Week 12 Perceptions of relationships: The love is blind bias.

In the past several decades, psychologists have shown that our everyday experiences of social interactions are based, at least in part, on perceptions and cognitions that deviate from reality (Swami, Stieger, Haubner,Voracek & Furnham, 2009). In examining love and attraction, I am convinced that the study of cognitive biases may be particularly informative in romantic relationships. As many relationships are often formed based on positive traits. It must be that positive illusions may help foster better relationships (Martz et al., 1998) and enhance the perceived image of the other person in the relationship (Murstein, 1972).Today we will be examining positive partner illusions, that manifest in romantic relationships.  The first part of partner perception is physical attractiveness. A partner’s  perceived physical attractiveness of a romantic partner, refers to a tendency to view one’s romantic partner as being more physically attractive than oneself (Swami, Furnham, Georgiades, & Pang, 2007).This particular form of positive partner illusion is what has been termed the “love-is-blind bias” in the perception of partner physical attractiveness (Swami & Furnham, 2008a). As the research is still at its stage of infancy,  the love is-blind bias has been operationalised in different ways (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008), but in general, holds to the hypothesis of one’s tendency to perceive one’s partner as being more attractive than objective reality.

Physical attractiveness plays an influential role both in the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships (Swami & Furnham, 2008b). Individuals tend to evaluate themselves more positively than they evaluate their intimates and their intimates more positively than strangers or the average person (Van Lange, 1991). In understanding the maintenance of relationships, research has shown that perceptions’ of partner physical attractiveness are associated with relationship indicators such as commitment, intimacy, satisfaction, and passion (McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008). In an experiment conducted by Swami et al, participants were asked to provide ratings of overall physical attractiveness and the attractiveness of various body parts for themselves and their opposite- sex romantic partners (Swami et al., 2007). Their results showed that both women and men rated their partners as being significantly more attractive than themselves. This experiment was similarly replicated by Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds in 2008, who measured the love-is-blind bias as the difference between perceptions of one’s partner and the partner’s self-ratings. This general consensus has little to do with demographic factors such as sex (Murstein, 1972) but rather more to do with relationship variables such as satisfaction and love (Swami et al., 2007).

The love is blind bias holds to the premise that both women and men should be expected to reap some beneficial function from these perceived traits. In recent research, this benefit was suggested to be a buffer for individuals against negative appraisals while enhancing self-beliefs (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness may initially serve to focus one’s perceptions of a new partner based on their positive qualities; this enables individuals to navigate early romance (Swami & Furnham, 2008a). In the long term however, the love-is-blind bias may mellow out and redirect ones attention to qualities that enhance commitment in the relationship (Taylor & Brown, 1988. This in turn, results in improved relationship satisfaction and self-esteem. Moreover, positive illusions concerning nonphysical partner traits appear to have a positive effect on relationship satisfaction both in both the short- (Miller, Niehuis, & Huston, 2006) and long-term (Murray & Holmes, 1997).

As previously mentioned, the positive illusions about one’s partner are associated with greater relationship satisfaction; this may be observed as fewer instances of conflict in dating and marital relationships (Murray & Holmes, 1997). These positive illusions may serve to enhance an individual’s sense of security in the relationship and stabilize their long-term pair bonds (Murray, 1999). Even when these perceptions are shaken by the confrontation of their partners’ faults, such as an attraction to someone else(Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995), individuals tend to deny the importance of those faults (Murray & Holmes, 1993).Perception’s influencing a partner’s self-enhancement is less pronounced in close relationships than in more distant relationships (Kenny,1994).A possible reason for this is that it might work as  a means of reducing partner derogation and associated negative effects on the self and the relationship (Swami et al, 2009).

Although I would love to elaborate on this concept of illusions and perceptions of love, sadly the research is limited due to the exploratory nature of this study. Although the hypothesised premises of the research have been supported by a number of researchers, these findings cannot account for individual variables that may influence perception and the prediction of relationship outcomes. These inaccuracies may stem from discrepancies to dishonest feedback to personal opinions subjective to the research participants. In essence, the summary of today’s blog post is that  people harbour false but positive impressions of their intimate partners as this helps them to promote positive relationships as well as smooth over situations that contribute to the maintenance of their marriage or courtship.

References

Barelds-Dijkstra, P. Barelds, D.P.H. (2008). Positive illusions about one’s partner’s physical attractiveness. Body Image, 5, 99–108.

Kenny, D.A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.

Martz, J.M. Verette, J.  Arriaga, X.B. Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L. Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159–181.

McNulty, J.K. Neff, L.A. Karney, B.R. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 135–143.

Miller, P.J.E. Niehuis, S. Huston, T.L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594.

Murray, S.L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34.

Murray, S.L. Holmes, J.G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation on interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707–722.

Murray, S.L.  Holmes, J.G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.

Murstein, B.I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8–12.

Simpson, J.A. Ickes,W. Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Emphatic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641.

Swami, V. Furnham, A. (2008a). Is love really so blind? The Psychologist, 21, 108–111.

Swami, V. Furnham, A. (2008b). The psychology of physical attraction. London: Routledge.

Swami, V. Furnham, A.  Georgiades, C. Pang, L. (2007). Evaluating self and partner physical attractiveness. Body Image, 4, 97–101.

Swami, V. Stieger, S. Haubner, T. Voracek, M. Furnham, A. (2009). Evaluating the Physical
Attractiveness of Oneself and One’s Romantic Partner Individual and Relationship Correlates
of the Love-Is-Blind Bias. Journal of Individual Differences 30(1), 35–43

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Van Lange, P.A.M. (1991). Being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect at work in interpersonal situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 689–693.

This is an interesting experiment depicting the learning curve of choosing mates.

~ by hsche13 on September 14, 2009.