Similarity of Major Life-Event Perceptions and Relationship Satisfaction Among Romantic Couples: The Case of Moving in Together

Abstract

This study examined the similarity of partners’ event perceptions of a major life event (i.e., moving in together as a couple) and how similarity relates to relationship satisfaction. Considering event perceptions from multiple individuals can enhance knowledge of the event itself and the relationship dynamics in which it occurs. Using multilevel models, we analyzed data from N = 400 participants (200 couples), who provided self- and partner-reported multidimensional event perceptions and ratings of relationship satisfaction at two assessments. First, we found evidence for similarity of self-reports and similarity of self- and partner reports between partners—higher than in random couples or due to normativeness. Second, higher similarity was related to higher relationship satisfaction. Third, similarity did not increase over time, and fourth, similarity did not co-develop with relationship satisfaction. Similarity of self-reports appears to be most relevant for relationship satisfaction, informing future research and potential intervention programs with couples.

Keywords

major life events perceived event characteristics romantic relationships distinctive profile analysis

Moving in together with a romantic partner is an example of a major life event or transition that, by definition, both partners experience together. In some couples, both partners perceive this transition as largely positive and predictable—their perceptions align closely. In other couples, perceptions differ substantially: One partner might have eagerly anticipated and planned the move, leading to a highly positive and predictable experience, whereas the other partner might have hesitated giving up their own space and, therefore, perceives the move as stressful and uncertain. Such differences in partners’ perceptions of shared events could cause conflicts (e.g., when recounting the experience with others), whereas similar perceptions may foster a sense of shared reality (Echterhoff et al., 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996), which might benefit relationship quality. Beyond each individual’s experience of the event (self-report), it may also matter how romantic partners construe each other’s event perceptions (partner report) and how similar these perceptions are, since similarity is linked to intimacy and relationship satisfaction (Luo & Snider, 2009; Swann et al., 1994). Moreover, similarity of event perceptions, defined as the overlap between partners’ event perceptions, may develop over time when partners gradually adapt their perceptions.

These considerations raise important questions about the role of event perceptions in close relationships: First, how similar are partners in their multidimensional perceptions of a shared major life event? Second, how does similarity between partners’ perceptions change across 6 months? Third, is greater similarity in event perceptions associated with higher relationship satisfaction? And finally, do similarity and relationship satisfaction co-develop across 6 months? This study addresses these questions for the major life event “moving in together” in a sample of romantic couples. Romantic partners rated their event perception (self-report) and how they believed their partner perceived this event (partner report) on nine dimensions using the Event Characteristic Questionnaire (ECQ; Luhmann et al., 2021) at two assessments 6 months apart. Moving in together has been scarcely studied compared to other relationship events, such as marriage, yet it is often one of the earliest major transitions couples experience together and can influence future relationship quality (Rhoades et al., 2012) and later events such as parenthood.

Perceptions of Major Life Events

When studying major life events, it is important to consider not only their occurrence but also how individuals perceive these events (e.g., Buecker et al., 2021; Haehner et al., 2022; Luhmann et al., 2021; Rakhshani et al., 2022). Individuals can experience the same major life event very differently (Dohrenwend, 2006; Luhmann et al., 2021; Sarason et al., 1978). Moreover, the perception of the same event may change over time. For example, moving in together might initially feel exciting, but stressful later. Although findings suggest that event perceptions are relatively stable (Haehner et al., 2022), it remains unclear how romantic partners’ perceptions of shared events develop over time—whether they become more or less aligned. Empirical findings further highlight the relevance of subjective perceptions of major life events when predicting changes in outcomes such as depression (Sarason et al., 1978), well-being (Luhmann et al., 2021), or personality development (Schwaba et al., 2023).

Despite the social nature of many major life events such as parenthood or divorce, previous research has focused on the individual level (e.g., Luciano & Orth, 2017; Specht et al., 2011). Still, considering the subjective perceptions of multiple individuals who jointly experienced an event—such as romantic partners—could enhance the understanding of the event itself, as well as the dynamics of the relationship in which it occurs. For instance, the similarity of self- and informant perceptions across various events (e.g., graduation or the death of a loved one) within close dyads such as friends or family members has been examined (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025). Results showed that dyads differed in their level of similarity and that these differences were partly due to whether they talked about the event. In addition, similarity in situation perception predicted higher relationship satisfaction in romantic couples (Rentzsch et al., 2022).

Similarity of Event Perceptions in Close Relationships

Event perception in dyads can be studied from at least two perspectives: By assessing self-reports (i.e., asking participants how they perceived the event themselves) and by assessing partner reports (i.e., asking participants how they think that their partner perceived the event). Analyzing the similarity between these reports can provide unique insights into outcomes relevant to the dyad, such as relationship satisfaction (e.g., Hudson & Fraley, 2014). Throughout this manuscript, we use the terminology outlined in Figure 1 to refer to the different similarity indices. This study focuses on self-report similarity (Figure 1, Path A) and self-partner agreement (Path B). In addition, perceived similarity (Path C) was included, as this index has been shown to be relevant in the context of personality similarity (e.g., Tidwell et al., 2013). For completeness, we report the results for partner report similarity (Path D) in the Supplemental Materials.

Figure 1

Similarity indices of event perception profile

Self-Report Similarity

Most similarity research has focused on self-report similarity as an indicator of similarity (From et al., 2025), examining whether individuals in close relationships report similar characteristics, such as personality traits, and if this similarity relates to relationship quality. Romantic partners tend to show high similarity in demographic characteristics like age or education, as well as personal attitudes (e.g., Feng & Baker, 1994; George et al., 2015; Leikas et al., 2018; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson et al., 2004). By comparison, similarity in self-reported personality traits is typically small to modest (e.g., Feng & Baker, 1994; Gattis et al., 2004; Leikas et al., 2018; Lewis & Yoneda, 2021; van Scheppingen et al., 2025), with some studies reporting effects no greater than those found in randomly matched couples (Gonzaga et al., 2007; Klohnen & Mendelsohn, 1998; Luo & Klohnen, 2005).

Furthermore, some evidence suggests that higher similarity of self-reported personality between romantic partners is linked to beneficial outcomes, including higher relationship quality (Decuyper et al., 2012; Gaunt, 2006; Gonzaga et al., 2007; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Russell & Wells, 1991; in contrast to Weidmann et al., 2023), well-being (Chopik & Lucas, 2019), and perceived support (Lewis & Yoneda, 2021; van Scheppingen et al., 2019). Importantly, some studies found that similarity explains differences in outcomes after controlling for the individual self-ratings of partners (Arránz Becker, 2013; Barelds, 2005; Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Decuyper et al., 2012; Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Luo et al., 2008; van Scheppingen et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; in contrast to Brauer et al., 2022; Robins et al., 2000; Weidmann et al., 2017). While most research focuses on personality traits, researchers argued that situation perception—and possibly also event perception—may rely on similar mechanisms as person perception (e.g., Nystedt, 1972; Rauthmann et al., 2014).

Self-Partner Agreement

Besides research on self-report similarity within close relationships, personality psychology has long examined the association of self- and informant reports between individuals (i.e., self-partner agreement). Within this literature, self-partner agreement is typically interpreted as one indicator of accuracy, alongside other benchmarks such as consensus (i.e., the similarity of informant reports across different informants) or correspondence with behavioral measures (e.g., Biesanz, 2010; Funder, 1995). Findings indicate that individuals have insight into their close others’ self-perceived personality (Biesanz et al., 2007; Furler et al., 2014; Lenhausen et al., 2021; Schaffhuser et al., 2014; Vazire, 2006; Watson et al., 2000) and their perceptions of major life events (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025)—even when those events were not jointly experienced. Like self-report similarity, some findings suggest that higher self-partner agreement is related to positive outcomes, including relationship satisfaction (Decuyper et al., 2012; Letzring & Noftle, 2010; Luo & Snider, 2009), life satisfaction (Moore et al., 2017), and feelings of intimacy (Swann et al., 1994).

Perceived Similarity

In addition to similarity between partners, similarity within individuals—or the extent to which a person believes their partner shares similar views or characteristics (i.e., perceived similarity)—is important. Perceived similarity is linked to outcomes such as attraction (Tidwell et al., 2013) and relationship satisfaction in both romantic relationships and friendships (Decuyper et al., 2012; Furler et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2002). Notably, perceived similarity can exceed self-report similarity (e.g., Byrne & Blaylock, 1963) and may better predict certain outcomes, like attraction (Tidwell et al., 2013). Although self-report similarity and perceived similarity are positively correlated, both can show unique associations with relationship outcomes when considered simultaneously (Hudson & Fraley, 2014; Klohnen & Luo, 2003).

Why Does Similarity Occur in Close Relationships?

Researchers typically differentiate between two sources of similarity in close relationships: assortative mating—the tendency for individuals to engage in social relationships with those who share similar characteristics (Buss, 1985)—and convergence, becoming more similar over time (Gonzaga et al., 2007). Evidence suggests that similarity in personality, values, or attitudes is rather a consequence of initial assortment rather than convergence (Luo, 2017; van Scheppingen et al., 2025), though individuals show convergence in their emotional experience and expression (Anderson et al., 2003).

Various psychological theories, such as Balance Theory (Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1968) or Shared Reality Theory (Echterhoff et al., 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996), offer insights into why similarity may develop in relationships. The more recent Shared Reality Theory posits that individuals strive to create shared inner states—such as feelings or thoughts—about a target (e.g., a person or an event) with others to gain confidence in their perceptions (epistemic motive) and to strengthen social connection (relational motive). Consistent with this theory, individuals who experience a stronger sense of shared reality feel more connected and have increased confidence in their perceptions (Rossignac-Milon et al., 2021). Applied to the perception of major life events, individuals should be motivated to achieve both a shared reality of the event itself (i.e., self-report similarity) and of how one partner perceived the event (i.e., self-partner agreement). We examined these processes through longitudinal analyses of event perceptions and relationship satisfaction. Notably, Shared Reality Theory speaks to similarity at a more abstract, subjective level rather than directly addressing overlap in detailed perception profiles. Nevertheless, individuals’ subjective impressions of being similar to another are positively related to profile similarity (e.g., Wortman et al., 2014).

Beyond these specific theoretical explanations, a more general reason for observed similarity may be normativeness, defined as the association between an individual profile and the average profile of the reference group (Furr, 2008). For example, if both partners rate moving in together as highly emotional, their agreement might reflect a shared normative belief that this event should be highly emotional, rather than from genuine shared perceptions. However, findings suggest that even after controlling for normativeness, substantial couple-specific similarity remains (e.g., Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025; Wu et al., 2020).

The Present Study

This study aims to extend previous findings regarding similarity of event perceptions in close dyads (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025) by (a) considering not only self-partner agreement but also self-report similarity and perceived similarity, (b) examining their associations with relationship satisfaction, and (c) investigating their co-development with relationship satisfaction across 6 months. By focusing on a specific shared major life event (i.e., moving in as a couple), variability due to different event types is minimized. In a multimethod assessment, both partners provided self- and partner reports, enabling direct comparisons of different similarity indices. Moreover, this study adopts a profile-centered approach, as partners’ shared meaning-making of an event as a whole may be more informative for studying similarity than isolated event aspects or characteristics. Consistent with this reasoning, profile-based similarity tends to be a better predictor of relationship satisfaction than variable-centered similarity (Gaunt, 2006; Luo et al., 2008; Luo & Klohnen, 2005).

Drawing on prior empirical evidence of similarity, particularly research on similarity in event and situation perceptions (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025; Rentzsch et al., 2022), we expected partners to show similarity in event perceptions (Table 1, H1a–H1b). Based on findings linking similarity to positive relationship outcomes (e.g., Luo & Watson, 2021; Rentzsch et al., 2021) and on Shared Reality Theory (Echterhoff et al., 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996), why such similarity may be beneficial, we also predicted a positive association between similarity and relationship satisfaction (H2a–H2b). These hypotheses (H1a–H2b) concern between-couple differences at a single assessment, whereas the remaining hypotheses (H3a–H4b) address intra-couple changes across 6 months. We further expected that similarity would increase from the first to the second assessment (H3a–H3b), as partners have more time to discuss the event, and verbal exchange has been linked to higher similarity in event perceptions (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025).

