Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 26 April 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633267
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Edited by:
Luca Rollè,
University of Turin, Italy
Reviewed by:
Daniel Conroy-Beam,
University of California, Santa Barbara,
United States
Camilla S. Øverup,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*Correspondence:
Susan Chesterman
smches@deakin.edu.au
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Personality and Social Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 25 November 2020
Accepted: 30 March 2021
Published: 26 April 2021
Citation:
Chesterman S, Karantzas GC and
Marshall EM (2021) The Association
Between Relationship Events and
Experiences and Partner Evaluations:
An Ideal Standards Perspective.
Front. Psychol. 12:633267.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633267
The Association Between
Relationship Events and Experiences
and Partner Evaluations: An Ideal
Standards Perspective
Susan Chesterman 1
*, Gery C. Karantzas 1and Emma M. Marshall 2
1SoAR Laboratory, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2SoAR Laboratory, School of
Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
Drawing on the Ideal Standards Model, the current study investigated whether the
relationship events and experiences that occur on a given day in romantic relationships
were associated with partner evaluations. Individuals in a current romantic relationship
(N=104) completed daily measures of positive and negative relationship events and
experiences and partner evaluations for seven consecutive days. As hypothesized,
findings demonstrated that on a given day negative relationship events and experiences
were associated with evaluating partners as falling short of mate ideals, while positive
relationship events and experiences were associated with evaluating partners as more
closely meeting ideals. The findings demonstrate the importance of the relational context
in evaluations of a partner against ideal standards.
Keywords: ideal standards, partner evaluation, romantic relationships, relationship events, discrepancy
INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades, many studies have investigated the effects of relationship events and
experiences on people’s evaluations of their romantic relationships (e.g., Neff and Karney, 2009).
This research has found that negative daily relationship events (such as relationship conflicts)
are associated with relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution (Campbell et al., 2005; Tolpin and
Cohen, 2006). In contrast, positive daily relationship events (such as positive shared experiences
or perceptions of partner responsiveness) are typically associated with relationship satisfaction
and relationship maintenance (Gable et al., 2004; Girme et al., 2014). Although this research has
provided important insights into how daily relationship events and experiences are associated with
people’s relationship evaluations, research has not investigated the role of these daily experiences in
predicting partner evaluations. This is especially surprising given that partner evaluations have an
important diagnostic function in predicting relationship satisfaction (Fletcher et al., 2000; Campbell
et al., 2001; Karantzas et al., 2019), longevity (Fletcher et al., 1999), and the extent to which people
try to change (i.e., regulate) a partner’s relationship behavior (Overall et al., 2006).
To address this gap, the current paper reports on a daily diary study that draws on the Ideal
Standards Model (ISM; Fletcher et al., 1999) of mate preferences to investigate how positive
and negative relationship events and experiences (from this point on referred to as relationship
events/experiences) are associated with romantic partner evaluations on a given day. The current
study provides novel insights by being the first to investigate how positive and negative events affect
partner evaluations on a daily basis.
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
Given that we frame the study of daily relationship
events/experiences and partner evaluations within the ISM
(Fletcher et al., 1999), we start by discussing the ISM
and the conceptualization of partner evaluations within this
framework. We then discuss how positive and negative daily
relationship events/experiences are likely to be associated with
partner evaluations.
The Ideal Standards Model
The ISM (Fletcher et al., 1999; Fletcher and Simpson, 2000) is
rooted within an evolutionary psychology perspective of mate
preferences and mating strategies. According to this perspective,
the qualities which are valued in a potential partner are those
which contribute to reproductive fitness (i.e., good genes and
parental investment; Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). Early
empirical work into the ISM identified that individuals evaluate
a mate’s reproductive fitness across three broad partner ideals:
warmth/trustworthiness (characteristics such as understanding,
supportive), vitality/attractiveness (characteristics such as
outgoing, charismatic) and status/resources (characteristics such
as successful, financially secure; Fletcher et al., 1999). The extent
to which a partner is evaluated as falling short on different ideal
standards is termed ideal-partner discrepancies.
Ideal-partner discrepancies are therefore comprised of two
components: (1) the importance that a person places on an
ideal standard, and (2) the perception that a partner exhibits
characteristics reflective of that ideal standard (Fletcher et al.,
1999). The difference (or gap) between levels of ideal importance
and partner perceptions reflects ideal-partner discrepancies.
These discrepancies have important implications for how
individuals evaluate their relationships. Smaller ideal-partner
discrepancies have been found to be associated with higher levels
of relationship satisfaction and a lower likelihood of relationship
dissolution (Fletcher et al., 2000; Campbell et al., 2001; Buyukcan-
Tetik et al., 2017). In contrast, larger ideal-partner discrepancies
are associated with lower relationship satisfaction and greater
attempts at regulating a partner’s behavior as a way to reduce
the size of the discrepancy (Overall et al., 2006, 2009). That is,
when a partner is evaluated as falling short of ideals, individuals
try to change their partner’s behavior in a way that the partner’s
qualities more closely match an individual’s ideal standards
(Fletcher et al., 1999; Campbell and Fletcher, 2015). In this way,
areas in which a partner is evaluated as falling below what is
desired can be addressed rather than having issues escalate and
dissatisfaction with the partner increase.
