Content uploaded by Maria Nicoleta Turliuc
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Nicoleta Turliuc on Jun 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Iulia‑Diana Preotu1, Maria Nicoleta Turliuc2
Similarity, communication,
and satisfaction in intimate relationships:
The role of ideal standards
Abstract: Recent research and theory suggest that people use ideal standards (organized around
five major dimensions: warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, status/resource, intimacy
loyalty, and passion) to evaluate their intimate partner and relationships. Guided by the ideal standards
model (Simpson, Fletcher & Campbell, 2001), we examined actor and partner effects of perceived
ideal similarity and communication of ideals on relationship satisfaction, using the actor‑partner
interdependence model (APIM and APIMeM) and data from a sample of 100 couples. The results
indicated that perceived ideal similarity predicted the individual’s own relationship satisfaction (all
dimensions), and the relationship satisfaction of his or her partner (four dimensions: warmth/
trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, status/resources, and passion). In the case of communication
of ideals, the partner effect was statistically significant for all dimensions, while the actor effect
was significant for three dimensions: status/resources, intimacy/loyalty, and passion. Moreover, we
tested whether communication of ideals mediate the effect of perceived ideal similarity on relationship
satisfaction. We found support for the full mediation hypothesis for the warmth/trustworthiness and
status/resources dimensions.
Keywords: similarity, communication, relationship satisfaction, ideal standards, actor‑partner
interdependence model
In dyadic data analysis we assume data interdependence, due to the fact, that in a close
relationship, partners influence each other’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. This idea
is underlined in Ideals Standards Model (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy & Fletcher, 2001;
Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas & Giles, 1999; Simpson, Fletcher & Campbell, 2001), which
analyse the content and functions of partner and relationship ideals in intimate relationships.
Campbell, Overall, Rubin and Lackenbauer (2013) found that people are more satisfied not
only when they perceive their partners as closely matching their own ideal standards (an
actor effect), but also when they match the ideal standards held by their partner (a partner
effect). Guided by the ideal standards model (Simpson et al., 2001), we examined actor
and partner effects of perceived ideal similarity and communication of ideals on relationship
satisfaction. Firstly, we assessed the relationship between similarity of ideals and relationship
satisfaction, using the Actor‑Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), and secondly we
1. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania, iulia_diana_pps@yahoo.com.
2. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania, turliuc@uaic.ro.
Psihologia Socială, nr. 35 (I)/2015, pp. 109‑122
110 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
assessed to what extent the communication of ideals mediated the relationship between
perceived ideal similarity and relationship satisfaction, using the actor‑partner interdepen‑
dence mediation model (APIMeM).
The structure, content and roles of ideal standards
The Ideals Standards Model explains how perceived discrepancies between ideals and
perceptions of one’s current partner or relationship can have different consequences,
depending on which of two motivating forces is active: the need to see the partner or
relationship positively, or the need to be accurate. According to Fletcher and his colleagues
(1999, p. 72), “partner and relationship ideals will include chronically accessible knowledge
structures that are likely to predate – and be causally related to – judgements and decisions
made in ongoing relationships”. These ideals involve three interrelated components:
perceptions of the self, the partner, and the relationship (Fletcher & Simpson, 2000), and
are likely to overlap, because people should prefer ideal partners who can help them achieve
their ideal relationship (Simpson et al., 2001). Fletcher et al. (1999) developed and validated
a set of scales that measure ideal partner and ideal relationship in romantic relationships.
Partner ideals are centred on three dimensions (warmth‑trustworthiness, vitality‑attractiveness,
and status‑resources), while relationship ideals are centred on two dimensions which parallel
the first two factors from partner ideals: intimacy‑loyalty and passion.
According to the Ideal Standards Model, the relationship/partner ideals should serve
three basic roles: (a) estimate and evaluate the quality of their partners and relationships;
(b) explain what happens in relationships; and (c) regulate and make adjustment in relationships
(Campbell et al., 2001). Some predictions derived from these functions have been empirically
tested and offered support for the model. For example, Fletcher and his colleagues (1999)
found that people who thought their partner/relationship matched their ideal reported more
positive evaluation concerning their partner/relationship. Fletcher & Simpson (2000) found
that higher ideal‑perception consistency was associated with more positive relationship
quality and predicted lower rates of relationship dissolution (although mediated through
perception of relationship satisfaction). Campbell et al. (2001) found that, the higher
individuals rate themselves on each ideal dimension, the higher and less flexible their ideals
are, and the more they partners meet their ideals, the higher relationship quality they perceive
having. Also, Overall, Fletcher & Simpson (2006) reported that greater regulation attempts
were associated with ideal‑perception consistency and ideal‑perception consistency mediated
the relation between partner regulation and relationship quality. More recently, Lackenbauer &
Campbell (2012) demonstrated that perceiving one’s partner to be the source of a partner
discrepancy was associated with dejection emotions, whereas perceiving oneself to be the
source of the partner discrepancy was associated with agitation emotions.
