ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Heterosexual couples (N = 57) discussed features about each other they wanted to change. During a review of their recorded discussions, for each 30 s of interaction, perceivers provided judgments of their partner's regard, and partners reported their actual regard for the perceiver. The authors simultaneously assessed the extent to which perceivers' over- or underestimated their partner's regard (mean-level bias) and tracked their partner's changing regard across the discussion (tracking accuracy). Perceivers on average tended to underestimate their partner's regard (negative mean-level bias) but exhibited substantial tracking accuracy. Bias and accuracy were related; perceivers that were more negatively biased more accurately tracked changes in their partner's regard. Women who were more insecure about their partner's continued regard demonstrated more negative mean-level bias and greater tracking accuracy, whereas more secure women demonstrated more positive bias and lower accuracy. The results indicate that bias and accuracy are shaped by context-relevant goals and motives.
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://psp.sagepub.com/
Bulletin
Personality and Social Psychology
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/5/642
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0146167211432764
2012 38: 642 originally published online 3 January 2012Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Nickola C. Overall, Garth J. O. Fletcher and David A. Kenny
Conflict Discussions
When Bias and Insecurity Promote Accuracy : Mean-Level Bias and Tracking Accuracy in Couples'
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology
can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology BulletinAdditional services and information for
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jan 3, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Apr 16, 2012Version of Record >>
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
38(5) 642 –655
© 2012 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167211432764
http://pspb.sagepub.com
Article
Recent reviews focusing on the veracity of judgments in
romantic relationships have revealed a puzzling bifurcation in
the findings and interpretations (see Fletcher & Boyes, 2008;
Fletcher & Kerr, 2010; Gagné & Lydon, 2004). An array of
findings reveals the biased, rose-colored way in which inti-
mates judge their partners and relationships. For example, inti-
mates typically see their partner’s attributes more positively
than their partner views himself or herself (e.g., Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). These “illusions” are widely inter-
preted as serving to keep doubt and pessimism at bay in the
task of maintaining relationships. However, these same reviews
also document the way in which people’s relationship judg-
ments are tied to reality, typically revealing quite high levels of
accuracy. Despite being positively biased, for example, percep-
tions of the partner also tend to correlate with the partner’s cor-
responding self-perceptions (e.g., Murray et al., 1996).
How can people be both biased and accurate? One sug-
gestion advanced for solving this apparent paradox is that the
overarching accuracy of social judgments can be defined and
assessed in two independent ways, what Fletcher and Kerr
(2010) have termed mean-level bias versus tracking accu-
racy. These authors are not the first to raise this possibility
(e.g., Cronbach, 1955; Funder & Colvin, 1997; Kenny &
Albright, 1987), and a range of technical terms has been
advanced to capture the distinction. Conceptually, they all
reflect the difference between (a) over- or undershooting
some benchmark, such as ratings provided by the partner or
the individual’s own ratings provided at earlier time points
(mean-level bias) versus (b) the correlation between a set of
judgments, such as ratings across several attributes or across
time, and the corresponding benchmark (tracking accuracy).
Mean-level bias and tracking accuracy can be indepen-
dent. For example, Karney and Frye (2002) gathered rela-
tionship satisfaction ratings eight times across a 4-year
period and then at the 4-year mark asked participants to ret-
rospectively judge their satisfaction at each earlier time
point. Individuals recalled their relationship satisfaction had
recently improved more than revealed by their prior self-
reports (a positive mean-level bias), but their judgments
regarding the trajectory of their satisfaction across time were
432764PSPXXX10.1177/0146167211432764Overa
ll et al.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
1University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
2Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
3University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Nickola C. Overall, Department of Psychology, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Email: n.overall@auckland.ac.nz
When Bias and Insecurity Promote
Accuracy: Mean-Level Bias and Tracking
Accuracy in Couples’ Conflict Discussions
Nickola C. Overall1, Garth J. O. Fletcher2, and David A. Kenny3
Abstract
Heterosexual couples (N = 57) discussed features about each other they wanted to change. During a review of their recorded
discussions, for each 30 s of interaction, perceivers provided judgments of their partner’s regard, and partners reported their
actual regard for the perceiver. The authors simultaneously assessed the extent to which perceivers’ over- or underestimated
their partner’s regard (mean-level bias) and tracked their partner’s changing regard across the discussion (tracking accuracy).
Perceivers on average tended to underestimate their partner’s regard (negative mean-level bias) but exhibited substantial
tracking accuracy. Bias and accuracy were related; perceivers that were more negatively biased more accurately tracked
changes in their partner’s regard. Women who were more insecure about their partner’s continued regard demonstrated
more negative mean-level bias and greater tracking accuracy, whereas more secure women demonstrated more positive bias
and lower accuracy. The results indicate that bias and accuracy are shaped by context-relevant goals and motives.
Keywords
mean-level bias, tracking accuracy, perceived regard, conflict, insecurity
Received April 8, 2011; revision accepted November 10, 2011
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 643
also relatively close to the actual changes in their relationship
satisfaction (tracking accuracy; also see Sprecher, 1999).
Thus, it seems possible to cling to relationship illusions and
track relationship reality simultaneously.
A recent meta-analysis by Fletcher and Kerr (2010) of
judgments in romantic relationships suggests this pattern is
not unusual, revealing robust overall effect sizes for tracking
accuracy (98 studies, r = .47) and positive mean-level bias
(48 studies, r = .09). The studies reviewed by Fletcher and
Kerr (2010), however, either examined mean-level bias or
tracking accuracy or used different measures and bench-
marks to assess bias and accuracy. In addition, we know little
about the links between bias and accuracy because prior
work has computed mean-level bias and tracking accuracy in
separate analyses. A recent statistical innovation by West and
Kenny (2011) as part of their truth and bias model, however,
allows mean-level bias and tracking accuracy to be assessed
in a single analysis using the same measures and benchmarks
and the association between bias and accuracy calculated.
Applying the novel procedures developed by West and
Kenny (2011), in the current study we addressed prior limita-
tions by assessing judgments of the partner’s regard multiple
times across couple’s conflict discussions. Using the partner’s
actual regard as the benchmark, we simultaneously assessed
mean-level bias (the degree to which judgments over- or
underestimated the partner’s actual regard) and tracking accu-
racy (the degree to which judgments tracked the partner’s
changing regard across the discussion) for both partners and
examined the degree to which bias and accuracy were related.
Perceptions of the Partner’s
Regard During Conflict Discussions
We focused on perceptions of the partner’s regard because
research has increasingly established that judgments concern-
ing whether partners understand and care for the self are
pivotal determinants of relationship satisfaction and success
(Murray & Holmes, 2009; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). The
important and unique role of these judgments was illustrated
in Fletcher and Kerr’s (2010) meta-analysis. The 16 studies
assessing judgments of individual-level partner attributes,
such as attractiveness or personality traits, revealed the pro-
totypical positive mean-level bias. That is, participants gener-
ally rated their partners as more attractive and viewed their
personality more positively than their partners’ self-perceptions
of the corresponding attributes. In contrast, the 17 studies
examining judgments of the partner’s beliefs and behaviors
toward the self, like the partner’s support, forgiveness, and
regard, revealed overall levels of negative mean-level bias.
Across these samples, participants tended to underestimate
their partner’s positivity toward the self.
Fletcher and Kerr (2010) explained this pattern in terms
of error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000);
namely, the costs of overestimating the partner’s regard may
offset the default adoption of positive bias. If intimates
overestimate the degree to which the partner cares for and
regards the self, this could lead to complacency, lack of effort
in building and maintaining relationship satisfaction, result-
ing increases in the partner’s disappointment and negative
regard, and unexpected rejection. For example, when indi-
viduals neither recognize nor attempt to alter self-attributes
that their partner regards negatively, their partner becomes
increasingly dissatisfied and resentful (Overall, Fletcher, &
Simpson, 2006).
In the current research, we examined judgments of the
partner’s regard during conflict-related discussions when one
partner was targeting the other for change. This context con-
tains a salient risk of rejection, particularly for the person who
is being targeted for change. According to the risk regulation
model (Murray & Holmes, 2009; Murray, Holmes, & Collins,
2006), the heightened risk of rejection should automatically
trigger assessment of the partner’s regard. For this reason, we
examined the degree to which perceptions of the partner’s
regard by the target of change (the perceiver) were biased or
accurate. The costs of overestimating the partner’s regard in
this context, such as intensifying the partner’s dissatisfaction
and potential rejection, should increase the degree to which
perceivers are cautious in their judgments. Thus, we predicted
that perceivers would generally underestimate how positively
their partner was regarding the self—an overall negative
mean-level bias.
The risk of rejection and diagnostic nature of the partner’s
behavior during conflict also amplifies the importance that
assessments of the partner’s regard be accurate. In general,
therefore, we expected that perceivers would be strongly
motivated to accurately understand their partner’s regard and
show high levels of tracking accuracy (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;
Gagné & Lydon, 2004). Prior research does show that inti-
mates demonstrate good levels of accuracy when judging
their partners’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions during con-
flict (known as empathic accuracy). The typical paradigm
involves intimates reviewing their problem-solving discus-
sions and at specific points in the interaction describing what
they think their partner was thinking or feeling at that time
(e.g., Thomas, Fletcher, & Lange, 1997). Independent observ-
ers then rate how accurately these descriptions capture the
thoughts and feelings recorded by the partner at equivalent
time points. The 14 studies using this type of approach in
Fletcher and Kerr’s (2010) meta-analysis revealed very high
levels of empathic accuracy (r = .58).
