Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient.

Murray, Sandra L., Holmes, John G., Griffin, Dale W.·1996·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is proposed that satisfying, stable relationships reflect intimates ' ability to see imperfect partners in idealized ways. In this study of the long-term benefits (or possible costs) of positive illusions, both members of dating couples completed measures of idealization and well-being 3 times in a year. Path analyses revealed that idealization had a variety of self-fulfilling effects. Relationships were most likely to persist--even in the face of conflicts and doubts--when i timates idealized one another the most. Intimates who idealized one another more initially also reported relatively greater increases in satisfaction and decreases inconflicts and doubts over the year. Finally, individuals even came to share their partners ' idealized images of them. In summary, intimates who idealized one another appeared more prescient than blind, actually creating the relationships they wished for as romances progressed. Love to faults is a lways bl ind, Always is to joy inclin'd, Lawless, wing'd, and unconfin'd, And breaks all chains from every mind.--William Blake, Poems (1791-1792)from Blake's Notebook Reality or parody? In many ways, Blake's musings depict he romantic ideal. Swept up in the experience of love, trusting, sat-isfied individuals embellish their partners ' virtues, while chari-tably, perhaps ensibly, turning a blind eye to their faults (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1993, 1994). Setting Blake's ideal aside, most psychologists believe that lasting satisfaction depends on individuals understanding their partners ' real strengths and

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1996
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
1155-1180
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
OpenAlex
W4250715264
Cited by
489
References
15
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.