Similarity and satisfaction
For many people, romantic relationships represent a central component in their lives. Thus,
researchers have long been interested in the characteristics individuals value most in a mate
and the factors that contribute to relationship satisfaction. For example, several studies have
shown that men, more than women, highly value a potential mate’s physical attractiveness
(Sprecher, Sullivan & Hatfield, 1994), and earning potential was found to be more important
111
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
for women than for men (Buss & Barnes, 1986). Concerning the issue of mate preferences,
two theories have been presented: the “similarity‑attraction hypothesis” and the “comple‑
mentarity hypothesis”. According to the first hypothesis, the more similar two individuals
are, the higher the attraction between them will be (Byrne, 1971). According to the second
hypothesis, individuals feel most attracted to potential partners who complement them, an
assumption that reflects the saying that “opposites attract” (e.g. Antill, 1983).
Studies in the field of mate selection found more support for the “similarity‑attraction
hypothesis”, meaning that individuals choose similar partners in personality, attitudes,
physical appearance (Botwin, Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Humbad, Donnellan, Iacono,
McGue & Burt, 2010), and values (Burleson & Denton, 1992; Byrne, 1971). Several studies
have shown that similarity in personality predicts greater relationship satisfaction (Acitelli,
Kenny & Weiner, 2001; Russell & Wells, 1991). Similarity also predicts initial attraction
(Klohnen & Luo, 2003) and is associated with reduced risk of conflict and disagreement
(Rusbult, Kumashiro & Kubacka, 2009); perceiving a partner to be more similar to oneself
than they really are relates to increased feelings of being understood in a relationship and
relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin & Dolderman, 2002).
Focusing on romantic ideals, Markey and Markey (2007) found, investigating three
different models of mating (Carson’s model of complementarity, Higgins’s model of
complementarity, and the model of similarity), that only the similarity model accurately
described the personalities participants tended to find romantically desirable. Also, couples
that were more similar in terms of warmth and dissimilar in terms of dominance were the
ones that reported higher levels of relationship quality. Examining the importance of
similarity of marital ideals to relationship satisfaction, Acitelli et al. (2001) found that men
and women do not differ with regard to what they thought was important to a marriage,
although they differ with respect to what they though their partner thought was important
to a marriage. Men though the difference between them and their partners was the “doing
thing toghether” dimension whereas women though the difference between them and their
partners was “being sexually satisfied”. Another result reveals that similarity relates to the
length of the relationship and satisfaction. Although these studies show that similarity of
ideals facilitates a relationship’s functioning and satisfaction, they failed to take into account
both partners. Also, they did not take into account the five ideal dimensions described by
Fletcher et al. (1999). Accordingly, one aim of the present study is to assess the relationship
between similarity of ideals and relationship satisfaction using the Ideal Standards Model
framework and the Actor‑Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), taking into account both
actor and partner ratings.
Communication and satisfaction
Couples’ communication has been extensively examined as a predictor of relationship
satisfaction. Several researchers (e.g., Carrere & Gottman, 1999) have identified effective
communication between partners as a vital component of overall relationship satisfaction.
Self‑disclosure, or the willingness to be open about oneself when communicating with one’s
partner, is also associated with relationship satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005) and people
use it to develop and maintain relationships (Cannary et al., 1993).
Communication about topics like sex (Montesi, Fauber, Gordon & Heimberg, 2011),
positive events (Gable, Gonzaga & Strachmann, 2006), and emotions (Lippert & Prager,
2001), leads to more positive relationship outcomes, as relationship satisfaction, well‑being,
11 2 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
intimacyetc. Also, it is very important for partners to have a “common language”, to develop
a shared reality that could be central to relationship adjustment (Lewis & Spanier, 1979,
Sillars & Scott, 1983). It follows that, on important issues, consensus between partners
should be very important. According to Fletcher et al. (1999), ideals standards play a very
important role in evaluating and regulating people’s relationships, based on the consistency
between ideals and perceptions. As a consequence, individuals should be motivated to
maximize the consistency between ideals and perception. Given the important roles ideal
standards play, we expect partner to communicate about them in their ongoing relationships
in order to develop a shared reality and to evaluate the regulatory behaviors needed to
improve/change the partner/relationship.
