The Implications of Global Adoration and Specific Accuracy for Marital Relationships PDF
Preview The Implications of Global Adoration and Specific Accuracy for Marital Relationships
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES To Know You Is to Love You: The Implications of Global Adoration and Specific Accuracy for Marital Relationships Lisa A. Neff Benjamin R. Karney UniversityofToledo UniversityofFlorida Despitethestrongpositivefeelingsthatcharacterizenewlyweds,manymarriagesendindisappointment. Tounderstandthisshift,theauthorsarguethatalthoughnewlyweds’globalrelationshipevaluationsmay be uniformly positive, not all spouses base their global adoration on an accurate perception of their partner’sspecificqualities.Twolongitudinalstudiesconfirmedthatwhereasmostnewlywedsenhanced theirpartnersattheleveloftheirglobalperceptions,spousesvariedsignificantlyintheirperceptionsof theirpartners’specificqualities.Forwives,butnotforhusbands,moreaccuratespecificperceptionswere associatedwiththeirsupportivebehaviors,feelingsofcontrolinthemarriage,andwhetherornotthe marriageendedindivorce.Thus,lovegroundedinspecificaccuracyappearstobestrongerthanlove absentaccuracy. Keywords:marriage,love,relationshipcognitions,divorce Onenteringmarriage,virtuallyallcouplesprofessastronglove that couples’ communication styles affect the course of the mar- for each other. Newlyweds tend to describe their partners in riage, such that destructive patterns lead to declines, and produc- extremely positive terms and report being highly committed to tiveinteractionspreventthem(Noller&Feeney,2002).Theway their relationships and very optimistic about the future of their spouses interpret negative events within the relationship also has marriages(Karney&Bradbury,1997;Veroff,Douvan,Orbuch,& beenassociatedwithmaritaloutcomes,bothcross-sectionallyand Acitelli,1998).Yetdespitethisseeminglysolidfoundation,mar- longitudinally,suchthatblamingpartnersfortheirtransgressions riagestodayaremorelikelytoendinseparationordivorcethanto predictsnegativeoutcomes,andforgivenesspredictspositiveones continue (Bumpass, 1990). For many people, the course of a (Bradbury&Fincham,1990). marriage is characterized by a shift in marital evaluations over Although research on cognition and behavior has offered im- time, such that initially positive feelings of happiness and opti- portantinsightsintoprocessesthatcontributetodeclinesinmarital mism deteriorate and transform into disillusionment (Cherlin, satisfaction, to date little research has addressed how destructive 1992).Howisitthatsomecouplesareabletomaintaintheirinitial processes might arise in relationships that at the time a couple is happiness over the course of a long-term relationship whereas married are characterized by almost uniformly positive feelings othercouplesarenot?Forwhomareinitialfeelingsoflovelikely and evaluations. To illuminate this issue, the current article ex- tobestable,andforwhomarethesefeelingslikelytodeteriorate? plores the idea that although newlywed couples may appear to Research on marital change and stability has most often ad- begin their marriages nearly identical in their initial feelings for dressedthisquestionbyfocusingonrelationshipinteractionsand theirpartners,infactnewlyweds’initialfeelingsoflovemaynot processes that may gradually enhance or erode spouses’ initial all be equal in kind. In addressing this idea, we follow in the marital satisfaction. For instance, this research has demonstrated footsteps of a number of researchers and scholars who have suggested that the nature of partners’ initial feelings should ac- count for the way those feelings develop over time, such that simplyromanticfeelingsmaybequicktoevaporate,whereaslove Lisa A. Neff, Department of Psychology, University of Toledo; Ben- jaminR.Karney,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofFlorida. thatisinitiallydeepershouldbemorestable(Noller,1996;Stern- BenjaminR.KarneyisnowattheRANDCorporation,SantaMonica, berg&Barnes,1988).However,priortheorieshavefailedtoreach California. consensus on what exactly makes some feelings of love deeper PreparationofthisarticlewassupportedbyNationalInstituteofMental thanothers(forareview,seeNoller,1996),andsolittleempirical Health Grant MH59712 awarded to Benjamin R. Karney. This research evidence has been offered to suggest how a deeper love may wasalsosupportedinpartbytheFetzerInstitute.Portionsofthisresearch accountforthewaymarriagesactuallydevelop. werepresentedattheCompassionateLoveConference,Normal,Illinois, The goal of the current article is to evaluate a model for May–June2003. identifying the type of love that should promote healthier, more CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoLisaA. Neff,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofToledo,2801WestBan- stablemarriagesamongcoupleswhouniformlyprofesstoloveone croftStreet,Toledo,OH43606.E-mail:[email protected] another.Toaccomplishthisgoal,theremainderoftheintroduction JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,2005,Vol.88,No.3,480–497 Copyright2005bytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation0022-3514/05/$12.00 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480 480 TOKNOWYOUISTOLOVEYOU 481 Figure1. Cognitiverepresentationofspouse’sloveforhisorherpartner. isorganizedintothreesections.Thefirstsectionpresentsamodel an organized associative network (Hampson et al., 1986; John, characterizing love as a cognitive network that combines global Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991). For instance, as seen in Figure 1, evaluationsofapartnerwithspecificperceptionsofthatpartner’s the global perception that my partner is wonderful may subsume traits and abilities.1 Distinguishing between different levels of themorespecificperceptionsthatmypartnerisdependable,sup- abstraction in spouses’ love representations suggests that uni- portive, and talented. Though being dependable, supportive, and formly happy newlyweds may nevertheless vary in the extent to talentedeachrepresentonemeansofbeingwonderful,thereverse which they accurately view their partners’ specific traits and isnottrue(Hampsonetal.,1986).Inotherwords,globalpercep- abilities.Thesecondsectionaddressestheimplicationsthatglobal tions might include evaluations of the partner’s general worth, lovebasedonspecificaccuracymayhaveformaritalwell-being. whereas specific perceptions refer to the particular traits and Specifically, this section discusses how love that is based on an behaviorsthatmakeupthefoundationonwhichglobalevaluations accurateviewofthepartner’sspecificqualitiesshouldbeassoci- arebased(Pelham&Swann,1989;M.Rosenberg,1979).Inthis ated with more positive relationship interactions, greater feelings way,spouses’lovemaybeconceivedasahierarchicallyorganized ofpredictionandcontrolwithintherelationship,andbettermarital collectionofbeliefs,feelings,andperceptionsofthepartner. outcomesthanlovethatlacksthisfoundationofspecificaccuracy. The second premise of the model is that spouses’ ability and The remainder of the article describes two studies designed to motivationtoviewtheirpartnerspositivelymayvaryatdifferent examine these ideas empirically through analyses of longitudinal levels of the hierarchy. As perceptions of a partner become in- datafromtwoindependentsamplesofinitiallysatisfiednewlywed creasingly global, they also tend to become relatively more ab- couples. stractinnature(Hampsonetal.,1986;Johnetal.,1991).Accord- ingly, fewer clear, objective standards exist for evaluating global Modeling Love in Early Marriage attributes than for evaluating specific, and more concrete, at- tributes. When spouses have fewer objective standards to guide “True” Love as a Function of Global Adoration and theirevaluation,theyalsohavemorelatitudetoplacetheirpartners Specific Accuracy in a more positive light (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989).Thatis,asperceptionsofapartnerbecomemoreglobal,it The current model for distinguishing general newlywed bliss fromamorelastingandsatisfyingloveisbasedontwopremises (foramoredetaileddiscussionofthismodel,seeNeff&Karney, 1Describing“love”asacognitivenetworkcomprisingglobalandspe- 2002a).Similartootherperspectivesonlove,thefirstpremiseis cificpartnerperceptionsmayseemslightlyunusualtosomereaders.Aswe thatloveisanattitudetowardaparticularindividual(Noller,1996; note later in the article, this approach to characterizing love is based on Rubin, 1970). Assuming that love is an attitude suggests that prior definitions of love that have emphasized a cognitive component spouses’ feelings of love are founded on a variety of perceptions (Noller,1996;Rubin,1970).Onthebasisofthesedefinitions,wefeltthat andjudgmentsofthepartner.Theseperceptionsvarymeaningfully examiningthetypesofperceptionsthatunderlienewlyweds’strongposi- tivefeelingsfortheirpartnerscouldrepresentatypeoflove.Althoughit in their level of abstraction, from perceptions of the partner’s istruewecannotdefinitivelyclaimthatglobaladorationbasedonspecific specifictraitsandabilities(e.g.,“Mypartnerisafabulouscook”) accuracyistrueloveandisnotsomeotherrelatedconstruct,wedonotsee toglobalevaluationsofthepartnerasawhole(e.g.,“Mypartner thispointasthecruxofourargument.Regardlessofthenamegiventothe is the greatest”; Hampson, John, & Goldberg, 1986; Neff & constructbeingmeasured,thearticlestilldemonstratestheimportanceof Karney,2002a).Thiscollectionofglobalandspecificperceptions aglobaladorationthatisbasedonspecificaccuracyformaritalwell-being. can be represented in a hierarchical structure, in which global Thus,callingglobaladorationbasedonspecificaccuracysomethingother perceptions serve to integrate related specific perceptions within thanloveshouldnotdiminishthesignificanceoftheresults. 482 NEFFANDKARNEY should become easier for a spouse to view his or her partner Reconciling the Current Model With the Positive Illusions positively on that attribute. Whereas spouses may find it easy to Literature support the conclusion that their partners are wonderful, for ex- ample, they may find it more difficult to support the belief that On the surface, the current model of global adoration and their partners are punctual, particularly if the partner frequently specificaccuracymayseemtocontradictresearchhighlightingthe arriveslatetoengagements. importance of positive illusions for close relationships. This re- In addition, as perceptions of a partner become increasingly searchhasfoundthatintimatesarehappierintheirmarriagesthe global,theysubsumeagreaternumberofspecificperceptionsand morepositivelytheyviewtheirpartners,eventhoughtheseposi- thus become more evaluative in nature (John et al., 1991). For tive evaluations may be largely discrepant from their partners’ instance, whereas the specific attribute “punctual” is relatively self-views (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). In other descriptive of one’s behavior, the global attribute “wonderful” words, the happiest spouses enhance their partners’ qualities, evaluates how positive or desirable one is. As a result, spouses viewing their partners more positively than even partners view tendtorateglobalperceptionsofapartnerasmoreimportantfor themselves.Aslongasintimatesareabletodepicttheirpartners’ theirmaritalwell-beingthanspecificperceptions(Neff&Karney, qualitiesinthebestpossiblelight,relationshipsatisfactionislikely 2002a).Thatis,spousesmayratethebeliefthatone’spartnerisa tobemaintained. greatpersonasmoreimportanttogeneralmaritalsatisfactionthan A closer examination, however, reveals that the current model thebeliefthatone’spartnerissociallyskilled.Thisgreaterimpor- may complement rather than contradict this previous work. Like tance of global perceptions suggests that spouses may be more the positive illusions literature, a model of global adoration and motivatedtomaintainpositiveglobalperceptionsabouttheirpart- specificaccuracyrecognizesthecriticalroleofenhancingapart- nersthantomaintainpositivespecificperceptions(cf.Sedikides, ner for relationship maintenance. Also similar to the positive 1993).Althoughspousesmaybemotivatedtobepositivelybiased illusions literature, the current model suggests that this enhance- intheirglobalperceptionsoftheirpartnersinordertoprotecttheir ment does not represent an outright denial of reality but rather is satisfaction, spouses may perceive their partners more or less likelytobebasedonkernelsoftruth(Taylor,Collins,Skokan,& accurately on specific attributes, because even negative percep- Aspinwall, 1989). That is, spouses may enhance their partners tionsatthespecificlevelwouldhavefewconsequencesformarital whilestilldemonstratingarelativeunderstandingoftheirpartners’ well-being.Forinstance,spouseswhobelievetheirpartnerstobe qualities (Murray et al., 1996b). The current model formally op- wonderful people may be willing to perceive their partners as erationalizesthisideabylimitingtheroleofpartnerenhancement unorganized or as poor cooks, because these negative specifics toperceptionsatthegloballevel.Satisfiedintimatesmayenhance should do little to hurt spouses’ satisfaction with the marriage. their partners at the level of their global perceptions such that Overall,then,spousesmaybemoreableandmoredriventoview spouseswillviewtheirpartnersasgenerallywarm,good,andkind theirpartnerspositivelyonglobalratherthanonspecificattributes. individuals, regardless of how their partners view themselves, in Taking the hierarchical structure of spouses’ perceptions into ordertomaintainapositiveevaluationoftheirrelationship.Atthe accounthastwoimportantimplicationsforunderstandinglovein same time, however, satisfied intimates also may be relatively early marriage. First, even among spouses whose global evalua- accurateattheleveloftheirspecificperceptionssuchthatspouses tionsofeachotherareuniformlypositive,theremaybevariability agree with their partners’ self-perceived specific strengths and inspecificperceptions.Infact,evidencesuggeststhatspouseswho weaknesses, helping the relationship to run smoothly (Neff & believe their partners to be great people overall may still hold a Karney,2002b). varietyofbothpositiveandnegativeperceptionsabouttheirpart- How can spouses maintain an enhancing global view of the ners’specificqualities(Showers&Kevlyn,1999).Second,these partner while still acknowledging, or even embracing, their part- perceptions at the specific level may be more or less accurate ners’relativeweaknesses?Spousesmayhavesomelatitudeinthe reflectionsofthepartner’sself-image.Inotherwords,eventhough waytheycombinetheirmorerealisticperceptionsofspecifictraits onaveragespousesmaybelesspositivelybiasedintheirspecific into a global impression of the partner. For instance, though perceptions compared with their global perceptions, for some spouses may hold a variety of accurate positive and negative spousesthesespecificperceptionsofthepartnermaybeunrealis- perceptionsofapartner,theymayratetheirpositiveperceptionsas tically positive or negative compared with their partners’ self- moreimportantfortherelationshipthantheirnegativeperceptions views, whereas other spouses may see their partners as their (Neff&Karney,2003;Pelham&Swann,1989).Inthismanner,an partnersseethemselves(Swann,DeLaRonde,&Hixon,1994). accurateperceptionofapartner’sspecifictraitsandabilitieswould From this perspective, among happily married couples, some notinterferewiththeglobalbeliefthatone’spartnerisawonderful spouses may view their partners very positively at the level of person. globalevaluationswhilesimultaneouslyacknowledgingtheirpart- ners’ specific positive and negative attributes. Other spouses, in Evidence for Global Adoration and Specific Accuracy contrast, may glorify their partner globally without an accurate