equally attuned to the reality of their partners'

attributes. We would do this simply by comparing the fit of a

model that estimates common "reality" coefficients for men

and women (equality constraints placed on paths e and e' ) to

the fit of a model that estimates separate "reality" coefficients

(paths e and e' free to vary). If men and women did differ in

their accuracy or understanding, the goodness of fit for themodel e stimati ng separate realit y coefficients would be signifi-

cantly better (i.e., a smaller chi-square ) than the goodness of fit

for the model estimating common reality coefficients (a 1-df

test).

As a general analyt ic strategy, we first fit models estimating

separate pat h coefficients for men a nd women. For example, we

allowed the projection and reality paths predicting men's and

women's impressions to differ. In most cases, the size of the

paths was simi lar for both genders. So we then fit models esti-

mating pooled (i.e., co mmon ) path coefficients for men an d

women (i.e., we placed equality constraints on corresponding

men' s and women's paths). In reporting our results, we present

the pooled estimates for the path coefficients, unless the pre-

viously mentioned model test revealed significant gender

differences. Whe n m en and wo men differ, we present separate

estimates for the paths. We present separate path coefficients for

men and women only when the reduction in chi-square is at

least marginall y significant (p < . 10). In such cases, we present

the difference in chi-square when we note the gender difference

in the text. 3'4

A Concurre nt Loo k: Idealization, Understanding, and

Well-Being

Table 2 presents pooled, standardiz ed path coefficients for the

positive illusions model at each time period. To facilitate read-

ing the tables, we placed the labels for each path in bold in the

leftmost col umn of the table. First, the similarity between part-

ners' self-images was min ima l, r( l 19) =. 1 I. Models of the ideal

partner were strongly tied to intimates' self-perceptions: The

better, or more positively, individ uals felt abou t themselves, the

higher their hopes for the ideal partner, as the significant pooled

self-projection paths a and a' indicate. The partner's actualqualities also played a (limi ted) role i n shaping these standards:

Intimates set higher standards when partners had higher self-

regard, as the significant pooled reality paths b a nd b' illustrate.

At Tim e l, intimates' impressions of their partners reflected

a mixture of reality and illusion, and this cont inued to be tru e

as time passed. Impressions partly mir rore d the partne r's actual

attributes, as the significant social reality paths e and e' illus-

trate. But importa ntly, the projec tion of self-images and images

of the ideal partner predicted the n ature of actors' illusions, as

the significant self and ideal projectio n paths (c and c ' and d a nd

d') illustrate. Intim ates with higher self-regard and rosier, more

rigorous ideals held more idealized impressions of their part-

2 As in our previous study (Murray et al., 1996), we constrained the

crossover paths from women's ideals to men's perceptions and well-be-

ing to be zero and vice versa, because these paths were of little practical

or theoretical importance. Doing so did not weaken the fit of any of the

models.3 In all cases, the chi-square for the fit of the models with our imposed

constraints did not significantlydiffer from the chi-square for the fit ofmodels free of these constraints.

4 At this point, the reader might be entertaining some questions about

our use of SEM over ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. SEMconveys several important advantages over the use of OLS regression,

especially in the analysis of nonindependent or couple data (Kenny,

1996). SEM's first advantage is its full information approach. SEMallows us to provide simultaneous tests of sets of hypotheses, whereas

OLS regression tests hypotheses in isolation. SEM also allows us tocombine the information from both members of each couple and test

whether pooling across gender is statisticallyappropriate. In the absence

of sex differences,SEAl provides both more efficient and statistically

more powerful tests of the parameters relative to OLS regression.SEMalso allows us to apply other constraints to a model (e.g., constraining

the ideal crossover paths to zero) and test whether these constraints are

reasonable (using chi-square tests). SEM does have potential limita-

tions. First, constructing structural models necessitates specifyingcausal links among the variables in the model, as Figure 1 illustrates.

However, these causal paths are only hypothetical (despite the illusion

of causality that drawing arrows creates). Models with different causalstructures would fit the data just as well. The cross-sectional data can

only index the magnitude of the hypothesized paths, not the causal im-plications. Only the longitudinal data can offer limited insight into the

ultimate t ruth of these causal pathways. Low sample sizes can also limit

the useof SEM, Against some apparent standards our sample size couldbe considered somewhat low (although our original sample of 121 is

one of the largest in the li terature). With lower Ns, the power of the chi-square tests is reasonably low, although the goodness-of-fit tatistics are

less affected by sample size (e.g., Bentler, 1990). For this reason, we

treat gender differencesas reliable if he difference n chi-square between

nested models is marginally significant (p <. 10). More generally, t isimportant to realize that fit statistics do not indicate whether a given

model is correct, only that it is not obviously ncorrect. We are not usingSEMto prove the fit of a model or to determine causality.SEMis only

a tool that can estimate parameters of a specified causal model, but the

appropriateness of the model is primarily a theoretical, not a statistical,

question.



1 1 6 2 M U R RA Y , H O L M E S , A N D G R I F F I N

T a b l e 2Pos i t i v e I l l u s i ons and Sa t i s f ac t i on a t T i me s 1 , 2, and 3 :

P o o l e d, S t a n d a r d i z e d P a t h C o e f fi c ie n t s

P a t h T i m e 1 T i m e 2 T i m e 3

Pred ic t ing ac to r ' s idea l pa r tne r

b an d b ' : Reflectio n of par tne r 's self- image .16 l***a an d a ' : Pro jectio n of acto r 's self- image .53 l***

.161"* .290**

.499*** .546***

Pred ic t ing ac to r ' s pe rcep t ions o f pa r tne r

e an d e ' : Reflectio n of par tne r 's self- image .193*** .130** .253**c an d c ' : Proj ectio n of acto r 's self- image .266*** .249*** .16 !*d an d d ' : Proje ction of actor 's ideals .335*** .430*** .429***

Pred ic t ing ac to r ' s sa t i s fac tion

i and i ': Pa r tne r ' s se lf - image - . 176*** - .0 24 - .0 53f a n d f ' : A c t o r ' s s el f- im a g e - . 0 4 9 - . 0 8 9 - . 0 3 2g and g ' : Ac to r ' s idea ls . 020 - . l 11 - .0 69h an d h ' : Projecte d i l lusio ns .612*** .797"** .617***j an d j ' : Reflected i l lusio ns .247*** .154** .189**

Note. See Figure 1 for paths. Tim e 1: goodness-of-fit ind ex (GF I) = .98, Bentler 's (1990) com parative f i tindex (CFI) = 1 .0 , X2 (14, N = 121) = 8.97, ns . Tim e 2: G FI = .95, CFI = .99, x 2 (14, N = 73) = 17.32, ns .Tim e 3: G FI = .94, CFI = 1.0, x 2 (14, N = 58) = 14.77, ns .* p < . 1 0 . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . 0 1 .

n e r s . C o n v e r s e l y , i n t i m a t e s w i t h w e a k e r s e l f - r e g a rd a n d l e ss ri g -

o r o u s i d e a ls w e r e l e s s g e n e r o u s i n t h e i r ( i l l u s o r y ) d e p i c t i o n s o f

t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' a t t r i b u te s . 5

M o s t c r i ti c a l , a n d f u r t h e r r e p l i c a t i n g o u r p r e v i o u s w o r k

( M u r r a y e t a l . , 1 9 9 6 ) , i n t i m a t e s w e r e h a p p i e r i n t h e i r r e la t i o n -

s h i p s w h e n t h e y i d e a l i z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s , a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t

p o o l e d p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n p a t h s h a n d h ' i l lu s t r a te . T h e m o r e

p o s it i v e, o r t h e m o r e i d e a li z e d , t h e ir c o n s t r u c t i o n s - - - c o n t r o l l i n gf o r t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' a c t u a l a t t r i b u t e s - - t h e h a p p i e r a c t o r s w e re i n

t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . B e i n g i d e a l i z e d a ls o p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r s a t i s-

f a c t io n . T h a t i s, i n t i m a t e s w e r e h a p p i e r i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h ip s

w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s l o o k e d b e y o n d t h e i r a c t u a l a t t r i b u t e s a n d

s a w t h e b e s t i n t h e m , a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p o o l e d r e f l e c t ed i l l u s i o n

p a t h s j a n d j ' i l l u s t r a t e . N o n e o f t h e d i r e c t e f fe c ts o f i d e a l s

( p a t h s g a n d g ' ) w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t f a l l i n g s h o r t o f

a p a r t n e r ' s i d e al s n e e d n o t d e t r a c t f r o m s a t is f a c ti o n c o n c u r -

r e n t l y . A l s o , n o n e o f t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t s o f a c t o r s ' s e l f - i m a g e s o n

t h e i r o w n w e l l - b e in g w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t ( p a t h s f a n d f ' ) . O n l y o n e

e ff e ct f o r t h e p a r t n e r ' s r e a l i t y ( p a t h s i a n d i ' ) e m e r g e d . A t T i m e

I , a c t o rs w e r e l e ss h a p p y w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s c l a i m e d v i r t u e s i n

t h e m s e l v e s t h a t t h e a c t o r s f a i l e d t o s e e i n t h e m .

Wa r d i ng o f f d i f f ic u l t ie s ? I f i d e a l i z a t i o n p r e d i c t s g r e a t e r s a t -

i s f a c ti o n p a r t l y b e c a u s e o f i t s r o l e i n w a r d i n g o f f d i f l i c ul t i e s a n d

d o u b t , i n t i m a t e s s h o u l d a l s o e x p e r i e n c e l e s s c o n c u r r e n t c o n f l ic t

a n d l es s a m b i v a l e n c e w h e n t h e y i d e a li z e th e i r p a r t n e r s a n d t h e i r

p a r t n e r s i d e a li z e t h e m . T h e r e s u l t s o f th e s e a n a l y s e s a r e p r e -

s e n t ed i n t h e A p p e n d i x a n d w e s i m p l y s u m m a r i z e t h e m h e re .

I d e a l i z in g a p a r t n e r ( p a t h s h a n d h ' ) a n d b e i n g i d e al i z e d ( p a t h s

j a n d j ' ) c o n s i s t e n t l y p r e d i c t e d l e s s f r e q u e n t a n d l e s s d e s t r u c-

t i v e c o n f l i c t s a n d l e s s a m b i v a l e n c e , a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p r o j e c t e d

a n d r e f le c t e d i l l u s io n s p a t h s i l l us t r a te . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e

t h a t i d e a l i z in g a n d b e i n g i d e a l iz e d c o n t i n u e d t o p r e d i c t f ew e r,

l e ss d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s a n d l e s s d o u b t e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d

f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n .

I s o l a t e d s o c i a l r e a l i t y e f fe c t s a ls o e m e r g e d . A c t o r s r e p o r t e d

l e s s f r e q u e n t a n d l e s s d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s a n d l e s s a m b i v a l e n c e

t h e m o r e p o s i t iv e t h e i r s e l f- p e r c e p t i o n s ( p a t h s l a n d f ') . A c t o r s

a l s o r e p o r t e d m o r e a m b i v a l e n c e a n d m o r e c o n f l ic t w h e n t h e i r

p a r t n e r s c l a i m e d v i r t u e s i n t h e m s e l v e s t h a t a c t o r s f a i l e d t o s e e

i n t h e m ( p a t h s i a n d i ' ) . G l i m m e r s o f e vi d e n c e su g g es t ed t h a t

u n f u l f i l le d id e a ls m a y s o m e t i m e s f u n c t i o n a s s t a n d a r d s . M e n

a n d w o m e n g e n e r a ll y r e p o r t e d m o r e d e s t r u c t iv e c o n f l ic t s t h em o r e t h e i r p a r t n e r s f e ll s h o r t o f t h e i r i de a l s (p a t h s g a n d g ' ) .

Unde r s t and i ng an d we l l - bei ng : A g l oba l t e s t. A l t h o u g h p e r -

f e c t ly s u i t e d f o r e x a m i n i n g th e e f f ec t s o f i d i o s y n c r a t i c ( o r

i l l u s o r y ) p e r c e p t i o n s , t h e p o s i t i v e i ll u s i o n s m o d e l . p r e s e n t e d i n

F i g u r e 1 i s i m p e r f e c t l y s u i t e d f o r e x a m i n i n g t h e e ff e c ts o f s h a r e d

p e r c e p t i o n s ( e. g. , w o m e n ' s a c c u r a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m e n ' s

s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s ) . T o e x a m i n e t h e e f f e ct s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w e

e m p l o y e d t h e s t r a t e g y u s e d b y S w a n n e t al . ( 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 4 ) . W e

o b t a i n e d p o o l e d e s t i m a t e s f o r s t r u c t u r a l m o d e l s p r e d i c t i n g

m e n ' s a n d w o m e n ' s s at is f ac t io n f r o m m e n ' s a n d w o m e n ' s i m -

p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s , t h e i r o w n s e l f- i m a g e s , a n d t h e " u n -

d e r s t a n d i n g " i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s ( i .e . , m e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

5 As a fu r the r te s tamen t to the idea l ized na tu r e o f these pe rcep t ions ,

a 2 ( se l f v s. pa r tne r ) by 2 (ma le vs . female ) wi th in -sub jec ts ana lys is o f

va r iance revea led tha t in t ima tes saw the i r pa r tne rs in a mo re pos it ive

l igh t (on average) tha n the i r pa r tne rs saw themselves . (T h is m ain e f fect

was s ign i f ican t a t each t im e in te rva l . ) At T ime l , fo r exam ple , pa r tne r

eva lua t ions ( 3 / = 6 .96) were more favorab le than se lf -eva lua tions (M

= 6.65 ) , F( l , 120) = 42.27, p < .00 l , a lthou gh this effect was strongest

fo r women . D a t ing me n ' s ra t ings d id no t exceed the i r pa r tne rs ' se l f-

ratings in their depictions. H owever, this anom aly disappeared over

t ime . At T ime 3 , da t ing men saw the i r pa r tne rs in a more pos i tive l igh t

than wom en saw themse lves . As fu r the r ev idence o f idea l iza t ion o r d is -

to r t ion , in t ima tes a lso saw the i r own par tne rs (M = 6 .96) in a mo re

favorab le l igh t than they saw the typ ica l pa r tne r ( M = 5 .95 ) , F ( l , 120)

= 198.30, p < .00 l , a t Tim e 1 and as t im e passed.



SPECIAL ISSUE: LOVE IS PRESCIENT 1163

women's self-perceptions and women's understanding of m en's

self-perceptions). These interaction terms allow us to tap the

effects of unde rstan ding a part ner as well as the effects o f beingunderstood by a romanti c partner. 6

As they should, the results for the pooled mai n effects parallel

those present ed in Table 2. Despite the pred ictions of self-veri-

fication theory, being understood by an intimate partner did notpredict satisfaction at any of the time periods, ts < 1. Nor did

understanding a partner predict intim ates' own satisfaction at

Tim es 1 or 2, ts < 1. At Ti me 3, however, wome n were least

happy when they more accurately understood their partners'

self-doubts (coefficient = - . 183, p < .05 ), although the same

was not true for men. The difference in chi-square for the

models estima ting separate and pooled u nderst andin g coeffi-

cien ts was margin ally significant, × 2 1, N = 58 ) = 3.6 l, p < . 10.

Thus, despite the passage of time, intimates were consistently

happier when they idealized one another, not when they were

more accurately understood.

Trait-specific understandings. The preceding analyses de-

rive indices of underst anding and misunde rstanding from the

mean positivity of perceptions. Even tho ugh these analyses sug-

gest that underst andin g a p artn er's global self-regard has little

bearing on happiness, understa nding a partner's particular self-

schema or perso nality profile could still predict well-being (e.g.,

Kobak & H azan, 1991 ). Thi s reflects the fact that such withi n-

couple correlations provide idiographic measures of agreement

that are independent of overall positivity but capture whether

inti mate s agree in te rms of their relative ratings of specific traits

(i.e., their personality profiles). In these terms, Bill might be

happier if he sees himself as more warm than critical and Hil-

lary shares th is percep tion, regardless of how positively or neg-

atively Hillary sees Bill.

We comput ed such a set of trait-specific understandi ng cor-

relations by computing the intracouple correlation between theactor's ratings of the partne r on each trait a nd the partner's self-

ratings on each trait. At Time l, the correlations tapping wom-

en's understanding of men 's self-perceptions on the Interper-

sonal Qualitie s Scale ranged from -. 47 to .89 (M = .34; S D

= .26), a nd the correlations tapping men's understanding of

women 's self-perceptions ranged from - . 15 to .81 (M = .40; S D= .24). Parallel ranges and me ans emerged at Times 2 and 3. At

Time l, men's understanding of women did not predict their

own, r(119) = .15, or their partners' r(119) = .10, happiness.

Identical results emerged for wom en's understanding of men:

r(119) = .08 and r(119) = .04, respectively. 7

At Tim e 2, however, wome n and m en were happier the greater

the wom an's underst anding of the man' s self-image, r(71 ) =

.25, p < .05 and r(71 ) = .29, p < .05. Also, wome n were happie r

the more their partners unders tood them, r(71 ) = .23, p < .05,

although unde rstanding their partners' self-images did not

make men any happier, r(71 ) = .12. At Time 3, women and

men were still happier the more the woman understood the

ma n's self-schema, r(56) = .32, p < .05 and r(5 6) = .35, p <

.05, although men 's understandingdid not make men or women

any happier, r(56) = .04 and r(56) = -. 1 , respectively. The

fact that these correlati ons were not appare nt at Time I for only

those couples still together at Tim es 2 a nd 3 at least suggests that

understanding a pa rtner's actual self-schemas becomes more

imp ort ant for satisfaction as time passes.

Trait-specific idealization. We used a similar approach to

exam ine t he effects of trait-specific illusions or hope-driven mis-

understandings. To do this, we first calculated two idealizat ion

correlations per couple- -the man' s ideal for each trait with his

perception of his partner on that trait, and the woman's ideal

for each trait with her perception of her partner on each trait.

These correlations tap the degree to which ideals struct ure int i-

mates' perceptions of the relative descriptiveness of their p art-ners' traits, although they are independent of the positivity of

these ratings. These correlations ranged from - . 12 to .95 (M =

.56; S D = .25) for women and from -. 50 to .96 (M = .44; S D= .32) for men. Parallel ranges and means emerged at Time s 2

and 3. We then correlated these ideal ization indices with satis-

faction, after partialin g out the trait-specific unders tandi ng cor-

relation between the actor's perception of the partner and the

partner's self-perception. The resulting correlations represent

the pur e illusions correlation: that between ideals and percep-

tions with the actor's actual understanding of the part ner's real-

ity held constant.

Men and w omen were consistently happier the greater the

convergence between their ideal prototypes and constructions

of their partners. Initially, these projected illusions correlatio ns

were as follows: r(119) = .42, p < .001 for men and r(119) =

.38, p < .001 for women . At Time 2, they were r(71 ) = .36, p <

.01 for men and r(71 ) = .32, p < .01 for women, and at Ti me 3

they were r(56 ) = .45, p < .01 for me n and r( 56 ) = .44, p < .01

for women. Also, individua ls(parti cularly women) were consis-

tently happier the more their partners idealized their status on

specific attributes. These reflected illusio ns correlatio ns were as

follows: at Time 1, r(11 9) = .22, p < .05 for men and r(11 9) =

.24, p < .05 for women; at Tim e 2, r(71 ) = . 12, n s for men and

r(71 ) = .20, p < .09 for women; and at Time 3, r(56) = .19,

n s for men and r(56) = .21, p < .10 for women. In summary,

idealizing a partner and being ideali zed--o n a trait-specific ba-

sis -pr edi cte d greater satisfaction, just as idealizing a part neron a global basis enhan ced well-being.

A c c o m m o d a t i o n s t o R e a l it y ? A S u m m a r y

Even as these relationships progressed, intimates' impres-

sions of their part ners were still largely constructi ons, reflecting

the p rojecti on of self-images and ideals. And i dealizing a part-

6 To understand the meaning of the cross-product term, imagine that

we have first centered the two independent variables, partner self-ratings

and actor's perceptions, by subtracting the relevant mean from each

observation. Now the meaning of the cross-product terms is clear. If

both perceptions are positive (above the relevant mean) , the actor un-derstands the partner, yieldinga positivecross product. Similarly, f both

perceptions are negative (below the relevant mean), the actor also un-derstands the partner, again yielding a positive cross product. However,if one perception is positive and the other is negative, then a misun-derstanding occurs, yielding a negative cross product. Self-verification

implies that understanding will lead to satisfaction and misunderstand-

ings to dissatisfaction. Therefore, if self-verification elates to satisfac-tion in this manner, we should find a significant positive coefficient for

the cross-product term. Of course, the crucial difference between this

theory and the present model is in the case where an actor understands

(i.e., agrees with) a partner's negative self-perceptions.7 We transformed the reported intracouple correlations using Fisher's

recommended procedure and then correlated these indices with satis-faction. Transforming the correlations did not change any of the results.




a = - . 0 6 4

I[

FemaleSe l f

MaleSe l f

i i

b = .012

Female's Female's~- Ideal ~ , Perception

~! o f Male r

Stability

Male 's Male 's ~ 1~._ Idea l ,~_ Per cep tion

Partner of Female

b ' = . 01 2

a' = -.064

Figure 2. Positive illusions an d stability. Goodness-of-fit index = .99, comparative fit index = 1.0, × 2( 10,

N = l l5 ) = 5 .35 , ns . *p < .05.

n e r a n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e d p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r s a t i s f a ct i o n , f ew e r c o n -

f l i c t s , a n d l e s s s e r i o u s d o u b t s . H o w e v e r , i n t i m a t e s d i d a l s o r e -

s p o n d t o s t e r n e r r e a l it i e s . F o r i n s t a n c e , p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t a p a r t -

n e r f e l l s h o r t o f a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s id e a l s p r e d i c t e d m o r e

d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l ic t s ty l e s. W o m e n w e r e a l s o h a p p i e r t h e b e t t e r

t h e y u n d e r s t o o d t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' q u a l i t i e s a t a t r a i t- s p e c i fi c l e ve l

f o r t h e f i r st t i m e a t 4 m o n t h s a n d a g a i n a t 1 2 m o n t h s . A t b o t h

t i m e p o i n t s , m e n w e r e h a p p i e r t h e b e t te r w o m e n u n d e r s t o o d

t h e i r s e l f- s c h em a s . H o w e v e r, w o m e n w e r e l e a s t h a p p y a t T i m e 3

w h e n t h e y a c t u a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e g l o b a l ( a n d f a l l ib l e ) n a t u r e

o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' s e l f- r e g a rd .

