factors of attraction and relationship satisfaction_ the love-is
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
1/30
Te Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Honors Teses Division of Undergraduate Studies
2013
Factors of Araction and Relationship Satisfaction:Te Love-is-Blind Bias and Perceived Risk of
IndelityJeanie ShultsFlorida State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: hp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm
Tis Open Access Honors Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Division of Undergraduate Studies at DigiNole Commons. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Honors Teses by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contactlib-
Recommended CitationShults, Jeanie, "Factors of Araction and Relationship Satisfaction: Te Love-is-Blind Bias and Perceived Risk of Indelity" (2013).Honors Teses. Paper 205.hp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm/205
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/ugs?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm/205?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm/205?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/ugs?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/?utm_source=diginole.lib.fsu.edu%2Fuhm%2F205&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages -
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
2/30
Running head: LOVE IS BLIND
Abstract
Attraction and relationship satisfaction have been topics of increased investigation over the past
several decades (Yela & Sangrador, 2001; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Hall & Taylor, 1976). The
love-is-blind bias hypothesizes that individuals within fulfilling relationships exhibit the
phenomenon of rating their partners attractiveness higher than self-ratings of their own
attractiveness, a product of positive partner illusions (Swami & Furnham, 2008; Gagn, &
Lydon, 2004). Using the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) and novel measures for attraction
and perceived infidelity, this study applied the love-is-blind hypothesis against relationship
satisfaction and perceived risk of infidelity. The creation of two new subscales for measuring the
love-is-blind bias, self-perceived love-is-blind bias (SPB) and externally-perceived love-is-blind
bias (EPB) were instrumental in computations. Significant positive interactions between both
scales of the love-is-blind bias and both attraction, and relationship satisfaction were found.
Perceived risk of infidelity was negatively related to all positive scales. The findings suggest a
system of interactions among the love-is-blind bias, perceived risk of infidelity, relationship
satisfaction, and overall partner attraction. Preliminary analysis suggests perceived past infidelity
may also predict lessened relationship satisfaction in current relationships.
Keywords: attraction, infidelity, love-is-blind bias
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
3/30
LOVE IS BLIND
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES
FACTORS OF ATTRACTION AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION:
THE LOVE-IS-BLIND BIAS AND PERCEIVED RISK OF INFIDELITY
By
JEANIE SHULTS
A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Psychology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation
with Honors in the Major
Degree Awarded:
Spring, 2013
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
4/30
LOVE IS BLIND
The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Jeanie Shults, defended
on April 10, 2013.
______________________________
Dr. Kelley Knapp-Kline
Thesis Director
______________________________Dr. Thomas Kelley
Outside Committee Member
______________________________
Dr. Amy Polick
Committee Member
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
5/30
LOVE IS BLIND
This thesis is dedicated to my late father, who never treated me like a child,
but as a colleague-in-training. Rest in peace, Dad. I hope the angels up there
are pretty, the dogs are there to keep you company, and the Bears always win.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
6/30
LOVE IS BLINDFactors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction:
The Love-is-blind Bias and Perceived Risk of Infidelity
Intimate relationships satisfy more than basic biological prerogatives; those reporting rich
social lives exhibit higher levels of both psychological and physiological health, live longer and
are less likely to commit suicide than socially isolated individuals (House, Landis & Umberson,
1988). As such, a broad variety of research has been conducted on relationship factors, a large
part of which focuses upon the internal processes of romantic attachments. Mate-seeking
behaviors, a common topic of evolutionary psychologists, have been widely examined in the
literature (Barber, 1995; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss, 1989; Gangestad, 1993; Gitter, Lomranz &
Saxe, 1982). With rising percentages of non-traditional families and escalating rates of divorce,
the last several decades have also been marked by research investigating functions predicting
relationship satisfaction (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013; Funk &
Rogge, 2007; Hendrick, 1988; Meeks, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998). Conversely, evolutionary
psychology has also focused on the dark side of attraction and relationships: the processes
underlying infidelity and how it relates within the framework of human attraction (Buss &
Shackelford, 1997; Nannini & Meyers, 2000; Wilson, Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, & Bequette,
2011).
Love-is-blind bias
An interesting phenomenon reported in the human perception of attraction is that
individuals in committed relationships rate their partners attractiveness significantly higher than
their own (Swami & Furnham, 2008). This is known as the love-is-blind bias (Gagn, & Lydon,
2004; Swami, Furnham, Georgiades, & Pang, 2007). Past studies have found that both female
and male participants display the bias similarly, with little gender differences documented
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
7/30
LOVE IS BLIND(Swami, Stieger, Haubner, Voracek, & Furnham, 2009). As a tactic for relationship satisfaction
management, the love-is-blind bias may lead to higher levels of reported relationship
satisfaction. Physical attraction factors often scale similarly with other factors of stable
relationships such as intimacy, commitment, and passion (McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008; Yela
& Sangrador, 2001). Several researchers have suggested that the love-is-blind bias is less a
function of objective attractiveness rather than partner idealism, positive partner illusions, or
optimism bias (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008; Fowers, Lyons, Montel, & Shaked, 2001; van
Lange & Rusbult, 1995). Positive partner illusions, or the pattern of participants to rate partners
perceived attractiveness as greater than empirical measures of attractiveness, have been
associated with relationship satisfaction (Martz, Verette, Arriaga, Slovik, Cox, & Rusbult, 1998;
Murray & Holmes, 1993; Murray, 1999; Murray & Holmes, 1997, Yela & Sangrador, 2001).
These illusions have also been found to be related to greater short- and long-term measures of
relationship stability, self-perception, and self-esteem (Flannagan, Marsh & Fuhrman, 2005;
Taylor & Brown, 1988).
Infidelity
A simple scan of news media outlets and recent box-office hits reveal the pervasive
interest humanity has in infidelity. This isnt delegated only to the general public; in the past
decades, infidelity has grown as a popular subject within attraction studies and evolutionary
psychology (Buss, 1995; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; DeSteno, Bartlett,
Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1983). Infidelity is a
tremendously difficult subject to operationalize efficiently, with contrasting opinions existing on
the treatment of how to conduct infidelity research, what causes infidelity, why it occurs, and
even how infidelity is even defined (Blow & Hartnett, 2007). High levels of variance in past
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
8/30
LOVE IS BLINDresearch and a lack of cohesive literature suggest that little hard evidence exists to explain why
infidelity occurs and the factors that predict infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1992; Olson, Russell,
Higgins-Kessler, & Miller, 2002; Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, 1993; Weis & Jurich, 1995). Due
to the ethical implications of imposing empirical manipulations of infidelity, most research has
focused upon self-report data and the perception of infidelity. One classic experiment has
reported that women rate that partners emotional infidelity causes more distress than physical
infidelity, whereas males report significantly more distress over perceived physical infidelity
than emotional (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). Infidelity has only become
widespread as a topic of investigation in the past several decades, though humanity has certainly
anecdotally hypothesized reasons why infidelity occurs (Allen & Baucom, 2004; Atkins,
Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001; Buunk, 1987).
Measuring relationship satisfaction
Various measures of relationship satisfaction in use over the last several decades include
the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS), the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), the Couples
Satisfaction Index (CSI), the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), among others (Crane,
Middleton, & Bean, 2000; Funk & Rogge, 2007; Hendrick, 1988; Schumm, Nichols, Schectman,
& Grinsby, 1983; Spanier, 1976; Vaughn & Baier, 1999). Some inventories consist of hundreds
of questions in rather large question batteries, while others are short Likert-scaled questionnaires.
In this case, the amount and variety of inventories indicate the difficulty of assessing relationship
satisfaction (Graham, Diebels, & Barnow, 2011). The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) was
selected for use to evaluate relationship satisfaction due to the scales well-validated measure of
relationship satisfaction while being only seven questions in length.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
9/30
LOVE IS BLINDThe current research
The current study applied the love-is-blind hypothesis to perceived risk of infidelity, relationship
satisfaction, and self-reported measures of attraction. This study hypothesized that participants
will confirm the love-is-blind bias by rating partners as more attractive than themselves. It was
also expected that the love-is-blind bias will positively relate to relationship satisfaction and
negatively relate to perceived risk of infidelity. Finally, it was hypothesized that moderate love-
is-blind bias would predict higher relationship satisfaction and lower perceived risk of infidelity,
whereas high love-is-blind bias would predict lower relationship satisfaction and higher rates of
perceived risk of infidelity.
Method
Participants
Forty-five (45) undergraduates enrolled in psychology classes in at a university in the
southeast United States volunteered for this study. Seventeen of the forty-five respondents were
not currently in a committed relationship and only completed demographic variables and the
infidelity battery. The final sample, including single respondents, included 11 males and 34
females with a mean age of 26.89 years (SD = 8.67). One participant indicated a homosexual
preference, two bisexual, and the remaining 42 participants indicated that they were
heterosexual. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 52 years and included both traditional and
nontraditional students. A diverse population of races was represented within the sample, the
majority of which were Caucasian (68%); minorities represented include African-American
(12%), Hispanic (12%), American Indian/Native Alaskan (4%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (4%).
Of the sample, 15 participants (33.3%) reported being single, two in casual dating (4.4%), and 28
were within committed relationships (62.3%). All participants within the committed relationship
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
10/30
LOVE IS BLINDstatus indicated monogamy. The majority of participants cohabitate with partners (75%), while a
25% do not live together. Of the sample, more than 46% of participants had children and 54%
did not.
Measures
All participants completed a four-page questionnaire comprised of four subject areas,
presented in the following order:
DemographicsGeneral demographic questions such as gender, age, sexual orientation,
ethnicity and current relationship status were presented. Additionally, participants were asked to
report their relationship length if applicable, in years and months, as well as listing the ages of
any applicable children and if they currently resided with their parents.
Partner attractionNine questions were used to examine aspects of attraction (see
Appendix A). Each question required participants rating on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1=least,
9=most). Items including rating partner physical attractiveness, physical attractiveness of self,
and the extent to which they feel attracted to their partner physically, emotionally, and
intellectually were examined. A factor analysis was conducted to determine a single factor score
for attraction to partner as a subset of attraction/attractiveness scores. Three questions were
chosen for this scale to represent overall attraction (What is the extent to which you find yourself
attracted to your partner physically?, What is the extent to which you find yourself attracted to
your partner emotionally?, and What is the extent to which you find your partners personality
characteristics attractive?). A principle components analysis indicated that the measures were
valid (75.45% of the variance explained, with no factor loading less than .819). The factor score
for attraction to partner was computed by averaging the responses to those three items
(Cronbachs = .82).
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
11/30
LOVE IS BLINDRelationship satisfactionA modified version of theRelationship Assessment Scale
(Hendrick, 1998) was utilized in the third section of the questionnaire, wherein participants rated
factors of their current relationship. Scoring for the RAS was computed by taking the average of
the questions, how well does your partner meet your needs, how good is your relationship
compared to most, and to what extent has your relationship met your original expectations. A
factor analysis was completed to ensure validity (74.61% of the variance explained to a
minimum of .863 factor loading). Cronbachs coefficient for the modified RAS was .91.
InfidelityFour questions were used to examine participants histories with cheating,
perceived risk of partner infidelity, and likelihood of participant to cheat on their partner. An
unused item from the RAS (How often do you wish you hadnt gotten into this relationship)
was averaged with the rating of partners perceived likelihood to cheat. This stood as the
measure of perceived risk of infidelity (Cronbachs = .90).
In addition to the preceding four scales, two subscales were created from the attraction
scale. These subscales, self-perceived love-is-blind bias (SPB) and externally-perceived love-is-
blind bias (EPB), were used to assess the differences in the love-is-blind bias.
Self-perceived love-is-blind bias (SPB)This difference score was computed by
subtracting the rating ofHow would you rate your own physical attractivenessfromHow would
you rate your partners physical attractiveness.
Externally-perceived love-is-blind bias (EPB)This difference score was computed by
subtracting the rating ofHow do you feel others would rate your own physical attractiveness
fromHow do you feel others would rate your partners physical attractiveness. A factor analysis
of EPB and SPB revealed a significant load factor of .935 with 87% of variance explained
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
12/30
LOVE IS BLIND(Cronbachs = .852); a Pearsons correlation, calculated for redundancy, was additionally
found to be significant, r(28) = .748, p < .01.
Procedure
All participants were recruited at a nontraditional branch campus of Florida State
University from psychology classes; see Appendix B for sample consent form. No compensation
was provided upon completion of surveys. Due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, each
pen-and-paper survey was packaged in individual privacy folders. Three data collectors were
trained and given a written protocol for conducting the survey. This protocol included a script
statement involving the nature of the study, how to collect informed consent, and directions for
maximizing privacy and anonymity of participants. All participants provided informed consent
and were given contact information for voluntary debriefing (no usage of deception within this
study). Participants were given approximately fifteen minutes to finish the survey. At the end of
the survey, participants returned completed surveys within privacy folder in a different location
from the written informed consent sheet.
Results
Three forms of data analyses were used to analyze the dataset: paired t-tests, Pearsons r-
correlation coefficient, and analyses of variance (ANOVA). Two types of analyses were
performed to test the first hypothesis to confirm the existence of the love-is-blind bias.
Paired subject t-test
To analyze the relationship between attractiveness ratings, paired t-tests were conducted
in three permutations. Self-ratings versus partner-ratings, and partner-ratings versus evaluation of
external partner ratings did not yield significant data. However, significance was found when
comparing evaluation of external partner attractiveness to evaluation of external self-
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
13/30
LOVE IS BLINDattractiveness, t(27) = 3.936,p < .001. Evaluation of external partner attractiveness received
higher ratings than evaluation of external self-attractiveness, confirming the love-is-blind bias.
This is consistent with past studies findings that found that participants rate their own
attractiveness systematically lower than their own attractiveness (Swami & Furnham, 2008).
Correlations
Pearsons correlation coefficients were calculated among the following variables: EPB,
SPB, perceived risk of infidelity, general partner attraction, and relationship satisfaction. The
results of this test are available in Table 1. These results indicate statistically significant
associations between attraction and satisfaction, r(28) = .732,p < .01; attraction and perceived
risk of infidelity, r(28) = -.608,p
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
14/30
LOVE IS BLINDattraction, satisfaction, or perceived risk of infidelity. However, SPB was found to have a
significant effect upon satisfaction, F(1, 24) = 4.874,p< .05. Additional analyses were
performed to assess the impact of gender differences on various scales. No significant
differences were found in any of the three main measures and gender, indicating that males and
females respond similarly across attraction, F(1, 26) = 1.642,p >.05; satisfaction, F(1, 26) =
1.540,p >.05; and perceived risk of infidelity, F(1, 26) = 2.130,p >.05. To further assess the
relevance of infidelity, a 2x2 ANOVA using dichotomous measures of cheating (history of
cheating X participant likelihood of cheating) was conducted on relationship satisfaction, also
leading to a lack of significant data, F(1, 26) = 2.400,p > .05, suggesting that history of cheating
or probability of self-infidelity in the future does not predict satisfaction. However, interactions
were found when analyzing perceived partner infidelity in current or past relationships against
the general attraction scale, F(1, 26) = 7.501,p < .05, suggesting that participants are more
concerned with partners infidelity than their own.This assumption is supported by the further
findings of a statistically significant main effect between participants level of emotional
attraction to partner and perceived partner infidelity, F(1, 26) = 10.103,p < .05. These two
analyses indicate that if you believe your partner has cheated on you or is likely to cheat on you,
you have lessened emotional attraction and decreased relationship satisfaction.
