http://spr.sagepub.com/

RelationshipsJournalofSocialandPersonalhttp://spr.
sagepub.
com/content/early/2011/01/23/0265407510385492Theonlineversionofthisarticlecanbefoundat:DOI:10.
1177/0265407510385492publishedonline16February2011JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationshipsDickP.
H.
Barelds,PieternelDijkstra,NamkjeKoudenburgandVirenSwamiromanticpartnersAnassessmentofpositiveillusionsofthephysicalattractivenessofPublishedby:http://www.
sagepublications.
comOnbehalfof:InternationalAssociationforRelationshipResearchcanbefoundat:JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationshipsAdditionalservicesandinformationforhttp://spr.
sagepub.
com/cgi/alertsEmailAlerts:http://spr.
sagepub.
com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:http://www.
sagepub.
com/journalsReprints.
navReprints:http://www.
sagepub.
com/journalsPermissions.
navPermissions:atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromAnassessmentofpositiveillusionsofthephysicalattractivenessofromanticpartnersDickP.
H.
Barelds1,PieternelDijkstra1,NamkjeKoudenburg1,andVirenSwami2AbstractPositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessoccurwhenindividuals'ratingsoftheirpartner'sattractivenessaremorepositivethanmoreobjectiveratings.
Ratingsthatmayserveasa''realitybenchmark'includeratingsbythepartnerhim/herselfandobserverratings.
Thepresentstudycomparedtheeffectsofusingdifferentrealitybenchmarksonthestrengthofpositivepartnerphysicalattractivenessillusions(n70couples).
Resultsshowedthatindividualspositivelybiasedboththeirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Asaconsequence,usingapartner'sself-ratingsasarealitybenchmarkresultsinanunderestimationofpositiveillusions.
Presentingpartici-pantswithphotographshadasmalleffectonphysicalattractivenessratingsprovidedbywomen,showingthatphotographs,tosomeextent,mightconstrainpositiveillusions.
KeywordsAssessment,couples,partner-ratings,physicalattractiveness,positiveillusions1UniversityofGroningen,Groningen,TheNetherlands2UniversityofWestminster,London,UKandHELPUniversityCollege,KualaLumpur,MalaysiaCorrespondingauthor:DickP.
H.
Barelds,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofGroningen,GroteKruisstraat,2/1,9712TS,Groningen,TheNetherlandsEmail:d.
p.
h.
barelds@rug.
nlJournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)1–15TheAuthor(s)2011Reprintsandpermissions:sagepub.
co.
uk/journalsPermissions.
navDOI:10.
1177/0265407510385492spr.
sagepub.
comJSPRatUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromDuringthecourseofaromanticrelationship,partnerswillfrequentlyuncoversourcesofnegativityorconflictthatmayraisethefearthattheirpartnerisnotthe'right'personafterall(Murray,1999).
Suchdoubtsaboutthepartneraretroublesomebecausenega-tivitytypicallysurfaceswhenindividualshavealreadyinvestedintheirrelationship(Miller,Niehuis,&Huston,2006).
Inordertoreachsomecognitiveresolutionbetweentheirhopesanddoubts,andtosustainasenseofsecurity,partnersoftenweaveanela-boratefictitiousstorythatbothembellishesapartner'svirtuesandminimizeshisorherfaults(McNulty,O'Mara,&Karney,2008;Murray,Holmes,&Griffin,1996a).
Severalstudies,forinstance,havefoundthatindividualsoftenratetheirpartneroverlypositiveoncharacteristicssuchas''kind''and''intelligent'',aphenomenonthathasbeenreferredtoas''positiveillusions''(Murray&Holmes,1997;Murrayetal.
,1996a).
Bymeansofthesepositiveillusions,partnersmayenhancetheirsenseofsecurity,overstatethecaseofcommitment,andderogatealternativepartners,thussta-bilizingtheirlong-termbond(Murray,1999).
Positiveillusionsaboutapartnerhaveindeedbeenfoundtopredictgreaterrelationshipsatisfaction,love,andtrust,andlowerconflictandambivalenceinbothdatingandmaritalrelationships(Murray&Holmes,1997).
Inaddition,longitudinalstudieshaveshownthatthestrongerindividuals'initialpositiveillusionsabouttheirpartners,themorelikelytheirrelationshipistopersist(Murray&Holmes,1997;Murrayetal.
,1996a).
PositiveillusionsandphysicalattractivenessPhysicalattractivenessingeneralisanimportantfactorfosteringsexualattractionandinitialinterpersonalattraction(Swami&Furnham,2008a).
Indeed,bothmenandwomenhighlyvalueapotentialpartner'sphysicalattractiveness(Buss,1989;Feingold,1990;Swami,2007).
Studiesalsohaveshownphysicalattractivenesstobeanimportantattributeoncearelationshiphasbegun.
SangradorandYela(2000)(seealsoYela&Sangrador,2001),forinstance,foundperceptionsofapartner'sphysicalattractivenesstoberelatedpositivelytolevelsofintimacy,commitment,passion,andsatisfaction.