However, to date, no study has been interested in the process of revealing one’s ideal
standards to the romantic partner and its consequences on relationship outcomes. For
example, Overall, Fletcher, Simpson & Sibley (2009) have shown that direct communication
strategies (positive and negative) were perceived as less successful in changing the target,
whereas positive‑indirect strategies were perceived as having more success. Surprisingly,
the reverse was true when the authors analysed the effects of the strategies used by both
agents and the targets in the next 12 months: direct strategies produced greater changes in
the target (as perceived by both the agent and the target) whereas indirect strategies produces
little change. Although testing the regulation assumption from the ISM, the authors were
not interested in the process of communicating about partner/relationship ideals and how
this affects relationship satisfaction.
Campbell and his colleagues (2013) illustrate that individuals generate relatively accurate
inferences regarding their partner’s evaluations along key mate evaluation dimensions and
that accurate inferences are generated via the partner’s behavior exhibited within contexts
that increase the importance of accurate assessment of their partner’s evaluation. However,
there are likely other contexts in which the motive for accuracy is trumped by the motive
to maintain self‑esteem, such as in the early stages of relationships or during more routine
interactions. Other factors outside the individual are also likely to enhance or impede
accuracy, such as the partner’s engaging more direct communication versus concealing his
or her negative evaluations (Overall et al., 2009).
Studies have asked participants to decide whether or not their partner matched their
ideals (Campbell et al., 2001; Eastwick and Neff, 2012) or, after a short discussion, to
choose if they wanted to pursue a possible relationship based on how closely they think
their discussion partner meets their ideal (Eastwick and Finkel, 2008; Fletcher, Kerr, Li, &
Valentine, 2014), without actually talking about them. To our knowledge, studies have not
been interested in the process of revealing one’s ideals about partners/relationships and its
contribution to relationship satisfaction.As a consequence, we asked participants to rate the
extent to which they communicate about their ideals in order to determine whether or not
revealing such information contributes to relationship satisfaction.
The mediating role of communication
Communication does not only affect relationship satisfaction, but it may also act as a
mediator between similarity and satisfaction. With regard to the relationship between
similarity and communication, theory and research suggest that one recurrent motive for
disclosing personal information is similarity or having something in common (Derlega,
Anderson, Winstead & Greene, 2011). Also, according to Morry, Kito & Ortiz (2011),
perceived similarity should predict feeling of being understood and validated by one’s partner
11 3
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
as this similarity would allow the partner to predict and react accordingly to one’s needs,
beliefs, and so on. That is, individuals feel attracted to similar others perhaps because they
provide consensual validation (e.g. Byrne, 1971) and indirectly confirms that they are correct
in their thinking (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Similarity of ideal standards should have a similar
effect. That is, greater perceived similarity between the self and partner should predict
greater feelings of being understood and validated by one’s partner. Hence, people trust
their partner would share their beliefs and are more likely to disclose their ideals. Another
aim of our study is to assess to what extent the communication of ideals mediated the
relationship between perceived ideal similarity and relationship satisfaction using the
actor‑partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM).
Method
• Participants. Participants were 100 couples involved in dating relationships for at least
one year. All participants were required to have been dating their partners for at least
3 months. The mean age of the sample was 24.69 (SD= 15.94 years). The average
lenghts of the relationship was 2.66 years for men (SD = 1.26) and 3.42 for women
(SD = 1.30).
• Procedure. The participants were informed that the study was about ideal standards that
people hold about partners and relationships. All participants completed several scales
(individually) and were advised to pay attention to the requirements of the questionnaires
(as some items will be the same, unlike the requirements).
• Scales. Each participant reported their age, gender, relationship status and length of
their current relationship. Then we assessed the following variables using the mentioned
scales.
• Ideal similarity. Using the Partner and Relationship Ideals Scales (Fletcher et al., 1999)
participants were asked to rate each item in terms of “how similar do you think your
and your partners’ ideals are”, using a 5‑point Likert‑type scale ranging from 1 (very
similar) to 5 (very dissimilar). The alpha reliability for ideal similarity was .80 for men
and .83 for women.
• Communication of ideals. Using the same scales, Partner and Relationship Ideals Scales
(Fletcher et al., 1999), participants assessed the degree of communication concerning
ideals standards they hold about their partners/relationship. Their responses were rated
on 5‑point Likert‑type scales (1 = we don’t discuss at all, 5 = we discuss very much).
The alpha reliability for communication of idealswas .79 for men and .81 for women.
• Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the dyadic satisfaction subscale of the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale – DAS (Spanier, 1976). The components of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale are considered to be (a) consensus regarding important aspects of
marital functio ning, (b) dyadic satisfaction, (c) dyadic cohesion, and (d) expressing
affection. The alpha reliability for dyadic satisfaction dimension was .81 for men and
.85 for women.