Discussion
The results of this study support the findings of previous research confirming the love-is-
blind bias. Over 80% of the population surveyed fit the expected pattern. The remaining 19%
included 11% who indicated that they were in fact more physically attractive than their partners,
with the remaining eight percent rating their partners equally as attractive as themselves. This
bias does not seem to be mediated or moderated by age, gender, relationship length, or history of
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
15/30
LOVE IS BLINDinfidelity. There do seem to be significant associations between the two separate measures of the
love-is-blind bias (EPB and SPB), as well as associations with attraction, relationship
satisfaction, and perceived risk of infidelity. Measures of attraction, satisfaction, and infidelity
were also all correlated (see Table 1). One point of interest is that high rates of relationship
satisfaction and attraction were reported with very low perceived risk of infidelity. These rates
are less than the reported average of cheating (Blow & Hartnett, 2007), and may be explained by
optimism bias: that is, that individuals have unrealistic expectations of positive outcomes.
Alternatively, the general pattern of high relationship satisfaction (M=8.129, SD=1.061) and
attraction (M=8.024, SD=.956) versus low perceived risk of infidelity (M=1.929, SD=1.676) may
be explained by impression management, or the tendency to report more positively to meet
expectations.
The self-evaluative and externally-evaluative subscores used to compute the love-is-blind
bias may offer insight into future directions on how to measure the love-is-blind bias. Self-
evaluative love-is-blind bias was computed as a difference score calculated by deductingHow
would you rate your own physical attractiveness? fromHow would you rate your partners
physical attractiveness?. The results from that scale (M=2.21, SD=2.13) follow previous findings
about the love-is-blind bias in that participants readily and systematically rated partners higher in
attractiveness than themselves (Swami et al., 2009). The second difference score for external-
evaluative love is blind bias was calculated by deductingHow do you feel others would rate your
own physical attractiveness? fromHow do you feel others would rate your partners physical
attractiveness?. The results of this score (M=1.39, SD=1.87) differed from the self-evaluative
score in 64% of the population. In some individual cases, EPB and SPB differed considerably.
While self-evaluative and externally-evaluative scores yielded a significant correlation, there
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
16/30
LOVE IS BLINDmay be patterns of difference between them. This suggests that research is merited within
examining the difference between how an individual perceives attractiveness versus how they
believe the rest of the world perceives attractiveness.
The results from the Pearsons correlation test may be viewed in Table 1. The specific
lack of significance between attraction scores and both love-is-blind scores indicates that feeling
attracted to ones partner does not necessarily require an inflated perception of that partners
physical attractiveness. Due to the small sample size, the lack of significance is suggested as a
preliminary result. It may be the case that with larger sample sizes, the lack of interaction will
prove insightful to the relationship between attraction and physical attractiveness.
Measures of attraction were statistically significantly correlated with relationship
satisfaction, such as that the more attractive you perceive your partner to be, the more satisfied
you are with your relationship. These scores negatively correlate with perceived risk of
infidelity, indicating that participants that were high in attraction and satisfaction perceived to be
at a lower risk of partner infidelity. This is supported by the strongest correlation of all assessed,
the relationship between perceived risk of infidelity and satisfaction, r(28) = -.825.
A large confirmation of the love-is-blind bias may lie within the rejection of the novel
EPB scale in terms of the ANOVAs performed. As EPB measures the perception of the
participants objective rating of attractiveness, it may simply be confirmation that self-rated
attractiveness is more pertinent to the proposed bias. Therefore, individuals may remain
conscious of the fact that they view their partner more favorably than the rest of the world would.
In contrast to the lack of significant ratings of EPB, SPB did significantly interact with
satisfaction. Higher rates of either SPB and EPB did not, however, support the hypotheses
projected after confirmation of the love-is-blind bias; that is, moderate love-is-blind bias did not
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
17/30
LOVE IS BLINDcorrelate or predict lessened relationship satisfaction or heightened perception of infidelity.
Instead, the love-is-blind bias appears to have a strong positive correlation with satisfaction
without diminishing returns at the highest levels.