McNulty,Neff,andKarney(2008)reportedobservers'ratingsofpartners'physicalattractivenesstoberelatedtorelationshipquality.
Specifically,theseauthorsfoundthatbothspousesbehavedmorepositivelyinrelationshipsinwhichwivesweremoreattractivethantheirhusbands.
Recentstudies(e.
g.
,Barelds-Dijkstra&Barelds,2008;Barelds&Dijkstra,2009;forareview,seeSwami&Furnham,2008b)havefoundthatindividualsalsoholdpositiveillusionsabouttheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessmayseemtrivialinnature,butarecertainlynot.
Asarguedabove,physicalattractivenessisgenerallyconsideredanimportantcharacteristicinmateselection(seeBuss,1989;Dijkstra&Buunk,1998;Swami&Furnham,2008a).
Havingaphysicallyattractivepartnermay,therefore,enhanceanindividual'ssatisfactionwithhisorherrelationship(Swami&Furnham,2008b).
Inaddition,individualswilloftencomparetheirpartners'physicalattractivenesswiththoseofothers.
Bymeansofmodernmediaindividualsare,however,exposedoverandoveragaintoimagesofhighlyattractiveopposite-sextargets(Englis,Solomon,&Ashmore,1994).
Exposuretotheseimagesmay,forinstance,causeindividualstobecomelesssatisfiedwiththeirpartner(Kenrick,Gutierres&Goldberg,1989;Zillman2JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfrom&Bryant,1988).
Other(relationship)eventsmaymakepeopledissatisfiedwiththeirpartner'sappearanceaswell.
Peoplemay,forinstance,meetanattractiveoppositesexindividualatworkandcomparetheirpartnerwiththisperson.
Inaddition,friendsorfam-ilymaycriticizeone'spartner'sappearance,makingapartner'sphysicallyunattractivefeaturesmoresalient.
Thoseandothereventsmaycauseindividualstobecomedissatis-fiedwiththeirpartner'sappearance.
Positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattrac-tivenessmayformabufferagainstnegativerelationshipeventsthattendtolowerperceptionsofapartner'sphysicalattractiveness,andhelpprotecttherelationship.
Despitethesepotentiallyimportantconsequences,positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenesshavenotbeenstudiedtoanygreatextent(Barelds&Dijkstra,2009).
Thepresentstudyaimstocontributetotheliteraturebystudyingtheseillusionsintwoways:first,byprovidingfurtherevidenceforitsexistenceand,second,bysheddinglightonthebestwaytoassesspositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
DefiningpositiveillusionsAccordingtoMurray,Holmes,DoldermanandGriffin(2000),positiveillusionsaboutapartner'scharacteristicsaresaidtooccurwhenindividuals'ratingsoftheirpartneronspecificcharacteristicsaremorepositivethanratingsthatreflectamoreobjectiveperspective.
Ratingsthatmayserveasa''reality''benchmarkinclude,forinstance,ratingsmadebyfriendsandstrangers(Murrayetal.
,2000;seealsoMilleretal.
,2006)orbypartnersthemselves(Murray,Holmes,&Griffin,1996b).
Inthelattercase,positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessareassumedtoexistwhenanindi-vidualperceiveshisorherpartner(partner-ratings)tobephysicallymoreattractivethanhisorherpartnerperceiveshimorherself(self-ratingmadebythepartner).
Intermsofthisdefinition,Barelds-DijkstraandBarelds(2008;Barelds&Dijkstra,2009)haveshownthatpartnersindeedholdpositiveillusionsabouttheirpartner'sphysicalattrac-tiveness,andthatthesepositivephysicalattractivenessillusionsarerelatedpositivelytorelationshipquality(Barelds&Dijkstra,2009).
Inlinewithearlierstudiesonpositiveillusions(Murray&Holmes,1997),Barelds-DijkstraandBarelds(2008)andBareldsandDijkstra(2009)usedpartners'per-ceptionsoftheirownattractivenessasarealitybenchmark.
Onemightargue,however,thatself-perceptions–andthereforeapartner'sperceptionofhisorherownphysicalattractiveness–arerarelyunbiased.
Ingeneral,people'sself-ratingstendtobepositivelybiased,thatis,peopleratetheirownqualitiesmorefavorablythanthequalitiesofthetypicalperson(Alicke,1985;Brown,1986;Taylor&Brown,1988).
AccordingtoTaylorandBrown(1988),peoplebelieveintheirownsuperioritybecauseapositiveself-image,eventhoughitisnotcorrect,helpsthempersistinthefaceoflife'smanyfrustrations,and,asaresult,maypromotementalhealth.
Thisalsoappliestoself-ratingsofattractiveness.
Despitethefactthatpeopleareoftencriticaloftheirphysicalappearance(Markham,Thompson&Bowling,2005),theyusuallystillthinktheyarerelativelyattractive.
