SYLVIA NIEHUIS, KYUNG-HEE LEE, ALAN REIFMAN, ANDREA SWENSON,
AND STEPHEN HUNSAKER Texas Tech University
Idealization and Disillusionment in Intimate
Relationships: A Review of Theory, Method,
and Research
We review the literature on partner idealization
(also known as positive illusions) in the field
of close relationships. Our review assesses the
soundness of idealization research from concep-
tual, theoretical, methodological, and eviden-
tiary perspectives. In addition, we explore the
potential linkage of idealization to the newer and
seemingly related construct of disillusionment.
Given the apparent role of disillusionment in
relationship dissolution, explication of the role
of idealization in disillusionment would bene-
fit the field. To this end, we present an initial
model of mechanisms that may govern rela-
tions between idealization and disillusionment
to guide future research.
The early stages of relationship development
often involve several phenomena experienced
as positive, including attraction, thinking about
one’s (potential) partner, and spending time
with him or her. Research suggests, in fact,
that positive attitudes and perceptions of one’s
partner (or relationship) can rise to levels
unwarranted by independent assessments of the
partner’s characteristics. For example, outside
observers might consider a target person very
Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX 79409-1230 (sylvia.niehuis@ttu.edu).
Key Words: disillusionment, idealization, method, positive
illusions, theory.
Journal of Family Theory & Review 3 (December 2011): 273–302
DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00100.x
friendly but not literally the friendliest person
in the world, as the target’s partner claims.
Terms used to describe such overevaluations
of a partner or relationship include idealization
and positive illusions. (These terms have been
used in the literature interchangeably; we use
idealization instead of positive illusions here,
except when citing other authors and in our
discussion of the relationship between the
terms.) As we review here in detail, research on
idealization goes back to the 1930s. However,
driven by prominent researchers such as Sandra
Murray (e.g., Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a,
1996b) and Blaine Fowers (e.g., Fowers, Lyons,
& Montel, 1996), it has been from the 1990s to
the present that idealization research has been
especially vigorous.
In terms of empirical volume and usefulness
in prediction, idealization research is currently
thriving. A recent meta-analysis of longitudi-
nal relations between 30 different variables and
dissolution of nonmarital romantic relationships
found idealization to be one of the strongest
(negative) predictors of eventual breakup; that
is, more idealization was associated with lower
breakup likelihood (Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, &
Mutso, 2010). Another meta-analysis examined
two different ways of defining illusion (versus
accuracy) in relationship perceptions (elaborated
on below) and how they fit with cognitive and
motivational models of relationship function-
ing (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). At the same time,
however, conceptual refinement of idealization
273
274
is incomplete, integration with other social-
cognitive theories (and with the relatively new
research area of disillusionment) is underdevel-
oped, and measurement issues are unresolved.
We define disillusionment as a decline in pos-
itive perceptions and an increase in negative
perceptions toward one’s partner and relation-
ship (Niehuis & Bartell, 2006). In particular, we
believe that the study of idealization is incom-
plete without consideration of its relationship
with disillusionment, for two major reasons.
First, the two constructs seem to have common
roots in the notion of illusions, either the building
up of positive ones or the loss of same (and the
increase of negative perceptions). Second, there
is a prevalent assumption that idealization cre-
ates the potential for—or even actually causes—
disillusionment (e.g., Buehlman, Gottman, &
Katz, 1992; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith,
& George, 2001), with little conceptual or
empirical examination of their relationship. For
these reasons, review and synthesis of idealiza-
tion research are warranted. Accordingly, we
evaluate idealization research from conceptual,
theoretical, measurement, and evidentiary per-
spectives, culminating in our development of a
new conceptual model of idealization and dis-
illusionment to spur further research. Inspired
in part by Fincham and Linfield’s (1997) con-
ceptualization of marital quality, we introduce
a two-dimensional model of idealization and
disillusionment. Our heuristic model attempts
to link idealization and disillusionment, which
we conceive of as two independent but related
dimensions, and we take into account their
dyadic, contextual, and temporal aspects.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF IDEALIZATION
Although the number of conceptual frameworks
for studying idealization is relatively small,
consolidation of ideas among researchers has
been hindered by a lack of systematic discussion
of idealization. Issues needing resolution are
both internal to the conceptualization of
idealization (i.e., within the definition of
idealization, how different parts fit together)
and of an external nature (i.e., how idealization
overlaps with or is separate from other
constructs).
Leading Frameworks
Murray and colleagues introduced two major
frameworks of idealization (or in their usage,
Journal of Family Theory & Review
positive illusions) in the mid-1990s (Murray
& Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996a, 1996b) that can be used separately or in
combination. Given the promise and visibility
of the frameworks in the field, we discuss them
in some depth. The first of these (Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b) focused
principally on perceptions of the partner and
not on the relationship as a whole. Murray,
Holmes, and Griffin (1996a, 1996b) argued that
individuals’ perceptions of their partners are
social constructions in which individuals project
their own self-images and ideas about the ideal
partner onto their partners within the constraints
of reality, in this case their partners’ own self-
images.
The second conceptualization of idealization
(Murray & Holmes, 1997) was expanded to
include three aspects: idealized views of the
partner, exaggerated perceptions of control over
the future of the relationship, and unrealistic
optimism about the relationship. This model
combines impressions of the partner and of
the relationship, which strikes us as an issue
of internal coherence, as alluded to earlier.
Use of measures that refer exclusively to the
partner (or to the relationship) presumably
would clarify constructs’ meaning in empirical
studies. Murray and Holmes’s (1997) three-
part model also suggests a distinction between
the terms idealization and positive illusions,
with the latter being more general. Overly
positive perceptions of the partner would seem to
qualify as idealization (i.e., holding someone or
something in a glorified light), a form of positive
illusion. Optimism about the relationship and an
exaggerated sense of control over it would seem
to be more in the realm of cognitive expectations,
which can be positive illusions but probably not
idealizations.
Murray and Holmes’s (1997) three-part
framework was based on Taylor and Brown’s
(1988) self-illusion perspective (i.e., ways
in which individuals hold overly positive
impressions about themselves). In their review
of illusions and mental health, Taylor and
Brown suggested that many people create self-
oriented positive illusions in three domains
that parallel Murray and Holmes’s scheme:
the self and people close to the self, the
control one has over any given situation,
and unrealistic optimism about the future.
Fowers, Lyons, and Montel (1996) critically
examined Taylor and Brown’s model regarding
Idealization and Disillusionment
relationship illusions as extensions of self-
enhancing illusions and found that ‘‘positive
illusions about marriage are more strongly
related to the perceived quality of the marriage
than to the individual’s optimism or pessimism’’
(p. 200), thus arguing against a correspondence
between personal and interpersonal illusions.
However, Murray and Holmes found that
a composite idealization measure based on
the three facets predicted relationship stability
in longitudinal analyses. Thus, the three-part
model of relationship illusions may be useful,
regardless of whether relationship illusions
actually stem from personal self-enhancing
illusions.
Differentiating Idealization from Related
Concepts
In addition to the two conceptualizations of
idealization, lack of integration also may
result from researchers using other concepts
(sometimes interchangeably) seemingly related
to highly favorable impressions of one’s partner:
partner or relationship enhancement (e.g., Neff
& Karney, 2002) and idealistic distortion
(ID; e.g., Fowers, Lyons, & Montel, 1996).
Idealization can be distinguished from these
and other concepts. Partner enhancement is the
comparison of how people rate themselves and
how the same people rate their partners (Busby
& Gardner, 2008; Busby, Holman, & Niehuis,
2009; Murray & Holmes, 1999; Murray,
Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002;
for a different use of terminology, see Gagne
& Lydon, 2004; also, partner enhancement has
been used to describe idealization, see Neff &
Karney, 2002).
Neither are positive illusions nor idealiza-
tion merely instances of social desirability, as
was once thought (Edmonds, 1967; Fowers,
1990). The construct of idealistic distortion,
which Fowers and Applegate (1995) adopted
to replace Edmonds’s (1967) earlier term, mari-
tal conventionalization, is key to understanding
this issue. To the extent that respondents might
strongly endorse an idealistic distortion item,
such as ‘‘My marriage is a perfect success,’’ one
could construe such a response as socially desir-
able. However, Fowers, Applegate, Olson, and
Pomerantz (1994) suggested that conventional-
ization instead represents ‘‘hypersatisfaction’’
(p. 99). Fowers and Applegate (1995) found in
a factor-analytic study that idealistic distortion
275
appeared to be relatively independent of scales
assessing propensity to deceive the self and oth-
ers, thus constituting ‘‘substantial evidence that
marital conventionalization does not appear to
represent a social desirability bias in reports of
marital satisfaction’’ (p. 240).
Another construct discussed as possibly
duplicative with idealization is marital satisfac-
tion. This issue does not appear to be resolved at
present. Fowers and Applegate (1996), Fowers,
Applegate, et al. (1994), and Fowers, Lyons,
Montel, and Shaked (2001) suggested that ideal-
istic distortion and satisfaction may be so tightly
interconnected that neither entity is capable of
being fully understood in the absence of the
other. Fowers and colleagues found satisfaction
and idealistic distortion to be highly correlated
(Fowers, Applegate et al., 1994; Fowers, Lyons,
& Montel, 1996; Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al.,
2001). Further, they found in a cluster analysis
study that no couples occupied the geometric
space corresponding to the combination of high
satisfaction and low distortion, which suggests
that high satisfaction in the absence of distor-
tion rarely, if ever, exists (Fowers, Applegate
et al., 1994). Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al. (2001)
summed up the challenges of studying these
variables:
One of the perplexing difficulties with investigat-
ing marital illusions is that they are so closely
intertwined with marital satisfaction. This makes
it difficult to tease the two apart and has led to
the conclusion that there is a mutual entailment
between marital satisfaction and illusions [Fowers,
Lyons, & Montel, 1996]. That is, marital illusions
seem to be necessary for marital satisfaction, and
individuals appear to engage in marital illusions
only when they are satisfactorily married. (p. 103)
Murray and Holmes (1997) offered both
theoretical arguments and empirical analyses
in support of the separation of idealization
(what they referred to as positive illusions)
and relationship satisfaction. As for theory, they
suggested the following:
We believe that positive illusions capture a
prospective sense of conviction, confidence, or
security that is not simply isomorphic with
satisfaction. . . . A sense of conviction—or felt
security—requires the absence of significant
nagging doubts or uncertainties. . . . We believe
that relationship illusions capture this absence of
doubt . . . [;] relationship illusions also reflect a
forecast or projection for the future. . . . Feelings
276
of satisfaction, however, might be viewed as
evaluations or sentiments more localized in time
and context. (p. 588)
Empirically, Murray and Holmes (1997)
found (a) significant associations between pos-
itive illusions and other relationship variables
(e.g., trust, love) in married and dating respon-
dents, statistically controlling for satisfaction;
(b) a significant, positive relationship between
initial positive illusions and dating-couple sta-
bility 1 year later, controlling for initial sat-
isfaction (only among women); and (c) a lon-
gitudinal relationship, in which initial positive
illusions positively predicted changes (i.e., rises)
in satisfaction. An additional, separate line of
research that might be said to support Murray
and Holmes’s (1997) contention over that of
Fowers and colleagues (Fowers & Applegate,
1996; Fowers, Applegate et al., 1994; Fowers,
Lyons, Montel, et al., 2001) is a meta-analysis by
Fletcher and Kerr (2010). These authors found
the correlation between inflated evaluations of
partners (what they termed mean-level bias)
and relationship satisfaction, though positive in
nearly all studies, to decline with greater rela-
tionship length (from roughly .50 in the newest
relationships to .20 in longer ones, according
to Fletcher and Kerr’s Figure 4A). Fowers and
colleagues’ claims would seem, in contrast, to
suggest that idealization and satisfaction should
always go hand in hand, regardless of relation-
ship length.
What accounts for the discrepant findings and
conclusions between the Murray and Fowers
groups? One possibility is that they result from
the different ways in which the two research
teams have measured idealization. Murray and
Holmes (1997) used the aforementioned three-
part measure that taps into idealization of
the partner and judgments about the future
of the relationship. By comparison, Fowers
and colleagues have assessed idealization
with a highly valenced measure (i.e., the
Idealistic Distortion Scale) of the relationship
that included items such as the one about
respondents’ marriages being perfect successes.
Idealization of the relationship in terms of
good versus bad may be more highly correlated
with marital and relationship satisfaction than is
idealization of the partner (or a composite score).
To our knowledge, no study has examined
idealization of the partner and idealization
Journal of Family Theory & Review
of the relationship separately, in relation to
satisfaction.
Also, in some of Fowers and colleagues’
studies, ID and satisfaction items appeared
to have been randomly interspersed with one
another in the questionnaires, which possibly
led to a response bias. (We thank our colleague
Rodney Cate for the latter suggestion.) Murray
and colleagues, however, have tended to
operationalize idealization in a way that avoids
such direct, valence-based overlap. They either
have looked at personality traits (e.g., whether a
partner rates the target more favorably than the
target rates him- or herself) or have used items
calling for optimism-pessimism judgments (e.g.,
how likely it is that the couple’s love will grow)
or perceptions of control (e.g., confidence that
relationship problems can be resolved).