Table 1

Hypotheses Regarding Similarity of Event Perceptions in Romantic Couples.

Hypotheses	Self-report similarity	Self-partner agreement
Hypothesis 1	H1a: The association between partners’ self-reports of event perception is significantly positive.	H1b: The association between self- and partner reports of event perception is significantly positive.
Hypothesis 2	H2a: Romantic couples with higher similarity of self-reports of event perception have higher relationship satisfaction.	H2b: Romantic couples with higher similarity of self- and partner reports of event perception have higher relationship satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3	H3a: The similarity of self-reports of event perception increases significantly from T1 to T2.	H3b: The similarity of self- and partner reports of event perception increases significantly from T1 to T2.
Hypothesis 4	H4a: Increases [decreases] in the similarity of self-reports of event perception from T1 to T2 are associated with increases [decreases] in relationship satisfaction from T1 to T2.	H4b: Increases [decreases] in the similarity of self- and partner reports of event perception from T1 to T2 are associated with increases [decreases] in relationship satisfaction from T1 to T2.

Note. Hypotheses 1a to 2b were tested separately for the first assessment (T1) and the second assessment 6 months later (T2). In addition to the examination of the hypotheses for self-report similarity (Path A) and self-partner agreement (Path B), the same hypotheses were additionally examined for perceived similarity (Path C) and similarity of partner reports (Path D), which were preregistered later. Please note that we deviate from the preregistration by using the term similarity rather than convergence to describe the overlap of event perception profiles. This adjustment was made to clearly distinguish static overlap (similarity) from longitudinal increases in overlap (i.e., convergence over time; Gonzaga et al., 2007), and thereby avoid terminological ambiguity.

To rule out that similarity simply reflects normativeness (Furr, 2008), all hypotheses were also tested using distinctive perception profiles, controlling for normativeness. Focusing on one specific major life event—moving in together with your partner—allowed us to control for an event-specific normativeness, providing a more conservative test than prior work using a general normativeness across different events (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025).

Method

This study analyzed data that have been assessed within the CoUple’s Personality In Daily Life (CUPID) study, a larger project examining personality–relationship dynamics. However, the data on the perceived event characteristics have not yet been analyzed.

Transparency and Openness

An overview of the variables assessed in the CUPID project is available on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/bfkta/overview. This study’s first author, who performed the analyses, gained access to the data only after preregistering hypotheses and the analysis plan. Additional analyses, informed by the revision of a project using a similar multilevel approach, were preregistered subsequently. All analysis preregistrations and R scripts are available at https://osf.io/mak5u. Due to the unique nature of the sample—couples who recently moved in together—data are not public to maintain confidentiality but can be requested from the first author.

Sample and Exclusions

For this study, we analyzed all available data of perceived event characteristics collected within the CUPID project, which aimed to recruit at least 210 opposite-sex couples who were in a relationship for at least 3 months and who had recently moved in together. The initial dataset included N = 415 participants. As preregistered, only couples with data from both partners were retained, yielding a final sample of N = 400 participants (200 couples; age: M = 25.63 years, SD = 2.15; Supplemental Tables S1–S3 include detailed sample characteristics) at the first assessment. Most participants were students or trainees (93.8%), in unmarried partnerships (94.2%), and had been cohabiting for less than 4 weeks (78.3%). At the second assessment, the sample shrank to N = 286 participants (143 couples), corresponding to an attrition rate of 28.5%. Participants who discontinued the study reported lower relationship satisfaction on average, but attrition was unrelated to similarity (Supplemental Tables S4 and S5).

Measures

Measures were assessed at baseline (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Table 2 summarizes the measures used in this study, with further details, including scale reliabilities, provided in Supplemental Tables S6–S9.

Table 2

Measures Used in This Study.

Construct	Questionnaire	Example item	Answer scale
Self-reported event perception	18-item version of the Event Characteristic Questionnaire (ECQ, Luhmann et al., 2021), adapted to the event “moving in together”	“The move-in was positive.”^a	5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
Partner-reported event perception	18-item version of the ECQ (Luhmann et al., 2021), adapted to the event “moving in together” and for the partner report	“The move-in was positive for my partner.”^a	5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
Relationship satisfaction	7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988; Sander & Böcker, 1993)	“In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?”	5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Note. All measures were assessed in the German language.

The respective original item of the ECQ (Luhmann et al., 2021) is “The event was positive.”

Data Analysis

Data analyses were performed with R Studio (R Core Team, 2022), using the psych (Revelle, 2023), lme4 (Bates et al., 2015), and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2017) packages.

Multilevel Models

We estimated various multilevel models to analyze similarity in partners’ event perception profiles and its association with relationship satisfaction. Due to the nested data structure—self- and partner reports nested within one partner, two partners nested within one dyad at each assessment—multilevel models were appropriate (see Table 3 for model specification).

Table 3

Overview of Multilevel Models Testing Similarity of Event Perceptions and Their Interactions.

Hypotheses	Criterion	Main predictor	Additional predictors/interactions	Model purpose
H1a–b	Partner 1’s self-reported ECQ profile (18 items)	Self-report similarity (Path A): Partner 2’s self-reported ECQ profile (18 items); self-partner agreement (Path B): Partner 2’s partner-reported ECQ profile (18 items); perceived similarity (Path C): Partner 1’s partner-reported ECQ profile (18 items)	None	Test similarity (i.e., self-report similarity, self-partner agreement, or perceived similarity) via fixed regression coefficient of the main predictor
H2a–b	Partner 1’s self-reported ECQ profile	See main predictors H1a–b	Relationship satisfaction (grand-mean-centered) × main predictor	Test whether relationship satisfaction is associated with similarity via interaction effect
H3a–b	Partner 1’s self-reported ECQ profile	See main predictors H1a–b	Assessment (dummy coded: T1 vs. T2) × main predictor	Test whether similarity changes across 6 months via interaction effect
H4a–b	Partner 1’s self-reported ECQ profile	See main predictors H1a–b	Relationship satisfaction × Assessment × main predictor	Test whether changes in similarity relate to changes in relationship satisfaction via the interaction effect

Note. Event perceptions were assessed with the ECQ (Luhmann et al., 2021). Detailed model specifications are available in the preregistration or HTML file on OSF. For each hypothesis, we estimated (a) a model without predictors, (b) a model incorporating fixed effects for the predictor variables, and (c) a model with random effects for these predictors. Competing models were compared using the anova function from the R base package (R Core Team, 2022) to identify the best-fitting model. If convergence issues occurred, the number of iterations was increased, and a more parsimonious model was chosen if the problem persisted. Separate models were estimated for each assessment for H1a–H2b. Following Kenny et al. (2006), we combined dyad number and assessment into one nesting variable for analyses across both assessments (for H3a–H4b), yielding a two-level instead of a three-level structure.