Ideal-Partner Discrepancies and
Relationship Events/Experiences
If ideal-partner discrepancies indeed function to provide an
individual with important diagnostic information regarding how
well a partner meets one’s relational needs, then ideal-partner
discrepancies should covary as a function of the events and
experiences that people encounter as part of their relationships
on a daily basis. Negative relationship events/experiences should
be associated with people negatively evaluating their partners,
and as such, deem partners as falling short of ideals. For example,
on days when relationship conflict ensues or support exchanges
lack sensitivity, then partners should be evaluated as falling
short on characteristics associated with warmth/trustworthiness
such as understanding and kindness. Likewise, relationship
events/experiences that reflect dissatisfying sexual interactions
with one’s partner or difficulties with managing finances may
heighten evaluations that a partner falls short on characteristics
associated with the ideal dimension of vitality/attractiveness
or status/resources.
On the other hand, positive relationship events/experiences
should prime individuals to reflect on the extent that partners
ably meet a person’s needs and wants, and thus evaluations
of partners should be more positive—an indication that
partners exhibit characteristics that more closely align with
ideal standards. For instance, a highly responsive partner, or
one who engages in constructive conflict behaviors, should
be evaluated as meeting or exceeding a person’s expectations
regarding warmth/trustworthiness. Similarly, highly satisfying
sexual experiences or committing to shared financial goals should
enhance evaluations of a partner as meeting one’s ideals around
vitality/attractiveness or status/resources.
However, many relationship events and experiences are
unlikely to be exclusively associated with the evaluation of
partners along a single ideal-dimension. For instance, if a
couple has a dinner date at a fine-dining restaurant in
formalwear or smart attire, then each individual may evaluate
their partner positively in terms of meeting their ideals of
vitality/attractiveness as well as status/resources.
The relevance of the relationship event/experience to the
individual should also determine the degree to which a particular
event will be associated with larger or smaller ideal-partner
discrepancies. In their theory of stress appraisal, Lazarus and
colleagues noted that regardless of whether the events are major
life events or daily hassles, the appraisal of an event’s significance
should provide information regarding the degree to which the
event is relevant to the individual (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;
Lazarus, 2006). For instance, a partner not providing help with
domestic duties may be appraised as a more or less significant
relationship event/experience, depending on how relevant a
partner helping with domestic duties is to the individual.
Despite these predictions, research to date has not investigated
the role of relationship events/experiences in predicting daily
partner evaluations. However, insights as to the role of
relationship events/experiences can be drawn from diary studies
into the associations between such events and relationship
evaluations. In a series of four 7-day diary studies, Neff and
Karney (2009) examined the co-variation in daily relationship
experiences such as the couples sex life, time spent together, their
conversations and the way disagreements were resolved. The
results revealed that on average, and at the level of the individual,
these daily relationship events/experiences were significantly
positively associated with global relationship evaluations (Neff
and Karney, 2009). Similarly, in a diary study over 10 days,
negative relationship events (such as having an unresolved
argument) were found to be associated with decreased levels of
daily relationship satisfaction for dating partners (Tolpin and
Cohen, 2006). This study also found positive relationship events
such as outings and socializing with one’s partner were associated
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
with increased levels of relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, in
a 14-day diary study of same-sex romantic couples, Ogolsky and
Gray (2016) found that experiencing higher perceived levels of
daily conflict was associated with lower levels of the evaluation of
relationship maintenance.
Extending on this research to focus on partner evaluations can
provide insights regarding how relationship events/experiences
are associated with people’s diagnostic assessment of partners.
This can have subsequent implications for how people
engender change to redress ideal-partner discrepancies or enact
maintenance behaviors when partners meet mate standards.
De-composing the Association Between
Ideal-Partner Discrepancies and
Relationship Events/Experiences
As already noted, ideal-partner discrepancies can be
conceptualized as the difference between the importance
placed on an ideal standard and the perception that a partner
exhibits this ideal. Thus, ideal-partner discrepancies entail two
constituent parts. An important question that emerges is which
component is more (or less) associated with positive and negative
relationship events/experiences. One the one hand, relationship
events/experiences may be associated with larger or smaller
ideal-partner discrepancies because these events are associated
with the calibration of the ideal itself. That is, relationship
events/experiences may be tied to the importance people place
on ideal standards. Indeed, Fletcher and colleagues (Fletcher
et al., 1999; Fletcher and Simpson, 2000) note that ideals are,
in part, derived through romantic relationship experiences.
However, Fletcher and colleagues also note that ideals have
an evolutionary underpinning and are knowledge structures
derived through more than just relationship experiences
(Fletcher et al., 1999; Fletcher and Simpson, 2000). Rather, ideal
standards reflect schemas that integrate knowledge about the
self (i.e., personal characteristics that overlap with ideals [e.g.,
understanding, funny, good looking]), as well as knowledge
that relates to relationships more generally (i.e., social learning
through observing the relationships of close others as well as
socio-cultural views of relationships; Fletcher et al., 1999). Thus,
a case can be made that relationship events/experiences may
demonstrate small (if any) associations with ideals, given the
assumed multifaceted nature of ideal standards.
On the other hand, relationship events/experiences may
be associated with partner perceptions. As such, relationship
events/experiences may correspond to the extent that individuals
notice their partner exhibits particular ideal characteristics.
Alternatively, it is plausible that relationship events/experiences
are associated with both constituent parts, and thus, ideal-partner
discrepancies reflect the raising or lowering of ideal standards
and perceiving partners as exhibiting more or less of a given ideal.
Investigating the extent to which relationship events/experiences
are related to ideal importance and/or partner perceptions has
important implications for understanding the processes that
underpin partner evaluation and the role of the relational context
in these evaluative processes.