Jansenandcolleagues(Jansen,Nederkoorn,Smeets,Havermans,&Martijn,2006;Jansen,Smeets,Martijn,&Nederkoorn,2006),forinstance,foundpsychologicallyhealthywomenratedtheirbodiesasmoreattractivethanobjectiveobserversratedthesewomen'sbodies.
AccordingtoJansenandcolleagues(Jansen,Bareldsetal.
3atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromNederkoorn,etal.
,2006;Jansen,Smeets,etal.
,2006),healthywomenholda''self-servingbodyimagebias'',thinkingtheyaremoreattractivethantheyareintheeyesofothers.
Onlyself-ratingsofattractivenessmadebywomensufferingfromeatingdisordersdidnotdifferfromratingsmadebyobjectiveobservers.
Ifpeopleindeedpositivelybiastheirphysicalattractiveness,usingapartner'sself-perceptionsasarealitybenchmarkmayserveasatooconservativestandardagainstwhichanindividual'spartner-ratingsofphysicalattractivenessarecomparedforsignsofpositivebias(Milleretal.
,2006).
Inaddition,itcanbearguedthatpositiveillusionsmayexistbythegraceofimag-ination.
Asindividualsarepresentedwithmorespecificandobjectiveinformationabouttheirpartner,forinstanceintheformofaphotograph,theyarelessabletoenhancetheirpartner(Neff&Karney,2002).
Ingeneral,objectiveinformationandmoreconcreteframingnecessitatespeopletoprocessinformationinamoresystematicwayandpro-videslessleewaytoconstructanoverlypositivepartnerimage(Kuyper&Dijkstra,2009;Nier,2004).
Individualsmaynolongerbeabletoignorelessappealingfeaturesand/orexaggerateattractiveones.
Thus,itcanbeexpectedthatpresentingindividualswithanobjectiveandconcretepictureoftheirpartnerintheformofaphotographwillresultinasmallerpositiveillusionaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Thepresentstudyexaminedthisissuebyprovidingparticipantswithphotographsofthemselvesandtheirpartnerbeforeassessingself-andpartner-ratingsofphysicalattractiveness.
Establishingthemagnitudeofpositiveillusionsisimportant,aswellasexaminingtheextenttowhichthismagnitudeisafunctionofthepersonwhoseratingsareusedasabenchmark.
First,asnotedbefore,positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattrac-tivenessmatter.
Thus,establishinghowlargetheseillusionsareisimportanttobetterdescribe,understand,andexplainrelationshipprocesses.
Second,itisimportanttoexaminetheextenttowhichdifferentbenchmarksresultindifferentpositiveillusions.
Whenapartner'sselfreportsareusedasarealitybenchmark,themagnitudeofthepositiveillusionmaybeaffectednotonlybytheindividual'sownpropensitytodistortthephysicalappearanceoftheirpartner,butalsobytheirpartner'spropensitytodistorther/hisownappearance.
Learninghowthesedifferentmeasuresresultindifferentpositiveillusionshelpstobetterinterpretresultsfrombothpreviousandfuturestudiesonpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
ThepresentstudyThepresentstudysetouttoexaminemorecloselytheexistence,direction,andstrengthofpositiveillusionsaboutaromanticpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Morespecifically,wecomparedtwodifferentwaysofassessingpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness:(A)comparingindividuals'ratingsoftheirpartner'sattractivenesstoself-ratingsoftheirpartner,and(B)comparingindividuals'ratingsoftheirpartner'sattractive-nesstoneutralobservers'judgmentsofapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Insodoing,weaimedtotestfourhypotheses.
First,weexpectedindividuals'self-ratingsofphysicalattractivenesstobepositivelybiased,thatis,higherthanthosemadebyobjectiveobserv-ers(Hypothesis1).
Second,inlinewithpreviousresearch,weexpectedindividualsto4JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfrompositivelybiasperceptionsoftheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness(Hypothesis2).
Third,becauseself-perceptionsofphysicalattractivenessareoftenpositivelybiased,weexpectedthefirstassessmentofpositiveillusions(assessmentA)toresultinsmallerpositiveillu-sionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessthanthesecondassessment(assessmentB;Hypothesis3).
Finally,wetestedthehypothesisthatpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenesswillbesmallerwhenindividualsareconfrontedwithaphotographofthemselvesandtheirpartner(Hypothesis4)MethodParticipantsParticipantsinthisstudywere70heterosexualDutchcouples.
Themeanrelationshiplengthinthissamplewas2.
52years(SD1.
83),withaminimumofthreemonthsandamaximumof8.
75years.
Threecouplesweremarried,17coupleswerecohabiting,and50coupleswereromanticallyinvolvedwithoutcohabitingorbeingmarried.
Themeanageofthesamplewas22.
39years(SD3.
36;range18–37years).
Couplesweregiven15perpersoninreturnfortheirparticipation.
ProcedureParticipantswererecruitedattheUniversityofGroningeninTheNetherlands.
Acriterionforparticipationwasthatthecoupleshadbeeninvolvedinaseriousintimaterelationshipforaminimumperiodofthreemonths.
CoupleswereinvitedtoalaboratorytestingsessionattheUniversityofGroningen.
