Through the eyes of love: reality and illusion in intimate relationships
- PMID:20565171
- DOI: 10.1037/a0019792
Through the eyes of love: reality and illusion in intimate relationships
Abstract
This article reviews the research literature and theory concerned with accuracy of judgments in romantic relationships. We initially propose a model of cognition in (romantic) relationships that distinguishes between 2 forms of accuracy: mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. We then report the results of meta-analyses of research on heterosexual, romantic relationships, which used external benchmarks and reported levels of tracking accuracy (98 studies) and/or mean-level bias (48 studies). The results revealed robust overall effect sizes for both tracking accuracy (r = .47) and positive mean-level bias (r = .09). As expected, the effects were substantial and positive for tracking accuracy across 6 judgmental categories, whereas signed mean-level bias was negative for the interaction attributions (e.g., love, communication). The results showed, as expected, that these 2 forms of accuracy were independent-the 2 kinds of effect size derived from the same set of 38 studies were uncorrelated. As expected, gender, relationship length, and relationship evaluations moderated mean-level bias across studies but (unexpectedly) not for tracking accuracy. In the Discussion we evaluate the prior model in light of the findings, other research, moderating variables (such as self-esteem), the role of projection, the early stages of mate selection, metacognition, and the rationality and nature of motivated cognition. We conclude that our model, findings, and analyses help to resolve the apparent paradox that love is both riven with illusions and rooted in reality, and support both evolutionary and social psychological approaches to understanding cognition in romantic relationships.
Similar articles
- Perceptions of the physical attractiveness of the self, current romantic partners, and former partners.Swami V, Allum L.Swami V, et al.Scand J Psychol. 2012 Feb;53(1):89-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00922.x. Epub 2011 Oct 13.Scand J Psychol. 2012.PMID:21995611
- Only because I love you: why people make and why they break promises in romantic relationships.Peetz J, Kammrath L.Peetz J, et al.J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 May;100(5):887-904. doi: 10.1037/a0021857.J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011.PMID:21244176
- When is being known or adored by romantic partners most beneficial? Self-perceptions, relationship length, and responses to partner's verifying and enhancing appraisals.Campbell L, Lackenbauer SD, Muise A.Campbell L, et al.Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 Oct;32(10):1283-94. doi: 10.1177/0146167206290383.Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006.PMID:16963601
- A meta-analytic review of accuracy and bias in romantic partner perceptions.LaBuda JE, Gere J.LaBuda JE, et al.Psychol Bull. 2023 Sep-Oct;149(9-10):580-610. doi: 10.1037/bul0000405.Psychol Bull. 2023.PMID:38713750Review.
- Adolescent romantic relationships.Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W.Collins WA, et al.Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:631-52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459.Annu Rev Psychol. 2009.PMID:19035830Review.
Cited by
- Consistency and inconsistency among romantic partners over time.Eastwick PW, Harden KP, Shukusky JA, Morgan TA, Joel S.Eastwick PW, et al.J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 Jun;112(6):838-859. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000087. Epub 2017 Mar 2.J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017.PMID:28253004Free PMC article.
- Motivational Interdependence in Couple Relationships.Pusch S, Schönbrodt FD, Zygar-Hoffmann C, Hagemeyer B.Pusch S, et al.Front Psychol. 2022 May 23;13:827746. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827746. eCollection 2022.Front Psychol. 2022.PMID:35677131Free PMC article.
- Assessment of social traits in married couples: Self-reports versus spouse ratings around the interpersonal circumplex.Smith TW, Williams PG.Smith TW, et al.Psychol Assess. 2016 Jun;28(6):726-36. doi: 10.1037/pas0000226. Epub 2015 Sep 14.Psychol Assess. 2016.PMID:26372262Free PMC article.
- Couple Communication Behaviors During Sexual and Nonsexual Discussions and Their Association with Relationship Satisfaction.Roels R, Rehman US, Goodnight JA, Janssen E.Roels R, et al.Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Apr;51(3):1541-1557. doi: 10.1007/s10508-021-02204-4. Epub 2022 Feb 4.Arch Sex Behav. 2022.PMID:35119568
- The Self-esteem Stability Scale (SESS) for Cross-Sectional Direct Assessment of Self-esteem Stability.Altmann T, Roth M.Altmann T, et al.Front Psychol. 2018 Feb 13;9:91. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00091. eCollection 2018.Front Psychol. 2018.PMID:29487551Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials