CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Attachment and Relationship DynamicsOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimism about Love Relationships: General vs Specific Lessons from One's Personal Experiences

Carnelley, Katherine B., Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie·1992·Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1177/0265407592091001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Experiences with love in one's family of origin (between parent and child and between parents) and in recent romantic involvements were explored to understand better people's optimism about their success in intimate relationships. Two types of optimism were distinguished: optimism about future relationships in general, and optimism about marriage in particular. Experiences in own dating relationships predicted respondents' optimism about future love relationships, whereas one's parents' relationship with each other predicted optimism about marriage. Fourth-year college students' optimism judgments were more influenced by their own experiences in intimate relationships than were first-year students' judgments. It appears that specific lessons from personal experience are applied selectively to judgments about our success in intimate relationships. More general beliefs about relationships, measured through attachment style, seem to be broadly applied, for attachment style was associated with both types of optimism. Relationship with parents did not directly predict either type of optimism, yet the mother-child relationship emerged as the most powerful predictor of attachment style, suggesting the fundamental importance of our earliest experiences to our generalized relationship schemas.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0265407592091001

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bowlby, J., 1973, Separation: Anxiety and Anger (Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2)
  2. Hazan, C., 1987, `Adult Attachment Questionnaire', unpublished scale, University of Denver
  3. Shaver, P., 1989, `Personal Communication. Romantic Love and Attachment'
  4. Shaver, P., 1988, The Psychology of Love

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 139

Related

Metadata

Authors
Carnelley, K. B., & Janoff-Bulman, R.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts
ORCID
Carnelley, Katherine B.
Venue
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1992-02
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
5-20
ISSN
  • 0265-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3608
DOI
10.1177/0265407592091001
OpenAlex
W2123973098
Cited by
139
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
intimate relationships, romantic relationships, family of origin, parent-child relationship, parental relationships, attachment styles, university students, dating experiences

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