Duringthistestingsession,coupleswereseparatedtoassureindependenceandtopreventcontaminationresultingfromcontact.
First,afrontalportraitpicturewastakenofeachparticipant,usingadigitalphotocamera(5.
2mega-pixels)thatwasfixedonatripodandfacinganeutralwhitebackground.
Ifsomethingwaswrongwiththisportraitphoto(e.
g.
,theparticipantwasnotlookingstraightintothecamera,wasnotfacingthecamera,orhadherorhiseyesshut),anewphotographwastaken.
ThephotographswereprintedonthespotusingaCanonSelphyprinterthatwasconnectedtothecamera.
Thepresentstudyusedanexperimentaldesign,withtwoconditions.
Incondition1,participantsprovidedratingsoftheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Aftertheyhadfilledinanumberoffillerquestionnaires,theyreceivedaphotographofthemselvesandtheirpartnerandwereagainaskedtoprovideself-ratingsandpartner-ratingsofphysicalattractiveness,thistimeusingthephotographsasareference.
Incon-dition2,participantsweregiventhephotographs(selfandpartner)atthebeginningofthetestingsession.
Participantsinthisconditionprovidedonlyonesetofphysicalattrac-tivenessratings,ascomparedwithtwosetsofphysicalattractivenessratingsintheothercondition(i.
e.
,ratingswithoutandwiththeuseofphotographs).
Inbothconditions,participantsweretoldtolookcloselyatthephotographs(whenprovided)beforeanswer-ingthequestionswithregardtotheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Confidentialityofallresponseswasassuredandcoupleswereassignedrandomlytooneofthetwotestingconditions(35couplespercondition).
Bareldsetal.
5atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromMaterialsObserverjudgmentsofphysicalattractiveness.
Participants'physicalattractivenesswasratedbasedonthephotographsthatweretakenatthebeginningoftheexperiment.
Fourraters(twomaleandtwofemale,aged21to35years)judgedall140participants,answeringthefollowingthreequestionsforeachphotograph:(1)''Howattractiveisthisperson'',(2)''Howattractiveisthispersontomembersoftheoppositesex'',and(3)''Howattractiveisthispersoncomparedtootherpeopleofthesamesexandthesameage''.
Allquestionswereassessedonseven-pointLikert-typescales,rangingfrom1(highlyunattractive)to7(highlyattractive).
Thescoresonthethreequestionswerehighlyinter-correlated(rvaluesacrossraters,.
84to.
94),anditwasthereforedecidedtousethemeanratingsofeachratertocomputetheinter-raterreliability.
Forthispur-pose,theintraclasscorrelation(ICC;Shrout&Fleiss,1979)foraveragemeasureswascomputed,bothforconsistency(r.
91),andforabsoluteagreement(r.
89).
ThemeanPearsoncorrelationbetweenraterswasr.
73.
Thesenumbersindicateahighdegreeofcorrespondencebetweenraters(cf.
Buss&Shackelford,2008)withregardtoboththerankorderandthemeanlevelsofphysicalattractiveness.
Themeanphysicalattractivenessratingsofthefourraterswereconsequentlyaveragedandusedasanobjec-tiveindexofphysicalattractiveness.
Self-ratedgeneralphysicalattractiveness.
Inaccordancewiththejudgmentsofphysicalattractiveness,allparticipantsansweredthreequestionsconcerningboththeirown(self-ratings),andtheirpartner's(partner-ratings)generalphysicalattractiveness:(1)''Howattractivedoyouthinkyou/yourpartnerare/is'',(2)''Howattractivedoyouthinkyou/yourpartnerare/istomembersoftheoppositesex'',and(3)''Howattractivedoyouthinkyou/yourpartnerare/iscomparedtootherpeopleofthesamesexandthesameage''.
Participantsassignedtocondition1answeredallsixquestionstwice:withoutandwithphotographs.
Aswiththejudgmentsofphysicalattractiveness,thescoresonthethreequestionswereaveragedtoobtainoverallassessmentsofselfandpartnerphysicalattractiveness.
Cronbach'salphaforthethreequestionsrangedfrom.
87to.
95fortheself-andpartner-ratingsinthetwoconditions.
Self-ratedfacialattractiveness.
Theobjectivejudgmentsofphysicalattractivenessweremadeonthebasisofphotographsdisplayingtherespondent'sface(i.
e.
,notbody).
Incondition2,participantsprovidedratingsoftheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractivenessbymeansofthesamephotographsusedfortheobjectivejudgments.
Incondition1,however,participantsfirstratedtheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractivenesswithouttheuseofphotographs.
Therefore,theseratings(beforethephotographswerehandedovertotheparticipants)mightreflectanoverallphysicalattractivenessratingbasedonmorethanjustfacialfeatures(e.
g.
,bodilyfeatures).
Evenincondition2,althoughparticipantswereexplicitlyaskedtolookatthephotographsbeforeassessingtheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness,theseratingsmightreflectdifferentaspectsofphysicalattractivenessthanportrayedonthephotographs.