Choice of Benchmarks
Integration of ideas and research findings has
also been hindered by researchers’ use of
a variety of standards (benchmarks) against
which to compare individuals’ overly positive
perceptions of their partners. For instance, to
calculate an idealization score, researchers have
used (either separately or combined) partners’
or friends’ perceptions of individuals’ qualities
or individuals’ ratings of their ideal partners.
Although the use of these different benchmarks
has resulted in findings that confirm the effects
of idealization and, thus, in essence has attested
to the convergent validity of the construct,
one question that nevertheless arises is, Which
of these benchmarks or what combination of
them is the most beneficial for researchers to
use? We discuss this question later in greater
detail in the section ‘‘Measurement Issues,’’
where we examine the pros and cons of
possible benchmark contenders (e.g., partner
self-perceptions, perceiver ratings of the ideal
or average partner).
In summary, several conceptual issues remain
regarding idealization and positive illusions. As
is virtually inevitable, different researchers have
used varying terms to describe what may be
similar phenomena (or the reverse, similar terms
to describe different phenomena). Failure to
reach minimal consensus on these issues hinders
our understanding of the phenomenon and the
development of theories. Disentangling whether
idealization is part of marital satisfaction or
a separate entity will be helpful to both
Idealization and Disillusionment
the idealization and the marital satisfaction
literatures.
THEORETICAL ISSUES
Idealization Mechanisms: Cognitive or
Behavioral?
Researchers have attempted to characterize the
mechanisms through which idealization oper-
ates. By definition, idealization is a cognitive
perception that one holds regarding one’s part-
ner. Consequently, several studies have had
a cognitive focus, trying to infer how peo-
ple process information to create or maintain
idealization about their partners. For instance,
Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) found that
individuals’ perceptions about their partners are
explained partly by reality (partners’ percep-
tion of self), partly by perceivers’ projection of
their own self-concept, and partly by perceivers’
conceptions of their ideal partners. Murray and
Holmes (1999), too, found support for the cogni-
tive model in that maintaining a more integrated
structure of one’s partner’s virtues and faults
predicted greater idealization than maintain-
ing more compartmentalized constructs of the
partner’s virtues and faults. Other researchers
have tried to understand how people main-
tain idealization even when they have negative
information about their partners (Fowers, Vein-
grad, & Dominicis, 2002; Hall & Taylor 1976).
In a qualitative study, Fowers, Veingrad et al.
(2002) found that partners minimize or rein-
terpret negative characteristics of their partners
while generalizing more positive characteristics
about them. Hall and Taylor (1976) found evi-
dence that idealization is ‘‘maintained through
a pattern of biased causal attributions’’ (p. 751)
in which partners are given credit for positive
behaviors, and bad behaviors are perceived as
being situationally influenced.
However, idealization can also be understood
as behavioral in that individuals’ highly positive
perceptions about their partners actually lead
their partners to act accordingly, in the form
of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Snyder, Tanke,
& Berscheid, 1977). Behavioral mechanisms
related to idealization entail the mutual interplay
of partners’ impressions of each other, behaviors
enacted as expressions of these impressions,
behaviors enacted in response to partners’
behaviors, and reinforcement (or revision) of
impressions based on observed behaviors.
277
Multiple studies have examined whether
idealization is a product of behavior or cognitive
processes, or both. Murray, Holmes, and
Griffin (1996a) found evidence that idealization
is a product of both cognitive mechanisms
(projected illusions hypothesis) and behavioral
mechanisms (reflected illusions hypothesis).
Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, and
Patrick’s (2001) study can also be viewed
as supporting both cognitive and behavioral
mechanisms of idealization. From a cognitive
perspective, according to Knee et al., those
individuals who operate from a cultivation
orientation believe that relationships take work
but can improve; also, ‘‘perhaps the partner’s
negative qualities recede into the background’’
(p. 816), thus promoting a more favorable, if
not idealized, view of the partner. In terms
of behavior, a cultivation orientation may lead
partners facing relationship challenges to try
to ‘‘deal with them openly and directly’’
(p. 817), thereby improving the relationship and
perceptions of the partner. Miller, Caughlin, and
Huston (2003) focused on trait expressiveness
and found support for both cognitive and
behavioral mechanisms of idealization. Their
findings suggested that expressive individuals
view their partners more positively than their
partners see themselves (cognitive) but that these
overly positive evaluations may ‘‘bring out the
best in their partner’’ (behavioral; Miller et al.,
2003, p. 1581). Finally, Murray, Holmes, and
Griffin (1996b) found support for a self-fulfilling
prophecy mechanism: Individuals’ idealization
of their spouses actually led the spouses, it
appears, to have more positive self-perceptions.
In short, idealization appears to emerge and
be maintained via cognitive and behavioral
mechanisms. Moreover, idealization involves
dyadic processes in which each partner’s
behavior and perception of the other partner
interact over time. However, we still do not know
whether and how these mechanisms depend on
particular features of individuals or of their
relationships.
Links to Established Social-Cognitive
Theories
Evaluation of idealization research may benefit
from consideration of how conceptualizations
of the former fit with broader, established
theories of close relationships, social processes,
and cognitive schemata. In other words, can
278
idealization research form a logically consistent
conceptual nexus with the established theories
(i.e., not contradict the established theories)?
Consistency of a new theory with established
theories is one criterion, among others, of a
good theory (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). Although
current thinking on idealization may not yet
qualify as a formal new theory, it nevertheless
represents a new set of ideas that can be
evaluated alongside older theories.
We focus on three major theories—symbolic
interactionism, motivated social cognition, and
cognitive structure—that have been alluded to in
some previous discussions of idealization. For
each of these theories, we provide an overview,
discussion of its links to idealization, an
assessment of empirical support, and a critique.
Symbolic interactionism. The basis of symbolic
interactionism (SI) is that individuals act in
accordance with the meanings they ascribe to the
persons or objects with which they are interact-
ing, thus solidifying the claim that idealization
involves dynamic, relational processes. A per-
son creates the meaning ascribed to other entities
through social interactions and the interpretation
of those interactions. An important term here is
reflected appraisal, which Pasley, Kerpelman,
and Guilbert (2001) defined as ‘‘interpretations
of feedback about the self’’ (p. 7). Interpersonal
relations are dynamic processes in which actors
(i.e., individuals in their roles) are aware of
themselves and how they are presenting them-
selves. Symbolic interactionism addresses the
notion that individuals want to present them-
selves in ways that best represent how they
want the other person(s) in the interaction to
view them (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). In these
ways, impression management is an important
component of SI (Dolch, 2003), which fits with
the previous discussion of how idealization may
result, in part, from individuals trying to create
favorable images of themselves for their partners
during courtship.
On the basis of the works of Willard Waller,
many researchers have used SI to understand
idealization. Waller (1937) suggested that,
as a person comes to know another in a
relationship, the couple goes through the process
of idealization. Idealization, in this context, is
a natural occurrence. The process starts before
the two people ever enter the relationship, as
both develop images of their respective ideal
partner and relationship through socialization.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
This image is shaped through interactions with
others, against the backdrop of concepts and
ideas in the couple’s society of what an ideal
person would be for each one. As individuals
enter a relationship, they may not know the other
person very well. Therefore, they are likely to
fill in the gaps in their knowledge of the partner
(Pollis, 1969) by using their mental image of an
ideal partner.
Waller (1937) emphasized that idealization
increased as the relationship continued. He
believed that people are motivated to present
themselves as favorably as possible, thus
portraying only the image that they would
like their partner to have. Therefore, as the
romantic relationship develops, partners are able
to formulate better how their partner perceives
them, and they continue to behave in ways
consistent with that perception. Moreover, they
likely fail to see what the partner’s personality
is truly like. Pollis (1969) tested Waller’s
hypothesis that idealization increases with
increasing seriousness of the dating relationship
but found no support.
Schulman (1974) also examined the idea
that individuals who idealize their partners
will likely fail to see their partners’ true per-
sonality. However, he suggested that blocked
communication—hearing only what they want
to hear—is responsible for the failure. Schulman
referred to this as the person’s predetermined
response. During an argument, when partners’
true personalities are more likely to be revealed,
blocked communication would result in both
people feeling satisfied that their side of the
argument was heard and that they reached a
consensus, when in reality they accomplished
nothing. Schulman found that blocked com-
munication was related to idealization and
affected the relationship between idealization
and adjustment during engagement before mar-
riage. (For tests of the blocked communication
hypothesis with long-distance dating relation-
ships, see Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Stafford &
Reske, 1990.)
Because SI assumes that socialization plays
an important role in idealization, two research
teams hypothesized that there would be cultural
differences in idealization. Endo, Heine, and
Lehman (2000) investigated differences in
idealization among European Canadian, Asian
Canadian, and Japanese individuals. In general,
they did not find cultural differences in partner
and relationship idealization. However, when
Idealization and Disillusionment
they asked participants to rate their partner and
relationship on positive and negative aspects
separately, interesting differences emerged. For
the two Canadian groups, individuals’ reports
on negative aspects of their partners and
relationship were the same as their reports of
the average person and relationship, thereby
implying a lack of idealization. In contrast,
the Japanese sample revealed evidence of
relationship effacement, in which scores on
the negative aspects of one’s own partner and
romantic relationship were higher than scores
for the average person and average relationship.
Fowers, Fisiloglu, and Procacci (2008)
examined differences in idealization among
the following three groups: American married
individuals and Turkish individuals either from
consanguineous (‘‘marriages between members
of the same extended family,’’ p. 271) or from
nonconsanguineous marriages. Contrary to Endo
et al. (2000), Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al. found
a cultural difference when participants were
asked to rate their partner on positive aspects.
Americans idealized their spouses more than
did Turkish individuals. This difference was
because Americans rated the average person
less positively than Turkish individuals did.
The ratings of the spouses, however, did not
differ between the three groups. Furthermore,
Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al. found no significant
differences with regard to negative trait ratings.
Thus, idealization may be universal, but the
mechanism through which it occurs may vary
across cultures. More cross-cultural research is
needed to further our understanding of the role
of culture in idealization.
Although these cross-cultural studies provide
us with useful information on cultural differ-
ences in idealization, their findings must be
interpreted with caution. In both studies, partic-
ipants were asked to rate their own and their
partner’s personality traits to arrive at a measure
of idealization. The authors translated the items
into appropriate languages but failed to consider
whether those traits held the same meanings and
importance across cultures.
In conclusion, symbolic interactionism ap-
pears to be a useful framework, having received
empirical support from several studies. It
allows researchers to use a holistic, dyadic
perspective in studying relationship processes,
which suggests that idealization occurs within
the relationship and broader societal (macro)
contexts, not merely within the individual
279
partners (micro context). However, future
research needs to explore the processes on
each of these levels. Studies demonstrating
how dyadic interactions develop and maintain
idealization would be very helpful.
Motivated social cognition. Along with study-
ing how one partner conveys information about
him- or herself, it is necessary to study how
the other partner perceives such information.
In the arena of romantic relationships, where
partners are attracted to—and may even be in
love with—each other, there may be a strong
motivation for each partner to see the other,
despite any flaws, in the most favorable light
possible. Knowing that one is committed to
being with a partner who has serious character
flaws, for example, can lead to uncomfortable
cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Murray
and Holmes (1993) extended ideas regarding
motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990) to roman-
tic relationships, invoking the term interpretive
license for how partners construed information
about each other.
Causal attributions are one form of social-
cognitive impression, and prior research
suggests that the existing quality of marital
relationships affects the motivational nature of
attributions about one’s partner. Bradbury and
Fincham (1990) suggested that individuals in
distressed marriages amplify negative events
and that the attributions of those negative events
spill over to other events that occur in the rela-
tionship. In contrast, in nondistressed couples,
positive events are amplified, and the attributions
of the positive events are applied to the negative
events that may occur. In addition, it is believed
that the locus of the event is ascribed differ-
ently in these contexts. For distressed couples,
the locus is ascribed as internal to the partner.
Thus, when negative events occur, individuals
attribute responsibility to their partners or their
partners’ doing. For nondistressed couples, the
locus is contextual; thus, individuals attribute
responsibility for negative events to something
else acting on their partner (e.g., work).
Another way in which these attributions
may function is through selective attention, the
process by which individuals maintain select
pieces of specific relationship information that
provide consistent support for the individuals’
global perceptions. Within motivated social
cognition, idealization functions as the process
by which people attend to the positive specific
280
events of the relationship and make attributions
accordingly. Initially, individuals strive to view
their partners in the best possible light. However,
individuals can only idealize so far. There
may come a point in a person’s relationship
when positive attributions become stretched and
no longer spill over into other aspects of the
relationship.
Research on motivated social cognition and
idealization has supported the notion that
individuals engage in motivated processes.
Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, and
Verette (2000, Study 1) asked college students
involved in romantic relationships to write about
positive and negative features in their own
and others’ relationships. Various measures of
perceived superiority were coded (e.g., using
positive terms more often to describe one’s
own than others’ relationships). Rusbult et al.
also created experimental conditions intended to
create either a sense of threat about one’s own
relationship before the writing task (i.e., telling
participants that college-based relationships
tend not to last) or a more neutral mind-
set. In what the authors took as evidence
for motivated processing, the threat condition,
more so than the other conditions, drove up
perceived-superiority references in participants’
writings. The researchers also examined the
influence of commitment on the perception of
superiority and found that individuals higher
in commitment portrayed higher levels of
relationship superiority, which suggests that
individuals were more motivated to have
illusions to sustain their relationship.
Although motivated social cognition provides
some insight on the development and mainte-
nance of idealization, and has been supported
empirically, it fails to offer a complete picture
because of its sole focus on intrapsychic aspects.
Future studies would need to include the dyadic
aspects (e.g., whether or how individuals pro-
mote their partners’ motivation).
Cognitive structure theories. Theories of cog-
nitive structure suggest that people categorize
their world into different schemata or knowl-
edge structures (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson,
1979). These schemata are changed and adapted
through processes of assimilation and accom-
modation. A person’s schemata for an object
predicts his or her actions. One kind of cogni-
tive structure theory, as suggested by Neff and
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Karney (2003), defines the process of idealiza-
tion as weighing negative perceptions as less
important than positive perceptions. Using this
framework, Neff and Karney examined how peo-
ple integrate negative and positive attributes in
their schemata of their partners. For the process
of integration to occur, individuals must have
a certain amount of cognitive flexibility. The
mind must be able to adapt to the vicissitudes
of daily life and to changes in the relationship.
Cognitive flexibility is also important because it
moves individuals away from classifying behav-
iors as good or bad to instead rank behaviors by
importance. Individuals may be motivated to
weigh these occurrences because they want to
protect their global image of their relationship
(which also, of course, implicates motivated
social cognition). To understand how individu-
als cognitively process events, researchers must
comprehend perceivers’ interpretation and eval-
uation of units of information about their partners
and how they are combined. Neff and Karney
(2003) found support for the claim that individ-
uals elevate the importance of specific positive
perceptions of their partners while devaluing the
importance of negative perceptions.
McNulty and Karney (2001) argued that attri-
bution plays an important role in maintaining the
specific versus global cognitive structure. Trait
perceptions of self and partner differ in their
breadth, ranging from specific, such as athletic
ability and tidiness, to global, such as having
‘‘good’’ qualities. If, for example, an individual
attributes the fact that the partner forgot the cou-
ple’s anniversary to stress at work (i.e., external
and situational), this individual’s global evalu-
ation of the partner will remain positive. If the
individual, however, believes that the partner’s
forgetfulness is internal and habitual, the impor-
tance of the event and the negative evaluation
of the partner will increase. Research findings
support McNulty and Karney’s (2001) argu-
ment: Positive attribution potentially leads to
higher positive relationship evaluation and neg-
ative attribution to lower positive relationship
evaluation (e.g., Jacobson, McDonald, Follette,
& Berley, 1985; Thompson & Kelley, 1981).
Cognitive structure theories provide a link
between specific pieces of information that
an individual holds about the partner and the
person’s global evaluation of the partner. Exam-
ining the valence of specific elements of one’s
partner representation (i.e., good in these ways,
Idealization and Disillusionment
less good in others) facilitates fine-grained quan-
titative analysis of the correspondence between
cognitive structures and variation in the degree
of idealization toward one’s partner. However,
as a cognitive psychological framework, this
approach could be viewed as having an overly
individualistic, intrapsychic focus for its study
of the inherently interpersonal topic of relation-
ships. Also, individuals may lack awareness of
their feelings at a given time, thus rendering
imperfect verbal self-reports of affective states
(Zajonc, 1980). Cognitive approaches to study-
ing idealization and disillusionment still seem
warranted, but they should be complemented
with other methods, such as dyadic interac-
tion and psychophysiological assessments of
emotion.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Just as conceptual and theoretical issues point
to areas for refinement in studying idealization,
so do methodological issues. In this section,
we describe and evaluate the methods that have
been used to study idealization, with 28 stud-
ies from 22 articles (Table 1). Citations for the
reviewed articles can be found in the refer-
ences section, marked with an asterisk. Here
we review empirical studies that specifically
examined idealization, as well as studies on
concepts with different names for idealization
but the same definition (see definitions in the
earlier section ‘‘Leading Frameworks’’). These
empirical studies were identified first by search-
ing the EBSCO psychology/sociology online
database and Google Scholar, using the key
words positive illusions and idealization. Addi-
tional studies were located from the references
of the previously identified studies. We excluded
dissertations, unpublished manuscripts, and non-
peer-reviewed sources.
Measurement Issues
Researchers have used various methods to
assess idealization. Measurement approaches
generally fall into two major categories: direct
approaches (e.g., questionnaire items that allow
respondents to endorse explicitly favorable
and/or optimistic statements about their partners
and/or relationships) and indirect approaches
(e.g., rating of one’s actual and ideal partner, as
well as self-ratings, on particular traits, which
281
are then used to compute difference or residual
scores of idealization).
Direct approaches. The Idealistic Distortion
Scale, used primarily by Fowers and his
colleagues (Fowers & Applegate, 1995, 1996;
Fowers, Applegate, et al., 1994; Fowers, Lyons,
& Montel, 1996; Fowers, Lyons, Montel,
et al., 2001), is a leading direct measure in
contemporary research. The ID Scale comprises
five items, with internal consistency (alpha)
and test-retest reliability reported to be greater
than .90 (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, et al., 2001).
Measures inspired by Taylor and Brown (1988),
such as optimism and control and/or efficacy
(Murray & Holmes, 1997), are other direct
measures of idealization. However, some might
consider these two measures to be less than fully
direct approaches, as they require respondents to
compare their relationship with those of others.
For example, the optimism measure lists possible
future occurrences, such as ‘‘the love my partner
and I share continuing to grow’’ and ‘‘our
relationship leading to dissolution or divorce,’’
to which participants must indicate their
perceived likelihood on a nine-point scale, from
‘‘much less likely to occur in my relationship
than in the typical relationship’’ to ‘‘much more
likely to occur in my relationship than in the
typical relationship.’’ The optimism and control
indices that Murray and Holmes (1997) used
have achieved alpha reliabilities of roughly .90.
Indirect approaches. Indirect measurement re-
fers to researchers’ collection—and statisti-
cal combination—of many different measures,
potentially from multiple sources, in a way that
permits the inference that idealization is being
assessed. The most common indirect approach
uses difference scores. One way to obtain dif-
ference scores is to gather information about
one person from multiple sources (e.g., self and
partners). In this approach, Partner A would rate
Partner B on some traits, and then a bench-
mark score (e.g., Partner B’s self-report on the
same traits) would be subtracted. Instruments
that assess personality or personal attributes are
commonly used to generate self-ratings and part-
ner ratings (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997, 1999;
Neff & Karney, 2002). Another way to obtain
difference scores is to compare individuals’
reports of their partners and/or relationships with
their reports of average or ideal partners and/or
 282
Table 1. Studies of Idealization

Study Sample Characteristics Sample Size (Individuals) Measuring Idealization Method of Analysis Comments

Barelds-Dijkstra & Married or cohabiting Dutch 128 Difference score (benchmark: PTT, SR, TT
Barelds (2008) couples partner’s own rating)
Barelds & Dijkstra (2009) 1. Married or cohabiting Dutch 1. 234 1. Difference score (partner’s 1. TT, PC
couples 2. 406 own rating) 2. TT, HLM. PC
2. Married or cohabiting Dutch 2. Difference score (partner’s
couples own rating)
Endo et al. (2000) 1. Japanese and Canadian college 1. 173 Japanese and 226 1. Difference score (average 1. ANOVA, RANOVA Comparison of two
students Canadians relationship) 2. ANOVA, RANOVA cultures
2. Japanese and Canadian college 2. 222 Japanese and 231 2. Difference score (average
students Canadians relationship)
Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al. Married individuals from Turkey 114 Turkish and 49 Direct measures and difference ANCOVA, RANCOVA Comparison of two
(2008) and U.S. American score (average person) cultures
Fowers, Lyons, Montel, 1. Married couples 1. 110 1. Direct measures 1. PC 1–2. Surveys
et al. (2001) 2. Married individuals 2. 78 2. Direct measures 2. PC
3. Single individuals 3. 167 3. Direct measures 3. ANOVA, CHI 3. Experimental design
Fowers, Veingrad, et al. Engaged couples 36 Interview about participants’ GTC Qualitative research
(2002) reports on Idealistic Distortion
Scale

Journal of Family Theory & Review

Fowers, Lyons, & Montel Married couples 110 Direct measures HR, PC
(1996)
Hall & Taylor (1976) 1. Married college students 1. 26 1. Difference score (self, 1–2. RANOVA 1–2. Survey
2–3. Married college students 2–3. 37 acquaintance, and partner’s 3. ANCOVA 3. Experimental design
own rating)
2–3. Difference score (friends,
acquaintances, and partner’s
self-rating)
 Idealization and Disillusionment
Table 1. Continued

Study Sample Characteristics Sample Size (Individuals) Measuring Idealization Method of Analysis Comments

Knee et al. (2001) 1. Undergraduate students in a 1. 177 1. Difference score (ideal 1. HR 1. Questionnaire
romantic relationship 2. 122 partner), direct measure, and 2. HLM measures
2. Heterosexual couples residual score (ideal partner) 2. Questionnaires and
2. Residual score (self, ideal semistructured
partner, partner’s own rating) interviews
Martz et al. (1998) 1. Undergraduate students 1. 218 1–2. Difference score (best friend MANOVA Two experiments
2. Undergraduate students in 2. 158 and average person)
romantic relationships
McNeal (1997) Gay male couples 90 Residual score (self, ideal ICC, MR
partner, partner’s own rating)
Miller, Caughlin, Newlywed couples 328 (decreased from the Path coefficients SEM 13-year longitudinal
et al. (2003) initial 336) study (4 waves)
Miller, Niehuis, et al. Newlywed couples 328 (decreased from initial Residual score (partner’s own 2SLS 13-year longitudinal
(2006) 336) rating) study (4 waves)
Murray & Holmes Married (82) and dating (121) Initial total—406 Difference score (partner’s own PA, RANOVA Follow-ups for dating
(1997) couples dating-couple follow-up; rating and average person) and sample at 4 and
160 at Time 2 and 130 at direct measures 12 months after the
Time 3 initial session
Murray & Holmes Single individuals in dating 145 (144 at follow-up) Direct measures MR Follow-up at 12 months
(1999) relationships of at least after the initial session
3 months
Murray, Holmes, Couples involved in marital (77) 319 Slopes and intercepts of RANOVA, SEM
Dolderman, et al. or cohabiting (28) regression line (friend’s rating
(2000) relationships of at least 2 years of the partner)
and their friend (109)

283
 284
Table 1. Continued

Study Sample Characteristics Sample Size (Individuals) Measuring Idealization Method of Analysis Comments

Murray, Holmes, & Married (82) and dating (98)
Griffin (1996a) couples
Murray, Holmes, & Dating couples
Griffin (1996b)
Neff & Karney (2002) Newlywed couples
Pollis (1969) Single undergraduate
students and two of their
friends who knew the
students’ dating partner
Rusbult et al. (2000) 1. Undergraduate students in
dating relationships
2. Married couples
360 Residual score (self, ideal MR, RANOVA, SEM
partner, and partner’s own
rating)
242 (163 at Time 2, Residual score (self, ideal SEM Follow-ups at 4–5 and
129 at Time 3) partner, and partner’s own 11–12 months after initial
rating) session
164 (152 at Time 2, Difference score (partner’s HLM 2-year longitudinal study
124 at Time 4) own rating) (every 6 months, 4 waves),
enhancement
231 Difference score (friend’s MWUT, KWAVR
rating of the partner)
1. 249 1. Difference score (others’ 1. ANOVA Perceived superiority
2. 126 (decreased relationship) 2. HLM 1. Experimental design
from initial 246) 2. Difference score (others’ 2. Lagged longitudinal design

Journal of Family Theory & Review

relationship) (every 6 months, 6 waves)
Schulman (1974) Undergraduate couples 196 Difference score ANOVA Idealization
(disagreement)

Note: 2SLS = two-stage least squares analysis; ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; CHI = χ 2 test; GTC = grounded theory coding;
HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; HR = hierarchical regression; ICC = intraclass correlation; KWAVR = Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks; MANOVA = multivariate
analysis of variance; MR = multiple regression; MWUT = Mann-Whitney U test; PA = path analysis; PC = Pearson’s correlation; PTT = paired t-test; RANCOVA = repeated-measure
analysis of covariance; RANOVA = repeated-measure analysis of variance; SEM = structural equation modeling; SR = stepwise regression; TT = t-test.