viewoftheirpartners’specificqualities.Putanotherway,whereas Some evidence has supported the idea that accuracy and en- some spouses may hold the partner in high esteem, ignoring hancementprocessesmayoperateatdifferentlevelsofabstraction specific weaknesses, other spouses may hold the partner in high within the same relationship, depending on the nature of the esteemwhileatthesametimeacceptingthesespecificweaknesses. qualities being evaluated. One study computed the discrepancy Arguably, by communicating that they both love the partner and betweenspouses’perceptionsoftheirpartnersandpartners’self- recognize the partner’s particular strengths and weaknesses, it is perceptionsonavarietyofqualitiesinasampleofhighlysatisfied these latter individuals who may be providing their partners with couples(Neff&Karney,2002a).Theassociationbetweenthesize “true”love. of this discrepancy and the specificity of the particular attribute TOKNOWYOUISTOLOVEYOU 483 beingevaluatedwasthenexamined.Resultsrevealedthatspouses’ common assumption within the counseling literature is that suc- perceptionsoftheirpartnerstendedtobecomemoreenhancing,or cessfultherapyoccurswhenthetherapistoffersawarm,support- more positive than the partner’s self-views, the more global the ive relationship to the client by demonstrating that the client is attributebeingmeasured.Likewise,spouseswereingreateragree- positively regarded (Kelly, 2000). Consistent with this idea that ment with their partners’ self-views as attributes became more effective support requires unconditional positive regard, research specific. Thus, this study demonstrated that spouses could simul- onestablishedmarriageshasfoundpositiveassociationsbetween taneously achieve specific accuracy and global enhancement supportivebehaviorandrelationshipsatisfaction(Cutrona,1996). withintheirrelationships.Thecurrentarticleisdesignedtoextend However,studiesofnewlywedcoupleshaverevealedthatdespite these findings by arguing that within couples who enhance one theirgenerallyhighregardforeachother,newlywedsnevertheless anotheratthegloballevel,thedegreetowhichspousesaccurately vary considerably in their ability to provide positive support to view their partners at the level of specific attributes should have theirpartners(Pasch&Bradbury,1998).Thisfindingsuggeststhat severalimportantimplicationsformaritalwell-being. positive regard alone may not be sufficient for spouses to effec- tivelysupporttheirpartners. Implications of Global Adoration and Specific Accuracy Rather, some research has indicated that individuals may be for Marital Well-Being effective in helping their partners only when they agree with the partner’s self-perceived specific attributes (Swann & Predmore, If global adoration based on an accurate view of the partner’s 1985). In a study by Swann and Predmore (1985), individuals specific qualities does in fact represent a love with a more solid completedapersonalitytestandreceivednegativefeedbackcon- foundation than global adoration alone, then spouses who view cerning the results. The individuals were then given the opportu- theirpartnersinthismannershouldenjoybettermaritaloutcomes nity to interact with their dating partner before completing a thanspouseswholovetheirpartnerswithoutspecificaccuracy.In second measure of self-esteem. Results showed that the self- general, love based on specific accuracy may be associated with esteem of individuals whose partners accurately perceived their marital well-being in two ways. First, in the short term, spouses specificqualitieswasnotaffectedbythebogusfeedback.Individ- who both love and accurately perceive one another may interact ualswhosepartnerslackedthisspecificaccuracy,however,altered more positively with each other than spouses who love without theirself-descriptionstowardthebogusfeedback.Inotherwords, specificaccuracy.Second,overtime,relationshipdissolutionmay onlywhenintimatesagreedwiththeirpartners’specificself-views belesslikelyforcoupleswhoseloveisbasedonanaccurateview were partners resilient to the effects of the negative event, sug- ofeachother’sspecificqualities. gesting that specific accuracy may underlie positive support processes. Global Adoration, Specific Accuracy, and Social Support Thecurrentmodelextendstheseliteraturesbyarguingthatboth global adoration and specific accuracy may be necessary compo- The way that spouses communicate and interact with one an- nentstoensurepositivesupportinteractions.Thoughhighpositive otherhasbeenidentifiedasacriticalcomponentofmaritalquality. regard may allow spouses to provide the partner with loving Inparticular,spousalsupporthasbeenshowntooccupyacentral encouragement, a relatively accurate view of a partner’s specific role in the development of marital well-being. Support from a qualities may provide spouses with insight into the specific help partner has been shown to aid both personal and relationship andadvicetheirpartnersneedtocopewithdifficulties.Inthisway, functioningwhenindividualsareconfrontedwithstressfulevents a love in which spouses hold each other in high esteem while (Cutrona,1996).Moreover,couplesexhibitingmorepositivesup- simultaneously recognizing the partner’s specific traits and abili- port skills report greater marital satisfaction and better future ties should enable spouses to provide better support than does a marital outcomes than do couples lacking in support abilities love in which spouses simply hold their partners in high esteem (Pasch&Bradbury,1998).Yetlittleisknownabouttheconditions withoutthisspecificaccuracy. thatpromotepositive,supportiveinteractions.Theoriesofidentity negotiation in relationships argue that when spouses agree with oneanother’sself-perceivedidentityintherelationship,thisagree- Global Adoration, Specific Accuracy, and Divorce mentshouldincreasethelikelihoodofharmoniousinteractionsand facilitate cooperative efforts to achieve goals (Schlenker, 1984; Asmentionedabove,despitethefactthatnewlymarriedspouses Swann, 1984). Spouses who agree with their partners’ self-views uniformlyprofessastronglovefortheirpartners,alargepercent- shouldfeelsecureintheirabilitytopredicthowtheirpartnerwill ageofmarriagesendindivorce(Bumpass,1990).Thoughalarge respond to them, which is a key aspect of successful social rela- literaturehasarguedthatthenatureofspouses’perceptionsofone tions(Swann,Stein-Seroussi,&Giesler,1992).Ontheotherhand, another may help account for this change in marital quality, the a discrepancy between spouses’ views and partners’ self-views typesofperceptionsassociatedwithpositiveoutcomeshavebeen may indicate that interactions will be characterized by misunder- thesourceofsomedebate.Sometheoristshavearguedthatposi- standing, because partners’ behaviors may frequently counter tively biased views of the partner are critical for protecting rela- spouses’expectations(Swannetal.,1992).Fromthisperspective, tionship satisfaction, whereas others have suggested that more then, as long as spouses agree with one another’s self-perceived accurateviewsofthepartnerservetofosterasenseofprediction strengths and limitations, marital interactions should proceed and control in the relationship essential for long-term happiness smoothly. (Murray et al., 1996a, 1996b; Swann et al., 1994). The current In fact, some evidence suggests that spouses’ perceptions of modelreconcilesthesepositionsbysuggestingthatloveisstronger theirpartners’qualitiesmayplayanimportantroleinshapingthe whenpositiveglobalevaluationsofthepartnerarecoupledwithan manner in which spouses provide support to their partners. A accurateperceptionofthepartner’sspecifictraitsandabilities. 