T h e D i s s o l u t i o n o f D a t i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s

T h e r e s u l t s t h u s f a r s ug g e s t t h a t i n t i m a t e s r e m a i n s u r p r i s -

i n g l y i m m u n e t o " r e a l i t y " a s t i m e p a s s e s . D o s u c h i d e a l iz e d ,

p e r h a p s m y o p i c , p e r c e p t i o n s a l s o w a r d o f f d i s s o l u ti o n , a s w e

h y p o t h e s i z e d , p e r h a p s b y b u f f e r i n g in t i m a t e s a g a i n s t t h e h a r m -

f u l e f fe c ts o f d o u b t a n d c o n f li c t ? O r d o e s i d e a l i z a t i o n le a v e i n t i-

m a t e s v u l n e r a b l e t o b r e a k u p , e v e n t h o u g h i t p r o v i d e s a ( s e l f-

d e c e p t i v e ) s e n se o f s e c u r i t y i n t h e p r e s e n t ? D o e s m o r e a c c u -

r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s q u a l i t i e s , t h e n , u l t i m a t e l y

p r o v e c r i t i c a l fo r e s t a b l i s h i n g l a s t i n g s e c u r i t y a n d s t a b i l i t y ?

F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s t h e m o d e l l i n k i n g i n i t i a l i d e a l i z a t io n t o r e -

l a t i o n s h i p s t a b i l i t y a t t h e y e a r ' s e n d ( 1 = together; 0 = apart) .

P a t h s a a n d a ' i n d e x s o c i a l re a l i t y ef f ec t s, t a p p i n g w h e t h e r i n t i -m a t e s ' a c t u a l a t t r i b u t e s h a d a n y b e a r i n g o n r e l a t i o n s h i p st a b i l-

i t y . P a t h s b a n d b ' i n d e x t h e d i r e c t e f f ec t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s ' id e a l s i n

p r e d i c t i n g s t a b i l it y . P o si t iv e i l lu s i o n p a t h s c a n d c ' t a p w h e t h e r

p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s p r e d i c t s t a b i l i t y . A g a i n , e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e r e -

s i d u a l c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n p a i r s o f m e n ' s a n d w o m e n ' s v a r i -

a b l e s ( e .g . , i d e a l s ) w e r e a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n o f th e

m o d e l , a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e n o t i n t h e f i g u r e . E a c h p a t h i n t h i s

m o d e l r e f l e c ts a p a r t i a l o r u n i q u e e f fe c t. F o r e x a m p l e , p a t h s b

a n d b ' t a p t h e e f f e c ts o f u n f u l f il l e d i d e al s o n s t a b i l i t y - - t h a t is ,

w h e t h e r t h e q u a l i t i e s i n t i m a t e s d e s i r e b u t f a il to s e e in t h e i r

p a r t n e r s p r e d i c t d i s s o l u t io n .

F i g u r e 2 a l s o c o n t a i n s t h e p o o l e d , s t a n d a r d i z e d p a t h c o e ff i-

c i e n t s t e s ti n g t h e l o n g - t e r m r e p e r c u s s i o n s o f i d e a l i z a t i o n . A l l

p a t h s ( l a b e l e d a n d u n l a b e l e d ) w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n

o f t h e m o d e l , W e r e p o r t o n l y t h e p a t h c o e f fi c ie n t s p r e d i c t i n g

s t a b i l it y b e c a u s e t h e r e m a i n i n g ( u n l a b e l e d ) c o e f fi c ie n t s p a r a ll e l

t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3 . s A s F i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s , i n d i v i d u a l s '

" r e a l " o r s e l f- p e r ce i v e d q u a l i t i e s ( p a t h s a a n d a ' ) d i d n o t p r e d i c t

s t a bi l it y . A l s o , f a l li n g s h o r t o f a p a r t n e r ' s i d e a ls ( p a t h s b a n d b ' )

d i d n o t p r e d i c t s t a b i l it y . H o w e v e r , t h e p o o l e d p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s

p a t h s c a n d c ' w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t a n d p o s i t i v e , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i d e -

a l i z a t i o n c a n h a v e s e l f - f u l f il l i n g r a t h e r t h a n s e l f - d e f e a t in g

e f f ec t s. A s w e h y p o t h e s i z e d , r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o

p e r s i st t h e m o r e i n t i m a t e s i d e a l i z e d o n e a n o t h e r . T h e s e e f fe c tsa r e a l s o m i r r o r e d i n t h e m e a n c o m p a r i s o n s o f s ta y e r s ' a n d l e a v -

e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s in T a b l e 3 .

A m ediat ion model? O u r o r i g i n a l m o d e l s u g g e st s t h a t s a t is -

f a c t io n s h o u l d m e d i a t e t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p o s i t i v e i l l u si o n s a n d

s t a b il i ty . T h a t i s, i d e a l i z a t i o n m i g h t p r o m o t e s t a b i li t y b y v i r t u e

o f i t s b e n e f i c i a l e f f e ct s o n s a t i s f a c t i o n ( s e e F i g u r e 1 ) . I f h i s i s t h e

c a s e, s a t i s f a c ti o n ( t h e m o r e i n c l u si v e v a r i a b l e ) s h o u l d p r e d i c t

s t a b i l it y a b o v e a n d b e y o n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f i l l u si o n s . A n d s e c-

o n d , t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i l l u s i o n s a n d s t a b i l i t y s h o u l d a p -

p r o a c h z e r o w h e n s a t is f a c t io n i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e m o d e l i f sa t i s-

f a c t io n c o m p l e t e l y m e d i a t e s t h e i l l u s i o n s - s t a b i l i t y e l a t i o n .

A n a n a l y s is o f t h i s e x p a n d e d m o d e l i n d e e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t

f e e li n g s o f s a t is f a c t io n c o m p l e t e l y m e d i a t e d t h e l i n k b e t w e e n

p o s i t i v e il l u s i o n s a n d s t a b i l i ty . T h e m o r e s a t i s fi e d i n t i m a t e s

w e r e i n i t i a l l y , t h e l e s s l i k e l y t h e y w e r e t o b r e a k u p . A n d o n c e

s a t i s f a c t i o n w a s c o n t r o l l e d , t h e p o o l e d p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s p a t h s

w e r e n o l o n g e r s i g n i f i c a n t. W i t h t h e s e r e s u l t s i n h a n d , a c y n i c

m i g h t c o n c l u d e t h a t i d e a l i z a t io n h a s l i t tl e u n i q u e p r e d i c t iv e

a b i l i t y , b u t f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s w i l l r e v e a l t h a t p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s d o

s We follow this sam e strategy (i.e., presenting only the coefficients

for the "new" paths) in subsequent models . Despite the reduction in N

in the longitudinal analyses, the evidence for the basic components ofthe posi tive i llusions mo del (see Table 3 an d the App endix) remainsstrong.



SPECIAL ISSUE: LO VE IS PRESCIENT 1 165

T a b l e 3

T i m e 1 P e rc e p t io n s a n d F e e l i n g s o r I n t i m a t e s I n v o l v e d i n

S t ab l e Ve r sus Uns t ab l e Re l a t i ons h i p s

Stayers LeaversVariable (N = 58) (N = 43) t

Fem ale self 6 .83 6.77 nsMale self 6 .53 6.40 nsFem ale 's ideal partn er 7.83 7.72 nsMa le 's ideal partne r 7.50 7.36 nsFem ale 's typical partn er 6.02 5.91 nsMa le 's typical partn er 6.03 5.69 2.01 **Fem ale 's view of partn er 7.25 6.85 2.30**Ma le 's view of partn er 6.94 6.60 1.90*Fem ale satisfaction 8.32 7.48 3.59***Ma le satisfaction 8.13 7.21 3.45***Fem ale conflict 2 .67 3.33 -2.31 "*Male conflict 2 .67 3.22 -2.00**Fem ale ambiv alence 1.76 2.65 -2.66***Male ambivalen ce 2.14 3.17 -2.79***Fem ale destruct ive style 3.31 3.76 - 1 .78"Male destruct ive style 3.32 3.79 -2.08**

* p < . l O . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . O l .

h a v e s e l f - f u l fi l l in g e f f e c ts o n b r e a k u p s ( a n d l a t e r w e l l - b e i n g )

t h a t a r e n o t a l r e a d y e n c o m p a s s e d b y s a t i s f ac t i o n .

Buf f e r i ng doub t s o r ac c e n t ua t i ng c onc e rns ? C e r t a i n s t e r n e r

r e a l i ti e s d i d c a t c h u p w i t h i n t i m a t e s o v e r t i m e . I n d i v i d u a l s i n

u n s t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p o r t e d m o r e c o n f li c ts , d e s tr u c t i v e c o n -

f l ic t s t yl e s, a n d a m b i v a l e n c e a t T i m e 1 t h a n d i d i n d i v i d u a l s i n

s t a b l e re l a t i o n s h i p s ( s e e T a b l e 3 ) . W e h a d p r e d i c t e d t h a t i d e a l -

i z i n g a p a r t n e r w o u l d w a r d o f f d i s s o l u t io n p a r t l y b e c a u s e i t

w o u l d l e s s e n ( r a t h e r t h a n a c c e n t u a t e ) t h e h a r m f u l e f f ec t s o f

s u c h c o n f l i c t s a n d d o u b t s .

T o e x p l o r e t h i s b u f f e r in g h y p o t h e s i s , w e o b t a i n e d p o o l e d e s -

t i m a t e s f o r a s t r u c t u r a l m o d e l p r e d i c t i n g s t a b i l it y f r o m m e n ' s

a n d w o m e n ' s p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s , i n i t i a l r e p o r t s o f n e g a t i v i ty , a n d

t h e c r o s s - p r o d u c t i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s . 9 I f id e a l i z a t i o n m o d e r a t e s

o r b u f f e r s t h e d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o f n e g a t iv i t y , w e s h o u l d f i n d a

s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n ( i . e . , t h e s l o p e o f t h e l i n e p r e d i c t i n g

b r e a k u p f r o m n e g a t i v i ty w il l d i f fe r w h e n m e n ' s o r w o m e n ' s p e r -

c e p t i o n s a r e m o r e o r l e s s i d e a l i z e d ) .

T a b l e 4 p r e s e n t s t h e p o o l e d , s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s t e s t i n g

t h e b u f f e r in g h y p o t h e s i s f o r m e n a n d w o m e n . T h e s i g n if i c an t

m a i n e f fe c ts o f n e g a t i v i ty i l l u s tr a t e t h a t m o r e s e r i o u s i n it i a l

d o u b t s , a s i n d e x e d b y g r e a t e r r e p o r t s o f c o n f l ic t s , d es t r u c t iv e -

T a b l e 4

Posi t ive Il lus ions , Nega t iv i ty , Buf fer ing, an d Stabi l i ty :

S t a n d a r d i z e d P a t h C o e f f i ci e n ts

Term Stabil i ty

Men ' s and wom en ' s pos i t ive i l lus ions .040M en's and wo men 's reports of negativi ty - . 142"**M en's buffering interact ion term .205**W om en's buffering interact ion term .018

Note. Goodness-of-fit index = .99, com parativ e fit index = 1.0, x 2 (3,N = 115) = 0 .33 , ns .* * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . O 1 .

L 0 '

o . s .

0 . 6 '

g

g. 0 .4 ..o

a.

0 . 2 '

0.0

Figure 3.

Positive I l l u s i o n s

L o w

- - ' H " - M o d e ra ~& H i g h

Nega t iv i ty

The buffering effect of me n's illusions in pre dictin g stability.

n e s s , a n d a m b i v a l e n c e , d i d p r e d i c t m o r e f r e q u e n t b r e a k u p s .

H o w e v e r , t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n n e g a t i v i t y a n d d i s s o l u t i o nd i f fe r e d d e p e n d i n g o n t h e s t r e n g th o f m e n ' s , b u t n o t w o m e n ' s ,

i l lu s i o n s, a s t h e s i g n i fi c a n t b u f f e r in g i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m f o r m e n

i l lu s t r a te s . T h e d i f f er e n c e i n c h i - s q u a r e f o r t h e m o d e l s e s t i m a t -

i n g s e p a r a t e a n d p o o l e d b u f f e ri n g c o e f fi c ie n t s w a s m a r g i n a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t , x 2 ( l , N = 1 1 5 ) = 2 .7 8 ,p < . 1 0 .

T o i l l u s tr a t e h o w i d e a l i z a t i o n a t te n u a t e d t h e h a r m f u l e f fe c ts

o f n e g a t iv i ty , w e c o m p u t e d r e g r e s s io n e q u a t i o n s p r e d i c t i n g s t a -

b i l i t y f r o m n e g a t i v i t y fo r m e n w i t h l o w , a v e r a g e , a n d h i g h i l l u -

s i on s . L o w a n d h i g h i l l u s io n s w e re d e f i n e d a s o n e s t a n d a r d d e -

v i a t i o n b e l o w a n d a b o v e t h e m e a n , r e sp e c ti v e ly . F i g u r e 3 d e p i c t s

t h e r e s u l t i n g s lo p e s. F r e q u e n t a n d d e s t r u c t iv e c o n f l ic t s a n d a m -

b i v a l e n c e p r e d i c t e d m o r e f r e q u e n t b r e a k u p s f o r m e n l o w o n i l -

l u s i o n s , b u t t h i s r e l a t i o n w a s a t t e n u a t e d w h e n m e n p o s s e s s e d

m o d e r a t e l y s t r o n g i ll u s io n s , a n d i t a c t u a l l y d i s a p p e a r e d w h e nm e n i d e a l i z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s t h e m o s t . A s w e h y p o t h e s i z e d , i d e-

a l i z a t i o n a p p e a r e d t o f u lf i ll a b u f f e r i n g o r c o m p e n s a t o r y f u n c -

t i o n i n t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h ip s . C o u p l e s s t a y e d t o g e t h e r - - e v e n i n t h e

f a c e o f r e a s o n s t o d o u b t - - i f m e n ' s i l l u s i o n s w e r e s u f f ic i e n tl y

s t ro n g . A n d i t i s c ri t i c a l t h a t i d e a l i z a t i o n b u f f e r e d t h e i m p a c t o f

n e g a t i v it y f o r m e n e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e i r T i m e 1

s a t i sf a c t io n . S u c h i n t e r p e r s o n a l g e n e r o s it y s e e m s t o f u n c t i o n a s

a c o m p e n s a t o r y f o r c e i n d e v e l o p i n g r e l a t io n s h i p s , e x t e n d i n g a

p r o t e c t i v e i n f l u e n ce t h a t i s n o t s h a r e d b y m o r e a m o r p h o u s f e e l -

i n g s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n .

M u t u a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g a n d s t a b il i ty T h e r e s u l t s o f t b e p a t h

m o d e l s s u g g e s t t h a t d i r e c t i o n a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s - - i n t h e

f o r m o f p o s i t iv e i l l u s i o n s - - p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r s ta b i li t y. T o e x a m -

i n e t h e l i n k b e t w e e n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d s t a b il i ty , w e o b t a i n e d

p o o l e d e s t i m a t e s f o r m o d e l s p r e d i c t i n g s t a b i l it y f r o m m e n ' s a n d

w o m e n ' s i m a g e s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s , t h e i r s e l f -i m a g e s , a n d t h e u n -

d e r s t a n d i n g i n te r a c t i o n t e r m s . T h e r e s u l t s fo r th e p o o l e d m a i n

e f f e ct s p a r a l l e l t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g a

p a r t n e r ( i . e . , s e l f - v e r i f i c a t i o n ) d i d n o t p r e d i c t l o n g e v i ty , t < 1 .

9 The posit ive il lusions term was the actor ' s perception of the partne r

(Time 1 , residualizedon the pa rtne r's self-perceptions. The neg ativity

com posite was based on a n equal w eighting of conflict, destructiveness,and ambivalence scores (Tim e 1 . W e centered al l variables (using z

scores) to min im ize collinearity.




R o m a n c e s w e r e s i m p l y m o r e l i k e l y o p e r s i s t t h e m o r e i n t i m a t e s

i d e a l i z e d o n e a n o t h e r i n i ti a l ly .

Trait-specific(mis)understandingsandstability. A se l f -ve r -

i f i c a t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e m i g h t a l s o s u g g e s t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e

m o r e l i k e l y t o l a s t i f , f o r e x a m p l e , H i l l a r y s e e s h er s e l f a s m o r e

r e s p o n s iv e t h a n c r i t i c a l a n d B i l l s h a r e s t h i s p e r c e p t i o n , t h a n i f

B i l l h a s l i t t l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f H i l l a r y ' s se l f -s c h e m a . T o e x a m -i n e t h i s q u e s t i o n , w e c o n d u c t e d a r e g r e s s i o n a n a ly s i s p r e d i c t i n g

s t a b i l i ty f r o m t h e w i t h i n - c o u p l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o r r e l a t io n s .

N e i t h e r w o m e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m e n , f l = . 0 57 , n o r m e n ' s

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w o m e n , / ~ = . 0 8 8, p r e d i c t e d b r e a k u p . H o w -

e v e r, a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s p r e d i c t i n g s t a b i l i t y f r o m t h e w i t h i n -

c o u p l e i l l u s i o n c o r r e l a t i o n s r e v e a l e d t h a t s u c h t r a i t - s p e c i f i c

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s w a r d e d o f f d i s s o l u t io n , a s w e p r e d i c t e d , R 2

= . 1 0 , F ( 2 , 1 1 2 ) = 6 . 2 9 , p < . 0 1. R e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e m o r e l ik e l y

t o p e r s i s t t h e g r e a t e r t h e c o n v e r g e n c e b e t w e e n i n t i m a t e s ' i d e a l

p r o t o t y p e s a n d t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s w h e n t h e i r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' a c t u a l s e l f - r a ti n g s w a s h e l d c o n -

s t a n t : /~ = . 2 8 4 , t ( 1 1 2 ) = 3 .1 7 ,p < . 0 1 f o r m e n ; B = . 1 5 2 , t ( 1 1 2 )

= 1 .7 0 , p < . 1 0 f o r w o m e n . F u r t h e r , m e n ' s t r a i t - s p e c i f i c l l u s i o n s

p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r s t a b il i ty , e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e i r

T i m e 1 s a t i sf a c t io n .

Fulfilling hopes: A summ ary. R a t h e r t h a n l e a v in g i n t i m a t e s

v u l n e r a b l e t o d i s a p p o i n t m e n t a n d , e v e n t u a l ly , b r e a k u p , i d e a l -

i z a t i o n a c t u a l l y a p p e a r e d t o p l a y a s e l f - f u l fi l l in g f u n c t i o n i n

t h e s e d e v e l o p i n g r e la t i o n s h i p s . A s w e h y p o t h e s i z e d , r e l a t i o n -

s h i p s w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o p e r s i s t t h e m o r e i n t i m a t e s i d e a l i z e d

o n e a n o t h e r - - a t b o t h g l o b a l a n d t r a i t - s p e c if i c l e ve l s. I d e al i z a -

t i o n e v e n b u f f e r e d o r i n s u l a t e d c o u p l e s f r o m t h e d e l e t e r i o u s

e f fe c ts o f c o n f l i ct s a n d a m b i v a l e n c e . R e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e m o r e

l i k e ly t o p e r s i s t - - e v e n i n t h e f a c e o f n e g a t i v i t y - - w h e n m e n i d e -

a l i z e d w o m e n t h e m o s t . W h e n m e n w e r e l es s g e n e r o u s i n t h e ir

p e r c e p t i o n s , h o w e v er , r e l a t i o n s h i p s t e n d e d t o d i s s o lv e i n t h e

f a c e o f n e g a t i v i t y . F i n a l l y , m o r e a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g ap a r t n e r ' s " r e a l " q u a l i t i e s d i d n o t h a v e a n y s e l f- f u lf i ll i ng o r s e l f-

d e f e a t i n g ) e f f e c ts o n s t a b i l i ty .

S e l f - F u l f i ll i n g o r S e l f - D e f e a t i n g P r o p h e c i e s? C h a n g e s i n

W e l l - B e i n g

E v e n f o r i n t i m a t e s w h o s t a y e d to g e th e r , t h e g l ow o f t h e r o -

m a n t i c e x p e r i e n c e b e g a n t o d i m s o m e w h a t a s t h e y e a r p a s s e d .

A s e r ie s o f w i t h i n - c o u p l e a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e i n w h i c h g e n d e r

a n d t i m e w e r e t h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s r e v e a l e d t h a t s a t i sf a c t io n

d i d d e c r e a s e s i g ni f i ca n t l y o v e r t i m e ( T i m e 1 = 8 . 3 0 , T i m e 2 =

8 .1 5 , T i m e 3 - -- 7 . 8 9 ) , F ( 2 , 1 0 4 ) = 4 .5 3 , p < . 0 1 , a n d t h a t c o n -

f l ic t s b e c a m e m o r e f r e q u e n t ( T i m e 1 = 2 . 6 1, T i m e 2 = 2 . 7 9 ,

T i m e 3 = 2 .9 1 ) , F ( 2 , 1 0 4 ) = 2 .9 2 , p < . 0 6 . I d e a l i z i n g a p a r t n e rc o u l d h a v e s e t i n t i m a t e s u p f o r t h e se d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s , b u t w e

p r e d i c t e d t h a t i n t i m a t e s w h o i d e a l i z e d o n e a n o t h e r t h e m o s t

w o u l d a c t u a l l y h e l e a s t v u l n e r a b l e t o t h i s m a l a i s e . T h a t i s , p o s i -

t i v e il l u s io n s m i g h t a c t u a l l y a c t a s a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l f o r c e , p r o -

m o t i n g l a t e r s a t is f a c t io n , d e c r e a s i n g c o n f l ic t s , a n d w a r d i n g o f f

d o u b t s ( i . e . , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s ) .

F i g u r e 4 p r e s e n t s t h e g e n e r i c m o d e l w e u s e d t o e x p l o r e

c h a n g e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p w e l l - b e in g , a s r e f l e c te d i n r e p o r t s o f s a t -

i s f a c t i o n , c o n f l i c t f r e q u e n c y , a n d d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s . C h a n g e s i n

w e l l - b e i n g a r e r e s i d u a l i z e d ef f e c t s ( e . g . , v a r i a n c e i n T i m e 2 s a t -

i s f a c ti o n t h a t i s n o t d u e t o T i m e l s a t i s f a c t i o n ) . P a t h s d a n d d '

i n d e x s t a b i l i t y i n s a t i s f a c t i o n ( o r c o n f l i c t , e t c . ) a s t i m e p a s s e s .

P a t h s e a n d e ' r e p r e s e n t s o c i a l r e a l i t y e ff e c ts , t a p p i n g w h e t h e r

t h e " r e a l i t y " o f a p a r t n e r ' s a t t r i b u t e s c a tc h e s u p w i t h i n d i v i d u -

a l s o v e r t i m e , p r e d i c t i n g c h a n g e s i n w e l l - b e in g . P a t h s a a n d a '

t a p t h e l i n k b e t w e e n a c t o r s ' s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s a n d l a t e r f e e l in g s .