Idealization and Disillusionment
relationships (e.g., Endo et al., 2000; Fowers,
Fisiloglu, et al., 2008).
As Fowers, Veingrad, et al. (2002) have
correctly noted, ‘‘there is no gold standard
for assessing a relationship that captures an
unambiguous reality against which a partner’s
perception of the relationship could be evalu-
ated to assess ‘distortion’’’ (p. 450). However,
some benchmarks may be better than others. For
example, having individuals rate some abstract
idea of an average partner and/or relationship as
a benchmark may not be optimal for measuring
idealization because people in romantic relation-
ships tend to derogate others’ relationships and
partners for the same reason that they idealize
their own partners and relationships (Johnson
& Rusbult, 1989; Simpson, 1987; Van Lange
& Rusbult, 1995). These benchmarks do not
take into account that individuals’ rating of their
partners is inevitably related to their partners’
self-rating. Thus, some researchers argue that
partners’ perceptions of themselves are a more
conservative benchmark than other possible
alternative measures (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009).
Because people tend to evaluate themselves in
positive ways, according to this argument, indi-
viduals’ rating of their partners more favorably
than the partners rate themselves would indicate
idealization of the partner (Murray, Holmes, &
Griffin, 1996a). Difference scores, regardless of
which benchmark is used, do not, however, pro-
vide information about the actual value (level) of
the measure for each individual, only about the
discrepancy between the two scores (Murray,
Holmes, Bellavia et al., 2002).
The second indirect way of measuring ideal-
ization, the residual approach, is to estimate
scores after controlling for other variables
(e.g., Knee et al., 2001; Murray, Holmes, &
Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). Multiple regression pro-
grams typically allow users to save values
(i.e., residuals) of a dependent variable after
shared variance with independent variables has
been removed. Murray (personal communica-
tion, June 30, 2008) argued that this approach
appears to be more appropriate than calculat-
ing difference scores. Murray, Holmes, and
Griffin (1996a), who developed regression-
based approaches with individuals’ ratings of
self, ideal partner, and their partners, as well
as partners’ self ratings, elaborated on what
they consider the shortcomings of difference
scores; they acknowledged, however, the contin-
uing ‘‘debate surrounding the use of difference
285
scores’’ (p. 89, Footnote 8). Residual scores
have the advantage of allowing one to con-
trol for multiple benchmarks simultaneously,
although researchers should be aware that resid-
uals scores can potentially vary, depending on
which variables are controlled for. Methods that
encompass both residuals and difference scores
are also available for potential use in future ide-
alization research (Griffin, Murray, & Gonzalez,
1999; Shiota & Levenson, 2007).
The third indirect way, which might be
considered a more complex variation on the
residual approach, involves derivations from
relationships between variables. For example,
in Miller, Caughlin, et al.’s (2003) study,
idealization was operationalized as paths from
individuals’ trait expressiveness to partners’
affectionate behavior to individuals’ perception
of partners’ responsiveness. The authors argued
that spouses’ expressiveness elicits affectionate
behavior from their partners, thus leading
spouses to feel that their partners are very
responsive (behavioral idealization). Another
example is Murray, Holmes, Dolderman, and
Griffin’s (2000) study, in which the slopes
and intercepts of regression lines predicting
spouses’ perception of their partners from
spouses’ satisfaction were compared to those
predicting the friends’ perception of partners
from spouses’ satisfaction. Residual approaches
appear preferable to difference scores, but
decisions for which type of residual-based
approach to use would probably depend on
many factors, such as sample size, availability
of particular variables in the study, and so on.
Although it may be premature to conclude
that one approach to measuring idealization (i.e.,
the direct or indirect approach) may be better
than another (to our knowledge, no research
has yet compared different ways of measuring
idealization in the same study), we agree with
Murray (personal communication, June 30,
2008) that the residual approach is better than
any direct approach or difference-score approach
to measuring idealization of the partner, because
direct approaches lack a benchmark and
difference scores fail to provide information
about the actual level of the measure.
The issue of which benchmark(s) to use
to estimate the residual score remains to be
addressed. Although we strongly encourage
further exploration of this question, we conclude
for now that a combination of individuals’
perceptions of themselves and of their ideal
286
partner and their partners’ self-perception is
most appropriate. These three benchmarks have
been found to be related to one’s perception
of the partner in several studies (e.g., Knee
et al., 2001; McNeal, 1997; Murray, Holmes, &
Griffin, 1996a, 1996b). The three benchmarks
also have been used successfully in other studies
that adopted the difference-score approach.
Sample Characteristics
We review 28 independent samples here. The
number of samples does not match the number
of articles reviewed because some of the
articles used data from previous studies and
others reported multiple studies with multiple
samples. Mostly, the independent 28 samples
were homogeneous (see Table 1). Except for two
cross-cultural studies (Endo et al., 2000; Fowers,
Fisiloglu, et al., 2008) and two studies with
Dutch samples (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds,
2008; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009), the majority
of samples with race/ethnicity information
consisted of middle-class North American
Caucasians. Only 53.6% of samples (15 of
28) provided information about participants’
race/ethnicity. Except for the two cross-cultural
studies and the two Dutch studies, only
four samples (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, et al.,
2001; Knee et al., 2001) with race/ethnicity
information included more than 50% non-
Caucasians. Only one nonheterosexual sample,
consisting of gay men, has been reported
(McNeal, 1997). Moreover, the majority of
dating-couple samples were of college students
(e.g., Endo et al., 2000; Knee et al., 2001; Martz
et al., 1998; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a,
1996b). Because of this lack of diversity in
samples, little is known with regard to the
effect of ethnicity and socioeconomic status on
idealization. Moreover, many studies did not
include demographic variables in their analyses.
For example, almost none of the studies
used the duration of the relationship and/or
marriage as a substantive or control variable (for
studies that did, see Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds,
2008; Hall & Taylor, 1976), thus limiting our
understanding of developmental processes of
idealization. (Fletcher and Kerr, 2010, were able
to examine relationship length, as noted earlier;
however, because meta-analysis uses studies as
the unit of analysis, only each sample’s average
relationship duration could be used.) None of the
samples was nationally representative, and most
Journal of Family Theory & Review
were relatively small in size. In conclusion, the
homogeneity of the samples used in idealization
studies makes it hard to generalize the findings
beyond majority groups in North American
society. More studies with diverse populations
will extend our understanding of idealization.
Other Methodological Issues
We did not review methodological issues other
than measurement and sample characteristics in
detail, as many of them (e.g., nonrepresentative
samples, slow adoption of advanced statistical
techniques) are not unique to idealization
research. Still, there are a few issues that we
believe warrant brief mention. First, couple
data have sometimes been analyzed with
inappropriate or less-than-ideal strategies, such
as separate analyses for male and female
partners (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997). Thus,
little is known about how partners in a
relationship influence each other in developing
and maintaining idealization. Second, more
attention is needed to the developmental
process of idealization. Longitudinal studies
with focus on developmental patterns, not just
on the predictability of relationship status (e.g.,
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b, 1997, 1999;
Rusbult et al., 2000), are necessary to further our
understanding of idealization.
EVIDENCE
To take stock of the literature, we have reviewed
studies with regard to both evidence they
provide for idealization’s predictive ability and
the variables that predict idealization. Here
we review only the variables that have been
examined in more than one study.
What Predicts Idealization?
Gender. The findings on gender differences
in idealization are mixed. Some studies have
found evidence for gender differences (Murray
& Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996b; Rusbult et al., 2000), whereas others
have not (e.g., Fowers, Fisiloglu, et al., 2008;
Martz et al., 1998; Miller, Caughlin, et al.,
2003). Studies that found gender differences
consistently reported that women idealized their
partner more than men did. Pollis (1969)
examined changes in idealization over the
course of the courtship and found that men’s
Idealization and Disillusionment
idealization of their partner varied depending
on how seriously they were involved with
their dating partner; men idealized their partner
less with increasing involvement. Women’s
idealization of their dating partners did not vary
depending on level of relationship involvement.
Studies that did not find gender differences
had relatively large sample sizes (≥150), which
suggests that the lack of significant differences
may not have resulted from low statistical power.
Commitment. Commitment is positively asso-
ciated with idealization in dating and marital
relationships (Martz et al., 1998; Rusbult et al.,
2000). Rusbult et al. found that the relation-
ship between commitment and idealization was
stronger when individuals felt psychological
threat to the relationship and weaker when they
felt they had to give accurate evaluations of the
relationship. Thus, motivation seems to moder-
ate the relationship between commitment and
idealization.
Self-esteem. Findings on self-esteem and ide-
alization are inconsistent. One study (Rusbult
et al., 2000) found self-esteem to positively pre-
dict idealization in marital relationships. How-
ever, in a dating study (Martz et al., 1998),
self-esteem did not predict idealization.
Relationship satisfaction. The relationship be-
tween satisfaction and idealization has already
been discussed in connection with conceptual
and measurement issues. The results on relation-
ship satisfaction’s ability to predict idealization
are mixed. Whereas a 1-year longitudinal study
found that initial satisfaction did not predict
later idealization (Murray & Holmes, 1997),
another, cross-sectional study (Murray, Holmes,
Dolderman et al., 2000) found that satisfaction
predicted idealization and being idealized. This
was especially true for those who were in the
top 20th percentile of satisfaction. Highly satis-
fied individuals idealized their partners and had
partners who idealized them. The inconsistency
of the findings may be due to one study being
longitudinal and the other being cross-sectional.
What Does Idealization Predict?
Conflict. Idealization appears to be negatively
related to conflict. In a 1-year longitudinal
study, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b)
found idealization to predict less frequent
and destructive conflict in dating couples,
287
even after controlling for satisfaction cross-
sectionally and longitudinally. In another study,
women who idealized their partner perceived
less conflict than did ‘‘realists’’ or ‘‘pessimists’’
(Schulman, 1974).
Relationship satisfaction. Multiple studies have
found support for idealization predicting sat-
isfaction in dating and marital relationships
(Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009; Knee et al., 2001;
Miller, Caughlin et al., 2003; Murray & Holmes,
1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b;
Schulman, 1974). All studies except one (Knee
et al., 2001) were longitudinal, ranging from
1 to 13 years. Couples with higher idealiza-
tion reported higher relationship satisfaction.
Moreover, individuals’ idealization also pre-
dicted their partners’ satisfaction (Murray &
Holmes, 1997), and being idealized by part-
ners predicted relationship satisfaction (Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). Expanding on the
research, Knee et al. (2001) found evidence for
implicit theories of relationships (i.e., the belief
that couples can ‘‘grow’’ in their relationship)
moderating the association between idealization
and satisfaction. Idealization and satisfaction
did not appear to be closely correlated among
respondents who believed that relationships can
be ‘‘cultivated’’ (i.e., improved through working
on the relationship), whereas they had a stronger
connection among those who believed more that
relationship success was preordained.
Relationship stability. Many researchers have
found that idealization predicts dating-relation-
ship stability (Murray & Holmes, 1997;
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b) and marital-
relationship stability (Rusbult et al., 2000).
However, it seems that satisfaction may medi-
ate this relationship. The association between
idealization and relationship stability was sig-
nificant after controlling for relationship satis-
faction for women (but not men) in one study
(Murray & Holmes, 1997), but not in another
(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). Idealiza-
tion decreased the possibility of breakup also by
buffering the link between conflict and stability
for dating men. The interaction between ide-
alization and conflict or ambivalence revealed
that, for men with high idealization, high con-
flict and ambivalence did not predict breakup
(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). More-
over, being idealized by the partner, as well
as idealizing the partner, predicted relationship
288
stability (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b).
However, longitudinal studies that found rela-
tionships between idealization and relationship
stability were relatively short (12–20 months).
In a 13-year longitudinal study (Miller, Niehuis,
& Huston, 2006), idealization at the newly-
wed phase did not predict later marital stability.
Thus, here and in other sections of this summary,
longer follow-up intervals appear to be associ-
ated with weaker relationships among variables,
which is to be expected.
In conclusion, previous studies on idealization
have found individual and relational factors
associated with idealization. However, there are
still aspects of idealization that have not been
examined such as the developmental and dyadic
processes of idealization.
LINKAGES OF IDEALIZATION
TO DISILLUSIONMENT
Although researchers have suggested that ideal-
ization may set the stage for later disillusionment
in at least some couples (Buehlman et al., 1992;
Huston et al., 2001), discussion and empiri-
cal examination of this connection have been
sparse. Huston et al. (2001) proposed a disil-
lusionment model. The idea behind the model
is that during courtship, romantic partners are
motivated to see and present themselves to
each other in the most positive light. Once
they are married, however, and the reality of
day-to-day life sets in, partners begin to see
each other more realistically and become less
motivated to engage in impression manage-
ment. Thus, disillusionment begins to set in and
can cause great harm to relationships (Huston
et al., 2001).
Multiple researchers have found evidence
of disillusionment among romantic couples
(Buehlman et al., 1992; Hobart, 1958; Huston
et al., 2001; Kersten, 1990; Pineo, 1961). Hobart
(1958) examined the discrepancy between actual
and estimated disagreement scores among dat-
ing, engaged, and married couples to determine
the existence of disillusionment. Evidence was
found for disillusionment for both men and
women from the transition of engagement to
marriage (Hobart, 1958). Similarly, in a 20-
year longitudinal study of married couples,
Pineo (1961) found evidence for disillusionment
(labeled ‘‘disenchantment’’) in the early years
of marriage.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Research suggests that disillusionment may
indeed have negative consequences for marital
relationships. Two studies found that disillu-
sionment was negatively correlated with marital
satisfaction cross-sectionally (Buehlman et al.,
1992; Niehuis & Bartell 2006) and longitu-
dinally (3 years later; Buehlman et al., 1992).
Further, disillusionment predicted divorce up to
13 years later (Buehlman et al., 1992; Huston
et al., 2001). Buehlman et al. (1992) used an
oral-history interview in a longitudinal follow-
up on married couples and found that marital
disillusionment was the single most powerful
predictor of divorce, even after controlling for
satisfaction at Time 1. Complementing these
findings, Huston et al. (2001), in a 13-year lon-
gitudinal study of initially newlywed couples,
found that divorced couples experienced greater
disillusionment within the first 2 years of their
marriage than did couples who remained mar-
ried.
Other researchers, too, have studied processes
akin to disillusionment (see below). With
both the idealization and the disillusionment
literatures expanding, and a conceptual linkage
proposed by Huston et al. (2001), it appears
to be an opportune time to review research
on disillusionment and its connection to
idealization.
Conceptualization of Disillusionment
Huston et al. (2001) defined disillusionment
as the ‘‘abatement of love, a decline in
overt affection, a lessening of the conviction
that one’s spouse is responsive, and an
increase in ambivalence’’ (p. 237). According
to Huston and Houts (1998), the process
of disillusionment is a combination of what
aspects are focused on during the beginning
of the relationship and what occurs later
in the relationship. As their disillusionment
model proposes, during courtship some people
fail to pay much attention to personality
and compatibility issues. With the increased
intimacy of marriage, however, personality and
compatibility issues become apparent and begin
to exert their influence on the relationship.
Spouses begin to pay attention to each other’s
(and the relationship’s) shortcomings. Once
disillusionment-based problems occur in a
relationship, the problems are likely to stay,
and the couple may eventually divorce (Huston
et al., 2001; Huston & Houts, 1998).
Idealization and Disillusionment
The foregoing description provides a plau-
sible model of disillusionment and of how it
would be tested empirically. However, the dis-
illusionment model suggests a linear aspect to
disillusionment (i.e., it implies that once disil-
lusionment occurs, divorce likely ensues) but
does not suggest possible tipping points in the
relationship or indicate whether partners can
recover from being disillusioned. On the basis
of interviews with respondents selected specif-
ically for having experienced marital distress,
Kayser and Rao (2006) suggested three possible
precipitating events (which they called turn-
ing points) for disaffection: when the spouse
exhibited controlling behavior (e.g., unilateral
decision making), irresponsible conduct, and
uncaring and/or unsupportive reactions during
times of stress. Such triggering events do not
necessarily produce a linear, inevitable pathway
to dissolution, as recovery from relationship
distress may be possible. For instance, Pasley
et al. (2001) discuss ways couples can prevent
harmful discrepancies in partners’ perceptions
of their own and the other’s roles, via reinterpre-
tation of ongoing events in the relationship and
in partners’ expectations.
Huston et al.’s (2001) model has value in that
it articulates the disillusionment process and
what disillusionment is; further, its gaps appear
capable of being filled by other researchers’
complementary models (e.g., Kayser & Rao,
2006). Regarding empirical support for the
disillusionment model, Huston et al. (2001)
found the divorces of couples married for at least
7 years exhibit most frequently the hallmarks
of disillusionment (i.e., high initial affection
followed by a precipitous decline). Further, some
couples married 2–7 years partially produced
the pattern of disillusionment, showing a sharp
decline in affection over the first 2 years of
marriage but not an extremely high level as in
newlyweds (Caughlin & Huston, 2006).
Differentiating Disillusionment from Related
Concepts
As in the case of idealization, disillusionment
(Hobart, 1958; Huston et al., 2001) also has
several cognate terms: disaffection (e.g., Ker-
sten, 1990), disappointment (e.g., Buehlman
et al., 1992), and disenchantment (e.g., Pineo,
1961). Pineo (1961) defined disenchantment
(used interchangeably with disillusionment) as
the ‘‘process of dropping satisfaction,’’ not the
289
‘‘loss of satisfaction,’’ arguing that disenchant-
ment is ‘‘a process which appears to be generally
an inescapable consequence of the passage of
time in a marriage’’ (p. 3). In contrast, Buehlman
et al. (1992) used disillusionment and disap-
pointment together in a more severe sense to
reflect situations in which spouses have given
up on their marriage.
Kersten (1990; known as Kayser in her
later publications) developed a three-phase
model of disaffection, defining it as the
‘‘deterioration of emotional attachment in
marriage’’ (p. 257). On the basis of disaffected
spouses’ characterizations of their feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors at each phase, she found
that disillusionment was part of the disaffection
process. Specifically, disillusionment set in
motion the disaffection process (Kayser, 1993).
Disillusionment was less likely to be reported
in the middle and end phases of the model,
which were characterized first by increases in
anger and loneliness, along with more serious
evaluations of whether to stay in the marriage
(Kayser, 1993), and then by increased anger and
apathy and decreased reports of feeling hurt.
These all signify a loss of hope to maintain the
union (Kayser, 1993).
Future testing of the above conceptual mod-
els is needed to examine their major components
(e.g., declining affection, shift in attention, pre-
cipitating events). However, the different con-
cepts and definitions—centering on whether the
salient feature is giving up on the marriage, dete-
rioration of emotional attachment, or a decline
in satisfaction—have again hindered the inte-
gration of key ideas. Because of the different
conceptualizations, it is arguably harder to inte-
grate research findings on disillusionment than it
is for idealization. Questions about whether dis-
illusionment researchers are describing the same
or a different phenomenon (or are capturing the
same process at various stages, such as the begin-
ning, middle, and end) have not been raised or
answered. We believe the different formulations
(e.g., giving up, deteriorating attachment) are
likely the same phenomenon captured at differ-
ent times. Clearly, it is important to empirically
validate this notion.
The idealization research of Murray and col-
leagues (Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b) has the poten-
tial to spur increased discussion of definitional
issues in disillusionment research. As noted
already, Murray and Holmes (1997) saw
290
idealization in terms of conviction or doubt
alleviation, with which couples could move for-
ward in their relationships. One can then ask
whether the foregoing characterizations of disil-
lusionment (e.g., disaffection, disenchantment)
represent the opposite of Murray’s notion of
idealization. Indeed, giving up on one’s mar-
riage may represent the opposite of maintaining
a conviction that one’s relationship can avoid
or overcome any adversities that are encoun-
tered. In contrast, definitions of disillusionment
(and potentially related concepts) that reflect
the severing of emotional bonds or declining
satisfaction do not appear to map onto Mur-
ray’s conceptual scheme as directly opposite
constructs. As noted earlier, we conceptualize
disillusionment as a decline in positive percep-
tions and an increase in negative perceptions
about the individual’s partner and relationship
(Niehuis & Bartell, 2006; the same considera-
tions discussed above with regard to the internal
coherence of idealization of the partner and of
the relationship also apply to disillusionment).
We propose that idealization and disillusion-
ment are two separate constructs, rather than
one bipolar factor, related to each other in a
moderately negative fashion. Even though, as
noted earlier, the word illusion underlies both
the terms positive illusions and disillusionment,
we believe that conceptualizing idealization and
disillusionment as two related dimensions, rather
than as opposite ends of a single continuum, is
more beneficial to advancing our understand-
ing of individuals’ perceptions of their romantic
partners and relationships.
INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF IDEALIZATION
AND DISILLUSIONMENT
In this section, we propose an integrative
model of idealization and disillusionment. Our
model is conceptual at this stage, formulated
from previous research elucidating possible
links between idealization and disillusionment.
Huston et al.’s (2001) disillusionment model
makes clear the need for this link, as initial
idealization (resulting both from partners’
attempts to create favorable self-presentations in
the other’s presence and from their motivation
to see the other in a positive light) is proposed to
give way to disillusionment once the partners
stop seeking to impress each other and the
reality of day-to-day life together takes hold.
The disillusionment model proposes its ideas
Journal of Family Theory & Review
as broad principles, without detailing specific
mechanisms. Moreover, as mentioned earlier,
the linear nature of the disillusionment model
does not consider other situations in which initial
idealization does not lead to later disillusionment
or in which high disillusionment does not
lead couples to divorce. Fortunately, however,
other researchers have conducted more process-
oriented studies that appear to fill some of the
gaps of the disillusionment model and its linkage
to idealization.
Background
Social cognitive research. McNulty and Karney
(2004; McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008)
and Neff and Karney (2002, 2005) have been
very active in addressing possible connections
between constructs akin to idealization and
disillusionment. For instance, Neff and Karney
(2002) moved toward resolving the apparent
riddle of why one line of research (e.g.,
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b)
suggests that idealization may be beneficial
for relationship quality and stability, whereas
another line of research (e.g., Swann, De La
Ronde, & Hixon, 1994) suggests that it may
be detrimental. Invoking the distinction between
specific and global trait perceptions (defined
earlier), Neff and Karney (2002) found that
undergraduate psychology students rated global
traits as more desirable than specific traits
for a romantic partner to possess, and by
participating spouses as more important for their
spouses to possess (even after controlling for the
desirability of the traits). Further, individuals
in satisfying marriages tended to use more
global terms to describe their spouses’ desirable
traits and more specific terms to describe
their partners’ undesirable qualities. Idealization
tended to take place at the global level,
whereas accuracy (i.e., how much individuals’
perceptions of their spouses matched spouses’
self-perceptions) tended to take place at the
specific level (even after controlling for the
desirability of the trait). Thus, as Neff and
Karney (2002) put it, ‘‘Satisfied intimates
may recognize their partners’ abilities and
limitations, while enhancing their partners’
status on global qualities central to relationship
satisfaction. Thus, perceiving a partner with
specific understanding and global enhancement
serves to satisfy intimates’ desires both to
predict their partners’ behavior accurately (e.g.,
Idealization and Disillusionment
Swann, 1984) and to protect the relationship
from doubt (e.g., Murray[, Holmes, & Griffin],
1996a, 1996b)’’ (p. 1104). Fletcher and Kerr
(2010) posit a similar pair of motives that
romantic partners may hold, which they
refer to as epistemic (i.e., understanding and
prediction of the partner’s behavior) and
satisfaction/evaluation (i.e., wanting to view the
partner favorably) orientations.
In a subsequent publication, Neff and Karney
(2005) explored the consequences of global
versus specific partner perceptions on supportive
behaviors, feelings of control in marriage, and
marital stability in two longitudinal studies.
They found that as newlyweds, spouses seemed
uniformly happy with their relationship at the
global level (assessed via Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum’s, 1957, Semantic Differential and
Norton’s, 1983, Quality of Marriage Index) and
generally perceived each other very positively at
the global level (assessed via Rosenberg’s, 1965,
Self-Esteem Scale, reworded to capture the
spouse’s global worth) but varied considerably
with regard to their perceptions of one another’s
specific qualities (assessed via Swann et al.’s,
1994, Self-Attributes Questionnaire). Moreover,
the newlywed spouses varied considerably with
regard to the accuracy with which they perceived
their partners’ specific traits. Accuracy, rather
than merely positive perception, of specific
traits was associated for women (but not men)
with greater supportive behavior, feelings of
control 6 months later, and marital instability
2–4 years later. According to Neff and Karney
(2005), ‘‘Global adoration lacking in specific
accuracy not only leaves spouses vulnerable to
disappointment as their partner’s faults surface
over the course of the relationship but also may
lead partners to doubt the credibility of their
spouses’ love’’ (p. 495). Of course, not all people
enter marriage with highly positive perceptions
and evaluations of their spouse. Yet many of
them still become disillusioned over time (e.g.,
Huston et al., 2001), which suggests that specific
accuracy (or lack thereof) may be more critical
with regard to becoming disillusioned over time
than global adoration (or idealization).
Connections between constructs akin to ide-
alization and disillusionment are also at least
implicit in the following questions that McNulty
and Karney (2004) raised: ‘‘Do positive expecta-
tions help maintain satisfaction, or are they likely
to lead to declines in satisfaction?’’ (p. 729);
and ‘‘Do partners who hold high expectations
291
for their relationships similarly risk being dis-
appointed?’’ (p. 730). In two articles (McNulty
& Karney, 2004; McNulty et al., 2008), the
McNulty-Karney team reported several anal-
yses of the consequences of favorable (i.e.,
potentially idealized) perceptions, from a lon-
gitudinal study of couples over the first 4 years
of marriage. Specifically, McNulty and Karney
(2004) focused on marital expectations (degree
to which participants believed that their satis-
faction would be steadily high over time and
that their partners would treat them well and
generally exhibit good behavior) as their mea-
sure of favorable perceptions. To assess whether
partners would be likely to enact expectation-
fulfilling positive behaviors, the authors focused
on social skills (operationalized via attribution
measures and laboratory interaction sessions).