484 NEFFANDKARNEY Thatis,perceivingapartnerwithglobaladorationshouldserve worth, and their overall global satisfaction with the marriage. to maintain positive partner evaluations and protect the relation- Second, evaluation of the model requires a clearly delineated shipfromdoubt(e.g.,Murrayetal.,1996a,1996b).Again,how- criterionofaccuracy.Researchershavelongarguedoverwhatthe ever, positive regard alone may not be sufficient to ensure better goldstandardisfordeterminingtheaccuracyofpersonalityjudg- marital outcomes. For instance, for spouses who believe their ments (e.g., Funder & Dobroth, 1987). Given current lack of partnerstobewonderfulineverysingleway,lovingthepartneris consensus, in the present article, partners’ self-perceptions were not very difficult, making this love easy to maintain in the short used as the standard of accuracy. In this way, specific accuracy term.Nevertheless,alovebasedonthefalsepremisethatallofthe was defined as the extent to which spouses’ perceptions of their partner’s traits are perfect should be fragile over time. These partnersagreedwithpartners’ownself-views(e.g.,Murrayetal., spousesputtheirpartnersintheuncomfortablepositionofhaving 1996a;Swannetal.,1994). toliveuptoanidentitythatpartnersmaybeunableorunwilling It should be noted that a prior article of ours has examined to confirm (Schlenker, 1984; Swann et al., 1992). Over time, as spouses’ global and specific perceptions of their partners within partnersinevitablyfailtomeetspouses’highexpectations,spouses the same sample used in Study 1 of the current article (Neff & mayfeelinsecureintheirabilitytopredicthowtheirpartnerswill Karney,2002a).However,thesolegoalofthispriorworkwasto respond and behave within the relationship, thereby undermining demonstratethatenhancementandaccuracymayoperatesimulta- spouses’confidenceinthemarriage(Swannetal.,1994).Thus,as neouslywiththesamerelationships,dependingonthenatureofthe their partners’ specific weaknesses surface in the relationship, attributebeingevaluated.Asmentionedabove,itwasshownthat spouses’positiveglobalfeelingstowardthepartnermaycrumble. on average, spouses tended to be more accurate when evaluating Incontrast,spouseswhoseinitialfeelingsoflovearebasedon their partners’ more specific traits and more enhancing when arelativelyaccurateviewofthepartners’specificqualitiesbegin evaluating their partners’ more global attributes. In contrast, the themarriageacceptingtheirpartnersaspeopledespiterecognizing currentarticleextendsthisworkbyexaminingthebehavioraland their partners’ limitations. These spouses should hold more real- longitudinal consequences of viewing a partner with global ado- istic expectations of the partner, thereby increasing their feelings rationandspecificaccuracy.Toensurethatthefindingswerenot of prediction and control within the relationship (Swann et al., tied to a particular sample or set of measures, all hypotheses 1992). In other words, these spouses should not be surprised by addressedinStudy1wereexaminedagaininalarger,independent theirpartners’negativequalitiesandthusshouldbelesslikelyto sampleusingadifferentsetofspecificattributesinStudy2. respond poorly in the face of their partners’ weaknesses. Conse- quently,globaladorationthatisfoundedonanaccurateviewofa partner’s specific attributes may be associated with a lower like- Overview of Study 1 lihoodofrelationshipdissolution. The first study examined spouses’ global and specific percep- tionsoftheirpartnersaswellastheirobservedsupportivebehav- Overview of the Current Studies iorsassessedduringalaboratoryinteractiontaskinasampleof82 The current article presents two studies designed to evaluate a first-marriednewlywedcouples.Analysesofthesedataaddressed model for distinguishing the marital happiness professed by vir- threespecificquestions.First,withinasampleofhappilymarried, tuallyallnewlywedcouplesfromthetypeoflovethatisassociated newlywed couples, do spouses vary in the accuracy with which withbetter,morestablemarriages.Thesestudiesweredesignedto theyviewtheirpartners’specificattributesandabilities?Though address two general questions. First, do newlywed spouses, who thesespouses’perceptionsoftheirpartnershavebeenevaluatedin tend to be uniformly happy with their partner and the marriage, prior work (Neff & Karney, 2002a), in order to address potential nevertheless vary in the extent to which they accurately perceive implications, the nature of spouses’ perceptions of their partners their partners’ specific attributes and abilities? Second, does this first must be established. Rather than examining whether the variability in accuracy have implications for marital well-being? discrepancybetweenspouses’viewsandpartners’self-viewswas Examiningthesequestionswithinfairlyhomogeneoussamplesof associatedwithattributespecificity(i.e.,Neff&Karney,2002a), newlywed couples provided several advantages. First, selecting thecurrentarticleaddressesasomewhatdifferentissuebyinves- newlyweds ensured that all couples were at a similar marital tigating the relative agreement between spouses’ perceptions and duration and that the motivation to evaluate a partner positively partners’self-perceptionsacrossseveralspecificattributes.Onthe shouldbestrongandfairlyuniformacrossspouses.Inthisway,the basisofourpriorwork,itwasexpectedthatalthoughvirtuallyall use of newlyweds allowed us to study differences in specific newlyweds would report strongly positive global impressions of accuracy within a sample that should look virtually identical in their partners, some spouses would demonstrate a more accurate their global evaluations of the marriage and the partner. Second, viewoftheirpartners’self-perceivedspecificqualitiesthanothers, newlywedcouplesareanappropriatesampleinwhichtoexamine indicating variability in spouses’ appraisals even among recently issuesofrelationshipchangeanddissolution.Comparedwiththose married couples. In this way, only a subset of spouses were in more established marriages, newlyweds experience more dra- expectedtolinktheirglobaladorationoftheirpartnerwithspecific matic changes in relationship quality and are at elevated risk of accuracy. maritaldisruption(Cherlin,1992). Second, is specific accuracy associated with the way spouses Evaluating a model of global adoration and specific accuracy provideeachotherwithsupportinthemarriage?Itwaspredicted requires attention to two important methodological issues. First, that specific accuracy would be positively related to supportive perceptions of the partner must be measured at varying levels of behaviors,suchthatamongthesehappilymarriedcouples,spouses abstraction. Thus, the current studies asked spouses to evaluate who perceived their partners’ qualities more accurately should their partners’ specific traits and abilities, their partners’ global providemorepositivesupport. TOKNOWYOUISTOLOVEYOU 485 Finally,isspecificaccuracyassociatedwithalowerlikelihood Wallace,1959)includeitemsthatassessglobalrelationshipevaluationsas of marital dissolution? It was predicted that among these happily wellasitemsassessingperceptionsofspecificaspectsoftherelationship married couples, spouses who began the marriage with a more (e.g.,communicationskills).Toensurethatglobalevaluationsandspecific accurate view of their partners’ specific qualities would be less perceptions were not confounded in the present study and to increase confidencethatresultswerenotidiosyncratictoaparticularmeasureofthe likelytodivorceduringthesubsequent4years. dependent variable, marital satisfaction was assessed at each time point using two measures that focus on global relationship evaluations exclu- Method sively.First,spousescompleteda15-itemversionoftheSemanticDiffer- ential(SMD;Osgood,Suci,&Tannenbaum,1957).Spouseswereaskedto Participants indicate their current feelings about their marriage on 7-point scales be- tween two opposing adjectives (e.g., satisfied–dissatisfied, pleasant– Coupleswererecruitedforthisstudyusingtwomethods.First,adver- unpleasant).Scoresonthemeasurecanrangefrom15to105,withhigher tisementswereplacedincommunitynewspapersandbridalshops.Second, scoresindicatinggreatersatisfaction.Theinternalconsistencyofthemea- letters