Idealization and Disillusionment in Intimate Relationships: A Review of Theory, Method, and Research

SYLVIA NIEHUIS, KYUNG-HEE LEE, ALAN REIFMAN, ANDREA SWENSON,AND STEPHEN HUNSAKER Texas Tech University

Idealization and Disillusionment in Intimate

Relationships: A Review of Theory, Method,

and Research

We review the literature on partner idealization(also known as positive illusions) in the fieldof close relationships. Our review assesses thesoundness of idealization research from concep-tual, theoretical, methodological, and eviden-tiary perspectives. In addition, we explore thepotential linkage of idealization to the newer andseemingly related construct of disillusionment.Given the apparent role of disillusionment inrelationship dissolution, explication of the roleof idealization in disillusionment would bene-fit the field. To this end, we present an initialmodel of mechanisms that may govern rela-tions between idealization and disillusionmentto guide future research.

The early stages of relationship developmentoften involve several phenomena experiencedas positive, including attraction, thinking aboutone’s (potential) partner, and spending timewith him or her. Research suggests, in fact,that positive attitudes and perceptions of one’spartner (or relationship) can rise to levelsunwarranted by independent assessments of thepartner’s characteristics. For example, outsideobservers might consider a target person very

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX 79409-1230 ([email protected]).

Key Words: disillusionment, idealization, method, positiveillusions, theory.

friendly but not literally the friendliest personin the world, as the target’s partner claims.Terms used to describe such overevaluationsof a partner or relationship include idealizationand positive illusions. (These terms have beenused in the literature interchangeably; we useidealization instead of positive illusions here,except when citing other authors and in ourdiscussion of the relationship between theterms.) As we review here in detail, research onidealization goes back to the 1930s. However,driven by prominent researchers such as SandraMurray (e.g., Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a,1996b) and Blaine Fowers (e.g., Fowers, Lyons,& Montel, 1996), it has been from the 1990s tothe present that idealization research has beenespecially vigorous.

In terms of empirical volume and usefulnessin prediction, idealization research is currentlythriving. A recent meta-analysis of longitudi-nal relations between 30 different variables anddissolution of nonmarital romantic relationshipsfound idealization to be one of the strongest(negative) predictors of eventual breakup; thatis, more idealization was associated with lowerbreakup likelihood (Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, &Mutso, 2010). Another meta-analysis examinedtwo different ways of defining illusion (versusaccuracy) in relationship perceptions (elaboratedon below) and how they fit with cognitive andmotivational models of relationship function-ing (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). At the same time,however, conceptual refinement of idealization

Journal of Family Theory & Review 3 (December 2011): 273–302 273DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00100.x

274 Journal of Family Theory & Review

is incomplete, integration with other social-cognitive theories (and with the relatively newresearch area of disillusionment) is underdevel-oped, and measurement issues are unresolved.We define disillusionment as a decline in pos-itive perceptions and an increase in negativeperceptions toward one’s partner and relation-ship (Niehuis & Bartell, 2006). In particular, webelieve that the study of idealization is incom-plete without consideration of its relationshipwith disillusionment, for two major reasons.First, the two constructs seem to have commonroots in the notion of illusions, either the buildingup of positive ones or the loss of same (and theincrease of negative perceptions). Second, thereis a prevalent assumption that idealization cre-ates the potential for—or even actually causes—disillusionment (e.g., Buehlman, Gottman, &Katz, 1992; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith,& George, 2001), with little conceptual orempirical examination of their relationship. Forthese reasons, review and synthesis of idealiza-tion research are warranted. Accordingly, weevaluate idealization research from conceptual,theoretical, measurement, and evidentiary per-spectives, culminating in our development of anew conceptual model of idealization and dis-illusionment to spur further research. Inspiredin part by Fincham and Linfield’s (1997) con-ceptualization of marital quality, we introducea two-dimensional model of idealization anddisillusionment. Our heuristic model attemptsto link idealization and disillusionment, whichwe conceive of as two independent but relateddimensions, and we take into account theirdyadic, contextual, and temporal aspects.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF IDEALIZATION

Although the number of conceptual frameworksfor studying idealization is relatively small,consolidation of ideas among researchers hasbeen hindered by a lack of systematic discussionof idealization. Issues needing resolution areboth internal to the conceptualization ofidealization (i.e., within the definition ofidealization, how different parts fit together)and of an external nature (i.e., how idealizationoverlaps with or is separate from otherconstructs).

Leading Frameworks

Murray and colleagues introduced two majorframeworks of idealization (or in their usage,

positive illusions) in the mid-1990s (Murray& Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,1996a, 1996b) that can be used separately or incombination. Given the promise and visibilityof the frameworks in the field, we discuss themin some depth. The first of these (Murray,Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b) focusedprincipally on perceptions of the partner andnot on the relationship as a whole. Murray,Holmes, and Griffin (1996a, 1996b) argued thatindividuals’ perceptions of their partners aresocial constructions in which individuals projecttheir own self-images and ideas about the idealpartner onto their partners within the constraintsof reality, in this case their partners’ own self-images.

The second conceptualization of idealization(Murray & Holmes, 1997) was expanded toinclude three aspects: idealized views of thepartner, exaggerated perceptions of control overthe future of the relationship, and unrealisticoptimism about the relationship. This modelcombines impressions of the partner and ofthe relationship, which strikes us as an issueof internal coherence, as alluded to earlier.Use of measures that refer exclusively to thepartner (or to the relationship) presumablywould clarify constructs’ meaning in empiricalstudies. Murray and Holmes’s (1997) three-part model also suggests a distinction betweenthe terms idealization and positive illusions,with the latter being more general. Overlypositive perceptions of the partner would seem toqualify as idealization (i.e., holding someone orsomething in a glorified light), a form of positiveillusion. Optimism about the relationship and anexaggerated sense of control over it would seemto be more in the realm of cognitive expectations,which can be positive illusions but probably notidealizations.

Murray and Holmes’s (1997) three-partframework was based on Taylor and Brown’s(1988) self-illusion perspective (i.e., waysin which individuals hold overly positiveimpressions about themselves). In their reviewof illusions and mental health, Taylor andBrown suggested that many people create self-oriented positive illusions in three domainsthat parallel Murray and Holmes’s scheme:the self and people close to the self, thecontrol one has over any given situation,and unrealistic optimism about the future.Fowers, Lyons, and Montel (1996) criticallyexamined Taylor and Brown’s model regarding

Idealization and Disillusionment 275

relationship illusions as extensions of self-enhancing illusions and found that ‘‘positiveillusions about marriage are more stronglyrelated to the perceived quality of the marriagethan to the individual’s optimism or pessimism’’(p. 200), thus arguing against a correspondencebetween personal and interpersonal illusions.However, Murray and Holmes found thata composite idealization measure based onthe three facets predicted relationship stabilityin longitudinal analyses. Thus, the three-partmodel of relationship illusions may be useful,regardless of whether relationship illusionsactually stem from personal self-enhancingillusions.

Differentiating Idealization from RelatedConcepts

In addition to the two conceptualizations ofidealization, lack of integration also mayresult from researchers using other concepts(sometimes interchangeably) seemingly relatedto highly favorable impressions of one’s partner:partner or relationship enhancement (e.g., Neff& Karney, 2002) and idealistic distortion(ID; e.g., Fowers, Lyons, & Montel, 1996).Idealization can be distinguished from theseand other concepts. Partner enhancement is thecomparison of how people rate themselves andhow the same people rate their partners (Busby& Gardner, 2008; Busby, Holman, & Niehuis,2009; Murray & Holmes, 1999; Murray,Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002;for a different use of terminology, see Gagne& Lydon, 2004; also, partner enhancement hasbeen used to describe idealization, see Neff &Karney, 2002).

Neither are positive illusions nor idealiza-tion merely instances of social desirability, aswas once thought (Edmonds, 1967; Fowers,1990). The construct of idealistic distortion,which Fowers and Applegate (1995) adoptedto replace Edmonds’s (1967) earlier term, mari-tal conventionalization, is key to understandingthis issue. To the extent that respondents mightstrongly endorse an idealistic distortion item,such as ‘‘My marriage is a perfect success,’’ onecould construe such a response as socially desir-able. However, Fowers, Applegate, Olson, andPomerantz (1994) suggested that conventional-ization instead represents ‘‘hypersatisfaction’’(p. 99). Fowers and Applegate (1995) found ina factor-analytic study that idealistic distortion

appeared to be relatively independent of scalesassessing propensity to deceive the self and oth-ers, thus constituting ‘‘substantial evidence thatmarital conventionalization does not appear torepresent a social desirability bias in reports ofmarital satisfaction’’ (p. 240).

Another construct discussed as possiblyduplicative with idealization is marital satisfac-tion. This issue does not appear to be resolved atpresent. Fowers and Applegate (1996), Fowers,Applegate, et al. (1994), and Fowers, Lyons,Montel, and Shaked (2001) suggested that ideal-istic distortion and satisfaction may be so tightlyinterconnected that neither entity is capable ofbeing fully understood in the absence of theother. Fowers and colleagues found satisfactionand idealistic distortion to be highly correlated(Fowers, Applegate et al., 1994; Fowers, Lyons,& Montel, 1996; Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al.,2001). Further, they found in a cluster analysisstudy that no couples occupied the geometricspace corresponding to the combination of highsatisfaction and low distortion, which suggeststhat high satisfaction in the absence of distor-tion rarely, if ever, exists (Fowers, Applegateet al., 1994). Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al. (2001)summed up the challenges of studying thesevariables:

One of the perplexing difficulties with investigat-ing marital illusions is that they are so closelyintertwined with marital satisfaction. This makesit difficult to tease the two apart and has led tothe conclusion that there is a mutual entailmentbetween marital satisfaction and illusions [Fowers,Lyons, & Montel, 1996]. That is, marital illusionsseem to be necessary for marital satisfaction, andindividuals appear to engage in marital illusionsonly when they are satisfactorily married. (p. 103)

Murray and Holmes (1997) offered boththeoretical arguments and empirical analysesin support of the separation of idealization(what they referred to as positive illusions)and relationship satisfaction. As for theory, theysuggested the following:

We believe that positive illusions capture aprospective sense of conviction, confidence, orsecurity that is not simply isomorphic withsatisfaction. . . . A sense of conviction—or feltsecurity—requires the absence of significantnagging doubts or uncertainties. . . . We believethat relationship illusions capture this absence ofdoubt . . . [;] relationship illusions also reflect aforecast or projection for the future. . . . Feelings


of satisfaction, however, might be viewed asevaluations or sentiments more localized in timeand context. (p. 588)

Empirically, Murray and Holmes (1997)found (a) significant associations between pos-itive illusions and other relationship variables(e.g., trust, love) in married and dating respon-dents, statistically controlling for satisfaction;(b) a significant, positive relationship betweeninitial positive illusions and dating-couple sta-bility 1 year later, controlling for initial sat-isfaction (only among women); and (c) a lon-gitudinal relationship, in which initial positiveillusions positively predicted changes (i.e., rises)in satisfaction. An additional, separate line ofresearch that might be said to support Murrayand Holmes’s (1997) contention over that ofFowers and colleagues (Fowers & Applegate,1996; Fowers, Applegate et al., 1994; Fowers,Lyons, Montel, et al., 2001) is a meta-analysis byFletcher and Kerr (2010). These authors foundthe correlation between inflated evaluations ofpartners (what they termed mean-level bias)and relationship satisfaction, though positive innearly all studies, to decline with greater rela-tionship length (from roughly .50 in the newestrelationships to .20 in longer ones, accordingto Fletcher and Kerr’s Figure 4A). Fowers andcolleagues’ claims would seem, in contrast, tosuggest that idealization and satisfaction shouldalways go hand in hand, regardless of relation-ship length.

What accounts for the discrepant findings andconclusions between the Murray and Fowersgroups? One possibility is that they result fromthe different ways in which the two researchteams have measured idealization. Murray andHolmes (1997) used the aforementioned three-part measure that taps into idealization ofthe partner and judgments about the futureof the relationship. By comparison, Fowersand colleagues have assessed idealizationwith a highly valenced measure (i.e., theIdealistic Distortion Scale) of the relationshipthat included items such as the one aboutrespondents’ marriages being perfect successes.Idealization of the relationship in terms ofgood versus bad may be more highly correlatedwith marital and relationship satisfaction than isidealization of the partner (or a composite score).To our knowledge, no study has examinedidealization of the partner and idealization

of the relationship separately, in relation tosatisfaction.

Also, in some of Fowers and colleagues’studies, ID and satisfaction items appearedto have been randomly interspersed with oneanother in the questionnaires, which possiblyled to a response bias. (We thank our colleagueRodney Cate for the latter suggestion.) Murrayand colleagues, however, have tended tooperationalize idealization in a way that avoidssuch direct, valence-based overlap. They eitherhave looked at personality traits (e.g., whether apartner rates the target more favorably than thetarget rates him- or herself) or have used itemscalling for optimism-pessimism judgments (e.g.,how likely it is that the couple’s love will grow)or perceptions of control (e.g., confidence thatrelationship problems can be resolved).