We used a modified approach in this study because the
empathic accuracy paradigm does not provide separate indi-
ces of mean-level bias and tracking accuracy or provide a
way of testing how mean-level bias and tracking accuracy
are related. Participants reviewed their recorded discussions,
and for every 30 s of interaction perceivers rated how they
thought their partner regarded them, whereas their partners
rated the regard they felt for the perceiver. This procedure
allowed us to test the degree to which perceivers’ judgments
of their partner’s regard were, on average, lower or higher
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
644 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
than the regard actually reported by their partner (mean-level
bias) as well as the degree to which perceivers tracked the
ups and downs of their partner’s changing regard across each
30-s segment of the discussion (tracking accuracy). This is a
good way of assessing tracking accuracy because it indexes
the extent to which perceivers recognize shifts in their part-
ner’s regard throughout the discussion.
Using West and Kenny’s (2011) novel techniques, we also
examined whether bias and accuracy were related. That is,
when perceivers are more accurate, do they show more or
less mean-level bias? In their meta-analysis, Fletcher and
Kerr (2010) reported there was no correlation between the
effect sizes of mean-level bias and tracking accuracy (N = 38
studies that used the same variables and samples to calculate
separate indexes of bias and accuracy). The question remains,
however, whether mean-level bias covaries with tracking
accuracy within the individuals making those judgments and
in what direction. Our reasoning above suggests that the
risks that produce cautious underestimation of the partner’s
regard should also motivate perceivers to accurately assess
that regard, in particular identifying if and when their part-
ner’s regard is diminishing. Accordingly, we predicted that
perceivers who were more negatively biased would also
demonstrate greater tracking accuracy.
The Moderating Role of
Security in the Partner’s Regard
Murray and colleagues (Murray et al., 2006; Murray &
Holmes, 2009) have also shown that the risk regulation sys-
tem motivating assessment of the partner’s regard in rejection-
risk situations is sensitive to the general, cross-situational
context of the relationship as indexed by perceptions of how
the partner generally values the self. In their model, general
security in the partner’s continued regard acts as a barometer
of the overall risk of rejection. For those who chronically
feel less valued by a specific partner, the possibility and
consequences of rejection are more acute and so motivate
more sensitive detection of rejection and vigilant monitoring
of the partner’s current acceptance. As a result, during con-
flict discussions, intimates who are more insecure in their
partner’s continued regard should be more likely to underes-
timate their partner’s current regard but also track changes in
their partner’s regard more accurately.
Research supports the proposition that insecurity in the
partner’s regard is associated with adopting a more cautious
approach in assessing the partner’s acceptance. Intimates
who are less confident about their partner’s regard feel more
rejected on days following relationship conflict (Murray,
Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003). Dispositions that capture
expectations of rejection, such as attachment anxiety, are
also associated with feeling less valued than the actual regard
shown by the partner (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2004).
Consistent with these findings, we predicted that intimates
who were more insecure in their partner’s regard would
exhibit greater negative mean-level bias when judging their
partner’s current regard within conflict discussions.
The greater perceived risk of rejection during relationship-
threatening interactions should also result in insecure inti-
mates more vigilantly monitoring or tracking their partner’s
regard. Although prior research has not specifically examined
how general perceptions of the partner’s regard influences
tracking accuracy, a recent investigation of the links between
attachment and empathic accuracy offers support for this pre-
diction. Using the empathic accuracy paradigm described
above, Simpson and colleagues (2011) found that individuals
higher in attachment anxiety, who are chronically anxious
about acceptance, were more accurate in judging their part-
ners’ thoughts and feelings (as rated by observers) during
relationship-threatening discussions. Their procedure, how-
ever, could not examine whether anxious individuals were
also negatively biased in these judgments, or the degree to
which bias and accuracy were related.
Although dispositional measures of security, such as
attachment anxiety, are likely to shape bias and accuracy in
the manner proposed, the risk regulation model (Murray et al.,
2006; Murray & Holmes, 2009) emphasizes the unique role of
partner-specific expectations. For example, attachment secu-
rity varies across specific relationships (e.g., Overall, Fletcher,
& Friesen, 2003) and is powerfully shaped by perceptions of
the partner’s caring (e.g., La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, &
Deci, 2000). Security in a specific partner’s regard is also
associated with important outcomes, such as reactions to con-
flict, above and beyond attachment security (see Murray et al.,
2006; Murray & Holmes, 2009). Moreover, security in the
partner’s continued regard can override dispositional insecuri-
ties when coping with relationship stressors (e.g., Rholes,
Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001). Thus, guided by the risk
regulation model (Murray et al., 2006; Murray & Holmes,
2009), in the current research we focused on how partner-spe-
cific security—beliefs about how much the partner generally
values and regards the self—moderated mean-level bias and
tracking accuracy.
Current Research
To summarize, we asked heterosexual couples to engage in
two discussions about ways in which one partner wanted the
other to change. Because the heightened rejection risk for
the target of change should trigger assessment of the part-
ner’s regard, we examined the degree to which perceptions
of the partner’s regard by the target of change (the per-
ceiver) were biased or accurate using the partner’s actual
regard as the benchmark. To do this, after the discussions,
participants reviewed each of their recorded discussions.
For each 30-s interval, perceivers reported judgments of
their partner’s regard and partners rated the regard they
actually felt for the perceiver.
Using procedures outlined by West and Kenny (2011),
we simultaneously assessed mean-level bias (the degree to
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 645
which perceivers over- or underestimated their partner’s
regard across the discussion) and tracking accuracy (the
degree to which perceivers tracked their partner’s changing
regard across the discussion). We predicted that perceivers
would simultaneously demonstrate both negative mean-level
bias and high levels of tracking accuracy. We also explored
whether mean-level bias and tracking accuracy were associ-
ated, predicting that perceivers who displayed more negative
mean-level bias would also show greater tracking accuracy.
Finally, we assessed whether the perceiver’s relationship-
specific security in the partner’s regard moderated bias and
accuracy, hypothesizing that both negative mean-level bias
and tracking accuracy would be highest for perceivers who
were chronically more insecure about their partner’s contin-
ued regard and acceptance.
Method
Participants
A total of 57 heterosexual couples responded to paper and
electronic announcements posted across a New Zealand
university inviting couples to participate in research investi-
gating relationship communication. All notices informed
that couples would be recorded discussing aspects of their
relationship they would like to change, and detailed infor-
mation on the study procedures was provided on initial
contact. Participants ranged from 18 to 37 years of age (M =
21.0, SD = 3.1). Of couples 46% were cohabiting or married,
and 83% of the remainder classified their relationship as
serious. Relationship length ranged from 1 to 6.5 years (M =
2.5, SD = 1.5). Couples were paid NZ$70 for a 3-hr session.
Procedure
Participants completed the questionnaires described below
and then identified and ranked in order of importance three
aspects of their partner that they wanted improved that they
understood would be discussed with their partner. The most
important ranked feature was selected for discussion. After a
short warm-up discussion, each couple had two discussions
that were unobtrusively recorded. One discussion involved the
feature the women wanted to change about their male partner;
in the other discussion, the woman was targeted for change.
Order of discussions was counterbalanced across couples.
After both discussions, partners were directed to separate
rooms where they reviewed their discussions and reported on
their thoughts and feelings during the discussion. Review
procedures assess people’s subjective understanding during
their discussions (see Welsh & Dickson, 2005) and enabled
us to compare perceivers’ judgments of their partner’s regard
with their partner’s actual regard across the discussion.
Participants reviewed their discussions in the order they
occurred. For each discussion, participants stopped the
recording 14 times (every 30 s) and rated a series of items
according to how they remembered thinking and feeling dur-
ing the discussion, not how they thought and felt when review-
ing the recording. For perceivers (targets of change), items
assessed beliefs about their partner’s feelings of regard toward
them and their own negative affect during that 30-s segment
of interaction. For partners (agents of change), these items
assessed the degree to which they felt regard for the perceiver
and their own negative affect within each segment.
Measures
Own regard for partner. Prior research has shown that inti-
mates evaluate their partner by comparing partner percep-
tions to chronically accessible ideal standards, the most
critical being warmth and trustworthiness qualities, such as
understanding, supportive, and sensitive (e.g., Fletcher,
Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). Using the items generated
by Fletcher et al. (1999), we assessed participants’ general
regard for their partner by asking them to rate the degree to
which their partner matched their warmth or trustworthiness
ideals (1 = does not match my ideals at all, 7 = completely
matches my ideals). This measure reveals unique and more
robust associations with relationship evaluations and behav-
iors than the simple positive or negative perceptions often
used to assess partner regard (see Overall et al., 2006).
Security in the partner’s regard. We used the same approach
to assess security in the partner’s regard. Murray and col-
leagues (Murray et al., 2006; Murray & Holmes, 2009) argue
that the common diagnostic that affords security in the part-
ner’s continued regard is the perception that a partner values
the qualities they bring into the relationship. Accordingly, in
their research program, general perceptions of the partner’s
continued regard is often assessed by asking participants to
rate how positively their partner views them on important
interpersonal qualities, such as “kind and affectionate” and
“patient” (e.g., Murray et al., 2003; Murray, Holmes, Griffin,
Bellavia, & Rose, 2001). Based on our research that has
shown that partner evaluations involve a comparison between
perceptions and ideal standards (see above), we asked par-
ticipants to rate the degree to which they believed they
matched their partner’s ideals across the relationship-relevant
attributes that people identify as most important in a romantic
partner (e.g., understanding, supportive, sensitive; 1 = do not
match my partner’s ideals at all, 7 = completely match my
partner’s ideals; Overall et al., 2006; Overall & Fletcher,
2010). Prior research using this scale has shown, consistent
with the risk regulation model, that greater insecurity in
meeting the partner’s expectations undermines relationship
quality and reduces self-evaluations across time, whereas
more positive inferences that the partner regards these self-
attributes positively leads to greater relationship quality and
more stable, positive self-perceptions (e.g., Overall et al.,
2006; Overall & Fletcher, 2010).1
Relationship satisfaction. Participants rated five items
describing their levels of satisfaction with their relationship
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
646 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
using the measure developed by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew
(1998) (e.g., “I feel satisfied with our relationship,” “My
relationship makes me very happy”; 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree).
