The effects of positive illusions on relationship quality

The effects of compulsive illusions on alliance qualityA general presumption in the airfield of inter soulal family familys is that closeness is a significant, desired, and necessary characteristic of family satisfaction (Berscheid, Snyder, Omoto, 1989). According to Berscheid et al. (1989) henchmans physical proximity is a requirement for closeness and kindred satisfaction. However there is commingle evidence regarding fibed levels of satisfaction in kindreds where collaborators be physically start (i.e. long distance romanticist relationships, LDRRs). Beca procedure partners in LDRRs presumably have little face-to-face (FtF) fundamental interaction than partners in close proximal romantic relationships (CPRRs), the publications infers that partners in LDRRs should report littleer levels of satisfaction than partners in CPRRs. Indeed, or so inquiry suggests that partners in LDRRs report lower levels of satisfaction than partners in CPRRs (Van Horn, Arnone, Nes bitt, Desilets, Sears, Giffin, Brudi, 1997). Counterintuitively, Guldner and Swenson (1995) embed no differences in levels of satisfaction, intimacy and trust betwixt LDRRs and CPRRs. Limited amounts of explore addresses these different findings with regards to relationship quality measures (i.e. satisfaction, optimism, intimacy) in LDRRs and CPRRs. The enter interrogation suggests that arrogant illusions, outlined broadly as propel cognitive construal processes, help to eluci image these counterpoint findings. new-fangled research shows that commanding illusions argon much appargonnt in LDRRs than in CPRRs (Stafford Merolla, 2007). Because Murray, Holmes, and griffon vulture (1996a) propose that incontrovertible illusions decrease relative dubiety, the present demand suggests that partners in LDRRs use imperative illusions more(prenominal) than than than partners in CDRRs because their lose of FtF interaction heightens relationship distrust.Positive Illusio nsAccording to Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b pp), positively charged illusions argon qualities that lot see in their partners that their partners do not see in themselves. They ar the result of cause cognitive processes whereby tribe exaggerate the qualities and traits of their partner and understate their weaknesses in the face of relationship doubt and incertitude (Murray et al. 1996a). Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) argue that raft develop positive illusions of their romantic partners organically through and through the development of their relationship. They claim that developing romantic relationships ar replete with un authoritativety. In the beginning of a relationship, concourse are learning to understand and prophesy their partners behavior. In order to maintain security in and certainty of the relationship, people adjust their cognitions soundly-nigh their partner, focusing on their virtues. Building on some while(prenominal) literature regarding sel f-ful receiveing effects of perceptions, they argue that by focusing on the positive aspects of their partner, people result tend to have positive interactions with their partner that grant to a favorable view of their partner as the secure person (e.g. Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid, 1977).As relationships develop, partners plump more interdependent and their investments increase (e.g., Levinger, 1983). Furthermore, over clip, partners become more aware of each others inherent shortcomings threatening their beliefs and idealisations that their partner is the right person. According to Murray and colleagues (1996a), as these realities grow more apparent, people become motivated to maintain confidence in their relationship and their partner provoking the idealization process.Research has shown that positive illusions have self-fulfilling effects. Specifically, intimates who view their partner experience greater decreases in relationship doubt and relationship conflict as sanitary as greater increases in relationship satisfaction than intimates who do not idealize their partners (Murray et al., 1996a, 1996b). Murray and Holmes (1997) found that partners in both dating and married relationships who idealised each other experienced greater love, greater trust and slight ambivalence in their relationships than those intimates who did not idealize each other. In a longitudinal follow-up subscribe the authors found that among dating couples, those people that held stronger illusions virtually their partner (i.e. more idealistic perceptions of their partner) initially were less likely to blockade the relationship than those individualistics who held less idealistic illusions about their partners.Given that positive illusions deal off comparative uncertainty (Murray et al., 1996a), the present research ordain essay whether associations between relative uncertainty and positive illusions are moderated by relationship character reference (i.e. LDRRs vs. CP RRs). Specifically, this drive provide address whether relationships marked by greater uncertainty (i.e. LDRRs) are likely to engender the use of positive illusions.Recent research suggests that couples in LDRRs are more likely to use positive illusions than couples in CPRRs (Stafford Merolla, 2007). They suggest a electric potential reason for this phenomenon. Idealizations stem from a lack of FtF interaction, a hallmark of LDRRs. Indeed they found that idealizations in LDRRs were a) more apparent than in CPRRs, b) related to a lack of FtF communication, and c) related to change magnitude optimism about the future of the relationship. Although initial evidence supports the idea that positive illusions are used as a manner to cope with the lack of FtF interaction in LDRRs, there are a number of limitations that need to be addressed (small sample size, possibility of other mediated channels of communication). rising research should address these limitations and offer alternative explanations for why positive illusions are more apparent in LDRRs than in CPRRs. This is because the divergences between the two relationship types are presumably not limited to quantity of FtF interaction, but having all-important(a) qualitative differencesBecause Murray, et al. (1996a) suggests that positive illusions decrease relative uncertainty, the present study suggests that partners in LDRRs use positive illusions more than partners in CDRRs because they face greater relative uncertainty. Supporting this idea, Sahlstein (2004) interviewed partners in LDRRs and found that approximately 12% of couples interviewed reported that time apart creates uncertainty and unknowns because partners are not sharing experiences. In addition, Sahlstein (1996) found that partners in LDRRs and CPRRs who were more certain of interaction rituals (i.e., interaction that occurs in a fixed manner at a fixed time) were more likely to report spiriteder relationship satisfaction than partners wh o were not certain of interaction rituals. comparative UncertaintyAccording to Knobloch and Solomon (2002b), romantic relationships are prime contexts for experiencing uncertainty. Relational uncertainty is the degree of confidence that people have in their perceptions of inter-group communication within interpersonal associations (Knobloch Solomon, 1999).There are three main sources of relational uncertainty that arise in romantic relationships self uncertainty, partner uncertainty, and relationship uncertainty (Knobloch Solomon, 1999 Knobloch, Solomon, Cruz, 2001). Self uncertainty includes partners reservations about their own involvement in the romantic relationship. Partner uncertainty involves peoples doubts about their partners participation in the relationship. Relationship uncertainty constitutes doubts about the relationship itself.During relationship development, people are learning to navigate, understand, and ring their partners behavior. great deal experience unc ertainty about their own and their partners goals, beliefs, emotional states, and so on (Berger, 1995). Because relational uncertainty is a electro nix aversive state, partners are motivated to reduce this feeling, especially if they want to remain committed to their partner and their relationship. former research has found that relational uncertainty is positively related to proscribe relationship outcomes such as jealousy (Knobloch, Solomon, Cruz, 2001) and negatively related to positive relationship outcomes such as intimacy (Knobloch Solomon, 2002 Thesis Solomon, 2008). Because LDRRs are characterized by relational uncertainty (Cameron Ross, 2007 Shalstein, 2004) and experienced uncertainty is linked to negative relational outcomes (decreases in intimacy, increase in jealousy), the present study will analyse the moderating effects of relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) on the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions, as well as relationship quality measures (i.e., satisfaction, intimacy, optimism).Outline of proposed study and hypothesesThe present study contributes to the festering literature on LDRRs by investigating a mediation perplex of relationship satisfaction moderated by relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) in order to explain how and why partners in LDRRs differ from partners in CPRRs in reports of relationship quality measures (i.e. satisfaction, intimacy, optimism). Within such parameters, this work focuses on positive illusions as a possible mediator of the relationship between relational uncertainty and relationship quality (i.e. satisfaction, closeness and optimism). In addition, the current study suggests that relationship type (LDRRs or CPRRs) will moderate the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions (mediator variable) such that relational uncertainty will be associated with greater positive illusions for partner in LDRRs than partners in CPRRs. This study is a 2 (relationship type L DRR vs. CPRR) x 2 (relational certainty low vs. high) x 2 (positive illusions low vs. high) between groups componential design. The dependent measures are relationship satisfaction, intimacy, and optimism.HypothesesPrior research indicates that relational uncertainty is associated with jealousy (Knobloch et al, 2001), negative emotion (Aune et al., 1994), and decreased liking for a romantic partner (Kellerman Reynolds). Additionally, research suggests that uncertainty reduction fosters feelings of intimacy (Knobloch Solomon Theiss Solomon, 2008). In line with this research, the present study proposesH1 People who are uncertain about their relationship will report lower levels of satisfaction and intimacy in their relationship than people who are certain about their relationship.Murray et al (1996a) argue that positive illusions develop course through relationship progression. According to them, partners idealize their partners exaggerating their qualities and understating their weaknesses in the face of relational uncertainty. In addition, Stafford and Merolla (2007) suggest that lack of FtF interaction leads partners in LDRRs to idealize their partners more than partners in CPRRs. They also found that positive illusions in LDRRs were related to feelings of optimism about the future of their relationship. These findings, taken together, suggest that positive illusions act as a coping mechanism for partners who face relational uncertainty. Formally statedH2 People who are uncertain about their relationship will idealize their partners more than those people who are certain about their relationship.H3 People who idealize their partner will be more satisfied with and optimistic about their relationship than people who do not idealize their partner.H4 People who are in LDRRs will be more likely to idealize their partner than people who are in CPRRs.Even though some research suggests otherwise (Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt, Desilets, Sears, Giffin, Brudi, 1997 Helgeson, 1994a), partners in LDRRs have been found to report similar levels of satisfaction, trust, and intimacy as partners in CPRRs (Guldner Swenson, 