Choice of Benchmarks

Integration of ideas and research findings hasalso been hindered by researchers’ use ofa variety of standards (benchmarks) againstwhich to compare individuals’ overly positiveperceptions of their partners. For instance, tocalculate an idealization score, researchers haveused (either separately or combined) partners’or friends’ perceptions of individuals’ qualitiesor individuals’ ratings of their ideal partners.Although the use of these different benchmarkshas resulted in findings that confirm the effectsof idealization and, thus, in essence has attestedto the convergent validity of the construct,one question that nevertheless arises is, Whichof these benchmarks or what combination ofthem is the most beneficial for researchers touse? We discuss this question later in greaterdetail in the section ‘‘Measurement Issues,’’where we examine the pros and cons ofpossible benchmark contenders (e.g., partnerself-perceptions, perceiver ratings of the idealor average partner).

In summary, several conceptual issues remainregarding idealization and positive illusions. Asis virtually inevitable, different researchers haveused varying terms to describe what may besimilar phenomena (or the reverse, similar termsto describe different phenomena). Failure toreach minimal consensus on these issues hindersour understanding of the phenomenon and thedevelopment of theories. Disentangling whetheridealization is part of marital satisfaction ora separate entity will be helpful to both


the idealization and the marital satisfactionliteratures.

THEORETICAL ISSUES

Idealization Mechanisms: Cognitive orBehavioral?

Researchers have attempted to characterize themechanisms through which idealization oper-ates. By definition, idealization is a cognitiveperception that one holds regarding one’s part-ner. Consequently, several studies have hada cognitive focus, trying to infer how peo-ple process information to create or maintainidealization about their partners. For instance,Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) found thatindividuals’ perceptions about their partners areexplained partly by reality (partners’ percep-tion of self), partly by perceivers’ projection oftheir own self-concept, and partly by perceivers’conceptions of their ideal partners. Murray andHolmes (1999), too, found support for the cogni-tive model in that maintaining a more integratedstructure of one’s partner’s virtues and faultspredicted greater idealization than maintain-ing more compartmentalized constructs of thepartner’s virtues and faults. Other researchershave tried to understand how people main-tain idealization even when they have negativeinformation about their partners (Fowers, Vein-grad, & Dominicis, 2002; Hall & Taylor 1976).In a qualitative study, Fowers, Veingrad et al.(2002) found that partners minimize or rein-terpret negative characteristics of their partnerswhile generalizing more positive characteristicsabout them. Hall and Taylor (1976) found evi-dence that idealization is ‘‘maintained througha pattern of biased causal attributions’’ (p. 751)in which partners are given credit for positivebehaviors, and bad behaviors are perceived asbeing situationally influenced.

However, idealization can also be understoodas behavioral in that individuals’ highly positiveperceptions about their partners actually leadtheir partners to act accordingly, in the formof a self-fulfilling prophecy (Snyder, Tanke,& Berscheid, 1977). Behavioral mechanismsrelated to idealization entail the mutual interplayof partners’ impressions of each other, behaviorsenacted as expressions of these impressions,behaviors enacted in response to partners’behaviors, and reinforcement (or revision) ofimpressions based on observed behaviors.

Multiple studies have examined whetheridealization is a product of behavior or cognitiveprocesses, or both. Murray, Holmes, andGriffin (1996a) found evidence that idealizationis a product of both cognitive mechanisms(projected illusions hypothesis) and behavioralmechanisms (reflected illusions hypothesis).Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, andPatrick’s (2001) study can also be viewedas supporting both cognitive and behavioralmechanisms of idealization. From a cognitiveperspective, according to Knee et al., thoseindividuals who operate from a cultivationorientation believe that relationships take workbut can improve; also, ‘‘perhaps the partner’snegative qualities recede into the background’’(p. 816), thus promoting a more favorable, ifnot idealized, view of the partner. In termsof behavior, a cultivation orientation may leadpartners facing relationship challenges to tryto ‘‘deal with them openly and directly’’(p. 817), thereby improving the relationship andperceptions of the partner. Miller, Caughlin, andHuston (2003) focused on trait expressivenessand found support for both cognitive andbehavioral mechanisms of idealization. Theirfindings suggested that expressive individualsview their partners more positively than theirpartners see themselves (cognitive) but that theseoverly positive evaluations may ‘‘bring out thebest in their partner’’ (behavioral; Miller et al.,2003, p. 1581). Finally, Murray, Holmes, andGriffin (1996b) found support for a self-fulfillingprophecy mechanism: Individuals’ idealizationof their spouses actually led the spouses, itappears, to have more positive self-perceptions.

In short, idealization appears to emerge andbe maintained via cognitive and behavioralmechanisms. Moreover, idealization involvesdyadic processes in which each partner’sbehavior and perception of the other partnerinteract over time. However, we still do not knowwhether and how these mechanisms depend onparticular features of individuals or of theirrelationships.

Links to Established Social-CognitiveTheories

Evaluation of idealization research may benefitfrom consideration of how conceptualizationsof the former fit with broader, establishedtheories of close relationships, social processes,and cognitive schemata. In other words, can


idealization research form a logically consistentconceptual nexus with the established theories(i.e., not contradict the established theories)?Consistency of a new theory with establishedtheories is one criterion, among others, of agood theory (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). Althoughcurrent thinking on idealization may not yetqualify as a formal new theory, it neverthelessrepresents a new set of ideas that can beevaluated alongside older theories.

We focus on three major theories—symbolicinteractionism, motivated social cognition, andcognitive structure—that have been alluded to insome previous discussions of idealization. Foreach of these theories, we provide an overview,discussion of its links to idealization, anassessment of empirical support, and a critique.

Symbolic interactionism. The basis of symbolicinteractionism (SI) is that individuals act inaccordance with the meanings they ascribe to thepersons or objects with which they are interact-ing, thus solidifying the claim that idealizationinvolves dynamic, relational processes. A per-son creates the meaning ascribed to other entitiesthrough social interactions and the interpretationof those interactions. An important term here isreflected appraisal, which Pasley, Kerpelman,and Guilbert (2001) defined as ‘‘interpretationsof feedback about the self’’ (p. 7). Interpersonalrelations are dynamic processes in which actors(i.e., individuals in their roles) are aware ofthemselves and how they are presenting them-selves. Symbolic interactionism addresses thenotion that individuals want to present them-selves in ways that best represent how theywant the other person(s) in the interaction toview them (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). In theseways, impression management is an importantcomponent of SI (Dolch, 2003), which fits withthe previous discussion of how idealization mayresult, in part, from individuals trying to createfavorable images of themselves for their partnersduring courtship.

On the basis of the works of Willard Waller,many researchers have used SI to understandidealization. Waller (1937) suggested that,as a person comes to know another in arelationship, the couple goes through the processof idealization. Idealization, in this context, isa natural occurrence. The process starts beforethe two people ever enter the relationship, asboth develop images of their respective idealpartner and relationship through socialization.

This image is shaped through interactions withothers, against the backdrop of concepts andideas in the couple’s society of what an idealperson would be for each one. As individualsenter a relationship, they may not know the otherperson very well. Therefore, they are likely tofill in the gaps in their knowledge of the partner(Pollis, 1969) by using their mental image of anideal partner.

Waller (1937) emphasized that idealizationincreased as the relationship continued. Hebelieved that people are motivated to presentthemselves as favorably as possible, thusportraying only the image that they wouldlike their partner to have. Therefore, as theromantic relationship develops, partners are ableto formulate better how their partner perceivesthem, and they continue to behave in waysconsistent with that perception. Moreover, theylikely fail to see what the partner’s personalityis truly like. Pollis (1969) tested Waller’shypothesis that idealization increases withincreasing seriousness of the dating relationshipbut found no support.

Schulman (1974) also examined the ideathat individuals who idealize their partnerswill likely fail to see their partners’ true per-sonality. However, he suggested that blockedcommunication—hearing only what they wantto hear—is responsible for the failure. Schulmanreferred to this as the person’s predeterminedresponse. During an argument, when partners’true personalities are more likely to be revealed,blocked communication would result in bothpeople feeling satisfied that their side of theargument was heard and that they reached aconsensus, when in reality they accomplishednothing. Schulman found that blocked com-munication was related to idealization andaffected the relationship between idealizationand adjustment during engagement before mar-riage. (For tests of the blocked communicationhypothesis with long-distance dating relation-ships, see Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Stafford &Reske, 1990.)

Because SI assumes that socialization playsan important role in idealization, two researchteams hypothesized that there would be culturaldifferences in idealization. Endo, Heine, andLehman (2000) investigated differences inidealization among European Canadian, AsianCanadian, and Japanese individuals. In general,they did not find cultural differences in partnerand relationship idealization. However, when


they asked participants to rate their partner andrelationship on positive and negative aspectsseparately, interesting differences emerged. Forthe two Canadian groups, individuals’ reportson negative aspects of their partners andrelationship were the same as their reports ofthe average person and relationship, therebyimplying a lack of idealization. In contrast,the Japanese sample revealed evidence ofrelationship effacement, in which scores onthe negative aspects of one’s own partner andromantic relationship were higher than scoresfor the average person and average relationship.

Fowers, Fisiloglu, and Procacci (2008)examined differences in idealization amongthe following three groups: American marriedindividuals and Turkish individuals either fromconsanguineous (‘‘marriages between membersof the same extended family,’’ p. 271) or fromnonconsanguineous marriages. Contrary to Endoet al. (2000), Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al. founda cultural difference when participants wereasked to rate their partner on positive aspects.Americans idealized their spouses more thandid Turkish individuals. This difference wasbecause Americans rated the average personless positively than Turkish individuals did.The ratings of the spouses, however, did notdiffer between the three groups. Furthermore,Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al. found no significantdifferences with regard to negative trait ratings.Thus, idealization may be universal, but themechanism through which it occurs may varyacross cultures. More cross-cultural research isneeded to further our understanding of the roleof culture in idealization.

Although these cross-cultural studies provideus with useful information on cultural differ-ences in idealization, their findings must beinterpreted with caution. In both studies, partic-ipants were asked to rate their own and theirpartner’s personality traits to arrive at a measureof idealization. The authors translated the itemsinto appropriate languages but failed to considerwhether those traits held the same meanings andimportance across cultures.

In conclusion, symbolic interactionism ap-pears to be a useful framework, having receivedempirical support from several studies. Itallows researchers to use a holistic, dyadicperspective in studying relationship processes,which suggests that idealization occurs withinthe relationship and broader societal (macro)contexts, not merely within the individual

partners (micro context). However, futureresearch needs to explore the processes oneach of these levels. Studies demonstratinghow dyadic interactions develop and maintainidealization would be very helpful.

Motivated social cognition. Along with study-ing how one partner conveys information abouthim- or herself, it is necessary to study howthe other partner perceives such information.In the arena of romantic relationships, wherepartners are attracted to—and may even be inlove with—each other, there may be a strongmotivation for each partner to see the other,despite any flaws, in the most favorable lightpossible. Knowing that one is committed tobeing with a partner who has serious characterflaws, for example, can lead to uncomfortablecognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Murrayand Holmes (1993) extended ideas regardingmotivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990) to roman-tic relationships, invoking the term interpretivelicense for how partners construed informationabout each other.

Causal attributions are one form of social-cognitive impression, and prior researchsuggests that the existing quality of maritalrelationships affects the motivational nature ofattributions about one’s partner. Bradbury andFincham (1990) suggested that individuals indistressed marriages amplify negative eventsand that the attributions of those negative eventsspill over to other events that occur in the rela-tionship. In contrast, in nondistressed couples,positive events are amplified, and the attributionsof the positive events are applied to the negativeevents that may occur. In addition, it is believedthat the locus of the event is ascribed differ-ently in these contexts. For distressed couples,the locus is ascribed as internal to the partner.Thus, when negative events occur, individualsattribute responsibility to their partners or theirpartners’ doing. For nondistressed couples, thelocus is contextual; thus, individuals attributeresponsibility for negative events to somethingelse acting on their partner (e.g., work).

Another way in which these attributionsmay function is through selective attention, theprocess by which individuals maintain selectpieces of specific relationship information thatprovide consistent support for the individuals’global perceptions. Within motivated socialcognition, idealization functions as the processby which people attend to the positive specific


events of the relationship and make attributionsaccordingly. Initially, individuals strive to viewtheir partners in the best possible light. However,individuals can only idealize so far. Theremay come a point in a person’s relationshipwhen positive attributions become stretched andno longer spill over into other aspects of therelationship.

Research on motivated social cognition andidealization has supported the notion thatindividuals engage in motivated processes.Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, andVerette (2000, Study 1) asked college studentsinvolved in romantic relationships to write aboutpositive and negative features in their ownand others’ relationships. Various measures ofperceived superiority were coded (e.g., usingpositive terms more often to describe one’sown than others’ relationships). Rusbult et al.also created experimental conditions intended tocreate either a sense of threat about one’s ownrelationship before the writing task (i.e., tellingparticipants that college-based relationshipstend not to last) or a more neutral mind-set. In what the authors took as evidencefor motivated processing, the threat condition,more so than the other conditions, drove upperceived-superiority references in participants’writings. The researchers also examined theinfluence of commitment on the perception ofsuperiority and found that individuals higherin commitment portrayed higher levels ofrelationship superiority, which suggests thatindividuals were more motivated to haveillusions to sustain their relationship.

Although motivated social cognition providessome insight on the development and mainte-nance of idealization, and has been supportedempirically, it fails to offer a complete picturebecause of its sole focus on intrapsychic aspects.Future studies would need to include the dyadicaspects (e.g., whether or how individuals pro-mote their partners’ motivation).