Self-esteem. The 10-item Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem
Scale was used to measure global feelings of self-worth (e.g.,
“On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; 1 = strongly dis-
agree, 7 = strongly agree).
Assessing perceived regard and actual regard during the dis-
cussion. The items participants rated during the review proce-
dure were designed to assess (a) the target’s judgments of
their partner’s regard and (b) the partner’s actual regard
toward the target. When watching discussions in which they
were the target of change, participants were asked to con-
sider how they thought their partner was thinking and feel-
ing during the discussion. Thus, across analyses, targets of
change are the perceivers of their partner’s regard. To assess
perceivers’ judgments of their partner’s regard, for each 30-s
segment, participants rated the degree to which their partner
“cared for me,” “understood me,” “accepted me,” “valued
me,” and felt “close” and “intimate” (1 = not at all, 7 =
extremely; average α = .94). Perceivers also rated their own
negative affect, including how much they felt “angry,” “frus-
trated,” “hurt,” and “sad” (average α = .90).
When reviewing discussions in which they were the agent
of change, for each 30-s segment of the discussion partici-
pants rated their regard for the targeted partner (i.e., the per-
ceiver) during that part of the discussion, including “cared
for my partner,” “understood my partner,” “accepted my
partner,” “valued my partner,” “close,” and “intimate” (1 =
not at all, 7 = extremely). These ratings were combined to
index the partner’s actual regard of the perceiver within
each segment of the discussion (average α = .92). Partners
also rated the degree to which they felt “angry,” “frustrated,”
“hurt,” and “sad,” which were combined to index their nega-
tive affect (average α = .88).
Discussed features. For descriptive purposes, we categorized
the features targeted in the discussions. Approximately two
thirds composed interpersonal qualities and behaviors, such as
commitment, trust, and intimacy (36%) and reactions during
times of stress or conflict (28%). Less relationship-oriented
dispositions such as self-esteem and social confidence (16%)
and motivation and ambition (9%) were also commonly tar-
geted. The remaining issues included bad habits and health
behaviors (3%), desires for independence (5%), family rela-
tionships (2%), and religion (1%).
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations across
the questionnaire measures. Examining the across-discussion
aggregates of the repeated measures variables, partners
typically reported moderate to high levels of regard (M =
4.98, SD = 1.44) and low levels of negative affect (M = 1.97,
SD = 1.31). Perceivers judged similar levels of the partner’s
regard (M = 4.93, SD = 1.46) and also reported low negative
affect across the discussion (M = 1.92, SD = 1.26). However,
assessing whether perceivers were biased or accurate
requires comparing the perceivers’ judgments of the part-
ners’ regard with the partners’ actual regard within each
couple across each discussion.
Are Judgments of the Partner’s
Regard Biased, Accurate, or Both?
We used West and Kenny’s (2011) truth and bias model to
conceptualize and test empirically the degree to which judg-
ments of the partner’s regard during couples’ discussions
were biased and accurate. In the truth and bias model, mean-
level bias and accuracy are modeled simultaneously and,
because we had repeated assessments across discussions, the
model allowed us to examine whether accuracy and bias
were related.
Our data have a nested structure, with perceivers and part-
ners multiple ratings of regard across the 14 discussion time
points (Level 1) nested within dyad (Level 2). Accordingly,
we used multilevel modeling methods for analyzing repeated
measures data within dyads (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).
Following the procedures outlined in West and Kenny’s
(2011) truth and bias model, we first modeled the associations
across the perceivers’ judgments of their partner’s regard and
the partners’ actual reported regard (the Level 1 repeated
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Across Questionnaire Measures
Women Men
Questionnaire measure M SD αM SD α1 2 3 4
1. Own regard for partner 5.77 1.04 .88 5.99 0.91 .88 .40* .40* .24* .53*
2. Security in the partner’s regard 5.50 0.92 .85 5.32 1.01 .89 .53* .29* .23.50*
3. Self-esteem 5.21 1.06 .90 5.44 1.02 .88 .21* .28* .15 .23
4. Relationship satisfaction 5.86 0.93 .87 5.91 0.91 .83 .63* .57* .27* .45*
Correlations above the diagonal are for women; correlations below the diagonal are for men; bold correlations on the diagonal are between men and
women.
p < .10. *p < .05.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 647
measures variables) to test the degree to which judgments of
the partner’s regard were biased and accurate.
The basic model is as follows:
Jij = b0j + b1j(partner j’s actual regard at time point i) + eij (1)
In this equation, the judgment of perceiver j of his or her
partner’s regard (J) at a particular point in the discussion (i)
is a function of perceiver’s j intercept or b0, the effect of the
partner’s actual partner regard (b1) for that point in the dis-
cussion, and an error term (eij) representing random error and
all other unmeasured biases that influence the perceivers’
judgments. We note that the model is estimated separately
for the man and the woman and that the intercept and the
effect of partner regard are averaged across perceivers
(Kenny et al., 2006; also see below).
As specified in West and Kenny’s (2011) truth and bias
model, the perceivers’ judgments of the partners’ regard (the
outcome variable) were centered on the partners’ actual
regard by subtracting the grand mean of all the partners’
regard (i.e., mean across dyads) from the perceivers’ judg-
ment at each time point. This centering strategy is directly
comparable to mean-level bias (West & Kenny, 2011) because
the intercept represents the difference between the mean of
the partners’ actual regard and the mean of the perceivers’
judgments of that regard. Thus, the average of this coefficient
across perceivers tests whether perceivers’ judgments dif-
fered from the partners’ actual ratings across the discussion
and specified the direction of that bias; thus, West and Kenny
(2011) call this directional bias. A negative intercept would
indicate that perceivers were generally underestimating the
partners’ regard (i.e., negative mean-level bias). Alternatively,
a positive average intercept would indicate that perceivers
were generally overestimating the partners’ regard (i.e., posi-
tive mean-level bias).
The predictor variable (partner’s actual regard) was
grand-mean centered across dyads and time points, and its
coefficient assesses accuracy—the degree to which perceiv-
ers’ judgments were influenced by the partners’ actual regard.
A positive coefficient would indicate that perceivers were
accurately tracking the degree to which the partners’ regard
varied across the discussion.
All analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure
in SPSS 18. The SPSS syntax is provided in the appendix,
which specifies a multilevel model in which dyad is at Level
2 and ratings of perceived and actual regard across the dis-
cussion are at Level 1. Accounting for the dependence in the
data across dyad members, the model estimated the parame-
ters from Equation 1 twice, once for the men and once for the
women (using a no-intercept model; see Kenny et al., 2006,
and the appendix). The model allowed the error variances to
differ for men and women and allowed errors for a given
time to be correlated (see the last line of syntax in the appen-
dix). The model allowed mean-level bias (b0j) and accuracy
(b1j) to vary by male and female perceivers for each dyad
(i.e., be random variables), and we estimated the correlation
between these effects.
We report the results for men and women in Table 2.
However, the reader should attend to the fixed effects pooled
across men and women (shown in the final column of
Table 2) when there were no statistically significant gender
differences (see Kenny et al., 2006, for how to estimate
effects across men and women). Examining the fixed
effects of bias and accuracy (see first rows of Table 2), the
average intercept for both men and women was negative
and did not significantly differ across men and women,
and pooled across men and women was marginally sig-
nificant (p = .07). The statistically significant coefficients
testing accuracy also indicated, as predicted, that both men
and women perceivers accurately tracked their partner’s
regard across the discussion. A marginally significant (p =
.08) gender difference indicated that women demonstrated
slightly greater accuracy.
The middle half of Table 2 displays the correlations across
mean-level bias and tracking accuracy, as well as tests of
whether bias and accuracy varied significantly across per-
ceivers. Examining whether accuracy and bias were related
(see correlations between estimates of bias and accuracy in
Table 2), the negative associations for both men and women
suggest that perceivers who more strongly underestimated
their partner’s regard more accurately tracked their partner’s
regard across the discussion.
Examining the variances in bias and accuracy (see the
bottom half of Table 2), the variance in directional (or
mean-level) bias was significantly different from zero for
both men and women revealing that some perceivers are
positively biased and others negatively biased. Assuming
a normal distribution, about 46% of women and 47% of
men were positively biased and 53% and 54% were nega-
tively biased (see West & Kenny, 2011, for formulas).
Similarly, some perceivers were more accurate than oth-
ers, although the variance for accuracy was not statisti-
cally significant for men. We note that, assuming
normality, more than 75% of both men and women have
positive accuracy coefficients.
In sum, as predicted, perceivers tended to be negatively
biased in their judgments of the partner’s regard but never-
theless accurately tracked changes in their partner’s regard
across the discussion. Mean-level bias and tracking accu-
racy were also negatively associated, indicating that per-
ceivers who more strongly underestimated their partner’s
regard across the discussion more accurately tracked
changes in their partner’s regard. Finally, bias and (for
women) accuracy significantly varied across individuals.
This is important because it indicates individual differ-
ences, such as security in the partner’s continued regard,
might predict the degree to which perceivers are biased
and accurate.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
648 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
Does Security in the Partner’s
Regard Predict Bias and Accuracy?