Results
The descriptive analysiswithpaired t tests revealed only two sex differences. In the case of
perceived similarity on the passion dimension, men scored higher than women (t = –2.70;
p < 0.05), and women showed higher scores on relationship satisfaction (t = 2.17, p < 0.05).
11 4 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
a) Actor and Partner Effects. The Actor‑Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) was
used to predict relationship satisfaction separately for each ideal dimension. The APIM
(Kashy & Kenny, 1999; Kenny, 1996) is a model of dyadic relationships that integrates a
conceptual view of interdependence in two person relationships. The basic model(shown in
Figure 1) includes two predictor variables (i.e., similarity/communication of ideals of the
male and female partner) and two outcome variables (i.e., relationship satisfaction of the
male and female partner). The relations between the variables are specified as actor effects,
partner effects, and covariance. The actor effects, a1 and a2, represent the effect of each
partner’s similarity/communication of ideals on his or her own relationship satisfaction.
The partner effects, p1 and p2, represent the effect of each person’s similarity/communication
of ideals on his or her partner’s relationship satisfaction. To distinguish partner effects, we
label the effects by referring to the dyad member of the outcome variable (Ledermann,
Macho & Kenny, 2011). Finally, the model includes a covariance between the predictor
variables to account for systematic covariation of the partners’ self‑esteem and a covariance
between the residuals of the outcome variables to account for the part of systematic
covariation of the partners’ relationship satisfaction that is unexplained by the model.
Table 1. Test of gender differences in actor and partner effects of ideal similarity and
communication of ideals on relationship satisfaction
Dimension Chi square P
Similarity
Warmth/trustworthiness .06 .96
Vitality/attractiveness 2.22 .32
Status/resources .33 .84
Intimacy/loyalty .24 .88
Passion 1.15 .56
Communication
Warmth/trustworthiness . 61 .73
Vitality/attractiveness .21 .90
Status/resources 6.94 .03
Intimacy/loyalty 4.27 . 11
Passion 3.79 .15
Note: Gender differences in actor and partner effects were tested by comparing the fit of two
models, one that constrained the effects to be equal across male and female partners (Model A)
and another that freely estimated the effects (Model B), using the chi square test. For all tests,
dfA = 0 and dfB = 2.
The basic actor‑partner interdependence model is a saturated model (it has zero degrees
of freedom). Kenny and Ledermann (2010) recommend testing whether the actor and partner
effects can be set equal across partners (which provides two degrees of freedom); if the
constrained model does not fit significantly worse than the unconstrained model, the
constrained model should be used. For all dimensions, cross‑partner equality constraints
did not significantly decrease model fit (Table 1). Moreover, the fit of the constrained
models was good. The GFI ranged from .96 to 1.00, the CFI ranged from .97 to 1.00, and
the RMSEA ranged from .000 to .09. Therefore, we used cross‑gender equality constraints
on actor and partner effects. Prior to the analysis, we standardized each variable in our
data set prior to the analysis, using the weighted mean and the pooled standard deviation
calculated across both men and women (Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006, p. 179).
11 5
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Figure 1. Actor‑partner interdependence model
Note: .1 and .2 denote whether the variable belongs to the female partner (1) or male partner
(2). a1 = actor effect for women; a2 = actor effect for men; p1 = partner effect from men
to women; p2 = partner effect from women to men.
In the case of ideal similarity (table 2 shows the estimates of actor and partner effects),
the actor effects were significant across all dimensions and ranged from .15 to .29. Across
four dimensions (warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, status/resources, and
passion), the partner effects were also significant and ranged from .15 to .40. In the case
of communication (table 2)of ideals, the actor effect was significant for the status/
resources, intimacy loyalty, and passion dimension, while the partner effect was significant
for all dimensions. To summarize, the results indicated that: 1) perceived ideal similarity
predicted the individual’s own relationship satisfaction (all dimensions) and the relationship
satisfaction of his or her partner (four dimensions), 2) communication of ideals predicted
the individual’s own relationship satisfaction on three dimensions (status/resources,
intimacy/loyalty, and passion) and the relationship satisfaction of his or her partner (all
five dimensions).
Table 2. Actor and partner effects of similarity/communication of ideals on relationship
satisfaction
Actor effects Partner effects
W M From W to M From M to W
Similarity
Warmth/trustworthiness .19* .19* .20* .21*
Vitality/attractiveness .18* .19* .26* .24*
Status/resources .15* .15* .34* .32*
Intimacy/loyalty .29* .28* .16 .15
Passion .25* .28* .18* .15*
Communication
Warmth/trustworthiness . 11 . 11 .39* .36*
Vitality/attractiveness .15 .14 .38* .40*
Status/resources .28* .27* .24* .27*
Intimacy/loyalty .17* .17* .31* .32*
Passion .22* .21* .26* .27*
Note: The table shows standardized coefficients. M = men, W = women.
