This work examines how individual differences in assessment and locomotion shape goal pursuits in ongoing relationships. The Michelangelo phenomenon describes the role that close partners play in affirming versus disaffirming one another's pursuit of the ideal self. Using data from a longitudinal study of ideal goal pursuits among newly committed couples, we examined whether the action orientation that characterizes locomotion creates an optimal environment in which to give and receive affirmation, whereas the evaluative orientation that characterizes assessment creates a suboptimal environment for giving and receiving affirmation. Consistent with hypotheses, locomotion is positively associated with partner affirmation, movement toward the ideal self, and couple wellbeing, whereas parallel associations with assessment are negative. We also explore the behavioral mechanisms that may account for such associations.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt.
2.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E.T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from `how' to `what'. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525—530.
3.
Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.; pp. 680—740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252—1265.
5.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19—35.
6.
Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
7.
Drigotas, S.M., Rusbult, C.E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293—323.
8.
Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A., & Asher, E.R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228—245.
9.
Gollwitzer, P.M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 403—422). New York : Guilford.
10.
Gombrich, E.H. (1995). The story of art. London: Phaidon.
11.
Harris, M.J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,97, 363—386.
12.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect . Psychological Review, 94, 319—340.
13.
Higgins, E.T. (1996). The `self digest': Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062—1083.
14.
Higgins, E.T., Kruglanski, A.W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293—344). New York: Academic Press.
15.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
16.
Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, et al. (1983 ). Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.
17.
Kelley, H.H., Holmes, J., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, C., & Van Lange, P. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th Ed.; pp.233—265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Kruglanski, A.W., Thompson, E.P., Higgins, E.T., Atash, M.N., Pierro, A., Shah, J.Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To `do the right thing' or to `just do it': Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793—815.
20.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediation of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101—128). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
21.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41, 954—969.
22.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., Stocker, S.L., & Wolf, S.T. (2005). The Michelangelo phenomenon in close relationships . In A. Tesser, J. Wood, & D. A. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending, and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 1—29). New York: Psychology Press.
25.
Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review ofPsychology, 54, 351—375.
26.
Shah, J. (2003). The motivational looking glass: How significant others implicitly affect goal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 424—439.
27.
Shah, J.Y., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2003). When opportunity knocks: Bottom-up priming of goals by means and its effects on self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1109—1122.
28.
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15—28.