To test whether the perceiver’s general security in the part-
ner’s regard predicted bias and accuracy, security in the
partner’s regard was entered as a predictor of the between-
person variability in mean-level bias and tracking accuracy
(each parameter estimated by Equation 1). In these analyses,
the Level 1 intercept (modeling mean-level bias) and slope
(modeling tracking accuracy) were treated as dependent
variables predicted by individual differences in security in
the partner’s regard modeled at Level 2. The Level 2 equa-
tions are as follows:
b0j = γ00 + γ01(security in the partner’s regard) + u0j (2)
b1j = γ10 + γ11(security in the partner’s regard) + u1j (3)
Equation 2 examines the effect of security in the partner’s
regard (grand-mean centered) on mean-level bias (b0j),
where γ00 represents the Level 2 intercept reflecting average
levels of mean-level bias across perceivers, γ01 is a coeffi-
cient testing whether perceivers’ security in the partner’s
regard is associated with mean-level bias, and u0j represents
individual differences in bias. We predicted that lower secu-
rity in the partner’s regard would be associated with greater
negative mean-level bias.
We simultaneously assessed whether tracking accuracy
varied according to levels of security in the partner’s regard.
Equation 3 gives the cross-level interaction between accu-
racy and perceivers’ partner-specific security. In this equa-
tion, the outcome is the person’s slope coefficient b1j or
tracking accuracy, which is modeled as a function of the
main effect of accuracy (γ10), the moderating effect of
security in the partner’s regard on accuracy (γ11), and an
error term allowing for variation in slopes across perceivers
(u1j). These analyses tested whether security in the partner’s
regard moderated the degree to which perceivers accurately
tracked their partner’s regard across the discussion. We pre-
dicted that perceivers who were less secure would exhibit
greater tracking accuracy.
As before, each equation was estimated twice, once for
women and once for men, but we also present the effects
pooled across men and women and associated tests of gender
differences. The resulting coefficients are shown in Table 3.
Adding perceivers’ partner-specific security into the model
did not substantially alter mean-level bias and tracking accu-
racy. On average, both men and women exhibited negative
mean-level bias, and pooled across men and women this bias
was statistically significant. Thus, controlling for general
security in the partner’s regard, perceivers generally under-
estimated their partner’s regard during the discussion. The
statistically significant effects for accuracy also remained,
showing that both men and women also accurately tracked
changes in their partner’s regard across the discussion.
The effects of security in the partner’s regard on mean-
level bias were positive (i.e., the main effect of perceiver’s
security) and did not significantly differ across men and
women (see bottom half of Table 3), revealing that perceiv-
ers who were generally more insecure in their partner’s
regard judged their partner’s regard during the discussion to
be more negative. The significant cross-level interaction
(last row of Table 3) indicated that security in the partner’s
regard also predicted (i.e., moderated) the degree to which
perceivers were accurately tracking changes in their part-
ner’s regard across the discussion, although this effect sig-
nificantly differed across men and women. Women, but not
Table 2. Estimates Testing Mean-Level Bias and Tracking Accuracy of Perceivers’ Judgments of Their Partner’s Regard During Conflict
Discussions
Perceivers’ judgments of their
partner’s regard during the
discussion
Women perceivers Men perceivers
Gender
differences
Pooled across men and
women
Estimate SE t Estimate SE t t Estimate SE t
Fixed effects of bias and accuracy
Directional (mean-level) bias 0.10 0.14 0.68 0.16 0.13 1.24 0.26 0.12 0.07 1.88
Tracking accuracy 0.29 0.07 3.89* 0.13 0.04 3.03* 1.780.21 0.04 5.01*
Correlations across bias and
accuracy
Wald zWald z
Directional (mean-level) bias
and tracking accuracy
.54 .14 3.88* .39 .22 1.81
Variances in bias and accuracy
Directional (mean-level) bias 1.07 0.22 4.77* 0.86 0.17 5.02*
Tracking accuracy 0.15 0.05 2.79* 0.03 0.02 1.41
p < .10. *p < .05.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 649
men, who were more insecure in their partner’s continued
regard tracked the partner’s within-discussion regard more
accurately.
This interaction is shown in Figure 1, where we plot the
predicted values of perceiver’s judgments of the partner’s
regard during the discussion at low (–1 SD) and high (+1 SD)
levels of the partner’s actual regard during the discussion
(the predictor testing accuracy) for women who were less
(–1 SD) and more (+1 SD) secure in their partner’s continued
regard. Recall that the perceiver’s judgments of the partner’s
regard (on the y axis) are centered on the partners’ actual
regard, so zero represents no mean-level bias, positive values
indicate positive mean-level bias, and negative values indi-
cate negative mean-level bias. The slopes across low versus
high levels of the partner’s actual regard (on the x axis) dem-
onstrate levels of tracking accuracy for women high (top
slope in Figure 1) versus low (bottom slope in Figure 1) in
security.
Women who were generally insecure (low security) dis-
tinguished across moments during the discussion when their
partner was regarding them negatively and moments when
their partner was regarding them more positively—that is,
insecure women demonstrated significant tracking accuracy
(simple slope = 0.48, SE = 0.11, t = 4.55, p < .001). Women
who were more secure, in contrast, retained positively biased
judgments (i.e., above zero) even when the partner’s actual
regard for them became negative during the discussion—that
is, they did not exhibit significant tracking accuracy (slope =
0.10, SE = 0.11, t = 0.91, p = .37).
Figure 1 also highlights that the key difference occurs
when the partner’s actual regard became more negative dur-
ing the discussion. Examining the differences across low
versus high security when the partner’s actual regard was
low (left side of Figure 1), women who were more secure did
not perceive a drop in perceived regard when their partner’s
regard reduced during the discussion, whereas women who
were insecure in their partner’s regard were especially sensi-
tive to these drops (slope = 0.55, SE = 0.18, t = 3.10, p < .01).
In contrast, when partners were evaluating perceivers more
positively during the discussion (right side of Figure 1), there
were no differences in the judgments of women high versus
low in security (slope = 0.19, SE = 0.12, t = 1.61, p = .11).
This pattern indicates that more insecure women demon-
strated greater tracking accuracy specifically because they
accurately detected when their partner’s regard diminished
during the discussion.
The role of assumed similarity. Perceptions of the partner’s
regard might also be shaped by assumed similarity, such that
perceivers assume the partner regards the self in the same
way that perceivers regard their partner (Kenny & Acitelli,
2001). Indeed, as shown in Table 1, own regard for partner
and security in the partner’s regard were strongly correlated.
Analyses examining perceivers’ own partner regard as a pre-
dictor of mean-level bias and tracking accuracy revealed
that women who more negatively regarded their partner
demonstrated more negative bias in their judgments of their
partner’s regard (b = 0.29, t = 2.53, p = .01), but men did not
(b = –0.09, t = –0.74), and perceivers’ own partner regard
did not reduce or enhance accuracy for women or men (bs =
–0.01 and 0.04, p > .42). Importantly, controlling for per-
ceivers’ own regard for their partner did not alter the effects
of women’s security on mean-level bias (b = 0.32, t = 2.26,
p = .03) or tracking accuracy (b = –0.21, t = –2.55, p = .01)
or the parallel nonsignificant effects for men (b = 0.18 and
–0.02, ns).2
Alternative moderator variables. We also wanted to ensure
that the results were not a product of global self or relation-
ship evaluations. Women who were less satisfied were also
more accurate in their judgments of their partner’s regard
(b = –0.14, t = –1.88, p = .07) and relationship satisfaction
and security in the partner’s regard were strongly correlated
(see Table 1). Nevertheless, controlling for relationship satis-
faction only slightly reduced the effects of women’s security
on accuracy (b = –0.17, t = –1.83, p = .07), whereas the
effects of relationship satisfaction were eliminated (b = –0.07,
t = –0.77, p = .45). Despite being correlated with security in
the partner’s regard and own regard for partner (see Table 1),
self-esteem did not predict bias and accuracy or alter the
Table 3. The Effects of Security in the Partner’s Regard on Mean-Level Bias and Tracking Accuracy of Perceivers’ Judgments of Their
Partner’s Regard During Conflict Discussions
Women perceivers Men perceivers
Gender
differences
Pooled across men and
women
Perceivers’ judgments of their partner’s
regard during the discussion Estimate SE t Estimate SE t t Estimate SE t
Directional (mean-level) bias 0.13 0.13 .94 0.15 0.13 1.21 .11 0.14 0.07 2.13*
Tracking accuracy 0.29 0.07 3.96* 0.14 0.04 2.97* 1.690.21 0.04 5.13*
Effect of security in the partner’s regard
Directional (mean-level) bias 0.36 0.13 2.81* 0.12 0.11 1.16 1.35 0.24 0.08 3.13*
Tracking accuracy 0.20 0.08 2.49* 0.00 0.04 0.02 2.16* 0.10 0.04 2.24*
p < .10. *p < .05.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
650 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
effects shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. The partners’ relation-
ship satisfaction and self-esteem also did not influence per-
ceivers’ mean-level bias or accuracy.
We also thought that judgments of the partner’s regard
might be driven by perceivers’ or partners’ hurt feelings
during the discussion. The more perceivers experienced
negative affect during the discussion, the more they under-
estimated their partner’s regard (b = –0.26, p < .001), but
controlling for levels of negative affect did not alter the
effect of women’s security on bias (b = 0.28, t = 2.31, p =
.03) or accuracy (b = –0.17, t = –2.58, p = .01). Similarly,
the more partners experienced negative affect during the
discussion, the more both dyad members demonstrated neg-
ative mean-level bias (b = –0.14, p < .001), but controlling
for the partners’ negative affect did not reduce perceivers’
tracking accuracy (bs = –0.27 and -0.13, ps < .01) or alter
the effect of women’s security on bias (b = 0.38, t = 3.10,
p < .01) or accuracy (b = –0.21, t = –2.78, p < .01).
Discussion
To simultaneously assess mean-level bias and tracking accu-
racy, we recorded couples having discussions about ways in
which one partner wanted the other to change. During a
review of their discussion, dyad members who were targeted
for change (perceivers) reported their perceptions of their
partner’s regard, and their partners reported the regard they
actually felt for the perceiver. Judgments of the partner’s
regard are crucial because they signal how likely partners
will continue to be committed and invested in the relation-
ship versus dissatisfied and rejecting (Murray & Holmes,
2009; Reis et al., 2004). Thus, intimates should be strongly
motivated to accurately track changes in their partner’s
regard and, given the costs associated with overestimating
the partner’s love and acceptance, be relatively cautious in
their judgments (Haselton & Buss, 2000). Consistently, we
found that perceivers tended to underestimate their partner’s
regard across the discussion (negative mean-level bias) but
exhibited substantial accuracy in tracking how the partner’s
regard changed across the discussion (tracking accuracy).
These findings are consistent with prior findings but
extend prior research by examining online judgments during
important relationship-threatening interactions, when judg-
ments of the partner’s regard are critical. Our innovative
design, and the novel statistical procedures outlined by West
and Kenny (2011), also allowed us to test the degree to which
bias and accuracy were related—a critical gap in the existing
literature. Perceivers who more strongly underestimated
their partner’s regard tracked their partner’s regard more
accurately across the discussion. By distinguishing two ele-
ments of accuracy (mean-level bias and tracking accuracy),
and charting their association, this pattern highlights that
bias and inaccuracy are not synonymous. When estimating
others’ regard for the self, a vigilant approach that produces
both negative bias and tracking accuracy may be adaptive
because it should avoid the costs of overestimating
Figure 1. The effect of women perceiver’s general security in their partner’s regard on judgments of their partner’s regard during
conflict discussions
Zero represents no mean-level bias (i.e., perceiver’s judgments match the partner’s regard at the mean level), positive values indicate positive mean-level
bias, and negative values indicate negative mean-level bias. Slopes across low versus high partner’s actual regard represent tracking accuracy. High and low
values are represented at ±1 SD from the mean.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 651
acceptance and deliver superior detection of likely rejection
(Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). We think it likely that this pat-
tern will extend to judgments of regard, and likelihood of
inclusion versus rejection, across other types of social inter-
actions (Leary & Baumeister, 2000).
Furthermore, those whose general or relationship-specific
histories amplify expectations of rejection should be
most alert to how they are valued (Leary & Baumeister,
2000; Murray et al., 2006). Guided by the risk regulation
model (Murray et al., 2006; Murray & Holmes, 2009), we
argued that people who chronically perceive low regard
from their partners should be especially cautious in their
judgments of their partner’s regard and particularly vigilant
about signs that their partner’s current levels of acceptance
and regard are waning. Consistent with this prediction,
women perceivers who were more insecure in their part-
ner’s continued regard were more negatively biased. Women
who were more insecure also more accurately tracked
changes in their partner’s regard, specifically detecting
when their partner’s regard became more negative during
the discussion. Prior work has argued that insecure inti-
mates read “too much” into common relationship difficul-
ties, incorrectly interpreting these as signs of fading regard,
and, thus, generate inaccurate estimates of the partner’s sen-
timents (e.g., Murray et al., 2001; Murray et al., 2003). Our
results for women suggest a more nuanced process; insecure
intimates more accurately identify when their partner’s
regard is weakening and then exaggerate the detected drops
in their partner’s regard.
What implications might this mix of greater tracking
accuracy and more negative mean-level bias have for rela-
tionships? We have argued above that both negative mean-
level bias and tracking accuracy should be adaptive by
minimizing the costs associated with missing cues of possi-
ble rejection. However, excessive vigilance concerning the
partner’s regard might incur costs. Ickes and Simpson (2001)
propose that greater accuracy is not always beneficial for
relationships. Providing support, Simpson, Oriña, and Ickes
(2003) found that more accurate inferences of the partner’s
negative and threatening thoughts reduced relationship close-
ness. These potentially damaging effects should be even
more pronounced for people who are relatively insecure in
their partner’s regard. Indeed, our results indicated that inse-
cure women not only accurately detect declines in their part-
ner’s regard but also inflate those drops. And, once rejection
is perceived, intimates who are insecure in their partner’s
regard typically respond with greater hurt and hostility (see
Murray et al., 2006; Murray & Holmes, 2009).
Thus, in relationship-threatening situations, inaccuracy
might be beneficial for relationships (also see Ickes &
Simpson, 2001). Steadfastly holding onto positive percep-
tions of regard, for example, could help intimates traverse
difficult relationship interactions and maintain relationships
by containing the impact of (what will often be) short-term
dips in acceptance. Even satisfied partners are likely to
experience momentary dips in regard during conflict but,
nevertheless, retain positive, loving attitudes once the diffi-
culty has passed. The degree to which perceivers can ignore
these dips, however, should depend on the extent to which
the partner’s regard is likely to recover. In this study, women
who had stronger faith in their partner’s continued regard
retained positive evaluations of that regard across conflict
discussions, missing or ignoring times when the partner’s
regard became more negative.
This process may constitute a primary mechanism explain-
ing why high levels of relationship security confer relation-
ship protective benefits. Trusting that the partner will continue
to regard the self positively, despite within-interaction nega-
tivity, should allow intimates to bypass feelings of hurt and
rejection by drawing on more global knowledge of the part-
ner’s typical love and support. By reducing reactivity within
threatening situations, like conflict, couples should be able to
more effectively resolve disputes and restore positivity.
Nevertheless, these benefits may apply only when the danger
of permanent drops in partner regard is low. Accordingly,
people who cannot trust in their partner’s positive regard once
the difficult interaction is over should be more alert to any
warnings that their partner’s love and acceptance is under
strain. Moreover, even when relationship security is war-
ranted, blithely ignoring partner dissatisfaction may lead to
the partner feeling undervalued and ignored and, thus, put the
relationship at risk (e.g., McNulty & Russell, 2010; Overall,
Sibley, & Travaglia, 2010).
In this study, we did not test whether negative mean-level
bias and tracking accuracy produced different relationship
outcomes, so we are unable to tell whether the patterns of
bias and accuracy we found were more or less successful in
maintaining relationships. Drawing on prior research, our dis-
cussion above suggests that different combinations of bias
and accuracy may be successful in maintaining healthy rela-
tionships in different contexts. Positive mean-level bias and
low tracking accuracy should be more successful in main-
taining relationships when the risk of rejection and dissatis-
faction are low, whereas negative mean-level bias and
vigilant tracking of changes in regard should be more suc-
cessful in contexts when the risk of rejection is high. Future
research is needed, however, to test the postdiscussion and
long-term outcomes of these patterns.
The moderating role of security in the partner’s regard in
the current research is consistent with our general contention
that bias and accuracy in relationship judgments depends on
the relationship context. However, the impact of partner-
specific insecurity on accuracy was shown only for women.
Men demonstrated the same amount of tracking accuracy
regardless of how secure they were in their partner’s regard.
In their meta-analysis of prior research, Fletcher and Kerr
(2010) found that women were more positively biased when
judging partner attributes, such as attractiveness and intelli-
gence, but more negatively biased about the partner’s views
of the self. Fletcher and Kerr explained these findings by
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
652 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
arguing that women are more invested in sexual relation-
ships and, therefore, are more likely to engage in cognitive
strategies to maintain relationships (including bolstering
partner evaluations) and protect relationship quality (includ-
ing avoiding overstating partner regard). Viewing the current
findings in such motivational terms, women may be more
likely to protect the relationship by overlooking potentially
transitory drops in the partner’s regard when they perceive their
relationship to be strong and secure but be more strongly moti-
vated to track and respond to negative regard when they are
insecure about their partner’s future love and commitment.
Strengths, Caveats, and Future Directions
This study had several strengths. We gathered multiple judg-
ments of regard and associated benchmarks across couples’
conflict-related discussions and, thus, examined bias and
accuracy within a behavioral context in which judgments of
the partner’s regard really matter. Following West and Kenny’s
(2011) truth and bias model, we simultaneously examined
mean-level bias and tracking accuracy, using the same vari-
ables and in the same statistical model, and demonstrated how
bias and accuracy can be related. Our analysis also extended
understanding of how partner-specific insecurity can both
produce bias and motivate accuracy and demonstrated that
these effects were not the result of a variety of potential arti-
facts, such as relationship satisfaction or negative affect during
the discussion.
As argued above, we think the different patterns of bias
and accuracy we found indicate that levels of accuracy and
bias are shaped by context-relevant goals and motives.
However, future research needs to be conducted to test
whether positive mean-level bias and low tracking accuracy
can help stable relationships weather short-term conflict and
assess whether negative bias and accurate detection of drops
in partner regard can help intimates avert relationship dete-
rioration or unnecessarily amplify relationship difficulties.
We also did not take into account the different ways per-
ceivers may gather information concerning partner regard.
When partners are negative and direct in their communica-
tion, perceivers are more likely to recognize their partner’s
dissatisfaction. On the other hand, positive and accommo-
dating communications might reduce the perceivers’ ability
to detect negative shifts in their partner’s thoughts and feelings
(Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). Furthermore,
couples who are more secure and satisfied might use more
positive, subtle forms of communication and be more adept
at disguising negativity, producing more positive mean-level
bias and lower tracking accuracy. Although the partner’s sat-
isfaction, evaluations, and negative affect did not change our
results, the partner’s behavior might magnify or attenuate the
effects of perceivers’ insecurity. People who are less secure
in their partner’s regard might exhibit greater negative mean-
level bias when their partner is behaving more negatively but
reveal lower bias and more inaccuracy when they are com-
forted by loving and reassuring partner behavior.