* p < .05.
b) Assessing mediation. For the analyses of mediation, we used the actor‑partner
interdependence mediation model (Ledermann et al., 2011). Its structure is similar to the
actor‑partner interdependence model; however, in addition to two predictor and two outcome
variables, the actor‑partner interdependence mediation model includes two mediator variables
11 6 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
(i.e., one mediator for each of the partners). There are four effects that can be mediated:
the actor effect of the male partner, the actor effect of the female partner, and the two
partner effects. For each of these effects, there are two possible indirect effects. For example,
with regard to the male actor effect (e.g., the effect of perceived ideal similarity of the
male partner on his own relationship satisfaction), one of the indirect effects involves the
mediator of the male partner (e.g., communication of ideals; thus, this effect is also called
the actor‑actor indirect effect because it consists of two actor effects) and the other indirect
effect involves the mediator of the female partner (e.g., communication of ideals of the
female partner; thus, this effect is also called the partner‑partner indirect effect). Thus,
overall there are eight possible indirect effects.
As in the first part of the analyses, we tested whether the effects can be constrained
to be equal across gender (which would reduce the number of possible indirect effects
from eight to four). These constraints did not significantly decrease model fit for the
warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, status/resources, and passion dimensions
(table 3). The fit of the constrained models were good. The GFI ranged from .96 to 1.00,
the CFI ranged from .98 to 1.00, and the RMSEA ranged from .00 to .08. Therefore,
we examined the estimates of the models that included crossgender equality constraints
(Figure 2). For the intimacy/loyalty dimension, we tested the model without crossgender
equality constraints. The model fit was also poor and, therefore, we excluded it from the
analyses.
Figure 2. Actor‑partner interdependence mediation model of ideal similarity predicting
relationship satisfaction, with communication of ideals as the mediator variable
Note: .1 and .2 denote whether the variable belongs to the female partner (1) or male partner (2).
For the warmth/trustworthiness dimension, all effects were significant, with the exception
of the direct partner effect of perceived ideal similarity on relationship satisfaction. To test
for significance of the indirect effects, we estimated the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
The results showed that all of the four possible indirect effects were significant (see Table 4).
Thus, for all actor and partner effects, two parallel indirect effects emerged. Specifically,
perceived ideal similarity predicted relationship satisfaction for both partners through their
own communication of ideals (full mediation). Also, perceived ideal similarity of the male/
female partner predicted relationship satisfaction of the female/male partner through both
the male/female partner’s communication of ideals and the female/male partner’s commu‑
nication of ideals (partial mediation).
11 7
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Table 3. Test of gender differences in actor and partner effects in the models testing the
mediating role of communication of ideals between ideal similarity and relationship satisfaction
Dimension Chi square P
Warmth/trustworthiness 2.36 .88
Vitality/attractiveness 3.06 .80
Status/resources 10.67 .09
Intimacy/loyalty 15.52 .01
Passion 5.55 .47
Note: Gender differences in actor and partner effects were tested by comparing the fit of two
models, one that constrained the effects to be equal across male and female partners (Model A)
and another that freely estimated the effects (Model B), using the chi square test. For all tests,
dfA = 0 and dfB = 2.
For the status/resources dimension, all effects were significant, with the exception of
the direct actor effect of perceived ideal similarity on relationship satisfaction. The 95%
confidence intervals indicated that all of the four possible indirect effects were significant
(see Table 4). Thus, for all actor and partner effects, two parallel indirect effects emerged.
Specifically, perceived ideal similarity predicted relationship satisfaction for both partners
through own communication of ideals (partial mediation). Also, perceived ideal similarity
of the male (female) partner predicted relationship satisfaction of the female (male) partner
through both the male (female) partner’s communication of ideals and the female (male)
partner’s communication of ideals (full mediation).
For both the vitality/attractiveness and passiondimensions, there were 8 significant
effects: 4 actor and partner effects from similarity to communication, 2 actor effects from
similarity to satisfaction and 2 partner effects from communication to satisfaction. We again
estimated the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals and the results showed a significant indirect
partner effect: own perceived similarity of ideals predicted partner’s relationship satisfaction
through own communication of ideals.