The findings of this study, while significant, merit further investigation. Shortcomings of
the study such as the small sample size (N=45), underrepresentation of males, remain valid
criticisms of resulting statistical analyses. As a pilot study for a new method of measuring the
love-is-blind bias, the results suggest that future efforts may find systematic differences between
EPB and SPB. Future applications may include replication across a larger population, or with
extensions such as using matched dyads in committed relationships. Another validating factor
that could be added to future studies would be to control for objective attractiveness by rating
matched dyads and comparing objective measures to self-reported ratings.
In conclusion, the present study increases the body of work performed on the love-is-
blind bias by confirming the bias and introducing new methods of measurement. It also indicates
that future directions of love-is-blind researchers may include controlling for objective
attractiveness, and examining the influence of undue optimism on the love-is-blind hypothesis.
Optimism bias could be a third variable to explain both higher ratings of attractiveness and low
perceived risk of infidelity and could prove to be an interesting body of future work. The
confirmation of the love-is-blind bias remains a challenge to previous bodies of work regarding
the tendency of individuals to self-inflate personal attributes in the presence of social
comparisons (Brown, 1986; Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976). Another contrast is the negative
correlation between partner attractiveness and perceived risk of infidelity. This tendency of high
partner attractiveness ratings and low perceived risk of infidelity defies many prior studies which
indicate that high rates of physical attractiveness are a risk factor for infidelity (Buss,
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
18/30
LOVE IS BLINDShackelford, Kirkpatrick, Choe, Lim, Hasegawa, Hasegawa, & Bennett, 1999; Harris, 2003;
Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). The previous assumption that partners with high attractiveness are
more likely to take part in extra-relationship affairs, when contrasted with the findings of the
current study, provide implications for future avenues of research.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
19/30
LOVE IS BLINDReferences
Allen, E., & Baucom, D. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement.
Family Process, 43, 467488.
Atkins, D., Baucom, D., & Jacobson, N. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a
national random sample.Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735749.
Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and
human morphology.Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(5), 395-424.
Barelds-Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D.P.H. (2008). Positive illusions about ones partners physical
attractiveness.Body Image, 5, 99108.
Blow, A., & Hartnett, K. (2007). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological
review.Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 31(2), 183-216.
Brown, J.D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments.
Social Cognition, 4, 353376.
Buss, D. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science.
Psychological Inquiry, 6, 130.
Buss, D. (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.
Buss, D., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251-255.
Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage.
Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 193-221.
Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., Choe, J., Lim, H., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., &
Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
20/30
LOVE IS BLINDhypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal
Relationships, 6, 125150.
Buss, D., Schmitt, D. (1993) Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human
mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204232.
Buunk, B. (1987). Conditions that promote breakups as a consequence of
extradyadic involvements.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 271284.
Buunk, B., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in
evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the
United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359363.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). National marriage and divorce rate trends.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
Crane, D., Middleton, K., & Bean, R. (2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Marital
Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 28(1), 572-583.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement?Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 11031116.
Flannagan, D., Marsh, D., & Fuhrman, R. (2005). Judgments about the hypothetical behaviors of
friends and romantic partners.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6),
797-815.
Fowers, B.J., Lyons, E.M., Montel, K.H., & Shaked, N. (2001). Positive illusions about marriage
among married and single individuals.Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 95109
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
21/30
LOVE IS BLINDFunk, J., & Rogge, R. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision
of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index.Journal
of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583.
Gagn, F. & Lydon, J. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322338.
Gangestad, S. (1993) Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: implications for mating
dynamics.Human Nature, 4, 205235.
Gitter, A., Lomranz, J., & Saxe, L. (1982) Factors affecting perceived attractiveness of male
physiques by American and Israeli students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118,
167175.
Glass, S., Wright, T. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association
between attitudes, behaviors, and gender.Journal of Sex Research, 29, 361387.
Graham, J., Diebels, K., & Barnow, Z. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A
reliability generalization meta-analysis.Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 39-48.
Hall, J., & Taylor, S.E. (1976). When love is blind: Maintaining idealized images of ones
spouse.Human Relations, 29, 751761.
Harris, C. (2003). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An
examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319329.
Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50(1), 93-98.
House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,
241(4865) 540-545.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
22/30
LOVE IS BLINDMartz, J.M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X.B., Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L., & Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive
illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159181.