Despite the implications of addressing this gap, there
is a dearth of research regarding the associations between
relationship events/experiences and the constituent parts of
ideal-partner discrepancies. In the only study on this topic,
Bredow and Hames (2018) found that changes in ideal standards
(over a 3 year period) were a function of positive and negative
relationship events, across the three ideals. Specifically, it
was found that individuals who experienced more positive
events (e.g., becoming engaged) displayed greater increases
in their standards regarding partner vitality/attractiveness and
warmth/trustworthiness. Further, individuals who experienced
more negative events (e.g., partner infidelity) had less increase
in the status/resources ideal over time. However, a limitation
of this study noted by the authors was that the assessment
of events and mate standards were too infrequent to capture
the many and varied relationship experiences that occur on a
weekly or daily basis that may feed into the calibration of mate
standards. Moreover, the study did not investigate the extent
to which relationship events moderated partner perceptions or
ideal-partner discrepancies.
Overview of the Current Study
To address the dearth of research into the association between
relationship events/experiences and ideal-partner discrepancies,
the current study had two aims. The first aim were to determine
whether positive and negative events/experiences are associated
with ideal-partner discrepancies on a given day. Specifically we
hypothesized that, on a given day: (1) a more significant positive
relationship event/experience would be associated with smaller
ideal-partner discrepancies across all ideal dimensions and (2)
a more significant negative relationship event/experience would
be associated with larger ideal-partner discrepancies across all
ideal dimensions. The second aim was to determine whether
associations between events and ideal-partner discrepancies on
a given day were a function of the associations between these
events and the ideal standard itself and/or the perceptions of
the partner along the ideal dimensions. Given that, on balance,
it is equally plausible for relationship events/experiences to be:
(a) associated with ideal standards or (b) have no association
with ideals, we made no specific predictions regarding the
association between the ideal standard itself and relationship
events/experiences. However, in terms of partner perceptions,
we hypothesized that (3) a more significant positive relationship
event/experience would be positively associated with partner
perceptions on a given day, and (4) a more significant negative
relationship event/experience would be negatively associated
with partner perceptions on a given day.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 104 individuals (76.7 % women, 23.3% men,
M=27.28 years old, SD =8.34 years [ranging from 18
to 60 years]) in a current, romantic relationship for at least
6 months1. The sample was comprised of 30.8% married or
engaged, 67.2% cohabitating or steady dating and 1% casually
dating participants with 91% identifying their relationship
1Initial recruitment resulted in a sample of 326, however 222 of these cases were
excluded because they had 40% or greater of missing data.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
as heterosexual. The average relationship duration was 4.21
years (SD =5.57) and 87.2% of participants were of Anglo-
Saxon background.
Procedure and Measures
This study was approved by Deakin University’s ethics
committee. Interested individuals who read social media
(Facebook and Reddit) advertisements about the study followed
a URL link that directed them to a website with study details.
On registering their interest through the website, participants
received a return email with a Plain Language Statement and
calendar detailing the dates that they would receive the survey.
Participants were advised that their consent to participate in
this study was implied by beginning the first online survey.
A link to the daily survey was emailed and texted to each
participant at (approximately) 6 P.M. each day over the
7-day period with instructions to complete the survey that
night, however, the survey was left open until 12 p.m. of the
following day for late entries. All measures were completed on
each day.
Ideal-Partner Discrepancies (Including Ideal Partner
Standards and Partner Perceptions)
The importance of partner ideal standards and the extent to
which partners are perceived to exhibit these ideals was assessed
using an adapted version of the Ideal Standards Scale-Short
Form (ISS-SF; Fletcher et al., 1999). The adapted measure
consisted of six partner characteristics selected on their face
validity. Two items assessed each of the ideal subscales of
warmth/trustworthiness (characteristics of understanding
and supportiveness), vitality/attractiveness (outgoing and
charismatic) and status/resources (good job and financially
secure2). All six items were rated by participants twice. In
the first instance participants rate the importance of each
ideal partner characteristic on a scale ranging from 1 (very
unimportant) to 7 (very important). In the second instance,
participants rate the extent to which a current romantic partner
is perceived to exhibit each of the six ideal characteristics on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like my partner)
through to 7 (very much like my partner). To adapt this
measure to a daily-diary methodology, instructions from
the original ISS-SF were slightly re-worded to capture ideal
partner importance and partner perception ratings for the day
they were reported. Ideal partner scales demonstrated high
internal reliability (see Table 1). Ideal-partner discrepancies were
derived for warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness and
status/resources by regressing mean levels of ideal importance
onto mean levels of partner perceptions (see Data Analysis
section for details).
Daily Events
The two daily event categories: (1) positive events relating to
the partner and/or relationship and (2) negative events relating
2We added the words “or potential to achieve” to the status/resources
characteristics to account for the likelihood that our sample age would be skewed
toward younger participants (i.e., financially secure [or potential to achieve];
Overall et al., 2006).
to the partner and/or relationship were assessed via a series of
questions. For example, participants were asked to respond to
the statement “Today I had a positive experience that was related
to my partner or was related to my relationship.” If participants
answered “yes,” they were then asked to briefly describe the
event. These responses were not used in the data analysis. Finally,
participants were asked to rate the significance of the event (i.e.,
“this event was significant”) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). The significance rating of the event was used
as part of analyses in the current study. From the significance
rating we created two variables to allow us to examine within
person effects while controlling for between-person effects (see
Data Analysis section).
The daily surveys were identical to each other with the
exception of the first survey, which also included demographics.