Table 4. Indirect actor and partner effects of idealsimilarity on relationship satisfaction,
with communication of idealsas mediator
Indirect actor effects Indirect partner effects
Dimension actor‑actor partner‑partner actor‑partner partner‑actor
Warmth/trustworthiness .09* .09* .09* .10*
Vitality/attractiveness .08 .08 .15* .17*
Status/resources .11* .12* .10* .10*
Passion .09* .10* .09* .11*
Note: The table shows standardized coefficients. The significance of indirect effects was tested
using the bootstrapped bias‑corrected 95% CI.
* p < .05.
Discussion
Guided by ideal standards model, we examined actor and partner effects of perceived ideal
similarity and communication of ideals on relationship satisfaction, using the actor‑partner
interdependence model. The results indicated that, in the case of perceived ideal similarity,
11 8 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
the actor effects were statistically significant for both partners, on all five dimensions, while
the partner effect was significant only for four dimensions (intimacy/loyalty being the
exception). These results are consistent with other studies showing that similarity (of
personality, facial traits etc.) influences relationship satisfaction (Lutz‑Zois, Bradley, Mihalik &
Moorman‑Eavers, 2006) and the fact that ideal similarity (although not measured with the
ideal scales of Fletcher et al., 1999) has an influence on relationship satisfaction (Acitelli
et al., 2001; Markey & Markey, 2009). The present study extends on previous knowledge
by incorporating five ideal dimensions considered to be relevant from an evolutionary point
of view (warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, status/resources, intimacy/loyalty,
and passion) and by considering not only the influence of similarity on own relationship
satisfaction, but also on partner relationship satisfaction.
In the case of communication of ideals, the partner effect was statistically significant
for all dimensions, while the actor effect was significant for three dimensions: status/
resources, intimacy/loyalty, and passion. That is, perceived ideal similarity predicted the
individual’s own relationship satisfaction (all dimensions) and the relationship satisfaction
of his or her partner (four dimensions). Also, communication of ideals predicted partners’
relationship satisfaction on all ideal dimensions, while communicating about warmth/
trustworthiness, intimacy/loyalty, and passion predicted own satisfaction with the relationship.
These results are consistent with a long list of studies on communication has established
significant connections between this variable and relationship satisfaction on both members
of the dyad (Emmers‑Sommer, 2004; Gottman şi Krokoff, 1989). In other words, sharing
personal information regarding values, beliefs etc. leads to a better knowledge and understan‑
ding of partners. Campbell, Pink, and Stanton (2014) believe that an open discussion of
what partners like and do not like about each other can have positive long‑term effects as
partners become aware of each other’s needs, wants, and desires.
Moreover, we tested whether communication of ideals mediated the effect of perceived
ideal similarity on relationship satisfaction. For the warmth/trustworthiness and status/
resources dimensions we found evidence for full mediation, with all indirect effects
statistically significant. That is, an individual’s communication of ideals mediated the
relationship between own perceived ideal similarity and own and partner relationship
satisfaction. For the vitality/attractiveness and passion dimensions, results revealed that own
perceived similarity of ideals predicted partner’s relationship satisfaction through own
communication of ideals.When (and if) individuals express their dissatisfaction with their
relationship in an explicit way, or ask their partners to change, in the short term this may
create friction or negative feelings between partners; however, if the partners eventually
work their problems through, often via additional voice strategies, the result would be a
satisfied couple over time (Campbell et al., 2014).
Given the importance of accurately assessing the partner’s evaluations and the contribution
these inferences have to relationship satisfaction, Campbell and his colleagues (2013) believe
that isolating the contextual factors that shape these processes is a good direction for future
research.
Our research, in line with others (Campbell et al., 2001, Fletcher & Simpson, 2000,
Overall et al., 2006), emphasises the importance ideal standards play in evaluations about
ongoing relationships. While other research has focused on the importance congruence
between ideals and perception plays in relationship satisfaction, our focus was on similarity
and communication about ideals.
11 9
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Conclusions
The present research advances our understanding of how similarity and communication
influence relationship satisfaction, taking into consideration the romantic ideals of individuals,
raising, at the same time, many questions that need to be answered. Although we showed
that perceived ideal similarity influences relationship satisfaction, we do not know if people
screen potential candidates based on how closely their ideals match. For example, if a
person thinks passion is a very important component in a relationship, he or she might seek
someone who also deems this aspect as necessary. Our result showed that communication
of ideals affects judgements about relationship satisfaction, but we were not interested in
how these ideals are communicated to the partner. In the case of less attractive partners,
do people tell them what their ideal was prior to meeting them? Or, in the opposite case,
do people tell their partners they have much surpassed their ideals?
One limitation of the current research is that all of the data are cross‑sectional in nature.
Hence, it is not possible to draw causal inferences from the present studies. Experimental or
longitudinal research is needed to pinpoint the effects of ideal similarity and communication
on relationship satisfaction and to clarify the role that similarity and communication of
ideals play in relationship satisfaction over time.