Therefore,weadditionallyaskedparticipantsinbothconditionstoratetheattractivenessoftheirownandtheirpartner'sfacialfeatures.
Thisenabledustoexaminemoreclosely6JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfrompotentialdifferencesbetweenratingsofselfandpartnerphysicalattractivenessandtheobservers'judgmentsoftheparticipants'physicalattractiveness.
Participantswereaskedtoratetheattractivenessof11facialfeatures:nose,lips,ears,chin,eyes,cheeks/cheekbones,face,forehead,eyebrows,facialskin,andhair.
These11facialfeaturesarebasedonBareldsandDijkstra(2009;firstsevenfeatures),andsupplementedwiththelatterfour.
Participantsratedtheirown(self-ratings)andtheirpartner's(partner-ratings)attractivenessoneachofthese11facialfeatures(1highlyunattractive,5highlyattractive).
Meanscoresacrossthese11facialfeatureswerecomputed,andlinearlytransformedintoscalesrangingfrom1to7(bXc,withXthefacialattractivenessscore,btheweightof1.
5,andctheconstantof.
5)tofacilitatecomparabilitywiththeotherattractivenessratings,whichwereassessedonseven-pointscales.
Alphacoeffi-cientsforthefacialattractivenessscalewere.
70forself-ratingsand.
79forpartner-ratings(bothconditionscombined).
ResultsFirst,correlationswerecomputed(acrossconditions)betweenthedifferentmeasuresofphysicalattractiveness.
ThesecorrelationsarereportedinTables1and2.
Table1liststhecorrelationsbetweenself-ratingsofgeneralphysicalandfacialattractivenessandobserverjudgmentsofphysicalattractiveness,separatelyformenandwomen.
Table2liststhecorrelationsbetweentheratingsofapartner'sgeneralphysicalandfacialTable1.
Correlationsbetweenphysicalattractivenessmeasures(self-ratingsandobjectiveratings)1231.
Observerjudgmentsofphysicalattractiveness.
32**.
24*.
012.
Generalphysicalattractivenessself-ratings.
27*.
29*.
56**3.
Facialattractivenessself-ratings.
23.
44**.
30*Note:belowthediagonal,thecorrelationsforwomen(n70);abovethediagonal,thecorrelationsformen(n70);onthediagonal,thewithin-couplecorrelationsasameasureofsimilaritybetweenpartners.
*pp).
DiscussionApositiveillusionaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessmaybesaidtooccurwhenindividuals'ratingsoftheirpartners'physicalattractivenessaremorepositivethanratingsthatreflectamoreobjectiveperspective.
Thefirstaimofthepresentstudywastoshowthat,inlinewithpreviousstudies,individualspositivelybiasratingsoftheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Indeed,wefoundthistobethecaseinourstudy.
Individualsbelievedboththeythemselvesandtheirpartnersweremoreattractivethanobjectiveobserversjudgedthemtobe.
Whenitcomestotheirappearanceandthatoftheirlovedones,peopleseemtoholdrosyviews.
Thisdoesnotmeanthatpeoplemaynotbedissatisfiedwithpartsoftheirbody.
Indeed,manystudiesshowthatthehighstandardsthemodernmedianowadaysimposeonpeople'sphysicalappearancecausemanypeopletobecomedissatisfiedwiththeirownandtheirpartner'sbodies(foranoverview,seeDijkstra,Gibbons,&Buunk,2010).
Itseems,however,thatdespitetheseimages,peoplestillratethemselvesandtheirpartnerrelativelyattractive.
Thefindingsthatindividualspositivelybiastheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractivenessarenotwithoutconsequence.
Fromthesefindings,itfollowsthat,whencalculatingpositiveillusions,usingapartner'sself-ratingsresultsinsmallerpositiveillusionsthanusingratingsofobjectiveobservers.
Thatis,theuseofpartner'sself-perceptionsasarealitybenchmarkservesasarelativelyconservativestandardagainstwhichtocompareanindividual'sratingsoftheirpartner'sphysicalattractiveness,atleastcomparedwithusingratingsofobjectiveobservers.
Itseemsadvisableforresearcherswhowishtostudypositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenesstobeawareofthisfact.
Inaddition,becausepreviousresearchonpositiveillusionsregardingapartner'sphysicalattractiveness(e.
g.
,Barelds-Dijkstra&Barelds,2008;Barelds&Dijkstra,2009)usedpartnerself-ratingsratherthanobserverratingsasarealitybenchmark,thesepreviousstudiesmaynothavedoneenoughjusticetothephenomenonofpositiveillusionsofapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Thephenomenonofpositiveillusionsofapartner'sphysicalattractivenessmaybelargerthanpreviouslyreported.
Futureresearchmayshed10JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfrommorelightonhowpositiveillusionsbasedonobjectiveobserverratingsofattractivenessandthosebasedonapartner'sself-ratingsarerelateddifferentlytoimportantrelationshipvariables,suchasrelationshipsatisfactionandcommitment.