As an incentive to participate and to minimize attrition,
participants were given a set of individually tailored graphs of
how their ratings on certain variables tracked over time at the
completion of the study.
Data Analysis
Ideal-partner discrepancies were derived for
warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness and
status/resources as residual scores by regressing partner
perception scores onto ideal importance scores for each
of the three ideal domains3. This method of deriving
ideal-partner discrepancies has been used in past research
on the ISM (e.g., Overall et al., 2006; Karantzas et al.,
2019). The significance ratings of the positive and negative
relationship event/experiences were entered as predictors in
the analyses. To test whether daily events were associated with
ideal-partner discrepancies at a within-person level, we ran
a series of multilevel models (Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013)
using SPSS mixed procedure (Version 23; IBM Corp, 2015).
Repeated daily assessments (7 time points) of positive and
negative daily relationship events/experiences and ideal-partner
discrepancies (Level 1) were nested within participants (Level 2).
First, we ran three models for ideal-partner discrepancies; one
for each of the three ideal dimensions. To examine within-person
associations between ideal-partner discrepancies and events,
event variables were person centered. In addition, to control
for between-person associations, we reintroduced the mean
by adding between-person mean event variables to the model
(Curran and Bauer, 2011; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). The
between-person event variables were computed by averaging the
responses for all cases for that person, thereby creating a group-
level variable with one value for each person. All event variables
were entered as fixed effects and time entered as a random effect
to account for the repeated measurement and non-independence
of the data. Maximum likelihood estimation was applied to
the data (Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). An unstructured
covariance structure was applied to residuals for the random
effect of time as we could not achieve convergence with other
3Calculating ideal-partner discrepancies in this way has an advantage over creating
a difference score as it does not confound the partner perception and ideal standard
components by controlling for ideal standard ratings.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics for each person’s average score over 7 days.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Import W/T 1.00
Import V/A 0.14** 1.00
Import S/R 0.22** 0.29** 1.00
Percept W/T 0.23** 0.10* 0.18** 1.00
Percept V/A 0.19** 0.45** 0.12** 0.38** 1.00
Percept S/R 0.00 0.08* 0.04 0.22** 0.22** 1.00
Discrep W/T 0.00 0.07 0.13** 0.96** 0.33** 0.23** 1.00
Discrep V/A 0.14** 0.00 −0.01 0.37** 0.88** 0.20** 0.33** 1.00
Discrep S/R −0.01 0.08* 0.00 0.21** 0.21** 0.99** 0.22** 0.20** 1.00
PosEvent −0.08 0.13* 0.00 0.05 0.11* −0.06 0.07 0.04 −0.07 1.00
NegEvent 0.02 0.13 0.04 −0.17 0.02 −0.08 −0.19 −0.02 −0.09 0.49** 1.00
Mean 6.57 4.56 4.90 6.08 5.07 5.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.38 4.10
Standard deviation 0.80 1.45 1.46 1.29 1.49 1.44 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.72 2.07
Reliability 0.97 0.85 0.96 0.98 0.89 0.97
PosEvent, positive event; NegEvent, negative event; Import W/T, Ideal importance warmth/trustworthiness; Import V/A, Ideal importance vitality/attractiveness; Import S/R, Ideal
importance status/resources; Percept W/T, Partner perceptions warmth/trustworthiness; Percept V/A, Partner perceptions vitality/attractiveness; Percept S/R, Partner perceptions
status/resources; Discrep W/T, Ideal-partner discrepancies warmth/trustworthiness; Discrep V/A, Ideal-partner discrepancies vitality/attractiveness; Discrep S/R, Ideal-partner
discrepancies status/resources; Reliability, estimate of within-person reliability (Cranford et al., 2006) RC.*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
covariance structures4. To determine the source of the significant
associations between events and ideal-partner discrepancies,
we then ran the significant models twice, this time with ideal
importance or partner perceptions as dependent variables.
We also conducted a series of Supplementary Analyses to test
for any lagged effects regarding relationship events/experiences
and ideal-partner discrepancies. The lagged analyses enable us
to determine whether events reported on the previous day were
associated with ideal-partner discrepancies on the following day.
As part of these analyses, we re-ran the original three models
using ideal-partner discrepancies as a dependent variable but
included positive and negative relationship events/experiences as
lagged variables (i.e., T-1).
An apriori power analysis was conducted using Power analysis
IN Two-level designs (PiNT, 2.12, Snijders et al., 2007) indicating
a sample size of N=100 to detect small effects in a two-level
model would be adequately powered (0.83).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, reliability statistics and correlations
for all variables at are presented in Table 1. The mean levels of
ideal importance were moderate for vitality/attractiveness and
status/resources and high for warmth/trustworthiness. Levels of
4We initially ran these models with person-centered event variables also modeled
as random effects, time as a repeated statement and an autoregressive covariance
structure to the repeated statement [as recommended by Bolger and Laurenceau
(2013)]. However, we could not achieve convergence and further investigation
revealed extremely small covariances of the random slopes (Est =<0.0001).
Therefore, the events variables were excluded as random effects, resulting in the
final approach to covariance/variance modeling that is described in Data Analysis.
See Supplementary Material 1 for an example of the syntax for the random effects
and current models.
partner perceptions were moderate to high for each of the ideal
dimensions. Participants’ reported moderate levels of significance
for both positive and negative daily events. Correlations between
the variables showed that although ideal importance and
ideal-partner discrepancies were not significantly associated,
partner perceptions and ideal-partner discrepancies had low to
moderate associations. Associations between partner perceptions
and ideal-partner discrepancies on the same ideal dimension
were high.
