Not Mutually Exclusive but Mutually Beneficial

There has been a long-standing debate about whether having accurate self-perceptions or holding positive illusions of self is more adaptive. This debate has recently expanded to consider the role of accuracy and bias of partner perceptions in romantic relationships. In the present study, we hypothesized that because accuracy, positivity bias, and similarity bias are likely to serve distinct functions in relationships, they should all make independent contributions to the prediction of marital satisfaction. In a sample of 288 newlywed couples, we tested this hypothesis by simultaneously modeling the actor effects and partner effects of accuracy, positivity bias, and similarity bias in predicting husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction. Findings across several perceptual domains suggest that all three perceptual indices independently predicted the perceiver’s satisfaction. Accuracy and similarity bias, but not positivity bias, made unique contributions to the target’s satisfaction. No sex differences were found. There has been a long-standing debate about whether having accurate self-perceptions or holding positive illusions of self is more adaptive (e.g., Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Accuracy and bias are considered mutually exclusive perceptual properties, such that a person can be either accurate or biased, but cannot be both. Additionally, it has been assumed that only one property can have adaptive value: If accuracy is beneficial, then bias is not, and vice versa. In the past two decades, this debate has expanded to consider the role of accuracy and bias of partner perceptions (one’s perception of one’s partner) in romantic relationships, with a focus on perceptions of personality (for reviews, see Fletcher, Simpson, & Boyes, 2006; Gagne & Lydon, 2004). Some researchers argue that maintaining accurate perceptions of the partner is critical to both the perceiver’s (Kobak & Hazan, 1991) and the target’s (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994) satisfaction, whereas others reason that engaging in a leap of faith regarding a partner by seeing the partner in a positive light is important for relationship functioning (e.g., Murray, Griffin, & Holmes, 1996; Murray, Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002). Recent theorizing regarding the role of accuracy and bias in partner perceptions includes a fundamental shift from the simplified either-or approach to a more integrative, dialectical approach. Specifically, it has been suggested that accuracy and bias in partner perceptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can coexist (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Murray et al., 1996). Moreover, accuracy and bias can both be beneficial, although in different ways, because they are subject to different motives, goals, and situations. For example, Gagne and Lydon (2004) argued that accuracy is more relevant in information-driven relationship judgments, whereas positivity bias is more important in esteem-related judgments. Fletcher et al. (2006) took an evolutionary approach to delineate under what conditions (e.g., shortvs. long-term relationships) and for what attributes (e.g., attractiveness vs. status) people are motivated to be accurate or positively biased. Finally, Neff and Karney (2005) proposed that partners involved in happier relationships tend to hold more positive biases on global characteristics, but to perceive specific attributes accurately. According to these proposals, accuracy and bias each benefit relationships by playing a leading role in different kinds of Address correspondence to Shanhong Luo, Department of Psychology, Social Behavioral Science Building, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 109 C, SBS, Wilmington, NC 28403, e-mail: [email protected]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 1332 Volume 20—Number 11 Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science perceptions (i.e., perceiving different attributes or making different judgments). However, previous research has shown that accuracy and biases coexist in the same set of perceptions of partner personality traits (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Murray et al., 1996). Taking advantage of new methodologies, the current research disentangled accuracy and biases in the same set of perceptions and directly evaluated their relative contributions in the prediction of a satisfying relationship. Because accuracy and biases are likely to be driven by different motives and to serve different functions in relationships, we hypothesized that they would make independent contributions to marital satisfaction. The current research was also designed to extend previous work by overcoming two other limitations. First, previous discussions and examinations of bias effects on relationship outcomes have primarily focused on positivity bias and largely ignored the role of similarity bias—the belief that a partner is more similar to oneself than is true. Second, most research in this area has focused on actor effects and has not rigorously considered partner effects. In other words, satisfaction is typically predicted by the perceiver’s own perceptions (actor effects) rather than his or her spouse’s perceptions (partner effects). In the current research, we proposed a general model to simultaneously model the actor effects and partner effects of all three perceptual processes (i.e., accuracy, positivity bias, and similarity bias) in predicting husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction. We tested this general model in several personality domains in a sample of 288 newlywed couples. ACCURACY, POSITIVITY BIAS, AND SIMILARITY BIAS IN PARTNER PERCEPTIONS Accuracy There are several reasons why obtaining accurate perceptions of each other is likely to be beneficial to both parties in a relationship. An accurate assessment of partner attributes (a) enables perceivers to correctly evaluate their partners’ needs and anticipate their behaviors, thus fostering a sense of control, predictability, and security on the part of the perceivers (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Swann et al., 1994); (b) helps partners coordinate activities and reconcile conflicting goals, thereby leading to more harmonious interactions (e.g., Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Neff & Karney, 2005); and (c) is important to targets because accurate perceptions provide a feeling of being validated, which is a crucial requirement for intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Indeed, previous research has found consistent evidence that individuals’ ratings of their partners show substantial agreement with their partners’ self-ratings (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000b). Moreover, accuracy in perceptions, in general, is associated with positive relationship outcomes (Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Murray et al., 1996; Neff & Karney, 2005; for an exception, see Murray et al., 2002). Positivity Bias The perception of one’s partner in an overly positive light has been documented as one of the most pervasive biases in romantic relationships (e.g., Murray et al., 1996; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000). These positive illusions may be driven by the fundamental need to feel good about the self, which, by extension, includes one’s immediate network, such as romantic partners (see Taylor & Brown, 1988). Moderately positively skewed partner perceptions are thought to be adaptive because they enable perceivers to justify the belief that their partner is the ‘‘right’’ one and to counteract the attractiveness of potential alternative partners (e.g., Murray et al., 1996). A positivity bias is also likely to make targets feel valued and trusted, particularly when their partners give them the benefit of the doubt in stressful or uncertain situations (e.g., Brickman, 1987; Rusbult et al., 2000). Previous research has provided robust support that individuals who perceive their partners and relationships positively tend to be more satisfied in their relationships (e.g., Fowers, Lyons, & Montel, 1996; Murray et al., 1996; Rusbult et al., 2000). Similarity Bias The tendency for romantic partners to perceive each other as more similar than they actually are is another pervasive bias in romantic relationships (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). Perceptions of exaggerated similarity can benefit perceivers by fostering feelings of closeness and intimacy (Aron, Aron, Tuder, & Nelson, 1991). A similarity bias is likely to lead targets to feel understood (e.g., Murray et al., 2002), and to help targets feel more confident of their partner’s love (Byrne & Blaylock, 1963; Condon & Crano, 1988). Indeed, recent research has shown that similarity bias concerning values, personality attributes, and day-to-day feelings is associated with greater marital satisfaction (Murray et al., 2002). CONSIDERING ACCURACY, POSITIVITY BIAS, AND SIMILARITY BIAS SIMULTANEOUSLY Given that each of the three perceptual processes is likely to bring distinct benefits to perceivers and targets, we hypothesized that accurate perceptions, positivity bias, and similarity bias would all make independent contributions to perceivers’ and targets’ satisfaction. Because we simultaneously modeled the actor and partner effects of all three perceptual processes, the current research is well poised to answer several questions that previous research has been unable to address: Do accuracy, positivity bias, and similarity bias have beneficial effects independently of each other, or are their effects mutually exclusive? How do accurate and biased perceptions impact perceivers’ and targets’ satisfaction? Are there any sex differences in these effects? Volume 20—Number 11 1333 Shanhong Luo and Anthony G. Snider