Two studies integrated and advanced mindset and relationship illusions research. In Study 1, mindset influenced perceived partner superiority and goal domain moderated this effect. When focusing on a nonrelationship goal, an implemental mindset increased idealistic partner perceptions. When focusing on a relationship goal, a deliberative mindset increased idealistic partner perceptions. In Study 2, effects for mindset about relationship goals were moderated by relationship commitment. High-commitment participants defended against the threat of a deliberative mindset by increasing their positive views of their partner. Low-commitment participants did not defend against deliberation about a relationship goal. No such differences were found for relationship implementals; both high- and low-commitment individuals increased their glowing partner views when in an implemental mindset.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J. T. , & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.
2.
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129.
3.
Brunstein, J. C. , Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1006-1019.
4.
Fehr, B. (1999). Laypeople’s conceptions of commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 90-103.
5.
Gagné, F. M. , & Lydon, J. E. (1998). [Mindset, positive illusions, and satisfaction in romantic relationships]. Unpublished raw data.
6.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford.
7.
Gollwitzer, P. M. , & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-processes theories in social psychology (pp. 403-422). New York: Guilford.
8.
Gollwitzer, P. M. , & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 531-542.
9.
Hazan, C. , & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
10.
Heckhausen, H. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational and volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.
11.
Johnson, D. J. , & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.
12.
Lydon, J. E. (1999). Commitment and adversity: A reciprocal relation. In W. H. Jones & J. M. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability. New York: Plenum.
13.
Lydon, J. E. , Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152-161.
14.
Lydon, J. , Pierce, T., & O’Regan, S. (1997). Coping with moral commitment to long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 104-113.
15.
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.
16.
Murray, S. L. , & Holmes, J. G. (1996). The construction of relationship realities. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures and interaction in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 91-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Murray, S. L. , & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586-604.
18.
Murray, S. L. , Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
19.
Salancik, G. R. (1982). Attitude-behavior consistencies as social logics. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 51-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Swann, W. B., Jr. , & Gill, M. J. (1997). Confidence and accuracy in person perception: Do we know what we think we know about our relationship partners?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 747-757.
21.
Swann, W. B., Jr. , Hixon, J. G., & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Embracing the bitter “truth”: Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science, 3, 118-121.
22.
Taylor, S. E. , & Brown, J. D. (1988). Positive illusions and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
23.
Taylor, S. E. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213-226.
24.
Vallacher, R. R. , Nowak, A., Markus, J., & Strauss, J. (1998). Dynamics in the coordination of mind and action. In M. Kofta, G. Weary, & G. Sedek (Eds.), Personal control in action: Cognitive and motivation mechanisms. The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 27-59). New York: Plenum.