It is an open question the extent to which the current find-
ings will generalize to other samples and contexts. Individuals
in this research were relatively young, satisfied couples
involved in serious relationships that were on average 2.5
years in length. Controlling for age, relationship status, and
satisfaction did not change our results. Nevertheless, older
married couples, who possess more knowledge of each other,
might show greater accuracy and also be more motivated to
protect the relationship, increasing the effects we found here.
The moderating role of security in the partner’s regard
occurred only for women. Consistent with prior findings, we
speculated that this pattern was a function of women typi-
cally being more invested and motivated to maintain their
relationships, and thus women’s perceptions of their part-
ner’s regard were more likely to be influenced by the
relationship context. When highly committed to their
relationships, men’s bias and accuracy might also be sensi-
tive to their relationship perceptions and motivations.
The association between bias and accuracy we found is
also likely to be restricted to judgments about the partner’s
evaluations of the self. When assessing the partner’s values
and opinions external to the relationship, positive mean-level
bias and other types of bias, such as assuming similarity,
might enhance accuracy (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Lemay,
Pruchno, & Field, 2006). In addition, we assessed judgments
of the partner’s regard during a rejection-risk context that
should trigger assessments of the partner’s regard (Murray
et al., 2006), activate relationship securities (Simpson et al.,
2011), and produce more cautious, accurate perceptions. The
vigilant combination of negative mean-level bias and greater
tracking accuracy we found, therefore, may be most or only
evident within relationship-threatening interactions, even for
those who are insecure in their partner’s regard. On the other
hand, insecure intimates are more sensitive to fluctuations in
their partner’s daily mood (e.g., Butner, Diamond, & Hick,
2007), and so might also attentively monitor their partner’s
feelings more generally. The current design and procedures
developed by West and Kenny (2011) demonstrate how
future research can simultaneously explore and compare
mean-level bias and tracking accuracy across different rela-
tional contexts and judgments.
The statistical design, and our underlying concepts, may
also help to reconcile other arguments outside the relation-
ship arena. A longstanding debate, for example, is whether
depression produces negatively biased thinking (Beck, 1967)
or more realistic and accurate judgments (Alloy & Abramson,
1979), with evidence supporting both positions (see Andrews
& Thomson, 2009, for a review). Like the impact of insecu-
rity in romantic contexts, depressed affect might exert a
double-barreled effect, producing negative mean-level bias in
self-relevant and social judgments but nevertheless enhanc-
ing tracking accuracy in those same judgments. This pattern
is consistent with the view that depressed affect adaptively
triggers sensitivity to costs and sustained problem anal-
ysis, which aids resolution of depression-inducing (social)
dilemmas (Andrews & Thomson, 2009). Thus, the approach
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 653
illustrated here paves the way for future research to answer
critical questions concerning the relationship between, and
predictors of, bias and accuracy.
Conclusions
Feeling regarded and valued by the partner is the cornerstone of
building a secure and lasting relationship (Murray et al., 2006;
Reis et al., 2004), yet exaggerating the partner’s regard and
ignoring signs that the partner’s regard is weakening pose sub-
stantial risks. In this research, intimates tended to cautiously
underestimate their partner’s regard during relationship-threat-
ening conflict discussions but accurately tracked changes in
their partner’s regard. Moreover, this pattern was most pro-
nounced for women perceivers whose insecurity in their part-
ner’s continued regard offered good reason to be vigilant. In
contrast, women who were secure in their partner’s future
regard weathered the threat by maintaining high levels of posi-
tive bias and forgoing accurate tracking of partner regard.
Prior research and theorizing in intimate relationships has
often contrasted individuals as being either blinded by love or
driven by the search for truth (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). The
results of this study support a more nuanced approach in which
individuals in romantic relationships adjust the bias and accu-
racy of their partner judgments in light of their goals, the state
of their relationship, and the costs and benefits associated with
exaggerating or underplaying how their partners see them.
Appendix
SPSS Syntax for Baseline Model Testing
Mean-Level Bias and Tracking
We used SPSS 18 to estimate the model, but any other mul-
tilevel modeling program (e.g., SAS or HLM) could be used.
Each record is for each time segment of the discussion for
each perceiver. The syntax is as follows, where lower case is
a variable and upper case is required SPSS syntax:
MIXED perceived_regard WITH woman man
partners_regard
/FIXED = woman man woman*partners_regard
man*partners_regard | NOINT
/PRINT = SOLUTION TESTCOV COVB
/RANDOM = woman man woman*partners_regard
man*partners_regard |
SUBJECT(dyadid) COVTYPE(UNR)
/REPEATED = obs | SUBJECT(DyadID*time)
COVTYPE(CSH).
This syntax specifies for each couple (DyadID) the data for
the female perceiver (woman) and the male perceiver (man)
using two dummy-coded variables. Using these variables,
the above no-intercept model simultaneously estimates the
equations separately for men and women. The variable
perceived_regard is the perceptions of the partner’s regard
(the outcome variable); partners_regard is the partner’s
actual regard (the predictor testing accuracy).
The FIXED line models mean-level bias (b0j) and tracking
accuracy (b1j): woman is the intercept (mean-level bias) for
women, and woman*partners_regard tests tracking accuracy for
women (i.e., the associations between the partner’s actual regard
and women perceivers’ judgment of their partner’s regard); man
is the intercept (mean-level bias), and man*partners_regard is
the estimate of accuracy for men perceivers.
The RANDOM line specifies that the intercepts (mean-
level bias) and predictors (tracking accuracy) are modeled as
random effects (i.e., varying across male and female perceiv-
ers for each dyad), which provides specific tests assessing
whether mean-level bias and tracking accuracy significantly
vary across perceivers. The UNR term specifies the covari-
ance structure of the random effects as unstructured (allow-
ing bias and accuracy to be correlated within and across
partners) and stipulates that the associations across random
effects be calculated as correlations.
See Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006) for more detailed
guidance regarding this analytic approach and West and
Kenny (2011) for further information regarding modeling
bias and accuracy.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Rosabel Tan, Lucy Travaglia, Jan Trayes,
and David Pirie for their help with recruitment and data
collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research
was supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund
grant (UOA0811) to Nickola Overall.
Notes
1. An independent sample (n = 76) that completed both Murray
and colleagues’ and our measure of partner-specific security
revealed these scales were strongly associated (r = .49, p < .05).
Prior samples (Overall & Fletcher, 2010; Overall, Fletcher, &
Simpson, 2006) also demonstrate that our measure of security
in a specific partner’s regard is associated with attachment anxi-
ety (average r = .23, p < .05). Demonstrating the strength of
partner-specific security, across these samples security in the
partner’s regard was a stronger predictor than attachment anxi-
ety of relationship satisfaction, reactions to conflict, and
changes in self-evaluations across time.
2. Instead of using questionnaire-level partner regard, we also
tested the role of assumed similarity by using the average of
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
654 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5)
the perceivers’ regard for their partner when perceivers were
in the role of agent of change as an index of own-partner
regard during conflict discussions. The results were virtu-
ally identical. Women who reported more negative partner
regard when they were the agent of change demonstrated
more negative bias (b = 0.17, t = 1.98, p = .05) but were no
more or less accurate (bs = –0.07, p = .19), and control-
ling for perceivers’ own partner regard did not alter the
effects of women’s security on mean-level bias (b =
0.37, t = 2.66, p = .01) or tracking accuracy (b = –0.20,
t = –2.41, p = .02).
References
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency
in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?
Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 108, 441-485.
Andrews, P. W., & Thomson, J. A., Jr. (2009). The bright side of
being blue: Depression as an adaptation for analyzing complex
problems. Psychological Review, 116 , 620-654.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theo-
retical aspects. New York, NY: Hoeber.
Butner, J., Diamond, L. M., & Hick, A. M. (2007). Attachment style
and two forms of affect coregulation between romantic part-
ners. Personal Relationships, 14, 431-455.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attach-
ment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from exper-
imental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 363-383.
Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understand-
ing of others” and “assumed similarity.” Psychological Bulle-
tin, 52, 177-193.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Boyes, A. D. (2008). Is love blind? Reality
and illusion in intimate relationships. In J. Forgas & J. Fitness
(Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective and motiva-
tional processes (pp. 101-114). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love:
Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 627-658.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999).
Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1997). Congruence of others’ and
self-judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &
S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617-
647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close
relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 322-338.
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory:
A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91.
Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (2001). Motivational aspects of
empathic accuracy. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), The
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal pro-
cesses (pp. 229-249). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Karney, B., & Frye, N. E. (2002). “But we’ve been getting bet-
ter lately”: Comparing prospective and retrospective views of
relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 222-238.
Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the
perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 439-448.
Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal
perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
102, 390-402.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data
analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L.
(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment:
A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need
fulfillment, and well being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 367-384.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and func-
tion of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lemay, E. P., Pruchno, R. A., & Field, L. (2006). Accuracy and
bias in perceptions of spouses’ life-sustaining medical treat-
ment preferences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36,
2337-2361.
McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behav-
iors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects
of interpersonal communication. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 587-604.
Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G. M., Rose, P., & Griffin, D. W. (2003).
Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily
marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 126-147.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architecture of inter-
dependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual
responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116 , 908-928.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing
assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 132, 641-666.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits
of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satis-
faction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 79-98.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P.