Nonetheless, this research provides new insights into the role similarity and communication
of ideals play in ratings of relationship satisfaction. This study also addresses the need to
study how ideals function and change within their natural home—the dyadic relationship.
Investigating the role of ideal standards in close relationships is likely to increase our
understanding of both the structure and functions of relationship cognition.
Aknowledgements
This work was supported by the the European Social Fund in Romania, under the responsibility of
the Managing Authority for the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development
2007‑2013 [grant POSDRU/107/1.5/S/78342], offered to Iulia Diana Preotu.
Similaritate, comunicare şi satisfacţie în relaţiile intime.
Rolul standardelor ideale
Rezumat: Cercetările şi teoriile recente sugerează că oamenii folosesc standarde ideale (organizate
în jurul a cinci dimensiuni majore: căldură/încredere, vitalitate/atractivitate, status/resurse, intimitate/
loialitate şi pasiune) pentru a evalua relaţiile şi partenerii intimi. Ghidaţi de modelul standardelor
ideale (Simpson, Fletcher şi Campbell, 2001), am examinat efectele actor şi partener ale similarităţii
percepute a idealurilor şi comunicării cu privire la idealuri asupra satisfacţiei relaţionale, utilizând
modelul interdependenţă actor‑partener (APIM şi APIMeM) şi datele unui eşantion de 100 de
cupluri. Rezultatele au indicat că similaritatea percepută a idealurilor prezice propria satisfacţie
relaţională a individului (toate dimensiunile) şi satisfacţia relaţională a partenerului/partenerei (patru
dimensiuni: căldură/încredere, vitalitate/atractivitate, status/resurse şi pasiune). În cazul comunicării
cu privire la idealuri, efectul partener este semnificativ statistic pentru toate dimensiunile, în vreme
ce efectul actor este semnificativ pentru trei dimensiuni: status/resurse, intimitate/loialitate şi
pasiune. Mai mult, am testat în ce măsură comunicarea cu privire la idealuri mediază efectul
120 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
similarităţii percepute a idealurilor asupra satisfacţiei relaţionale. Am găsit suport pentru ipoteza
medierii complete pentru dimensiunile căldură/încredere şi status/resurse.
Cuvinte‑cheie: similaritate, comunicare, satisfacţie relaţională, standarde ideale, modelul inter‑
dependenţă actor‑partener
Similarité, communication et satisfaction dans les relations intimes:
Le rôle des standards idéaux
Résumé: Les dernières recherches et théories suggèrent que les gens utilisent des normes idéales
(organisées autour de cinq grandes dimensions : chaleur/confiance, vitalité/séduction, statut/
ressources, intimité/fidélité et passion) pour évaluer les relations et les partenaires intimes. Guidées
par le modèle des standards idéaux (Simpson, Fletcher et Campbell, 2001), nous avons examiné
les effets acteur et partenaire de la perception de similitude d'idéaux et de la communication sur
les idéaux sur la satisfaction relationnelle, en utilisant le modèle de l'interdépendance acteur‑partenaire
(APIM et APIMeM) et les informations sur un échantillon de 100 couples. Les résultats indiquent
que la similarité perçue des propres idéaux prédisent la satisfaction individuelle relationnelle (toutes
les dimensions) et la satisfaction relationnelle du partenaire (quatre dimensions : chaleur/confiance,
vitalité/séduction, statut/ressources et passion). En cas de la communication sur les idéaux, l'effet
partenaire est statistiquement significatif pour toutes les dimensions, tandis que l'effet acteur est
important pour les trois dimensions : statut/ressources, intimité/fidélité et passion. En outre, nous
avons testé dans quelle mesure la communication concernant les idéaux peut assurer la médiation
pour l`effet de similitude des idéaux sur la satisfaction relationnelle. Nous avons trouvé l'appui pour
l'hypothèse de la médiation complète pour les dimensions chaleur/confiance et statut/ressources.
Mots‑clés: similitude, communication, la satisfaction relationnelle, normes idéales, modèle de
l'interdépendance acteur‑partenaire
References
Acitelli, L., Kenny, D.A., Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of
partnes’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167‑185.
Antill, J.K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145‑155.
Botwin, M.D., Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: five
factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65 (1), 107‑136.
Burleson, B.R., Denton, W.H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction in marriage:
Similarities in social‑cognitive and communication skills as predictors of attraction and
satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 59, 268‑287.
Buss, D.M., Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50 (3), 559‑570.
Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Campbell, L., Pink, J.C., Stanton, S.C.E. (2014). Ideal mate standards and romantic relationships.