They found that favorable perceptions that one
partner held of the other tended to promote high
marital satisfaction in the long term only in the
context of positive behaviors (i.e., behaviors that
would not contradict the initial perceptions). The
authors concluded, ‘‘When behavior was least
positive at the outset of the marriage, more
positive expectations predicted steeper declines
in marital satisfaction whereas less positive
expectations predicted more stable satisfaction’’
(p. 737). McNulty and Karney (2004) offered
the following as a framework for understand-
ing their results: ‘‘When they function as goal
structures, positive expectations appear to be
beneficial because they inspire perceptual and
behavioral confirmation processes that in turn
lead to positive outcomes. When they function
as counterfactuals [points of contrast], however,
positive expectations can be detrimental because
partners may be disappointed when their expec-
tations are not met’’ (p. 737).
Similarly to the Neff and Karney (2002,
2005) studies, these results ‘‘suggest that the
benefits of positive bias may be more evident
for beliefs about global, ambiguous qualities.
Whereas work demonstrating the benefits of pos-
itive bias in relationships typically has addressed
relatively global perceptions of the partner . . . ,
the current work demonstrated no such benefits
for unrealistically positive expectations regard-
ing aspects of a relationship that are less open
to interpretation’’ (McNulty & Karney, 2004,
p. 739). McNulty and Karney’s (2004) sugges-
tion of perceptual and behavioral mechanisms
for their findings also dovetails with conclusions
from an earlier section of this article that both
292
cognitive and behavioral mechanisms can likely
account for idealization (e.g., McNulty and
Karney’s above-cited quote on positive expec-
tations serving as goal structures parallels our
earlier discussion of self-fulfilling prophecies).
Finally, McNulty et al. (2008) operational-
ized benevolent cognitions in terms of indi-
viduals making generous attributions for their
spouses’ negative behavior and insulating rat-
ings of global satisfaction with their spouses
from how they evaluate them on specific dimen-
sions (e.g., if spouses did not perform household
chores they were supposed to, their partners
would not count that against them in mak-
ing a global evaluation). Negative relationship
developments were operationalized by nega-
tive behavior during laboratory problem-solving
interactions and scores on a marital problems
questionnaire. With growth curves in marital
satisfaction serving as the dependent variable,
McNulty et al. found that, ‘‘although positive
attributions and weaker global/specific covari-
ances appeared to predict more positive out-
comes in the context of marriages with few
negative behaviors and less severe problems,
both measures of benevolent cognitions pre-
dicted greater declines in satisfaction over time
in marriages facing higher levels of negative
behavior or more severe problems’’ (p. 641).
The findings of the four studies reported here
thus provide some evidence of how individuals’
perception of their partner changes over time.
For example, they suggest that increasing
disappointment and declining satisfaction can be
a consequence of initial idealized perceptions,
as long as couples’ experiences as newlyweds
and in the early years of marriage do not
live up to partners’ lofty expectations. The
results of these studies also suggest that,
although individuals’ global perceptions of one
another and evaluations of the relationship
are important with regard to idealization,
their specific perceptions of their partners and
their relationships (e.g., their accuracy and
perceived importance) are of primary relevance
to understanding the link between idealization
and disillusionment. Despite some individuals’
strong motive to see their partners in the best
light (as would argue Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996a, 1996b; see also Fletcher & Kerr, 2010),
some, but not all, become disillusioned over
time, likely because their specific perceptions
of their partners become more negative and
gain in importance over time, thus forcing
Journal of Family Theory & Review
them to revise their global perceptions in
light of the specific negative perceptions that
surface. Several questions follow from this
line of thinking: What predicts’ individuals’
greater knowledge (accuracy) of their partners’
specific qualities? What brings about change
in individuals’ specific perceptions of their
partners’ qualities? To what extent do individual
qualities (e.g., anxiety), relationship dynamics
(e.g., conflict, lack of communication skills),
and context (e.g., stress) affect transformations
(Kelley, 1983) in partners’ specific perceptions?
Further research to address these questions and
establish specific linkages between idealization
and disillusionment would, of course, be needed.
A key challenge in theorizing on possible
associations between idealization and disillu-
sionment is to explicate how one partner’s
initially positive impression of the other comes
to be overturned, thus resulting in a nega-
tive impression. The aforementioned concept
of motivated social cognition (Kunda, 1990)
suggests, of course, that if so motivated, indi-
viduals go to great lengths to maintain favorable
impressions of their partners, as long as even a
slight evidentiary basis exists for doing so. Neff
and Karney (2002) examined individuals’ per-
ceptions of their partners compared to partners’
perception of themselves, which would qualify
as idealization or a positive illusion under com-
mon definitions. However, these authors argue,
‘‘Prior research on these processes has described
this sort of enhancement in terms of ‘positive
illusions,’ but the current perspective suggests
that this term may be misleading. Rather than
maintaining an illusion, perceivers may have
some latitude in the way they combine their real-
istic perceptions of specific traits into a global
impression of the partner’’ (pp. 1104–1105).
Thus, mental latitude, like motivated social cog-
nition, may allow perceivers to hold favorable
impressions of their respective partners with
great tenacity.
Under what circumstances, then, might one
partner’s impressions of the other partner come
to be disconfirmed? As one possibility, Fletcher
and Kerr (2010) suggested that there are times
in a relationship that prompt a ‘‘need for more
accurate predictions of the future of the rela-
tionship’’ and that realism and accuracy ‘‘might
be especially salient when important decisions
regarding changes in commitment are being
made (e.g., when people are deciding whether
to leave the relationship, move in together, and
Idealization and Disillusionment
get married)’’ (p. 647). Relationships may thus
have periodic windows of time when nonide-
alized perceptions of partners are most likely
to occur, thus increasing the likelihood of pre-
vious impressions being overturned. Another
factor to consider is that, according to research
in social psychology, some traits seem to be
inherently more disconfirmable than others.
As Tausch, Kenworthy, and Hewstone (2007)
reviewed, a general finding in this literature is
that, whereas a reputation consisting of posi-
tive traits is ‘‘hard to gain and easy to lose’’
(p. 544), the opposite holds for a negative rep-
utation. In other words, positive traits appear to
need many instances of behavioral interaction to
confirm and few instances to disconfirm. Tausch
et al. extended this literature by showing that
‘‘positive competence-related traits were judged
to require more trait-inconsistent behavioral
instances to be disconfirmed than were posi-
tive warmth-related traits’’ (p. 553). Two points
are worth noting about this finding. First, to the
extent that initial attraction and idealization arise
in some instances from the perceiver’s impres-
sion of the other partner’s warmth, friendliness,
or kindness, such an impression could be particu-
larly vulnerable to disillusionment. Second, Neff
and Karney (2002) called for greater attention
to the content of relationship partners’ percep-
tions; their focus was on the global-specific
dimension of traits in partners’ impressions, but
the competence-warmth dimensions that Tausch
et al. studied also seem to warrant inclusion
in future theorizing and research. Although we
have presented only a few possible processes of
how previous impressions can be overturned, we
believe that they exemplify the general notion
of multiple pathways between idealization and
disillusionment.
Two-dimensional model of marital quality.
Our model was partly inspired by, and
parallels, the writings of Fincham and colleagues
(Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fincham & Linfield,
1997), who raised the possibility of separate
dimensions of positive and negative marital
quality as opposed to opposite ends of a
single continuum. According to their framework,
spouses and/or partners simultaneously evaluate
their relationships in both positive and negative
terms, which yields four different types: happy
and/or flourishing (positive high, negative
low), distressed (positive low, negative high),
languishing and/or indifferent (both low), and
293
volatile-distressed and/or ambivalent (both high)
relationships. Traditionally, marital quality has
been measured by one bipolar dimension
(ranging from negative to positive marital
quality). Fincham and Linfield (1997) were the
first to raise the question of separate dimensions
of positive and negative marital quality when
common sense and practice in the field dictated
that positive and negative evaluations of one’s
marriage are on the opposite ends of a
continuum. Their empirical research showed that
spouses indeed evaluate their marriage in terms
of both positive and negative aspects at the
same time. With a traditional, one-dimensional
conceptualization some types of marriage would
have been impossible to detect, because they
would have been grouped together. Examples
of these are the indifferent (low positive and
low negative quality) and ambivalent (high
positive and high negative quality) marriages.
We argue that research on idealization and
disillusionment also can benefit from a two-
dimensional conceptualization and that Fincham
and Linfield’s typology can be translated
into different combinations of idealization
and disillusionment. Whereas Fincham and
Beach (2010) discussed possible motivational
and neuropsychological mechanisms underlying
their positive and negative dimensions, our
focus is primarily on underlying social-cognitive
processes, such as the ones discussed above.
A New Model of Idealization
and Disillusionment
Our new model is an attempt to integrate rel-
atively recent social-cognitive research (e.g.,
McNulty & Karney, 2004; Neff & Karney, 2002;
Tausch et al., 2007) with classic theories (e.g.,
symbolic interactionism), within the framework
of our two-dimensional conceptualization of ide-
alization and disillusionment. The result is a
typology of relationship perception states (see
Figure 1). We propose four states that reflect
FIGURE 1. A TYPOLOGY OF RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTION
STATES DEFINED BY IDEALIZATION AND DISILLUSIONMENT
Idealization
Low High
Low Realism Optimism
Disillusionment
High Devastation Confusion
294
varying levels on the separate dimensions of
idealization and disillusionment: (1) optimism
(high idealization with little or no disillusion-
ment), (2) confusion (high levels of both ide-
alization and disillusionment), (3) realism (low
levels of both idealization and disillusionment),
and (4) devastation (high disillusionment in the
presence of little or no idealization). We first pro-
vide an overview of the processes in the model
and then review the four types in greater depth.
Our model begins with the observation that
each partner of a couple makes trait infer-
ences about the other partner from the latter’s
specific behavior, via symbolic interactionism
(e.g., LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993) and transfor-
mation (Kelley, 1983). Perceivers’ views of
their partners’ behaviors and traits are likely
to be generally accurate, even when the process
involves attaching negative labels to them (Neff
& Karney, 2002), although people of course
vary in their accuracy. Perceivers then inte-
grate their trait inferences of the partner into a
global impression, in line with social cognitive
theories. Individuals are capable (e.g., via moti-
vated social cognition) of maintaining positive
global impressions of their partners, even while
viewing some of the latter’s traits negatively.
Neff and Karney (2002) also suggested potential
bidirectionality between global and specific trait
impressions—specific impressions may consti-
tute the global one, but the global impression
may color individuals’ specific perceptions. Our
model recognizes this possibility but focuses on
the direction in which specific perceptions pre-
cede global impressions. In some circumstances
(e.g., catastrophic partner behaviors, windows
of openness to objective evaluation of the part-
ner), negative global impressions of the partner
can surface. Various combinations of high and
low idealization and disillusionment are thus
possible. We review the resulting typology next.
Optimism. In our model, individuals in an opti-
mistic state have high idealization and low dis-
illusionment, likely because they are motivated
to have a positive impression of their partner
(Kunda, 1990). Moreover, Neff and Karney’s
(2002, 2005) research suggests that in this state,
individuals likely perceive their partner overly
positively on a global level but fairly accurately
with regard to the partner’s specific traits. Fur-
thermore, their partner’s behavior likely meets
their expectations (McNulty & Karney, 2004).
Even if individuals accurately perceive some
Journal of Family Theory & Review
negative specific qualities in the other, they
can retain their idealization without much or any
disillusionment through the aforementioned pro-
cesses of motivated social cognition and global
impression latitude.
Realism. Individuals in a realistic state are
characterized by both idealization and disillu-
sionment being low or absent. In all likelihood,
individuals do not perceive the partner overly
positively at a global level, but they do have
fairly accurate specific perceptions of the part-
ner. The perceiver further has low expectations
of the partner, which the partner meets but gen-
erally does not exceed.
Confusion. Individuals in a confused state
are simultaneously high on both idealization
and disillusionment. This state is most likely
very rare and highly transitory, but it is
entirely possible given two lines of research.
Larsen and colleagues’ mixed-emotion research
(Larsen & McGraw, 2011; Larsen, McGraw,
& Cacioppo, 2001) found evidence for the
concurrent experience of happiness and sadness
in response to certain stimuli. In addition,
Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, and Ein-Dor
(2010), using subtle measures such as reaction
times to word prompts, found that anxiously
attached participants exhibited ‘‘high cognitive
access to both positive and negative traits
of a romantic partner at a given moment’’
(p. 458). Further research is needed to document
and refine our understanding of the confused
state. We would argue that individuals in
this state likely are highly motivated to see
the partner positively at the global level but
that the partner’s behavior falls short of the
perceiver’s expectations. Perceivers’ accuracy
of the partner’s specific qualities, especially
those deemed important, is likely high. This
state might be characteristic of early stages in
some committed relationships, when romantic
feelings and passion are strong but negative
behaviors of the partner surface.