T h e i d e a l p a t h s b a n d b ' t a p h o w u n f u l f i l l e d i d e a l s - - h o p i n g fo r

m o r e i n a p a r t n e r t h a n o n e s e e s - - r e l a t e s t o l a t e r w e l l -b e i ng . T h e

p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n p a t h s c a n d c ' i n d e x w h e t h e r i d e a l iz i n g a p a r t -n e r m a k e s i n t i m a t e s m o r e o r l e s s h a p p y a s r e l a t i o n s h i p s d e -

v e l o p . F i n a l l y , t h e r e f l e c t e d il l u s i o n p a t h s f a n d f ' i n d e x t h e

l o n g - t e r m b e n e f i t s ( o r c o s t s ) o f b e i n g i d e a l iz e d .

Changes in satisfaction. D i d i d e a l i z in g a p a r t n e r a c t u a l l y

s l o w th e d e c l i n e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n , a s w e e x p e c t e d ? T a b l e 5 p r e s e n t s

t h e p o o l e d s t a n d a r d i z e d p a t h c o e f fi c ie n t s f o r t h e m o d e l s l i n k i n g

t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e p o s i t i v e i l l u si o n s m o d e l t o c h a n g e s i n

s a t i s f a c t i o n . 0 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r e m p h a s i s o n t h e s e l f - fu l f i ll i n g

n a t u r e o f i d e a l i z a ti o n , w o m e n w h o i d e a l i z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s

m o r e a t T i m e 1 w e r e r e l a t iv e l y h a p p i e r i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t

y e a r ' s e n d ( T i m e 3 ) , a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s e f f e ct

( p a t h c ) i l l u s tr a t e s. B u t i d e a l i z in g a p a r t n e r d i d n o t p r e d i c t

c h a n g e s i n m e n ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( p a t h c ' ) , x 2( 1 , N = 5 8 ) = 3 .1 7 ,

p < . 1 0 . A n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e d ( t h e r e f l e c t e d il l u s i o n p a t h s f a n d

f ' ) d i d n o t p r e d i c t c h a n g e s i n s a t i s f a c ti o n fo r m e n o r w o m e n .

A s w e e x p e c t e d , c e r t a i n s o c i a l r e a l i t y e f fe c t s a l s o e m e r g e d .

O v e r t h e f ir s t 4 m o n t h s , t h e r e a l i t y o f a p a r t n e r ' s a t t r i b u t e s c r e p t

u p o n t h e s e c o u p l e s , a s e v i d e n c e d b y t h e m a r g i n a l l y s i g n if i c an t

p o o l e d p a r t n e r r e a l i t y p a t h s e a n d e ' . I n t i m a t e s g r e w r e la t i v e ly

h a p p i e r a t T i m e 2 t h e m o r e p o s i t i v e t h e i r partners' s e l f - i m a g e s

w e r e a t T i m e 1. T h e s a m e e f fe c t o c c u r r e d b y T i m e 3 f o r w o m -

e n ' s s el f - re g a r d ( p a t h e ' ) , b u t n o t f o r m e n ' s ( p a t h e ) , × 2 ( l , N =

5 8 ) = 4 .9 l , p < . 0 5 . A p a r a l l e l , b u t m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e ct

a l s o e m e r g e d f r o m T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 , × 2 ( 1 , N = 5 3 ) = 2 .7 2 , p

< . 1 0. I n b o t h c a se s , m e n ' s s a t i s f a c ti o n g r e w w h e n t h e i r p a r t -

n e r s ' s e l f - i m a g e s w e r e r e l a t i v e l y r o s y a n d s u f f e r e d w h e n t h e i r

p a r t n e r s w e r e m o r e s e l f- d e p r e ca t i n g . P a re n t h e ti c a ll y , p a r t n e rr e a l i t y e f fe c ts a ls o e m e r g e d w h e n w e e x a m i n e d c h a n g e s i n a m -

b i v a le n c e , a s in d e x e d b y t h e B r a i k e r a n d K e l l e y (1 9 7 9 ) s c a le .

W h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s w e r e m o r e s e l f - c r it i c ala t T i m e 1, b o t h m e n

a n d w o m e n r e p o r t e d g r o w i n g d o u b t s o r u n c e r t a i n t y b y T i m e 3 .

T h e o p p o s i t e w a s t r u e w h e n p a r t n e r s h a d h i g h e r se l f -e s t ee m .

M e n ' s o w n s e l f- i m a g e s a t T i m e 1 a l s o p r e d i c t e d c h a ng e s i n

t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n b y T i m e 3 , a s s h o w n b y t h e s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f -

p r o j e c ti o n p a t h f o r m e n ( p a t h a ' ) b u t n o t f o r w o m e n ( p a t h a ) ,

× 2 ( 1 , N = 5 8 ) = 4 .2 9 , p < . 0 5 . M e n w i t h r o s i e r s e l f- i m a g e s

r e p o r t e d r e l a ti v e l y m o r e s a t is f a c t io n , w h e r e a s m e n w i t h w e a k e r

s e l f - i m a g e s s u f f e r e d g r e a t e r d e c l i n e s i n h a p p i n e s s . P a r a l l e l s e lf -

p r o j e c t i o n e ff e ct s e m e r g e d t h a t p r e d i c t e d b o t h m e n ' s a n d w o m -

e n ' s T i m e 2 s a t i s f a c ti o n w h e n w e u s e d t h e T i m e l R o s e n b e r g

( 1 9 6 5 ) m e a s u r e a s t h e i n d e x o f s e l f- m o d e l s . I n d i v i d u a l s g r e wr e l a t i v e l y h a p p i e r t h e h i g h e r t h e i r s e l f - e s t e e m , w h e r e a s i n d i v i d -

u a l s w i t h w e a k e r s e l f - e s t e e m s u f f e r e d r e la t i v e l y g r e a t e r d e c l i n e s

i n s a t i s f a c t i o n . O v e r a l l , e a c h i n t i m a t e ' s s e n s e o f s e l f - w o r t h b e -

c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t f o r s a ti s f a c ti o n a s ti m e p a s s e d ,

e v e n t h o u g h s u c h r e a l i t i e s o n c e h a d l i t t l e b e a r i n g o n h a p p i n e s s .

U n f u l f i ll e d i d e a l s a t T i m e 1 - - h o p i n g f o r m o r e i n a p a r t n e r

t h a n o n e s e e s - - a c t u a l l y p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i v el y g r e a t e r s a t is f a c ti o n

~0 Again, a l l paths ( inc luding the unlabeled path s) were included inthe est imation of the model . We present only the paths predict ing

changes in satisfaction (or conflict, etc.) because the remaining pathsmir ror those presented in Table 3 and the Appendix.



S P E C I A L I S S U E : L O V E I S P R E S C I E N T 1167

I IF e m a l e ' s

In i t i a l Se l f

Female'sInitial Ideal

Partner

, LFemale's Initial

Perception Female's Initialof Male Well-being

d .~v

Female's LaterWell-being

Male'sInitial Se lf

I 'Ma le' s ~ _ __ l~ Ma le' s In it ia l ~ . . ~ ~

Initial Ideal Perceptio n Male's InitialPartner of Female Well-being

d ' Ma le ' s La te rW e l l - b e i n g

Figure 4. Positive illusion s and changes in well-being.

a t T i m e 2 f o r m e n ( p a t h b ' ) b u t r e l a t i v e l y l e ss s a t i s fa c t i o n f o r

w o m e n ( p a t h b ) , x 2 ( 1 , N = 7 3 ) = 9 . 4 7 , p < . 0 5. F o r m e n , e v e n

u n f u l f i l l e d i d e a l s a p p e a r t o a c t a s f i l te r s, l e a d i n g t h e m t o p e r -

c e i v e g r e a t e r r e a s o n s f o r h a p p i n e s s . W o m e n , h o w e v e r , a p p e a r e d

t o h a v e g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y k e e p i n g t h e r e a l i t y o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s '

s h o r t c o m i n g s ( a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e i r i d e a ls ) f ro m d a m p e n i n g

s a t i s f a c ti o n a s t i m e p a s s e d .

Cha nge s i n c on f l ic t and de s t ruc t i ve ne s s . B e c a u s e o f t h e o f -

t e n h y p o t h e s i z e d r o l e o f p o s i ti v e i l lu s i o n s i n w a r d i n g o f f t h r e a t s

( e .g . , T a y l o r & B r o w n , 1 9 8 8 ), w e t h o u g h t t h e b e n e f i t s o f p o s i t i v e

i l l u s i o n s m i g h t s u r f a c e e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y in s i g n s o f n e g a t i v i t y

o r d i s tr e s s. T h a t i s, i d e a l i z a t i o n m i g h t a c t u a l l y s l o w t h e i n c r e a s e

i n c o n f l i c t s b y c r e a t i n g a c l i m a t e o f t o l e r a n c e o r g o o d w i l l t h a t

d e f u s e s c o n f l i c ts b e f o r e t h e y a r i se . T a b l e s 6 a n d 7 p r e s e n t t h e

p o o l e d p a t h c o e f f i c ie n t s l i n k i n g t h e p o s i t i v e i l lu s i o n s m o d e l t o

l a t e r c o n f l i c t s a n d d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s t y l e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

T h e b e n e f i t s o f i d e a l i z i n g a p a r t n e r w e r e i n d e e d r e a l i z e d i n

l e ss f r e q u e n t c o n f l i c t s a n d l e ss d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s ty l e s a s t h e

T a b l e 5

Pos i t i v e I l l u s i ons and C hange s i n Sa t i s fac t i on : S t and ar d i z e d Pa t h Coe f f i c ie n t s

P a th T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 T i m e 1 t o T i m e 3

e : Ma le pa r tne r ' s s e l f -im a gee ' : Fe m a le pa r tne r ' s s e l f -im a gea : Fe m a le a c tor ' s s e l f - im a gea' : Ma le a c tor ' s s e l f - im a ge

In i f i a l r e a lRy pa ths

.157" - . 12 2 . 043

.157" .293* .390***

.058 . 011 - . 1 04

.058 .011 .234*

b : Fe m a le a c tor ' s ide a lsh' : Ma le a c tor ' s ide a l sc : Fe m a le ' s pro je c te d i l lus ionsc ' : Ma le ' s pro je c te d i l lus ionsf a n d f ' : Re f le c te d i l lus ions

In i t i a l p ro je c t ion pa ths

- . 1 7 0 -. 0 5 7 - . 0 2 3. 23 7 ** - . 0 5 7 - . 0 2 6.106 .114 .334**.106 .114 .090

- .0 39 . 080 . 077

d : Fe m a le ' s in i t i a l r e por t s o f s a t i sf a c t iond' : Ma le ' s in i t i a l r e por t s of s a t i sf a c t ion

Sta bi l i typa ths a

.217"* .640*** .021

.217"* .345*** .021

Note. Se e F igure 4 for pa ths . T im e 1 to T im e 2 : goodne ss -of - f it inde x (GFI ) = . 94, c om pa ra t ive f i t inde x(CFI) = 1.0, x 2 (23, N = 73) = 23.11, ns . Tim e 2 to Tim e 3: GF I = .92, CF I = .99, x 2 (22, N = 53) = 25.49,

ns . Tim e 1 to Tim e 3: GF I = .96, CF I = 1.0, x 2 (21, N = 58) = 13.63, ns .a At T im e 2 to Tim e 3, the s tabil i ty pa ths d and d' a re s ignif icantly different , x 2 (1, N = 53) = 10.22, p < .05.

* p < . 1 0 . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . O l .




T a b l e 6

Positive Illusions and Changes in Conflict: Standard ized Path Coefficients

P a t h T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 T i m e 1 t o T i m e 3

In i t i a l r e a l i t y p a t h s

e a n d e ': P a r t n e r ' s s e lf - im a g e - . 0 5 4 . 0 18 - . 0 8 8a a n d a ' : A c t o r ' s s e lf - im a g e - . 0 5 9 - . 0 7 1 - . 0 8 5

In i t i a l p ro j e c t i o n p a t h s

b : F e m a l e a c t o r ' s i d e a ls . 1 0 3 - . 0 2 5 - . 1 31b ': M a l e a c t o r ' s i d e a ls - . 2 2 4 " * - . 0 2 5 - . 1 31c a n d e ': P ro j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s .02 1 .0 2 ! - .0 2 4f a n d f ' : R e f l e c t e d i l l u s i o n s .0 2 0 - .2 3 8 * * * - . 1 8 5* *

St a b i l i t y p a t h s

d an d d ' : In i t ia l rep orts o f confl ic t .530*** .560*** .289"**

Note. Se e F i g u re 4 fo r p a t h s . T i me 1 t o T i m e 2 : g o o d n e ss -o f - f it i n d e x (GF I) = .9 3 , c o mp a ra t i v e f i t i n d e x

(C FI) = .9 7 , X2 (23 , N = 73) = 30 .86 , ns. Ti m e 2 t o T i me 3 : GF I = .9 1 , C FI = .9 9 , x 2 (2 4 , N = 5 3 ) = 2 7 .0 7 ,ns. Ti m e ! t o T i me 3 : GF I = .9 3 , C FI = 1 .0 , x 2 (2 4 , N = 5 8 ) = 2 1 .8 5 , ns.** p < .05. *** p < .01.

y e a r p r o g r e s s e d . I n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d r e l a ti v e ly l es s f r e q u e n t

c o n f l ic t s a t T i m e 3 w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s i d e a l i z e d t h e m a t T i m e

1 , a s s h o w n b y t h e s i g n i f ic a n t p o o l e d r e f l e c t e d i ll u s i o n p a t h s ( f

a n d f ' ) . I d e n t i c a l e f f ec t s o f b e i n g i d e a li z e d e m e r g e d f r o m T i m e

2 t o T i m e 3 . C o n f l i c t s a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e d w h e n i n t i m a t e s i d e a l-

i z ed o n e a n o t h e r t h e m o s t a n d i n c r e a s e d w h e n t h e y i d e a li z ed

o n e a n o t h e r t h e l e a st . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d r e l a -

t i v e ly l e s s d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s t y l e s a t T i m e 3 w h e n t h e y i d e a l -

i z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s a n d t h e i r p a r t n e r s i d e a l i z e d t h e m a t T i m e 1 .

T h e p r o j e c t e d i l l u s io n p a t h s ( c a n d c ' ) w e r e s i g n i f ic a n t a n d t h e

r e f l e c te d i ll u s i o n p a t h s ( f a n d f ' ) w e r e m a r g i n a l . I d e n t i c a l ( a n d

e v e n s t r o n g e r ) e f f ec t s o f id e a l i z in g a n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e d o n r e -p o r t s o f d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f li c t s e m e r g e d o v e r t h e 8 m o n t h s f r o m

T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 .

M o s t c r i t i c a l, t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e r o l e o f i d e a l i z a t i o n i n m i n -

i m i z i n g c o n f l i c ts w a s n o t s i m p l y a r e s u l t o f b e i n g i n a s a t i s f yi n g

r e l a t i o n s h i p . B o t h p r o j e c t e d a n d r e f l e c t e d il l u si o n s c o n t i n u e d

t o p r e d i c t s i g n i fi c a n t c h a n g e s i n t h e f r e q u e n c y a n d d e s t r u c t i v e -

n e s s o f c o n fl i c ts e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r b o t h t h e a c t o r ' s

a n d t h e p a r t n e r ' s s a t is f a c t io n . I n d e e d , n e i t h e r a c t o r s ' n o r p a r t -

n e r s ' i n i t i a l f e e l i n g s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n p r e d i c t e d c h a n g e s i n t h e i r

e x p e r i e n c e o f c o n f l ic t . T h e s e f i n d i n g s s ug g e s t t h a t i d e a l i z i n g a

p a r t n e r a n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e d e x e r t u n i q u e e f fe c ts in d e v e l o p i n g

r o m a n c e s , a p r o t e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e t h a t i s n o t e x t e n d e d b y m o r e

d i f f u s e f e e l i n g s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n .

J u s t a s w i t h t h e r e s u l t s f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n , c e r t a i n r e a l i t y e f f e c t sa l s o e m e r g e d o v e r t im e . I n t i m a t e s ' r e a l a t tr i b u t e s p r e d i c t e d

c h a n g e s i n d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l ic t s . A s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t n e r r e a l -

T a b l e 7

Positive Illusions and Changes in Destructiveness: Standardized Path Coefficients

P a t h T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 T i m e I t o T i m e 3

In i t i a l r e a l i ty p a t h sa

e : M a l e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f - i ma g e - . 1 6 8* * .1 5 3 - . 1 2 7e' : F e m a l e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f- i m a g e - . 1 68 ** - . 1 17 - . 1 27

a a n d a ' : Ac t o r ' s s e l f - i ma g e - .2 2 0 "* * .0 8 3 - . 1 9 0* *

In i t i a l p ro j e c t i o n p a t h sh : Fe m a l e a c t o r ' s i d e a l s . 1 1 5 * - .0 0 2 .29 7 ** *b ': M a l e a c t o r ' s i d e a l s . 1 ! 5 * - .0 0 2 - .0 3 5e a n d e ': P ro j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s .0 5 5 - .2 6 6 "* - . 1 8 1"*fa n d f ' : R e f l e c t e d i l l u s i o n s .0 0 6 - . 1 7 2* * - . 1 2 5 "

S t a b i l i t y p a t h s

d an d d ' : In i t ia l repo rts o f dest r uct iv enes s .548*** .520*** .395***

Note. Se e F i g u re 4 fo r p a t h s . T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 : g o o d n e ss -o f - fi t i n d e x (GF I) = .90 , c o m p a ra t i v e f i t i n d e x(C FI) = .9 4 , X (2 4 , N = 7 3 ) = 4 4 .7 7 , p < .05 . T i me 2 t o T i me 3 : GF I = .90 , C FI = .9 8 , X2 (23 , N = 53) =3 0 .6 7 , ns. Ti m e 1 t o T i me 3 : GF I = .9 4 , C FI = 1 .0 , X2 (23 , N = 58) = 20 .3 8 , ns.a At T i me 2 t o T i m e 3 , t h e p a r t n e r r e a l i t y p a t h s e a n d e ' a re s i g n i fi c a n t ly d i f fe ren t , x 2 (1 , N = 5 3 ) = 5 .4 9 ,p < .05.* p < . l O . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . O l .



SPECIAL ISSUE: LO VE IS PRESCIENT 1 169

i t y p a t h s ( e a n d e ' ) i l l u s t r a te , i n d i v i d u a l s reported r e l a t i v e l y e s s

d e s t r u c t iv e c o n f l ic t s a t T i m e 2 t h e m o r e p o s i t iv e t h e i r p a r t n e r s '

s e l f - i m a g e s w e r e a t T i m e 1 . I n d i v i d u a l s ' o w n s e l f - i m a g e s a l s o

f o r e c a s t c h a n g e s i n c o n f l i c t . T h e m o r e p o s i t i v e a c t o r s ' s e l f -i m -

a g e s w e r e a t T i m e 1 , t h e r e l a t i v e l y l e s s d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s t h e y

r e p o r t e d a t T i m e 3 , a s t h e s i g n i fi c a n t p a t h s f o r a c t o r s ' a t t r i b u t e s

( a a n d a ' ) i l l u s t r a t e . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e l e s s p o s i t i v e a c t o r s ' s e l f -i m a g e s w e r e a t T i m e 1 , t h e m o r e d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l ic t s t h e y r e -

p o r t e d a t T i m e 3 . A n i d e n t i c a l e f fe c t e m e r g e d f r o m T i m e 1 t o

T i m e 2 .

U n f u l f i l le d i d e a l s - - - a p a r t n e r ' s f a i li n g t o l i v e u p t o o n e ' s

h o p e s - - a g a i n a f f e c t e d m e n ' s a n d w o m e n ' s r e p o r t s o f c o n f l ic t

d i f f e re n t l y . P a r a l l e l i n g t h e r e s u l t s f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n , u n f u l f i l l e d

i d e a l s a t T i m e 1 p r e d i c t e d r e l a t iv e l y m o r e d e s t r u c t iv e c o n f l ic t s

a t T i m e 3 f o r w o m e n ( p a t h b ) , b u t n o t f o r m e n ( p a t h b ' ) , × 2 1 ,

N = 5 8 ) = 7 .1 5 , p < . 0 5 . W o m e n ' s r e p o r t s o f d e s t r u c t i v e c o n -

f l i c ts i n c r e a s e d r e l a t i v e l y m o r e t h e h i g h e r t h e i r i d e a l s , a n d d e -

c r e a s e d t h e l e s s e x a c t i n g t h e i r i d e a l s. A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n w a s e v i -

d e n t f o r c o n f l ic t f r e q u e n c y f o r w o m e n . B u t f o r m e n , h i g h ( a n d

u n m e t ) i d e a l s a t T i m e 1 p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i v e ly l e ss fr e q u e n t c o n -

f l ic t s a t T i m e 2 ( p a t h b ' ) , × 2 ( 1 , N = 7 3 ) = 7 . 4 7 , p < . 05 .

W a r d i n g o f f d o u b t s ? A p a r t f r o m w a r d i n g o f f c o n f li c ts , s e e-

i n g a p a r t n e r i n t h e m o s t t o l e r a n t o r g e n e r o u s l i g h t p o s s i b l e

m i g h t e v e n p r o t e c t i n t i m a t e s f r o m e x p e r i e n c i n g r e n e w e d

q u a l m s o r d o u b t s a b o u t a p a r t n e r ' s i m p e r f e c t i o n s . T h e t r a i t a m -

b i v a l e n c e m e a s u r e o b t a i n e d a t T i m e 3 i n d e x e d s u c h c o n f l ic t e d

f e e li n g s a b o u t a p a r t n e r ' s q u a l i t i e s ( e .g . , b e l i e v in g t h a t t h e s a m e

a t t r i b u t e s w e r e b o t h g o o d a n d b a d ) . F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e t e m -

p l a t e f o r t h e m o d e l w e u s e d t o l i n k i n i t i a l p o s it i v e i l l u si o n s t o

l a t e r a m b i v a l e n c e . S i m p l y i m a g i n e t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n ( i n t h e f i -

n a l b o x ) i s l a t e r a m b i v a l e n c e i n s t e a d o f c o n c u r r e n t w e l l - b e in g .

T a b l e 8 p r e s e n t s t h e p o o l e d p a t h c o e f fi c ie n t s l i n k i n g i d e a l i z a -

t i o n a t T i m e s l a n d 2 t o a m b i v a l e n c e o r d o u b t a t T i m e 3 .