In M. Mikulincer, P.R. Shaver (eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology:
Vol. 3. Interpersonal Relations. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Campbell, L., Overall, N.C., Rubin, H., Lackenbauer, S.D. (2013). Inferring a partner’s ideal
discrepancies: Accuracy, projection, and the communicative role of interpersonal behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105 (2), 217‑233.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J.A., Kashy, D.A., Fletcher, G.J.O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and
flexibility in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (4), pp.
447‑462.
121
SIMILARITY, COMMUNICATION, AND SATISFACTION IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Carrere, S., Gottman, J.M., (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three
minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38(3), 293‑301.
Derlega, V.J., Anderson, S., Winstead, B.A., Greene, K. (2011). Positive disclosure among college
students: What do they talk about, to whom, and why? The Journal of Positive Psychology,
6 (2), 119‑130.
Eastwick, P.W. & Neff, L.A. (2012). Do ideal partner preferences predict divorce? A tale of two
metrics. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 667‑674.
Eastwick, P.W., Finkel, E.J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people
know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 245‑264.
Emmers‑Sommer, T. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on
intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3),
399‑411.
Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., 2000, Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and
functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102‑105.
Fletcher, G.J.O, Kerr, P.S.G., Li, N.P., Valentine, K.A. (2014). Predicting romantic interest and
decisions in the very early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 540‑550.
Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., Thomas, G., Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72‑89.
Gable, S.L., Gonzaga, G.C., Strachmann, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go
right? Supportive responses to pozitive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(5), 904‑917.
Gottman, J.M., Krokoff, L.J. (1989). Marital interactions and satisfaction: A longitudinal view.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47‑52.
Humbad, M.N., Donnellan, M.B., Iacono, W.G., McGue, M., Burt, S.A. (2010). Is spousal
similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(7), 827‑830.
Kashy, D.A., Kenny, D.A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H.T. Reis, C.M.
Judd (eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social Psychology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kenny, D.A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 13, 279‑294.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis, New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Kenny, D.A., Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the
actor‑partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359‑366.
Klohnen, E.C., Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive: Self
similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 706‑722.
Lackenbauer, S.D., Campbell, L. (2012). Measuring up: The unique emotional and regulatory
outcomes of different perceived partner‑ideal discrepancies in romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), pp. 472‑488.
Ledermann, T, Macho, S., Kenny, D.A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the
actor‑partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modelling, 18, 595‑612.
Lewis, R, Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In: W. Burr,
R. Hill, F. Nye, I. Reiss (eds.), Contemporary Theories about the Family, (vol. 2) (pp.
268‑294). NY: The Free Press.
Lippert, T., Prager, K.J. (2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal
Relationships, 8, 283‑298.
Lutz‑Zois, C.J., Bradley, A.C., Mihalik, J.L., Moorman‑Eavers, E.R. (2006). Perceived similarity
and relationship success among dating couples: An idiographic approach, Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 23 (6), 865‑880.
122 I.‑D. PREOTU, M.N. TURLIUC
MacNeil, S., Byers, E.S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self‑disclosure and sexual satisfaction
in heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 169‑181.
Markey, P.M., Markey, C.N. (2009). Complementarity. In: H. Reis, S. Sprecher (eds.), Encyclopedia
of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Markey, P.M., Markey, C.N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and relationship
experience: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners, Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517‑533.
Montesi, J.L., Fauber, R.L., Gordon, E.A., Heimberg, R.G. (2011). The specific importance of
communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 591‑609.
Morry, M.M., Kito, M., Ortiz, L. (2011). The attraction‑similarity model and dating couples:
Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18,
125‑143.
Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., Bellavia, G. Griffin, D.W., Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits?
The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82 (4), 563‑581.
Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships:
The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 662‑685.
Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J., Sibley, C.G.(2009). Regulating partners in intimate
relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 620‑639.
Reis, H.T., Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: S.W. Duck (ed.), Handbook
of Personal Relationships (pp. 367‑389). New York: Wiley.
Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K.E., Finkel, E.J. (2009). “The part of me that you
bring out”: Ideal similarity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 61‑82.
Russel, R.J., Wells, P.A. (1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12, 407‑412.
Sillars, A.L., Scott, M.D. (1983). Interpesonal percetion between intimates. An integrative review,
Human Communication Research, 10(1), 153‑176.
Simpson, J.A., Fletcher, G.J.O., Campbell, L. (2001). The structure and function of ideal standards
in close relationships. In: G.J.O. Fletcher, M.S. Clark (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp. 86‑106). Londra: Blackwell.
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Familiy, 38, 15‑28.
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences
examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6),
1074‑1080.