Cognitive structure theories. Theories of cog-nitive structure suggest that people categorizetheir world into different schemata or knowl-edge structures (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson,1979). These schemata are changed and adaptedthrough processes of assimilation and accom-modation. A person’s schemata for an objectpredicts his or her actions. One kind of cogni-tive structure theory, as suggested by Neff and

Karney (2003), defines the process of idealiza-tion as weighing negative perceptions as lessimportant than positive perceptions. Using thisframework, Neff and Karney examined how peo-ple integrate negative and positive attributes intheir schemata of their partners. For the processof integration to occur, individuals must havea certain amount of cognitive flexibility. Themind must be able to adapt to the vicissitudesof daily life and to changes in the relationship.Cognitive flexibility is also important because itmoves individuals away from classifying behav-iors as good or bad to instead rank behaviors byimportance. Individuals may be motivated toweigh these occurrences because they want toprotect their global image of their relationship(which also, of course, implicates motivatedsocial cognition). To understand how individu-als cognitively process events, researchers mustcomprehend perceivers’ interpretation and eval-uation of units of information about their partnersand how they are combined. Neff and Karney(2003) found support for the claim that individ-uals elevate the importance of specific positiveperceptions of their partners while devaluing theimportance of negative perceptions.

McNulty and Karney (2001) argued that attri-bution plays an important role in maintaining thespecific versus global cognitive structure. Traitperceptions of self and partner differ in theirbreadth, ranging from specific, such as athleticability and tidiness, to global, such as having‘‘good’’ qualities. If, for example, an individualattributes the fact that the partner forgot the cou-ple’s anniversary to stress at work (i.e., externaland situational), this individual’s global evalu-ation of the partner will remain positive. If theindividual, however, believes that the partner’sforgetfulness is internal and habitual, the impor-tance of the event and the negative evaluationof the partner will increase. Research findingssupport McNulty and Karney’s (2001) argu-ment: Positive attribution potentially leads tohigher positive relationship evaluation and neg-ative attribution to lower positive relationshipevaluation (e.g., Jacobson, McDonald, Follette,& Berley, 1985; Thompson & Kelley, 1981).

Cognitive structure theories provide a linkbetween specific pieces of information thatan individual holds about the partner and theperson’s global evaluation of the partner. Exam-ining the valence of specific elements of one’spartner representation (i.e., good in these ways,


less good in others) facilitates fine-grained quan-titative analysis of the correspondence betweencognitive structures and variation in the degreeof idealization toward one’s partner. However,as a cognitive psychological framework, thisapproach could be viewed as having an overlyindividualistic, intrapsychic focus for its studyof the inherently interpersonal topic of relation-ships. Also, individuals may lack awareness oftheir feelings at a given time, thus renderingimperfect verbal self-reports of affective states(Zajonc, 1980). Cognitive approaches to study-ing idealization and disillusionment still seemwarranted, but they should be complementedwith other methods, such as dyadic interac-tion and psychophysiological assessments ofemotion.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Just as conceptual and theoretical issues pointto areas for refinement in studying idealization,so do methodological issues. In this section,we describe and evaluate the methods that havebeen used to study idealization, with 28 stud-ies from 22 articles (Table 1). Citations for thereviewed articles can be found in the refer-ences section, marked with an asterisk. Herewe review empirical studies that specificallyexamined idealization, as well as studies onconcepts with different names for idealizationbut the same definition (see definitions in theearlier section ‘‘Leading Frameworks’’). Theseempirical studies were identified first by search-ing the EBSCO psychology/sociology onlinedatabase and Google Scholar, using the keywords positive illusions and idealization. Addi-tional studies were located from the referencesof the previously identified studies. We excludeddissertations, unpublished manuscripts, and non-peer-reviewed sources.

Measurement Issues

Researchers have used various methods toassess idealization. Measurement approachesgenerally fall into two major categories: directapproaches (e.g., questionnaire items that allowrespondents to endorse explicitly favorableand/or optimistic statements about their partnersand/or relationships) and indirect approaches(e.g., rating of one’s actual and ideal partner, aswell as self-ratings, on particular traits, which

are then used to compute difference or residualscores of idealization).

Direct approaches. The Idealistic DistortionScale, used primarily by Fowers and hiscolleagues (Fowers & Applegate, 1995, 1996;Fowers, Applegate, et al., 1994; Fowers, Lyons,& Montel, 1996; Fowers, Lyons, Montel,et al., 2001), is a leading direct measure incontemporary research. The ID Scale comprisesfive items, with internal consistency (alpha)and test-retest reliability reported to be greaterthan .90 (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, et al., 2001).Measures inspired by Taylor and Brown (1988),such as optimism and control and/or efficacy(Murray & Holmes, 1997), are other directmeasures of idealization. However, some mightconsider these two measures to be less than fullydirect approaches, as they require respondents tocompare their relationship with those of others.For example, the optimism measure lists possiblefuture occurrences, such as ‘‘the love my partnerand I share continuing to grow’’ and ‘‘ourrelationship leading to dissolution or divorce,’’to which participants must indicate theirperceived likelihood on a nine-point scale, from‘‘much less likely to occur in my relationshipthan in the typical relationship’’ to ‘‘much morelikely to occur in my relationship than in thetypical relationship.’’ The optimism and controlindices that Murray and Holmes (1997) usedhave achieved alpha reliabilities of roughly .90.

Indirect approaches. Indirect measurement re-fers to researchers’ collection—and statisti-cal combination—of many different measures,potentially from multiple sources, in a way thatpermits the inference that idealization is beingassessed. The most common indirect approachuses difference scores. One way to obtain dif-ference scores is to gather information aboutone person from multiple sources (e.g., self andpartners). In this approach, Partner A would ratePartner B on some traits, and then a bench-mark score (e.g., Partner B’s self-report on thesame traits) would be subtracted. Instrumentsthat assess personality or personal attributes arecommonly used to generate self-ratings and part-ner ratings (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997, 1999;Neff & Karney, 2002). Another way to obtaindifference scores is to compare individuals’reports of their partners and/or relationships withtheir reports of average or ideal partners and/or


Tab

le1.

Stud

ies

ofId

ealiz

atio

n

Stud

ySa

mpl

eC

hara

cter

istic

sSa

mpl

eSi

ze(I

ndiv

idua

ls)

Mea

suri

ngId

ealiz

atio

nM

etho

dof

Ana

lysi

sC

omm

ents

Bar

elds

-Dijk

stra

&B

arel

ds(2

008)

Mar

ried

orco

habi

ting

Dut

chco

uple

s12

8D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(ben

chm

ark:

part

ner’

sow

nra

ting)

PTT

,SR

,TT

Bar

elds

&D

ijkst

ra(2

009)

1.M

arri

edor

coha

bitin

gD

utch

coup

les

2.M

arri

edor

coha

bitin

gD

utch

coup

les

1.23

42.

406

1.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(par

tner

’sow

nra

ting)

2.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(par

tner

’sow

nra

ting)

1.T

T,P

C2.

TT

,HL

M.P

C

End

oet

al.(

2000

)1.

Japa

nese

and

Can

adia

nco

llege

stud

ents

2.Ja

pane

sean

dC

anad

ian

colle

gest

uden

ts

1.17

3Ja

pane

sean

d22

6C

anad

ians

2.22

2Ja

pane

sean

d23

1C

anad

ians

1.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(ave

rage

rela

tions

hip)

2.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(ave

rage

rela

tions

hip)

1.A

NO

VA

,RA

NO

VA

2.A

NO

VA

,RA

NO

VA

Com

pari

son

oftw

ocu

lture

s

Fow

ers,

Fisi

logl

u,et

al.

(200

8)M

arri

edin

divi

dual

sfr

omT

urke

yan

dU

.S.

114

Tur

kish

and

49A

mer

ican

Dir

ectm

easu

res

and

diff

eren

cesc

ore

(ave

rage

pers

on)

AN

CO

VA

,RA

NC

OV

AC

ompa

riso

nof

two

cultu

res

Fow

ers,

Lyo

ns,M

onte

l,et

al.(

2001

)1.

Mar

ried

coup

les

2.M

arri

edin

divi

dual

s3.

Sing

lein

divi

dual

s

1.11

02.

783.

167

1.D

irec

tmea

sure

s2.

Dir

ectm

easu

res

3.D

irec

tmea

sure

s

1.PC

2.PC

3.A

NO

VA

,CH

I

1–2.

Surv

eys

3.E

xper

imen

tald

esig

nFo

wer

s,V

eing

rad,

etal

.(2

002)

Eng

aged

coup

les

36In

terv

iew

abou

tpar

ticip

ants

’re

port

son

Idea

listic

Dis

tort

ion

Scal

e

GT

CQ

ualit

ativ

ere

sear

ch

Fow

ers,

Lyo

ns,&

Mon

tel

(199

6)M

arri

edco

uple

s11

0D

irec

tmea

sure

sH

R,P

C

Hal

l&T

aylo

r(1

976)

1.M

arri

edco

llege

stud

ents

2–3.

Mar

ried

colle

gest

uden

ts1.

262–

3.37

1.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(sel

f,ac

quai

ntan

ce,a

ndpa

rtne

r’s

own

ratin

g)2–

3.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(fri

ends

,ac

quai

ntan

ces,

and

part

ner’

sse

lf-r

atin

g)

1–2.

RA

NO

VA

3.A

NC

OV

A1–

2.Su

rvey

3.E

xper

imen

tald

esig

n


Tab

le1.

Con

tinue

d

Stud

ySa

mpl

eC

hara

cter

istic

sSa

mpl

eSi

ze(I

ndiv

idua

ls)

Mea

suri

ngId

ealiz

atio

nM

etho

dof

Ana

lysi

sC

omm

ents

Kne

eet

al.(

2001

)1.

Und

ergr

adua

test

uden

tsin

aro

man

ticre

latio

nshi

p2.

Het

eros

exua

lcou

ples

1.17

72.

122

1.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(ide

alpa

rtne

r),d

irec

tmea

sure

,and

resi

dual

scor

e(i

deal

part

ner)

2.R

esid

uals

core

(sel

f,id

eal

part

ner,

part

ner’

sow

nra

ting)

1.H

R2.

HL

M1.

Que

stio

nnai

rem

easu

res

2.Q

uest

ionn

aire

san

dse

mis

truc

ture

din

terv

iew

sM

artz

etal

.(19

98)

1.U

nder

grad

uate

stud

ents

2.U

nder

grad

uate

stud

ents

inro

man

ticre

latio

nshi

ps

1.21

82.

158

1–2.

Dif

fere

nce

scor

e(b

estf

rien

dan

dav

erag

epe

rson

)M

AN

OV

AT

wo

expe

rim

ents

McN

eal(

1997

)G

aym

ale

coup

les

90R

esid

uals

core

(sel

f,id

eal

part

ner,

part

ner’

sow

nra

ting)

ICC

,MR

Mill

er,C

augh

lin,

etal

.(20

03)

New

lyw

edco

uple

s32

8(d

ecre

ased

from

the

initi

al33

6)Pa

thco

effic

ient

sSE

M13

-yea

rlo

ngitu

dina

lst

udy

(4w

aves

)M

iller

,Nie

huis

,eta

l.(2

006)

New

lyw

edco

uple

s32

8(d

ecre

ased

from

initi

al33

6)R

esid

uals

core

(par

tner

’sow

nra

ting)

2SL

S13

-yea

rlo

ngitu

dina

lst

udy

(4w

aves

)M

urra

y&

Hol

mes

(199

7)M

arri

ed(8

2)an

dda

ting

(121

)co

uple

sIn

itial

tota

l—40

6da

ting-

coup

lefo

llow

-up;

160

atT

ime

2an

d13

0at

Tim

e3

Dif

fere

nce

scor

e(p

artn

er’s

own

ratin

gan

dav

erag

epe

rson

)an

ddi

rect

mea

sure

s

PA,R

AN

OV

AFo

llow

-ups

for

datin

gsa

mpl

eat

4an

d12

mon

ths

afte

rth

ein

itial

sess

ion

Mur

ray

&H

olm

es(1

999)

Sing

lein

divi

dual

sin

datin

gre

latio

nshi

psof

atle

ast

3m

onth

s

145

(144

atfo

llow

-up)

Dir

ectm

easu

res

MR

Follo

w-u

pat

12m

onth

saf

ter

the

initi

alse

ssio

n

Mur

ray,

Hol

mes

,D

olde

rman

,eta

l.(2

000)

Cou

ples

invo

lved

inm

arita

l(77

)or

coha

bitin

g(2

8)re

latio

nshi

psof

atle

ast2

year

san

dth

eir

frie

nd(1

09)

319

Slop

esan

din

terc

epts

ofre

gres

sion

line

(fri

end’

sra

ting

ofth

epa

rtne

r)

RA

NO

VA

,SE

M


Tab

le1.