A s w e h y p o t h e s i z e d , i d e a l i z i n g a p a r t n e r a n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e di n i t i a ll y p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i v e l y l e ss a m b i v a l e n c e o r f e w e r d o u b t s a t

y e a r ' s e n d . B o t h t h e p o o l e d p r o j e c t e d ( h a n d h ' ) a n d r e f le c t e d ( j

a n d j ' ) i l l u s i o n s p a t h s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t . I d e n t i c a l e f f e ct s e m e r g e d

f r o m T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 . I n f a c t, e a r ly i d e a l iz a t i o n p r e d i c t e d

f e w e r d o u b t s a t T i m e 3 e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e a c t o r ' s

a n d t h e p a r t n e r ' s T i m e I s a t i s f ac t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , s o c i a l r e a l i ti e s

T a b l e 8

l n i t i a l I l l u si o n s a n d L a t e r T r a it A m b i v a le n c e :

S t a n d a r d i z e d P a t h C o e f f i c i e n t s

Path T ime 2 to T ime 3 T ime 1 to T ime 3

Init ial realitypa ths

i a n d i ' : Partne r ' s self- image .134f and f ' : Acto r 's self- image .067

- . 0 3 8- . 0 8 9

Init ial project ion paths

g an d g': Ac tor's ideals .011h and h ' : Projected i l lusions - .383***j a n d j ': Reflected illusions - . 4 8 8 " * *

- . 0 0 7-.263***- .321"**

Note. See Figure I for paths. Tim e 2 to Tim e 3: goodness-of-fi t in-dex (GF I) = .95, comparat ive f it index (CFI) = 1.0, x 2 (14, N = 53) =13.02, ns . Time 1 to Time 3: GFI = .95, CFI = 1.0, ×2 (14, N = 58)= 11.00, ns.*** p < .0 i.

a t T i m e s 1 a n d 2 , i n c l u d i n g t h e a c t o r 's a t tr i b u t e s ( p a t h s f a n d

f ' ) , t h e p a r t n e r ' s r e a l q u a l i t ie s ( i a n d i ' ) , a n d u n f u l f i ll e d id e a l s

( g a n d g ' ) d i d n o t p r e d i c t l a t e r a m b i v a l e n c e . A s t h e s e r e s u l ts

i l l u st r a t e, i d e a l iz i n g a p a r t n e r a p p e a r e d t o p r o v i d e a b u i l t i n

" Y e s, b u t . . . " t h a t p r o t e ct e d i n d i v id u a l s f r o m e n t e rt a i n in g se -

r i o u s d o u b t s a b o u t t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' a p p a r e n t v i r t u e s a n d f r a i lt i e s.

A n d a g a i n , t h e p r o t e c t i v e i n f lu e n c e o f i d e a l i z a t i o n w a s n o ts h a r e d b y s i m p l e r e p o r t s o f h a p p i n e s s .

M u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c h a n g e s i n w e l l - b e i n g . T h e r e -

s u l ts o f t h e p a t h m o d e l s s u g ge s t t h a t d i r e c t i o n a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d -

i n g s ( o r p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s ) h a v e a n u m b e r o f s e l f - fu l f i l li n g

e f fe c t s. R e l a t i o n s h i p s g e n e r a l l y b e c a m e m o r e s a t i s f y i n g a n d l e s s

d i s t r es s i n g w h e n i n d i v i d u a l s i d e a l i z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s a n d t h e i r

p a r t n e r s i d e a l i z e d t h e m . T o s e e i f a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a

p a r t n e r ' s g l o b a l s e l f - re g a r d h a d a n y e f fe c ts o n l a t e r a d j u s t m e n t ,

w e o b t a i n e d e s t i m a t e s f o r a s e ri e s o f m o d e l s t h a t p r e d i c t e d

c h a n g e s i n w e l l - b e i n g ( e . g . , s a t is f a c t i o n , c o n f l i c t , o r d o u b t ) f r o m

t h e a c t o r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f th e p a r t n e r , t h e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f -i m a g e ,

a n d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s . A g a i n , n o c o n s i s te n t ,

s i g n if i c a n t e f fe c ts o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g e m e r g e d . I n s t e a d , m i r r o r i n gt h e r e s u l t s o f th e p a t h m o d e l s , i n d i v i d u a l s g e n er a l l y b e c a m e

h a p p i e r ( o r l e ss d i s tr e s s e d ) t h e m o r e p o s i t iv e t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s

o f o n e a n o t h e r , h o l d i n g t h e r e a l i t y o f o n e a n o t h e r ' s a t t r i b u t e s

c o n s t a n t .

F u l f i l li n g h o pe s : A s u m m a r y . I d e a l i z in g a p a r t n e r a p p e a r e d

t o c r e a t e t h e r e a l i ti e s i n t im a t e s d e s i r e d a s t h e s e r o m a n c e s d e v e l -

o p e d b y i n s u l a t i n g t h e m f r o m t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o n fl i c ts a n d w a n -

i n g s a t is f a c t io n a p p a r e n t i n t h e g e n e r a l s a m p l e . F o r w o m e n , i d e -

a l i z in g a p a r t n e r r e s u l t e d i n t h e i r f e e l in g r e l a ti v e l y h a p p i e r a t

y e a r ' s e n d . A n d f o r b o t h w o m e n a n d m e n , i d e a l i z i n g a p a r t n e r

a n d b e i n g i d e a l i z e d r e s u lt e d i n i n t i m a t e s e x p e r i e n c i n g r e la t i v e ly

l e ss c o n f li c t a n d l e s s a m b i v a l e n c e ( i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h l e s s id e -

a l i s t i c i n t i m a t e s ) a s t h e s e r o m a n c e s d e v e l o p e d . T h e s e e f f e c t s

w e r e e v e n s t ro n g e n o u g h t o w o r k a g a i n s t a n y c o u n t e r v a i l i n g t e n -

d e n c i e s to w a r d r e g r e s si o n t o t h e m e a n . F o r i n s t a n c e , a r e g r e s-

s i o n a c c o u n t w o u l d p r e d i c t t h a t w o m e n w h o i d e a l i z e d t h e i r

p a r t n e r s t h e m o s t w o u l d b e m o s t l i k e l y t o s u f f er d e c l in e s i n s a t -

i s f ac t i o n g i ve n s o m e e r r o r i n m e a s u r e m e n t . I n s t e a d , i n t h i s ( a n d

a l l o t h e r c a s e s ) , t h e " r i c h c o n t i n u e d t o g e t r ic h e r a n d t h e p o o r ,

p o o r e r . " 1

T h e f i n d i n g s t h u s f a r s u g g e s t t h a t i d e a l i z a t i o n f o r e c a s t s l a t e r

w e l l -b e i n g , a s w e p r o p o s e d i n o u r o r i g i n a l m o d e l . W e a l s o e x -

a m i n e d a s e r i e s o f m o d e l s t e s t in g t h e r e v e r se c a u s a l l i n k - - t h o s e

b e t w e e n i n i t i a l w e l l - b e i n g ( e . g . , s a t is f a c t i o n , a m b i v a l e n c e , o r

c o n f l i c t ) a n d l a t e r i d e a l i z a t i o n . O n l y t w o e f f e c t s e m e r g e d .

G r e a t e r s a t i s fa c t i o n a t T i m e 2 p r e d i c t e d r e l a ti v e l y m o r e i d e a l -

i z e d i m p r e s s i o n s o f o n e ' s p a r t n e r b y T i m e 3 . A l s o , e x p e r i e n c i n gd e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t s a t T i m e 1 r e s u l t e d i n r e l a t i v e l y l e s s i d e a l -

i z e d i m a g e s o f o n e ' s p a r t n e r b y T i m e 2 . S u c h r e s u l t s s u g g es t

t h a t u n h a p p y r e a l i ti e s m a y t a x i n t i m a t e s ' a b i l i t y t o i d e a l i z e o n e

a n o t h e r . B u t o v e r a l l , t h e r e s u l t s s u p p o r t t h e i d e a t h a t i l l u s i o n s

p l a y a g r e a t e r r o l e i n s t r u c t u r i n g l a t e r e x p e r ie n c e s t h a n v i c e

ve r s a .

' ' This is not to deny tha t at tent ion to measu remen t issues is terr ibly

impor tan t in th i s f i eld and tha t a mul t ip le ind ica to r approach p e rmi t -

t ing the est imation o f la tent variables and adjust ing for at tenuation

would be valuable.



l 1 7 0 M U R R A Y , H O L M E S , A N D G R I F F I N

IF e m e s i t i - - I F e p m r e s t o 'F e m e sL a t e rS e ' f c e p ° n l - -I o f e I / l f P e r c e p t io n

=,~ 1 Ma le ' s In i t i a l ~ I Male ' s In i ti a l I - I M ~ e , s L a t r I- - ~ Self-Percep tion ~ ~ p f i o n - [ I Self-Percep~on I] O r f e m a l e ] ]

Figure 5. Being idealized and changes in m odels of self .

Ba sking in Reflected Glory." Changing M odels o f Se lf

C a n i n t i m a t e s a c t u a l l y t u r n s e l f - p e rc e i v e d f r o g s i n t o p r i n c e s

o r p r i n c e s s e s , a s w e h y p o t h e s i z e d ? S w a r m e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) b e l i e v e

t h a t i n t i m a t e s r e s i s t u n f o u n d e d f l a t t e r y a n d c l i n g t o t h e i r o w n

s e l f - im a g e s . H o w e v e r , i f s e l f - k n o w l e d g e i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o r e -

f l e c t e d a p p r a i s a l , i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t a c t u a l l y c r e a t e t h e p a r t n e r s

t h e y d e s i r e b y i d e a l i z i n g t h e m ( i . e . , t h e r e f l e c t e d a p p r a i s a l

h y p o t h e s i s ) . I f i d e a l i z a t i o n h a s s u c h s e l f - f u lf i l l in g e f f e c t s , i n d i -

v i d u a l s s h o u ld c o m e t o s h a r e t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' r o s y v i ew s o f t h e m

a s r o m a n c e s d e v e l op . S u c h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f s e lf m i g h t s u r -

f a c e o n b o t h t h e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Q u a l i t ie s S c a l e a n d t h e m e a s u r e

o f a t t a c h m e n t s ty l e.

F i g u r e 5 p r e s e n t s t h e m o d e l l i n k i n g r e f l e c t e d a p p r a i s a l s t o

c h a n g i n g m o d e l s o f s e lf , as t a p p e d b y t h e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Q u a l i -

t i e s S c a l e . I n t h i s m o d e l , c h a n g e s i n s e l f - c o n c e p t a r e r e s i d u a l -

i z e d e f f e c ts ( e . g ., v a r i a n c e i n T i m e 2 s e l f -r a t in g s t h a t i s n o t d u e

t o T i m e 1 s e l f - r a t i n g s ) . P a t h s a a n d a ' i n d e x t h e d e g r e e o f s t a b i l-i t y in s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s . T h e s e l f - p r o j e c t i o n p a t h s b a n d b ' i n d e x

w h e t h e r t h e a c t o r ' s a t t r i b u t e s p r e d i c t c h a n g e s i n t h e p a r t n e r ' s

s e l f- i m a g e ( i. e ., w h e t h e r i n t i m a t e s b e c o m e m o r e s i m i l a r ) . T h e

r e f l e c t e d il l u s i o n p a t h s e a n d e ' i n d e x t h e l i n k b e t w e e n t h e a c -

t o r ' s i n i t i a l i l l u s i o n s a n d c h a n g e s i n t h e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f - p e r c e p -

t i o n s . M o r e s i m p l y , t h e s e p a t h s t a p w h e t h e r b e i n g i d e a l i z e d

c h a n g e s i n d i v i d u a l s ' s e l f- v ie w s .

T a b l e 9 p r e s e n t s t h e p o o l e d , s t a n d a r d i z e d p a t h c o e f f i c i e n ts

f o r th i s m o d e l f o r e a c h t i m e i n t e r v a l . T h e s e l f - p r o j e c t i o n p a t h s

b a n d b ' w e r e n o t s i g n i fi c a n t , su g g e s t i n g t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i d n o t

c o m e t o s e e t h e m s e l v e s as m o r e l i k e t h e i r p a r t n e r s a s t i m e

p a s s e d . I n s t e a d , i n t i m a t e s a p p e a r e d t o b a s k i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s "

r e f l e c t e d a p p r a i s a l s . B e i n g i d e a li z e d a t T i m e l p r e d i c t e d r e l a -

t i v e l y m o r e p o s i t i v e s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s a t T i m e s 2 a n d 3 , a s t h e

r e f l e c t e d i ll u s i o n p a t h s c a n d c ' w e r e b o t h s i g n if i c a nt . W h e n

t h e i r p a r t n e r s i d e a li z e d t h e m m o s t a t T i m e l , i n d i vi d u a l s ' se l f-

p e r c e p t i o n s g r e w m o r e p o s i t i v e b y T i m e 3 . C o n ve r se l y, w h e n

t h e i r p a r t n e r s i d e a l i z e d t h e m l e a s t, i n d i v i d u a l s ' s e l f - p e r c e p ti o n s

g r e w l e s s p o s i t i v e a t T i m e 3 . T h e s e e f f e c t s o f r e f l e c t e d i l lu s i o n s

a l s o s u r f a c e d f r o m T i m e 2 t o T i m e 3 . M o s t c r i t i c a l l y , t h i s e v i -

d e n c e f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f il l u s io n s w a s n o t s i m p l y a r e s u l t

o f i n d i v i d u a l s b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n a s a t i s f y i n g r e la t i o n s h i p . B e i n g

i d e a l i z e d c o n t i n u e d t o p r e d i c t s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s i n i n d i v i d u -

a l s ' s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s w h e t h e r w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e a c t o r ' s ( i. e .,

p e r c e i v e r ' s ) o r t h e p a r t n e r ' s ( i .e . , t a r g e t ' s ) s a t is f a c t io n .

D i d b a s k i n g i n t h e g l o w o f a p a r t n e r ' s r o s y r e g a r d a l s o ch a l -

l e ng e ( o r c h a n g e ) i n t i m a t e s ' m o d e l s o f s e l f o n t h e a t t a c h m e n t

d i m e n s i o n s ? F i g u r e 6 p r e s e n t s t h e m o d e l w e u s e d t o e x p l o r e

t h i s q u e s t io n . G r i ff i n a n d B a r t h o l o m e w ' s ( 1 9 9 4 ) f o r m u l a f o r

c o m p u t i n g t h e p o s i t iv i t y o f a t t a c h m e n t m o d e l s o f s e lf ( a n do t h e r ) i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e M e t h o d s e c t io n . N e w t o t h i s m o d e l ,

p a t h s b a n d b ' r e p r e s e n t s o c i a l re a l i t y e ff e c ts , t a p p i n g t h e l i n k

b e t w e e n p e r c e p t i o n s o f a p a r t n e r a n d t h e p a r t n e r ' s s e l f- m o d e l s .

P a t h s a a n d a ' i n d e x p r o j e c t i o n , a s s e s s i n g w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s

p r o j e c t t h e i r o w n s e c u r i t ie s ( o r i n s e c u r i t i e s ) o n t o t h e i r p a r t n e r s .

P a t h s e a n d e ' in d e x t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a t t a c h m e n t m o d e l s o f s el f.

P a t h s i a n d i ' i n d e x w h e t h e r p a r t n e r s ' s e lf - m o d e ls b e c o m e m o r e

s i m i l a r o v e r t i m e . T h e r e f l e c t e d a p p r a i s a l p a t h s h a n d h ' l i n k

b e i n g i d e a l iz e d t o c h a n g e s i n w o r k i n g m o d e l s o f t h e s e l f o n t h e

a t t a c h m e n t d i m e n s i o n s.

F i g u r e 6 a l s o c o n t a i n s t h e p o o l e d p a t h c o e f f ic i e n ts f o r t h i s

m o d e l . T h e p r o j e c t i o n o f i n t i m a t e s ' g e n e r a l s e c u r it i e s ( o r

i n s e c u r i t i e s ) s h a p e d t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s , a s t h e

s i g n i fi c a n t s e l f- p r o j e c t io n p a t h s a a n d a ' i l l us t r a te . T h e m o r e

s e c u r e i n t i m a t e s ' m o d e l s o f s e lf , t h e r o s i e r t h e i r i l lu s i o n s a b o u t

t h e i r p a r t n e r s . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e l e s s s e c u r e t h e i r s e l f - m o d e l s , t h e

l e ss i d e al i z e d t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s . T u r n i n g t o t h e

l o n g i t u d i n a l e f f ec t s, w o m e n ' s m o d e l s o f s e l f o n t h e a t t a c h m e n t

m e a s u r e ( p a t h e ) w e r e m o r e s t a b le o v e r t h e y e a r t h a n w e r e

m e n ' s m o d e l s o f s e l f ( p a t h e ' ) , X 2 ( I , N = 5 8 ) = 9 . 3 0 , p < . 0 5.

M o s t c r i ti c a l , b e i n g i d e a l iz e d p r e d i c t e d c h a n g e s i n w o m e n ' s , b u t

n o t m e n ' s , m o d e l s o f s e lf , a s t h e s i g n i fi c a n t r e f l e c te d i l l u s i o n

p a t h h i l lu s t r a te s . W o m e n b e c a m e r e l a t i v e l y m o r e s e c u r e i n

t h e i r a t t a c h m e n t s t y l e s b y y e a r ' s e n d t h e m o r e t h e i r p a r t n e r s

i d e al iz e d t h e m a t T i m e 1 . A s t i m e p a s s e d , i n t im a t e s a p p e a r e d

t o c r e a t e t h e p a r t n e r s t h e y d e s i r e d b y i d e a l i z i n g t h e m , t u r n i n g

s e l f - p e r c e i v e d f r o g s i n t o t h e p r i n c e s o r p r i n c e s s e s t h e y p e r -c e i v ed . ( N o c o n s i s t e n t e f f e c t s e m e r g e d p r e d i c t i n g c h a n g e s i n

m e n ' s o r w o m e n ' s g e n e ra l m o d e l s o f o t h e r s ) .

Self-Corrective Mech anisms? Keeping IdealizationWithin Reasonable Bounds

R a t h e r t h a n l e a v i n g in d i v i d u a l s v u l n e r a b l e t o d i s a p -

p o i n t m e n t , s e e in g a p a r t n e r w h o m i r r o r s t h e i r h o p e s a n d i d e al s

s e e m s t o p r o t e c t a n d e v e n s tr e n g t h e n d e v e l o p i n g r o m a n c e s .

S o m e d e g r e e o f ( a p p a r e n t ) i g n o r an c e , t h e n , a p p e a r s t o b r e e d

r o m a n t i c b l is s. B u t s o m e r e a d e rs m i g h t b e w o n d e r in g h o w t o

r e c o n c i l e t h e s e f in d i n g s w i t h d e c a d e s o f w i s d o m i n d i c a t i n g t h a t



SPECIA L ISSUE: LOVE IS PRESCIEN T

T a b l e 9

R e f l e c t e d I l l u s i o n s a n d C h a n g e s i n M o d e l s o f S el f. " S t a n d a r d i z e d P a t h C o e j ~ c i e n t s


In i t ia l p ro jec t ion pa ths

b an d h ' : Par tne r 's self-perceptions .086 .002 - . 01 4c an d c ' : Reflected i l lusio ns .143** .152* .291"**

S tab i l i ty pa ths

a an d a ' : Orig inal self-perceptions .640*** .625*** .529***

Note. See Figure 5 for paths. Ti m e 1 to Time 2: goodness-of-fi t index (GF I) = .98, comparativ e f i t index(CFI) = 1.0, ×2 (7, N = 73) = 5.32, ns . Tim e 2 to T im e 3 : GF I = .96, CFI = 1 .0 , ×2 (7 , N = 53) = 6 .39 , ns .Ti m e 1 to Tim e 3: GF I = .98, CF I = 1.0, x 2 (7, N = 58) = 4.25, ns .* p < . 1 0 . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . 0 1 .

1 1 7 1

r e a l i ty m o n i t o r i n g i s c r i ti c a l f o r w e l l - f u n c t i o n i n g r e l a t i o n s h ip s

( w h e r e a s o t h e r s m i g h t b e w o n d e r i n g h o w t h e y m i g h t e n c o u r a g e

a l i tt l e m o r e m y o p i a o n t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' p a r t ! ) .T h e f a c t t h a t b a s k i n g i n t h e w a r m g l ow o f a p a r t n e r ' s i d e al -

i z e d r e g a r d a c t u a l l y c h a n g e s i n t i m a t e s ' s e l f- e s te e m m i g h t b e o n e

m e c h a n i s m t h a t k e e p s t h e i d e a l iz a t i o n p r o c e s s w i t h i n b o u n d s

( i . e. , i n t o u c h w i t h [ a n a l t e r e d ] r e a l i t y ) . M o r e o v e r , w e s u s p e c t

t h a t i d e a l i z a ti o n r e t a i n s i t s b e n e fi t s p a r tl y b e c a u s e i n t i m a t e s a c -

t u a l l y a c c o m m o d a t e t h e i r d e si r e s a n d p e r c e p t i o n s t o r e a li ty . F o r

i n s t a n c e , in d i v i d u a l s m i g h t c o m e t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r

p a r t n e r s ' a c t u a l q u a l i t i e s a s t i m e p a s s es . B u t e v e n a c c o m m o d a t -

i n g p e r c e p t i o n s to a p a r t n e r ' s " r e a l " q u a l i t ie s n e e d n o t u n d u l y

t a r n i s h p e r c e p t i o n s i f in d i v i d u a l s r e s t r u c t u r e t h e i r i d e al s i n t h e i rp a r t n e r s ' i m a g e . C o n t i n u i n g t o p r o j e c t o n e ' s o w n r o s y s e l f -i m -

a g e o n a p a r t n e r m a y s i m i l a r l y su s t a i n i d e a l i z a ti o n a s t i m e

p a s s e s .

A c c o m m o d a t i n g p e r c e p t i o n s t o r e a l i t y ? F i g u r e 7 p r e s e n t s

t h e m o d e l w e u s e d t o e x p l o r e c h a n g e s i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' i m p r e s -

s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s . I n t h i s m o d e l , c h a n g e s i n i m p r e s s i o n s

a r e r e s i d u a l i z c d e f f e c t s ( e . g . , v a r i a n c e i n T i m e 2 i m p r e s s i o n s

IF e m a l e ' s I n i t i alA t t a c h m e n tS e l f M o d e l

Fem ale ' s In i t ia lSe l f -Percep t ion

e = . 7 4 0 * *

a = . 1 7 7 "

I f = . 0 1 0

c = . 3 9 4 " * / /

Fem ale ' s In i t ia l | Fem ale ' s La te rI Pe rcep t ion ~ ~ . . .~ 1 ~ At tachm ent

o f M a l e I ~ " I Se l f Mod e l

Male ' s In i t ia lSe l f -Pe icep t ion

MA~ae'slnimtintal

M o d e l

c ' = . 3 9 4 " *

Male ' s ~ ~ Male ' s La te rP e r c e p t i o n I ~ A t t a c h m e n to f F e m a l e I S e l f M o d e l

m - " ' i L f = . 0 1 0

a ' = . 1 7 7 "

e ' = . 4 8 6 " *

Figure 6. Being idea l ized and changes in a t tachm ent o r ien ta t ions . Goodness -o f - fi t - index = .96, com para -

tive f i t index = .98, x2( 9, N = 5 8) = 11.18, ns . *p < .05. **p < .01.