(2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates
relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 27, 423-436.
Overall, N. C., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2010). Receiving regulation
from intimate partners: Reflected appraisal processes in close
relationships. Personal Relationships, 17, 433-456.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping
the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall et al. 655
models of attachment representations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479-1493.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regu-
lation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal
standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
662-685.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G.
(2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs
and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620-639.
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Travaglia, L. K. (2010). Loyal but
ignored: The benefits and costs of constructive communication
behavior. Personal Relationships, 17, 127-148.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived part-
ner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of
intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rholes, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J. (2001).
Adult attachment and the transition to parenthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 421-435.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Invest-
ment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction
level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships, 5, 357-391.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S.,
Oriña, M. M., & Winterheld, H. A. (2011). Attachment and
the management of empathic accuracy in relationship-threat-
ening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
37, 242-254.
Simpson, J. A., Oriña, M. M., & Ickes, W. (2003). When accuracy
hurts, and when it helps: A test of the empathic accuracy model
in marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 85, 881-893.
Sprecher, S. (1999). “I love you more today than I did yesterday”:
Romantic partners’ perceptions of change in love and related affect
over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 46-53.
Thomas, G., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Lange, C. (1997). On-line
empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 72, 839-850.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship and the banker’s par-
adox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altru-
ism. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88, 119-143.
Welsh, D. P., & Dickson, J. W. (2005). Video-recall procedures
for examining subjective understanding in observational data.
Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 62-71.
West, T. V., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of
judgment. Psychological Review, 118 , 357-378.
at The University of Auckland Library on October 27, 2012psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... For example, overestimating partner's positive regard or underestimating partners' dissatisfaction risks failing to enact necessary effort to repair partners' poor regard and dissatisfaction, thereby failing to sustain relationships. Such costs are greater than the consequences of underestimating partners' regard or overestimating dissatisfaction, such as a greater effort in sustaining relationships than is necessary (Overall et al., 2012). ...
... This overestimation bias aligns with prior studies assessing judgments of strangers' hostile sexism, but importantly show that this bias is robust within the context of committed relationships, in which people's in-depth knowledge and tendency to positively evaluate their partners offer countervailing forces (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;Thomas & Fletcher, 2003). Indeed, overestimating partners' hostile sexism refutes a positive illusion account of relationship perceptions, but fits with evidence that people tend to be negatively biased about partners' attitudes that signal the risk of hurt or rejection, such as overestimating partners' anger or dissatisfaction (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;Overall et al., 2012;2020). When the stakes are high, as they are in intimate relationships, this type of bias should help protect perceivers from damaging consequences. ...
... This underestimation bias may ensure that women do not rely on benevolence that is unavailable, which is consistent with other studies showing that people underestimate partners' positive regard and commitment when vulnerable to the risk of rejection (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;Overall et al., 2012). However, women's underestimation of men's benevolent sexism is likely to have other important consequences, including restraining women's own endorsement of benevolent sexism. ...
Article
Full-text available
Women and men are particularly vulnerable to the costs of sexism in intimate relationships, which may override relationship enhancement motives that produce positive biases. Inspired by error management principles, we propose that women and men should make biased judgments of intimate partners’ sexist attitudes to help avoid the harmful costs of sexism that occur within mixed-gender relationships. Women may overestimate partners’ hostile sexism because failing to detect men’s hostile sexism should render women especially vulnerable to the risk of maltreatment, whereas women may underestimate partners’ benevolent sexism because expecting special treatment that is unavailable is more costly than receiving unexpected benevolence. By contrast, men may overestimate partners’ benevolent sexism because failing to prevent women’s dissatisfaction and anger when men do not fulfill gallant gender roles would be most costly than providing more benevolence than expected. Comparing perceptions of partners’ attitudes to partners’ actual sexist attitudes in two studies of mixed-gender couples (N = 91 and 84 dyads) confirmed this gender-differentiated pattern. On average, women overestimated their partners’ hostile sexism and underestimated their partners’ benevolent sexism, whereas men overestimated their partners’ benevolent sexism. Although we did not make predictions about judgments of women’s hostile sexism, analyses also revealed that men underestimated their partners’ hostile sexism. The pattern of bias has important implications for understanding the ways sexist attitudes affect intimate relationships and sustain gender inequality.
... Comparing memories of relationship quality to the actual relationship quality reported on prior weeks, we found that, on average, people accurately tracked the ups and downs of relationship quality across weeks (tracking accuracy), but also remembered their prior relationship quality more negatively than actually evaluated previously (directional bias). This pattern of tracking accuracy and directional bias should arise because of the importance of detecting relationship threats (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;Overall et al., 2012). If people fail to track low levels of relationship quality, they miss important signals that relationship maintenance is needed. ...
... Future studies should also include more gender-balanced samples. Women, who made up the bulk of our sample, may be more motivated to detect relationship threats and sustain relationships; thus the combined pattern of tracking accuracy and negative bias may be more pronounced for women (e.g., Overall et al., 2012). However, despite the potential for gender differences in average levels of bias and tracking accuracy, attachment anxiety may nonetheless have similar effects on processes related to relationship threat for women and men (e.g., Overall et al., 2012). ...
... Women, who made up the bulk of our sample, may be more motivated to detect relationship threats and sustain relationships; thus the combined pattern of tracking accuracy and negative bias may be more pronounced for women (e.g., Overall et al., 2012). However, despite the potential for gender differences in average levels of bias and tracking accuracy, attachment anxiety may nonetheless have similar effects on processes related to relationship threat for women and men (e.g., Overall et al., 2012). ...
Article
Current and recent relationship evaluations offer important information about the strength and stability of relationships. The diagnostic value of relationship evaluations should motivate people to accurately recall recent changes in relationship quality (tracking accuracy) but may also increase sensitivity to times of low relationship quality (directional bias). Such a vigilant pattern of tracking accuracy and negatively biased memories of relationship quality should be amplified for those high in attachment anxiety. The current study used repeated assessments to compare memories of relationship quality across several weeks with actual evaluations of relationship quality gathered in prior weeks (787 weekly reports, N = 113, 94% women). People high in attachment anxiety more accurately tracked the ups and downs of past relationship quality, but also remembered times of low relationship quality to be lower than actually reported. People high in attachment anxiety also experienced greater depressed moods across weeks when they remembered their relationship quality more negatively. These results have important implications for understanding inconsistencies in prior research and the links between attachment anxiety and depressed mood.
... Although these topics were often studied in isolation, it appears that people can be both accurate and biased. This seeming contradiction has been discussed theoretically (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010;Funder, 1987;Gagne´& Lydon, 2004;Kenny & Aceitelli, 2001) and, more recently, tested empirically (Biesanz, 2010(Biesanz, , 2021Edwards, 2002;West & Kenny, 2011), especially in the context of close relationships (e.g., Clark et al., 2017;Elsaadawy et al., 2021;Luo & Snider, 2009;Muise et al., 2016;Neff & Karney, 2005;Overall et al., 2012Overall et al., , 2015Overall & Hammond, 2013;Peters & Overall, 2020;Spielmann et al., 2020;Visserman et al., 2019Visserman et al., , 2021. The fast-growing nature of this literature is a testament to its high importance and interest. ...
... Although the present work aimed to provide initial evidence of directionality, our lagged analyses did not reveal evidence for either direction of effects (see SOM). While accuracy and bias were linked to concurrent relationship satisfaction, perhaps other factors, such as relationship insecurities (e.g., Overall et al., 2012Overall et al., , 2015, may matter more in shaping accuracy and bias as well as relationship satisfaction over time. However, we are cautious in interpreting the null associations from our lagged analyses because it is possible that these analyses were underpowered. ...
Article
Perceiving a partner’s gratitude has several benefits for romantic relationships. We aimed to better understand these associations by decomposing perceptions into accuracy and bias. Specifically, we examined whether accuracy and bias in perceiving a partner’s experience (Study 1: N dyads = 205) and expression (Study 2: N dyads = 309) of gratitude were associated with romantic relationship satisfaction. Using the Truth and Bias Model of Judgment, we found that perceivers generally underestimated their partner’s gratitude, and lower perceptions of gratitude were related to lower perceiver satisfaction. Perceivers reported greater satisfaction when they assumed their partner’s gratitude was similar to their own. Partners reported greater satisfaction when perceivers accurately gauged their partners’ gratitude experience (but not expression) and lower satisfaction when perceivers underestimated their gratitude expression (but not experience). Overall, by decomposing gratitude perceptions into accuracy and bias, we provide insight into how these components differentially relate to relationship satisfaction.
... In fact, at times, these elements work in tandem in shaping partners' perceptions. For example, in one observational study of romantic couples' conflict discussions, relationally insecure women simultaneously demonstrated greater levels of negative mean-level bias (i.e., underestimation) and greater levels of tracking accuracy of their partners' regard (Overall, Fletcher, & Kenny, 2012). It is thus imperative to examine all of these components simultaneously to permit a comprehensive grasp of dyads' perceptions of each other. ...