1995). Counterintuitively, these divergent findings suggest that partners in LDRRs and CPRRs do not significantly differ on their reports of satisfaction. Formally statedH5 People who are in LDRRs will report similar levels of relationship satisfaction as people in CPRRs.Proposed StudyTwo hundred (25 people per cell) partners who are currently in a LDRR or a CPRR will be asked to move in the present study (the matter to in this study is with individual responses not that of the dyad). Participants will be asked to fill out an informed have form. Then a questionnaire will be given to each participant. This questionnaire will include a question about relationship status, as well as measures of relational uncertainty, positive illusions, satisfaction, intimacy, and optimism. In addition, participants will be asked to fill out a d emographic questionnaire (age, length of relationship, attachment style, etc.)ResultsOverview of Analytic schemeGiven that couples in contrast to individuals served as participants, partners responses will likely be interdependent. Advised by Kenney (1988), couples will serve as the unit of analysis. system 1 predicts that people who are certain about their relationship will report lower levels of satisfaction and intimacy than people who are certain about their relationships. A MANOVA will be conducted with wake up as the within-dyad factor and relational certainty (low or high) as the between subjects factor. Hypothesis 2 predicts that uncertain people will idealize their partners more than those people who are certain. A MANOVA will be conducted with wake as the within-dyad factor and relational certainty as the between subjects factor. Hypothesis 3 predicts that people who idealize their partner more will be more satisfied than people who do not idealize their partner. A MA NOVA will be conducted with sex as the within-dyad factor and positive illusions (high or low) as the between subjects factor. Hypotheses 4 and 5 predict that people in LDRRs will idealize their partner more than people in CPRRS but that both partners in LDRRs and in CPRRs will report similar levels of satisfaction. A MANOVA will be conducted with sex as the within-dyad factor and relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) as the between subjects factor.DiscussionThe purpose of the current research is to add to the burgeoning literature on LDRRs. Specifically, the goal is to show that positive illusions mediate the relationship between relational uncertainty and relationship quality measures. In addition, the present study suggests that relationship type moderates the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions. If the proposed hypotheses are supported, there will be implications for future research focused on positive illusions and LDRRs. Specifically, the results of t his study could be applied to a therapeutic setting. If positive illusions are found to be related to positive relationship outcomes thusly therapists could teach couples to use this coping technique as a way to deal with the stress of maintaining a LDRR.One limitation of the proposed study is that the variables of interest are measured not manipulated. If the present results are supported, future research should attempt to manipulate relational uncertainty to determine if there is a causal relationship between uncertainty, positive illusions, and relationship quality measures. Although to date there are no relational uncertainty manipulations, future research should modify the self uncertainty priming procedure discussed in Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner, and MoYtt (2007) for this purpose. In addition to conducting experiments, future research should also study other possible moderators of the proposed model. For example, attachment style as a moderator, do insecurely prone partners feel even more uncertain in LDRR than securely devoted partners? If so, would they be even more or less likely to use positive illusions. Future research should address these intriguing questions.The present study also brings up a number of conceptual bring ons and questions. For example, although positive illusions nullify doubts people hold about the realities of their partners imperfections and relationship problems, are there some more severe relationship problems that should not be construed and instead be directly addressed? Recent research suggests that these cognitive construal processes are maladjustive for partners who face more severe or frequent relationship problems (McNulty, OMara Karney, 2008). In a longitudinal study, McNulty et al. (2008) found that although positive illusions led to greater married satisfaction in healthy marriages (i.e., less relationship problems and observed negative behavior), these cognitive processes also led to a decrease in marital satisfaction for those partners in troubled marriages. The authors suggest that partners who face mild marital problems may benefit from using positive illusions rather than facing potential conflict in addressing these problems. However, employing positive illusions to cope with relationships marked by more sever marital problems (physical or psychological abuse) may just incense these problems over time. In relation to LDRRs, perhaps partners should not employ positive illusions over long periods of time and instead directly address problems associated with negotiating time apart if they want to ensure the future of their relationship.Another interesting issue that arises deals with how partners in LDRRs that idealize their partner fair when they make a vicissitude from LDRR to CPRR. Recent work by Stafford and Merolla (2007) found that upon transitioning to a CPRR, people erstwhile in LDRRs who idealized their partner were more likely to terminate their relationship th an people formerly in LDRRs who idealized their partner less. This suggests that although positive illusions strength act as a coping strategy for partners who deal with high relational uncertainty, this strategy does not seem to work when the relationship type changes.