S P E C I A L I S S U E : L O V E I S P R E S C I E N T

T a b l e 1 l

Accommodating Images of the Ideal Partner to Perceived Partners:Standardized Path Coe~icients


Init ia l rea l i ty pa ths

d and d' : Reflec t io n of par tn er 's se lf- image .080 .046 .073

Ini t i a l p ro je c t ion pa ths

a and a ' : Proje c t ion of ac to r 's se lf- image .259*** .145" .264***b and b' : Acto r 's ini t ia l imag e of par tn er .135* .159* .227***

Sta bi l i ty pa ths

c and c ' : Orig inal image s of the ideal par tn er .342*** .521"** .318***

Note. See Figure 7 for pa ths. Tim e i to T ime 2: goodness-of-f i t index (GFI) = .94, comp arat ive f i t index(CF I) = .97, x 2 (15, N = 73) = 20 .79, ns. Tim e 2 to Tim e 3: GF I = .95, CF I = 1.0, x 2 (14, N = 52) = 12.24,ns. Tim e l to T im e 3 : GF I = . 92, CFI = . 97 , X (15 , N = 57) = 19.71, ns.* p < . 1 0 . * * * p < ; 01 .

1 1 7 3

o n t o t h e i r i l lu s i o n s a b o u t t h e i r p a r t n e r s b y T i m e 3 . B u t w h e n

m e n ' s s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s w e r e r o s ie r , t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r

p a r t n e r s g r e w r e la t i v e l y m o r e i d e a l i z e d . I n c o n t r a s t , w o m e n ' s

i n i t i a l s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s d i d n o t p r e d i c t c h a n g e s i n t h e i r i m p r e s -

s i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s a t T i m e 3 , x 2 ( 1, N = 5 7 ) = 4 . 0 0 , p <

. 0 5 . [ A n i d e n t i c a l s e l f - p r o j e c t i o n e f fe c t f o r m e n , b u t n o t w o m e n ,

a l s o e m e r g e d f r o m T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 , x 2 ( 1 , N = 7 3 ) = 3 . 3 4 , p

< . 1 0 .] H o w e v e r , p a r a l l e l s e l f - p r o j e c t i o n e f f e ct s e m e r g e d ( f r o m

T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 a n d f r o m T i m e 1 t o T i m e 3 ) f o r b o t h w o m e n

a n d m e n w h e n w e u s e d R o s e n b e r g ' s ( 1 9 6 5 ) S e l f - E s te e m S ca l e

a s t h e i n d e x o f s e l f - m o d e l s . I n t i m a t e s w i t h h i g h e r s e l f- e s t e e m

p r o j e c t e d s u c h p o s i ti v e r e g a rd o n t o t h e i r p a r t n e rs , c o m i n g t o

s e e t h e m a l l t h e m o r e p o s i t i v e l y a s th e s e r o m a n c e s p r o g r e s s e d .

T h e i d e a l - p r o je c t i o n p a t h s ( b a n d b ' ) d i d n o t p r e d i c t c h an g e s i n

i n t i m a t e s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e ir p a r t n e r s a c r o s s a n y o f t h e t i m e

p e r i o d s , n

Accommodating desires to perceptions? I n s t e a d , i d e a l s c o n -

s i st e n tl y a c c o m m o d a t e d t o t h e a t t r i b u t e s i n d i v i d u a l s p e rc e i v e d

i n t h e i r p a r tn e r s ( b u t n o t t o t h e a t t r ib u t e s t h a t a c t u a ll y e x i s t ed ) .

T h i s e f fe c t e m e r g e d w h e n w e e x a m i n e d r e v i se d m o d e l s i n w h i c h

i n i ti a l im p r e s s i o n s o f o n e ' s p a r t n e r ( a c r i t e ri o n i n F i g u r e 7 ) p r e -

d i c t e d c h a n g e s i n o n e ' s i d e a l s ( t h e p r e d i c t o r i n F i g u r e 7 ) . T a b l e

1 1 c o n t a i n s t h e p o o l e d p a t h c o e f f i c ie n t s f o r t h i s r e v i s e d m o d e l .

S e e i n g g r e a t e r v i r t u e i n a p a r t n e r i n i t i a l ly r e s u l t e d i n i n t i m a t e s

m a i n t a i n i n g r e l a t i v e ly h i g h i d e a l s , a s th e s i g n i f i c a n t a c c o m m o -

d a t i o n p a t h s ( b a n d b ' ) i l l u s t r a t e . C o n v e r s e l y , i n t i m a t e s w h o

p e r c e i v e d f e w e r v i r t u e s i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s e a r l y o n r e v i s e d t h e i ri d e a l s d o w n w a r d a s t i m e p a s s e d . S u c h r e s u l t s s u g g e st t h a t i n d i -

v i d u a l s m a i n t a i n p o s i t iv e i ll u s io n s ( i n p a r t ) b y c o n s t r u c t i n g

s e lf - se r v in g m o d e l s o f t h e i d e al p a r t n e r - - a b a c k w a r d t y p e o f

l o g i c t h a t l e a d s i n t i m a t e s t o d e f i n e t h e a t t r i b u t e s t h e y p e r c e i v e

i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s a s id e a l ( e .g . , K u n d a , 1 9 8 7 ; M u r r a y & H o l m e s ,

1993, 1 9 9 4 ) . A s w e s u s p e c t e d , c e r t a i n s e l f - c o r r e c t iv e m e c h a -

n i s m s s e e m t o k e e p i d e a l i z a t i o n w i t h i n r e a s o n a b l e , b e n e f i c i a l

b o u n d s .

D i s c u s s i o n

D e s p i t e o c c a s i o n a l i n t r u s i o n s o f r ea l it y , t h e l o v e r s i n t h i s

s t u d y w h o s u b s c r i b e d t o W i l l i a m B l a k e ' s v i s io n o f lo v e d i d n o t

e n d u p d i s a p p o i n t e d a n d d i s i l h i s i o n e d . I n s te a d , r e l a t i o n s h i p s

p e r s i s t ed a n d b e c a m e m o r e s a t i sf y i n g a n d l es s d i s t r e s s in g w h e n

i n t i m a t e s i d e a li z e d o n e a n o t h e r t h e m o s t , n o t w h e n t h e y m o r e

a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t o o d o n e a n o t h e r ' s f r a i l ti e s . I n f a c t , w e a r g u e

t h a t l o v e r s w h o s u b s c r i b e d t o W i l l i a m B l a k e ' s v i s i o n o f l o v e a r e

n o t s o m u c h b l i n d a n d p r o n e t o d i s a p p o i n t m e n t a s p r e s c i e n t ,

a c t u a l l y c r e a t i n g h o p e d - f o r r e a l i t i e s a s t i m e p a s se s . 13

J2 Wh e n the s e l f -pro je ct ion pa ths we re om i t t e d f rom the m ode ls ,

m e n ' s idea ls d id pre dic t c ha nge s in the i r im pre s s ions of the i r pa r tne r s

over the year . Th e hig her the ir ini t ia l ideals , the m ore ideal ized the ir

l a te r pe rc e pt ions of the i r pa r tne rs .

13 We a lso foun d s trong eviden ce of th e se lf-fulfi l ling effec ts o f ideal-

i z a t ion whe n we e xa m ine d s im pl i f i e d m ode ls us ing ord ina ry l e a s t

squares regress ion. For i l lus tra t ive purpo ses , we presen t only se lec ted

results concerning changes in men's fee l ings and perceptions . In these

simplif ied models , ideal iz ing a par tner refers to th e effec ts of men 's per-

c e pt ions of wo m e n, c ont ro l l ing for wom e n ' s s e l f -perc e pt ions , whe re a s

be ing ide a l i z ed r e fe rs to the e ff ec ts o f wom e n ' s pe rc e pt ions o f m e n, c on-

trol l ing for men 's self-perceptions . Turnin g f irs t to the buffer ing hypo th-

e si s, ide a l i zing a pa r tne r buf fe re d or pro te c te d m e n f rom the d i s rupt ive

effects of negativity, flint~-~o~ = .208, p < .05. Tu rnin g to th e transfo r-

matio n hypothesis , be ing ideal ized by a par tne r ini t ia l ly resulted i n m en

re por t ing fe we r c onf l i c ts a t ye a r' s e n d , / ~ l -T im e3 = - . 2 94 , p < . 05 a nd

flTime2-Ti~3 = -- .284, p < .01, and ideal iz ing a par tn er ear ly on p re-

dic ted less destruct ive confl ic ts a t Tim e 3, /~ = - .3 24 , p < .05. Similar ly,

ide a l iz ing a nd be ing ide a l i z e d by a pa r tn e r a t T im e s 1 a nd 2 r e su l t e d in

m e n fe e l ing le s s c onf l i c te d or unc e r ta in a bout the i r pa r tne r s b y ye a r ' s

e n d : f fl " l - T 3 p , o j ~ = - . 2 4 2 , p < .0 7 , f i r I - T 3 ~ d = - . 4 9 2 , p < .0 1 ;

f fr2-T3vroj~- t~ d = - - . 389 ,p < . 01 , f f r2 -T3 ~ n m ~ = - . 55 7 , P < . 01 . Wi th

regard to th e ref lec ted appra isa l hypothesis , be ing ideal ized by the ir

pa r tne r s a t T im e 1 r e su l t ed in m e n fe e l ing e ve n be t t e r a bout the m se lve s

by Tim es 2 and 3: /~rl-T2 = .205, p < .05 and f lTI-T3 = .224, p < .05.

S im i la r e v ide nc e of the t r a ns form ing e ff e ct s of ide a l i z a t ion we re fou nd

whe n we use d OL S re gre s sion to e xa m ine c ha nge s in wom e n ' s pe rc e p-

t ions . OL S regress ion a lso yie lded socia l rea l i ty effec ts mir ror i ng thos e

a l r e a dy r e por te d . For insta nc e , m e n gre w ha ppie r a nd m ore c onte n t in

their re la t ionships by year 's end the rosier the ir par tners ' ini t ia l se lf-

regard, BTI--T3= .432, p < .0 I . And , in te rm s o f se lf-correc t ive effec ts ,

m e n a c c om m oda te d the i r pe rc e pt ions to be t t e r r e f l ec t wom e n ' s a c tua l

a t tr ibu tes as t im e went on , f lT~-T3= . 4 1 3 , p < . 0 1 .




Idealization or Understanding? Constructing a Lasting

Sense o f Security

Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one p ersonand everybody else. --George Bernard Shaw

M i r r o r i n g S h a w ' s m u s i n g s, i m p r e s s i o n s o f a r o m a n t i c p a r t -h e r a t e a c h t i m e p e r i o d a p p e a r e d t o r e f le c t a m i x t u r e o f t h e

r e a l p a r t n e r ' s a t t r i b u t e s a n d t h e a c t o r ' s w i sh e s o r h o p e s. T h e s e

i l l u s i o n s - - o r m o t i v a t e d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s - - r e f l e c t e d a c t o r s '

t e n d e n c y t o p r o j e c t t h e i r o w n s e lf - im a g e s a n d h o p e s f o r t h e i d e a l

pa r t ne r on t o t he i r a c t ua l pa r t ne r s . The mor e pos i t i ve t he i r s e l f -

i ma ge s a nd i de a ls , t he mo r e i de a l i z e d t he i r i mpr e s s i ons o f t he i r

pa r t ne r s . Pos i t i ve i l l u s i ons , t he n , a ppe a r t o s t e m i n pa r t f r om

i nd i v i dua l s ' ow n l e ve l o f s e lf - r e ga rd . R os i e r s e l f - r e ga rd p r e -

d i c t e d m o r e p o s i t iv e i m a g e s o f a n i d e a l p a r t n e r a n d m o r e i d e a l-

i z e d p e r c e p t i o n s o f o n e ' s o w n p a r t n e r.

A s t h e s e r o m a n c e s p r o g r e s se d , m o d e l s o f s e l f p r e d i c t e d f u r -

t h e r r e v is i o n s i n m o d e l s o f i n t i m a t e o t h e r s . W h e n m e n t h o u g h t

r e l a t ive l y l es s o f t he ms e l ve s a t T i m e l , t he y ha d g r e a t e r di ff i-

c u l t y h o l d i n g o n t o t h e i r i l lu s i o n s a b o u t t h e i r p a r t n e r s. W h e n

t he i r s e l f - i ma ge s we r e r os ie r, howeve r, m e n ' s i mpr e s s i on s o f

t he i r pa r t n e r s g r e w r e l a t ive l y mo r e i de a l i z e d . Pa r a l l e l s e l f- p r o -

j e c t i o n e f fe c ts e m e r g e d f o r b o t h w o m e n a n d m e n w h e n w e u s e d

g l oba l s e l f- e s t e e m ( i .e . , t h e Ros e n be r g s c a l e ) t o i nde x mod e l s o f

t h e s el f. W o m e n a n d m e n w i t h h i g h e r s el f -e s te e m p r o j e c t e d s u c h

p o s i ti v e r e g a r d o n t o t h e i r p a r t n e r s , c o m i n g t o s e e t h e ir p a r t n e r s

a s m o r e a m i r r o r o f t h e ir o w n s e l f -i m a g e s a s t i m e p a s s e d . S u c h

r e s u lt s s u g g es t th a t i n d i v id u a l s f o r m m o d e l s o f r o m a n t i c o t h e r s

t h a t m i r r o r t h e i r o w n p e r s o n a l s t r e n g t h s o r w e a k n e s se s ( e .g . ,

Ba l dw i n , 1992 ; Gr i f f i n & Ba r t ho l om e w, 199 4 ) .

Fu r t he r , t he i de a l i z e d i ma ge s i n t i ma t e s c ons t r uc t e d we r e i n -

t r i c a t e l y t i e d t o we l l - be i ng i n t he s e de ve l op i ng r oma nc e s , a s t he

c onc u r r e n t p r o j e c t e d a nd r e f l e c t e d i l l u s i ons e f f e c t s i l l u s t r a t e .I nd i v i dua l s we r e ha pp i e r i n t he i r r e la t i ons h i p s w he n t he y i de a l -

i z e d t he i r pa r t ne r s , s e e i ng v i r t ue s i n t he m t ha t t he i r pa r t ne r s d i d

n o t s e e i n t h e m s e lv e s . I n t i m a t e s w h o i d e a li z e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s

mor e a l s o r e po r t e d l e s s f r e que n t a nd l e s s de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s .

A n d b e i n g t h e t a r g e t o f s u c h i d e a li z e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s a l s o a p -

p e a r e d t o b e n e f i t w e l l - b e i n g . I n t i m a t e s w e r e h a p p i e r a n d r e -

po r t e d l e s s f r e que n t , l e s s de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s whe n t he i r pa r t -

ne r s l ooke d be yo nd t he r e a l i t y o f t he i r f r a il t ie s a nd s a w t he be s t

i n t h e m . T r a i t - s pe c if i c i l l u s i ons ha d s i mi l a r, be ne f i c i a l e f fe c t s on

we l l - be i ng .

M o r e a c c u r a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s s e l f -i m a g e ra r e l y

p r e d i c t e d c o n c u r r e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . W h e n i t d i d ( a t T i m e 3 ) ,

w o m e n w h o c a m e t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' s el f- p er -

c e i ve d i mpe r f e c t i ons we r e a c t ua l l y l e a s t ha ppy . I n c on t r a s t t ot h i s e f f e c t , one mi gh t ha ve e xpe c t e d a c t ua l unde r s t a nd i ng t o

b e n e f it w e l l - be i n g p r e c is e l y b e c a u s e i n t i m a t e s w o u l d k n o w a n d

unde r s t a nd one a no t he r ' s a c t ua l v i r t ue s a nd f a u l t s a nd s t i l l a c -

c e p t a n d l ove ' one a no t he r ( S wa nn e t a l . , 1 994 ) . A f t e r a ll , i t

m i g h t be qu i t e d i s c on c e r t i ng f o r ind i v i dua l s t o be l i e ve t ha t t he i r

pa r t n e r s a r e on l y i n l ove w i t h a n i l lu s i on . The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s

s ugge s t t ha t t h i s i n t u i t i ve l y c ompe l l i ng p r opos i t i on ma y f a l l

s h o r t b e c a u s e t r u l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s f a u lt s m o r e o f t e n

d i mi n i s he s pos i t i ve r e ga r d t ha n i n s t i l l s unc ond i t i ona l a c c e p -

t a n c e . B u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t n e r ' s s e l f -s c h e m a m a y n o t h a v e

s uc h c os t s . The i nd i c e s o f t r a i t -s pe c i f i c unde r s t a nd i ng y i e l de d

s o m e s u p p o r t f o r t h i s hy p o t h e si s . W o m e n a n d m e n w e r e h a p p i e r

t h e b e t t e r w o m e n u n d e r s t o o d m e n ' s s e l f - s c h e m a s a t T i m e s 2

a nd 3 . Ove r a l l t hough , t he f i nd i ngs f o r c u r r e n t we l l - be i ng s ug -

ge s t t ha t h a pp i ne s s a nd s e c u r i t y ne c e s s i ta t e a c e r t a i n de g r e e o f

i l l u s ion o r mo t i va t e d i na c c u r a c y .

De s p i t e t he r i go r s o f t i me a nd t he i nc r e a s e d po t e n t i a l f o r d i s -

a ppo i n t me n t , i de a l i z i ng a pa r t ne r p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r we l l - be i ng

a nd s t a b i l i t y a s t he s e r oma nc e s p r og r e s s e d . I n t i ma t e s who i de -a l iz e d o n e a n o t h e r t h e m o s t - - w h o s e p e r c e p t i o n s d e p a r t e d m o s t

f r o m r e a l i t y - - w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e m o s t s t a b le r e l a ti o n s h ip s .

R o m a n c e s w e r e m o r e l i k e ly t o p e r s is t t h e m o r e i n t im a t e s i d e al -

i z e d ( o r m i s u n d e r s t o o d ) o n e a n o t h e r a t b o t h g l o b al a n d t r a it -

s pe c i fi c le vel s. I n f a c t , c ons i s t e n t w i t h o u r bu f f e r i ng hypo t he s i s ,

i de a l i z ing a pa r t ne r a c t ua l l y i n s u l a t e d i nd i v i dua l s f r om t he de l -

e t e r i ous e f f e c ts o f c on f l ic t s a nd doub t s , a ppa r e n t l y a c t i ng a s a

c o m p e n s a t o r y f o r c e (e .g . , G o t t m a n , 1 9 9 4 ; H u s t o n & C h o r o s t ,

1 9 9 4 ) . W h e n m e n i d e a l i z e d w o m e n t h e m o s t , e a r l y c o n f l i c t s

a n d d o u b t s d i d n o t t r i g g e r b r e a k u p s ; w h e n m e n i d e a l i z e d

wome n t he l e a s t , r e l a t i ons h i p s d i s s o l ve d i n r e s pons e t o e a r l y

d if fi cu lt ie s . Ac c u r a t e l y unde r s t a nd i ng a pa r t ne r ' s " r e a l " qua l i -

t ies , however, h ad n o re la t io n to the re la t ion ship ' s s tabi li ty .

As fur th er eviden ce of id eal i za t i on ' s sel f- ful f il ling ef fec ts , pos-

i ti ve i l l u s i ons a c t e d a s a t r a n s f o r m a t i ona l f o r c e , wa r d i ng o f f l a t e r

d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d p r o t e c t i n g i n t i m a t e s f r o m t h e w a n i n g s a t-

i s f a c t ion a nd i nc r e a s i ng c on f l i c ts a pp a r e n t i n t he ge ne r a l s a m-

p l e . Fo r wome n , i de a l iz i ng a pa r t ne r p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i ve ly g r e a t e r

f e e li ngs o f s a t i s fa c t i on a t ye a r ' s e nd . Eve n s t r onge r i de a l i z a t ion

e f f ec t s e me r ge d i n p r e d i c t i ng l a t e r c on f l i c t s a nd doub t s f o r bo t h

m e n a n d w o m e n - - p e r h a p s b e c a u se o f th e o f t e n h y po t h e si z ed

r o l e o f pos i t i ve i l lu s i ons i n wa r d i n g o f f t h r e a t s .

I de a l i z i ng a pa r t ne r a nd be i ng i de a li z e d ( i n pa r t i c u l a r ) r e -

s u l t e d i n i n t i ma t e s r e po r t i ng r e l a t i ve l y l e s s f r e que n t a nd de -

s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s de s p i t e t he g r e a t e r o c c a s i on t o d i s c ove r j u s t

how t he i r ne e ds d i d c on f l i c t . Suc h e f f ec t s mi g h t e me r ge be c a u s e

i n t i ma t e s who i de a l i z e t he i r pa r t ne r s e xpe c t t he i r pa r t ne r s t o

t r e a t t he m ge ne r ous l y . Th i s c on f i de nc e i n a pa r t ne r ' s mo t i ve s

m a y f o s t er th e s e n s e o f t r u s t a n d s e c u r i ty i n t i m a t e s n e e d i n o r -

de r t o a c t s e lf le ss ly i n t he f a c e o f c on f l ic t s , t r a n s f o r m i ng t h e m i n

w a y s t h a t b r i d g e a p p a r e n t l y d i v er g e n t in t e re s t s a n d m i n i m i z e

ove r t c on f l i c ts ( e .g . , Ke ll ey , 1979 ) . Eve n w he n c on f l i c t s do o c -

c u r , i n t i ma t e s who i de a l i z e one a no t he r ma y be mor e l i ke l y t o

f i nd e xc us e s f o r a pa r t n e r ' s t r a n s g r e s s i ons t ha t m i n i m i z e t he s i g-

n i f ic a n c e o f th e s e m i s d e e d s a n d p r e v e n t m i n o r i s su e s f r o m e s -

c a l a t i ng i n t o s e r i ous c on f l i c t s ( e . g . , B r a dbu r y & F i nc ha m,

1 9 9 0 ) .

