This study examined whether, and how, romantic partners can accurately judge each other’s state level of responsiveness during a conflict discussion. Dating couples (N = 84 pairs) engaged in a 10-min videotaped discussion about an unresolved conflict and then reviewed the recorded discussion. For each 30-s segment of interaction, participants reported their own responsiveness and judged their partner’s responsiveness. Trained coders also coded each participant’s displayed interpersonal behaviors (e.g., smile) and displayed responsiveness within each segment. The results showed that (a) the perceiving partner could somewhat accurately judge the target’s change in responsiveness (as indexed by the target’s self-report and observers’ ratings) during the discussion and (b) some behaviors (e.g., rejection of suggestions) seemed to be linked to agreements between the perceiver and the target in their assessments of responsiveness. The nature of accurate judgment of responsiveness (or the perceiver-target agreement in their assessments) will be discussed.
ArriagaX. B.CapezzaN. M.DalyC. A. (2016). Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner: How much aggression is too much?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 36–54. doi:10.1037/pspi0000035
2.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238. doi:10.1002/per.790
3.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
4.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1988). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
5.
BroomeB. J. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy. In SandoleD.MerweH. V. D. (Eds.), Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application (pp. 95–111). Manchester University Press.
6.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
7.
CampbellL.OverallN. C.RubinH.LackenbauerS. D. (2013). Inferring a partner’s ideal discrepancies: Accuracy, projection, and the communicative role of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 217–233. doi:10.1037/a0033009
8.
DebrotA.CookW. L.PerrezM.HornA. B. (2012). Deeds matter: Daily enacted responsiveness and intimacy in couples’ daily lives. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 617–627. doi:10.1037/a0028666
9.
FinkelE. J.SimpsonJ. A.EastwickP. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 383–411. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038
10.
FinkenauerC.Wijngaards-De MeijL.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E. (2010). The importance of seeing what is not there: A quasi-signal detection analysis of positive and negative behavior in newlywed couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 615–633. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01300.x
FletcherG. J. O.KerrP. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658. doi:10.1037/A0019792
13.
GableS. L.ReisH. T.DowneyG. (2003). He said, she said: A quasi-signal detection analysis of daily interactions between close relationship partners. Psychological Science, 14, 100–105. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01426
14.
GirmeY. U.OverallN. C.SimpsonJ. A.FletcherG. J. (2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 450–475. doi:10.1037/a0038866
15.
GoslingS. D.JohnO. P.CraikK. H.RobinsR. W. (1998). Do people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1337–1349. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1337
16.
HartwigM.BondC. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659. doi:10.1037/a0023589
17.
HolmesJ. G.MurrayS. L. (1996). Conflict in close relationships. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 622–654). Guilford Press.
18.
HorowitzL. M.WilsonK. R.TuranB.ZolotsevP.ConstantinoM. J.HendersonL. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67–86. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4
19.
HowlandM.SimpsonJ. A. (2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878–1885. doi:10.1177/0956797610388817
20.
HoyleR. H. (Ed.) (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
21.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
22.
IckesW. (2001). Measuring empathic accuracy. In HallJ.BernieriF. (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 219–241). Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
KarelaiaN.HogarthR. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 404–426. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439
25.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.
26.
LedermannT.KennyD. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 442–452. doi:10.1037/fam0000290
27.
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. doi:10.1037/a0037298
28.
LemayE. P.JrClarkM. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 647–671. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647
29.
LemayE. P.JrClarkM. S. (2015). Motivated cognition in relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 72–75. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.002
30.
LemayE. P.JrClarkM. S.FeeneyB. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834–853. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.834
31.
LemayE. P.JrNealA. M. (2014). Accurate and biased perceptions of responsive support predict well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 270–286. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9381-2
32.
MaiselN. C.GableS. L.StrachmanA. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad. Personal Relationships, 15, 317–338. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00201.x
33.
MalleB. F.PearceG. E. (2001). Attention to behavioral events during interaction: Two actor–observer gaps and three attempts to close them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 278–294. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.278
34.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928. doi:10.1037/a0017015
35.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G. (2011). Interdependent minds. Guilford.
36.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G. (2017). Motivated cognition in relationships: The pursuit of belonging. Routledge.
37.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2008). Growth mixture modeling: Analysis with non-Gaussian random effects. In FitzmauriceG.DavidianM.VerbekeG.MolenberghsG. (Eds.), Longitudinal data analysis (pp. 143–165). Chapman & Hall.
38.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2011). Beyond multilevel regression modeling: Multilevel analysis in a general latent variable framework. In HoxJ. J.RobertsJ. K. (Eds.), Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 23–48). Routledge.
39.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J. O.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. doi:10.1177/0146167211432764
40.
OverallN. C.McNultyJ. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships?Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002
41.
ReisH. T. (2014). Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group. The Herzliya series on personality and social psychology (pp. 255–271). American Psychological Association.
42.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–423). Oxford University Press.
43.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570. doi:10.1037/a0022885
45.
ReisH. T.ShaverP. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In DuckS.HayD. F.HobfollS. E.IckesW.MontgomeryB. M. (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley.
46.
RusbultC. E.VeretteJ.WhitneyG. A.SlovikL. F.LipkusI. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53
47.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
48.
SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S.PhillipsD. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899
49.
SteigerJ. H.LindJ. M. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
50.
SunJ.VazireS. (2019). Do people know what they’re like in the moment?Psychological Science, 30, 405–414. doi:10.1177/0956797618818476
51.
VazireS.CarlsonE. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 104–108. doi:10.1177/0963721411402478
52.
VazireS.MehlM. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216. doi:10.1037/a0013314
53.
WinczewskiL. A.BowenJ. D.CollinsN. L. (2016). Is empathic accuracy enough to facilitate responsive behavior in dyadic interaction? Distinguishing ability from motivation. Psychological Science, 27, 394–404. doi:10.1177/0956797615624491
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.