Con

tinue

d

Stud

ySa

mpl

eC

hara

cter

istic

sSa

mpl

eSi

ze(I

ndiv

idua

ls)

Mea

suri

ngId

ealiz

atio

nM

etho

dof

Ana

lysi

sC

omm

ents

Mur

ray,

Hol

mes

,&G

riffi

n(1

996a

)M

arri

ed(8

2)an

dda

ting

(98)

coup

les

360

Res

idua

lsco

re(s

elf,

idea

lpa

rtne

r,an

dpa

rtne

r’s

own

ratin

g)

MR

,RA

NO

VA

,SE

M

Mur

ray,

Hol

mes

,&G

riffi

n(1

996b

)D

atin

gco

uple

s24

2(1

63at

Tim

e2,

129

atT

ime

3)R

esid

uals

core

(sel

f,id

eal

part

ner,

and

part

ner’

sow

nra

ting)

SEM

Follo

w-u

psat

4–5

and

11–1

2m

onth

saf

ter

initi

alse

ssio

nN

eff

&K

arne

y(2

002)

New

lyw

edco

uple

s16

4(1

52at

Tim

e2,

124

atT

ime

4)D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(par

tner

’sow

nra

ting)

HL

M2-

year

long

itudi

nals

tudy

(eve

ry6

mon

ths,

4w

aves

),en

hanc

emen

tPo

llis

(196

9)Si

ngle

unde

rgra

duat

est

uden

tsan

dtw

oof

thei

rfr

iend

sw

hokn

ewth

est

uden

ts’

datin

gpa

rtne

r

231

Dif

fere

nce

scor

e(f

rien

d’s

ratin

gof

the

part

ner)

MW

UT

,KW

AV

R

Rus

bult

etal

.(20

00)

1.U

nder

grad

uate

stud

ents

inda

ting

rela

tions

hips

2.M

arri

edco

uple

s

1.24

92.

126

(dec

reas

edfr

omin

itial

246)

1.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(oth

ers’

rela

tions

hip)

2.D

iffe

renc

esc

ore

(oth

ers’

rela

tions

hip)

1.A

NO

VA

2.H

LM

Perc

eive

dsu

peri

ority

1.E

xper

imen

tald

esig

n2.

Lag

ged

long

itudi

nald

esig

n(e

very

6m

onth

s,6

wav

es)

Schu

lman

(197

4)U

nder

grad

uate

coup

les

196

Dif

fere

nce

scor

e(d

isag

reem

ent)

AN

OV

AId

ealiz

atio

n

Not

e:2S

LS

=tw

o-st

age

leas

tsq

uare

san

alys

is;

AN

OV

A=

anal

ysis

ofva

rian

ce;

AN

CO

VA

=an

alys

isof

cova

rian

ce;

CH

I=

χ2

test

;G

TC

=gr

ound

edth

eory

codi

ng;

HL

M=

hier

arch

ical

linea

rm

odel

ing;

HR

=hi

erar

chic

alre

gres

sion

;IC

C=

intr

acla

ssco

rrel

atio

n;K

WA

VR

=K

rusk

al-W

allis

anal

ysis

ofva

rian

ceby

rank

s;M

AN

OV

A=

mul

tivar

iate

anal

ysis

ofva

rian

ce;M

R=

mul

tiple

regr

essi

on;M

WU

T=

Man

n-W

hitn

eyU

test

;PA

=pa

than

alys

is;P

C=

Pear

son’

scor

rela

tion;

PTT

=pa

ired

t-te

st;R

AN

CO

VA

=re

peat

ed-m

easu

rean

alys

isof

cova

rian

ce;R

AN

OV

A=

repe

ated

-mea

sure

anal

ysis

ofva

rian

ce;S

EM

=st

ruct

ural

equa

tion

mod

elin

g;SR

=st

epw

ise

regr

essi

on;T

T=

t-te

st.


relationships (e.g., Endo et al., 2000; Fowers,Fisiloglu, et al., 2008).

As Fowers, Veingrad, et al. (2002) havecorrectly noted, ‘‘there is no gold standardfor assessing a relationship that captures anunambiguous reality against which a partner’sperception of the relationship could be evalu-ated to assess ‘distortion’’’ (p. 450). However,some benchmarks may be better than others. Forexample, having individuals rate some abstractidea of an average partner and/or relationship asa benchmark may not be optimal for measuringidealization because people in romantic relation-ships tend to derogate others’ relationships andpartners for the same reason that they idealizetheir own partners and relationships (Johnson& Rusbult, 1989; Simpson, 1987; Van Lange& Rusbult, 1995). These benchmarks do nottake into account that individuals’ rating of theirpartners is inevitably related to their partners’self-rating. Thus, some researchers argue thatpartners’ perceptions of themselves are a moreconservative benchmark than other possiblealternative measures (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009).Because people tend to evaluate themselves inpositive ways, according to this argument, indi-viduals’ rating of their partners more favorablythan the partners rate themselves would indicateidealization of the partner (Murray, Holmes, &Griffin, 1996a). Difference scores, regardless ofwhich benchmark is used, do not, however, pro-vide information about the actual value (level) ofthe measure for each individual, only about thediscrepancy between the two scores (Murray,Holmes, Bellavia et al., 2002).

The second indirect way of measuring ideal-ization, the residual approach, is to estimatescores after controlling for other variables(e.g., Knee et al., 2001; Murray, Holmes, &Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). Multiple regression pro-grams typically allow users to save values(i.e., residuals) of a dependent variable aftershared variance with independent variables hasbeen removed. Murray (personal communica-tion, June 30, 2008) argued that this approachappears to be more appropriate than calculat-ing difference scores. Murray, Holmes, andGriffin (1996a), who developed regression-based approaches with individuals’ ratings ofself, ideal partner, and their partners, as wellas partners’ self ratings, elaborated on whatthey consider the shortcomings of differencescores; they acknowledged, however, the contin-uing ‘‘debate surrounding the use of difference

scores’’ (p. 89, Footnote 8). Residual scoreshave the advantage of allowing one to con-trol for multiple benchmarks simultaneously,although researchers should be aware that resid-uals scores can potentially vary, depending onwhich variables are controlled for. Methods thatencompass both residuals and difference scoresare also available for potential use in future ide-alization research (Griffin, Murray, & Gonzalez,1999; Shiota & Levenson, 2007).

The third indirect way, which might beconsidered a more complex variation on theresidual approach, involves derivations fromrelationships between variables. For example,in Miller, Caughlin, et al.’s (2003) study,idealization was operationalized as paths fromindividuals’ trait expressiveness to partners’affectionate behavior to individuals’ perceptionof partners’ responsiveness. The authors arguedthat spouses’ expressiveness elicits affectionatebehavior from their partners, thus leadingspouses to feel that their partners are veryresponsive (behavioral idealization). Anotherexample is Murray, Holmes, Dolderman, andGriffin’s (2000) study, in which the slopesand intercepts of regression lines predictingspouses’ perception of their partners fromspouses’ satisfaction were compared to thosepredicting the friends’ perception of partnersfrom spouses’ satisfaction. Residual approachesappear preferable to difference scores, butdecisions for which type of residual-basedapproach to use would probably depend onmany factors, such as sample size, availabilityof particular variables in the study, and so on.

Although it may be premature to concludethat one approach to measuring idealization (i.e.,the direct or indirect approach) may be betterthan another (to our knowledge, no researchhas yet compared different ways of measuringidealization in the same study), we agree withMurray (personal communication, June 30,2008) that the residual approach is better thanany direct approach or difference-score approachto measuring idealization of the partner, becausedirect approaches lack a benchmark anddifference scores fail to provide informationabout the actual level of the measure.

The issue of which benchmark(s) to useto estimate the residual score remains to beaddressed. Although we strongly encouragefurther exploration of this question, we concludefor now that a combination of individuals’perceptions of themselves and of their ideal


partner and their partners’ self-perception ismost appropriate. These three benchmarks havebeen found to be related to one’s perceptionof the partner in several studies (e.g., Kneeet al., 2001; McNeal, 1997; Murray, Holmes, &Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). The three benchmarksalso have been used successfully in other studiesthat adopted the difference-score approach.

Sample Characteristics

We review 28 independent samples here. Thenumber of samples does not match the numberof articles reviewed because some of thearticles used data from previous studies andothers reported multiple studies with multiplesamples. Mostly, the independent 28 sampleswere homogeneous (see Table 1). Except for twocross-cultural studies (Endo et al., 2000; Fowers,Fisiloglu, et al., 2008) and two studies withDutch samples (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds,2008; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009), the majorityof samples with race/ethnicity informationconsisted of middle-class North AmericanCaucasians. Only 53.6% of samples (15 of28) provided information about participants’race/ethnicity. Except for the two cross-culturalstudies and the two Dutch studies, onlyfour samples (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, et al.,2001; Knee et al., 2001) with race/ethnicityinformation included more than 50% non-Caucasians. Only one nonheterosexual sample,consisting of gay men, has been reported(McNeal, 1997). Moreover, the majority ofdating-couple samples were of college students(e.g., Endo et al., 2000; Knee et al., 2001; Martzet al., 1998; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a,1996b). Because of this lack of diversity insamples, little is known with regard to theeffect of ethnicity and socioeconomic status onidealization. Moreover, many studies did notinclude demographic variables in their analyses.For example, almost none of the studiesused the duration of the relationship and/ormarriage as a substantive or control variable (forstudies that did, see Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds,2008; Hall & Taylor, 1976), thus limiting ourunderstanding of developmental processes ofidealization. (Fletcher and Kerr, 2010, were ableto examine relationship length, as noted earlier;however, because meta-analysis uses studies asthe unit of analysis, only each sample’s averagerelationship duration could be used.) None of thesamples was nationally representative, and most

were relatively small in size. In conclusion, thehomogeneity of the samples used in idealizationstudies makes it hard to generalize the findingsbeyond majority groups in North Americansociety. More studies with diverse populationswill extend our understanding of idealization.

Other Methodological Issues

We did not review methodological issues otherthan measurement and sample characteristics indetail, as many of them (e.g., nonrepresentativesamples, slow adoption of advanced statisticaltechniques) are not unique to idealizationresearch. Still, there are a few issues that webelieve warrant brief mention. First, coupledata have sometimes been analyzed withinappropriate or less-than-ideal strategies, suchas separate analyses for male and femalepartners (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997). Thus,little is known about how partners in arelationship influence each other in developingand maintaining idealization. Second, moreattention is needed to the developmentalprocess of idealization. Longitudinal studieswith focus on developmental patterns, not juston the predictability of relationship status (e.g.,Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b, 1997, 1999;Rusbult et al., 2000), are necessary to further ourunderstanding of idealization.

EVIDENCE

To take stock of the literature, we have reviewedstudies with regard to both evidence theyprovide for idealization’s predictive ability andthe variables that predict idealization. Herewe review only the variables that have beenexamined in more than one study.

What Predicts Idealization?

Gender. The findings on gender differencesin idealization are mixed. Some studies havefound evidence for gender differences (Murray& Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,1996b; Rusbult et al., 2000), whereas othershave not (e.g., Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al., 2008;Martz et al., 1998; Miller, Caughlin, et al.,2003). Studies that found gender differencesconsistently reported that women idealized theirpartner more than men did. Pollis (1969)examined changes in idealization over thecourse of the courtship and found that men’s


idealization of their partner varied dependingon how seriously they were involved withtheir dating partner; men idealized their partnerless with increasing involvement. Women’sidealization of their dating partners did not varydepending on level of relationship involvement.Studies that did not find gender differenceshad relatively large sample sizes (≥150), whichsuggests that the lack of significant differencesmay not have resulted from low statistical power.

Commitment. Commitment is positively asso-ciated with idealization in dating and maritalrelationships (Martz et al., 1998; Rusbult et al.,2000). Rusbult et al. found that the relation-ship between commitment and idealization wasstronger when individuals felt psychologicalthreat to the relationship and weaker when theyfelt they had to give accurate evaluations of therelationship. Thus, motivation seems to moder-ate the relationship between commitment andidealization.

Self-esteem. Findings on self-esteem and ide-alization are inconsistent. One study (Rusbultet al., 2000) found self-esteem to positively pre-dict idealization in marital relationships. How-ever, in a dating study (Martz et al., 1998),self-esteem did not predict idealization.

Relationship satisfaction. The relationship be-tween satisfaction and idealization has alreadybeen discussed in connection with conceptualand measurement issues. The results on relation-ship satisfaction’s ability to predict idealizationare mixed. Whereas a 1-year longitudinal studyfound that initial satisfaction did not predictlater idealization (Murray & Holmes, 1997),another, cross-sectional study (Murray, Holmes,Dolderman et al., 2000) found that satisfactionpredicted idealization and being idealized. Thiswas especially true for those who were in thetop 20th percentile of satisfaction. Highly satis-fied individuals idealized their partners and hadpartners who idealized them. The inconsistencyof the findings may be due to one study beinglongitudinal and the other being cross-sectional.

What Does Idealization Predict?

Conflict. Idealization appears to be negativelyrelated to conflict. In a 1-year longitudinalstudy, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b)found idealization to predict less frequentand destructive conflict in dating couples,

even after controlling for satisfaction cross-sectionally and longitudinally. In another study,women who idealized their partner perceivedless conflict than did ‘‘realists’’ or ‘‘pessimists’’(Schulman, 1974).

Relationship satisfaction. Multiple studies havefound support for idealization predicting sat-isfaction in dating and marital relationships(Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009; Knee et al., 2001;Miller, Caughlin et al., 2003; Murray & Holmes,1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b;Schulman, 1974). All studies except one (Kneeet al., 2001) were longitudinal, ranging from1 to 13 years. Couples with higher idealiza-tion reported higher relationship satisfaction.Moreover, individuals’ idealization also pre-dicted their partners’ satisfaction (Murray &Holmes, 1997), and being idealized by part-ners predicted relationship satisfaction (Murray,Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). Expanding on theresearch, Knee et al. (2001) found evidence forimplicit theories of relationships (i.e., the beliefthat couples can ‘‘grow’’ in their relationship)moderating the association between idealizationand satisfaction. Idealization and satisfactiondid not appear to be closely correlated amongrespondents who believed that relationships canbe ‘‘cultivated’’ (i.e., improved through workingon the relationship), whereas they had a strongerconnection among those who believed more thatrelationship success was preordained.