McNulty, J., Neff, L., & Karney, B. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in
newlywed marriage.Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1),135-143.
Meeks, B., Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love and relationship
satisfaction.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 755-773.
Murray, S.L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships.
Psychological Inquiry, 10, 2334.
Murray, S.L., & Holmes, J.G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation
on interpersonal narratives in close relationships.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 707722.
Murray, S.L., & Holmes, J.G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586604.
Nannini, D., & Meyers, L. (2000). Jealousy in sexual and emotional infidelity: An alternative to
the evolutionary explanation.Journal of Sex Research, 37(2), 117-122.
Olson, M., Russell, C., Higgins-Kessler, M., & Miller, R. (2002). Emotional processes following
disclosure of an extramarital infidelity.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28,
423434.
Prins, K., Buunk, B., & VanYperen, N. (1993). Equity, normative disapproval, and extramarital
relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 3953.
Schumm, W., Nichols, C., Schectman, K., & Grinsby, C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to
the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological
Reports,53,567572.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
23/30
LOVE IS BLINDSpanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15-28.
Spanier, G. & Margolis, R. (1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior.Journal
of Sex Research, 19, 2348.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Is love really so blind? The Psychologist, 21, 108111
Swami, V., Furnham, A., Georgiades, C., & Pang., L. (2007). Evaluating self and partner
physical attractiveness.Body Image, 4(1), 97-101.
Swami, V., Stieger, S., Haubner, T., Voracek, M., & Furnham, A. (2009). Evaluating the
physical attractiveness of oneself and ones romantic partner: Individual and relationship
correlates of the love-is-blind bias.Journal of Individual Differences, 30(1), 35-43.
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2),193-210.
Taylor, S.E., & Koivumaki, J.H. (1976). The perception of self and others: Acquaintanceship,
affect, and actor-observer differences.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33(4), 403408.
Thompson, A. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature.Journal of Sex
Research, 19, 122.
van Lange, P., & Rusbult, C. (1995). My relationship is better than and not as bad as yours
is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(1),32-44.
Vaughn, M. & Baier, M. (1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment scale. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(3), 137-1474.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
24/30
LOVE IS BLINDWeis, D. & Jurich, J. (1985). Size of community of residence as a predictor of attitudes toward
extramarital sexual relations.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 173178.
Wiederman, M., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy: Investigation with a sample
from Sweden.Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 121128.
Wilson, K., Mattingly, B., Clark, E.,Weidler, D., & Bequette, A. (2011). The gray area:
Exploring attitudes towards infidelity and the development of the perceptions of dating
infidelity scale.Journal of Social Psychology, 151(1), 63-86.
Yela, C., & Sangrador, J. (2001). Perception of physical attractiveness throughout loving
relationships. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(5),57-75.
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
25/30
LOVE IS BLINDAppendix A
Attraction and Satisfaction Questionnaire
Please DO NOT write your name on this form.
1. Please indicate your gender.o Male
o Female
2. Please indicate your age.
_____ years
3. Please indicate your sexual orientation.
o Heterosexual
o Homosexualo Bisexual
4. What is your ethnicity?
o Caucasian
o African American
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o American Indian/Native Alaskan
o Hispanic
o Other: _____________
5. Please indicate your current relationship status.
o Single
o Casual Dating
o Committed relationship
If single or casual dating, please proceed to question 31.
6. Please indicate the length of your current relationship._____ years, _____ months
7. Is your current relationship monogamous (ie, you and your partner are exclusive)?
o Yes
o No
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
26/30
LOVE IS BLIND8. Do you and your partner currently live together?
o Yes
o No
9. Are you married to your partner?
o Yeso No
o Engaged
10. Do you and your partner have children?
o Yes; born of this relationship
o Yes; pre-existing from past relationships
o No
If no, proceed to question 12.
