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 ϭ .47) and positive mean-level bias (r ϭ .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.

Agreement and understanding about honesty and deception rules in romantic relationships

“…Deception literature adds that ambiguity is partly inherent to notions of truthfulness and deceit. Interpersonal perception research identifies sources of accuracy and bias in relational judgments that underlie or undermine consensus and impact compatibility, albeit in complex ways (see Cuperman, Howland, Ickes, & Simpson, 2011;Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). Thus, the literature studies provide complementary accounts of the factors affecting rule consensus and relationship conflict.…”

“…Indeed, a number of studies show a link between agreement and relational harmony ). However, research on understanding is mixed (Cuperman et al, 2011;Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). Greater understanding is even associated with disharmony in some contexts, as understanding can reflect increased awareness of conflict-provoking beliefs of the partner (Sillars, 2011).…”

“…There is abundant evidence that people project their experience to others; moreover, projection can be a functional basis for understanding others when there is actual agreement (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;). However, projection can also yield inferential errors that are not self-correcting, as seen in the pervasive tendency by intimate couples to overestimate agreement (Sillars & Scott, 1983).…”

Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy.

“…Perceivers viewed the emotion rating scale after the first teasing exchange. The order of teasing interactions was randomized and we observed no order effects (p = .664).Empathic accuracy scores were created by computing the absolute value of the difference between participant estimates of emotion and partner self-reports during each of the conversations, where lower scores indicate greater accuracy and a score of zero indicates complete agreement (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). Across all five experiments, these scores were averaged across all emotion items for an overall metric of empathic accuracy, as in prior research (e.g., Kraus, Côté, & Keltner, 2010).…”

Understanding the links between social ties and health

“…One potential antecedent process from relationship science that we have recently begun testing is related to partner knowledge (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). We have been examining a specific form of partner knowledge that we coined ''attitude familiarity.''…”