... The results of the current study suggest that while partners perceive session-to-session fluctuations in their partners' vulnerability, they tend to underestimate the level of change. This may reflect an attempt on their part to regulate the tension between the hope for connection and the risk of being exposed/rejected (for similar ideas see Overall, Fletcher, & Kenny, 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
The primary mechanism of change in emotion-focused couples therapy (EFT-C) is described as one partner accessing and expressing vulnerability, with the other partner responding affiliatively, with compassion, acceptance, validation, and support. These interactions are assumed to restructure the negative, rigid interactional cycle that usually brings couples to therapy and helps build a positive emotional bond. The primary aim of this study was to test whether for this process to occur, partners need to accurately perceive their spouse's experiences of vulnerability during therapy. Specifically, it examined the factors (i.e., tracking accuracy, assumed-similarity bias, and directional bias) shaping partners' perceptions of their spouse's vulnerability and whether accurate perceptions predict positive session outcomes during EFT-C. Data from 36 couples who took part in the York Emotional Injury Project were analyzed. Following each session, clients reported their own experience of vulnerability as well as their perceptions of their partners' vulnerability. Session outcome was defined as the extent to which clients reported resolution. Using a multilevel Truth and Bias model, the results indicated that partners accurately perceived changes in their spouses' expressions of vulnerability (i.e., significant tracking accuracy). Interestingly, partners' perceptions were also tied to their own expressions of vulnerability (i.e., significant assumed-similarity bias) and tended to underestimate the level of their partners' vulnerability expressions (i.e., significant negative mean-level bias). Using a multilevel Response Surface Analysis, we found that accuracy regarding partners' vulnerability was associated with higher levels of resolution.
... Nonetheless, we account for the effects of assumed similarity in our models as it is a key component of accuracy and bias models and because in doing so tracking accuracy reflects direct accuracy (West & Kenny, 2011), or accuracy when projection is taken into account. These forms of accuracy and bias emerge in perceptions of partners' ideal standards (Campbell et al., 2013), commitment (Overall & Hammond, 2013), emotions (Clark et al., 2017), regard during conflict discussions (Overall et al., 2012), approach and avoidance motives (LaBuda et al., 2019), sexual desire (Muise et al., 2016), and sexual advance and rejection behaviours (Dobson et al., 2018(Dobson et al., , 2022. This literature points to the important interplay of accuracy and bias within intimate relationships and the relationship consequences of accuracy and bias. ...
Article
Full-text available
Relational boredom is an important cognitive-emotional experience that is understudied in the relationship maintenance literature. In three dyadic studies, we investigated accuracy and bias in partners’ perceptions of each other’s relational boredom, and how accurate and biased boredom perceptions were associated with relationship quality. Results revealed that, overall, partners tended to overestimate—but accurately track—each other’s relational boredom across the features that comprise relational boredom and across time. Additionally, when people accurately perceived their partner experiencing high levels of boredom, they reported lower relationship quality; in all other cases, one’s own relationship quality was preserved. Furthermore, when people accurately perceived their partner experiencing high levels of boredom, their partner also reported lower relationship quality, while the partner’s relationship quality was consistently preserved when the perceiver was accurate at low levels of boredom or overestimated. These findings have important implications for how couples navigate boredom and maintain long-term relationships.
Article
Can a person tell whether their romantic partner wants to break up and, if so, how is such accuracy associated with their own attachment anxiety? We examined these questions by proposing and assessing the construct of perceived partner dissolution consideration (PPDC), including its validity. We then assessed the extent to which partners were accurate in their perceptions of each other's dissolution consideration, focusing on the perceiver's attachment anxiety as a potential moderator. Specifically, in two studies involving couples, dyadic analyses of couple data showed that couple members significantly underestimated (negative mean‐level bias) partner dissolution consideration and also projected their own dissolution consideration onto their partners. Couple members higher in anxiety were particularly accurate (tracking accuracy) in their assessments of dissolution consideration. Implications for partner perceptions and judgements of dissolution consideration on relationship functioning are considered.
Article
Perceived drinking motives of social network members appear to influence emerging adults’ alcohol use indirectly through their own drinking motives. Ascertaining the accuracy of motive perceptions can determine the relevance of social norm interventions for drinking motives and the utility of egocentric versus direct-reporting social network designs. As part of a larger study, 60 emerging adults (70% female; mean age = 21.57) reported cross-sectionally on their own drinking motives and the drinking motives of a peer. Peers were recruited and reported on their drinking motives. Regression analyses utilizing the truth and bias model indicated social, coping-with-anxiety, and coping-with-depression motives exhibited accuracy. Participants also overestimated peers’ social, enhancement, and conformity motives. Coping-with-depression and enhancement motives exhibited assumed similarity. Most motive perceptions were heavily or singularly influenced by bias. Whether to include actual and/or perceived motives in social network research designs should be carefully considered.
Chapter
Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships - edited by Laura V. Machia June 2020
Article
Cambridge Core - Social Psychology - Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships - edited by Laura V. Machia
Article
Full-text available
What kinds of stories do people wish to tell about the development of their close relationships? To address this question, 2 studies of newlyweds compared retrospective reports of marital satisfaction over 4 years with prospective data on marital satisfaction over the same period. In both studies, growth curve analyses revealed that spouses tended to recall satisfaction that had declined in the distant past but made up for those declines with recent improvements. Prospective reports, however, tended to decline linearly over time. Furthermore, Study 2 revealed that current confidence in the future of the relationship was associated with perceptions of change in satisfaction but not perceptions of past levels of satisfaction. Results suggest that the ability to perceive improvements, especially over the recent past, may be a source of hope for partners in less satisfying relationships.
Article
Full-text available
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory (EMT), proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be predictably biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors were asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory explains known phenomena such as men's overperception of women's sexual intent, and it predicts new biases in social inference such as women's underestimation of men's commitment. In Study 1 (N = 217), the authors documented the commitment underperception effect predicted by EMT. In Study 2 (N = 289), the authors replicated the commitment bias and documented a condition in which men's sexual overperception bias is corrected. Discussion contrasts EMT with the heuristics and biases approach and suggests additional testable hypotheses based on EMT.
Article
Full-text available
Partners in romantic relationships provided reports on perceived changes in their love, commitment, and satisfaction and completed contemporaneous scales on the same relationship phenomena multiple times over several years. At each wave of the longitudinal study, participants whose relationships had remained intact perceived that their love and related phenomena had increased since they had last participated in the study. However, their scores on contemporaneous scales did not generally increase over time. Analyses indicated that participants’ reports of change were related to actual change in love, commitment, and satisfaction scores and with future relationship stability. Furthermore, participants who experienced a breakup during the longitudinal study reported an overall decrease in their positive affect in the months prior to the breakup.
Article
Full-text available
A daily diary study examined how chronic perceptions of a partner's regard affect how intimates interpret and respond to daily relationship stresses. Spouses each completed a diary for 21 days. Multilevel analyses revealed that people who felt less positively regarded read more into stressful events than did people who felt highly regarded, feeling more hurt on days after acute threats, such as those posed by a moody or ill-behaved partner. Intimates who felt less valued responded to feeling hurt by behaving badly toward their partner on subsequent days. In contrast, intimates who felt more valued responded to feeling hurt by drawing closer to their partner. Ironically, chronically activated needs for belongingness might lead people who are trying to find acceptance to undermine their marriage.
Article
Full-text available
In 4 experiments, 144 depressed and 144 nondepressed undergraduates (Beck Depression Inventory) were presented with one of a series of problems varying in the degree of contingency. In each problem, Ss estimated the degree of contingency between their responses (pressing or not pressing a button) and an environmental outcome (onset of a green light). Depressed Ss' judgments of contingency were suprisingly accurate in all 4 experiments. Nondepressed Ss overestimated the degree of contingency between their responses and outcomes when noncontingent outcomes were frequent and/or desired and underestimated the degree of contingency when contingent outcomes were undesired. Thus, predictions derived from social psychology concerning the linkage between subjective and objective contingencies were confirmed for nondepressed but not for depressed Ss. The learned helplessness and self-serving motivational bias hypotheses are evaluated as explanations of the results. (4½ p ref)
Article
What kinds of stories do people wish to tell about the development of their close relationships? To address this question, 2 studies of newlyweds compared retrospective reports of marital satisfaction over 4 years with prospective data on marital satisfaction over the same period. In both studies, growth curve analyses revealed that spouses tended to recall satisfaction that had declined in the distant past but made up for those declines with recent improvements. Prospective reports, however, tended to decline linearly over time. Furthermore. Study 2 revealed that current confidence in the future of the relationship was associated with perceptions of change in satisfaction but not perceptions of past levels of satisfaction. Results suggest that the ability to perceive improvements, especially over the recent past, may be a source of hope for partners in less satisfying relationships.
Article
Cross-sectional (N = 202) and longitudinal analyses over a 6-month period (N = 155) assessed the consequences of perceiving regulation attempts from romantic partners. Greater perceived regulation from the partner was associated with more negative inferences regarding how closely individuals matched their partner's ideal standards in the targeted domain (inferred ideal consistency). Lower inferred ideal consistency, in turn, was associated with poorer relationship evaluations and predicted more negative perceptions of targeted self-attributes. Individuals also directly responded to their partner's regulation efforts with attempts to change targeted features. Finally, perceiving more negative regulation strategies produced lower inferred ideal consistency, relationship evaluations, and self-regulation efforts, whereas perceiving more positive strategies predicted greater inferred ideal consistency across time. The operation of reflected appraisal and self-regulation processes within romantic relationships is discussed.
Article
The authors argue that individuals with more negative models of self are involved in less satisfying relationships because they have difficulty believing that they are loved by good partners. Dating and married couples completed measures of self-models, perceptions of the partner’s love, perceptions of the partner, and relationship well-being. The results revealed that individuals troubled by self-doubt underestimated the strength of their partners’ love. Such unwarranted insecurities predicted less positive perceptions of their partners. In conjunction, feeling less loved by a less-valuable partner predicted less satisfaction and less optimism for the future than the partner’s feelings of love and commitment warranted. A dependency regulation model is described, where feeling loved by a good, responsive partner is thought to represent a sense of felt security that diminishes the risks of interdependence and promotes closeness.