Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships.

Garth J. O. Fletcher

353 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Bulletin

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Attachment and Relationship Dynamics Social and Intergroup Psychology Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Abstract

This article reviews the research literature and theory concerned with accuracy of judgments in romantic relationships. We initially propose a model of cognition in (romantic) relationships that distinguishes between 2 forms of accuracy: mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. We then report the results of meta-analyses of research on heterosexual, romantic relationships, which used external benchmarks and reported levels of tracking accuracy (98 studies) and/or mean-level bias (48 studies). The results revealed robust overall effect sizes for both tracking accuracy (r = .47) and positive mean-level bias (r = .09). As expected, the effects were substantial and positive for tracking accuracy across 6 judgmental categories, whereas signed mean-level bias was negative for the interaction attributions (e.g., love, communication). The results showed, as expected, that these 2 forms of accuracy were independent-the 2 kinds of effect size derived from the same set of 38 studies were uncorrelated. As expected, gender, relationship length, and relationship evaluations moderated mean-level bias across studies but (unexpectedly) not for tracking accuracy. In the Discussion we evaluate the prior model in light of the findings, other research, moderating variables (such as self-esteem), the role of projection, the early stages of mate selection, metacognition, and the rationality and nature of motivated cognition. We conclude that our model, findings, and analyses help to resolve the apparent paradox that love is both riven with illusions and rooted in reality, and support both evolutionary and social psychological approaches to understanding cognition in romantic relationships.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 353 citations exist upstream.

References

2017A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance 1958The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.2021Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 1988Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.1959The Social Psychology of Groups 2008Social psychology: handbook of basic principles 1983Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.2000A Nonparametric "Trim and Fill" Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis

Cited by

2016The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles 2015Responsiveness 2015Bridging the Sciences of Mindfulness and Romantic Relationships 2011Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy.2011The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending.2016Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.