Devastation. Individuals in a devastated state
are characterized by absent or low idealization
and high disillusionment because their partner’s
behavior has repeatedly fallen short of their
expectations; their perception of the partner’s
specific qualities has become increasingly
negative; or the partner has engaged in
catastrophic behavior, such as infidelity, drug
Idealization and Disillusionment
use, or emotional or physical abuse (in line with
catastrophe theory; Davis, 1973).
Our model is temporal, in that we argue
that individuals can transition from one state
to another over time. For example, individu-
als whose positive impression of their partner
is not based on accurate specific perceptions
may experience changes in the level of ide-
alization for the worse later (Neff & Karney,
2005). Moreover, changes in motivation to main-
tain positive impressions of the partner may
lead to changes in latitude and in the impor-
tance individuals assign to specific positive and
negative qualities of their partners. Unrealis-
tic expectations, changes in expectations, and
changes in the partner’s behaviors (disconfir-
mation) also can lead to disillusionment. It is
also possible that various states are experienced
at various stages in relationship development.
For instance, very early in relationships, higher
levels of disillusionment may be somewhat rare.
Thus, optimism and realism may be relationship
perception states found more frequently at that
point. Over time, as idealization may be more
difficult to maintain for some couples, and as
disillusionment may be more likely to develop,
confusion and devastation may become more
prevalent. The aforementioned negative turning
and/or tipping points (i.e., controlling, irrespon-
sible, or uncaring behavior) or perhaps even
potentially positive ones are also likely to affect
the state individuals are in.
Our model is also contextual, in that it
acknowledges the influence of structural and
situational factors on individuals’ perceptions.
Catastrophic or stressful events (e.g., unemploy-
ment, transition to parenthood) that bring out
nonadaptive coping mechanisms of the partner
have the potential to change individuals’ per-
ceptions. Workplace stress is another contextual
variable that researchers have found to predict
spouses’ angry and withdrawing behavior in the
evening (Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan,
2004); stress from work and other domains has
also been found to relate to attributions to the
partner (Neff & Karney, 2004).
Finally, our model is also dyadic, in that
it acknowledges how the partner’s behaviors
(or changes thereof) can affect individuals’
perceptions. Extra complexity results when
the two partners in a relationship are in
different perceptual states or when one partner
in a relationship has followed one perceptual
trajectory (i.e., moving from one state to another)
295
and the other has followed a different one
over time. As research guided by our model
progresses, findings to illuminate such dual-
track couples will perhaps emerge. Also to
emerge, we hope, is greater contextualization
of the processes in the model.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our review suggests that there are several gaps
in idealization research, including the need for
conceptual refinement, better integration with
cognate constructs, and improved measurement.
Ultimately, we believe, research integrating
idealization and disillusionment will benefit both
lines of inquiry. Conceptually, it is still unclear
in the literature what exactly idealization is and
whether it should be considered a predictor,
outcome, and/or indicator of marital satisfaction
(e.g., Fowers, Lyons, Montel et al., 2001;
Murray & Holmes, 1997). It is also unclear,
because of a lack of theory, whether and how
idealization develops over time in relationships.
Even though Waller (1937) speculated that
idealization becomes stronger as the premarital
relationship develops over time, little research
has examined this notion (except for Pollis
[1969] who did not find support for Waller’s
hypothesis). Nor has the idea that there may
be variation in the developmental patterns of
individuals’ idealization during courtship (i.e.,
trajectories) been examined (see ‘‘Directions
for Future Research’’ for further discussion).
Consequently, we do not know what may
predict these patterns and what the result of
these patterns would be for the relationship.
Moreover, relatively little research has examined
the qualities that individual dating partners
bring into a relationship, the dyadic qualities
that emerge as a result of the relationship,
and the contextual factors (not only stressful
life events but also the influence of parents,
friends, and cultural norms and expectations) in
relation to the development of idealization and
disillusionment.
Disillusionment is presumed to have its roots
in premarital idealization. Despite its appar-
ent importance in predicting divorce, little is
known about the development of idealization
and its relationship to the onset of disillusion-
ment processes. Moreover, there have been
some contradictory findings about the rela-
tionship between idealization and disillusion-
ment. Whereas some studies permit a possible
296
inference that greater idealization is associated
with greater disillusionment after marriage and
thus divorce (Niehuis, Skogrand, & Huston,
2006), other studies have found that ideal-
ization benefits relationship satisfaction and
stability (Fowers & Applegate, 1996; Fowers,
Veingrad, et al., 2002; Miller, Caughlin, et al.,
2003; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin 1996a, 1996b;
Rusbult et al., 2000). These contradictory find-
ings may in part be because of our lack of
understanding of the relationship between ideal-
ization and disillusionment.
Despite some theoretical frameworks arguing
that idealization is a prerequisite for disillusion-
ment and the seemingly obvious tie between the
two concepts, to our knowledge no study has
examined the relationship between idealization
and disillusionment. We have attempted to help
fill this general void with an initial model of
potential linkages between idealization and dis-
illusionment, inspired in part by Fincham and
colleagues’ two-dimensional notion of relation-
ship quality (Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fincham
& Linfield, 1997), from which we predict ide-
alization and disillusionment generally to show
a moderate, negative correlation. New results
from our laboratory indeed show such a pattern
of association between idealization (measured
either via the ID Scale or residual scores)
and disillusionment (Lee et al., 2010). Using
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis,
we verified that the two concepts are separate
factors, that the fit of the two-dimensional model
is better than that of the one-dimensional model
and that the correlation between idealization
and disillusionment is moderate and negative
(–.21). Our model, based on related theories and
research, conceptualizes idealization and disil-
lusionment as dyadic and contextual processes,
with emphasis on the need to consider both
partners’ and external factors’ roles in the devel-
opment of idealization and disillusionment. We
hope our model will also guide developmen-
tal research of idealization and disillusionment:
What makes people transition from one state to
another? What are the common perception state
sequences in the development of relationships
over time?
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The highest priority for idealization research,
besides theoretical and measurement refinement
and consolidation, appears to be longitudinal
Journal of Family Theory & Review
studies tracking the development of idealization
and disillusionment, separately and in relation
to each other. One initial question, of course,
is the relative prevalence of the four perception
states proposed in our new model, something
that can be answered only by future studies
that use specific measures of idealization and
disillusionment. Whereas idealization research
has been conducted with both dating partners
(who have tended to be together at least
6 months) and married couples, research on
disillusionment has tended to focus on the early
years of marriage, premised on the idea that
disillusionment sets in once the honeymoon is
over. On the basis of the finding that idealization
predicts relationship stability, one might expect
that individuals who maintain their idealization
are likely to stay in their relationships,
whereas those whose idealization dissipates (in
conjunction with rising disillusionment) are less
likely to do so. However, evidence suggests
that some couples who experience (at least
early signs of) disillusionment already during
courtship may not end the relationship but
actually move forward and get married (Huston
et al., 2001; Niehuis et al., 2006; Weisman,
2009). As discussed earlier, Neff and Karney
(2005) found that, already as newlyweds,
spouses varied considerably not only with regard
to the positivity of their perceptions of each
other’s specific qualities but also with regard
to the accuracy with which they perceived
their partners’ specific traits, thus leaving
‘‘spouses vulnerable to disappointment as their
partner’s faults surface[d] over the course of the
relationship’’ (p. 495). Lack of accuracy at the
newlywed stage was associated for women (but
not men) with women’s early marital dissolution
(2–4 years after the wedding). Thus, the
development of idealization and disillusionment
may be more complex than previously assumed.
It is therefore important for researchers to
identify the timing and patterns of idealization
and disillusionment, and to investigate the
impact of those parameters on relationship
quality and stability. Moreover, because most
studies of dating partners’ idealization have
examined individuals or couples who have been
together for several months, the studies have
missed earlier time points in these relationships.
To determine when idealization or disillusion-
ment actually develop in dating relationships, it
is necessary to track partners from the earliest
stages of their relationships through successive
Idealization and Disillusionment
stages (i.e., casual dating, regular dating, serious
dating and/or being a couple, and engagement),
at least among those who remain together.
To our knowledge, such research is lacking.
Even though retrospective accounts can be a
useful source of data, there is evidence that
people tend to recall the recent past as better
than it actually was (Frye & Karney, 2004).
In some cases, researchers are concerned pri-
marily with participants’ personal meanings,
in other words ‘‘narrative truth, not historical
truth’’ (Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004,
p. 9). For researchers seeking more veridical
data, a prospective approach is needed to confirm
the retrospective findings.
Another needed line of research would focus
on construct validity, both for idealization and
for disillusionment. First is the issue of each con-
struct’s internal unity. For example, do Murray
and Holmes’s (1997) three elements of ideal-
ization or different researchers’ aforementioned
forms of disillusionment (e.g., giving up on the
relationship, deterioration of emotional attach-
ment) cohere statistically and experientially?
One might expect a person who subjectively
experiences one element of idealization (or of
disillusionment) to also feel the others, at least
to some extent.
Also at issue for both idealization and
disillusionment is the possible overlap with
related constructs and application to the partner
versus the relationship, as well as whether
idealization and disillusionment should be
considered direct opposites of each other. One
approach for examining idealization’s (and
disillusionment’s) internal unity, as well as
overlap with (or uniqueness from) related
constructs, would be to include various possible
measures of idealization (or disillusionment)
and seemingly related constructs in factor
analyses to determine whether one factor or
multiple factors emerge (for an example of
this strategy in studying attitudes, see Krosnick,
Boninger, Chuang, Berent, & Carnot, 1993).
Our own aforementioned study (Lee et al.,
2010), for example, used this approach with
several established marital-satisfaction scales
and found that marital satisfaction was indeed
separate from idealization and disillusionment.
Finally, for assessing whether idealization
and disillusionment are polar opposites or
two separate factors, analysts can complement
ordinary correlational analyses with trajectory
analyses. For example, if rising idealization
297
over time in couple members is nearly always
accompanied by falling (or chronically low)
disillusionment (and vice versa), the case
for polar opposition will be strengthened.
The emergence of subgroup-based trajectory
analyses (Nagin, 1999; Nagin & Tremblay,
2001; Schulenberg, Wadsworth, O’Malley,
Bachman, & Johnston, 1996) can facilitate
the identification of couples (or individuals)
who show varying patterns of development of
idealization and disillusionment and can aid the
examination of correlates of those trajectories.
The use of such models is not without potential
risks, such as overestimation of the number
of subgroups (Bauer, 2007); however, using
the technique heuristically and taking subgroup
findings as approximations may still have value.
Another type of research that may help enrich
our understanding of idealization and disillu-
sionment is qualitative interviews. Individuals
currently involved in satisfying relationships
may be unlikely to see themselves as engaging in
idealization, even if they actually are (although
Fletcher and Kerr, 2010, suggested that individ-
uals may have some awareness of their own ten-
dencies to produce inflated ratings of partners).
Narratives obtained from individuals who have
experienced a relationship breakup may there-
fore be more fruitful for research purposes. As
noted earlier, Kayser and Rao (2006) extracted
themes pertaining to disaffection from qualita-
tive interviews; however, this research focused
on individuals selected for relationship distress.
Mixed-method research has proved an effec-
tive approach to studying close relationships,
including McNulty and Karney’s (2004) use
of self-report measures and laboratory interac-
tion, and the Early Years of Marriage project’s
use of ‘‘survey questions, behavioral reactions
and interactions in the research setting, and
narratives’’ (Orbuch & Veroff, 2002, p. 552).
Mixed methods may thus help scholars study-
ing idealization and disillusionment to converge
on answers to questions that may be rela-
tively intractable with any single method. For
example, Kayser and Rao (2006) used interviews
to discover that unsupportive and/or uncaring
behavior by one spouse when the other was
experiencing stress constituted one type of turn-
ing point for marital disaffection. Laboratory
observation studies of couples’ support seek-
ing and giving (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000)
can augment interview-based accounts of stress
298
and support by revealing more in-the-moment
expressions of support.
Additional outstanding issues in the study
of idealization and disillusionment include cul-
tural and gender differences. Relatively few
studies have investigated cultural differences in
idealization, and the inconsistency in their find-
ings suggests that future studies are necessary.
Studies of gender differences in idealization
and disillusionment are relatively rare, as well.
Beyond male-female mean differences, where
there are some suggestions that women score
higher on idealization than men, whereas men
score higher than women on disillusionment
early in marriage, there are also some intriguing
possibilities as to whether idealization and/or
disillusionment are differentially predictive of
relationship outcomes in men and women (Mur-
ray & Holmes, 1997). Future studies can help
solidify our knowledge of these areas.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the quantity and methodologi-
cal sophistication of research on idealization
(and disillusionment) have been uneven over
the years, but there are promising signs for the
future. Key questions remain for understanding
idealization and disillusionment, each in its own
right and in combination, and we have provided
an initial model to guide interested researchers
along. Greater attention to theoretical develop-
ment, measurement, longitudinal studies, and
greater sample representativeness appear neces-
sary for research to advance.