I de a l i z a t i on a l s o l e s s e ne d t he l i ke l i hood o f i nd i v i dua l s e n t e r -

t a i n i n g s e r i o u s d o u b t s o r c o n c e r n s a s t h e i r r o m a n c e s p r o -

g r e ss e d . D e s p i te t h e i n c r e a s e d o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t i m e t o t u r na m us i ng f o i b l e s i n t o i n t o l e r a b l e f a u l ts , i de a li z i ng a pa r t ne r a nd

be i ng i de a l i z e d l e ss e ne d t he l i ke l i hood o f i n t i ma t e s l a t e r doub t -

i n g o r q u e s ti o n i n g t h e a c t u a l m e r i t o f t h e ir p a r t n e r s ' a p p a r e n t

v i r t ue s . I de a l i z a t i on m a y ha ve t h i s e ff e c t i n s upp r e s s i ng a m b i v -

a l e nc e ( a nd i t s r e ne wa l ) be c a us e i de a l s p r ov i de a t e mp l a t e f o r

c ons t r u c t i ng a s e ns e o f c onv i c t i on t ha t r e s o l ve s t he t e n s i on be -

t we e n i nd i v i dua l s ' hope s a nd f e a r s ( e . g . , Mur r a y & Ho l me s ,

1993 , 1994 ) . F r o m a n a t t a c hm e n t pe r s pe c t ive , s ee i ng a pa r t ne r

a s ( ne a r l y ) i de a l ma y a l s o f o s t e r a s e ns e o f i n t e r na l pe a c e o r

s e c u r i ty t h a t d a m p e n s c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p 's v u l n e r -

a b i l i t y t o t h r e a t s . I n s um ma r y , pos i t i ve i l lu s i ons a ppe a r e d t o a c t

a s a t r a n s f o r m a t i ona l f o r c e i n t he s e de ve l op i ng r e l a t i o ns h i p s - -



SPECIAL ISSUE: LO VE IS PRESCIENT

bo l s t e r i ng l a t e r s a t i s f a c ti on , a ve r t i ng c on f l i c ts , a nd d i mi n i s h i ng

dou bts . ,4

Basking in Reflected Glory: Constructing ActualPartners

D e s p i t e S w a r m e t a l ? s ( 1 9 9 4 ) c l a i m s t h a t i n t i m a t e s r e si s t u n -f oun de d f l a t t e ry a nd c l i ng t o t he i r s e l f -i ma ge s , ind i v i dua l s c a m e

t o s h a r e t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' r o s y v i e w s o f t h e m a s t im e p a s se d . T h e

mor e t he i r pa r t ne r s i de a l i z e d t he m i n i t i a l l y , t he mor e pos i t i ve

t he c ha nge s i n i nd i v i dua l s ' s e l f- c onc e p t s . Th e oppo s i t e wa s t r ue

whe n t he i r pa r t ne r s i de a l i z e d t he m l e s s . The s e r o s y r e f l e c t e d

a p p r a i s al s e v e n m o d i f i e d w o m e n ' s a t t a c h m e n t s t y l es - - - p re s u m -

a b l y c h r on i c d i s pos i t i ons t ha t o r i g i na t e ila c h i l dh ood a nd s t r uc -

t u r e i nd i v i d ua l s ' l a te r r oma n t i c e xpe r i e nc e s ( e . g ., Ba r t ho l ome w,

1 9 9 0 ; H a z a n & S h av er , 1 9 8 7 ) . W o m e n ' s s e lf - m o d e ls b e c a m e

r e l a t i ve l y mor e s e c u r e t he mor e t he i r pa r t ne r s i de a l i z e d t he m,

s u g g e st in g th a t r o m a n t i c e x p e r i e n c e s c a n i n f l u e n c e a t t a c h m e n t

( a s w e l l a s b e in g i n f l u e n c e d b y i t ) . A s t h e s e r o m a n c e s p r o -

g r e s s e d , ind i v i dua l s a c t ua l l y c r e a t e d t h e pa r t ne r s t he y pe r c e i ve d

by i de a l i z i ng t he m, t r a ns f o r mi ng s e l f - pe r c e i ve d f r ogs i n t o t he

p r i nc e s o r p r i nc e s s e s t he y de s i r e d . As f a r a s we know, t h i s i s

t he f i r s t e v i de nc e r e l a t i ng c h a nge s i n s e l f - re ga r d t o qua l i t i e s o f

r e l a t i ons h i p s .

S u c h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f s e l f i l lu s t ra t e h o w i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h

i n t i m a t e o t h e r s m i g h t s h a p e a n d e x p a n d i n d i v i d u al s ' s e lf - c on -

c e p t s , pa r t i c u l a r l y i n doma i ns whe r e s e l f - knowl e dge i s unc e r -

t a i n ( c f . Ar on e t a l . , 1991 , 1995 ; Ba ume i s t e r & T i c e , 1986 ;

M . R . L e a r y e t a l. , 1 9 9 5 ; M c N u l t y & S w a n n , 1 9 9 4 ; S c h le n k er ,

1986 ; T i c e , 19 92 ) . A de ve l op i ng r oma nc e ( e s pe c i a l l y i f i t is a

f i r s t l ove ) ma y p l a y a l a r ge r o l e i n s t r uc t u r i ng i nd i v i dua l s '

m o d e l s o f th e m s e l v e s a s r o m a n t i c p a r t n e r s. B a s k i n g in t h e g l o w

o f a p a r t n e r ' s r o s y r e g a r d a n d a c c e p t a n c e m a y t h e n s h a p e a n d

i n f o r m t he s e de ve l op i ng s e l f - c onc e p t s , a s t he p r e s e n t f i nd i ngsi l lu s t r a te . U nc o nd i t i on a l a dm i r a t i on ma y ha ve t he s e e ff e c ts be -

c a u s e i n d i v i d u al s c o m e t o s e e t h e i r o w n q u a l i t ie s t h r o u g h t h e i r

pa r t n e r s ' m or e f o r g i v i ng e ye s . A l s o , i nd i v i dua l s m i gh t d i r e c t l y

c on t r a d i c t t he i r pa r t ne r s ' s e l f - doub t s o r s e lf - c r it i c is ms , t he r e by

bo l s t e r i ng t he i r pa r t ne r s ' s e ns e o f s e l f -wor t h . I nd i v i dua l s mi g h t

e ve n c ome t o s e e t he ms e l ve s i n a r o s i e r l i gh t s i mp l y be c a us e

t he i r pa r t ne r s t r e a t t he m a s s pe c i a l , un i que i nd i v i dua l s a nd e n -

c ou r a ge mo r e pos i t i ve be ha v i o r on t he i r pa r t ( e . g ., Snyde r e t a l .,

1 9 7 7 ) .

I n de ve l op i ng r oma nc e s , s e l f - c onc e p t c ha nge mos t l i ke l y oc -

c u r s i n d o m a i n s w h e r e i n d i v i d u a l s a s p ir e t o c e r t a i n " p o s s i b l e "

s e lv e s b u t a r e u n s u r e t h e y h a v e a t t a i n e d t h e m . F o r i n st a n c e ,

H i l l a r y m i g h t r e a d i l y a c c e p t B i l l' s a p p r a i s al o f h e r e m p a t h y i f

s h e w a n t s t o s e e h e r s el f a s a w a r m a n d c a r i n g p a r tn e r , p a r t i c u -l a r l y i f s he f e a r s s he c a n be t o o i m pa t i e n t a t t i me s . W he r e s e l f-

know l e dge is m or e c e r t a i n , howe ve r , a pa r t ne r ' s a dm i r a t i on ma y

ha ve l e s s powe r t o c ha nge i nd i v i dua l s ' s e l f - c onc e p t s ( e . g . ,

Swa r m, 1987 ) . B i l l ma y ha ve l it t le s uc c e s s in c on v i nc i ng H i l l a r y

t ha t s he i s a t h le t i c a l l y s k i l le d i f s he i s c on v i nc e d o f he r

c l ums i ne s s .

I n s u m m a r y , b a s k i n g i n t h e g l o w o f a p a r t n e r ' s r o s y r e g a rd

l e f t i nd i v i dua l s f e e l i ng e ve n mor e s e c u r e i n t he i r own s e ns e o f

s e l f - wor t h a s t he s e r oma nc e s de ve l ope d . I n t u r n , f e e l i ng mor e

s e c u r e i n t h e i r o w n s e n se o f s e lf m i g h t t h e n h a v e a l lo w e d i n d i -

v i dua l s t o s e e the i r pa r t ne r s i n a n e ve n m or e pos i t i ve o r ge ne r -

ous l i gh t ( be c a us e o f t he r o l e o f pos i t ive s e l f - r e ga rd i n f o s t e r i ng

1 1 7 5

i ll u s io n s ) . T h i s p r o c e s s o f m u t u a l a f f i rm a t i o n a n d r e a f f ir m a t i o n

ma y he t he ke ys t one f o r l a s ti ng s a t i sf a c t i on a nd s e c u r i t y i n r o -

ma n t i c r e l a t i ons h i p s ( Re i s & Sha ver , 198 8 ) .

Self-Corrective Mechanisms?Keeping IdealizationWithin Reasonable Bounds

T h e f a c t t h a t b a s k i n g i n t h e w a r m g l o w o f a p a r t n e r ' s i d ea l -

i z e d r e ga r d a c t ua l l y c ha nge s in t i m a t e s ' s e l f - e s te e m m i gh t be one

m e c h a n i s m t h a t k e e p s t h e i d e a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s i n t o u c h w i t h

( a n a l t e r e d ) r e a li t y. I de a l i z a t i on m a y a l s o r e t a i n i ts be ne f i ts ove r

t i m e - - i n s t e a d o f s et ti n g in t im a t e s u p f o r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t - - b e -

c a u s e i n ti m a t e s a c t u a l l y a c c o m m o d a t e t h e i r d e s ir e s a n d p e r c e p -

t ions to rea li ty .

Th a t i s , i nd i v i dua l s a d j u s t e d t he i r i m pr e s s i ons o f t he i r r o -

m a n t i c p a r t n e r s t o t h e c o n s t r a in t s i m p o s e d b y t h e " r e a l " p a r t -

ne r ' s qua l i ti e s a s t ime pa s s e d , c ons i s t e n t w i t h a ba s i c p r e m i s e o f

s e l f - ve r i f i c a t i on t he o r y ( e . g . , Mc Nul t y & Swa nn , 1994 ) . "Ac -

t u a l " a t t r ib u t e s t h a t i n d i v id u a l s o n c e i g n o r e d ( o r f a i le d t o s e e )

p r e d i c t e d c ha nge s i n t he i r pe r c e p t i ons . W he n pa r t ne r s ' s e l f- i m-

a ge s we r e r e l a t i ve l y poo r a t T i me 2 , a c t o r s s a w t he i r pa r t ne r sin a re la t ive ly less idea l ized l ight by Time 3 . Converse ly , when

pa r t n e r s ' s e l f - i ma ge s we r e r o s i e r a t T i me 2 , a c t o r s ' i mpr e s s i ons

o f t he i r pa r t n e r s g r e w r e l a t ive l y mo r e pos i t i ve . Pa r a l l e l e f fe c t s o f

w o m e n ' s a c t u a l a t t r i b u t e s o n m e n ' s l a t e r p e r c e p t i o n s a l s o

e m e r g e d f r o m T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 a n d f r o m T i m e l t o T i m e 3 .

Th e c r i t i c a l c a ve a t w i t h r e ga r d t o t he be ne f i t s o f il l u si ons , t he n ,

i s t h a t i d e a l iz e d i m a g e s a r e m o s t v u l n e r a b l e w h e n t h e y a r e m o s t

o u t o f to u c h w i t h t h e p a r t n e r ' s r e a li ty .

I r on i c al ly , ev e n i n c r e a s e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g n e e d n o t u n d u l y t a r -

n i s h pe r c e p t i on s i f i n t i ma t e s r e s t r uc t u r e t he i r i de a l s i n t he i r

pa r t ne r s ' i ma ge . I n t i ma t e s i n s t a b l e r e l a t i ons h i p s a c t ua l l y a c -

c o m m o d a t e d t h e i r id e a ls t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e a t t r i b u t e s t h e y p e r -

c e i ve d i n t he i r pa r t ne r s ( no t t he a t t r i bu t e s t ha t a c t ua l l ye x i s t e d ) . I nd i v i dua l s w ho pe r c e i ve d r e l a t i ve ly f e we r v i r t ue s i n

t he i r pa r t n e r s i n i t ia l l y f a s h i one d r e l a ti ve l y l owe r ide a l s a s t i me

pa s s e d . Conve r s e l y , s e e i ng g r e a t e r v i r t ue i n a pa r t ne r i n i t i a l l y

r e s u l t e d i n i n t i ma t e s s e t t i ng e ve n m or e h ope f u l i de a ls . Suc h r e -

s u l t s s ugges t t ha t i nd i v i dua l s ma i n t a i n pos i t i ve il l u s ions i n pa r t

b y r e v i s in g t h e i r i de a l t e m p l a t e s - - a t y p e o f b a c k w a r d s o r s e lf -

p r o t e c t i ve l og i c t ha t l e a ds i n t i ma t e s t o de f i ne t he a t t r i bu t e s t he y

pe r c e i ve i n pa r t ne r s a s i de a l ( e .g . , D un n i n g & Mc E l we e , 1995 ;

D u n n i n g , M e y e r o w i tz , & H o l z b e r g, 1 9 8 9 ; K u n d a , 1 9 8 7 ; M u r -

r a y & Ho l me s , 1993 , 1994 ) . Th r ou gh t he s e t h r e e s e l f - c o r r e c -

t ive , po t e n t i a l ly i n t e r r e l a t e d m e c ha n i s ms , i de a l i z a t i on m a y be

ke p t w i t h i n r e a s ona b l e , be ne f ic i a l boun ds .

A Role or Reality: WorkingModels of Self

De spi te th e se l f- ful f il ling ef fec ts of idea l iza t ion , cer ta in rea l i -

t i e s d i d pe ne t r a t e i n t i ma t e s ' d e f e ns e s a s t he s e r oma nc e s de ve l -

ope d . A t t r i bu t e s t h a t i nd i v i dua l s onc e i gno r e d ( o r f a i le d t o s e e )

~4 These various findings in su pport of the wish-fulfilling effects ofidealization follow on the heels of a large literature arguing th at op ti-mism or idealism is critical for well-being (e.g., Greenwald, 1980; Ja-noff-Bulman, 1989; Scheier & C arver, 1992; Taylor & B row n, 1988;Taylor, Collins, Skokan, & A spinwa ll, 1989; W einstein, 1980 ). From

this perspective, happiness rests on people's ability to see a som etimesstern reality in the b est possible light.




i n t he i r pa r t ne r s p r e d i c t e d c h a nge s i n r e po r t s o f s a t i s fa c t i on ,

doub t , a nd c on f l i c t. I n t he f ir s t 4 mo n t h s , i n t i ma t e s ' s a t i s f a c ti on

g r e w whe n t he i r pa r t ne r s ' s e l f - i ma ge s we r e r e l a t i ve l y r o s y a nd

s u f fe r e d m o r e w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s w e r e m o r e s e lf - d ep r e c at in g .

O v e r t h e y e a r , m e n g r e w r e l at iv e l y h a p p i e r t h e r o s i e r w o m e n ' s

i n i t i a l s e l f -r e ga r d . S i m i l a r e f f e c ts e me r ge d f o r f e e li ngs o f a mb i v -

a l e n c e, a s i n d e x e d b y t h e B r a i k e r a n d K e l l e y ( 1 9 7 9 ) s c al e . W h e nt he i r pa r t ne r s we r e mor e s e l f - de p r e c a t i ng , i n t i ma t e s r e po r t e d

f e e l ing re l a t i ve ly mor e do ub t a b ou t t he i r r e l a t i ons h i p s b y ye a r ' s

e n d . T h e o p p o s i t e w a s t r u e w h e n t h e i r p a r t n e r s h a d h i g h e r s el f-

r e ga r d . A l s o , i nd i v i dua l s r e po r t e d r e l a t i ve l y l e s s de s t r uc t i ve

c on f l i c t s a f t e r 4 mon t hs t he r o s i e r t he i r pa r t ne r s ' s e l f - r e ga r d a t

T i m e 1 .

J u s t a s ha v i ng a pa r t ne r w i t h a r e l a t ive l y pos it i ve s e l f - c onc e p t

s l ow e d t h e w a n i n g o f g o o d w i l l a p p a r e n t i n t h e g e n e r a l s a m p l e ,

ho l d i ng pos i t i ve i l lu s i ons a bou t t he s e l f a l s o a ppe a r e d t o b u f f e r

t he e f f e c ts o f t i me . M e n w i t h r o s i e r s e l f- i ma ge s a t T i m e l r e -

po r t e d r e l a t i ve l y mor e s a t i s f a c t i on 12 mon t hs l a t e r , whe r e a s

me n w i t h we a ke r s e l f - i ma ge s s u f f e r e d g r e a t e r de c l i ne s i n ha pp i -

n e s s. S i m i l a r e f f e ct s em e r g e d ( f r o m T i m e 1 t o T i m e 2 ) f o r b o t h

m e n a n d w o m e n w h e n R o s e n b e r g ' s ( 1 9 6 5 ) S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e

wa s u s e d a s a n i nde x o f s e l f -mode l s . I n t i m a t e s w i t h r o s i e r in i t i a l

s e l f - r e ga r d a l s o r e po r t e d r e l a ti ve l y l es s de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s a s

t he ye a r p r og r e s s e d . S uc h e f f e c ts a l s o e me r ge d c on c u r r e n t l y : I n -

d i v i dua l s m or e s e c u r e i n t he i r ow n s e ns e s o f se l f c ons i s t e n t l y

r e po r t e d l e s s f r e que n t a nd de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s . As t he s e c o l -

l e c t e d f i nd i ngs a bou t t he s e l f i l lu s t r a t e , a c t o r s ' a nd p a r t ne r s '

h i gh s e l f - r e ga r d he l p s s u s t a i n pos i t i ve s e n t i me n t a s r e l a t i ons h i p s

p r og r e s s , whe r e a s pe r s ona l i n s e c u r i t i e s a ppe a r t o pos e a l a t e n t

v u l n e r a b i l i t y - - a t h e m e w e w il l r e t u r n t o s h o r tl y .

Tu r n i ng t o a d i f f e r e n t r e a l i t y c ons t r a i n t , un f u l f i l l e d i de a l s

p r e d i c t e d c e r t a i n ( bu t l i m i t e d ) d i f f i c u l t i e s a s t he s e r oma nc e s

d e v e lo p e d , p a r ti c u l a r ly f o r w o m e n . B o t h m e n a n d w o m e n r e -

p o r t e d m o r e d e s t r u c ti v e c o n f l ic t s a t T i m e 2 t h e m o r e t h e i r p a r t -ne r s f e ll s ho r t o f t he i r i de a ls . As t i me p a s s e d , wom e n r e p o r t e d

l a r ge r i nc r e a s e s i n de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s by T i me 3 t he f u r t he r

me n f e ll f r om t he i r i de a ls a t T i m e 1 . S i mi l a r bu t we a ke r e f f ec t s

e m e r g e d p r e d i c t in g w o m e n ' s l a t e r r e p o r t s o f d e c re a s e d s a t is f ac -

t i on . A l t h o u g h w o m e n ' s i d ea l s b e g a n t o a c t a s h a r sh s t a n d a r d s

a s t i m e pa s s e d ( e . g ., H i gg i n s , 19 87 ) , m e n ' s i de a l s c on t i nue d t o

a c t l a r ge l y a s pos i t ive f i lt er s, l e a d i ng t h e m t o s e e o n l y t he be s t

i n t he i r r e l a t i ons h i p s . Me n wi t h r o s i e r ( bu t un f u l f i l l e d ) i de a l s

r e po r t e d r e l a t ive l y le s s a m b i va l e nc e a nd c on f l i c t a nd g r e a t e r s a t-

i s f a c t i on a s ti me pa s s e d .

I s I d e a l i z a t i o n (a n d I t s B e n e f i t s ) O n l y a n I l lu s i o n?

T h e c e n t r a l c h a l l e n ge i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r o l e o f p o si ti v ei l l u s i ons i n r oma n t i c r e l a t i ons h i p s i s i de n t i f y i ng a pp r op r i a t e

be nc hma r ks o r ba s e l i ne s f o r " r e a l i t y . " D i s t i ngu i s h i ng f a c t f r om

f i c t i on a nd i de a l i z a t i on f r om i n s i gh t r e qu i r e s s ome knowl e dge

o f r ea li ty . B u t i n t h e r o m a n t i c d o m a i n f e w g o l d s t a n d a r d s e x i s t

f o r me a s u r i ng ob j e c t i ve tr u t h s . So we t u r ne d t o s ub j e c ti ve r e al -

i t i e s - i n d i v i d u a l s ' o w n v i e w s o f th e i r v i rt u e s a n d f a u l t s - - a s

p r o x i e s f o r t r u t h .

I n t i m a t e s ' i m p r e s s i o n s d i d a p p e a r i l lu s o r y i n l i g h t o f t h e ir

pa r t n e r s ' r e a l i t ie s . B u t c a n t h i s de f i n i t i on o f r e a l i t y be t r u s t e d?

Pe r ha p s pa r t ne r s a r e a c t ua l l y be i ng ove r ly hu mb l e i n t he i r s el f-

de p i c t i ons , de s c r i b i ng t he ms e l ve s l e s s v i r t uous l y t ha n t he y a c -

t u a l l y b e l i e v e t h e m s e l v e s t o b e . U s i n g s u c h m o d e s t ( a n d

i n s i nc e r e ) s e l f - de p ic t i ons a s r e a li t y ba s e l i ne s wou l d t he n ove r -

e s t i ma t e t h e e v i de nc e f o r i de a l i z a t ion a nd i t s be ne f it s . Tha t i s,

t he a pp a r e n t be ne f i t s o f il l u s ions mi g h t a c t ua l l y r e p r e s e n t t he

be ne f i ts o f ha v i ng a hu mb l e , s e l f- e f fa c i ng pa r t ne r .

Se ve r a l po i n t s a r gu e a ga i n s t t h i s humi l i t y a c c o un t o f i l lu -

s i ons. Co ns i de r a b l e e v i de n c e s ugge s t s t ha t b i a s e s i n s e l f - r e po r ts

t e nd t owa r d s e l f - a gg r a nd i z e me n t r a t he r t ha n s e l f - e f f a c e me n t( Ta y l o r & Br ow n , 1988 ) . As a n i l l u s t r a t ion o f t h is b i a s , t he s e

d a t i n g i n t i m a t e s d e s c r i b e d t h e m s e l v e s m u c h m o r e v i r t u o u s l y

t ha n t he y de s c r i be d t he t yp i c a l pa r t ne r . A l s o , t he y t e nde d t o

s e e the i r ow n a t t r i bu t e s a s i de al . Fu r t he r a na l y s e s re ve a l e d t ha t

i n t i ma t e s ' own s e l f - i ma ge s s t r uc t u r e d c ha nge s i n t he i r l a t e r

mo de l s o f t he i de a l pa r t ne r , wh i c h a l s o s ugges ts t h a t t he i r s e lf -

de p i c t i ons we r e l es s t ha n hum bl e . M os t c r i t ic a l , g r e a t e r hum i l -

i t y a c t ua l l y da mp e ne d l a t e r we l l - be i ng : Ac t o r s ' sa t i s f a c ti on de -

c l i n e d m o s t a n d d o u b t s i n c r e a s e d m o s t w h e n p a r t n e r s w e r e

mo r e s e l f - de p r e c a ti ng .