Relationship stability. Many researchers havefound that idealization predicts dating-relation-ship stability (Murray & Holmes, 1997;Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b) and marital-relationship stability (Rusbult et al., 2000).However, it seems that satisfaction may medi-ate this relationship. The association betweenidealization and relationship stability was sig-nificant after controlling for relationship satis-faction for women (but not men) in one study(Murray & Holmes, 1997), but not in another(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). Idealiza-tion decreased the possibility of breakup also bybuffering the link between conflict and stabilityfor dating men. The interaction between ide-alization and conflict or ambivalence revealedthat, for men with high idealization, high con-flict and ambivalence did not predict breakup(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). More-over, being idealized by the partner, as wellas idealizing the partner, predicted relationship


stability (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b).However, longitudinal studies that found rela-tionships between idealization and relationshipstability were relatively short (12–20 months).In a 13-year longitudinal study (Miller, Niehuis,& Huston, 2006), idealization at the newly-wed phase did not predict later marital stability.Thus, here and in other sections of this summary,longer follow-up intervals appear to be associ-ated with weaker relationships among variables,which is to be expected.

In conclusion, previous studies on idealizationhave found individual and relational factorsassociated with idealization. However, there arestill aspects of idealization that have not beenexamined such as the developmental and dyadicprocesses of idealization.

LINKAGES OF IDEALIZATIONTO DISILLUSIONMENT

Although researchers have suggested that ideal-ization may set the stage for later disillusionmentin at least some couples (Buehlman et al., 1992;Huston et al., 2001), discussion and empiri-cal examination of this connection have beensparse. Huston et al. (2001) proposed a disil-lusionment model. The idea behind the modelis that during courtship, romantic partners aremotivated to see and present themselves toeach other in the most positive light. Oncethey are married, however, and the reality ofday-to-day life sets in, partners begin to seeeach other more realistically and become lessmotivated to engage in impression manage-ment. Thus, disillusionment begins to set in andcan cause great harm to relationships (Hustonet al., 2001).

Multiple researchers have found evidenceof disillusionment among romantic couples(Buehlman et al., 1992; Hobart, 1958; Hustonet al., 2001; Kersten, 1990; Pineo, 1961). Hobart(1958) examined the discrepancy between actualand estimated disagreement scores among dat-ing, engaged, and married couples to determinethe existence of disillusionment. Evidence wasfound for disillusionment for both men andwomen from the transition of engagement tomarriage (Hobart, 1958). Similarly, in a 20-year longitudinal study of married couples,Pineo (1961) found evidence for disillusionment(labeled ‘‘disenchantment’’) in the early yearsof marriage.

Research suggests that disillusionment mayindeed have negative consequences for maritalrelationships. Two studies found that disillu-sionment was negatively correlated with maritalsatisfaction cross-sectionally (Buehlman et al.,1992; Niehuis & Bartell 2006) and longitu-dinally (3 years later; Buehlman et al., 1992).Further, disillusionment predicted divorce up to13 years later (Buehlman et al., 1992; Hustonet al., 2001). Buehlman et al. (1992) used anoral-history interview in a longitudinal follow-up on married couples and found that maritaldisillusionment was the single most powerfulpredictor of divorce, even after controlling forsatisfaction at Time 1. Complementing thesefindings, Huston et al. (2001), in a 13-year lon-gitudinal study of initially newlywed couples,found that divorced couples experienced greaterdisillusionment within the first 2 years of theirmarriage than did couples who remained mar-ried.

Other researchers, too, have studied processesakin to disillusionment (see below). Withboth the idealization and the disillusionmentliteratures expanding, and a conceptual linkageproposed by Huston et al. (2001), it appearsto be an opportune time to review researchon disillusionment and its connection toidealization.

Conceptualization of Disillusionment

Huston et al. (2001) defined disillusionmentas the ‘‘abatement of love, a decline inovert affection, a lessening of the convictionthat one’s spouse is responsive, and anincrease in ambivalence’’ (p. 237). Accordingto Huston and Houts (1998), the processof disillusionment is a combination of whataspects are focused on during the beginningof the relationship and what occurs laterin the relationship. As their disillusionmentmodel proposes, during courtship some peoplefail to pay much attention to personalityand compatibility issues. With the increasedintimacy of marriage, however, personality andcompatibility issues become apparent and beginto exert their influence on the relationship.Spouses begin to pay attention to each other’s(and the relationship’s) shortcomings. Oncedisillusionment-based problems occur in arelationship, the problems are likely to stay,and the couple may eventually divorce (Hustonet al., 2001; Huston & Houts, 1998).


The foregoing description provides a plau-sible model of disillusionment and of how itwould be tested empirically. However, the dis-illusionment model suggests a linear aspect todisillusionment (i.e., it implies that once disil-lusionment occurs, divorce likely ensues) butdoes not suggest possible tipping points in therelationship or indicate whether partners canrecover from being disillusioned. On the basisof interviews with respondents selected specif-ically for having experienced marital distress,Kayser and Rao (2006) suggested three possibleprecipitating events (which they called turn-ing points) for disaffection: when the spouseexhibited controlling behavior (e.g., unilateraldecision making), irresponsible conduct, anduncaring and/or unsupportive reactions duringtimes of stress. Such triggering events do notnecessarily produce a linear, inevitable pathwayto dissolution, as recovery from relationshipdistress may be possible. For instance, Pasleyet al. (2001) discuss ways couples can preventharmful discrepancies in partners’ perceptionsof their own and the other’s roles, via reinterpre-tation of ongoing events in the relationship andin partners’ expectations.

Huston et al.’s (2001) model has value in thatit articulates the disillusionment process andwhat disillusionment is; further, its gaps appearcapable of being filled by other researchers’complementary models (e.g., Kayser & Rao,2006). Regarding empirical support for thedisillusionment model, Huston et al. (2001)found the divorces of couples married for at least7 years exhibit most frequently the hallmarksof disillusionment (i.e., high initial affectionfollowed by a precipitous decline). Further, somecouples married 2–7 years partially producedthe pattern of disillusionment, showing a sharpdecline in affection over the first 2 years ofmarriage but not an extremely high level as innewlyweds (Caughlin & Huston, 2006).

Differentiating Disillusionment from RelatedConcepts

As in the case of idealization, disillusionment(Hobart, 1958; Huston et al., 2001) also hasseveral cognate terms: disaffection (e.g., Ker-sten, 1990), disappointment (e.g., Buehlmanet al., 1992), and disenchantment (e.g., Pineo,1961). Pineo (1961) defined disenchantment(used interchangeably with disillusionment) asthe ‘‘process of dropping satisfaction,’’ not the

‘‘loss of satisfaction,’’ arguing that disenchant-ment is ‘‘a process which appears to be generallyan inescapable consequence of the passage oftime in a marriage’’ (p. 3). In contrast, Buehlmanet al. (1992) used disillusionment and disap-pointment together in a more severe sense toreflect situations in which spouses have givenup on their marriage.

Kersten (1990; known as Kayser in herlater publications) developed a three-phasemodel of disaffection, defining it as the‘‘deterioration of emotional attachment inmarriage’’ (p. 257). On the basis of disaffectedspouses’ characterizations of their feelings,thoughts, and behaviors at each phase, she foundthat disillusionment was part of the disaffectionprocess. Specifically, disillusionment set inmotion the disaffection process (Kayser, 1993).Disillusionment was less likely to be reportedin the middle and end phases of the model,which were characterized first by increases inanger and loneliness, along with more seriousevaluations of whether to stay in the marriage(Kayser, 1993), and then by increased anger andapathy and decreased reports of feeling hurt.These all signify a loss of hope to maintain theunion (Kayser, 1993).

Future testing of the above conceptual mod-els is needed to examine their major components(e.g., declining affection, shift in attention, pre-cipitating events). However, the different con-cepts and definitions—centering on whether thesalient feature is giving up on the marriage, dete-rioration of emotional attachment, or a declinein satisfaction—have again hindered the inte-gration of key ideas. Because of the differentconceptualizations, it is arguably harder to inte-grate research findings on disillusionment than itis for idealization. Questions about whether dis-illusionment researchers are describing the sameor a different phenomenon (or are capturing thesame process at various stages, such as the begin-ning, middle, and end) have not been raised oranswered. We believe the different formulations(e.g., giving up, deteriorating attachment) arelikely the same phenomenon captured at differ-ent times. Clearly, it is important to empiricallyvalidate this notion.

The idealization research of Murray and col-leagues (Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray,Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b) has the poten-tial to spur increased discussion of definitionalissues in disillusionment research. As notedalready, Murray and Holmes (1997) saw


idealization in terms of conviction or doubtalleviation, with which couples could move for-ward in their relationships. One can then askwhether the foregoing characterizations of disil-lusionment (e.g., disaffection, disenchantment)represent the opposite of Murray’s notion ofidealization. Indeed, giving up on one’s mar-riage may represent the opposite of maintaininga conviction that one’s relationship can avoidor overcome any adversities that are encoun-tered. In contrast, definitions of disillusionment(and potentially related concepts) that reflectthe severing of emotional bonds or decliningsatisfaction do not appear to map onto Mur-ray’s conceptual scheme as directly oppositeconstructs. As noted earlier, we conceptualizedisillusionment as a decline in positive percep-tions and an increase in negative perceptionsabout the individual’s partner and relationship(Niehuis & Bartell, 2006; the same considera-tions discussed above with regard to the internalcoherence of idealization of the partner and ofthe relationship also apply to disillusionment).We propose that idealization and disillusion-ment are two separate constructs, rather thanone bipolar factor, related to each other in amoderately negative fashion. Even though, asnoted earlier, the word illusion underlies boththe terms positive illusions and disillusionment,we believe that conceptualizing idealization anddisillusionment as two related dimensions, ratherthan as opposite ends of a single continuum, ismore beneficial to advancing our understand-ing of individuals’ perceptions of their romanticpartners and relationships.

INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF IDEALIZATIONAND DISILLUSIONMENT

In this section, we propose an integrativemodel of idealization and disillusionment. Ourmodel is conceptual at this stage, formulatedfrom previous research elucidating possiblelinks between idealization and disillusionment.Huston et al.’s (2001) disillusionment modelmakes clear the need for this link, as initialidealization (resulting both from partners’attempts to create favorable self-presentations inthe other’s presence and from their motivationto see the other in a positive light) is proposed togive way to disillusionment once the partnersstop seeking to impress each other and thereality of day-to-day life together takes hold.The disillusionment model proposes its ideas

as broad principles, without detailing specificmechanisms. Moreover, as mentioned earlier,the linear nature of the disillusionment modeldoes not consider other situations in which initialidealization does not lead to later disillusionmentor in which high disillusionment does notlead couples to divorce. Fortunately, however,other researchers have conducted more process-oriented studies that appear to fill some of thegaps of the disillusionment model and its linkageto idealization.

Background

Social cognitive research. McNulty and Karney(2004; McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008)and Neff and Karney (2002, 2005) have beenvery active in addressing possible connectionsbetween constructs akin to idealization anddisillusionment. For instance, Neff and Karney(2002) moved toward resolving the apparentriddle of why one line of research (e.g.,Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b)suggests that idealization may be beneficialfor relationship quality and stability, whereasanother line of research (e.g., Swann, De LaRonde, & Hixon, 1994) suggests that it maybe detrimental. Invoking the distinction betweenspecific and global trait perceptions (definedearlier), Neff and Karney (2002) found thatundergraduate psychology students rated globaltraits as more desirable than specific traitsfor a romantic partner to possess, and byparticipating spouses as more important for theirspouses to possess (even after controlling for thedesirability of the traits). Further, individualsin satisfying marriages tended to use moreglobal terms to describe their spouses’ desirabletraits and more specific terms to describetheir partners’ undesirable qualities. Idealizationtended to take place at the global level,whereas accuracy (i.e., how much individuals’perceptions of their spouses matched spouses’self-perceptions) tended to take place at thespecific level (even after controlling for thedesirability of the trait). Thus, as Neff andKarney (2002) put it, ‘‘Satisfied intimatesmay recognize their partners’ abilities andlimitations, while enhancing their partners’status on global qualities central to relationshipsatisfaction. Thus, perceiving a partner withspecific understanding and global enhancementserves to satisfy intimates’ desires both topredict their partners’ behavior accurately (e.g.,


Swann, 1984) and to protect the relationshipfrom doubt (e.g., Murray[, Holmes, & Griffin],1996a, 1996b)’’ (p. 1104). Fletcher and Kerr(2010) posit a similar pair of motives thatromantic partners may hold, which theyrefer to as epistemic (i.e., understanding andprediction of the partner’s behavior) andsatisfaction/evaluation (i.e., wanting to view thepartner favorably) orientations.