To test whether similarity reflected more than normative agreement, we repeated all analyses using distinctive profiles (Furr, 2008), estimated by grand-mean centering each of the 18 ECQ items. For instance, the average self-reported ECQ item 1 at T1 was subtracted from each individual’s self-reported ECQ item 1 at T1. Moreover, all analyses were conducted separately for each of the nine ECQ dimensions. For example, one partner’s self-reported valence score was predicted by the other partner’s self-reported valence score.

As an addendum to the original preregistration, further analyses were preregistered and conducted: First, regression coefficients were compared with those from randomly matched dyads (Supplemental Table S10). Second, correlation coefficients were estimated (Supplemental Table S11). Third, normativeness was assessed across report types (self- and partner reports) and assessments (T1 and T2; Supplemental Table S12). Fourth, hypotheses were re-examined using regression models that simultaneously predict the overall profile from normative and distinctive profiles (Supplemental Table S13). Finally, we additionally examined perceived similarity as an indicator of similarity.

Exploratory Analyses

After completing the preregistered analyses, additional exploratory analyses were conducted, including (a) an attrition analysis examining dropout of couples from the first to the second assessment (Supplemental Tables S4 and S5), (b) an analysis of the cross-lagged association of similarity and relationship satisfaction (Supplemental Table S14), (c) regression analyses incorporating all three similarity indices to examine their unique contributions (Supplemental Table S15), and (d) an analysis controlling for perceived valence when examining the association of similarity and relationship satisfaction (Supplemental Table S16). As suggested by a reviewer, we additionally (e) investigated whether time since event occurrence moderated similarity (Supplemental Tables S17 and S18), (f) controlled for main effects of both event perception profiles when predicting relationship satisfaction (Supplemental Table S19), and (g) conducted robustness checks comparing models with and without random slopes, since simpler models were used when convergence issues occurred (Supplemental Tables S20–S23).

Results

Research Question 1: Similarity Between Partners’ Event Perceptions

Supporting Hypotheses 1a to 1b, both overall and distinctive profiles were significantly and positively associated (Table 4). Regarding the separate analyses of the nine ECQ characteristics (Supplemental Tables S24–S27), self-report similarity was significant and positive for challenge, external control, predictability, and social status change—but not for emotional significance, extraordinariness, and impact. Self-report similarity in change in world views was only significant at the first assessment, whereas valence was only significant at the second assessment. For self-partner agreement, all characteristics except external control were significantly and positively associated.

Table 4

Similarity of Event Perception Profiles.

		Overall profiles		Distinctive profiles
Similarity indices	Time	B [95% CI]	p	B [95% CI]	p
Self-report similarity	T1	0.610 [0.574, 0.645]	<.001	0.218 [0.170, 0.265]	<.001
Self-report similarity	T2	0.607 [0.570, 0.645]	<.001	0.216 [0.168, 0.264]	<.001
Self-partner agreement	T1	0.535 [0.509, 0.560]^a	<.001	0.218 [0.185, 0.251]^a	<.001
Self-partner agreement	T2	0.523 [0.491, 0.555]^a	<.001	0.184 [0.141, 0.226]	<.001
Perceived similarity	T1	0.640 [0.621, 0.659]^a	<.001	0.418 [0.389, 0.447]^a	<.001
Perceived similarity	T2	0.643 [0.620, 0.665]^a	<.001	0.423 [0.391, 0.456]^a	<.001

Note. Significant effects at a preregistered alpha level of α = .05 are shown in bold. “T1” refers to the first assessment and “T2” to the second assessment. B denotes the unstandardized multilevel regression coefficient (see Method section for details). Further details on this analysis, including R code and additional effects (e.g., fixed effect of intercept), can be found in the HTML file on OSF. Please see Table S28 in the Supplemental Materials for the results regarding partner report similarity for Research Questions 1 to 4.

Research Question 2: Similarity and Relationship Satisfaction

As shown in Table 5, similarity was positively related to relationship satisfaction for all similarity indices for the overall profiles (see also Figure 2), but unrelated to the distinctive profiles—thereby partially confirming Hypotheses 2a to 2b.

Table 5

Similarity of Event Perception Profiles and Relationship Satisfaction.

		Overall profiles × relationship satisfaction		Distinctive profiles × relationship satisfaction
Similarity indices	Time	B [95% CI]	p	B [95% CI]	p
Self-report similarity	T1	0.258 [0.172, 0.344]	<.001	0.075 [−0.043, 0.193]	.212
Self-report similarity	T2	0.202 [0.127, 0.278]	<.001	0.038 [−0.062, 0.137]	.455
Self-partner agreement	T1	0.119 [0.062, 0.176]^a	<.001	−0.039 [−0.109, 0.032]^a	.286
Self-partner agreement	T2	0.114 [0.055, 0.173]^a	<.001	−0.005 [−0.072, 0.062]^a	.889
Perceived similarity	T1	0.098 [0.053, 0.142]^{a, b}	<.001	−0.010 [−0.072, 0.052]^a	.750
Perceived similarity	T2	0.099 [0.056, 0.142]^{a, b}	<.001	0.046 [−0.013, 0.105]	.129

Note. Significant effects at a preregistered alpha level of α = .05 are shown in bold. “T1” refers to the first assessment and “T2” to the second assessment. B denotes the unstandardized multilevel regression coefficient (see Method section for details). Further details on this analysis, including R code and additional effects (e.g., fixed effect of intercept or main effect for relationship satisfaction), can be found in the HTML file on OSF.

