Do people accurately perceive their romantic partner? What are the implications of perceiving one’s partner accurately or inaccurately? These questions are frequently debated and researched in psychology, and so researchers need to have methods for assessing accuracy that are flexible enough to answer different theoretical questions. Researchers frequently utilize a variety of different approaches to assess two different forms of accuracy: mean-level bias and correlational accuracy. The main goal of this article is to provide recommendations for the best approaches that relationship researchers can use to assess these types of accuracy. We focus on statistical approaches employing advances in multilevel modeling and, in particular, how West and Kenny’s Truth and Bias model can be especially useful for testing questions of bias and accuracy in perceptions in close relationships. We provide step-by-step approaches of how to implement the models we outline.
BarrantiM.CarlsonE. N.FurrR. M. (2016). Disagreement About Moral Character Is Linked to Interpersonal Costs. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 806–817.
2.
BauerD. J.PreacherK. J.GilK. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.
3.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.
4.
BrunswikE. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.
5.
Castro-SchiloL.GrimmK. (in press). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
6.
CronbachL. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumedsimilarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
7.
FitzmauriceG. M.LairdN. M.WareJ. H. (2012). Applied longitudinal analysis (Vol.998). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
8.
FletcherG. J.KerrP. S. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658.
9.
FunderD. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
10.
FunderD. C.ColvinC. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158.
11.
GageN. L.CronbachL. (1955). Conceptual and methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 62, 411–422.
12.
GagnéF. M.LydonJ. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322–338.
13.
HallJ. A.RosipJ. C.LeBeauL. S.HorganT. G.CarterJ. D. (2006). Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 18–27.
14.
HallJ. A.Schmid MastM.WestT. V. (2016). The social psychology of perceiving others accurately. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
15.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16.
IidaM.SeidmanG.ShroutP. E. (in press). Models of interdependent individuals and dyadic process in relationship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
17.
IckesW. J. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
IckesW.StinsonL.BissonnetteV.GarciaS. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742.
19.
JonesE. E.HarrisV. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 3, 1–24.
20.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in socialpsychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
21.
JussimL. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review, 98, 54–73.
22.
JussimL. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439–448.
25.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A. (2010). Dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. In HoxJ. J.RobertsJ. K. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 355–371). New York: Routledge.
26.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
KruegerJ.ZeigerJ. S. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 670–680.
28.
LairdR. D.De Los ReyesA. (2013). Testing informant discrepancies as predictors of early adolescent psychopathology: Why difference scores cannot tell you what you want to know and how polynomial regression may. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1–14.
29.
LairdR. D.WeemsC. F. (2011). The equivalence of regression models using difference scores and models using separate scores for each informant: Implications for the study of informant discrepancies. Psychological Assessment, 23, 388–397.
30.
LaneS.P.HennesE.P. (in press). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
31.
LemayE. P.Jr (2014). Accuracy and bias in self-perceptions of responsive behavior: Implications for security in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 638–656.
32.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996a). 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.
33.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996b). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.
34.
OlsenJ. A.KennyD. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141.
35.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J.KennyD. A. (2012). When bias and insecurity promote accuracy: Mean-level bias and tracking accuracy in couples’ conflict discussions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 642–655.
36.
RogersK.WoodD.FurrM. (in press). Assessment of similarity and self-other agreement in dyadic relationships: A guide to best practices. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
37.
RossL.GreeneD.HouseP. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301.
38.
SternC.WestT. V.SchoenthalerA. (2013). The dynamic relationship between accuracy and bias in social perception research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 303–314.
39.
TaftR. (1955). The ability to judge people. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 1–23.
40.
TskhayK. O.RuleN. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups a review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.
41.
WestT. V. (2013). Repeated-measure methods with dyads. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 731–749). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
42.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.
43.
ZebrowitzL. A.CollinsM. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 204–223.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