In a subsequent publication, Neff and Karney(2005) explored the consequences of globalversus specific partner perceptions on supportivebehaviors, feelings of control in marriage, andmarital stability in two longitudinal studies.They found that as newlyweds, spouses seemeduniformly happy with their relationship at theglobal level (assessed via Osgood, Suci, &Tannenbaum’s, 1957, Semantic Differential andNorton’s, 1983, Quality of Marriage Index) andgenerally perceived each other very positively atthe global level (assessed via Rosenberg’s, 1965,Self-Esteem Scale, reworded to capture thespouse’s global worth) but varied considerablywith regard to their perceptions of one another’sspecific qualities (assessed via Swann et al.’s,1994, Self-Attributes Questionnaire). Moreover,the newlywed spouses varied considerably withregard to the accuracy with which they perceivedtheir partners’ specific traits. Accuracy, ratherthan merely positive perception, of specifictraits was associated for women (but not men)with greater supportive behavior, feelings ofcontrol 6 months later, and marital instability2–4 years later. According to Neff and Karney(2005), ‘‘Global adoration lacking in specificaccuracy not only leaves spouses vulnerable todisappointment as their partner’s faults surfaceover the course of the relationship but also maylead partners to doubt the credibility of theirspouses’ love’’ (p. 495). Of course, not all peopleenter marriage with highly positive perceptionsand evaluations of their spouse. Yet many ofthem still become disillusioned over time (e.g.,Huston et al., 2001), which suggests that specificaccuracy (or lack thereof) may be more criticalwith regard to becoming disillusioned over timethan global adoration (or idealization).

Connections between constructs akin to ide-alization and disillusionment are also at leastimplicit in the following questions that McNultyand Karney (2004) raised: ‘‘Do positive expecta-tions help maintain satisfaction, or are they likelyto lead to declines in satisfaction?’’ (p. 729);and ‘‘Do partners who hold high expectations

for their relationships similarly risk being dis-appointed?’’ (p. 730). In two articles (McNulty& Karney, 2004; McNulty et al., 2008), theMcNulty-Karney team reported several anal-yses of the consequences of favorable (i.e.,potentially idealized) perceptions, from a lon-gitudinal study of couples over the first 4 yearsof marriage. Specifically, McNulty and Karney(2004) focused on marital expectations (degreeto which participants believed that their satis-faction would be steadily high over time andthat their partners would treat them well andgenerally exhibit good behavior) as their mea-sure of favorable perceptions. To assess whetherpartners would be likely to enact expectation-fulfilling positive behaviors, the authors focusedon social skills (operationalized via attributionmeasures and laboratory interaction sessions).They found that favorable perceptions that onepartner held of the other tended to promote highmarital satisfaction in the long term only in thecontext of positive behaviors (i.e., behaviors thatwould not contradict the initial perceptions). Theauthors concluded, ‘‘When behavior was leastpositive at the outset of the marriage, morepositive expectations predicted steeper declinesin marital satisfaction whereas less positiveexpectations predicted more stable satisfaction’’(p. 737). McNulty and Karney (2004) offeredthe following as a framework for understand-ing their results: ‘‘When they function as goalstructures, positive expectations appear to bebeneficial because they inspire perceptual andbehavioral confirmation processes that in turnlead to positive outcomes. When they functionas counterfactuals [points of contrast], however,positive expectations can be detrimental becausepartners may be disappointed when their expec-tations are not met’’ (p. 737).

Similarly to the Neff and Karney (2002,2005) studies, these results ‘‘suggest that thebenefits of positive bias may be more evidentfor beliefs about global, ambiguous qualities.Whereas work demonstrating the benefits of pos-itive bias in relationships typically has addressedrelatively global perceptions of the partner . . . ,the current work demonstrated no such benefitsfor unrealistically positive expectations regard-ing aspects of a relationship that are less opento interpretation’’ (McNulty & Karney, 2004,p. 739). McNulty and Karney’s (2004) sugges-tion of perceptual and behavioral mechanismsfor their findings also dovetails with conclusionsfrom an earlier section of this article that both


cognitive and behavioral mechanisms can likelyaccount for idealization (e.g., McNulty andKarney’s above-cited quote on positive expec-tations serving as goal structures parallels ourearlier discussion of self-fulfilling prophecies).

Finally, McNulty et al. (2008) operational-ized benevolent cognitions in terms of indi-viduals making generous attributions for theirspouses’ negative behavior and insulating rat-ings of global satisfaction with their spousesfrom how they evaluate them on specific dimen-sions (e.g., if spouses did not perform householdchores they were supposed to, their partnerswould not count that against them in mak-ing a global evaluation). Negative relationshipdevelopments were operationalized by nega-tive behavior during laboratory problem-solvinginteractions and scores on a marital problemsquestionnaire. With growth curves in maritalsatisfaction serving as the dependent variable,McNulty et al. found that, ‘‘although positiveattributions and weaker global/specific covari-ances appeared to predict more positive out-comes in the context of marriages with fewnegative behaviors and less severe problems,both measures of benevolent cognitions pre-dicted greater declines in satisfaction over timein marriages facing higher levels of negativebehavior or more severe problems’’ (p. 641).

The findings of the four studies reported herethus provide some evidence of how individuals’perception of their partner changes over time.For example, they suggest that increasingdisappointment and declining satisfaction can bea consequence of initial idealized perceptions,as long as couples’ experiences as newlywedsand in the early years of marriage do notlive up to partners’ lofty expectations. Theresults of these studies also suggest that,although individuals’ global perceptions of oneanother and evaluations of the relationshipare important with regard to idealization,their specific perceptions of their partners andtheir relationships (e.g., their accuracy andperceived importance) are of primary relevanceto understanding the link between idealizationand disillusionment. Despite some individuals’strong motive to see their partners in the bestlight (as would argue Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,1996a, 1996b; see also Fletcher & Kerr, 2010),some, but not all, become disillusioned overtime, likely because their specific perceptionsof their partners become more negative andgain in importance over time, thus forcing

them to revise their global perceptions inlight of the specific negative perceptions thatsurface. Several questions follow from thisline of thinking: What predicts’ individuals’greater knowledge (accuracy) of their partners’specific qualities? What brings about changein individuals’ specific perceptions of theirpartners’ qualities? To what extent do individualqualities (e.g., anxiety), relationship dynamics(e.g., conflict, lack of communication skills),and context (e.g., stress) affect transformations(Kelley, 1983) in partners’ specific perceptions?Further research to address these questions andestablish specific linkages between idealizationand disillusionment would, of course, be needed.

A key challenge in theorizing on possibleassociations between idealization and disillu-sionment is to explicate how one partner’sinitially positive impression of the other comesto be overturned, thus resulting in a nega-tive impression. The aforementioned conceptof motivated social cognition (Kunda, 1990)suggests, of course, that if so motivated, indi-viduals go to great lengths to maintain favorableimpressions of their partners, as long as even aslight evidentiary basis exists for doing so. Neffand Karney (2002) examined individuals’ per-ceptions of their partners compared to partners’perception of themselves, which would qualifyas idealization or a positive illusion under com-mon definitions. However, these authors argue,‘‘Prior research on these processes has describedthis sort of enhancement in terms of ‘positiveillusions,’ but the current perspective suggeststhat this term may be misleading. Rather thanmaintaining an illusion, perceivers may havesome latitude in the way they combine their real-istic perceptions of specific traits into a globalimpression of the partner’’ (pp. 1104–1105).Thus, mental latitude, like motivated social cog-nition, may allow perceivers to hold favorableimpressions of their respective partners withgreat tenacity.

Under what circumstances, then, might onepartner’s impressions of the other partner cometo be disconfirmed? As one possibility, Fletcherand Kerr (2010) suggested that there are timesin a relationship that prompt a ‘‘need for moreaccurate predictions of the future of the rela-tionship’’ and that realism and accuracy ‘‘mightbe especially salient when important decisionsregarding changes in commitment are beingmade (e.g., when people are deciding whetherto leave the relationship, move in together, and


get married)’’ (p. 647). Relationships may thushave periodic windows of time when nonide-alized perceptions of partners are most likelyto occur, thus increasing the likelihood of pre-vious impressions being overturned. Anotherfactor to consider is that, according to researchin social psychology, some traits seem to beinherently more disconfirmable than others.As Tausch, Kenworthy, and Hewstone (2007)reviewed, a general finding in this literature isthat, whereas a reputation consisting of posi-tive traits is ‘‘hard to gain and easy to lose’’(p. 544), the opposite holds for a negative rep-utation. In other words, positive traits appear toneed many instances of behavioral interaction toconfirm and few instances to disconfirm. Tauschet al. extended this literature by showing that‘‘positive competence-related traits were judgedto require more trait-inconsistent behavioralinstances to be disconfirmed than were posi-tive warmth-related traits’’ (p. 553). Two pointsare worth noting about this finding. First, to theextent that initial attraction and idealization arisein some instances from the perceiver’s impres-sion of the other partner’s warmth, friendliness,or kindness, such an impression could be particu-larly vulnerable to disillusionment. Second, Neffand Karney (2002) called for greater attentionto the content of relationship partners’ percep-tions; their focus was on the global-specificdimension of traits in partners’ impressions, butthe competence-warmth dimensions that Tauschet al. studied also seem to warrant inclusionin future theorizing and research. Although wehave presented only a few possible processes ofhow previous impressions can be overturned, webelieve that they exemplify the general notionof multiple pathways between idealization anddisillusionment.

Two-dimensional model of marital quality.Our model was partly inspired by, andparallels, the writings of Fincham and colleagues(Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fincham & Linfield,1997), who raised the possibility of separatedimensions of positive and negative maritalquality as opposed to opposite ends of asingle continuum. According to their framework,spouses and/or partners simultaneously evaluatetheir relationships in both positive and negativeterms, which yields four different types: happyand/or flourishing (positive high, negativelow), distressed (positive low, negative high),languishing and/or indifferent (both low), and

volatile-distressed and/or ambivalent (both high)relationships. Traditionally, marital quality hasbeen measured by one bipolar dimension(ranging from negative to positive maritalquality). Fincham and Linfield (1997) were thefirst to raise the question of separate dimensionsof positive and negative marital quality whencommon sense and practice in the field dictatedthat positive and negative evaluations of one’smarriage are on the opposite ends of acontinuum. Their empirical research showed thatspouses indeed evaluate their marriage in termsof both positive and negative aspects at thesame time. With a traditional, one-dimensionalconceptualization some types of marriage wouldhave been impossible to detect, because theywould have been grouped together. Examplesof these are the indifferent (low positive andlow negative quality) and ambivalent (highpositive and high negative quality) marriages.We argue that research on idealization anddisillusionment also can benefit from a two-dimensional conceptualization and that Finchamand Linfield’s typology can be translatedinto different combinations of idealizationand disillusionment. Whereas Fincham andBeach (2010) discussed possible motivationaland neuropsychological mechanisms underlyingtheir positive and negative dimensions, ourfocus is primarily on underlying social-cognitiveprocesses, such as the ones discussed above.

A New Model of Idealizationand Disillusionment

Our new model is an attempt to integrate rel-atively recent social-cognitive research (e.g.,McNulty & Karney, 2004; Neff & Karney, 2002;Tausch et al., 2007) with classic theories (e.g.,symbolic interactionism), within the frameworkof our two-dimensional conceptualization of ide-alization and disillusionment. The result is atypology of relationship perception states (seeFigure 1). We propose four states that reflect

FIGURE 1. A TYPOLOGY OF RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTION

STATES DEFINED BY IDEALIZATION AND DISILLUSIONMENT

IdealizationLow High

Low Realism Optimism

DisillusionmentHigh Devastation Confusion


varying levels on the separate dimensions ofidealization and disillusionment: (1) optimism(high idealization with little or no disillusion-ment), (2) confusion (high levels of both ide-alization and disillusionment), (3) realism (lowlevels of both idealization and disillusionment),and (4) devastation (high disillusionment in thepresence of little or no idealization). We first pro-vide an overview of the processes in the modeland then review the four types in greater depth.

Our model begins with the observation thateach partner of a couple makes trait infer-ences about the other partner from the latter’sspecific behavior, via symbolic interactionism(e.g., LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993) and transfor-mation (Kelley, 1983). Perceivers’ views oftheir partners’ behaviors and traits are likelyto be generally accurate, even when the processinvolves attaching negative labels to them (Neff& Karney, 2002), although people of coursevary in their accuracy. Perceivers then inte-grate their trait inferences of the partner into aglobal impression, in line with social cognitivetheories. Individuals are capable (e.g., via moti-vated social cognition) of maintaining positiveglobal impressions of their partners, even whileviewing some of the latter’s traits negatively.Neff and Karney (2002) also suggested potentialbidirectionality between global and specific traitimpressions—specific impressions may consti-tute the global one, but the global impressionmay color individuals’ specific perceptions. Ourmodel recognizes this possibility but focuses onthe direction in which specific perceptions pre-cede global impressions. In some circumstances(e.g., catastrophic partner behaviors, windowsof openness to objective evaluation of the part-ner), negative global impressions of the partnercan surface. Various combinations of high andlow idealization and disillusionment are thuspossible. We review the resulting typology next.

Optimism. In our model, individuals in an opti-mistic state have high idealization and low dis-illusionment, likely because they are motivatedto have a positive impression of their partner(Kunda, 1990). Moreover, Neff and Karney’s(2002, 2005) research suggests that in this state,individuals likely perceive their partner overlypositively on a global level but fairly accuratelywith regard to the partner’s specific traits. Fur-thermore, their partner’s behavior likely meetstheir expectations (McNulty & Karney, 2004).Even if individuals accurately perceive some

negative specific qualities in the other, theycan retain their idealization without much or anydisillusionment through the aforementioned pro-cesses of motivated social cognition and globalimpression latitude.

Realism. Individuals in a realistic state arecharacterized by both idealization and disillu-sionment being low or absent. In all likelihood,individuals do not perceive the partner overlypositively at a global level, but they do havefairly accurate specific perceptions of the part-ner. The perceiver further has low expectationsof the partner, which the partner meets but gen-erally does not exceed.

