This research examined lay relationship and partner ideals in romantic relationships from both a social-cognitive and an evolutionary perspective. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that the qualities of an ideal partner were represented by 3 factors (partner warmth-trustworthiness, vitality-attractiveness, and status-resources), whereas the qualities of an ideal relationship were represented by 2 factors (relationship intimacy-loyalty and passion). A confirmatory factor analysis in Study 3 replicated these factor structures but found considerable overlap across the partner and relationship dimensions. Studies 4 and 5 produced convergent and discriminant validity evidence for all 5 factors. Study 6 indicated that the higher the consistency between the ideals and related assessments of the current partner and relationship, the more positively the current relationship was evaluated.

This research tested three models of how the relationship evaluation components of satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love are structured and cognitively represented. Participants in Study 1 rated their intimate relationships on six previously developed scales that measured each construct and on a new inventory—the Perceived Relationship Quality Components (PRQC) Inventory. As predicted, confirmatory factor analysis revealed that, for both sets of scales, the best-fitting model was one in which the appropriate items loaded reliably on the six first-order factors, which in turn loaded reliably on one second-order factor reflecting overall perceived relationship quality. These results were replicated on a different sample in Study 2 and across sex. Implications and advantages of the PRQC Inventory are discussed.

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 ϭ .47) and positive mean-level bias (r ϭ .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.

This study tested the success of communication strategies used by relationship partners (N = 61 romantic couples) who were videotaped while trying to produce desired changes in each other. Strategies varying in valence (positive vs. negative) and directness (direct vs. indirect) were differentially associated with postdiscussion perceptions of success as well as ratings of demonstrated change in targeted features gathered at 3-month intervals during the following year. Direct strategies (positive and negative) were initially perceived as relatively unsuccessful but predicted increased change over the next 12 months as reported by the targeted partners and (for positive-direct strategies) as perceived by female agents. Positive-indirect strategies, in contrast, were associated with higher concurrent perceived success but did not predict later change. Increases in problem severity also forecasted lower relationship quality over time. These findings indicate that one mechanism through which regulation strategies impact relationship outcomes is the extent to which engaged strategies are successful at producing desired change.

This article details the development of a scale that measures the complexity of attributional schemata for human behavior-the Attributional Complexity Scale. In Study 1, we administered the scale to 289 subjects. The results showed that the scale had adequate internal reliability and test-retest reliability. In addition, a factor analysis yielded one major factor. Study 2 tested the discriminant and convergent validity of the scale. As predicted, attributional complexity was not related to social desirability, academic ability, or internal-external locus of control, but it was positively related to the need for cognition. Study 3 confirmed our prediction that psychology majors would have more complex attributional schemata than natural science majors. Studies 4 and 5 provided evidence for the external validity of the scale: Attributionally complex subjects, compared with attributionally simple subjects, spontaneously produced more causes for personality dispositions and selected more complex causal attributions for simple behavioral events. The implications for various issues in social cognition are discussed.

This research examined partner and relationship perceptions and ideal standards in 100 individuals over time, from the 1st to the 12th month of their dating relationships. As expected, the results revealed that (a) individuals evaluated their relationships on both distinct evaluative components and global evaluative dimensions, (b) higher ideal-perception consistency was associated with higher perceived quality of relationships and partners, (c) more positive perceptions of partners and relationships at earlier points in time were associated with more importance being placed on relevant ideals over time but not vice versa, and (d) higher levels of ideal-perception consistency predicted lower rates of relationship dissolution but were mediated through perceptions of relationship quality. These results support the ideal standards model (Fletcher & Simpson, in press). Although there has been considerable research investigating the development of intimate relationships, the study of the very early stages in dating relationships remains uncharted territory. In this research, we tracked 100 participants across the first 3 to 4 months of their dating relationships (with a 1-year follow-up). Our aims were to investigate the functions of partner and relationship ideals and to determine how both are related to current perceptions and evaluations of relationships during the likely turmoil and lability of early relationship development. This study is couched within a social cognitive perspective and is based on the ideal standards model developed by Fletcher, Simpson, and colleagues (Fletcher & Simpson, in press; Fletcher,

This research investigated the consistency between partner perceptions and ideal standards (ideal-perception consistency) and the partner regulation attempts of 200 individuals involved in relationships (Study 1) and 62 heterosexual couples (Study 2). As predicted, greater regulation attempts were associated with lower ideal-perception consistency, and these links operated within 3 pivotal mate-evaluation dimensions and were moderated by perceived regulation success. Ideal-perception consistency also mediated the relation between partner regulation and relationship quality, and cross-lagged analyses suggested that ideal consistency and regulation influenced each other over time. Finally, stronger partner regulation was generally associated with more negative self-evaluations and more self-regulation by the targeted partner. These novel results support and extend the Ideal Standards Model (J. A. Simpson, G. J. O. Fletcher, & L. Campbell, 2001).

This research tested whether and how partners' support of self-improvement efforts influences recipients' relationship evaluations and self-improvement success. Study 1 provided an initial test of predictions using self-reports (N = 150). Study 2 assessed support behavior exhibited in couples' (N = 47) discussions of self-improvement desires, and tracked relationship quality and self-improvement every 3 months for 1 year. More nurturing and action-facilitating partner support was more helpful to recipients, whereas partners who criticized and invalidated recipients were less helpful. Receiving more help from the partner, in turn, predicted greater relationship quality and more self-improvement. More negative support seeking also predicted lower self-improvement because recipients' behavior elicited less partner help. These effects were not attributable to partners' general warmth and understanding, global self or relationship evaluations, how much recipients desired or tried to change, or whether targeted attributes posed relationship problems. This research documents the powerful influence that partners' help has on recipients' personal growth.