In everyday life, close relationship partners enact behaviors through which they may influence each other. To understand how these exchanges affect partners, previous research has emphasized the enactors' reports, the receivers' perceptions, or the congruence of the two. We developed a strategy based on classic signal detection theory that combined elements from these three approaches in a naturalistic daily experience study. Members of 58 heterosexual dating couples reported daily on their own behaviors and their perceptions of their partners' behaviors. Results showed that an enactor's beliefs about his or her behavior and the perceiver's interpretation combined to affect daily mood and relationship satisfaction. However, different patterns of results emerged for positive and negative behaviors, such that the enactor's perspective accounted for independent effects of negative behaviors. Results show the value of simultaneously considering the perspective of both parties in social interaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbadyN.HallahanM.RosenthalR. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518–529.
2.
BaldwinM.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
3.
BaumeisterR.F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK.D. (in press) . Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology.
4.
BerscheidE. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79–129.
5.
BolgerN.ZuckermanA.KesslerR.C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961.
6.
BradburyT.N.FinchamF.D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613–628.
7.
BrykA.S.RaudenbushS.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
ChristensenA.NiesD.C. (1980). The Spouse Observation Checklist: Empirical analysis and critique. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8, 69–79.
9.
DowneyG.FreitasA.L.MichaelisB.KhouriH. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560.
10.
GableS.L.ReisH.T. (2001). Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In: HarveyJ.H.WenzelA.E.(Eds.),Close romantic relationship maintenance and enhancement(pp.169–194.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
GottmanJ.M.LevensonR.W. (1999). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Process, 38, 143–158.
12.
GottmanJ.M.NotariusC.I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927–947.
13.
GreenD.M.SwetsJ.A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
14.
HindeR.A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 1–15.
15.
IckesW. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–610.
16.
KelleyH.H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 8–36.
17.
LiebermanM.D.RosenthalR. (2001). Why introverts can't always tell who likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 294–310.
18.
MargolinG.BurmanB.JohnR.S. (1989). Home observations of married couples reenacting naturalistic conflicts. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 101–118.
19.
McGregorI.HolmesJ.G. (1999). How storytelling shapes memory and impressions of relationship events over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 403–419.
20.
MurrayS.L.HolmesJ.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.
21.
MurrayS.L.HolmesJ.G.GriffinD.W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180.
22.
PrattoF.JohnO.P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.
23.
ReisH.T. (1994). Domains of experience: Investigating relationship processes from three perspectives. In: ErberR.GilmourR.(Eds.),Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships(pp.87–110.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
ReisH.T.CollinsW.A.BerscheidE. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872.
25.
ReisH.T.GableS.L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In: ReisH.T.JuddC.M.(Eds.),Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology(pp.190–222.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RossM.SicolyF. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336.
27.
SabatelliR.M.BuckR.DreyerA.S. (1982). Nonverbal communication accuracy in married couples: Relationship with marital complaints. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1088–1097.
28.
StoneA.A.ShiffmanS.S.DeVriesM.W. (1999). Ecological momentary assessment. In: KahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN.(Eds.),Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology(pp.26–39.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
29.
TaylorS.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85.
30.
WillsT.A.WeissR.L.PattersonG.R. (1974). A behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 802–811.