Confusion. Individuals in a confused stateare simultaneously high on both idealizationand disillusionment. This state is most likelyvery rare and highly transitory, but it isentirely possible given two lines of research.Larsen and colleagues’ mixed-emotion research(Larsen & McGraw, 2011; Larsen, McGraw,& Cacioppo, 2001) found evidence for theconcurrent experience of happiness and sadnessin response to certain stimuli. In addition,Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, and Ein-Dor(2010), using subtle measures such as reactiontimes to word prompts, found that anxiouslyattached participants exhibited ‘‘high cognitiveaccess to both positive and negative traitsof a romantic partner at a given moment’’(p. 458). Further research is needed to documentand refine our understanding of the confusedstate. We would argue that individuals inthis state likely are highly motivated to seethe partner positively at the global level butthat the partner’s behavior falls short of theperceiver’s expectations. Perceivers’ accuracyof the partner’s specific qualities, especiallythose deemed important, is likely high. Thisstate might be characteristic of early stages insome committed relationships, when romanticfeelings and passion are strong but negativebehaviors of the partner surface.

Devastation. Individuals in a devastated stateare characterized by absent or low idealizationand high disillusionment because their partner’sbehavior has repeatedly fallen short of theirexpectations; their perception of the partner’sspecific qualities has become increasinglynegative; or the partner has engaged incatastrophic behavior, such as infidelity, drug


use, or emotional or physical abuse (in line withcatastrophe theory; Davis, 1973).

Our model is temporal, in that we arguethat individuals can transition from one stateto another over time. For example, individu-als whose positive impression of their partneris not based on accurate specific perceptionsmay experience changes in the level of ide-alization for the worse later (Neff & Karney,2005). Moreover, changes in motivation to main-tain positive impressions of the partner maylead to changes in latitude and in the impor-tance individuals assign to specific positive andnegative qualities of their partners. Unrealis-tic expectations, changes in expectations, andchanges in the partner’s behaviors (disconfir-mation) also can lead to disillusionment. It isalso possible that various states are experiencedat various stages in relationship development.For instance, very early in relationships, higherlevels of disillusionment may be somewhat rare.Thus, optimism and realism may be relationshipperception states found more frequently at thatpoint. Over time, as idealization may be moredifficult to maintain for some couples, and asdisillusionment may be more likely to develop,confusion and devastation may become moreprevalent. The aforementioned negative turningand/or tipping points (i.e., controlling, irrespon-sible, or uncaring behavior) or perhaps evenpotentially positive ones are also likely to affectthe state individuals are in.

Our model is also contextual, in that itacknowledges the influence of structural andsituational factors on individuals’ perceptions.Catastrophic or stressful events (e.g., unemploy-ment, transition to parenthood) that bring outnonadaptive coping mechanisms of the partnerhave the potential to change individuals’ per-ceptions. Workplace stress is another contextualvariable that researchers have found to predictspouses’ angry and withdrawing behavior in theevening (Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan,2004); stress from work and other domains hasalso been found to relate to attributions to thepartner (Neff & Karney, 2004).

Finally, our model is also dyadic, in thatit acknowledges how the partner’s behaviors(or changes thereof) can affect individuals’perceptions. Extra complexity results whenthe two partners in a relationship are indifferent perceptual states or when one partnerin a relationship has followed one perceptualtrajectory (i.e., moving from one state to another)

and the other has followed a different oneover time. As research guided by our modelprogresses, findings to illuminate such dual-track couples will perhaps emerge. Also toemerge, we hope, is greater contextualizationof the processes in the model.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Our review suggests that there are several gapsin idealization research, including the need forconceptual refinement, better integration withcognate constructs, and improved measurement.Ultimately, we believe, research integratingidealization and disillusionment will benefit bothlines of inquiry. Conceptually, it is still unclearin the literature what exactly idealization is andwhether it should be considered a predictor,outcome, and/or indicator of marital satisfaction(e.g., Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al., 2001;Murray & Holmes, 1997). It is also unclear,because of a lack of theory, whether and howidealization develops over time in relationships.Even though Waller (1937) speculated thatidealization becomes stronger as the premaritalrelationship develops over time, little researchhas examined this notion (except for Pollis[1969] who did not find support for Waller’shypothesis). Nor has the idea that there maybe variation in the developmental patterns ofindividuals’ idealization during courtship (i.e.,trajectories) been examined (see ‘‘Directionsfor Future Research’’ for further discussion).Consequently, we do not know what maypredict these patterns and what the result ofthese patterns would be for the relationship.Moreover, relatively little research has examinedthe qualities that individual dating partnersbring into a relationship, the dyadic qualitiesthat emerge as a result of the relationship,and the contextual factors (not only stressfullife events but also the influence of parents,friends, and cultural norms and expectations) inrelation to the development of idealization anddisillusionment.

Disillusionment is presumed to have its rootsin premarital idealization. Despite its appar-ent importance in predicting divorce, little isknown about the development of idealizationand its relationship to the onset of disillusion-ment processes. Moreover, there have beensome contradictory findings about the rela-tionship between idealization and disillusion-ment. Whereas some studies permit a possible


inference that greater idealization is associatedwith greater disillusionment after marriage andthus divorce (Niehuis, Skogrand, & Huston,2006), other studies have found that ideal-ization benefits relationship satisfaction andstability (Fowers & Applegate, 1996; Fowers,Veingrad, et al., 2002; Miller, Caughlin, et al.,2003; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin 1996a, 1996b;Rusbult et al., 2000). These contradictory find-ings may in part be because of our lack ofunderstanding of the relationship between ideal-ization and disillusionment.

Despite some theoretical frameworks arguingthat idealization is a prerequisite for disillusion-ment and the seemingly obvious tie between thetwo concepts, to our knowledge no study hasexamined the relationship between idealizationand disillusionment. We have attempted to helpfill this general void with an initial model ofpotential linkages between idealization and dis-illusionment, inspired in part by Fincham andcolleagues’ two-dimensional notion of relation-ship quality (Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fincham& Linfield, 1997), from which we predict ide-alization and disillusionment generally to showa moderate, negative correlation. New resultsfrom our laboratory indeed show such a patternof association between idealization (measuredeither via the ID Scale or residual scores)and disillusionment (Lee et al., 2010). Usingexploratory and confirmatory factor analysis,we verified that the two concepts are separatefactors, that the fit of the two-dimensional modelis better than that of the one-dimensional modeland that the correlation between idealizationand disillusionment is moderate and negative(–.21). Our model, based on related theories andresearch, conceptualizes idealization and disil-lusionment as dyadic and contextual processes,with emphasis on the need to consider bothpartners’ and external factors’ roles in the devel-opment of idealization and disillusionment. Wehope our model will also guide developmen-tal research of idealization and disillusionment:What makes people transition from one state toanother? What are the common perception statesequences in the development of relationshipsover time?

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The highest priority for idealization research,besides theoretical and measurement refinementand consolidation, appears to be longitudinal

studies tracking the development of idealizationand disillusionment, separately and in relationto each other. One initial question, of course,is the relative prevalence of the four perceptionstates proposed in our new model, somethingthat can be answered only by future studiesthat use specific measures of idealization anddisillusionment. Whereas idealization researchhas been conducted with both dating partners(who have tended to be together at least6 months) and married couples, research ondisillusionment has tended to focus on the earlyyears of marriage, premised on the idea thatdisillusionment sets in once the honeymoon isover. On the basis of the finding that idealizationpredicts relationship stability, one might expectthat individuals who maintain their idealizationare likely to stay in their relationships,whereas those whose idealization dissipates (inconjunction with rising disillusionment) are lesslikely to do so. However, evidence suggeststhat some couples who experience (at leastearly signs of) disillusionment already duringcourtship may not end the relationship butactually move forward and get married (Hustonet al., 2001; Niehuis et al., 2006; Weisman,2009). As discussed earlier, Neff and Karney(2005) found that, already as newlyweds,spouses varied considerably not only with regardto the positivity of their perceptions of eachother’s specific qualities but also with regardto the accuracy with which they perceivedtheir partners’ specific traits, thus leaving‘‘spouses vulnerable to disappointment as theirpartner’s faults surface[d] over the course of therelationship’’ (p. 495). Lack of accuracy at thenewlywed stage was associated for women (butnot men) with women’s early marital dissolution(2–4 years after the wedding). Thus, thedevelopment of idealization and disillusionmentmay be more complex than previously assumed.It is therefore important for researchers toidentify the timing and patterns of idealizationand disillusionment, and to investigate theimpact of those parameters on relationshipquality and stability. Moreover, because moststudies of dating partners’ idealization haveexamined individuals or couples who have beentogether for several months, the studies havemissed earlier time points in these relationships.

To determine when idealization or disillusion-ment actually develop in dating relationships, itis necessary to track partners from the earlieststages of their relationships through successive


stages (i.e., casual dating, regular dating, seriousdating and/or being a couple, and engagement),at least among those who remain together.To our knowledge, such research is lacking.Even though retrospective accounts can be auseful source of data, there is evidence thatpeople tend to recall the recent past as betterthan it actually was (Frye & Karney, 2004).In some cases, researchers are concerned pri-marily with participants’ personal meanings,in other words ‘‘narrative truth, not historicaltruth’’ (Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004,p. 9). For researchers seeking more veridicaldata, a prospective approach is needed to confirmthe retrospective findings.

Another needed line of research would focuson construct validity, both for idealization andfor disillusionment. First is the issue of each con-struct’s internal unity. For example, do Murrayand Holmes’s (1997) three elements of ideal-ization or different researchers’ aforementionedforms of disillusionment (e.g., giving up on therelationship, deterioration of emotional attach-ment) cohere statistically and experientially?One might expect a person who subjectivelyexperiences one element of idealization (or ofdisillusionment) to also feel the others, at leastto some extent.

Also at issue for both idealization anddisillusionment is the possible overlap withrelated constructs and application to the partnerversus the relationship, as well as whetheridealization and disillusionment should beconsidered direct opposites of each other. Oneapproach for examining idealization’s (anddisillusionment’s) internal unity, as well asoverlap with (or uniqueness from) relatedconstructs, would be to include various possiblemeasures of idealization (or disillusionment)and seemingly related constructs in factoranalyses to determine whether one factor ormultiple factors emerge (for an example ofthis strategy in studying attitudes, see Krosnick,Boninger, Chuang, Berent, & Carnot, 1993).Our own aforementioned study (Lee et al.,2010), for example, used this approach withseveral established marital-satisfaction scalesand found that marital satisfaction was indeedseparate from idealization and disillusionment.Finally, for assessing whether idealizationand disillusionment are polar opposites ortwo separate factors, analysts can complementordinary correlational analyses with trajectoryanalyses. For example, if rising idealization

over time in couple members is nearly alwaysaccompanied by falling (or chronically low)disillusionment (and vice versa), the casefor polar opposition will be strengthened.The emergence of subgroup-based trajectoryanalyses (Nagin, 1999; Nagin & Tremblay,2001; Schulenberg, Wadsworth, O’Malley,Bachman, & Johnston, 1996) can facilitatethe identification of couples (or individuals)who show varying patterns of development ofidealization and disillusionment and can aid theexamination of correlates of those trajectories.The use of such models is not without potentialrisks, such as overestimation of the numberof subgroups (Bauer, 2007); however, usingthe technique heuristically and taking subgroupfindings as approximations may still have value.

Another type of research that may help enrichour understanding of idealization and disillu-sionment is qualitative interviews. Individualscurrently involved in satisfying relationshipsmay be unlikely to see themselves as engaging inidealization, even if they actually are (althoughFletcher and Kerr, 2010, suggested that individ-uals may have some awareness of their own ten-dencies to produce inflated ratings of partners).Narratives obtained from individuals who haveexperienced a relationship breakup may there-fore be more fruitful for research purposes. Asnoted earlier, Kayser and Rao (2006) extractedthemes pertaining to disaffection from qualita-tive interviews; however, this research focusedon individuals selected for relationship distress.

Mixed-method research has proved an effec-tive approach to studying close relationships,including McNulty and Karney’s (2004) useof self-report measures and laboratory interac-tion, and the Early Years of Marriage project’suse of ‘‘survey questions, behavioral reactionsand interactions in the research setting, andnarratives’’ (Orbuch & Veroff, 2002, p. 552).Mixed methods may thus help scholars study-ing idealization and disillusionment to convergeon answers to questions that may be rela-tively intractable with any single method. Forexample, Kayser and Rao (2006) used interviewsto discover that unsupportive and/or uncaringbehavior by one spouse when the other wasexperiencing stress constituted one type of turn-ing point for marital disaffection. Laboratoryobservation studies of couples’ support seek-ing and giving (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000)can augment interview-based accounts of stress


and support by revealing more in-the-momentexpressions of support.

Additional outstanding issues in the studyof idealization and disillusionment include cul-tural and gender differences. Relatively fewstudies have investigated cultural differences inidealization, and the inconsistency in their find-ings suggests that future studies are necessary.Studies of gender differences in idealizationand disillusionment are relatively rare, as well.Beyond male-female mean differences, wherethere are some suggestions that women scorehigher on idealization than men, whereas menscore higher than women on disillusionmentearly in marriage, there are also some intriguingpossibilities as to whether idealization and/ordisillusionment are differentially predictive ofrelationship outcomes in men and women (Mur-ray & Holmes, 1997). Future studies can helpsolidify our knowledge of these areas.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the quantity and methodologi-cal sophistication of research on idealization(and disillusionment) have been uneven overthe years, but there are promising signs for thefuture. Key questions remain for understandingidealization and disillusionment, each in its ownright and in combination, and we have providedan initial model to guide interested researchersalong. Greater attention to theoretical develop-ment, measurement, longitudinal studies, andgreater sample representativeness appear neces-sary for research to advance.