StrengthofthepositivepartnerphysicalattractivenessillusionThesecondaimofthepresentstudywastoexaminethestrengthofpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness:towhatdegreeisthisillusioninfluencedbythepresenceofobjectiveandconcreteinformationregardingone'sownandone'spartner'sphysicalattractiveness,intheformofphotographsWearguedthatindividuals,whenconfrontedwithaphotographofthemselvesandtheirpartner,wouldhavegreaterdif-ficultypositivelybiasingtheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractivenessthanintheabsenceofthesephotographs.
Ourresultsonlypartiallyconfirmedthisexpectation.
Presentingmenwithphotographsseemedtoaffectratingsofwomen'sfacialattrac-tiveness.
Inwomen,self-ratingsoffacialandgeneralphysicalattractivenessdeclinedinresponsetophotographsofthemselves,butstillremainedclearlymorepositivethantheratingsoftheobjectiveobservers.
Inaddition,incondition1,whereparticipantsratedtheirownandtheirpartner'sphysicalattractivenessbothwithoutandwiththeuseofphotographs,adeclinewasfoundinwomen'sratingsofmen'sgeneralphysicalattrac-tiveness.
However,althoughphotographsseemtoconstrainpositiveillusionstosomeextent,positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessseemtoconstitutearelativelystrongrelationshipphenomenon.
Regardlessofbeing(ornotbeing)exposedtophotographs,self-andpartner-ratingswereclearlymorepositivethanratingsmadebyobjectiveobservers.
Apossibleexplanationisthatparticipantsattributedthelackofattractivenesstheyfoundintheirownandtheirpartner'spicturestoexternalfactors.
Confrontedwithphotographs,individualsmay,forinstance,think:''Whenthatpicturewastaken,Iwasreallytired''or''Thepersonwhotookthepicturesisabadphotogra-pher''.
Severalstudiesindeedshowthatpeopletendtoexternallyattributetheirownandtheirpartner'sfailuresandvicesinordertomaintainhighrelationshipsatisfaction(Bradbury&Fincham,1990).
Itseemsimportantforfuturestudiestoexaminewhatexactlytheconsequencesareoftheserelativelystrong,positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractiveness,intermsof,forinstance,relationshipcommitmentandromanticjealousy.
Ithas,forinstance,beenfoundthat,asindividualsperceivetheirpartnertobemoreattractive,theyreporthigherlevelsofromanticjealousy(Demirtas&Donmez,2006),suggestingthatpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessmayhavenotonlypositivebutalsonegativeconsequences.
Likewise,McNultyetal.
(2008)foundthatcognitivestrategiesthataimtoenhancetherelationship,suchaspositiveillusions,areonlybeneficialtohealthiermarriages.
Inmoretroubledmarriagestheymaydecreaserela-tionshipsatisfactionbecausetheyallowmaritalproblemstoworsenovertime.
ConclusionThepresentstudycontributestotheliteratureinseveralways.
First,wefoundthat,astheydowithmanyothercharacteristics,peoplepositivelybiastheirphysicalBareldsetal.
11atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromattractiveness,eveninmodernsociety,wherepeoplearebombardedwithmediaimagesofbeauty.
Second,wefoundthattheuseofpartners'self-ratingsofphysicalattractivenessasarealitybenchmarkresultsinsmallerpositiveillusionsthantheuseofobjectiveobservers'ratingsofapartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
Finally,wefoundthatpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessarerelativelystrong,thatis,theyarehardlyinfluencedbythepresenceofphotographsofoneselfandone'spartner.
Alimitationofthepresentstudyisthatitsparticipantswererelativelyyoung(onaverageintheirtwenties)andconsistedofcoupleswho,onaverage,hadbeentogetherforonly2.
5years.
Itisverylikelypossiblethat,whenconductedinanoldersample,thedifferencebetweenpositiveillusionsbasedonapartner'sself-ratingsandratingsofobjectiveobserversaresmallerorevenabsent.
Ingeneral,olderpeoplearelesslikelytohaveadistortedbodyimage(Huang&Chang,2005).
Inaddition,itispossiblethatpositiveillusionsaremuchstrongerinthebeginningoftherelationship,whenpartnersarestillinloveandtendtoidealizeeachotherstrongly.
Likewise,positiveillusionsmaybelargerwhenpeopleareyoungerand,asaconsequence,relativelyattractive.
Asaresult,itseemswiseforfuturestudiesonpositiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenesstoexaminecouplesofdifferentages.
Itmustalsobenotedthatonemayalsodefinepositiveillusionsdifferentlythanthepresentstudydid.
Forinstance,intheirstudies,Swamiandcolleagues(Swami,2009;Swami,Furnham,Georgiades,&Pang,2007;Swami,Stieger,Haubner,Voracek,&Furnham,2009)reportaphenomenontheyalsorefertoasapositiveillusion,thatis,thelove-is-blindbias(LIBB).
TheLIBBshowsthatpeoplefindtheirpartnerphysi-callymoreattractivethantheyfindthemselves.
