Carolina at Chapel Hill A theory of accommodation processes is advanced, and the results of 6 studies are reported. Accommodation refers to the willingness, when a partner has engaged in a potentially destructive act, to inhibit impulses to react destructively and instead react constructively. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that accommodation is lower under conditions of reduced social concern and lower interdependence. Studies 3,4, and 5 revealed that accommodation is associated with greater satisfaction, commitment, investment size, centrality of relationship, psychological femininity, and partner perspective taking and with poorer quality alternatives. Commitment plays a fairly strong role in mediating willingness to accommodate. Study 6 showed that couple functioning is associated with greater joint and mutual tendencies to inhibit destructive reactions. Study 6 also demonstrated that self-reports of accommodation are related to relevant behavioral measures. ' Giles and his colleagues (Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987; Giles & Smith, 1979) developed a model of communicative behavior termed speech accommodation theory. These authors use the term accommodation to refer to convergence and divergence processes in adapting to another's speech patterns. It should be noted that their usage differs somewhat from our own. Dictionary definitions of the term include "to bring into agreement or concord, to reconcile"; "to provide with somethingdesired, as a helpful service"; "to give consideration to"; and "to adapt oneself." Our use of accommodation is consistent with these definitions of the construct.

Two studies used a thought-listing technique to examine perceived superiority, or the inclination to regard one's own relationship as better than (and not as bad as) others' relationships. Consistent with the claim that this is a motivated phenomenon--and motivated in part by strong commitment--Study 1 revealed that (a) tendencies toward perceived superiority and (b) the commitment-superiority link are both strongest given psychologically threatening instructions and weakest given accuracy instructions (control instructions are intermediate). Consistent with the claim that this phenomenon serves a functional purpose, Study 2 revealed that earlier perceived superiority predicts later relationship status (persisted vs. ended) and increases over time in dyadic adjustment. Also, commitment accounts for unique variance in perceived superiority beyond self-esteem.The beliefs individuals hold about themselves tend to be somewhat more positive than a strictly veridical view of the world can support. Research regarding the self has identified three primary forms of positive illusion, demonstrating that we exhibit excessively positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control, and unrealistic optimism regarding the future (for reviews, see Taylor & Brown, 1988;Wood, 1989). The empirical literature reveals parallel phenomena in close relationships, demonstrating that we exhibit excessively positive evaluations of our partners and relationships, exaggerated belief in the controllability of our relationships, and unrealistic optimism regarding the future of our involvements (Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991;Martz et al., 1998;Murray & Holmes, 1993, 1997 The present research examines a phenomenon termed perceived superiority, which is defined as the inclination to regard one's own relationship as both better than and not as bad as other people's relationships: This work is based on the assumption that we do not experience our relationships in a vacuum: Although beliefs about a relationship are shaped in part by the good and bad properties of the relationship per se, beliefs are also socially defined. That is, we also understand and experience our involvements in relation to the beliefs we hold about the good and bad properties of other people's involvements.The conceptual model guiding our analysis of this phenomenon rests on three primary assertions. First, we propose that belief systems are subject to motivated processing, suggesting that individuals exhibit perceived superiority in part because they need to regard their relationships favorably. Second, we propose that commitment is a central variable in ongoing relationships, suggesting that strong commitment at least partially accounts for the inclination toward perceived superiority. Third, we suggest that perceived superiority serves a functional purpose, representing a habit of thought that supports couple well-being.Our work extends the existing literature in several respects. To begin with, our method of assessing perceived superiority examines naturally occurring...

We conducted four studies that pertained to excuses given for a broken social contract. In an initial field investigation, participants recalled occasions in which they had given true and false reasons for not fulfilling a social obligation. Communicated reasons tended to be external to the person, uncontrollable, and unintentional (e.g., "My car broke down"), whereas withheld reasons tended to be internal, controllable, and either intentional (e.g., "I did not want to go") or unintentional (e.g., "I forgot"). The external uncontrollable excuses were anticipated to lessen the anger of the wronged party. In a subsequent simulation study, excuses based on the categories detected in Experiment 1 were manipulated and related to anger ratings. The same pattern of results was displayed, with intent and negligence provoking the highest anger ratings. The final two studies involved laboratory manipulation of a communicated reason for coming late to an experiment. In Experiment 3, a confederate conveyed either an internal controllable, an external uncontrollable, or no reason for making a subject wait, whereas in Experiment 4, subjects were detained and created their own good, bad, any, or no excuse for being tardy, which was communicated to a second, waiting subject. A consistent pattern of good excuse/external uncontrollable reason and bad excuse/internal controllable reason was displayed; offering no excuse resulted in the same judgments as giving a poor excuse. Relative to the external uncontrollable reasons, internal controllable excuses for being late augmented aversive emotional reactions, increased negative personality ratings, and resulted in a desire for no further social contact.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Interdependence theory identifies level of dependence and mutuality of dependence as two key properties of interdependent relationships. In ongoing relationships, these structural properties are subjectively experienced in terms of commitment–dependence level is experienced as greater or lesser commitment level, and mutuality of dependence is experienced as greater or lesser perceived mutuality in partners’commitment levels. We examined the associations of these variables with couple well‐being using data from two three‐wave longitudinal studies. One study examined partners in dating relationships and the second study examined partners in marital relationships. Consistent with predictions, both level of commitment and perceived mutuality of commitment accounted for unique variance in couple well‐being: Couples exhibited greater adjustment to the degree that the partners were highly committed to their relationship and to the degree that their commitment levels were mutual. Mediation analyses revealed that the association of mutuality of commitment with couple well‐being is partially mediated by negative affect (e.g., anxiety, guilt) and partially to wholly mediated by trust level; perceived mutuality of power is not a reliable mediator of this association.

The literature regarding self‐other comparisons suggests that self‐enhancing perceptions are prevalent, including forms of “illusion” such as excessively positive self‐evaluation, unrealistic optimism, and exaggerated perceptions of control. Concepts from optimal distinctiveness theory served as the basis for two experiments examining whether illusion functions similarly when the context of evaluation involves a relationship. In both experiments participants rated themselves, the best friend, and the average other—or their own romantic relationships, the best friend's relationship, and the relationship of the average other–using scales measuring positivity of evaluation, optimism regarding the future, and perceptions of control. In both experiments, participants exhibited centrality‐based differentiation, rating targets more favorably to the degree that the target was more central to their social identity. Patterns of differentiation differed for the two contexts: In the individual context, participants differentiated themselves and their friends from the average other. In the relationship context, participants differentiated their own relationships from the relationships of friends and average others. Also, participants rated individuals as more controllable than relationships. Participants in Experiment 2 provided information regarding potential predictors of illusion. Analyses of these data suggest that favorable centrality‐based differentiation may be partially accounted for by impression management, global self‐esteem (particularly in the individual context), and commitment level (particularly in the relationship context).