11. Do your children live at home?
o Yes
o No
12. Please list the ages of your youngest and oldest child(ren):
Youngest: ____ years, _____ months; Oldest: _____ years, ______ months
13. How did you meet your partner?
o Work
o Social event (in person)
o Mutual friends
o Online dating site
o Other: ___________
Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 9, 1 being LEAST and 9 being
MOST.
14. How would you rate your partners physical attractiveness?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Least attractive Moderately attractive Very attractive
15. How do you feel others would rate your partners physical attractiveness?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attractive Moderately attractive Very attractive
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
27/30
LOVE IS BLIND16. How would you rate your own physical attractiveness?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attractive Moderately attractive Very attractive
17. How do you feel others would rate your own physical attractiveness?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attractive Moderately attractive Very attractive
18. What is the extent to which you find yourself attracted to your partner physically?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attracted Moderately attracted Very attracted
19. What do you feel is the extent to which your partner is attracted to you physically?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attracted Moderately attracted Very attracted
20. What is the extent to which you find yourself attracted to your partner emotionally?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attracted Moderately attracted Very attracted
21. What is the extent to which you find your partners personality characteristics attractive?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least attractive Moderately attractive Very attractive
22. How intellectually stimulating do you find your partner?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Least stimulating Moderately stimulating Very stimulating
23. How well does your partner meet your needs?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Not well Moderately well Very well
24. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not satisfied Moderately satisfied Very satisfied
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
28/30
LOVE IS BLIND25. How good is your relationship compared to most?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not good Moderately good Very good
26. How often do you wish you hadnt gotten into this relationship?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not often Moderately often Very often
27. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not well Moderately well Very well
28. How much do you love your partner?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not much Average Very much
29. How many problems are there in your relationship?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not many Average Very many
30. What do you feel the likelihood is of your partner cheating in your current relationship?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not likely Moderately likely Very likely
31. What do you feel the likelihood of you cheating on your partner is?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not likely Moderately likely Very likely
32. Do you feel that you have been cheated on, in this or past relationships?
o Yes
o No
33. Have you cheated on a partner in this or past relationships?
o Yes
o No
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
29/30
LOVE IS BLINDAppendix B
Informed Consent Sheet
STUDENT CONSENT FORMFor the Research Study Entitled
The Relationship between Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction
You are invited to participate in a research study aimed at investigating the relationship betweenpartner attraction and relationship satisfaction. We hope to learn more about the significance of
attraction in long-term relationships via this research.
This survey has been developed to gain information regarding particulars of attraction, bothphysical and emotional, and relationship satisfaction. We understand that the content of the
survey is personal and sensitive; however, it is very important to answer the questions in the
survey as honestly as posSPBle. To protect the potential risk of a breach of confidentiality, allinformation that you provide will remain completely anonymous to the extent allowed by law.
Moreover, any data you provide will not be identifiable to you.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a short questionnaire. Your
participation will require approximately 10 to 15 minutes of your time. You may withdraw from
participation at any time, without penalty; however, after your data have been collected, you will
be unable to withdraw your data because there will be no way to identify your individualinformation.
Your decision whether to participate will not jeopardize your future relations with Florida StateUniversity or the Psychology Department at Florida State University. Information collected
through your participation may be published in a professional journal, and/or presented at a
professional conference or meeting.
If you have any questions, we invite you to ask them now. If you have questions later, you may
contact the student researcher Beth Shults at [email protected] Professor Kelley Kline [email protected] 850-770-2252. Both will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
For more information regarding your rights as a research participant you may contact the FSU
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 850-644-8633 or you may access their website at
http://www.fsu.research.edu.
Please print your name and sign below if you give consent to participate in this study.
Your name: ________________________
Your signature ___________________________ Date _____________
-
8/13/2019 Factors of Attraction and Relationship Satisfaction_ the Love-Is
30/30
LOVE IS BLINDTables
Table 1. Correlations between the love-is-blind bias and supplemental scales
2 3 4 5
1. SPB bias .748** .349 -.405* .511**2. EPB bias .319 -.357 .413*
3. Attraction -.608** .732**4. Perceived Risk of Infidelity -.825**
5. Modified Relationship Assessment Scale
Note: *p