Thisis,however,adifferentphenom-enonthantheonestudiedinthepresentresearch:incontrasttoourdefinitionofpositiveillusions,theLIBBisbasedonwithin-subjectcomparisonsofselfandpartnerphysicalattractivenessonly,ignoringanexternalstandardwithwhichindividuals'perceptionsmaybecompared(Barelds&Dijkstra,2009).
Nonetheless,theLIBBmightalsobeanimportantphenomenon.
Findingone'spartnermoreattractivethanoneselfcouldindicatethatpeople(still)idealizetheirpartner,aphenomenonthatischaracteristicofpassionateloveandrelationshipstability(Stafford&Merolla,2007).
However,definingpositiveillusionsthewaywedidinthepresentstudyrevealsmuchmoreinformationabouttheprocessthatprecedesthetendencytoviewthepartnerasmoreattractivethanoneself.
Usinganexternalstandardintheformofpartnerorobjectiveobserverratingsmakesitpossibletofindoutwhypartnersareusuallyreportedtobemoreattractivethanpeoplefindthemselves:becausepeoplefindthemselvesphysicallymoreunattractivethantheyactuallyare,becausepeoplefindtheirpartnerphysicallymoreattractivethanheorsheactuallyis,or(howeverunlikely)becausepartnersaremoreattractive.
ConflictofintereststatementTheauthor(s)declarednoconflictsofinterestwithrespecttotheauthorshipand/orpublicationofthisarticle.
12JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromFundingThisresearchreceivednospecificgrantfromanyfundingagencyinthepublic,commercial,ornot-for-profitsectors.
ReferencesAlicke,M.
D.
(1985).
Globalself-evaluationasdeterminedbythedesirabilityandcontrollabilityoftraitadjectives.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,49,1621–1630.
Barelds,D.
P.
H.
,&Dijkstra,P.
(2009).
Positiveillusionsaboutapartner'sphysicalattractivenessandrelationshipquality.
PersonalRelationships,16(2),263–283.
Barelds-Dijkstra,P.
&Barelds,D.
P.
H.
(2008).
Positiveillusionsaboutone'spartner'sphysicalattractiveness.
BodyImage,5,99–108.
Bradbury,T.
N.
,&Fincham,F.
D.
(1990).
Attributionsinmarriage:reviewandcritique.
PsychologicalBulletin,107(1),3–33.
Brown,J.
D.
(1986).
Evaluationsofselfandothers:self-enhancementbiasesinsocialjudgments.
SocialCognition,4,353–376.
Buss,D.
M.
(1989).
Sexdifferencesinhumanmatepreferences:evolutionaryhypothesestestedin37cultures.
BehavioralandBrainSciences,12,1–49.
Buss,D.
M.
,&Shackelford,T.
K.
(2008).
Attractivewomenwantitall:goodgenes,economicinvestment,parentingproclivities,andemotionalcommitment.
EvolutionaryPsychology,6(1),134–146.
Demirtas,H.
,&Donmez,H.
(2006).
Jealousyincloserelationships:personal,relationalandsitua-tionalvariables.
Tu¨rkPsikiyatriDergisi,17(3),181–191.
Dijkstra,P.
&Buunk,B.
P.
(1998).
Jealousyasafunctionofrivalcharacteristics:anevolutionaryperspective.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,24,1158–1166.
Dijkstra,P.
,Gibbons,F.
,&Buunk,A.
P.
(2010).
Socialcomparisontheory.
InJ.
E.
Maddux&J.
P.
Tangney(Eds.
),Socialpsychologicalfoundationsofclinicalpsychology(pp.
195–211).
NewYork:GuilfordPublications.
Englis,B.
G.
,Solomon,M.
R.
,&Ashmore,R.
D.
(1994).
Beautybeforetheeyesofthebeholders:Theculturalencodingofbeautytypesinmagazineadvertisingandmusictelevision.
JournalofAdvertising,23,49–64.
Feingold,A.
(1990).
Genderdifferencesineffectsofphysicalattractivenessonromanticattraction:Acomparisonacrossfiveresearchparadigms.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,59,981–993.
Huang,L.
L.
,&Chang,C.
(2005).
BodyimageanditspredictorsinTaiwan:interpersonalpressureandmediaagreementasmediators.
ChineseJournalofPsychology,47,287–308.
Jansen,A.
,Nederkoorn,C.
,Smeets,T.
,Havermans,R.
,&Martijn,C.
(2006).
Jijziet,jijziet,watiknietzie:hetvertekendelichaamsbeeldvangezondevrouwen/Yousee,yousee,whatIdon'tsee:thedistortedbody-imageofhealthywomen.
Psycholoog,41,518–526.
Jansen,A.
,Smeets,T.
,Martijn,C.
,&Nederkoorn,C.
(2006).
Iseewhatyousee:thelackofaself-servingbody-imagebiasineatingdisorders.
BritishJournalofClinicalPsychology,45,123–135.
Kenrick,D.
T.
,Gutierres,S.
E.
,&Goldberg,L.
L.
(1989).