Associations Between Daily Events and
Ideal-Partner Discrepancies
We first examined whether daily relationship events/experiences
were associated with ideal-partner discrepancies over the 7
day period (see Table 2). Findings revealed that on days
when individuals experienced a more significant positive
relationship event/experience, individuals evidenced smaller
ideal-partner discrepancies across all three ideal dimensions. In
terms of negative events, results showed that on days when
individuals experienced a more significant negative relationship
event/experience, individuals evidenced larger ideal-partner
discrepancies across all three ideal dimensions.
De-composing the Association Between
Ideal-Partner Discrepancies and
Relationship Events/Experiences
Next we explored whether the source of the significant
associations between individuals’ positive and negative
relationship events/experiences and ideal-partner discrepancies
was related to ideal importance and/or partner perceptions. We
ran the same models used to assess the associations between
events/experiences and ideal-partner discrepancies over 7 days,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
TABLE 2 | Parameter estimates.
Estimate SE pCI LL CI UL Beta r
Warmth/trust
I-P discrepancy Pos event 0.079 0.013 <0.001 0.053 0.105 0.007928 0.058
Pos event between 0.085 0.041 0.039 0.005 0.165 0.026339 0.076
Neg event −0.141 0.016 <0.001 −0.173 −0.110 −0.01742 −0.067
Neg event between −0.288 0.073 <0.001 −0.432 −0.144 −0.1601 −0.021
Ideal importance Pos event −0.009 0.010 0.353 −0.029 0.011 −0.0008 −0.051
Pos event between −0.016 0.037 0.667 −0.089 0.057 −0.00492 −0.055
Neg event 0.003 0.012 0.782 −0.021 0.028 0.000351 0.050
Neg event between 0.142 0.065 0.032 0.013 0.271 0.0778 0.128
Partner perceptions Pos event 0.104 0.017 <0.001 0.072 0.137 0.009747 0.060
Pos event between 0.094 0.055 0.093 −0.016 0.204 0.029142 0.079
Neg event −0.178 0.020 <0.001 −0.218 −0.138 −0.02035 −0.070
Neg event between −0.323 0.099 0.002 −0.520 −0.127 −0.17949 −0.229
Vitality/attract
I-P discrepancy Pos event 0.044 0.012 <0.001 0.020 0.068 0.003371 0.053
Pos event between −0.003 0.050 0.953 −0.102 0.096 −0.00092 −0.051
Neg event −0.049 0.015 0.001 −0.078 −0.019 −0.00456 −0.055
Neg event between 0.035 0.089 0.692 −0.141 0.211 0.019485 0.069
Ideal importance Pos event 0.001 0.011 0.918 −0.021 0.024 0.00004 0.050
Pos event between −0.066 0.082 0.426 −0.229 0.098 −0.02035 −0.070
Neg event −0.007 0.014 0.621 −0.034 0.021 −0.00036 −0.050
Neg event between 0.029 0.147 0.846 −0.262 0.320 0.015791 0.066
Partner perceptions Pos event 0.064 0.017 <0.001 0.031 0.096 0.004193 0.054
Pos event between −0.015 0.078 0.845 −0.170 0.139 −0.00473 −0.055
Neg event −0.080 0.020 <0.001 −0.120 −0.040 −0.00649 −0.056
Neg event between 0.058 0.139 0.676 −0.217 0.334 0.032186 0.082
Status/resources
I-P discrepancy Pos event 0.021 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.036 0.000885 0.051
Pos event between −0.001 0.056 0.984 −0.112 0.110 −0.00035 −0.050
Neg event −0.019 0.009 0.044 −0.037 −0.001 −0.00089 −0.051
Neg event between −0.102 0.100 0.311 −0.300 0.096 −0.05608 0.106
Ideal importance Pos event −0.006 0.012 0.638 −0.029 0.018 −0.00025 −0.050
Pos event between −0.011 0.082 0.894 −0.174 0.152 −0.00339 −0.053
Neg event −0.026 0.014 0.074 −0.054 0.003 −0.00139 −0.051
Neg event between 0.017 0.146 0.908 −0.273 0.306 0.00932 0.059
Partner perceptions Pos event 0.028 0.011 0.010 0.006 0.049 0.001126 0.051
Pos event between 0.008 0.081 0.919 −0.153 0.170 0.002573 0.053
Neg event −0.028 0.013 0.034 −0.054 −0.002 −0.00141 −0.051
Neg event between −0.147 0.145 0.313 −0.434 0.140 −0.08082 −0.131
The columns represent the estimates and standard errors for fixed effects of the predictor being examined. Warmth/trust, ideal dimension warmth/trustworthiness; Vitality/attract, ideal
dimension vitality/attractiveness; Status/resources, ideal dimension status/resources; I-P discrepancy, Ideal-Partner discrepancy; Pos event, positive event; Neg event, negative event;
Pos event between, between-person positive event; Neg event between, between-person negative event; CI LL 95% confidence interval lower limit; CI UL 95% confidence interval
upper limit; r, effect size.
this time using ideal importance and partner perceptions as
dependent variables across three ideal dimensions, respectively.
The associations between positive and negative relationship
events/experiences and ideal importance ratings across the
three ideal dimensions were non-significant. In terms of
partner perceptions, on days when individuals experienced a
more significant positive relationship event/experience, they
evidenced higher perceptions of their partners across all three
ideal dimensions. On days when individuals experienced a
more significant negative relationship event/experience, they
evidenced lower perceptions of their partners across all three
ideal dimensions.
