We examined how people assessed their friends’ life satisfaction and relationship status satisfaction among 197 groups of four friends (N = 788), using Social Relations Models. We found that variance in life satisfaction judgments was explained about equally by perceivers (23%) and targets (24%). However, variance in status satisfaction judgments was largely explained by targets (53%) rather than perceivers (9%). In other words, people tend to agree on which friends are satisfied, particularly with their status. Self-other agreement was higher for status satisfaction (r = .53) than life satisfaction (r = .39). The association between target relationship status and target effects of status satisfaction (r = .69) was stronger than the association between target relationship status and target effects of life satisfaction (r = .17), suggesting friends use relationship status as a cue when assessing status satisfaction. Results have implications for interpersonal perception, how relationship status impacts perception, and how life satisfaction relates to domain-specific satisfaction.
AlbrightL.KennyD. A.MalloyT. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 387–395.
2.
BackM. D.KennyD. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.x
3.
BorelliJ. L.SbarraD. A.MehlM. (2019). Convergence of naïve coders and participant report ratings of attachment to a former partner: When we should be me. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 977–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517749755
4.
BowlbyJ. (1988). A secure base. Basic Books.
5.
CheungF.LucasR. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809–2818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
8.
DienerE.LucasR. E.OishiS. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2, 63–73.
9.
DienerE.SuhE. M.LucasR. E.SmithH. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
10.
DufnerM.KrauseS. (2023). On how to be liked in first encounters: The effects of agentic and communal behaviors on popularity and unique liking. Psychological Science, 34(4), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221147258
11.
DupuisH. E.GirmeY. U. (2024). “Cat ladies” and “mama’s boys”: A mixed-methods analysis of the gendered discrimination and stereotypes of single women and single men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231203123
12.
DushC. M. K.AmatoP. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438
13.
EastwickP. W.HuntL. L. (2014). Relational mate value: Consensus and uniqueness in romantic evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 728–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035884
14.
FelderJ. P.MachiaL. V. (2024). Single while partnered: Perceived relationship status in various contexts. Current Psychology, 43(15), 13480–13491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05358-7
15.
FraleyR. C.ShaverP. R. (2016). Attachment, loss, and grief: Bowlby’s views, new developments, and current controversies. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 3, 40–62.
16.
GeorgeA. S. (2024). Decoding the language of love: A dictionary of modern dating terms used by gen Z and Millennials. Partners Universal Innovative Research Publication, 2(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10967972
17.
GreitemeyerT. (2009). Stereotypes of singles: Are singles what we think?European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.542
18.
HawkinsD. N.BoothA. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0103
19.
HertelJ.SchützA.DePauloB. M.MorrisW. L.StuckeT. S. (2007). She’s single, so what? How are singles perceived compared with people who are married?Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 19(2), 139–158.
20.
HeynickeM.RauR.LeisingD.WesselsN.WiedenrothA. (2022). Perceiver effects in person perception reflect acquiescence, positivity, and trait-specific content: Evidence from a large-scale replication study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(4), 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039101
21.
HigginsE. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). Guilford.
22.
KennyD. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98(2), 155–163.
23.
KennyD. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_3
24.
KennyD. A.AlbrightL. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390–402.
25.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A. (1994). Enhanced co-orientation in the perception of friends: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1024
26.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.
KennyD. A.WestT. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353414
29.
KruglanskiA. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395
30.
LanceC. E.LautenschlagerG. J.SloanC. E.VarcaP. E. (1989). A comparison between bottom–up, top–down, and bidirectional models of relationships between global and life facet satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00565.x
31.
LeeG. R.BulandaJ. R. (2005). Change and consistency in the relation of marital status to personal happiness. Marriage & Family Review, 38(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v38n01_06
32.
LehmannM.PeryS.KlugerA. N.HekmanD. R.OwensB. P.MalloyT. E. (2023). Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001059
33.
LehmannV.TuinmanM. A.BraekenJ.VingerhoetsA. J.SandermanR.HagedoornM. (2015). Satisfaction with relationship status: Development of a new scale and the role in predicting well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9503-x
34.
LucasR. E.Brent DonnellanM. (2012). Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 105, 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9783-z
MorrisW. L.OsburnB. K. (2016). Do you take this marriage? Perceived choice over marital status affects the stereotypes of single and married people. In AdamczykK. (Ed.), Singlehood from individual and social perspectives (pp. 145–162). Wydawnictwo Libron.
37.
MorrisW. L.SinclairS.DePauloB. M. (2007). No shelter for singles: The perceived legitimacy of marital status discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081535
38.
OhJ.ChopikW. J.LucasR. E. (2022). Happiness singled out: Bidirectional associations between singlehood and life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(11), 1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211049049
39.
ParkY.ImpettE. A.MacDonaldG. (2021). Singles’ sexual satisfaction is associated with more satisfaction with single-hood and less interest in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220942361
40.
PavotW.DienerE. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946
41.
PayneJ. W.SchimmackU. (2020). Construct validity of global life-satisfaction judgments: A look into the black box of self–informant agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 89, 104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104041
42.
PorterB.ØverupC. S.BrunsonJ. A.MehtaP. D. (2018). Meta-accuracy and perceived reciprocity from the perception-meta-perception social relations model. Social Psychology, 50(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000356
43.
PurolM. F.KellerV. N.OhJ.ChopikW. J.LucasR. E. (2021). Loved and lost or never loved at all? Lifelong marital histories and their links with subjective well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(5), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791946
44.
RauR.CarlsonE. N.BackM. D.BarrantiM.GebauerJ. E.HumanL. J.LeisingD.NestlerS. (2021). What is the structure of perceiver effects? On the importance of global positivity and trait-specificity across personality domains and judgment contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000278
45.
RhoadesG. K.Kamp DushC. M.AtkinsD. C.StanleyS. M.MarkmanH. J. (2011). Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023627
46.
SchneiderL.SchimmackU. (2009). Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: A meta-analysis. Social Indicators Research, 94, 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9440-y
47.
SchneiderL.SchimmackU. (2010). Examining sources of self-informant agreement in life-satisfaction judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.004
48.
SchönbrodtF. D.BackM. D.SchmukleS. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 455–470. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0150-4
49.
SibleyD. S.VennumA.MalloryA. B.BrownC. C.LeFebvreL. E. (2024). “We’re just talking”: Constructing a recent trend in emerging adult romantic relationship development. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 23(4), 249–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2024.2406823
50.
SlotterE. B.GardnerW. L.FinkelE. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352250
51.
SrivastavaS.GuglielmoS.BeerJ. S. (2010). Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017057
52.
SternC.WestT. V. (2018). Assessing accuracy in close relationships research: A truth and bias approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712901
53.
SternJ.KrämerM. D.SchumacherA.MacDonaldG.RichterD. (2024). Differences between lifelong singles and ever-partnered individuals in Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction. Science, 35(12), 1364–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241286865
54.
VerbakelE. (2012). Subjective well-being by partnership status and its dependence on the normative climate. European Journal of Population/Revue europeenne de demographie, 28(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9257-2
55.
WadeL. (2021). American Hookup. In McGannK. (Ed.), Sage readings for introductory sociology (pp. 61–76). SAGE.
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.