were sent to couples who had applied for marriage licenses in surewashigh(coefficient(cid:1)s(cid:1).92forhusbandsand.95forwives). AlachuaCounty,Florida.Couplesrespondingtoeithermethodofsolici- Second,spousescompletedtheQualityofMarriageIndex(QMI;Nor- tationwerescreenedinatelephoneinterviewtodeterminewhetherthey ton,1983).Thismeasureasksspousestoindicatetheextenttowhichthey metthefollowingcriteria:(a)Thiswasthefirstmarriageforeachpartner, agreewithsixrelationshipstatements,suchas“Wehaveagoodmarriage” (b)thecouplehadbeenmarriedlessthan6months,and(c)neitherpartner and“Ourmarriageisstrong.”Scoresonthemeasurecanrangefrom6to hadchildren.Thefinalsampleconsistedof82couples.Analysesrevealed 45,withhigherscoresindicatinggreatersatisfaction.Internalconsistency no significant differences in age or education between couples recruited ofthismeasurealsowashigh(coefficient(cid:1)(cid:1).94forbothspouses). througheachtypeofsolicitation. Onaverage,husbandswere25.1(SD(cid:1)3.3)yearsoldandhadreceived Globalevaluationsofthepartner. Toassessspouses’globalevalua- 16.3(SD(cid:1)2.4)yearsofeducation.Fortypercentwereemployedfulltime, tionsoftheirpartners,arevisionoftheRosenbergSelf-EsteemQuestion- and54%werefull-timestudents.Wiveswereanaverageof23.7(SD(cid:1) nairewasused(RSE;S.Rosenberg,1965).Thisscaleincludedthesame 2.8) years old and had received 16.3 (SD (cid:1) 1.2) years of education. itemsoftheoriginalscale,rewordedsuchthatspousescompleteditwith Thirty-nine percent were employed full time, and 50% were full-time regard to the esteem in which they held their partners. Example items students. Slightly over 70% of the sample was Christian, and 83% of include“Ifeelthatmyspousehasanumberofgoodqualities,”“Ifeelthat husbandsand89%ofwiveswereWhite.Theaveragecombinedincomeof myspouseisapersonofworth,atleastonanequalplanewithothers,”and coupleswaslessthan$20,000peryear. “Ifeelpositivelyaboutmyspouse.”Itemswereratedonascalefrom1 (stronglydisagree)to4(stronglyagree).Theinternalconsistencyofthe10 itemswasadequateforhusbands’viewsoftheirwives(coefficient(cid:1)(cid:1) Procedure .77) and low for wives’ views of their husbands (coefficient (cid:1)(cid:1) .52). Closerexaminationofwives’responsesonthescalerevealedthatthelower Couplesmeetingeligibilityrequirementswerescheduledtoattenda3-hr alpha for wives’ ratings of their partners was likely due to the lower laboratory session. Before the session, they were mailed a packet of variabilityinresponsesacrosswives.Forinstance,all82wivesinthestudy questionnairestocompleteathomeandbringwiththemtotheirappoint- stronglyagreedwiththestatementindicatingthattheirpartnerpossesseda ment. This packet included self-report measures of spouses’ global and numberofgoodqualities.Compositescoresforthesescalescouldrange specificperceptionsofthepartnerandtherelationshipaswellasaletter from10to40,withhigherscoresindicatinghigherregardforthepartner. instructing couples to complete all questionnaires independently of one another. Specificperceptionsoftheselfandpartner. Spouses’specificpercep- Duringthelaboratorysession,couplescompletedsomeadditionalques- tionsofboththemselvesandtheirpartnerswereassessedwithaversionof tionnaires regarding their perceptions of their own specific traits and the Self-Attributes Questionnaire (SAQ; Swann et al., 1994). The SAQ abilitiesandinteractedwithoneanotherinaseriesofdyadictasks.Oneof asksspousestoratethemselvesandtheirpartnersonsixrelativelyspecific thesetaskswasthesocialsupportinteractiontask.Eachcoupleengagedin qualities: intellectual capability, physical attractiveness, athletic ability, two 10-min discussions designed to assess behaviors when offering and social skills, organization, and tidiness. Though this measure includes solicitingsocialsupport.Inthefirstofthetwodiscussions,onespousewas attributes that seemingly vary in their specificity, the SAQ nevertheless randomlyselectedtoidentifyapersonalproblemorsomethingabouthim- representsameasurethatismorespecificinnaturethanthemeasuresof orherselfthatheorshewouldliketochange.Spouseswerespecifically globalmaritalsatisfactionortheRSE.Foreachattribute,participantsrated instructed to choose a topic that was strictly a personal issue and not a themselvesandtheirpartnersrelativetootherpeopleofthesameageand maritalissue.Typicaltopicsmentionedwereexercisingmore,changinga genderongraduatedintervalscalesrangingfrom1(thebottom5%)to19 badhabit,orenrichingone’sspirituallife.Spouseswereaskedtodiscuss (thetop5%).Thoughtherewaslittlereasontoexpectthesixindependent thistopicwiththeirpartnerfor10min,duringwhichtimethepartnerwas attributestohangtogether(i.e.,beingsociallyskilleddoesnotimplythe toldtorespondinwhateverwayheorshefeltwasappropriate.Afterthe personwillbeathleticaswell),theinternalconsistencyoftheratingswas firstdiscussion,theroleswerereversedsuchthattheremainingspousewas adequateforratingsofself(coefficient(cid:1)s(cid:1).77forhusbandsand.74for askedtochoosethetopicforthenextdiscussion.Spouseswereencouraged wives)andlowerforratingsofpartner(coefficient(cid:1)s(cid:1).53forhusbands nottochoosethesameissues.Thus,eachspousehadtheopportunityto and.67forwives).Theprimaryanalysesofinterestexaminedtheitems playtheroleofthesupportprovider.Coupleswerepaid$50forpartici- separatelyratherthanasasum.However,asummedcompositescore,with pating in this part of the study. Couples were then contacted every 6 apossiblerangeof6to114,wascreatedforsomepreliminaryanalyses monthsoverthenext4yearstoobtaininformationregardingthestatusof investigatingthedistributionsofspouses’perceptionsoftheirpartners. the marriage (i.e., still married or divorced). Over the 4-year period, 17 Behavioralobservationcoding. TheSocialSupportInteractionCoding (21%)ofthe82couplesdivorced.Thisdivorcerateisconsistentwithother System(SSICS;Pasch,Bradbury,&Sullivan,1997)wasusedtoassessthe longitudinalstudiesofmarriageusingsimilarsamples(Veroffetal.,1998). supportprovisionbehaviorsspousesdisplayedduringthesupportinterac- tiontasks.Each10-mininteractionwasdividedintospeakingturns,and Materials eachspeakingturnwasthencoded.UsingtheSSICS,eachsupportpro- vider speaking turn may receive one of six codes: positive emotional, Global marital satisfaction. Many frequently administered measures positiveinstrumental,positiveother,negative,neutral,oroff-task.Positive of relationship satisfaction (e.g., the Marital Adjustment Test; Locke & emotional is assigned to behaviors that reassure, console or otherwise 486 NEFFANDKARNEY encouragethesupportsolicitor,lettingthesolicitorknowthatheorsheis wasadoptedforseveralreasons.First,HLMprovidesreliableestimatesof loved(e.g.,“I’mproudoftheprogressyouhavemade,youhavegotten within-subject associations even when sample sizes are relatively small. muchbetteraboutexercising.”).Positiveinstrumentalisgiventobehaviors Second,HLMprovidesmaximallyefficientestimatesoftheseassociations thatofferthesolicitorspecificsuggestionsonhowtoreachdesiredgoals byweightingindividualparameterestimatesbytheirprecision,according orotherwiseassistthesolicitorindevelopingacourseofactionforsolving toempiricalBayes’stheorem.Forinstance,theparametersofindividuals theproblem(e.g.,“Nexttimeyouseeyourboss,whatareyougoingtoask who provide data at every wave of assessment will be estimated more him?”). Positive other includes all positive statements that do not fall reliablythanthosewithmissingdata.HLMthereforeweightstheparam- withintheprevioustwocategories.Statementsprovidinginsightintothe eterestimatesfortheseindividualsmoreheavilythantheparameteresti- cause of the problem or encouraging further discussion of the problem matesforindividualswhoprovidelessdata.Thus,thefinalestimaterelies would receive this code (e.g., “Why do you think that?”). Negative in- heavilyontheindividualdataonlywhentheassociationsforanindividual cludes behaviors such as criticizing or blaming the solicitor or offering