The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships.
Abstract
This article reviews the research literature and theory concerned with accuracy of judgments in romantic relationships. We initially propose a model of cognition in (romantic) relationships that distinguishes between 2 forms of accuracy: mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. We then report the results of meta-analyses of research on heterosexual, romantic relationships, which used external benchmarks and reported levels of tracking accuracy (98 studies) and/or mean-level bias (48 studies). The results revealed robust overall effect sizes for both tracking accuracy (r = .47) and positive mean-level bias (r = .09). As expected, the effects were substantial and positive for tracking accuracy across 6 judgmental categories, whereas signed mean-level bias was negative for the interaction attributions (e.g., love, communication). The results showed, as expected, that these 2 forms of accuracy were independent-the 2 kinds of effect size derived from the same set of 38 studies were uncorrelated. As expected, gender, relationship length, and relationship evaluations moderated mean-level bias across studies but (unexpectedly) not for tracking accuracy. In the Discussion we evaluate the prior model in light of the findings, other research, moderating variables (such as self-esteem), the role of projection, the early stages of mate selection, metacognition, and the rationality and nature of motivated cognition. We conclude that our model, findings, and analyses help to resolve the apparent paradox that love is both riven with illusions and rooted in reality, and support both evolutionary and social psychological approaches to understanding cognition in romantic relationships.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170 · Cited by 1,693
On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach
Funder, D. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652 · Cited by 1,342
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053 · Cited by 1,303
Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment.
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.55.1.149 · Cited by 582
Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.478 · Cited by 559
Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions.
Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G. M., Rose, P., & Griffin, D. W. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.126 · Cited by 308
Cited by
Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0028756 · Cited by 1,397
Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P. J., & Kappen, G. (2017) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868315615450 · Cited by 247
Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P., Denissen, J. J. A., & Back, M. D. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000113 · Cited by 221
Toward understanding understanding : The importance of feeling understood in relationships
Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12308 · Cited by 211
Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy
Kraus, M. W. (2017) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000147 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 627-658
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1978220124
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 22.30
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0019792
- The paper
- Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019792
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.