NOTE
An earlier version of this article was presented at
the ‘‘Theory Construction and Research Methodology’’
workshop during the 2009 National Council on Family
Relations conference in San Francisco. We are very grateful
to Silvia Bartolic and Rodney Cate for their thoughtful
comments on the manuscript in their roles of workshop
discussants.
REFERENCES
*Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2009). Positive
illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness
and relationship quality. Personal Relationships,
16, 263 – 283. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01
222.x
*Barelds-Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008).
Positive illusions about one’s partner’s physical
attractiveness. Body Image, 5, 99 – 108. doi:
10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.07.004
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Bauer, D. J. (2007). Observations on the use of
growth mixture models in psychological research.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757 – 786.
doi: 10.1080/00273170701710338
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attribu-
tions in marriage: Review and critique. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 107, 3 – 33. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.107.1.3
Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F.
(1992). How a couple views their past predicts
their future: Predicting divorce from an oral
history interview. Journal of Family Psychology,
5, 295 – 318. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
Busby, D. M., & Gardner, B. C. (2008). How do I
analyze thee? Let me count the ways: Considering
empathy in couple relationships using self and
partner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229 – 242.
doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00250.x
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009).
The association between partner enhancement and
self-enhancement and relationship quality out-
comes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
449 – 464. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00612.x
Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective
structure of marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti &
D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
personal relationships (pp. 131 – 155). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe
haven: An attachment theory perspective on
support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 1053 – 1073. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.78.6.1053
Davis, M. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: Free
Press.
Dolch, N. A. (2003). Role. In L. T. Reynolds &
N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of sym-
bolic interactionism (pp. 391 – 410). Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marital conventionalization:
Definition and measurement. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 29, 681 – 688. doi: 10.2307/349220
*Endo, Y., Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2000).
Culture and positive illusions in close relation-
ships: How my relationships are better than yours.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
1571 – 1586. doi: 10.1177/01461672002612011
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes
and marriage: Towards a positive relationship
science. Journal of Family Theory and Review,
2, 4 – 24. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x
Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look
at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and
negative about their marriage? Journal of Family
Psychology, 11, 489 – 502. doi: 10.1037/0893-
3200.11.4.489-502
Idealization and Disillusionment
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through
the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in
intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin,
136, 627 – 658. doi: 10.1037/a0019792
Fowers, B. J. (1990). An interactional approach to
standardized marital assessment: A literature
review. Family Relations, 39, 368 – 377.
Fowers, B. J., & Applegate, B. (1995). Do mari-
tal conventionalization scales measure a social
desirability response bias? A confirmatory factor
analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,
237 – 241.
Fowers, B. J., & Applegate, B. (1996). Marital satis-
faction and conventionalization examined dyadi-
cally. Current Psychology, 15, 237 – 241.
Fowers, B. J., Applegate, B., Olson, D. H., & Pomer-
antz, B. (1994). Marital conventionalization as a
measure of marital satisfaction: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,
98 – 103. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.8.1.98
*Fowers, B. J., Fisiloglu, H., & Procacci, E. K.
(2008). Positive marital illusions and cul-
ture: American and Turkish spouses’ percep-
tions of their marriages. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 25, 267 – 286. doi:
10.1177/0265407507087959
*Fowers, B. J., Lyons, E. M., & Montel, K. H.
(1996). Positive illusions about marriage: Self-
enhancement or relationship enhancement? Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 10, 192 – 208. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.10.2.192
*Fowers, B. J., Lyons, E. M., Montel, K. H., &
Shaked, N. (2001). Positive illusions about mar-
riage among married and single individuals. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 15, 95 – 109. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.95
*Fowers, B. J., Veingrad, M. R., & Dominicis, C.
(2002). The unbearable lightness of positive
illusions: Engaged individual’s explanations of
unrealistically positive relationship perceptions.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 450 – 460.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00450.x
Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Revision
in memories of relationship development: Do
biases persist over time? Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 79 – 98. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.
00072.x
Gagne, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accu-
racy in close relationships: An integrative review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8,
322 – 338. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_1
Griffin, D., Murray, S., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Dif-
ference score correlations in relationship research:
A conceptual primer. Personal Relationships,
6, 505 – 518. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.
tb00206.x
*Hall, J. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1976). When love is
blind: Maintaining idealized images of one’s
299
spouse. Human Relations, 29, 751 – 761. doi:
10.1177/001872677602900804
Hobart, C. W. (1958). Disillusionment in marriage,
and romanticism. Marriage and Family Living,
20, 156 – 162. doi: 10.2307/348363
Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004).
Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their
stories. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith,
S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial
crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of
marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237 – 252.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237
Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psycho-
logical infrastructure of courtship and marriage:
The role of personality and compatibility in
romantic relationships. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.),
The developmental course of marital dysfunction
(pp. 114 – 151). New York: Cambridge University
Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.006
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction
and model-building skills: A practical guide for
social scientists. New York: Guilford.
Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W., Follette, W. C.,
& Berley, R. A. (1985). Attributional processes
in distressed and nondistressed married couples.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 33 – 50. doi:
10.1007/BF01178749
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting
temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners
as a means of maintaining commitment in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 967 – 980. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.57.6.967
Kayser, K. (1993). When love dies: The process of
marital disaffection. New York: Guilford.
Kayser, K., & Rao, S. S. (2006). Process of disaf-
fection in relationship breakdown. In M. A. Fine
& J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and
relationship dissolution (pp. 201 – 221). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human
tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis
of structures. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 9(1), 8 – 30.
Kersten, K. K. (1990). The process of marital dis-
affection: Interventions at various stages. Family
Relations, 39, 257 – 265. doi: 10.2307/584869
*Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neigh-
bors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theo-
ries of relationships: Who cares if romantic
partners are less than ideal? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808 – 819. doi:
10.1177/0146167201277004
Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C.,
Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude
strength: One construct or many related constructs?
300
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
1132 – 1151. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480 – 498. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic
interactionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss,
W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, &
S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual approach
(pp. 135 – 163). New York: Plenum. doi: 10.1007/
978-0-387-85764-0_6
Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evi-
dence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 100, 1095 – 1110.
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the
same time? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 684 – 696.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S.,
& Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting non-marital
romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic
synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377 – 390.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
Lee, K.-H., Reifman, A., Swenson, A., Baird, H.,
Smith, C., & Niehuis, S. (2010, November 3).
Idealization and disillusionment vs. marital
(dis)satisfaction: Different concepts? Presentation
at the National Council on Family Relations con-
ference, Minneapolis, MN.
*Martz, J. M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X. B., Slovik,
L. F., Cox, C. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Positive
illusions in close relationships. Personal Rela-
tionships, 5, 159 – 181. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.
1998.tb00165.x
*McNeal, J. L. (1997). The association of ideal-
ization and intimacy factors with condom use
in gay male couples. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology in Medical Settings, 4, 437 – 451. doi:
10.1023/A:1026209603522
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributions
in marriage: Integrating specific and global
evaluations of a relationship. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943 – 955. doi:
10.1177/0146167201278003
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive
expectations in the early years of marriage: Should
couples expect the best or brace for the worst?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
729 – 743. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729
McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R.
(2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of
relationship maintenance: Don’t sweat the small
stuff . . . but it’s not all small stuff. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631 – 646.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.631
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-
Dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close rela-
tionships: Attachment insecurities and relational
Journal of Family Theory & Review
ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 450 – 468. doi:10.1037/a0017366
*Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L.
(2003). Trait expressiveness and marital satisfac-
tion: The role of idealization processes. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 65, 978 – 995. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00978.x
*Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006).
Positive illusions in marital relationships: A
13-year longitudinal study. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579 – 1594. doi:
10.1177/0146167206292691
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues
in faults: Negativity and the transformation of
interpersonal narratives in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
707 – 722. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.707
*Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of
faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
586 – 604. doi: 10.1177/0146167297236003
*Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). The (mental)
ties that bind: Cognitive structures that predict
relationship resilience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1228 – 1244. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1228
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Grif-
fin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred
spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 563 – 581. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.82.4.563
*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Dolderman, D., &
Griffin, D. W. (2000). What the motivated mind
sees: Comparing friends’ perspectives to married
partners’ views of each other. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 600 – 620.
doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1417
*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.
(1996a). The benefits of positive illusions: Ide-
alization and the construction of satisfaction in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 79 – 98. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.70.1.79
*Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.
(1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illu-
sions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,
but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 1155 – 1180. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.71.6.1155
Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajec-
tories: A semiparametric, group-based approach.
Psychological Methods, 4, 139 – 157. doi: 10.1037/
1082-989X.4.2.139
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyz-
ing developmental trajectories of distinct but
related behaviors: A group-based method. Psycho-
logical Methods, 6, 18 – 34. doi: 10.1037/1082-
989X.6.1.18
Idealization and Disillusionment
*Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgments
of a relationship partner: Specific accuracy but
global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70,
1079 – 1112.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic
structure of relationship perceptions: Differential
importance as a strategy of relationship mainte-
nance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 1433 – 1446. doi: 10.1177/0146167203256376
Neff, L. A. & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context
affect intimate relationships? Linking external
stress and cognitive processes within marriage.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
134 – 148. doi: 10.1177/0146167203255984
Neff, L., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is
to love you: Implications of global adoration and
specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3),
480 – 497. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480
Niehuis, S., & Bartell, D. (2006). The Marital Disil-
lusionment Scale: Development and psychometric
properties. North American Journal of Psychology,
8, 69 – 84.
Niehuis, S., Skogrand, L., & Huston, T. L. (2006).
When marriages die: Premarital and early mar-
ital precursors to divorce. Forum for Family
and Consumer Issues, 11(1), 1 – 7. Retrieved
from http://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2006/v11-
n1-2006-june/fa-1-marriages-die.php
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A
critical look at the dependent variable. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141 – 151.
Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2002). A program-
matic review: Building a two-way bridge
between social psychology and the study of
the early years of marriage. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 19, 549 – 568. doi:
10.1177/0265407502019004053
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H.
(1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Pasley, K., Kerpelman, J., & Guilbert, D. A. (2001).
Gender conflict, identity disruption, and marital
instability: Expanding Gottman’s model. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 5 – 27.
10.1177/0265407501181001
Pineo, P. C. (1961). Disenchantment in the later years
of marriage. Marriage and Family Living, 23,
3 – 11. doi: 10.2307/346876
*Pollis, C. A. (1969). Dating involvement and pat-
terns of idealization: A test of Waller’s hypothesis.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 765 – 771.
doi: 10.2307/349320
Rosenberg, S. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-
image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
*Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A. M., Wildschut, T.,
Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived
superiority in close relationships: Why it exists
and persists. Journal of Personality and Social
301
Psychology, 79, 521 – 545. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.79.4.521
Schulenberg, J., Wadsworth, K. N., O’Malley, P. M.,
Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Ado-
lescent risk factors for binge drinking during
the transition to young adulthood: Variable-
and pattern-centered approaches to change.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 659 – 674. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.659
*Schulman, M. L. (1974). Idealization in engaged
couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
139 – 147.
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Bren-
nan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gender,
marital satisfaction and the daily spillover of work-
day experience into marriage. Journal of Family
Psychology, 18, 250 – 263. doi: 10.1037/0893-
3200.18.1.250
Scott, W. A., Osgood, D. W., & Peterson, C. (1979).
Cognitive structure: Theory and measurement of
individual differences. Washington, DC: Winston.
Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of
a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity
in Big Five personality predicts more negative
marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term
marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666 – 675.
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.666
Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic
relationships: Factors involved in relationship
stability and emotional distress. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683 – 692.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.683
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977).
Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On
the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
656 – 666. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization,
reunions, and stability in long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 24, 37 – 54. doi: 10.1177/0265407507
072578
Stafford, L., & Reske, (1990). Idealization and
communication in long-distance premarital rela-
tionships. Family Relations, 39, 274 – 279. doi:
10.2307/584871
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1984). The quest for accuracy in
person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psycho-
logical Review, 91, 457 – 477. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.91.4.457
Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G.
(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in
marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 857 – 869. doi: 10.
1037/0022-3514.66.5.857
Tausch, N., Kenworthy, J. B., & Hewstone, M.
(2007). The confirmability and disconfirmability
of trait concepts revisited: Does content matter?
302
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
542 – 556. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.542
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and
well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
193 – 210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Thompson, S. C., & Kelley, H. H. (1981). Judg-
ments of responsibility for activities in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 469 – 477. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.41.3.469
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My
relationship is better than—and not as bad
Journal of Family Theory & Review
as—yours is: The perception of superiority in close
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 32 – 44. doi: 10.1177/01461672952
11005
Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex.
American Sociological Review, 2, 727 – 734. doi:
10.2307/2083825
Weisman, C. (2009). Serious doubts: Why people
marry when they know it won’t last. Charleston,
SC: BookSurge.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Prefer-
ences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
35, 151 – 175. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151