NOTE

An earlier version of this article was presented atthe ‘‘Theory Construction and Research Methodology’’workshop during the 2009 National Council on FamilyRelations conference in San Francisco. We are very gratefulto Silvia Bartolic and Rodney Cate for their thoughtfulcomments on the manuscript in their roles of workshopdiscussants.

REFERENCES

*Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2009). Positiveillusions about a partner’s physical attractivenessand relationship quality. Personal Relationships,16, 263 – 283. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01222.x

*Barelds-Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008).Positive illusions about one’s partner’s physicalattractiveness. Body Image, 5, 99 – 108. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.07.004

Bauer, D. J. (2007). Observations on the use ofgrowth mixture models in psychological research.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757 – 786.doi: 10.1080/00273170701710338

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attribu-tions in marriage: Review and critique. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 107, 3 – 33. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3

Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F.(1992). How a couple views their past predictstheir future: Predicting divorce from an oralhistory interview. Journal of Family Psychology,5, 295 – 318. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295

Busby, D. M., & Gardner, B. C. (2008). How do Ianalyze thee? Let me count the ways: Consideringempathy in couple relationships using self andpartner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229 – 242.doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00250.x

Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009).The association between partner enhancement andself-enhancement and relationship quality out-comes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,449 – 464. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00612.x

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affectivestructure of marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti &D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook ofpersonal relationships (pp. 131 – 155). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safehaven: An attachment theory perspective onsupport-seeking and caregiving in adult romanticrelationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78, 1053 – 1073. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053

Davis, M. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: FreePress.

Dolch, N. A. (2003). Role. In L. T. Reynolds &N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of sym-bolic interactionism (pp. 391 – 410). WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira.

Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marital conventionalization:Definition and measurement. Journal of Marriageand Family, 29, 681 – 688. doi: 10.2307/349220

*Endo, Y., Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2000).Culture and positive illusions in close relation-ships: How my relationships are better than yours.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,1571 – 1586. doi: 10.1177/01461672002612011

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memesand marriage: Towards a positive relationshipscience. Journal of Family Theory and Review,2, 4 – 24. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x

Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new lookat marital quality: Can spouses feel positive andnegative about their marriage? Journal of FamilyPsychology, 11, 489 – 502. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502


Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Throughthe eyes of love: Reality and illusion inintimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin,136, 627 – 658. doi: 10.1037/a0019792

Fowers, B. J. (1990). An interactional approach tostandardized marital assessment: A literaturereview. Family Relations, 39, 368 – 377.

Fowers, B. J., & Applegate, B. (1995). Do mari-tal conventionalization scales measure a socialdesirability response bias? A confirmatory factoranalysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,237 – 241.

Fowers, B. J., & Applegate, B. (1996). Marital satis-faction and conventionalization examined dyadi-cally. Current Psychology, 15, 237 – 241.

Fowers, B. J., Applegate, B., Olson, D. H., & Pomer-antz, B. (1994). Marital conventionalization as ameasure of marital satisfaction: A confirmatoryfactor analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,98 – 103. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.8.1.98

*Fowers, B. J., Fisiloglu, H., & Procacci, E. K.(2008). Positive marital illusions and cul-ture: American and Turkish spouses’ percep-tions of their marriages. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 25, 267 – 286. doi:10.1177/0265407507087959

*Fowers, B. J., Lyons, E. M., & Montel, K. H.(1996). Positive illusions about marriage: Self-enhancement or relationship enhancement? Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 10, 192 – 208. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.2.192

*Fowers, B. J., Lyons, E. M., Montel, K. H., &Shaked, N. (2001). Positive illusions about mar-riage among married and single individuals. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 15, 95 – 109. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.95

*Fowers, B. J., Veingrad, M. R., & Dominicis, C.(2002). The unbearable lightness of positiveillusions: Engaged individual’s explanations ofunrealistically positive relationship perceptions.Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 450 – 460.doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00450.x

Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Revisionin memories of relationship development: Dobiases persist over time? Personal Relation-ships, 11, 79 – 98. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00072.x

Gagne, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accu-racy in close relationships: An integrative review.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8,322 – 338. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_1

Griffin, D., Murray, S., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Dif-ference score correlations in relationship research:A conceptual primer. Personal Relationships,6, 505 – 518. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00206.x

*Hall, J. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1976). When love isblind: Maintaining idealized images of one’s

spouse. Human Relations, 29, 751 – 761. doi:10.1177/001872677602900804

Hobart, C. W. (1958). Disillusionment in marriage,and romanticism. Marriage and Family Living,20, 156 – 162. doi: 10.2307/348363

Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004).Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell theirstories. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith,S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubialcrucible: Newlywed years as predictors ofmarital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 237 – 252.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237

Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psycho-logical infrastructure of courtship and marriage:The role of personality and compatibility inromantic relationships. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.),The developmental course of marital dysfunction(pp. 114 – 151). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.006

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory constructionand model-building skills: A practical guide forsocial scientists. New York: Guilford.

Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W., Follette, W. C.,& Berley, R. A. (1985). Attributional processesin distressed and nondistressed married couples.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 33 – 50. doi:10.1007/BF01178749

Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resistingtemptation: Devaluation of alternative partnersas a means of maintaining commitment in closerelationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 967 – 980. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967

Kayser, K. (1993). When love dies: The process ofmarital disaffection. New York: Guilford.

Kayser, K., & Rao, S. S. (2006). Process of disaf-fection in relationship breakdown. In M. A. Fine& J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce andrelationship dissolution (pp. 201 – 221). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of humantendencies: A further reason for the formal analysisof structures. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 9(1), 8 – 30.

Kersten, K. K. (1990). The process of marital dis-affection: Interventions at various stages. FamilyRelations, 39, 257 – 265. doi: 10.2307/584869

*Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neigh-bors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theo-ries of relationships: Who cares if romanticpartners are less than ideal? Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808 – 819. doi:10.1177/0146167201277004

Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C.,Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitudestrength: One construct or many related constructs?


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,1132 – 1151. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480 – 498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolicinteractionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss,W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, &S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of familytheories and methods: A contextual approach(pp. 135 – 163). New York: Plenum. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_6

Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evi-dence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 100, 1095 – 1110.

Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T.(2001). Can people feel happy and sad at thesame time? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 81, 684 – 696.

Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S.,& Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting non-maritalromantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analyticsynthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377 – 390.doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

Lee, K.-H., Reifman, A., Swenson, A., Baird, H.,Smith, C., & Niehuis, S. (2010, November 3).Idealization and disillusionment vs. marital(dis)satisfaction: Different concepts? Presentationat the National Council on Family Relations con-ference, Minneapolis, MN.

*Martz, J. M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X. B., Slovik,L. F., Cox, C. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Positiveillusions in close relationships. Personal Rela-tionships, 5, 159 – 181. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00165.x

*McNeal, J. L. (1997). The association of ideal-ization and intimacy factors with condom usein gay male couples. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology in Medical Settings, 4, 437 – 451. doi:10.1023/A:1026209603522

McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributionsin marriage: Integrating specific and globalevaluations of a relationship. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943 – 955. doi:10.1177/0146167201278003

McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positiveexpectations in the early years of marriage: Shouldcouples expect the best or brace for the worst?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,729 – 743. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729

McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R.(2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy ofrelationship maintenance: Don’t sweat the smallstuff . . . but it’s not all small stuff. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 94, 631 – 646.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.631

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close rela-tionships: Attachment insecurities and relational

ambivalence. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 98, 450 – 468. doi:10.1037/a0017366

*Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L.(2003). Trait expressiveness and marital satisfac-tion: The role of idealization processes. Journalof Marriage and Family, 65, 978 – 995. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00978.x

*Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006).Positive illusions in marital relationships: A13-year longitudinal study. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579 – 1594. doi:10.1177/0146167206292691

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtuesin faults: Negativity and the transformation ofinterpersonal narratives in close relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,707 – 722. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.707

*Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap offaith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,586 – 604. doi: 10.1177/0146167297236003

*Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). The (mental)ties that bind: Cognitive structures that predictrelationship resilience. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 1228 – 1244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1228

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Grif-fin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindredspirits? The benefits of egocentrism in closerelationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 563 – 581. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.563

*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Dolderman, D., &Griffin, D. W. (2000). What the motivated mindsees: Comparing friends’ perspectives to marriedpartners’ views of each other. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 36, 600 – 620.doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1417

*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.(1996a). The benefits of positive illusions: Ide-alization and the construction of satisfaction inclose relationships. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 70, 79 – 98. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79

*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.(1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illu-sions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,but prescient. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 71, 1155 – 1180. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155

Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajec-tories: A semiparametric, group-based approach.Psychological Methods, 4, 139 – 157. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.139

Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyz-ing developmental trajectories of distinct butrelated behaviors: A group-based method. Psycho-logical Methods, 6, 18 – 34. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.18


*Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgmentsof a relationship partner: Specific accuracy butglobal enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70,1079 – 1112.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamicstructure of relationship perceptions: Differentialimportance as a strategy of relationship mainte-nance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 1433 – 1446. doi: 10.1177/0146167203256376

Neff, L. A. & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does contextaffect intimate relationships? Linking externalstress and cognitive processes within marriage.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,134 – 148. doi: 10.1177/0146167203255984

Neff, L., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you isto love you: Implications of global adoration andspecific accuracy for marital relationships. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3),480 – 497. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480

Niehuis, S., & Bartell, D. (2006). The Marital Disil-lusionment Scale: Development and psychometricproperties. North American Journal of Psychology,8, 69 – 84.

Niehuis, S., Skogrand, L., & Huston, T. L. (2006).When marriages die: Premarital and early mar-ital precursors to divorce. Forum for Familyand Consumer Issues, 11(1), 1 – 7. Retrievedfrom http://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2006/v11-n1-2006-june/fa-1-marriages-die.php

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: Acritical look at the dependent variable. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 45, 141 – 151.

Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2002). A program-matic review: Building a two-way bridgebetween social psychology and the study ofthe early years of marriage. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 19, 549 – 568. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004053

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H.(1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Pasley, K., Kerpelman, J., & Guilbert, D. A. (2001).Gender conflict, identity disruption, and maritalinstability: Expanding Gottman’s model. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 5 – 27.10.1177/0265407501181001

Pineo, P. C. (1961). Disenchantment in the later yearsof marriage. Marriage and Family Living, 23,3 – 11. doi: 10.2307/346876

*Pollis, C. A. (1969). Dating involvement and pat-terns of idealization: A test of Waller’s hypothesis.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 765 – 771.doi: 10.2307/349320

Rosenberg, S. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

*Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A. M., Wildschut, T.,Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceivedsuperiority in close relationships: Why it existsand persists. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79, 521 – 545. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.521

Schulenberg, J., Wadsworth, K. N., O’Malley, P. M.,Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Ado-lescent risk factors for binge drinking duringthe transition to young adulthood: Variable-and pattern-centered approaches to change.Developmental Psychology, 32, 659 – 674. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.659

*Schulman, M. L. (1974). Idealization in engagedcouples. Journal of Marriage and the Family,139 – 147.

Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Bren-nan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gender,marital satisfaction and the daily spillover of work-day experience into marriage. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 18, 250 – 263. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.250

Scott, W. A., Osgood, D. W., & Peterson, C. (1979).Cognitive structure: Theory and measurement ofindividual differences. Washington, DC: Winston.

Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds ofa feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarityin Big Five personality predicts more negativemarital satisfaction trajectories in long-termmarriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666 – 675.doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.666

Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romanticrelationships: Factors involved in relationshipstability and emotional distress. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 683 – 692.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.683

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977).Social perception and interpersonal behavior: Onthe self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,656 – 666. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization,reunions, and stability in long-distance datingrelationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-tionships, 24, 37 – 54. doi: 10.1177/0265407507072578

Stafford, L., & Reske, (1990). Idealization andcommunication in long-distance premarital rela-tionships. Family Relations, 39, 274 – 279. doi:10.2307/584871

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1984). The quest for accuracy inperson perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psycho-logical Review, 91, 457 – 477. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.457

Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G.(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings inmarriage and courtship. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 66, 857 – 869. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.857

Tausch, N., Kenworthy, J. B., & Hewstone, M.(2007). The confirmability and disconfirmabilityof trait concepts revisited: Does content matter?


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,542 – 556. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.542

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion andwell-being: A social psychological perspectiveon mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,193 – 210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193

Thompson, S. C., & Kelley, H. H. (1981). Judg-ments of responsibility for activities in closerelationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41, 469 – 477. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.469

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Myrelationship is better than—and not as bad

as—yours is: The perception of superiority in closerelationships. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 21, 32 – 44. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211005

Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex.American Sociological Review, 2, 727 – 734. doi:10.2307/2083825

Weisman, C. (2009). Serious doubts: Why peoplemarry when they know it won’t last. Charleston,SC: BookSurge.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Prefer-ences need no inferences. American Psychologist,35, 151 – 175. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

Documents

Idealization and Disillusionment in Intimate Relationships: A Review of Theory, Method, and Research