A model with two nesting variables encountered difficulties with singularity. Therefore, a simpler model containing only one nesting variable (controlling for the items nested within one individual) instead of two nesting variables was chosen. ^bA model with a random slope encountered difficulties with singularity. Therefore, a simpler model containing only a random intercept was chosen.

Figure 2

Similarity of overall event perceptions and relationship satisfaction

Research Questions 3 and 4: Similarity Across 6 Months and Co-Development With Relationship Satisfaction

Contrary to Hypotheses 3a to 4b, neither overall nor distinctive similarity increased from the first to the second assessment (Table 6) nor generally co-developed with relationship satisfaction (Table 7).

Table 6

Similarity of Event Perception Profiles and Interaction With Assessment Timepoint.

		Overall profiles × time		Distinctive profiles × time
Similarity indices	Time	B [95% CI]	p	B [95% CI]	p
Self-report similarity	T1/T2	−0.001 [−0.054, 0.053]	.985	−0.002 [−0.072, 0.067]	.948
Self-partner agreement	T1/T2	−0.018 [−0.052, 0.016]^a	.293	−0.022 [−0.057, 0.013]^a	.224
Perceived similarity	T1/T2	0.003 [−0.027, 0.033]^a	.849	0.015 [−0.017, 0.046]^a	.362

Note. “T1” refers to the first assessment and “T2” to the second assessment. B denotes the unstandardized multilevel regression coefficient (see Method section for details). Further details on this analysis, including R code and additional effects (e.g., fixed effect of intercept), can be found in the HTML file on OSF.

Table 7

Similarity of Event Perception Profiles and Interaction With Relationship Satisfaction and Assessment Timepoint.

		Overall profiles × time × relationship satisfaction		Distinctive profiles × time × relationship satisfaction
Similarity indices	Time	B [95% CI]	p	B [95% CI]	p
Self-report similarity	T1/T2	−0.055 [−0.171, 0.061]	.353	−0.122 [−0.236, −0.008]	.036
Self-partner agreement	T1/T2	−0.009 [−0.082, 0.064]^a	.811	0.027 [−0.073, 0.126]	.600
Perceived similarity	T1/T2	−0.005 [−0.069, 0.060]^a	.888	0.056 [−0.030, 0.143]	.202

Note. Significant effects at a preregistered alpha level of α = .05 are shown in bold. “T1” refers to the first assessment and “T2” to the second assessment. B denotes the unstandardized multilevel regression coefficient (see Method section for details). Further details on this analysis, including R code and additional effects (e.g., fixed effect of intercept or the main effects of the predictors), can be found in the HTML file on OSF.

Discussion

This study examined whether partners’ multidimensional event perceptions of a shared major life event—moving in together as a couple—align, how this similarity changes over 6 months, whether it relates to relationship satisfaction, and how both constructs co-develop. We analyzed data from 200 heterosexual romantic couples (N = 400 participants), who reported on their event perception (self-report), how they thought their partner perceived the event (partner report), and their relationship satisfaction at two assessments 6 months apart. As predicted, partners’ self-perceptions—as well as self- and partner perceptions between partners—were more similar than in random couples or based on normativeness. Greater similarity in event perception profiles was also related to higher relationship satisfaction. However, similarity of event perceptions did not increase from the first to the second assessment or co-develop with relationship satisfaction. Similar results emerged for the similarity of self- and partner reports within individual partners. These findings underscore the value of examining multiple perceptions of shared major life events.

Do Partners Align in Their Event Perceptions?

As predicted, romantic partners had a similar general perception of the event of moving in together across different aspects of the event (Figure 1, Path A), and romantic partners had general insights into how their partner perceived that event (Figure 1, Path B). Importantly, this similarity exceeded that of randomly paired dyads, indicating that the observed alignment reflected meaningful interpersonal similarity rather than methodological artifacts. These findings support the Shared Reality Theory (Echterhoff et al., 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996), suggesting that couples create a shared reality in their event perceptions.

Notably, couples aligned not only in the event aspects commonly shared across individuals (i.e., normative aspects) but also in their idiosyncratic experiences, as indicated by the substantial distinctive similarity. These results extend previous findings (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025) by showing that there is also distinctive similarity in self-reported perceptions and that the effects are robust when controlling for event-specific normativeness (e.g., moving in tends to be perceived positively across individuals).

In addition, individuals tend to rate their partner’s perception similar to their own—an extension of previous research on perceived similarity (e.g., Byrne & Blaylock, 1963; Furler et al., 2014; Hudson & Fraley, 2014) from person to event perception (Figure 1, Path C). Notably, all similarity indices were significant in a joint model, suggesting that they hold unique information about event perceptions in dyads (Supplemental Table S15).

Is the Similarity of Event Perceptions Related to Relationship Satisfaction?

As expected, partners were more satisfied with their relationships when they perceived the event more similarly (Figure 1, Path A) and when they had a good sense of how their partner perceived the event (Figure 1, Path B). This finding aligns with previous findings on situation perception and relationship satisfaction (Rentzsch et al., 2022) and suggests that similarity in event perceptions is a useful construct itself, as it is associated with relevant outcomes. Similarly, perceiving the event more in line with how one believed their partner perceived it (Figure 1, Path C) was related to greater relationship satisfaction. Given the generally high relationship satisfaction among couples, these effects may be estimated conservatively due to restricted variance. However, the link between similarity and relationship satisfaction did not hold for the distinctive profiles, except for one effect using an alternative analytical approach (Supplemental Table S13). This suggests that alignment in normative or culturally shared event aspects may be more consequential for relationship satisfaction than alignment in distinctive or unique perceptions.

Importantly, only higher similarity of self-reported event perception was uniquely (i.e., when controlling for the other similarity indices and their association with relationship satisfaction) related to higher relationship satisfaction at both assessments (Supplemental Table S15). Prior research on personality found that perceiving one’s partner as similar to oneself is typically a stronger predictor of outcomes (i.e., perceived similarity; e.g., Hudson & Fraley, 2014; Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Tidwell et al., 2013). For major life events, however, perceiving events similar to one’s partner (i.e., self-report similarity) seems most relevant, suggesting that shared meaning-making of joint experiences may play a critical role in relationship functioning.

Does the Similarity of Event Perceptions Change Across 6 Months?