Influenceofpopulareroticaonjudgmentsofstrangersandmates.
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,25,159–167.
Kuyper,H.
,&Dijkstra,P.
(2009).
Better-than-averageeffectsinsecondaryeducation:A3-yearfollow-up.
EducationalResearchandEvaluation,15(2),167–184.
Bareldsetal.
13atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromLuo,S.
&Klohnen,E.
C.
(2005).
Assortativematingandmaritalqualityinnewlyweds:acouple-centeredapproach.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,88,304–326.
Markham,A.
,Thompson,T.
,&Bowling,A.
(2005).
Determinantsofbody-imageshame.
PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,38,1529–1541.
McNulty,J.
K.
,Neff,L.
A.
,&Karney,B.
R.
(2008)Beyondinitialattraction:physicalattractive-nessinnewlywedmarriage.
JournalofFamilyPsychology,22,135–143.
McNulty,J.
K.
,O'Mara,E.
M.
,&Karney,B.
R.
(2008).
Benevolentcognitionsasastrategyofrelationshipmaintenance:''Don'tsweatthesmallstuff'Butitisnotallsmallstuff.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,94,631–646.
Miller,P.
J.
E.
,Niehuis,S.
,&Huston,T.
L.
(2006).
Positiveillusionsinmaritalrelationships:a13-yearlongitudinalstudy.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,32,1579–1594.
Murray,S.
L.
(1999).
Thequestforconviction:motivatedcognitioninromanticrelationships.
PsychologicalInquiry,10,23–34.
Murray,S.
L.
&Holmes,J.
G.
(1997).
AleapoffaithPositiveillusionsinromanticrelationships.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,23,586–604.
Murray,S.
L.
,Holmes,J.
G.
,Dolderman,D.
,&Griffin,D.
W.
(2000).
Whatthemotivatedmindsees:Comparingfriends'perspectivestomarriedpartners'viewsofeachother.
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,36,600–620.
Murray,S.
L.
,Holmes,J.
G.
,&Griffin,D.
W.
(1996a).
Theself-fulfillingnatureofpositiveillusionsinromanticrelationships:loveisnotblind,butprescient.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,71,1155–1180.
Murray,S.
L.
,Holmes,J.
G.
,&Griffin,D.
W.
(1996b).
Thebenefitsofpositiveillusions:idealizationandtheconstructionofsatisfactionincloserelationships.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,70,79–98.
Neff,L.
A.
,&Karney,B.
R.
(2002).
Judgmentsofarelationshippartner:specificaccuracybutglobalenhancement.
JournalofPersonality,70,1079–1112.
Nier,J.
A.
(2004).
Whydoesthe''AboveAverageEffect''existDemonstratingidiosyncratictraitdefinition.
TeachingofPsychology,31,53–54.
Sangrador,J.
L.
&Yela,C.
(2000).
''Whatisbeautifulisloved'':physicalattractivenessinloverelationshipsinarepresentativesample.
SocialBehaviorandPersonality,28,207–218.
Shrout,P.
E.
&Fleiss,J.
L.
(1979).
IntraclassCorrelations:UsesinAssessingRaterReliability.
PsychologicalBulletin,2,420–428.
Stafford,L.
,&Merolla,A.
J.
(2007).
Idealization,reunions,andstabilityinlong-distancedatingrelationships.
JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships,24,37–54.
Swami,V.
(2007).
ThemissingarmsofVenusdeMilo:reflectionsonthescienceofphysicalattractiveness.
Brighton:BookGuild.
Swami,V.
(2009).
Anexaminationofthelove-is-blindbiasamonggaymenandlesbians.
BodyImage,6,149–151.
Swami,V.
,&Furnham,A.
(2008a).
Thepsychologyofphysicalattraction.
London:Routledge.
Swami,V.
,&Furnham,A.
(2008b).
IslovereallysoblindThePsychologist,21,108–111.
Swami,V.
,Furnham,A.
,Georgiades,C.
,&Pang,L.
(2007).
Evaluatingselfandpartnerphysicalattractiveness.
BodyImage,4,97–101.
Swami,V.
,Stieger,S.
,Haubner,T.
,Voracek,M.
,&Furnham,A.
(2009).
Evaluatingthephysicalattractivenessandoneselfandone'sromanticpartner:individualandrelationshipcorrelatesofthelove-is-blindbias.
JournalofIndividualDifferences,30,35–43.
14JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships000(00)atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloadedfromTaylor,S.
E.
&Brown,J.
D.
(1988).
Illusionandwell-being:asocialpsychologicalperspectiveonmentalhealth.
PsychologicalBulletin,103,193–210.
Yela,C.
&Sangrador,J.
L.
(2001).
Perceptionofphysicalattractivenessthroughoutlovingrelationships.
CurrentResearchinSocialPsychology,6,57–75.
Zillman,D.
,&Bryant,J.
(1988).
Pornography'simpactonsexualsatisfaction.
JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,18,438–453.
Bareldsetal.
15atUniversityofGroningenonFebruary22,2011spr.
sagepub.
comDownloaded