How do couples maintain relationship satisfaction despite specific negative perceptions of their relationships? One way to minimize the global implications of negative perceptions is to attribute differential importance to positive and negative features of the relationship. As those features change over time, satisfied intimates may alter their perceived importance, ensuring that positive features are always more closely associated with global satisfaction than negative ones. The current study examined the specific perceptions of 82 newly married couples at five assessments across their first 3 years of marriage. A tendency to view positive perceptions as more important than negative perceptions was associated with higher marital satisfaction. Moreover, a tendency to alter the importance of specific perceptions as those perceptions changed over time was associated with more stable global satisfaction. These findings highlight the interplay between the content and the structure of intimates' perceptions in determining relationship outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acitelli, L. K., & Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological perspective (pp. 147-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
3.
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996). Assessing relationship standards: The inventory of specific relationship standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 72-88.
4.
Bradbury, T. N. (1998). The developmental course of marital dysfunction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3-33.
6.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1994). HLM: Hierarchical linear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
8.
Campbell, J. D., (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: The effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual differences in self-esteem and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 281-294.
9.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73-81.
10.
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
11.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221-233.
12.
Griffin, D., Murray, S., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Difference score correlations in relationship research: A conceptual primer. Personal Relationships, 6, 505-518.
13.
Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37-54.
14.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Lewicki, P. (1989). The development of self-image bias: A real-world demonstration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 205-211.
15.
Holmes, J. G., & Murray, S. L. (1995). Memory for events in close relationships: Applying Schank and Abelson's story skeleton model. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story. Vol. 8. Advances in social cognition (pp. 193-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
17.
Karney, B. R., & Coombs, R. H. (2000). Memory bias in evaluations of close relationships: Consistency or improvement? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 959-970.
18.
Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Frye, N. E. (2001). A social-cognitive perspective on the maintenance and deterioration of relationship satisfaction. In J. H. Harvey & A. E. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 195-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment pre-diction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.
20.
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Integrating specific and global evaluations of close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943-955.
21.
Miller, L. C., & Read, S. L. (1991). On the coherence of mental models of persons and relationships: A knowledge structure approach. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707-722.
23.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G., (1999). The (mental) ties that bind: Cognitive structures that predict relationship resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1228-1244.
24.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
25.
Pelham, B. W. (1995). Further evidence for a Jamesian model of self-worth: Reply to Marsh. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1161-1165.
26.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680.
27.
Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging research (pp. 171-210). New York: Springer.
28.
Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726-748.
29.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
30.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Iwaniszek, J. (1986). The impact of gender and sex-role orientation on responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships. Sex Roles, 15, 1-20.
31.
Ruvolo, A. P., & Veroff, J. (1997). For better or for worse: Real-ideal discrepancies and the marital well-being of newlyweds. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 223-242.
32.
Showers, C., Abramson, L., & Hogan, M. (1998). The dynamic self: How the content and structure of the self-concept change with mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 478-493.
33.
Showers, C., & Kevlyn, S. (1999). Organization of knowledge about a relationship partner: Implications for liking and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 958-971.
34.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
35.
Tesser, A., & Beach, S. R. H. (1998). Life event, relationship quality, and depression: An investigation of judgment discontinuity in vivo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 36-52.
36.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My relationship is better than—and not as bad as—yours is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 32-44.