canbeestimatedprecisely.Whentheseassociationscannotbeestimated inconsiderate advice (e.g., “You just need to figure this out and stop precisely for an individual, the final estimate relies more heavily on the complainingaboutit”).Neutralwasgiventobehaviorsthatarerelatedto meanofthesample.Becausethemostpreciseestimatesthereforecontrib- the problem but are more factual in nature (e.g., “What time is your utemoretothefinalestimatedvarianceofthesample,variancesestimated appointmenttomorrow?”).Finally,off-taskwasgiventoallbehaviorsnot inthiswaytendtobesmallerandmoreconservativethanthoseobtained relevant to the issue (e.g., “By the way, did you feed the dog this throughtraditionalordinaryleastsquaresmethods.Parametersdescribing morning?”). husbands’andwives’datawereestimatedinseparatemodelstocontrolfor Fourresearchassistantsweretrainedtoindependentlycodetheinterac- thenonindependenceofcoupledata. tionsusingtheSSICS.Interraterreliability,whichwasassessedbyhaving randomlyselectedpairsofobserverscodearandomlyselected25%ofthe Results interactions,wasgenerallyquitehigh(intraclasscorrelationcoefficients(cid:1) .83forpositiveemotional,.88for positiveinstrumental,.64forpositive Descriptive Statistics and Correlations other,.86fornegative,.60forneutral,and.97foroff-task).Toanalyzethe codesinsubsequentanalyses,thenumberoftimeseachcodewasassigned Table1presentsdescriptivestatisticsforhusbands’andwives’ toeachspousewasdividedbythetotalnumberofspeakingturnsofthat supportprovisionbehaviors.Giventhattheproportionsofpositive spouse.Thus,eachcodewasanalyzedasaproportionofthetotalspeaking emotional and positive instrumental behaviors displayed in the turns in order to control for variation across spouses in the number of interactions were low (positive emotional was .06 for both hus- speakingturns. bands and wives; positive instrumental was .08 and .10 for hus- Individualdifferencevariables. Spousesalsowereaskedtocompletea bands and wives, respectively), all positive support codes were numberofindividualdifferencemeasurestoexaminewhetherpersonality collapsedintoasinglevariable.Overall,spousestendedtoexhibit factors or differences in personal histories may influence the manner in fairlypositivesupportprovisionbehaviorsduringtheinteractions. whichspousesviewtheirpartners.Neuroticism,akeyindicatorofnegative Despite the fact that spouses were fairly positive on average, affectivity,wasassessedwiththeNeuroticismscaleoftheEysenckPer- however,thestandarddeviationsforeachofthecodeswererather sonalityQuestionnaire(Eysenck&Eysenck,1978).This23-itemmeasure asksspousestoansweryesornoquestionsabouttheirnegativeaffectivity large,indicatingthattherewasawiderangeofbehavioralabilities (e.g.,“Areyouaworrier?”;“Doesyourmoodgoupanddownoften?”). evenwithinthissampleofhappynewlywedcouples.Positiveand Internalconsistencywashighforhusbandsandwives(coefficient(cid:1)s(cid:1).88 negative support behaviors were significantly negatively associ- and.85,respectively). ated for both husbands and wives, r(81) (cid:1) (cid:2).49, p (cid:3) .001, and To measure spouses’ depression, spouses completed the widely used r(81) (cid:1) (cid:2).61, p (cid:3) .001, respectively. Not surprisingly, then, BeckDepressionInventory(Beck,Ward,Mendelson,Mock,&Erbaugh, spouses who provided more positive support also tended to pro- 1961).Eachofthe21itemsincludedinthismeasurepresentsspouseswith vide less negative support. Given that positive and negative be- alistoffourstatementsandasksthemtochoosethestatementthatbest haviorswerestronglynegativelycorrelated,acompositevariable describestheirfeelings.Forinstance,oneitempresentsspouseswiththe representing the total positivity of spouses’ support behaviors following four options: “I do not feel disappointed in myself,” “I am (positive behavior minus negative behavior) was created in order disappointedinmyself,”“Iamdisgustedwithmyself,”and“Ihatemyself.” Coefficientalphasonthismeasurewere.80forbothhusbandsandwives. tosimplifyanalyses. Finally,spouseswereaskedaboutseveralaspectsoftheirrelationship Thetotalpositivityofspouses’supportprovisionbehaviorswas history.Specifically,spouseswereaskedhowlongtheyknewtheirpartner not significantly associated with their global marital satisfaction, beforegettingmarried,whetherornottheycohabitatedpriortomarriage, andwhethertheyhadreceivedpremaritalcounseling. Table1 Data Analysis MeansforSupportBehaviorsDisplayedDuringSupport InteractionTasksinStudy1 Examinationofthehypothesesderivedfromamodelofglobaladoration and specific accuracy required both within-couple and between-couples Proportionofbehavior analyses.Awithin-coupleapproachallowedustoexaminevariabilityin thedegreetowhichspouses’perceptionsoftheirpartners’specificqual- Husbands Wives itiesagreedwithpartners’self-perceptions,controllingforspouses’idio- syncratictendencytoviewthepartnermoreorlessfavorablyacrossthe Supportprovisionbehavior M SD M SD attributes.Thebetween-couplesapproachallowedustoevaluatewhether Positive .28 .19 .36 .20 the extent of spouses’ agreement with their partners’ self-perceived spe- Negative .12 .15 .08 .12 cificqualitieswasassociatedwithbettersupportprovisionbehaviorsand Neutral .51 .17 .46 .14 bettermaritaloutcomes.Toaddressboththewithin-coupleandbetween- Off-task .09 .11 .09 .13 couplehypotheses,datawereexaminedwithhierarchicallinearmodeling Overallpositivitya .16 .29 .28 .29 (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), implemented using the HLM/2L computerprogram(Bryk,Raudenbush,&Congdon,1994).Thisapproach aIndicatespositivebehaviorminusnegativebehavior. TOKNOWYOUISTOLOVEYOU 487 r(81)(cid:1)(cid:2).02,p(cid:1).84,andr(81)(cid:1).14,p(cid:1).22forhusbandsand modal response of both husbands and wives was the highest wives, respectively, for the SMD; r(81) (cid:1) (cid:2).01, p (cid:1) .66, and possiblescoreonthescale.Infact,46%ofhusbandsand53%of r(81)(cid:1).05,p(cid:1).65,forhusbandsandwives,respectively,onthe wives gave their partners the highest possible rating. Thus, the QMI; or with their perceptions of their partners’ global worth, majority of spouses also reported holding their partners in very r(81)(cid:1).10,p(cid:1).38,andr(81)(cid:1).05,p(cid:1).69,forhusbandsand highglobalesteem. wives, respectively. These correlations seem to confirm the idea However,spouseswerenotsouniformlypositiveintheirreports that the positivity of spouses’ global feelings for their partners of their partners’ specific attributes (see Table 2). Descriptive does not help account for variability in spouses’ social support statistics on spouses’ composite views across the attributes re- abilities. Finally, spouses’ global marital satisfaction was signifi- vealed that these scores were fairly normally distributed. In fact, cantly associated with their perceptions of their partners’ global onlyabout20%ofhusbandsandwivesreportedascoreof100or worth, such that spouses who were happier in the marriage also higher(outof114)onthemeasureofspecificattributes.Overall, held their partner in higher regard, r(81) (cid:1) .48, p (cid:3) .001, and then,althoughmostofthesenewlywedspousesseemedtobevery r(81) (cid:1) .43, p (cid:3) .001, for husbands and wives, respectively, for positively biased in their global views of the partner and the the SMD; r(81) (cid:1) .36, p (cid:1) .001 and r(81) (cid:1) .21, p (cid:1) .05, for relationship,initialevidenceindicatesthattheywerenotsobiased husbandsandwives,respectively,ontheQMI.Thus,allmeasures (i.e., there was more variability) in their perceptions of their behavedgenerallyasexpected. partners’specificqualities. Are Spouses Uniformly Happy With Their Partner and the Do These Happy Spouses Vary in Their Perceptions of Relationship? Their Partners’ Specific Attributes? Thehypothesesposedinthisstudyarebasedonthepremisethat Giventhatspousesreportedstronglypositiveglobalimpressions virtually all newlywed couples begin the marriage extremely of their marriages and their