Contrary to our hypotheses, partners did neither become more similar in their self-reports (Figure 1, Path A) nor did self- and partner-reported event perception (Figure 1, Path B) converge more over 6 months, supporting findings that event perceptions are relatively stable (Haehner et al., 2022). Moreover, personality similarity tends to precede, rather than result from, friendship formation (Bahns et al., 2017). Similarly, it could be that individuals tend to engage in relationships with individuals who perceive their environment, including major life events, in a similar manner—consistent with assortative mating (Buss, 1985) rather than convergence (Gonzaga et al., 2007).

Although most couples had moved in within the past month, convergence may have occurred even earlier. Partners may have discussed the event shortly after it occurred, potentially leading to a higher similarity of their reports (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025). Testing this possibility would require assessing data on the day of and surrounding the event, using higher-frequency measurements. Consistent with this possibility, additional analyses examining differences of a few weeks in time since the event suggested that similarity may reorganize over time, with greater time since occurrence linked to lower overall similarity in self-reports but higher distinctive similarity in self- and partner reports (Supplemental Table S17). However, the latter finding was not robust in an alternative analytical approach (Supplemental Table S18).

Do Similarity and Relationship Satisfaction Co-Develop Across 6 Months?

Contrary to our hypothesis, changes in the similarity of event perception profiles were not accompanied by changes in relationship satisfaction. However, it remains possible that changes in similarity occurred before our first measurement point (up to 4 weeks after the event for most couples), potentially alongside changes in relationship satisfaction.

An alternative explanation could be selective attrition, where couples with lower levels of similarity and relationship satisfaction dropped out. However, while lower relationship satisfaction predicted dropout, similarity did not (Supplemental Tables S4 and S5), suggesting that attrition alone does not explain these null findings. Nonetheless, the longitudinal results still overrepresent more satisfied couples, and the development of similarity among those who dropped out remains unclear.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is the lack of relationship-satisfaction data prior to the event. It is possible that couples who were already less satisfied with their relationship differed more strongly in their perceptions. Future research should incorporate pre-event measures of relationship satisfaction to clarify whether satisfaction drives similarity in event perceptions or vice versa—an important distinction with both theoretical and practical implications, such as for interventions in couple therapy.

A second limitation concerns the wording of two partner report items on external control, which did not clearly reflect the partner’s perception (e.g., “The move in was caused by my partner. [reversed]” instead of “My partner thought that he or she caused the move in. [reversed]”). This may explain why external control was the only characteristic with a negative self-partner association. The effect seemed driven by low variance in the two self-reported external control items (e.g., “The move in with the partner was caused by other people. [not reversed]”), which may not have captured the intended construct well, since the event of moving in is typically caused by both partners themselves rather than by external causes. Nevertheless, excluding the two external control items did not change the overall results.

This study examined one specific shared major life event within romantic relationships. While findings may generalize to other major life events (see Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025) or relationship types (see e.g., Bahns et al., 2017 for personality similarity in friendships), this remains to be tested. Some events, like childbirth, may evoke more divergent perceptions between partners than moving in together, as only one partner undergoes the physical demands of giving birth. However, research (Fliedner & Horstmann, 2025) and theory (Echterhoff et al., 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996) suggest that similarity may also emerge for events experienced by only one partner. Future studies should test whether the present findings on similarity of event perceptions differ between shared and non-shared events and across event or relationship types.

Implications

While prior research highlighted the value of subjective event perceptions over checklist approaches (e.g., Luhmann et al., 2021), this study further extends those findings by showing that a dyadic approach—assessing self- and partner-reported event perceptions and their similarity—is useful for studying major life events and social relationships. All similarity indices were linked to relationship satisfaction, demonstrating that subjective perceptions of major life events matter. However, in combined models, only partners’ similarity in self-reported event perceptions (Figure 1, Path A) was consistently related to relationship satisfaction (Supplemental Table S15), highlighting the usefulness of considering multiple similarity indices simultaneously. The relevance of the specific similarity index may depend on the studied construct: While perceived similarity (Figure 1, Path C) of personality traits seems more important for attraction or satisfaction (e.g., Hudson & Fraley, 2014; Tidwell et al., 2013), self-report similarity (Figure 1, Path A) seems more relevant in the context of major life events (and potentially other experiences such as situations or daily events).

The next step is to better understand why similarity in perceptions is beneficial in relationships. Proposed mechanisms linking similarity and relationship outcomes include fewer conflicts and feelings of safety or familiarity (e.g., Brauer et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2008). Empirical work showed that similarity is associated with reduced tension or conflicts (Acitelli et al., 2001). Moreover, feeling validated mediated the link between attitude similarity and attraction (Singh et al., 2017). Finally, similarity in emotional experiences mediated the link between personality similarity and relationship satisfaction (Gonzaga et al., 2007). Future research could examine similarity in perceptions of shared daily events, which occur more frequently than major life events (Haehner et al., 2024) and may better capture short-term processes—such as conflict dynamics—through which similarity might influence relationship quality.

Regarding major life events, perceiving events similarly across both partners was most strongly associated with relationship satisfaction. Assuming a hypothetical causal link from similarity to satisfaction, interventions aiming to strengthen interpersonal connections—such as in couple therapy or workplace settings—may benefit more by fostering shared event perceptions than by focusing on detailed mutual understanding of each individual’s perception. Beyond dyadic outcomes, assessing event perceptions from multiple individuals who jointly experienced an event may provide a more accurate picture of the event itself (see approximation corollary; Rauthmann et al., 2015), thereby improving predictions of individual changes—such as personality change—following major life events.