Lagged Analyses
Supplementary Analyses were conducted to test for lagged
effects regarding relationship events/experiences. Specifically,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
we tested for whether positive or negative relationship
events/experiences on the previous day were associated
with ideal-partner discrepancies on the following day, using
lagged (T-1) event variables. These analyses demonstrated no
significant associations between events occurring on 1 day
and ideal-partner discrepancies on the following day (see
Supplementary Material 1).
DISCUSSION
The current study is the first to demonstrate that daily
relationship events/experiences are associated with the extent
that a romantic partner is evaluated as falling short or
meeting an individual’s ideal standards. As hypothesized, positive
relationship events/experiences were associated with smaller
ideal-partner discrepancies across all ideal dimensions on a
given day. Also in line with predictions, negative relationship
events/experiences were associated with larger ideal-partner
discrepancies across all ideal dimensions on a given day.
Supplementary Analyses testing for lagged effects revealed
that the positive and negative relationship events/experiences
reported on a given day were not associated with ideal-partner
discrepancies on the following day.
The findings extend understanding as to how relationship
events/experiences are associated with the components that
comprise ideal-partner discrepancies; we found that events
were associated with partner perceptions rather than the ideal
standards themselves. Thus, the association between positive
and negative relationship events/experiences and ideal-partner
discrepancies is such that individuals maintain their level of ideal
importance irrespective of the events experienced on a given
day. However, daily events figure into people’s perceptions of
their partners, which determines the extent to which partners are
evaluated as falling short of ideals.
The findings suggest that the relationship events/experiences
that occur for individuals on a given day are internalized
and reflected in the evaluations of relationship partners. In
particular, positive relationship events/experiences are associated
with smaller ideal-partner discrepancies whereas negative
relationship events/experiences are associated with larger ideal
partner-discrepancies. The findings provide support for the
notion that people’s perceptions of their partner tracks in
relation to new information (Fletcher and Kerr, 2010; Fletcher,
2015). Although people may also maintain a positive or
negative bias when making judgments of their partners and/or
relationships, this has been found to operate quite separately
from their ability to accurately track changes (Fletcher and Kerr,
2013). From an evolutionary standpoint, partner perceptions
should demonstrate some correspondence with ideal partner
dimensions of warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness,
and status/resources to ensure that individuals maintain
relationships with partners who reflect optimal mates regarding
reproductive fitness; otherwise, these associated characteristics
could not have evolved by way of natural and sexual selection
(Fletcher, 2015).
What are the implications regarding the correspondence
between relationship events/experiences and partner evaluations
on a given day? This correspondence may help individuals to
manage risk and rewards in romantic relationships (Murray et al.,
2006, 2008). According to Murray and colleagues, relationships
inherently encompass regulating risks and rewards regarding
the probability of rejection and the likelihood of love and
acceptance. Thus, relationship circumstances can motivate an
individual to either prioritize self-protection (i.e., avoid relational
threats and punishments) or connectedness (i.e., approach
relationship rewards) as a way to either mitigate rejection
or to optimize love, safety and acceptance in their romantic
relationships. Thus, negative relationship events/experiences
may on the one hand signal to an individual that their
sense of safety may be in jeopardy and that they may be at
greater risk of some negative consequence. On the other hand,
positive events may signal opportunities for love, security and
human connection.
Thus, relationship events/experiences provide important
contextual information about one’s relationship that acts as an
input into people’s judgements regarding the likelihood that a
partner may enact relational punishments or rewards. That is,
events that correspond with a mate being evaluated as falling
short on ideal standards may convey that the partner is more
of a risk in either not meeting a person’s socio-emotional
needs and/or leveling punishments such as in the form of
rejection and betrayal. For instance, if the experience of hurtful
comments from a partner corresponds with the evaluation of
them falling short of “kindness” or “supportiveness” ideals, then
this may convey the risk of immediate or future rejection by
the partner. In contrast, events that correspond with partners
being evaluated as meeting ideal standards are unlikely to be
evaluated as a risk, but rather, as a mate who is well-suited to
meet one’s socio-emotional needs. For instance, if the experience
of a partner showing empathy corresponds with the evaluation
of them as meeting ideal standards in “understanding” or
“supportiveness,” then this may convey a sense of opportunity
for rewards such as closeness and emotional connection in
the relationship.
This correspondence (i.e., association) between relationship
events/experiences and partner evaluations may also have
important implications regarding broader relationship goals and
transitions. For instance, during periods such as when a couple
prioritizes to start a family, relationship events that correspond
with positive evaluations of partners along dimensions such
as vitality/attractiveness may increase sexual behavior thereby
heightening the likelihood of successful conception. Likewise,
events that correspond to the positive evaluations of partners
in relation to warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources may
heighten motivations to commence a family with a partner, as
the qualities they exhibit reflect highly desirable characteristics
regarding parental commitment/investment. Importantly, the
fact that positive relationship events/experiences correspond
with positive evaluations of relationship partners highlights
the function of these evaluative judgments in ensuring that
relationship rewards, pleasures and needs are acknowledged.
This acknowledgment of relationship positivity—in terms of
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
events and partner evaluations—is important given that research
highlights the ratio of positive relationship experiences to
negative experiences is more important than the absence of
negative experiences per se (Gottman and Levenson, 1992;
Rusbult et al., 2001).