partners, the second goal of these happy with their partner and the relationship. The first goal of analyseswastoexaminewhether,withinthissampleofuniformly theseanalyses,then,wastoassessthevalidityofthisassumption. happy couples, spouses varied in the accuracy with which they Todothis,spouses’reportsoftheirglobalmaritalsatisfactionand viewed their partners’ specific traits and abilities. To do this, the theirperceptionsoftheirpartners’globalworthwereexamined.As within-couple association between a spouse’s perceptions of the seeninTable2,theaveragelevelofhusbands’andwives’initial partner’s specific attributes and the partner’s self-perceptions on maritalsatisfactionwasquitehighonboththeSMDandtheQMI. these attributes was examined. It was predicted that although on Perhapsmorenotable,however,isthefactthatmodalresponseon average spouses would tend to agree with their partners’ self- eachofthesatisfactionmeasureswasthehighestpossiblescoreon perceptions, there would nonetheless be significant variability in themeasureforbothhusbandsandwives(105fortheSMDand45 the extent of this agreement across spouses. This hypothesis was fortheQMI).Furthermore,about50%ofhusbandsandwiveshad modeledusingHLMaccordingtothefollowingequation: ascoreabove100ontheSMDandabove44ontheQMI.These Spouse’sperceptionofpartner(cid:1)(cid:2) descriptive statistics indicate that the vast majority of spouses 0j reportedbeinghighlysatisfiedwiththeirmarriages. (cid:4)(cid:2) (partner’sself-perception)(cid:4)error, (1) Turning to perceptions of the partner’s global worth, Table 2 1j also shows that spouses’ mean level of positive regard for their wherethepartner’sself-perceptionswerecenteredwithinpersons. partnerswasquitehigh.Aswithreportsofmaritalsatisfaction,the Inthisequation,(cid:2) representsanestimateoftheaveragepositivity 0j Table2 DescriptiveStatisticsforGlobalandSpecificPerceptionsinStudy1 Husbands Wives Measure M SD Mdn Mode M SD Mdn Mode Maritalsatisfaction SMD 96.6 8.7 99.0 105.0 97.9 10.6 101.0 105.0 QMI 42.3 3.9 44.0 45.0 42.2 5.2 44.0 45.0 Globalperceptionsof partner RSE 38.1 2.9 39.0 40.0 38.8 1.7 40.0 40.0 Specificperceptionsof partner SAQ 89.3 10.9 90.0 89.0 88.3 13.7 90.0 92.0 Specificperceptionsof self SAQ 84.6 14.3 87.0 86.0 84.9 13.5 87.0 89.0 Note. ScoresontheSMDcanrangefrom15to105.ScoresontheQMIcanrangefrom6to45.Scoresonthe RSEcanrangefrom10to40.ScoresontheSAQcanrangefrom6to114.Forallmeasures,higherscores indicatemorepositiveevaluations.SMD(cid:1)SemanticDifferential;QMI(cid:1)QualityofMarriageIndex;RSE(cid:1) RosenbergSelf-EsteemQuestionnaire;SAQ(cid:1)Self-AttributesQuestionnaire. 488 NEFFANDKARNEY of a spouse’s perceptions of the partner across the specific at- couples level of the HLM analysis according to the following tributes, and (cid:2) captures the within-couple association between model: 1j spouses’ perceptions of the partner and partners’ self-perceptions (cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:3) (supportprovision)(cid:4)(cid:3) (satisfaction)(cid:4)(cid:4), (2) acrosstheattributesforagivenindividual,controllingforspouses’ 0j 10 11 12 1j tendency to view the partner more or less favorably on the at- (cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:3) (supportprovision)(cid:4)(cid:3) (satisfaction)(cid:4)(cid:4), (3) tributes.Therefore,(cid:2) representsanindexofrelativeaccuracy.A 1j 20 21 22 1j 1j positive (cid:2) would indicate that spouses’ perceptions of their where support provision and satisfaction scores were centered 1j partners tend to agree with partners’ self-perceptions. This equa- around the mean of the sample. In Equation 2, (cid:2) represents the 0j tion was estimated for each spouse, and the significance of the interceptcalculatedforeachspouseinEquation1.Inotherwords, average(cid:2) termacrossspouseswasinvestigated. (cid:2) capturesthepositivityofspouses’perceptionsoftheirpartners, 1 0j Resultsrevealedthatonaverage,bothhusbandsandwiveswere and (cid:3) then captures the association between spouses’ general 11 demonstrating a relatively accurate view of their partners’ self- tendency to view their partners more or less favorably on the perceivedtraitsandabilities(seeTable3).However,asseeninthe attributesandtheirsupportprovisionbehaviors,suchthataposi- lastcolumnofTable3,resultsalsorevealedthattherewasnotable tive (cid:3) would indicate that spouses with more positive percep- 11 variability across spouses in the extent of this accuracy. Again, tions about their partner also provide their partner with more amongthesespouseswhowereveryhappyintheirmarriageand positive social support, controlling for marital satisfaction. In with their partner, some spouses were demonstrating a more ac- Equation3,(cid:2) representstheslopecalculatedforeachspousein 1j curate perception of their partners’ specific qualities than were Equation 1. In other words, (cid:2) captures the extent to which 1j others.Furtheranalysesrevealedthatspouses’personalitydidnot spouses’ perceptions of their partners agree with their partners’ seem to moderate their view of their partners’ qualities, because self-perceptions, and (cid:3) then captures the association between 21 neither neuroticism nor depression was significantly associated spouses’ specific accuracy and their supportive behaviors, such withtheextentofspouses’accuracy.Moreover,thelengthoftime thatapositive(cid:3) wouldindicatethatspouseswhoagreewiththeir 21 spouses had known one another, whether the couple had lived partners’self-perceivedattributesprovidetheirpartnerswithmore together prior to marriage, and whether the couple received pre- positivesupport,controllingformaritalsatisfaction.Byestimating marital counseling did not moderate spouses’ view of their part- these two equations simultaneously, the HLM program estimates ners in that none of these variables was significantly associated the association between spouses’ accuracy and their support pro- withtheextentofspouses’accuracy. visionwhilecontrollingfortheassociationbetweenthepositivity oftheirperceptionsandtheirsupportprovision. Is Variability in Specific Accuracy Associated With As seen in Table 4, the general positivity of spouses’ percep- Marital Well-Being? tions was not significantly associated with supportive behaviors forhusbandsorforwives.Inotherwords,inthecontextofthese Given that results indicated variability in spouses’ agreement generallyhappymarriages,viewingapartner’sspecificattributes withtheirpartners’specificself-perceptions,thenextgoalwasto favorably was not associated with an increased ability to provide examinetheimplicationsofthisagreementformaritalwell-being. thepartnerwithsupport.However,spouses’agreementwiththeir Specifically, it was predicted that a more accurate view of a partners’ self-views was marginally associated with support pro- partner’s specific qualities may be associated with the manner in vision for wives, though not for husbands. Controlling for both whichspousesinteractwiththeirpartnersaswellaswithmarital theirglobalmaritalsatisfactionandthepositivityoftheirspecific outcomes. perceptions, there was a trend for wives who displayed a more Is specific accuracy associated with support provision? The accurateviewoftheirhusbands’specificqualitiestoexhibitbetter third goal of these analyses was to examine whether a relatively supportprovisionbehaviorsduringtheinteractionthanwiveswith accurateviewofapartner’sspecificqualitieswasassociatedwith alessaccurateperceptionoftheirhusbands’qualities. the ability to provide support to a partner. It was predicted that, Is specific accuracy associated with relationship dissolution? controlling for spouses’ marital satisfaction and the overall posi- The fourth goal of these analyses was to examine whether a tivity of their specific perceptions, spouses with a more accurate relativelyaccurateperceptionofapartner’sspecificqualitieswas perception of their partners’ qualities would provide better social associated with a lower likelihood of divorce over time. It was support.Totestthishypothesis,spouses’supportprovisionbehav- predicted that spouses who agree with their partners’ self- iors and their marital satisfaction were entered into the between- perceivedspecificqualitieswouldbelesslikelytodivorceduring the first 4 years of marriage. To examine this hypothesis, the following equations were estimated again at the between-couples Table3 leveloftheHLManalysis: Within-CoupleAssociationsBetweenSpouses’Perceptionsofthe PartnerandPartners’Self-PerceptionsAcrosstheSpecific (cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:3) (divorce)(cid:4)(cid:3) (satisfaction)(cid:4)(cid:4); (4) 0j 10 11 12 1j Attributes(Study1) (cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:3) (divorce)(cid:4)(cid:3) (satisfaction)(cid:4)(cid:4), (5) 1j 20 21 22 1j (cid:5)2testof Effect variability where satisfaction scores were centered around the mean of the Gender (cid:2) SE t(81) sizer (81,N(cid:1)81) sample.InEquation4,(cid:2) againindicatestheinterceptcalculated 0j for each spouse in Equation 1. In other words, (cid:2) captures the Husbands .66 .06 10.9*** .78 107.4* positivity of spouses’ perceptions of their partners0,jand (cid:3) then Wives .73 .06 12.3*** .82 94.3† 11 captures the association between spouses’ general tendency to †p(cid:3).10. *p(cid:3).05. ***p(cid:3).001. view their partners more or less favorably on the attributes and TOKNOWYOUISTOLOVEYOU 489 whether or not the couple divorced during the first 4 years of Table5 marriage,controllingforinitialmaritalsatisfaction.Anegative(cid:3) AssociationsBetweenSpouses’PerceptionsofTheirPartners’ 11 wouldindicatethatspouseswithmorepositiveperceptionsabout AttributesandTheirMaritalOutcomesOver4Years(Study1) their partner were less likely to divorce. In Equation 5, (cid:2) indi- catestheslopecalculatedforeachspouseinEquation1.In1jother Gender (cid:3) SE t(79) Effectsizer words, (cid:2) captures the extent to which spouses’ perceptions 1j Associationsbetweenthepositivityofspouses’perceptionsanddivorce agreed with their partners’ self-perceptions, and (cid:3) captures the 21 association between spouses’ accuracy and whether or not the Husbands (cid:2).66 .51 (cid:2)1.32 .15 coupledivorced,controllingforinitialmaritalsatisfaction.Aneg- Wives .05 .62 (cid:2)0.08 .01 ative(cid:3) wouldindicatethatspouseswithamoreaccurateviewof 21 Associationsbetweenspouses’specificaccuracyanddivorce theirpartners’attributeswerelesslikelytodivorce.Byestimating these two equations simultaneously, the HLM program estimates Husbands .07 .15 0.47 .05 the association between spouses’ accuracy and their marital out- Wives (cid:2).29 .12 (cid:2)2.92* .32 comes, controlling for the association between the positivity of *p(cid:3).05. theirperceptionsandtheirmaritaloutcomes. As seen in Table 5, the general positivity of spouses’ percep- tions was not significantly associated with marital outcomes for husbands or for wives. Among these globally happy couples, thepartner’sspecificattributesforallcouples.Forwives,specific viewingapartner’sspecificattributesfavorablywasnotassociated accuracyhadimplicationsformarriageevenwhencontrollingfor with whether or not the couple divorced during the first years of the positivity of their specific perceptions. Among these highly marriage. However, spouses’ agreement with their partners’ self- satisfied wives, there was a marginal tendency for wives who viewswasassociatedwithmaritaloutcomesforwives,thoughnot agreed with their partners’ self-perceived traits and abilities to forhusbands.Controllingforinitialsatisfactionandthepositivity provide their partners with better quality support as judged by of specific perceptions, when wives displayed a more accurate independent observers, providing some initial evidence that both perceptionoftheirhusbands’self-viewsonthespecificattributes, loveandaccuracymaybenecessaryforpositivesupportprovision. thecouplewassignificantlylesslikelytodivorceduringthe4-year Also, when wives had a more accurate view of their husbands’ period. Further analyses were conducted to determine whether specificqualities,thecouplewaslesslikelytodivorceduringthe wives’supportivebehaviorsmaymediatetheassociationbetween first4yearsofmarriage,indicatingthatloveatthegloballevelmay wives’ accuracy and marital dissolution. However, evidence for beevenmorelastingwhenbasedonaccuracyatthespecificlevel. mediationwasnotfoundinthecurrentstudy. Several factors, however, limit interpretations of the current findings. First, the current study did not directly examine the processesthroughwhichspecificaccuracymayinfluencerelation- Discussion of Study 1 ship outcomes. For instance, as mentioned, theories of identity In line with prior research on newly married couples, the ma- jority of couples in the current study indicated that they were extremelyhappywiththemarriageandthattheyheldtheirpartner 2Toensurethatitisaccuracyatthespecificlevelandnotjustaccuracy inthehighestregard.2Onaverage,thesespousesalsodisplayeda in general that is associated with better outcomes, it is necessary to examinespouses’agreementwiththeirpartners’self-viewsonthemeasure relativelyaccurateviewoftheirpartners’self-perceivedtraitsand ofglobalworthaswell.However,thedegreeofskewnessinthemeasure abilities. However, results reveal significant variability in the ofglobalworthmayleadtodifficultiesininterpretingtheresults.Nearly extent of this accuracy across partners, such that some spouses allspousesratedtheirpartnersextremelypositivelyontheglobalmeasure. agreed with their partners’ self-perceived specific qualities more Similarly,mostspousesratedthemselveshighlyonthemeasureaswell. than others. Thus, though couples were almost uniformly happy Thus,whetherspouseswereaccurateintheirperceptionsoftheirpartners witheachotherattheleveloftheirglobalperceptions,thispositive wastiedtohowpositivelypartnersratetheirownself-esteem.Whereasa globalviewofthepartnerwasnotgroundedinanaccurateviewof spousewithhighself-esteemwouldhaveanaccuratepartner,aspousewith lowself-esteemwouldhaveaninaccuratepartner.Asaresult,itisdifficult todeterminewhetherthepartner’saccuracyorthespouse’sownlevelof Table4 self-esteem may be driving any effect. Nevertheless, for the interested AssociationsBetweenSpouses’PerceptionsofTheirPartners’ reader, we did examine the within-couple association between spouses’ perceptionsofthepartnerandpartners’self-perceptionsacrossthe10items AttributesandTheirSupportProvision(Study1) of the measure of global worth (see Equation 1). Then, parallel to the Gender (cid:3) SE t(79) Effectsizer analysesusingthemeasureofspecificattributes,spouses’supportprovi- sion(seeEquations2and3)andwhetherthecoupledivorced(seeEqua- Associationsbetweenthepositivityofspouses’perceptionsandsupport tions4and5)wereenteredatthebetween-subjectsleveloftheanalyses. Resultsindicatethatforbothhusbandsandwives,havingamoreaccurate Husbands (cid:2).76 .66 (cid:2)1.15 .13 viewofthepartner’sglobalworthwasnotassociatedwithspouses’support Wives (cid:2).69 .92 (cid:2)0.75 .09 provisionduringtheinteractions,(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:2).12,SE(cid:1).15,t(77)(cid:1)(cid:2)0.80,ns, and (cid:3)(cid:1) (cid:2).08, SE (cid:1) .14, t(77) (cid:1) (cid:2)0.57, ns, respectively, or with the Associationsbetweenspouses’specificaccuracyandsupport couple’slikelihoodofdivorce,(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:2).16,SE(cid:1).10,t(77)(cid:1)(cid:2)1.6,ns,and Husbands .08 .22 0.36 .04 (cid:3)(cid:1).15,SE(cid:1).08,t(77)(cid:1)1.9,ns,respectively.Consistentwithamodel Wives .31 .19 1.81† .20 of global adoration and specific accuracy, initial evidence suggests the importanceofaccuracyformaritalwell-beingmaybeconfinedtothelevel †p(cid:3).10. ofspouses’specificperceptions.
Description:The list of books you might like