Conclusion

This study advances understanding of how romantic partners’ shared multidimensional perceptions of the major life event “moving in together” relate to their relationship dynamics. Partners’ event perceptions aligned, and this similarity was related to higher relationship satisfaction—highlighting the relevance of considering the perception of both (or potentially even more) individuals who jointly experienced a major life event. Moreover, partners also aligned in their unique event perceptions, showing that similarity extends normative aspects. The findings also suggest that event perceptions and their similarity can provide valuable insights for other areas of psychology, such as research on attraction and relationship satisfaction, and potentially also clinical psychology. Future work should explore the (causal) processes underlying the emergence of the similarity of major life events.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261445677 – Supplemental material for Similarity of Major Life-Event Perceptions and Relationship Satisfaction Among Romantic Couples: The Case of Moving in Together

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261445677 for Similarity of Major Life-Event Perceptions and Relationship Satisfaction Among Romantic Couples: The Case of Moving in Together by Karla Fliedner, Janina Larissa Bühler, Cornelia Wrzus, Louisa Scheling and Kai T. Horstmann in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Girme, Yuthika

ORCID iDs

Karla Fliedner

Janina Larissa Bühler

Cornelia Wrzus

Louisa Scheling

Kai T. Horstmann

Ethical Considerations

The CoUple’s Personality In Daily Life (CUPID) project received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Behavioral and Cultural Studies at Heidelberg University, Germany (IRB proposal: AZ Wrzu 2020 1/1). An overview of the variables assessed in the CUPID project (including those used in this study) can be found on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/bfkta/overview. The preregistration of the hypotheses and analysis plan for this study, as well as the preregistration of additional robustness checks, and an HTML file with detailed results and R code are available at the following OSF link: .

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported by Heidelberg University and by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; P2BSP1_188102) awarded to Janina Larissa Bühler.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Karla Fliedner is a PhD student in the Department of Psychological Diagnostics at Humboldt University of Berlin. Her research focuses on the subjective perception of events—including daily and major life events—and how different perspectives (e.g., self- and informant perception of events) are shared within close relationships.

Janina Larissa Bühler is a professor of Diagnostics and Differential Psychology at the University of Freiburg. In her research, she focuses on the interplay between personality and romantic relationships, with a particular focus on the role of life events.

Cornelia Wrzus is a professor for Psychological Aging Research at Heidelberg University. In her research, she examines how emotions, social relationships, and personality characteristics develop across the adult lifespan, with a particular focus on daily life mechanisms of stability and change.

Louisa Scheling is a psychologist and PhD candidate at the University of Freiburg. Trained in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy and Systemic Sex Therapy, her research focuses on changes in relationship satisfaction using experience sampling and longitudinal data.

Kai T. Horstmann is a professor in the Department of Psychological Assessment and Individual Differences at the University of Siegen, Germany. His research group investigates the description, measurement, and prediction of behavior in daily life, primarily using diary studies and experience sampling methodology.

References

Acitelli

L. K.

Douvan

Veroff

(1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593101001

Acitelli

L. K.

Kenny

D. A.

Weiner

(2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00034.x

Anderson

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054

Arránz Becker

(2013). Effects of similarity of life goals, values, and personality on relationship satisfaction and stability: Findings from a two-wave panel study. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01417.x

Bahns

A. J.

Crandall

C. S.

Gillath

Preacher

K. J.

(2017). Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000088

Barelds

D. P. H.

(2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19(6), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.549

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Biesanz

J. C.

(2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.519262

Biesanz

J. C.

West

S. G.

Millevoi

(2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.119

10.

Brauer

Sendatzki

Gander

Ruch

Proyer

R. T.

(2022). Profile similarities among romantic partners’ character strengths and their associations with relationship- and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 99, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104248

11.

Buecker

Denissen

J. J. A.

Luhmann

(2021). A propensity-score matched study of changes in loneliness surrounding major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000373

12.

Buss

D. M.

(1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist, 73(1), 47–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27853061

13.

Byrne

Blaylock

(1963). Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between husbands and wives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045531

14.

Chopik

W. J.

Lucas

R. E.

(2019). Actor, partner, and similarity effects of personality on global and experienced well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.12.008

15.

Decuyper

De Bolle

De Fruyt

(2012). Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01344.x

16.

Dohrenwend

B. P.

(2006). Inventorying stressful life events as risk factors for psychopathology: Toward resolution of the problem of intracategory variability. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.477

17.

Dyrenforth

P. S.

Kashy

D. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Lucas

R. E.

(2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020385

18.

Echterhoff

Higgins

E. T.

Levine

J. M.

(2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x

19.

Feng

Baker

(1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-being. Behavior Genetics, 24(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067537

20.

Fliedner

Horstmann

K. T.

(2025). Do you understand what I experienced? Self- and informant-perception of major life events. European Journal of Personality, 39(6), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070251315190

21.

From

Diamond

Kafaee

Reynaga

Edelstein

R. S.

Gordon

A. M.

(2025). Does similarity matter? A scoping review of perceived and actual similarity in romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(10), 2780–2802. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251349720

22.

Funder

D. C.

(1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102(4), 652–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652

23.

Furler

Gomez

Grob

(2014). Personality perceptions and relationship satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.02.003

24.

Furr

R. M.

(2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1267–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00521.x

25.

Gattis

K. S.

Berns

Simpson

L. E.

Christensen

(2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564

26.

Gaunt

(2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00414.x

27.

George

Luo

Webb

Pugh

Martinez

Foulston

(2015). Couple similarity on stimulus characteristics and marital satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.005

28.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Campos

Bradbury

(2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34

29.

Haehner

Fliedner

Bleidorn

Horstmann

K. T.

Schmiedecke

Salzburg

Tkaczik

Würtz

Luhmann

(2024). Understanding the experience of daily events: A dimensional taxonomy of the perceived characteristics of daily events. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h8s79. https://osf.io/dx24n/download

30.

Haehner

Kritzler

Fassbender

Luhmann

(2022). Stability and change of perceived characteristics of major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(6), 1098–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000394

31.

Hardin

C. D.

Higgins

E. T.

(1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). The Guilford Press.

32.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781159

33.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

34.

Hudson

N. W.

Fraley

R. C.

(2014). Partner similarity matters for the insecure: Attachment orientations moderate the association between similarity in partners’ personality traits and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.09.004

35.

Human

Biesanz

(2011). Target adjustment and self-other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023782

36.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Over-time analyses: Interval outcomes. In Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(Eds.), The analysis of dyadic data (pp. 347–349). The Guilford Press.

37.

Kenny

D. A.

West

T. 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

38.

Klohnen

E. C.

Luo

(2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive—Self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.709

39.

Klohnen

E. C.

Mendelsohn

G. A.

(1998). Partner selection for personality characteristics: A couple-centered approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243004

40.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). LmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

41.