Another important finding from the current study that has
important implications for understanding partner evaluations
relates to identifying the component of the ideal partner-
discrepancy which is most associated with relationship
events/experiences. Our results revealed that relationship
events/experiences were significantly associated with partner
perceptions rather than the ideal standards themselves. Thus,
individuals appear to perceive their partners as exhibiting
(more or less) ideal mate characteristics as a function of the
positivity or negativity of the relational events/experiences
of a given day. But why wouldn’t these events/experiences
be associated with the importance people place on the
ideal standards?
Firstly, ideal standards are considered mate criteria (Campbell
and Fletcher, 2015). Typically, criteria function as benchmarks
that aide in making effective judgments (Thibaut and Kelley,
1959). In the case of partner ideals, these standards afford
individuals to make judgements as to whether a partner is
indeed a suitable mate. Thus, if the ideal standards themselves
were found to increase and decrease on a daily basis as a
function of the events experienced, people would inherently
have difficulties in making astute evaluations of partners over
the course of a relationship. That is, the “standard” provides
information and a level of certainty about what is desired in a
mate and the relative evaluations that people can make about
one’s partner (Fletcher and Simpson, 2000). Furthermore, theory
regarding the development of people’s ideal standards suggests
that ideals reflect knowledge structures that comprise self-
knowledge as well as knowledge about relationships accumulated
across time and society more generally (e.g., Fletcher et al.,
1999; Fletcher and Simpson, 2000; Campbell and Fletcher, 2015).
Thus, ideals standards reflect broad knowledge structures that
may be quite resistant to increases and decreases on a daily
basis, despite the positivity or negativity of relationship events
on a given day. However, ideals may demonstrate some shifts
over extended periods of time, especially when individuals
experience major or highly significant relationship events or
transitions that require them to re-consider their mate standards.
In support of this, Bredow and Hames (2018) found that major
life events such as becoming engaged or experiencing a partner’s
betrayal (in the form of infidelity) moderated change in ideal
standards over time. Thus, ideal standards may be associated
with relationship events, however, these associations may
only become evident over longer timespans, when individuals
have actively revised their knowledge structures around mate
preferences because of major events that have challenged
existing standards.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although the current study has added to our understanding of
ideal-partner discrepancies, the results should be viewed in light
of the following limitations. Firstly, the context within which
a romantic relationship takes place is complex and the current
study was limited in the way it measured daily events. Assessing
the “significance” of an event is only one facet of whether
an event may impact ideal-partner discrepancies. Although the
significance of an event may be high, it is an individual’s initial
cognitive appraisal of how distressing or rewarding the event
is that may also be associated with their subsequent evaluation
and reaction to it (Folkman et al., 1986). Future studies should
endeavor to capture a measure of the level of distress experienced
as a result of negative events and a measure of reward/positive
affect for positive events. We also note the measurement of
the two components of ideal-partner discrepancies uses slightly
different wording in the scales. Ideal standards are assessed by
participants rating the importance of characteristics in their ideal
partner and partner perceptions by rating the extent to which
these characteristics are exhibited/demonstrated by their current
partner. Although some suggest that assessing the importance
and perception may not reflect equivalent scales upon which to
derive ideal-partner discrepancies (Gerlach et al., 2017) the use
of these scales is consistent with the majority of research on
ideal standards, as well as the mate preferences literature more
generally (Buss, 1989; Fletcher et al., 1999; Eastwick and Neff,
2012).
Secondly, our sample was predominantly (77%) female which
did not allow us to explore possible gendered effects. This is
despite research findings that females hold ideal standards in
the warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources dimensions as
somewhat more important compared to males (Campbell et al.,
2001). Future studies with a more representative sample would
be a useful next step in this line of research to assess the extent
to which gender may moderate associations between daily events
and ideal-partner discrepancies.
Third, to guard against missing data bias and likelihood of
attrition which can be experienced in daily diary studies (Gable
et al., 2000; Scollon et al., 2003) we left the survey open until 12
p.m. of the following day. Only eight per cent of surveys were
submitted on the following day. It is possible that the people
responding on the following day may have differed in their
recall of the previous day’s events. However, any differences are
unlikely to have affected the findings given the small percentage
of surveys involved. This limitation does however highlight the
need to balance the maintenance of a high level of participation
with the amount of time available to complete surveys in daily
diary studies.
Finally, it is difficult to disentangle the partner and relational
aspects of the events, largely due to the interdependent nature
of relationships (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). Oftentimes
particular events, even when involving the partner, also have a
relational focus. We asked about events and experiences related
to the partner and/or relationship to capture a broad-based
sense of the events which may impact romantic relationships.
However, there is evidence to suggest that people hold cognitive
representations of the partner and relationship separately
(Brunson, 2014). It may be that events specific to the partner
have a greater correspondence with partner evaluations and
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
that relational events correspond with relationship evaluations.
Thus, future research could attempt to include more fine-grained
measures that can effectively uncouple assessments of partner
and relationship events.
CONCLUSION
This study is the first to empirically demonstrate that the
daily events and experiences in romantic relationships are
indeed associated with the degree to which a partner is
evaluated as falling short of ideal standards on a given
day. Not only do negative relationship events/experiences
appear to be deleterious to partner evaluations, we also
found that positive relationship events/experiences enhance
partner evaluations. The associations between relationship
events/experiences and partner evaluations demonstrates the
importance of the daily relational context in the judgments of
romantic partners.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data can be accessed upon request in line with the conditions
around Deakin Research Human Ethics approval. Requests
should be directed to: smches@deakin.edu.au.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
and approved by Deakin University Human Research Ethics
Committee. The participants provided their written informed
consent to participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SC co-designed the study, collected the data, conducted the
analyses, and wrote the first draft of the paper. GK co-designed
the study, guided the data analyses, and edited the paper. EM
guided the data analyses and edited the paper. All authors
contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Bengianni Pizzirani for his contribution to the study
design and data collection.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
2021.633267/full#supplementary-material
REFERENCES
Bolger, N., and Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An
Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Bredow, C. A., and Hames, N. (2018). Steadfast standards or fluctuating Fancies?
Stability and change in people’s mate criteria over 27 months. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 45, 1–17. doi: 10.1177/0146167218794643
Brunson, J. A. (2014). Assessing “you,” “me,” and “us”: a comprehensive measure of
relational schemas (Doctoral dissertation),University of Houston, Houston, T X,
United States.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences:
evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12, 1–14.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Campbell, L., Finkenauer, C., Karremans, J. C., and Kappen,
G. (2017). Ideal standards, acceptance, and relationship satisfaction: Latitudes
of differential effects. Front. Psychol. 8:1691. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01691
Campbell, L., and Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). Romantic relationships,
ideal standards, and mate selection. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 1, 97–100.
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.007
Campbell, L., Simpson, J., Boldry, J., and Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of
conflict and support in romantic relationships: the role of attachment
anxiety. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 510–531. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.
3.510
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., and Fletcher, G. J. O. (2001).
Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 447–462. doi: 10.1177/0146167201
274006
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., and Bolger, N. (2006).
A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: can mood
measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32,
917–929. doi: 10.1177/0146167206287721
Curran, P., and Bauer, D. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and
between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
62, 583–619. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
Eastwick, P. W., and Neff, L. A. (2012). Do ideal partner preferences predict
divorce? A tale of two metrics. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3, 667–674.
doi: 10.1177/1948550611435941
Fletcher, G. J. O, and Kerr, P. (2013). Love, Reality, and Illusion in
Intimate Relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0014
Fletcher, G. J. O, Simpson, J., Thomas, G., and Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate
relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 76, 72–89. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). Accuracyand bias of judgments in romantic relationships.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 292–297. doi: 10.1177/0963721415571664
Fletcher, G. J. O., and Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love:
reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychol. Bull. 136, 627–658.
doi: 10.1037/a0019792
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J., and Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and
evaluations in early relationship development. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 933–940.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933
Fletcher, G. J. O., and Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close
relationships: their structure and functions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9, 102–105.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00070
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A., and Gruen, R. J.
(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and
encounter outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 992–1003.
Gable, S. L., Impett, E. A., Reis, H. T., and Asher,E. R. (2004). What do you do when
things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive
events. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87, 228–245. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., and Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation
and inhibition in everyday life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 1135–1149.
doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1135
Gangestad, S. W., and Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human
mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 573–644.
doi: 10.1017/s0140525x0000337x
Gerlach, T. M., Arslan, R. C., Schultze, T., Reinhard, S. K., and Penke, L. (2017).
Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the
transition into romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 313–330.
doi: 10.1037/pspp0000170
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Chesterman et al. Relationship Events and Partner Evaluations
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., and Faingataa, S. (2014). “Date nights” take two:
the maintenance function of shared relationship activities. Pers. Relatsh. 21,
125–149. doi: 10.1111/pere.12020
Gottman, J. M., and Levenson, R. W. (1992). Interpersonal relations and group
marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and
health. J. Pers. 63, 221–233.
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY:
IBM Corp.
Karantzas, G. C., Simpson, J. A., Overall, N. C., and Campbell, L. (2019). The
association between attachment orientations and partner evaluations: an ideal
standards perspective. Pers. Relatsh. 26, 628–653. doi: 10.1111/pere.12297
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York, NY:
Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). “Stress, appraisal, and coping,” in Stress,
Appraisal and Coping (New York, NY: Springer Pub. Co).
Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., and Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing
connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: a levels-of-
processing perspective on risk regulation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 429–459.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., and Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance:
the risk regulation system in relationships. Psychol. Bull. 132, 641–666.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641
Neff, L. A., and Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship
experiences: how stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 97, 435–450. doi: 10.1037/a0015663
Ogolsky, B. G., and Gray, C. R. (2016). Conflict, negative emotion, and reports of
partners’ relationship maintenance in same-sex couples. J. Family Psychol. 30,
171–180. doi: 10.1037/fam0000148
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J., and Sibley, C. G. (2009).
Regulating partners in intimate relationships: the costs and benefits of
different communication strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 620–639.
doi: 10.1037/a0012961
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., and Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes
in intimate relationships: the role of ideal standards. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91,
662–685. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., and Hannon, P. A. (2001). “Commitment
and relationship maintenance mechanisms,” in Close Romantic Relationships:
Maintenance and Enhancement, eds J. Harvey and A. Wenzel (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 87–113.
Rusbult, C. E., and Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence,
interaction, and relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54, 351–375.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
Scollon, C. N., Kim-prieto, C. H. U., and Diener, E. D. (2003). Experience sampling:
promises and pitfalls. J. Happ. Stud. 1925, 5–34.
Snijders, T., Bosker, R., and Guldemond, H. (2007). Power Analysis IN Two-Level
Designs (Version 2.12). User manual.
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Tolpin, L. H., and Cohen, L. H. (2006). Unique effects of depressive
symptoms and relationship satisfaction on exposure and reactivity to
daily romantic relationship stress. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 25, 565–583.
doi: 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.565
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Chesterman, Karantzas and Marshall. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 April 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 633267
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