Ma y be , thoug h , i de a l i z a t ion s i m p l y r e fl e c ts d i s c e r nm e n t . A f -

t e r a ll , a ppa r e n t i l lu s i ons d i d f o r e c a s t t he f u t u r e o f t he s e r e la -

t i ons h i p s . A ye a r l a t e r in t he s e r oma n c e s , i n t i ma t e s wh o i de a l -

i z e d one a n o t he r mo r e i n i t i a ll y we r e l es s li ke ly t o b r e a k up , r e -po r t e d f e we r c on f l i c t s , a nd we r e l e s s t r oub l e d by a ny na gg i ng

dou b t s o r r e s e r va t i ons . Un doub t e d l y , t he s e be ne f i c ia l e f f ec t s i n

pa r t r e f le c t t he pos s i b i l i ty t ha t i n t i ma t e s w ho i de a l iz e mo r e a r e

i n ob j e c t i ve ly be t t e r r e l a t ions h i p s .

The mo r e i n t r i gu i ng pos s i b i l it y i s t ha t pos i t ive i ll u s i ons f unc -

t ion as goals or prop hecie s tha t have se l f- fu lf i ll ing ef fec ts over

t i me . I f t h i s i s t he c a s e ( a s t he p r e s e n t f i nd i ngs s ugge s t ) , s pu r i -

o u s s i g ns o f d i s c e r n m e n t o r i n s ig h t m i g h t s o m e t i m e s r e s u l t f r o m

i de a l i z a t i on . Fo r i n s t a nc e , a c t o r s ' i mpr e s s i ons c ha nge d i n r e -

s pons e t o t he " r e a l " pa r t ne r s ' a t t r i bu t e s , s ugge s t i ng t ha t i n s i gh t

i nc r e a s e d ove r t i me . B u t be i ng i de a l i z e d c ha nge d s e l f - c onc e p t s

i n t he d i r e c t i on o f a pa r t n e r ' s i l lu s i ons. Gr e a t e r i n s i gh t mi g h t

ha ve r e s u l te d , t he n , i n p a r t be c a us e i nd i v i dua l s a c c u r a t e l y pe r -c e i ve d t he pa r t ne r s t he y c r e a t e d b y i de a l iz i ng t he m ( c f . Ke l l e y

& Stahelski , 1970) . S imi lar ly , idea l iza t ion might lessen la ter

c on f l i c t s , no t be c a us e i n t i ma t e s who i de a l i z e one a no t he r a r e

m o r e c o m p a t i b l e b u t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o e x c u s e

a pa r t ne r ' s m i s de e ds a nd t he r e by a ve r t c on f l i c t s . Ra t he r t ha n

a d o p t i n g e i th e r e x t r e m e v i e w p o i n t , t h e m o s t r e a s o n a b l e p o s i -

t i on t o t a ke i s t ha t i de a l i z a t i on c oe x i s t s w i t h s ome de g r e e o f

i n s igh t . Th a t i s , i n t i ma t e s b a s e pe r c e p t i ons on a "k e r ne l " o f r e-

l a t i ons h i p t r u t h bu t c ons t r ue t h i s r e a l i t y i n t he mos t pos i t i ve

poss ib le l ight .

Self-deception or other-deception? I n t i ma t e s i n s a t i s f y i ng ,

s t a b l e r e l a ti ons h i p s s e e m t o be de c e i v i ng t he ms e l ve s ( a t l e a s t t o

s o m e e x t e n t ) , p r o j e c t i n g i m a g e s o f t h e i d e a l p a r t n e r o n t o t h e i r

own pa r t ne r . A nd l a te r, t he y e ve n a d j u s t t he i r i de a l s t o a c c o m-mo da t e l es s t ha n pe r f e c t pa r t ne r s . I s i t pos s i b le , t hough , t h a t

i nd i v i dua l s a r e a c t ua l l y t r y i ng t o de c e i ve mor e pub l i c a ud i -

e nc e s ? Tha t i s, c a n a ge ne r a l s oc i a l de s i r a b i li t y b i a s a c c o un t f o r

t he f i nd ings ?

A c c o r d i n g t o t h is a c c o u n t , s o m e o f t h e a p p a r e n t b e n e f it s o f

i d e a li z a ti o n m i g h t s i m p l y r e s u lt f r o m c e r t a in p e o p l e 's t e n d e n c y

t o de p i c t t he ms e l ve s a nd t he i r pa r t ne r s i n a de s i r a b l e l i gh t - - a

PoU ya nna ef fe c t. S uc h a b i a s c ou l d s t e m f r om i n t e n t i ona l d i s -

t o r t i ons o r ha b i t ua l t e nde nc i e s t o u s e h i gh ve r s us l ow po i n t s on a

s ca le . R a t i ngs o f t he typ i c a l pa r t n e r l i ke l y c a p t u r e s uc h ha b i t ua l

t e n d e n c ie s t o r e s p o n d t o s c a le d i t e m s i n p a r t i c u l a r w a y s . W h e n

we c on t r o l l e d f o r i nd i v i dua l s ' p e r c e p t i ons o f t he t yp i c a l pa r t ne r



SPECIAL I SSUE: LOV E I S PRESCIENT 117 7

( i n u n r e p o r t e d a n a l y s e s ) , i d ea l iz i n g a p a r t n e r a n d b e i n g i d ea l -

i z e d s t il l p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r we l l - be i ng c onc u r r e n t l y . An d i de a l -

i z a t i on s t il l r e t a i ne d i t s be ne fi t s ove r t i me . A l l o f t he r e po r t e d

l ong i t ud i na l e f f e c ts r e m a i ne d s i gn i f i c a n t whe n we c on t r o l l e d f o r

i nd i v i dua l s ' g e ne r a l t e nde nc y t o de s c r i be o t he r s i n a mor e o r le s s

pos i t ive l ight .

B u t a n y t e n d e n c i e s t o w a r d s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e r e s p o n d i n gmi g h t be s pe c i f i c t o de p i c t i ons o f t he s e l f a nd t he r e l a t i ons h i p

( a n d n o t s u r f a ce i n r a t i n g s o f th e t y p i c a l p a r t n e r ) . H o w e v e r,

g l o b a l r e p o r ts o f s a ti s fa c t io n u n d o u b t e d l y c a p t u r e i n d i v id u a l s '

t e nde nc i e s t o d i s t o r t t he qua l i t y o f t he i r r e l a t i ons h i p s t o a pub l i c

a ud i e nc e . A nd w he n w e c on t r o l l e d f o r s a ti s f a c t ion , i de a l i z a t ion

s t i l l re ta ined i t s benef i t s . For ins tance , idea l iz ing and being ide-

a l iz e d p r e d i c t e d l es s c o n c u r r e n t c o n f l i c t a n d a m b i v a l e n c e e v e n

whe n we c on t r o l l e d f o r s a t i s fa c t i on . A l l o f t he l ong i t ud i na l be n -

e f it s o f i de a l iz a t i on a l s o s u r v i ve d t h i s v e r y s t r i nge n t t e s t . I de a l -

i z i ng a pa r t n e r a nd be i ng i de a l i z e d p r e d i c t e d f e we r l a t e r d i s a p -

p o i n t m e n t s ( a s i n d e x e d b y c o n f l i c ts a n d d o u b t s ) a n d s e l f- c o n -

c e p t c h a n g e e v e n w h e n w e c o n t r o l l e d f o r b o t h a c t o r s ' a n d

pa r t ne r s ' s a t i s f a c ti on . The e v i de n c e f o r t he i n t e r pe r s ona l be ne -

f it s o f i de a l i z a t ion a l s o r i va ls a s oc i a l de s i r a b i l it y a c c oun t . A

s k e p ti c w o u l d h a v e t o a r g u e t h a t i n t i m a t e s p a i r o n t h e b a s is o f

s o c ia l d e s ir a b il i ty t o e x p l a i n w h y i n t i m a t e s a r e h a p p i e r w h e n

t he i r pa r t ne r s i de a l i z e t he m . Howe ve r, t he ne a r - z e r o c o r r e l a t i on

be t we e n pa r t n e r s ' s e l f -i ma ge s s ugges t s t ha t t h i s t yp e o f a s s o r t a -

t i ve ma t i ng doe s no t o c c u r . F i na ll y , ide a l i z a t i on e ve n p r e d i c t e d

a b e h a v i o r a l c r i t e r i o n - - t h e r e l a t io n s h i p ' s s t a b i l i t y - - t h a t i s l es s

vu l ne r a b l e t o e f f o r ts a t s e lf - o r o t he r - de c e p t i on .

W e b e li e ve t h a t t h i s c o l le c t io n o f a r g u m e n t s p r o v i d e s p e r s u a -

s ive e v i de nc e t h a t pos i t ive i l l u s i ons ha ve be ne f i c i a l e f fe c t s on de -

v e l o p in g r o m a n c e s t h a t a r e s i m p l y n o t a c c o u n t e d f o r b y m o r e

a m or p ho us f e e l i ngs o f s a t is f a c t i on , s i mp l e de s i r e s to p r e s e n t a

r om a nc e i n a de s ir a b l e l i gh t t o a pub l i c a ud i e nc e , o r s i mp l e b i -

a s e s t ow a r d pos i t i ve o r ne ga t i ve r e s pond i ng . I n s t e a d , a c e r t a i nde g r e e o f s e l f - de c e p t ion a pp e a r e d t o c h a r a c t e r i z e s a t is f y i ng, s t a-

b l e da t i ng r e l a t i ons h ip s .

W hat is the "real" causal model? I n o u r o r i g in a l m o d e l , w e

p r e t e n d e d t h a t c e r t a i n c a u s a l p a t h s e x i s t e d - - n a m e l y , t h a t s e lf -

mode l s s t r uc t u r e i de a l s , t ha t s e l f - mode l s a nd i de a l s s t r uc t u r e

pe r c e P t i ons o f a pa r t ne r , a nd t h a t t he r e s u l t i ng i l l u s ions de t e r -

mi n e we l l - be i ng (s e e F i gu r e 1 ) . The l ong i t ud i na l da t a a l l owe d

u s t o e x a m i n e b o t h t h e e x i s te n c e a n d d i r e c t i o n o f th e s e h y p o t h -

e s i z e d c a u s a l l i n k s . O u r a n a l y s e s ( b o t h r e p o r t e d a n d u n r e -

p o r t e d ) r e v e a le d s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r t h i s b a s ic m o d e l . F o r i n -

s t an c e , u n r e p o r t e d a n a l y se s r e v e a le d t h a t m o d e l s o f s e l f s h a p e d

l a t e r ide a l s bu t t ha t i de a l s d i d n o t a l t e r s e l f - mode l s . And i de a l -

i z a t i on ha d g r e a t e r i n f l ue nc e s ha p i ng l a t e r we l l - be i ng t ha n i n i -

t i a l we l l - be ing d i d i n a l t e r i ng i l l u s ions . Howe ve r, c e r t a i n c om -

p l e x i ti e s d i d a r i s e. I de a l s c ha nge d i n r e s pons e t o t he a t t r i bu t e s

i n t i ma t e s pe r c e i ve d i n t he i r pa r t ne r s , no t v i c e ve r sa .

I n r e a l i ty , s ome o f t he c a us a l p a t hwa y s a r e m os t l i ke l y r e c i p -

r oc a l i n na t u r e a n d m a y e ve n f l uc t ua t e i n s tr e ng t h a t d i f f e re n t

po i n t s i n a r e l a t i ons h i p ' s de ve l opme n t . Sa t i s f a c t i on l i ke l y

s ha pe s i de a l i z a t i on a s we l l a s r e s u l t ing f r om i t, f o r i n s t a nc e . An d

we i nde e d f oun d i s o l a t e d e v i de nc e o f s uc h r e c i p r oc a l e f fe c ts .

A l s o , i de a ls ma y c ha nge i n r e s pons e t o t he a t t r i bu t e s i nd i v i dua l s

pe r c e i ve i n t he i r pa r t ne r s a s we l l a s p r ov i de a f i l t er t ha t s ha pe s

t he s e pe r c e p t i ons . Th i s l a t t e r l i nk s e e ms pa r t i c u l a r l y p l a us i b l e

b e c a u s e i d e a l s r e l a t e d t o p e r c e p t i o n s b u t n o t t o t h e p a r t n e r ' s

" r e a l " a t t r i bu t e s . To r e a l l y un t a ng l e t he s e c a us a l pa t hwa ys r e -

s e a r ch e r s w o u l d n e e d t o c a p t u r e d e v e l o p in g r o m a n c e s a s i n t i-

m a t e s w e r e b e c o m i n g a c q u a i n t e d . A t t h i s p o i n t , f o r e x a m p l e ,

i m a g e s o f a n i d ea l p a r t n e r m a y s t r u c t u r e i m p r e s s i o n s a s i n d i-

v i dua l s t r y t o f i ll in t he ga ps i n t he i r kn owl e dg e a bou t t he i r pa r t -

h e r s. O n l y l a te r m i g h t i n d i vi d u a ls b e g i n t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e i r

i de a ls t o r e f le c t t he pa r t ne r s t he y pe r c e i ve .

S e e k i n g a n d S u s t a i n i n g S e c u r i t y : M o d e l s o f S e l f, A c t u a l

Par tners , and Poss ib le Par tners

W r i t e rs i n s y m b o l i c i n te r a c t io n i s t a n d a t t a c h m e n t t r a d i t io n s

a r g u e t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s e l f a s w o r t h y o f l o ve a n d c a r i n g

a r e s t r ong l y t i e d t o be l i e f s a bou t t he a va i l a b i l it y o f o t he r s a nd

t he i r d i s pos i t i ons i n r e la t i ons h i p c on t e x t s ( e . g ., Ba l dwi n , 1992 ;

Ba r t ho l ome w , 1990 ; Bowl by , 1982 ; Co l l i n s & Re a d , 1990 ;

Gr i f f i n & Ba r t ho l ome w , 1994 ; Ha z a n & Sha ve r, 1987 ; M . R .

Le a r y e t a l. , 199 5 ) . Su c h t he o r i z i ng s ugge s ts t ha t i nd i v i dua l s

mo r e s e c u r e i n t he i r s e ns e o f s e l f- wor t h s hou l d be mo r e l i ke ly t o

ma ke t he l e a p o f f a i t h ne c e s s a r y t o i de a l i z e a pa r t ne r .

B u t t h is a s s u m p t i o n h a s n o t b e e n u n i f o r m l y a c c ep t e d . F r e u d

( 19 22 ) a r gue d t ha t i nd i v i dua l s p r o j e c t t he qua l i ti e s t he y w i s h t o

s e e i n the ms e l ve s on t o t he i r pa r t ne r s , l ov i ng f r om de f i c it r a t he r

t ha n s t r e ng t h ( e .g . , Ka r p , J a c ks on , & Le s te r, 1970 ; Ma t he s &

M o o r e , 1 9 85 ). I n s u p p o r t o f t h is , D i o n a n d D i o n ( 19 7 5 ) f o u n d

t ha t i nd i v i dua l s w i t h l ow s e l f - e s t e e m a dmi r e d t he i r pa r t ne r s

mo r e t ha n d i d i nd i v i dua l s w i t h h i gh s e l f - e s te e m. A l s o , s ome e v -

i de nc e s ugge s t s t ha t c e r t a i n i nd i v i dua l s w i t h m or e ne g a t i ve se lf -

m o d e l s , s u c h a s i n ti m a t e s w i t h a p r e o c c u p i e d a t t a c h m e n t s ty l e,

are m ore l ike ly to idea l ize the i r p ar tne rs , a t leas t a t f i rs t (e .g . ,

Fee ney & Nol ler , 1991 ) .

I n t he de v e l op i ng r om a nc e s we s t ud i e d , pos i t i ve s e l f- pe r c e p -

t i ons we r e c l o s e l y t i e d t o m or e po s i t ive i de a ls a nd i mpr e s s i o ns

o f one ' s pa r t ne r , s ugge s t i ng t ha t s e l f - mode l s do i nde e d p l a y a

r o l e i n s t r u c t u r in g g e n e r o u s m o d e l s o f o th e r s. A n d t i m e a c c e n -t ua t e d t he e f f e c ts o f s e l f- e s te e m. W or k i ng m ode l s o f i de a l a nd

a c t ua l ( i . e. , p e r c e i ve d ) r om a n t i c pa r t ne r s g r e w e ve n r o s i e r wh e n

i nd i v i dua l s we r e m or e s e c u r e i n t he i r ow n s e ns e s o f s e l f - wor t h .

I n t e r pe r s ona l e ff ec ts o f s e l f -e s t e e m we r e a l s o e v i de n t . I n t i m a t e s

ha d mo r e d i f f i c u lt y s u s t a i n i ng i de a l i z ing pe r c e p t i ons w he n t he i r

p a r t n e r s w e r e l e s s s u r e o f th e i r s e lf - w o rt h . A s B r i c k m a n ( 1 9 8 7 )

a r gue d , t he d e m a nds o f t r y i ng t o bo l s t e r a low- s e l f - es t e e m pa r t -

n e r ' s s e lf - im a g e m a y s i m p l y b e c o m e t o o t a x i n g o v e r ti m e .

Lov i ng f r om r e l a ti ve s tr e ng t h ( o r we a kn e s s ) , t he n , s ha pe d t he

r om a n t i c e xp e r i e nc e . Fo r i n s ta nc e , pos i t i ve mod e l s o f s e l f a p -

p e a r e d t o p r o t e c t i n t i m a t e s f r o m s o m e o f th e i n e v i ta b i li ti e s o f

a c c o m m o d a t i o n , s u c h a s d e c l i n in g s a t i s fa c t io n a n d i n c r e as i n g

c on f l i c t. Ac t o r s ' r e po r t s o f f re que n t , de s t r uc t i ve c on f l i c t s de -

c r e a s e d whe n t he i r own s e l f - pe r c e p t i ons we r e r o s i e r i n i t i a l l y .A l s o , i n t e r m s o f in t e r pe r s ona l e ff ec ts , a c t o r s ' we l l - be i ng

s u f f e r ed mo r e ove r the ye a r whe n pa r t ne r s ' s e l f - ima ge s we r e

w e a k e r i n i ti a ll y ( p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o f t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p o o r e r

s e l f - c onc e p t s a nd g r e a t e r c on f l i c t s ) . Apa r t f r om t he s e d i r e c t

e f f ec t s o f s el f, l ov ing f r om s t r e ng t h ha d a nu m be r o f i nd i r e c t

e f f ec t s on l a t e r we l l - be i ng t h r o ugh i t s l i nk t o i de a l i z a ti on . T ha t

i s, t he t e nde n c y t o i de a l i z e a nd be i de a l iz e d ( t h a t s e l f - c on f ide nc e

affor ded ) ha d a var ie ty of benef ic ia l , se lf - fu l fi ll ing ef fec ts on

t he s e de ve l op i ng r oma nc e s , a s we ha ve d i s c us s e d .

The p r e s e n t f i nd i ngs he lp t o a r t i c u l a t e p r e c i s e l y wh y c ons t r uc t -

i ng ( a nd s u s t a i n i ng ) s a t i sf y i ng r e la t i ons h i p s de pe nds on pos i ti ve

mo dels of se l f (e .g . , Er ikson , 1968; Reis & Shaver , 1988; Rogers ,



1178 MURRAY, HOLMES, AND GRIFFIN

1972; Tesser, 1988). As further evidence of the importance of

self-esteem, dating intimat es who are more secure in their attach-

ment styles tend to be invol ved in more satisfying, tr usting rela-

tionsh ips (e.g., B rennan & Shaver, 1995; Kirkpat rick & Davis,

1994; Simpson, 1990). Also, dating individua ls who are higher

in self-esteem tend to be invo lved in more stable and satisfying

relat ionshi ps (Hegelson, 1994; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler,1988). Similarly, in long itudinal studies of marriage, int imates'

greater neurot icism predicted later dissatisfaction and i nstability

(E. L. Kel ly & C0nley, 1987; Kurdek, 1993). These collected

findings mirr or ou r own conclusions that dispositional insecuri-

ties pose a latent vuln erabili ty n relationships, precisely because

such self-doubts interfere with inti mates seeing their partner s in

the most generous, flatte ring light.

l S L o v e B l i n d o r P r e s c i e n t?

As the roman ces in the presen t study developed, intimates who

idealized one another more proved to be more prescient than

blind. Relationships persisted, satisfaction increased, conflicts

were averted, doubts abated, and personal insecurities dimin-ished when individuals dealized their partners and their partners

idealized them. Thu s, lasting security and confidence appear to

depend on inti mates seeing the best in one anothe r--overl ooking

each other's faults and embe llishingeach other's virtues.

Despite idea lization 's benefits, certai n routes to confidence

may be more vulnerable than others (e.g., McGu ire & Papa-

georgis, 1961; Murray & Holmes , 1994). For some int imat es,

not recognizi ng a part ner' s self-perceived frailties later tar-

nished their ill usions and d amp ene d satisfaction. We suspect

that the na ture of the stories intimates construct to defuse con-

cerns about a partner's faults will determine the ultimate resil-

iency (or fragility) of their illusions. For instance, longitu dinal

data we have collected suggest that relationship stability de-

pends not just on the strength of intimate s' illusions, but on the

structure and coherence of the representations that individuals

const ruct to sup port these idealized images. Individual s who in-

tegrate a partner's virtues and faults within compensatory "Yes,

bu t s. .. " are actually involved in more stable relationships

than individuals who comp artmentaliz e their partners' faults,

leaving pockets of doubt (Mu rra y & Holmes, 1995 ). In fu ture

research we will explore the types of represe ntation s most likely

to su stain ideali zation and those most likely to leave intimate~

vulnerable to disillusionment.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journalo f Conflict Resolution, 3, 343-352.

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the de-

sirability and controllability of trai t adjectives.Journal o f Personalityand Socia l Psycholog~, 49, 1621-1630.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. ( 1991 ): Close relation-ships as including other in the self. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 60, 241-253.

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective

studies of self-conceptchange. Journal o f Personality and Social P sy-chology, 69, 1102-1112.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of so-cial information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment per-

spective.Journal o f Social a nd PersonaI Relationships, 7, 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. ( 199 ! ). Attachment stylesamong

young adults: A test of a four-categorymodel. Journal of Personality

and So cial Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Baumeister, R. E, & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire

for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Baumeister, R. E, & Tice, D. M. (1986). Four selves, wo motives, and

a substitute process self-regulationmodel. In R. E Baumeister (Ed.),Public se l fand private se/f(pp. 63-74). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectionalbonds. Brit-

ish Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London:

Hogarth Press.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, E D. (1990). Attributions in marriage:

Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3-33.

Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development ofclose relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social

exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135-168). New York: Aca-

demic Press.

Brehm, S. S. (1988). Passionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes(Eds.), The psychology o f love (pp. 232-263). New Haven, CT: YaleUniversityPress.

Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attach-

ment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Per-

sonality and Social P sychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.

Brickman, P. (1987). Comm itment, conflict, an d caring. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancementbiases in social udgment. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1993). Gender differences n marital

conflict: The case oftbe demand/withdraw interaction pattern. In S.

Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary soci-e t y ( p p . 113-141 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working

models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Person-ality an d Social P sychology, 58, 644-663.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1975). Self-esteem and romantic love.

Journal of Personality, 43, 39-57.

Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. O. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions:

Implications for self-descriptionand social udgment. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 68, 936-946.

Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity

and self-evaluation:The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-

serving assessments of ability. Journal o f Personality and Social P sy-chology, 57, 1082-1090.

Epstein, S. (1982). Conflict and stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz

(Eds.), Handbook of s tress (pp. 49-68). New York: Free Press of

Macmillan.

Erikson, E. H. ( 1968 ). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. ( 199 i ). Attachment style and verbal descrip-tions of romantic partners. Journal o f Social and Personal Relation-ships, 8, 187-215.

Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of inti-

mate relationships: A hazard model.Social Psychology Quarterly, 53,13-30.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory o f cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL:Row, Peterson.

Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and the analysis o f the ego. NewYork: Liveright.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship be-

tween marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predic-



S P E C I A L I S S U E: L O V E I S P R E S C I E N T 1 1 7 9

tire o f la ter dissolut ion: Behavior , physiology, and health. Journal o f

Personality and S ocial Psychology, 63, 2 2 i - 2 3 3 .

Gre e nwa id , A . G . (19 80) . The to ta l i t a r i a n e go: Fa br ic at ion a nd r e v i -

s ion o f personal his tory. Am erican Psychologist, 35, 6 0 3 - 6 1 8 .

Gr i f f in , D . , & Ba r tholom e w, K . (199 4) . Mod e ls of the s e l f a nd o the r :

Funda m e nta l d im e n s ions unde r ly ing m e a sure s of adul t a t t a c hm e nt .

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430--445.

Hall , J . A. , & Taylor , S. E. (19 76) . W hen love is bl ind: M ainta inin g ide-a l i z e d im a ge s of one ' s spouse . Hum an Relat ions, 29, 7 5 1 - 7 6 1 .

Ha z a n , C . , & Sha ver , P . (1987 ) . Rom a nt ic love c onc e ptua l i z e d a s a n

attachment process . Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52,5 1 1 - 5 2 4 .

Hegelson, V. S. (1994 ) . Th e effec ts of self-bel iefs and re la t ionsh ip be-

l ie fs on ad justm ent to a re la t ionsh ip s tressor. Personal R elationships,1, 241-258 .

He ndr ic k , S . S ., He ndr ic k , C . , & Adler , N . L . (1988) . Rom a nt ic r e la -

t ionships: Love, sa t isfac t ion, and s taying together. Journal o f Person-

ality an d Soc ial Psychology, 54, 9 8 0 - 9 8 8 .

Hie, ins , E .T . (1987 ) . Se l f -d isc re panc y: A the ory r e la t ing se l f a nd

affect. Psycho logical Review,, 94, 3 i 9 -340.

Holm e s , J . G . , & Re m pe l , J . K . (198 9) . Trus t in c lose r e lat ionships . In

C . H e ndr ic k ( Ed . ) , Rev iew o fpersonality an d social psychology: Close

relationships (Vol. 10, pp. 187-2 19 ) , New bury Park, CA: Sage.Husto n, T. L. , & Cho rost , A. E (19 94 ) . Behaviora l buffers on the effec t

of negativi ty on ma ri ta l sa t isfact ion: A longitud inal s tudy. Personal

Relationships, 1, 2 2 3 - 2 4 0 .

Ja nof f -Bulm a n, R . (19 89) . Assum pt ive wor lds a nd the s tr es s of t r a u-

m a t ic e ve nts : A ppl ic a t ions of the s c he m a c ons t ruc t . Social Cognition,7, 113-136.

Johnson , D . J . , & Rusbul t , C . E . (1989) . Re s i s t ing te m pta t ion: De va l -

ua t ion of a l t erna t ive pa r tne r s a s a m e a ns of m a in ta in ing c om m i tm e nt

in c lose re la t ionships . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,57, 967-980 .

Ka rne y , B .R . , Bra dbury , T .N . , F in c ha m , E D . , & Sul livan , K .T .

(1994 ) . The ro le of ne ga t ive af f e ct iv i ty in the a s soc ia tion be twe e n

attr ibu tions and sa tisfac tion. Journal o f Personality and Social Psy-chology, 66, 413--424.

Karp , E. S. , Jackson , J . G. , & Lester, D. (197 0) . Ideal-se lf ulf i l lment in

m a te s e le c t ion: A c oro l l a ry to the c om ple m e nta ry ne e d the ory of

mate se lec t ion. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 32, 2 6 9 - 2 7 2 .

Kelley, H. H. (1979) . Personal relationships: Th eir structures and pro-

cesses. Hil l sda le , N J : Er lba um .

Kelley, H. H. , & Stahelski, A. J . (1970 ) . Th e socia l interac t ion basis of

c oope ra tor s ' a nd c om p e t i tor s ' be l i e fs a bout o the rs . Journal of Person-ality an d Social Psychology, 16, 6 6 - 9 1 .

Kelly, C. , Husto n, T. L. , & Care , R. M . ( 1985 ) . Prem ari ta l re la t ion ship

c or re la te s of the e ros ion o f s a t is f a c tion in m a r r ia ge . Journal o f Social

and Personal Relationships, 2, 167-178.

. Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J . J . (19 87) . Personali ty and com patibi l i ty: A

prospectiv e analysis of mari ta l s tabi l i ty and mari ta l sa t isfac t ion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 2 7 - 4 0 .

Ke nny, D . A . (1996) . Mod e ls of non- inde pe nde nc e in dya dic r e se a rc h .

Journal o f Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 2 7 9 - 2 9 4 .

Kirkp atr ick, L . A. , & Davis , K. E. (19 94) . Atta chm ent s tyle, gender ,

and re la t ionsh ip s tabil i ty: A longitudinal analysis . Journal o f Person-

ality an d Social Psychology, 66, 5 0 2 - 5 1 2 .

Kob ak, R . R. , & Haza n, C. ( ! 991 ) . Atta chm ent in marr iage: Effec ts of

se c ur i ty a nd a c c ura c y of working m o de ls . Journal o f Personality and

Socia l Psychology, 60, 8 6 1 - 8 6 9 .

Kund a , Z . (198 7) . Mot iva te d infe re nc e : Sel f - se rv ing ge ne ra t ion a nd

e va lua t ion o f c a usa l the or ie s. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 53, 6 3 6 - 6 4 7 .

Kurde k , L . A . ( 1993 ) . P re dic t ing m a r i t a l d i s so lu tion: A 5-ye a r prospe c -

t ive longi tudina l s tudy of ne wlywed c ouple s . Journal o f Personality

and Socia l Psychology, 64, 2 2 1 - 2 4 2 .

Leary, M . R . , Tambor, E. S. , Terdal , S. K. , & Downs, D . L. (19 95) . Self-

e s te e m a s a n in te rpe r sona l m oni tor : The soc iom e te r hypothe s i s .

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518 - 530.

Leary, T. (1957) . Interpersonal diagnosis of personality, Ne w York:Ronald Press .

Le vinge r, G . (1983 ) . De ve lopm e nt a nd c hange . In H .H . Ke lley , E .

Berscheid, A. Chris ten sen, J . H. H arvey, T. L. H uston, G . Levinger,

E . M c Cl in toc k , L . A . Pe pla u , & D . R . Pe te r son (Eds . ) , Close rela-

tionships (pp. 315-3 59) . Ne w York: Fre e m a n.

Ma rkm a n, H . J . (1979) . Appl ic a t ion of a be ha viora l m od e l of m a r r ia ge

in p re dic t ing r e la t ionship s a t is f a c tion o f c ouple s p la nning m a r r ia ge .

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,, 47, 7 4 3 - 7 4 9 .

Ma rkm an, H. J . ( 1981 ) . Predic t io n of mar i ta l dis tress : A f ive-year fol-

low-up. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 7 6 0 - 7 6 2 .

Ma the s , E . W., & Mo ore , C . L . (1985 ) . Re ik ' s c om ple m e nta r i ty the ory

of rom a n t ic love. Journal o f Social Psychology, 125, 3 2 1 - 3 2 7 .

M cGu ire , W . J ., & Papageorgis , D. ( 1961 ). Th e re la t ive eff icacy of var-

ious type s of pr ior be l i e f-de fense in p roduc ing im m uni ty a ga ins t pe r -

suasion. Journal o fAbnorm al a nd Social Psychology, 62, 327 - 337.Mc Nul ty , S . E . , & S wa n n, W . B. (1994 ) . Ide nt i ty ne got ia tion in room -

m a te r e la tionships : The se l f a s a rc h i t e c t a nd c onse que nc e o f soc ia l

reality. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1012-1023.Murray, S. L. , & Holmes, J . G. (1993) . Seeing vir tues in faults : Nega-

t iv i ty a nd the t r a ns form a t ion of in te rpe r sona l na r ra t ive s in c lose re la -

t ionships . Journal of Personality and S ocial Psychology, 65, 7 0 7 - 7 2 2 .

Mur ra y , S . L . , & Holm e s , J . G . (19 94) . S tory- te l ling in c lose r e la tion-

sh ips : The c ons t ruc t ion of c onf ide nce . Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 20, 6 6 3 - 6 7 6 .

Mur ra y , S . L . , & Holm e s , J . G . (1995 ) . When is a fault not a frai l ty?The structure of resilient representations in dating relationships. U n -publ i she d da ta , Unive r s i ty of Wa te r loo .

Mur ra y , S . L . , Holm e s , J. G . , & Gr i f f in , D . (1996) . The be ne f i t s of pos -

i t ive i l lus ions: Ideal iza t ion and the con struct io n o f sa t isfac t ion in

c lose re la t ionships . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 70,7 9 - 9 8 .

Murs te in , B . I . ( 1967 ) . Em pi r ic a l t e s ts of ro le , c om ple m e nta ry ne e ds ,

a nd hom oga m y the or ie s of m a r i t a l c hoice . Journal o f Marriage a ndthe Family, 29, 6 8 9 - 6 9 6 .

Murs te in , B . I . (1971) . Se l f - ide a l - se lf d i s c re pa nc y a nd the c hoic e of

mari ta l par tner . Journal o f Consulting a nd C linical Psychology, 37,4 7 - 5 2 .

Reis , H. T. , & Shaver , P. (19 88 ) . Int im acy as an interpersonal process .

In S . W. Duc k (Ed. ) , Handbook o f personal relationships ( p p . 3 6 7 -

389 ) . New York: Wiley.

Rogers, C. R . ( 1972 ). Becoming pa rtners: Marriage and its alternatives.New York: Delaco rte .

Rose nbe rg , M. (1965) . Society and the adolescent self-image.Pr inc e ton , N J : Pr inc e ton Unive r s i ty Pre ss .

Rub in, Z . ( 1973 ) . Lik ing and loving: An invitation to social psychology,Ne w York: Hol t , R ine ha r t & W ins ton .

Rusbult , C. E. , Vere t te , J . , Whitney, G. A. , Slovik, L. E, & Lipkus, I .

( 1991 ) . A c c om m oda t ion proc e s se s in c lose r e la t ionships : The ory

a nd pre l im ina ry r e se a rc h e v ide nc e. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60, 5 3 - 7 8 .

Scheier , M. E, & Carver, C. S. (19 92) . Effec ts of optim ism o n psycho-

logic al a nd phys ic a l we l l-be ing: The ore t i c a l ove rv ie w a nd e m pi r ic a l

upda te . Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 2 0 1 - 2 2 8 .

Schlenker , B. R. (19 86) . S elf- identif ica t ion: Toward an integ ra t ion o f

the pr iva te a nd publ ic s e lf . In R . E Ba um e is te r (Ed. ) , Public sel fand

private se /f( pp. 21 -62 ) . New York: Springer-Verlag.

S im pson, J . A . (1987) . The d i s so lu t ion of rom a n t ic r e la tionships : Fa c -

tors involv ed in re la t ionsh ip s tabil i ty and emo tion al distress . Journal

of Personality and So cial Psychology, 53, 6 8 3 - 6 9 2 .

S im pson, J . A . (1990 ) . Inf lue nc e of a t t a c hm e nt s ty les on rom a n t ic r e -

la t ionships . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 9 7 1 -

980.

Simp son, J . A. , Ickes , W. , & Biackstone , T. (19 95) . Wh en the head p ro-




t e c t s t h e h e a r t : E m p a t h i c a c c u r a c y i n d a t i n g r e l a t io n s h i p s . J o u r n al o f

Personality and S ocial Psychology, 69, 6 2 9 - 6 4 I .

S n y d e r , M . , & S w a r m , W . B . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . B e h a v i o r a l c o n f i r m a t i o n i n s o c ia l

i n t e r a c t i o n : F r o m s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n t o s o c i a l r e a l i t y . J o u r n a l o f E x -

perim ental Social Psychology,, 14, 1 4 8 - 1 6 2 .

S n y d e r , M . , T a n k e , E . D . , & B e r s c h e id , E . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n a n d

i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r . O n t h e s e l f - fu l f il l in g n a t u r e o f s o c i al s t e r e o -

t y p e s . Journ al o f Personality and S ocial Psychology, 35, 6 5 6 - 6 6 6 .

S w a r m , W . B . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . I d e n t it y n e g o t i a ti o n : W h e r e t w o r o a d s m e e t .

Jou rna l o f Personality an d So cia l Psycholog3¢, 53, 1 0 3 8 - 1 0 5 I .

S w a r m , W . B . , D e L a R o n d e , C . , & H i x o n , J . G . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . A u t h e n t i c i t y

a n d p o s i t i v e s t ri v i n g s i n m a r r i a g e a n d c o u r t s h i p . Journa l o f Personal-

ity an d Socia l Psychology, 66, 8 5 7 - 8 6 9 .

S w a r m , W . B . , H i x o n , J . G . , & D e L a R o n d e , C . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . E m b r a c i n g

t h e b i t t e r " t r u t h " : N e g a t iv e s e l f- c o n c e pt s a n d m a r i t a l c o m m i t m e n t .

Psychological Science, 3, 118-121.

T a y l o r, S. E . , & B r o w n , J . D . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I l l u s i o n a n d w e l l - b e i n g : A s o c i a l

p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o n m e n t a l h e a l t h . Psychological Bulletin,

103, 1 9 3 - 2 1 0 .

T a y l o r , S . E . , C o l l i n s , R . L . , S k o k a n , L . A . , & A s p i n w a l l , L . G . ( 1 9 8 9 ) .

M a i n t a i n i n g p o s i t i v e il l u s i o n s in t h e f a c e o f n e g a t iv e i n f o r m a t i o n :

G e t t i n g t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t l e t t i n g t h e m g e t t o y o u . J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l

and Clinical Psychology, 8 , I 1 4 - 1 2 9 .

T e ss e r, A . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T o w a r d a s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n m a i n t e n a n c e m o d e l o f s o c ia l

b e h a v i o r . In L . B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , Advances in experim ental socialpsy-

chology, (Vol. 2 1 , p p . 1 8 1 - 2 2 8 ) . N e w Y o r k: A c a d e m i c P r e s s .

T h o m p s o n , M . M . , & H o l m e s , J . G . ( ! 9 9 5 ) . A m b i v a l e n c e i n c l o se r e la -

t i o n s h i p s : C o n f l i c te d c o g n i t i o n s a s a c a t a l y s t fo r c h a n g e . I n R . M . S o r -

r e n t i n o & E . T . H i g g l n s ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f motivation and cognition

( V o l. 3 , p p . 4 9 7 - 5 3 0 ) . N e w Y o r k : G u i l f o r d P r e s s.

T h o m p s o n , M . , Z a n n a , M . P ., & G r i f fi n , D . W . (1 9 9 5 ) . L e t ' s n o t b e

i n d i f f e r e n t a b o u t a t t i t u d i n a l a m b i v a l e n c e . I n R . E . P e t t y & J . A .

K r o s n i c k ( E d s . ) , Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences

( p p . 3 6 1 - 3 8 6 ) . H i l l s d a le , N J : E r l b a u m .

T i c e , D . M . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . S e l f - c o n c e p t c h a n g e a n d s e l f -p r e s e n t a t i o n : T h e

l o o k i n g g l a s s s e l f i s a l s o a m a g n i f y i n g g l a s s . Journa lo fPersona l i ty and

Social Psychology, 63, 4 3 5 - 4 5 1 .

V a n L a n g e , P . A . M . , & R u s b u l t , C . E . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . M y r e l a t i o n s h i p i s b e t t e r

t h a n - - a n d n o t a s b a d a s - - - y o u r s i s: T h e p e r c e p t i o n o f s u p e r i o r it y i n

c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,

3 2 - 4 4 .

W e i n s t e i n , N . D . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . U n r e a l i s t i c o p t i m i s m a b o u t f u t u r e l if e e v e n t s .

Journa l of Personality an d So cial Psychology, 39, 8 0 6 - 8 2 0 .

W i g g i n s , J . S . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A p s y c h o l o g i c a l t a x o n o m y o f tr a i t - d e s c ri p t i v e

t e r m s : T h e i n t e rp e r s o n a l d o m a i n . Journa l of Persouality and Soc ial

Psychology, 37, 395 -.412.

A p p e n d i x

P os i t ive I l lus ions and Neg at iv i ty a t T im es 1 , 2 , and 3 :

P oo led , Standardized P ath Coet t i c i ents

P a t h T i m e 1 T i m e 2 T i m e 3

i a n d i ': P a r t n e r ' s s e l f -i m a g e

f a n d f ': A c t o r ' s s e l f -i m a g e

g a n d g ' : A c t o r ' s i d e a l s

h a n d h ' : P r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n sj a n d j ' : R e f l e c t e d i l l u s io n s

P r e d i c t i n g a c t o r ' s r e p o r t s o f c o n f l i c t

. 1 3 0 " * . 0 3 4 d 2 1

- . 1 7 2 " * - . 2 0 2 * * - . 0 4 3

. 0 9 1 . 0 2 6 . 0 3 1

- . 3 8 8 * * * - . 3 9 1 " * * - . 4 5 6 * * *- . 2 2 3 * * * - . 1 4 7 " - . 3 6 4 * * *

P r e d i c t i n g a c t o r ' s r e p o r t s o f d e s t r u c t iv e c o n f l i c t s ty l e s

i a n d i ': P a r t n e r ' s s e l f -i m a g e . 0 0 9 - . 0 3 0f a n d f ': A c t o r ' s s e l f -i m a g e - . 1 9 8 ** * - . 3 1 3 * * *

g a n d g ' : A c t o r ' s i d e a l s . 1 6 4 " ** . 2 5 8* * *

h a n d h ' : P r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s - . 5 3 2 * * * - . 5 7 3 * * *

j a n d j ': R e f l e c t e d i l l u s io n s - . 1 7 0 ** * - . 2 1 7 * * *

. 1 7 3 " *

- . 0 0 2

- . 0 0 6

- . 6 9 4 * * *

- . 2 5 3 * * *

i a n d i ': P a r t n e r ' s s e l f - i m a g e

f a n d f ': A c t o r ' s s e l f -i m a g e

g a n d g ' : A c t o r ' s i d e a l s

h : F e m a l e ' s p r o j e c t e d i l l u s i o n s

h ' : M a l e ' s p r o j e c t e d i l l u s io n sj a n d j ' : R e f l e c t e d i l l u s i o n s

P r e d i c ti n g a c t o r' s r e p o r t s o f a m b i v a l e n c e

. 2 4 7* * * - . 0 1 7 . 1 6 3 "

- . 0 8 6 - . 1 3 9 . 06 4

- . 0 4 8 . 1 6 7 " . 0 93

- . 3 6 3 * * * - . 3 5 4 * * * - . 6 0 1 " * *

- . 3 6 3 * * * - . 6 7 4 * * * - . 6 0 1 " * *- . 2 5 3 * * - . 0 9 4 - . 2 7 6 * * *

Note. S e e F i g u r e 1 f o r p a th s . T i m e 1 c o n f l ic t : g o o d n e s s -o f - f it i n d e x ( G F I ) = . 9 7, c o m p a r a t i v e f i t i n d e x( C F I ) = . 9 9 , x 2 ( 1 4 , N = 1 2 1 ) = 1 5 . 6 5 , ns . T i m e 2 c o n f l i c t: G F I = . 9 4 , C F I = . 9 7 , ×2 ( 1 4 , N = 7 3 ) = 2 0 . 8 3 ,

ns . T i m e 3 c o n f l i c t : G F I = . 9 6 , C F I = 1 . 0 , X2 ( 1 4 , N = 5 8 ) = 9 . 0 5 , ns . T i m e 1 d e s t r u c t iv e n e s s : G F I = . 9 7 ,C F I = . 9 9 , X2 ( 1 4 , N = 1 2 1 ) = 1 8 . 1 2 , ns . T i m e 2 d e s t ru c t i v e n e s s : G F I = . 9 4 , C F I = . 9 8 , X2 ( 1 4 , N = 7 3 ) =

1 8 . 4 5 , ns . T i m e 3 d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s : G F I = . 9 7 , C F I = 1 . 0, X2 ( 1 4 , N = 5 8 ) = 7 . 4 1 , ns . T i m e 1 a m b i v a l e n c e :

G F I = . 9 8 , C F I = 1 . 0 , × 2 ( 1 4 , N = 1 2 1 ) = 1 1 . 7 0 , ns . T i m e 2 a m b i v a l e n c e : G F I = . 9 7 , C F I = 1 . 0 , x 2 ( 1 3 , N

= 7 3 ) = 9 . 7 4 , ns . T i m e 3 a m b i v a l e n c e : G F I = . 9 2 , C F I = . 9 6, ×2 ( 1 4 , N = 5 8 ) = 2 0 . 7 4 , ns .* p < . 1 0 . * * p < . 0 5 . * * * p < . 0 1 .

R e c e i v e d J u n e 2 0 , 1 9 9 5

R e v i s i o n r e c e i v e d J u l y 1 5 , 1 99 6

A c c e p t e d J u l y 3 0 , 1 9 96 •

The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but...

Documents

Transcript of The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but...