Leikas

Ilmarinen

V.-J.

Verkasalo

Vartiainen

H.-L.

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

(2018). Relationship satisfaction and similarity of personality traits, personal values, and attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024

42.

Lenhausen

M. R.

van Scheppingen

M. A.

Bleidorn

(2021). Self-other agreement in personality development in romantic couples. European Journal of Personality, 35(6), 797–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020969011

43.

Letzring

T. D.

Noftle

E. E.

(2010). Predicting relationship quality from self-verification of broad personality traits among romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.008

44.

Lewis

N. A.

Yoneda

(2021). Within-couple personality concordance over time: The importance of personality synchrony for perceived spousal support. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa163

45.

Luciano

E. C.

Orth

(2017). Transitions in romantic relationships and development of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109

46.

Luhmann

Fassbender

Alcock

Haehner

(2021). A dimensional taxonomy of perceived characteristics of major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 633–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000291

47.

Luo

(2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), e12337. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337

48.

Luo

Chen

Yue

Zhang

Zhaoyang

(2008). Predicting marital satisfaction from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or us? Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1231–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00520.x

49.

Luo

Klohnen

E. C.

(2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304

50.

Luo

Snider

A. G.

(2009). Accuracy and biases in newlyweds’ perceptions of each other: Not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02449.x

51.

Luo

Watson

(2021). Accuracy and bias of trait judgments in romantic relationships. In Letzring

T. D.

Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment (1st ed., pp. 260–275). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190912529.013.17

52.

Moore

S. M.

Uchino

B. N.

Baucom

B. R. W.

Behrends

A. A.

Sanbonmatsu

(2017). Attitude similarity and familiarity and their links to mental health: An examination of potential interpersonal mediators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(1), 77–85. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2016.1176551

53.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Bellavia

Griffin

D. W.

Dolderman

(2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.563

54.

Newcomb

T. M.

(1968). Interpersonal balance. In Abelson

R. P.

Aronson

McGuire

W. J.

Newcomb

Theodore M.

Rosenberg

M. J.

Tannenbaum

P. H.

(Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 28–51). Chicago.

55.

Nystedt

(1972). A modified lens model: A study of the interaction between the individual and the ecology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(2), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.479

56.

Rakhshani

Lucas

R. E.

Donnellan

M. B.

Fassbender

Luhmann

(2022). Personality traits and perceptions of major life events. European Journal of Personality, 36(4), 683–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211045825

57.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Gallardo-Pujol

Guillaume

E. M.

Todd

Nave

C. S.

Sherman

R. A.

Ziegler

Jones

A. B.

Funder

D. C.

(2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250

58.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Sherman

R. A.

Funder

D. C.

(2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994

59.

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2024.04.2+764) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

60.

Rentzsch

Columbus

Balliet

Gerlach

T. M.

(2022). Similarity in situation perception predicts relationship satisfaction. Personality Science, 3(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.8007

61.

Rentzsch

Wieczorek

L. L.

Gerlach

T. M.

(2021). Situation perception mediates the link between narcissism and relationship satisfaction: Evidence from a daily diary study in romantic couples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1241–1253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620987419

62.

Revelle

(2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version R package version 2.4.3) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

63.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028316

64.

Robins

Caspi

Moffitt

(2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.251

65.

Rossignac-Milon

Bolger

Zee

K. S.

Boothby

E. J.

Higgins

E. T.

(2021). Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 882–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000266

66.

Russell

R. J. H.

Wells

P. A.

(1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(5), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90057-I

67.

Sander

Böcker

(1993). Die Deutsche Form der Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Eine kurze Skala zur Messung der Zufriedenheit in einer Partnerschaft [The German version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): A short scale for measuring satisfaction in a dyadic relationship]. Diagnostica, 39(1), 55–62.

68.

Sarason

I. G.

Johnson

J. H.

Siegel

J. M.

(1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 932–946. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.5.932

69.

Schaffhuser

Allemand

Martin

(2014). Personality traits and relationship satisfaction in intimate couples: Three perspectives on personality. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1948

70.

Schwaba

Denissen

J. J. A.

Luhmann

Hopwood

C. J.

Bleidorn

(2023). Subjective experiences of life events match individual differences in personality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1136–1156. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000483

71.

Singh

Wegener

D. T.

Sankaran

Bhullar

Ang

K. Q. P.

Chia

P. J. L.

Cheong

Chen

(2017). Attitude similarity and attraction: Validation, positive affect, and trust as sequential mediators. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12178

72.

Specht

Egloff

Schmukle

S. C.

(2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950

73.

Swann

Ronde

Hixon

(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.857

74.

Tidwell

N. D.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x

75.

van Scheppingen

M. A.

Chopik

W. J.

Bleidorn

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2019). Longitudinal actor, partner and similarity effects of personality on well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), e51–e70. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000211

76.

van Scheppingen

M. A.

Olaru

Leopold

(2025). Personality trait similarity in recently cohabiting couples: Partner choice, convergence, or selective breakup? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000527

77.

van Zalk

Denissen

(2015). Idiosyncratic versus social consensus approaches to personality: Self-view, perceived, and peer-view similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000035

78.

Vazire

(2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003

79.

Watson

Hubbard

Wiese

(2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.546

80.

Watson

Klohnen

E. C.

Casillas

Nus Simms

Haig

Berry

D. S.

(2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72(5), 1029–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00289.x

81.

Weidmann

Ledermann

Grob

(2017). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples. European Psychologist, 21(4), 233–318. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000261

82.

Weidmann

Purol

M. F.

Alabdullah

Ryan

S. M.

Wright

E. G.

Chopik

W. J.

(2023). Trait and facet personality similarity and relationship and life satisfaction in romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, 104378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104378

83.

White

J. M.

(1985). Perceived similarity and understanding in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585021003

84.

Wortman

Wood

Furr

R. M.

Fanciullo

Harms

P. D.

(2014). The relations between actual similarity and experienced similarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 49, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.01.002

85.

Liu

Guo

Cai

Zhou

(2020). Couple similarity on personality, moral identity and spirituality predict life satisfaction of spouses and their offspring. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1037–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00108-8

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.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB