Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association

2004, Vol. 86, No. 5, 729 –743 0022-3514/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729

Positive Expectations in the Early Years of Marriage: Should Couples

Expect the Best or Brace for the Worst?

James K. McNulty Benjamin R. Karney

The Ohio State University University of Florida

The current study examined whether the effects of positive expectations on changes in marital satisfac-
tion over the first 4 years of marriage were moderated by the nature of spouses’ interaction behaviors and
relationship attributions. Consistent with predictions, when spouses’ skills were most positive, positive
expectations predicted more stable satisfaction over time whereas less positive expectations predicted
steeper declines. Alternatively, when spouses’ skills were most negative, positive expectations predicted
steeper declines in satisfaction over time whereas less positive expectations predicted more stable
satisfaction. Thus, in contrast to the idea that expectations in the early years of marriage exert main
effects on satisfaction, the current findings suggest that the effects of expectations interact with the skills
partners bring to their relationships.

Things become better when you expect the best instead of the worst. leave people vulnerable to disappointment should they fail to
—Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) be met. Thus, he argued that positive expectations should be
avoided because they increase the likelihood of experiencing
Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. disappointments.
—Alexander Pope, Letter to Gay (1727; as cited in Bartlett & Dole, The difference between these two views mirrors an ongoing
1919/2000) debate within research on intimate relationships. Although studies
agree that what partners expect to receive in their relationships
Although they lived centuries apart, poet Alexander Pope (see
affects their evaluations of those relationships (e.g., Baucom,
Bartlett & Dole, 1919/2000) and motivational writer Norman
Epstein, Rankin, & Burnett, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, &
Vincent Peale (1952) agreed that what people expect to receive
Khouri, 1998; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Knee, 1998;
affects how they evaluate what they actually receive. The authors
McNulty & Karney, 2002, Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b;
differ, however, in how they described the nature of this effect.
Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999), there is little consensus
According to Peale, expectations inspire outcomes that are consis-
about the direction of this effect. One line of research suggests that
tent with those expectations. Thus, he argued that positive expec-
positive expectations lead to positive outcomes. On the basis of
tations should be cultivated because they direct people toward
positive outcomes. According to Pope, however, any expectations this idea, some authors have argued that positive expectations
about a relationship are necessary for developing and maintaining
healthy relationship functioning. For example, in one approach to
preventing marital distress, researchers argued that “holding ex-
James K. McNulty, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State Univer- treme standards that ask a great deal of the marriage is positively
sity; Benjamin R. Karney, Department of Psychology, University of related to marital adjustment” (Baucom et al., 1996, p. 83). In
Florida. contrast, another line of research suggests that positive expecta-
Portions of this article were presented to the Graduate School at the tions lead to disappointment. On the basis of this idea, some
University of Florida as James K. McNulty’s doctoral dissertation. Prep- authors have argued that positive expectations can be a source of
aration of this article was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
marital dysfunction. For example, in an alternative approach to
Grant MH59712 and by a Research Development Award from the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Florida to Benjamin R. preventing marital distress, researchers argued that “couples are at
Karney. increased risk when expectations are unreasonable” (Stanley et al.,
We thank Chris Adams, Jessica Baker, Krista Bernard, Mark DaSilva, 1999, p. 285).
Nancy Frye, Katherine Leong, Sacha Lindekens, Giovanni Montrone, Do positive expectations help maintain satisfaction, or are they
Kimberly Mosler, Lisa Neff, Rachel Nitzburg, Joanna Sadowski, Jennifer likely to lead to declines in satisfaction? The goal of the current
Smith, Kara Sweeney, and Mark Trujillo for their assistance in data study is to address this question through longitudinal data on
collection, observational coding, and data entry. Additionally, we thank the expectations and the development of marital satisfaction in new-
members of James K. McNulty’s dissertation committee, James Algina,
lywed couples. To this end, the remainder of this introduction is
Barry Schlenker, Larry Severy, and James Shepperd, for their insightful
comments concerning this research. organized into three sections. The first section examines research
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James K. on the different functions of expectations, showing that positive
McNulty, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 1680 expectations may lead to positive outcomes when confirmed
University Drive, Mansfield, OH 44906. E-mail: [email protected] through processes of expectancy confirmation but may lead to
729
730 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

negative outcomes when they serve as counterfactuals. The second have occurred. According to DAT, a negative outcome feels less
section identifies qualities of relationships that should moderate disappointing when compared with an alternative, worse outcome,
the likelihood of expectancy confirmation and therefore predict and a positive outcome feels less satisfying when compared with
when positive expectations will lead to positive versus negative an alternative, better outcome. Accordingly, people should be
outcomes. The final section describes a study designed to examine happy when their outcomes exceed their expectations but disap-
whether two qualities, the nature of couples’ interaction behaviors pointed when their outcomes fall short of their expectations. Re-
and the nature of their relationship attributions, moderate the search outside close relationships supports DAT (Medvec, Madey,
effects of positive expectations on changes in satisfaction over the & Gilovich, 1995; Mellers et al., 1997; Shepperd & McNulty,
first years of marriage. 2002). Shepperd and McNulty (2002), for example, led partici-
pants to expect that they were either likely or unlikely to test
Positive Expectations and Relationship Functioning positive for a threatening (but fictitious) medical condition. All
participants then tested themselves for the medical condition and
Expectations about the future of an intimate relationship may subsequently received feedback that they had tested positively or
serve two different functions in evaluations of that relationship. negatively for the disease. Of the participants who learned they had
First, expectations can serve as goal structures that motivate pro- tested positive, those who held the most optimistic expectations
cesses of expectancy confirmation (for a review, see Snyder, (e.g., those who expected not to have the disease) felt most
1984). Given a goal expressed by an expectation for the relation- discouraged after learning the test results. Similarly, of the partic-
ship, confirmation of that expectation can occur through two ipants who learned they had tested negative, those whose expec-
mechanisms. Perceptual confirmation occurs when prior expecta- tations were optimistic felt least relieved after learning the test
tions for an event lead people to interpret the details of the event results. In other words, following both positive and negative out-
in ways that give rise to expectancy-consistent evaluations of the comes, people who expected the best felt the worst.
event (Darley & Gross, 1983; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Kelley, Do partners who hold high expectations for their relationships
1950; Miller & Turnbull, 1986). Behavioral confirmation occurs similarly risk being disappointed? Theoretical work within the
when prior expectations for an event give rise to expectancy- literature on close relationships suggests that they do. According to
consistent behaviors during the event (Darley & Fazio, 1980; interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), partners deter-
Jussim, 1986; Merton, 1948; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Snyder, mine their satisfaction with the relationship by comparing the
Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). outcomes they receive in their relationships with the standards they
A number of studies have suggested that both processes operate have for those relationships. In line with DAT, if partners’ out-
in close relationships (e.g., Downey et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., comes exceed their standards, they will be satisfied with their
2000; Knee, 1998; McNulty & Karney, 2002; Murray et al., relationships. In contrast, if partners’ outcomes do not meet their
1996b). For example, in research demonstrating behavioral con- standards, they will be disappointed and therefore less satisfied
firmation, women expecting to be rejected by their partners tended with their relationships.
to engage in behaviors that predicted greater negative feelings in Empirical evidence within the literature on close relationships is
their partners following the interaction (Downey et al., 1998). In consistent with these predictions. For instance, in the previously
research providing evidence for perceptual confirmation, spouses’ discussed Fletcher et al. (2000) study, the positive association
general expectations about an upcoming problem-solving discus- between ideal standards and relationship outcomes was qualified
sion were positively associated with their subsequent appraisals of by partners’ perceptions of whether their standards were being
the interaction, independent of the behaviors they exchanged dur- met. Partners who perceived that their ideal standards were not
ing the discussion (McNulty & Karney, 2002). In other words, being met tended to be least happy in their relationships. In related
partners perceived the interaction in a manner consistent with work, Eidelson and Epstein (1982) developed an inventory to
their prior expectations, regardless of the behaviors that were measure beliefs about relationships they thought would be unre-
exchanged. alistic for most people: the belief that disagreement is always
That both processes may operate in close relationships suggests destructive, the belief that partners should read each other’s minds,
that to the extent that they are likely to be confirmed, positive the belief that partners cannot change, the belief in sexual perfec-
expectations should be beneficial to relationships. Research on tionism, and the belief that the sexes are inherently different.
related constructs appears consistent with this idea (Fletcher et al., Cross-sectionally, endorsement of these beliefs has been associ-
2000; Murray et al., 1996b). For example, Fletcher et al. (2000), in ated with lower levels of satisfaction with the relationship (see also
research on relationship standards, reported that romantic partners Epstein & Eidelson, 1981; Jones & Stanton, 1988). One explana-
were more satisfied with their relationships when they possessed tion for such associations is that spouses who expect their own
higher ideal standards for their relationships. Higher standards, relationships to meet these standards may be especially disap-
like positive expectations, may encourage consistent perceptions pointed when their relationships inevitably fail to measure up.
or inspire consistent behaviors leading to increased relationship So when is it beneficial to start a relationship with positive
satisfaction. expectations? The effects of expectations appear to depend on
In contrast to serving as goal structures, a second function of whether those expectations function as goal structures, likely to
expectations is that they can serve as counterfactuals to which encourage expectancy confirmation, or as counterfactuals, with
people compare their actual outcomes. Decision affect theory which partners compare their actual outcomes. When they inspire
(DAT; Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997) suggests that how perceptual and behavioral confirmation, positive expectations ap-
people feel about their outcomes is determined in part by coun- pear to benefit relationships. When expectancy confirmations fail,
terfactual thinking— comparing what occurred with what might however, positive expectations may serve as contrasts to actual
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 731

outcomes, leading partners to evaluate their actual outcomes more satisfaction over time, the initial attributional tendencies of new-
negatively. lyweds have been shown to predict trajectories of satisfaction and
divorce over the first years of marriage (Karney & Bradbury,
Conditions of Expectancy Confirmation 2000). In line with this research, partners who demonstrate the
ability to interpret ambiguous events positively early in the rela-
To the extent that expectancy confirmation moderates the im- tionship may be more able to perceive experiences as falling
pact of positive expectations on relationship outcomes, under- within the latitude of confirmation of their initially positive ex-
standing the role of expectations in relationships requires under- pectations throughout the relationship. Accordingly, the tendency
standing when positive expectations are more or less likely to be to make positive versus negative attributions for the events that
confirmed. Within the context of relationship outcomes, confirma- occur in the relationship may be a second factor that moderates the
tion is not likely to be categorical. Rather, partners may possess effects of positive expectations on relationship outcomes. For
latitudes of confirmation or disconfirmation, similar to Sherif’s partners who tend to make charitable attributions for their partners’
(1960) concept of latitudes of acceptance and rejection of attitudes. negative behaviors, positive expectations may be beneficial, in-
Just as Sherif described perceivers encountering a wide range of spiring them to take advantage of the cognitive relationship main-
persuasive communications, romantic partners are likely to en- tenance strategies they possess, and less positive expectations may
counter a wide range of experiences as their relationships develop. be detrimental by inhibiting them from seeing things in a positive
Experiences that fall within a partner’s latitude of confirmation light. For partners less able to forgive their partners, however,
will be seen as confirming initially positive expectations. Experi- positive expectations may be detrimental, raising a standard that
ences that fall outside latitudes of confirmation will be seen as the relationship can never achieve. These partners too may benefit
disconfirming initially positive expectations. from less positive expectations, because such expectations will
The likelihood that partners will perceive their expectations as serve as less severe contrasts to the partners’ potentially more
having been confirmed may therefore depend on their ability to negative experiences.
create events and, failing that, interpret events that fall within the
latitude of acceptance of those expectations (Miller & Turnbull, Overview of the Current Study
1986; for other factors that may moderate the expectancy-
confirmation effect, see also Swann, 1984). For example, Jussim To contribute to the ongoing debate about the effects of positive
(1986) pointed out that behavioral confirmation is generally more expectations on relationships, we examined whether the longitu-
likely to occur to the extent that people are capable of behaving in dinal effects of positive expectations on the trajectory of marital
ways that confirm their expectations. Within intimate relation- satisfaction were moderated by the quality of spouses’ marital
ships, partners who are more skillful communicators and problem interactions and attributions. First-married couples participating in
solvers should be better able to arrange experiences that confirm a broader study of relationship development were asked to report
initially positive expectations. Indeed, longitudinal research dem- their expectations for various relationship outcomes shortly after
onstrates that the spouses who are more skilled at resolving con- their wedding. Newlyweds were an especially appropriate sample
flicts and behaving constructively tend to be more satisfied with for the current study for two reasons. First, as Jussim and Eccles
their relationships over time (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Gottman, Coan, (1995) pointed out, over the course of an ongoing relationship,
Carrere, & Swanson, 1998; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & specific expectations are likely to become accurate reflections of
George, 2001; Karney & Bradbury, 1997). Accordingly, behav- past experience. In the current sample of newlyweds, specific
ioral skills in the early years of the relationship may moderate the expectations and prior experience were less likely to be con-
effects of positive expectations on relationship outcomes by cre- founded, leaving open the possibility that initially positive expec-
ating experiences that confirm or disconfirm those expectations. tations may still be confirmed or disconfirmed. Second, couples in
That is, for partners who tend be skillful communicators, positive the very early stages of their relationships are frequently the targets
expectations may be beneficial, directing partners to exploit their of interventions aimed directly at modifying expectations (e.g.,
skills to the benefit of the relationship, and less positive expecta- Stanley et al., 1999). Before such interventions become accepted in
tions may be detrimental by preventing partners from taking ad- premarital and early-marital therapy programs, it seems relevant to
vantage of their skills. For partners who tend to be less skillful, examine the effects of expectations in a recently married sample.
however, positive expectations may be detrimental because the In addition to expectations, spouses reported their satisfaction
lack of behavioral skills may lead these couples to encounter with the relationship, responded to a measure of relationship
experiences that disconfirm those expectations, resulting in disap- attributions, and engaged in two videotaped problem-solving dis-
pointment. Such partners may benefit from less positive expecta- cussions. Subsequent to that initial assessment, these couples pro-
tions instead because such expectations will serve as less severe vided reports of their relationship satisfaction every 6 months for
contrasts to their potentially more negative experiences. 4 years, for a total of eight waves of marital satisfaction data.
If behavioral confirmation fails, partners may still confirm pos- To the extent that spouses behave more positively during their
itive expectations if they are able and willing to engage in percep- interactions with each other or tend to make more positive attri-
tual confirmation, interpreting events in a manner consistent with butions for their partners’ behaviors, we predicted that positive
their expectations (Miller & Turnbull, 1986). The robust literature expectations should function as goal structures likely to be con-
on attributions has revealed how the tendency to interpret specific firmed by processes of expectancy confirmation. Under these
relationship events positively predicts greater long-term satisfac- circumstances, positive expectations should be associated with
tion with relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Even con- more stable relationship satisfaction over time because spouses’
trolling for the covariance between attributions and relationship skills should allow them to confirm their positive expectations, but
732 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

less positive expectations should be associated with steeper de- then participated in two 10-min videotaped discussions within which they
clines in satisfaction over time because they indicate a failure or an were left alone to “work towards some resolution or agreement” for each
unwillingness to take advantage of opportunities for expectancy area of difficulty. The order of the two interactions was determined through
confirmation. In contrast, to the extent that spouses behave more a coin flip. After completing their interactions, couples were paid $50 for
participating in this phase of the study.
negatively during their interactions with each other or tend to make
At approximately 6-month intervals subsequent to the initial assessment,
more negative attributions for their partners’ behaviors, their pos-
couples were recontacted by phone and then mailed additional marital
itive expectations should function as counterfactuals because such satisfaction questionnaires along with postage-paid return envelopes and a
partners should lack the skills to confirm those expectations. Under letter of instruction reminding couples to complete forms independently of
these conditions, positive expectations should lead to steeper de- one another. This procedure was used at every 6-month interval except for
clines in satisfaction because they provide the most striking con- Time 5, during which couples returned to the laboratory again. Couples
trasts to actual outcomes. Less positive expectations, alternatively, were paid $25 to continue participating at each follow-up through the mail
should be associated with more stable relationship satisfaction and $50 for the lab session at Time 5. This study examined eight waves of
over time because they provide less striking contrasts to actual marital satisfaction data, covering approximately the first 4 years of mar-
outcomes. riage. Thus, analyses are based on data obtained from marital satisfaction
measures assessed at Times 1– 8 and behavioral and attribution measures
assessed at Time 1. Behavioral and attribution measures at Time 1 were
Method assessed as a means of estimating the experiences, positive versus nega-
tive, partners were capable of encountering over the course of their
Participants relationships.
All of the couples participating in this research were newlyweds, as-
sessed within the first 6 months of both partners’ first marriage. Couples Materials
were solicited from the community using two methods. The first method Marital satisfaction. Most commonly used measures of marital satis-
was to place advertisements in community newspapers and bridal shops, faction ask spouses to report their global sentiments toward the marriage as
offering up to $300 to couples willing to participate in a study of newly- well as their level of agreement about specific problem areas (e.g., the
weds. The second method was to review the applications of couples who Marital Adjustment Test; Locke & Wallace, 1959). As several authors have
had applied for marriage licenses in Alachua County, Florida. In Alachua pointed out (e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1987), the use of such omnibus
County, marriage licenses are available to the public and contain data on measures can lead to inflated associations with other variables that also
spouses’ ages, whether or not this is their first marriage, and the date of the address relationship processes. To ensure that global sentiments toward the
wedding. Couples who were eligible for the study based on these criteria relationship and level of agreement about specific relationship issues were
were sent letters offering them up to $300 to participate in a study of not confounded in the current study and to ensure that any results were not
newlyweds. Couples responding to either method of solicitation were idiosyncratic to a particular measure, two measures of satisfaction were
screened in a telephone interview to determine whether they met the used that assess global evaluations of the relationship exclusively. The first
following criteria: (a) This was the first marriage for each partner; (b) the measure was a version of the Semantic Differential (SMD; Osgood, Suci,
couple had been married less than 3 months; (c) neither partner had & Tannenbaum, 1957), which asks spouses to rate their perceptions of their
children; (d) each partner was at least 18 years of age, and wives were less relationship on 7-point scales between fifteen pairs of opposing adjectives
than 35 years of age (to allow that all couples were capable of conceiving (e.g., bad–good, dissatisfied–satisfied, unpleasant–pleasant). The SMD
children over the course of the study); (e) each partner spoke English and yields scores from 15 to 105. Higher scores reflect more positive satisfac-
had completed at least 10 years of education (to ensure comprehension of tion with the relationship. In the current sample, internal consistency of this
the questionnaires); and (f) the couple had no immediate plans to move measure was high (across the eight waves, coefficient alpha ranged from
away from the area. Nearly 300 couples responded to these solicitations; .91 to .97 for husbands and from .93 to .97 for wives). The second measure
the 82 eligible couples who arrived for their scheduled interview made up was the Quality Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983), a six-item scale
the current sample. Analyses revealed no significant differences in age or asking spouses to report the extent to which they agree or disagree with
years of education between couples recruited through the different types of general statements regarding the quality of their marriage. Five items ask
solicitations (D’Angelo & Karney, 1999). spouses to respond according to a 7-item scale, whereas one item asks
Husbands were an average of 25.1 years old (SD ⫽ 3.3) and had spouses to respond according to a 10-item scale, yielding scores from 6 to
received 16.3 years of education (SD ⫽ 2.4). Forty percent were employed 45. High scores reflect more positive satisfaction with the relationship.
full time, and 54% were full-time students. Wives were an average of 23.7 Internal consistency of this measure also was high in the current sample
years old (SD ⫽ 2.8) and had received 16.3 years of education (SD ⫽ 1.2). (across the eight waves, coefficient alpha ranged from .94 to .97 for
Thirty-nine percent were employed full time, and 50% were full-time husbands and from .94 to .98 for wives).
students. Slightly over 70% of the sample was Christian (over 45% was Expectations. Newlywed spouses are likely to have well-defined ex-
Protestant), and 83% of husbands and 89% of wives were White. The pectations for many aspects of their relationship. Because the current study
average combined income of couples was less than $20,000 per year.1 was focused on expectations that could potentially serve as goals or as
counterfactuals, it was important to examine expectations that were both
Procedure (a) disconfirmable and (b) likely to vary across spouses. Based on these

Couples meeting eligibility requirements were scheduled to attend a 3-hr

1
laboratory session. Before the session, they were mailed a packet of Other articles have been published using this data set: Frye and Karney
questionnaires to complete at home and bring with them to their appoint- (2002, in press), McNulty and Karney (2001, 2002), Neff and Karney
ment. This packet included self-report measures of marital satisfaction, (2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004), and Vogel and Karney (2002). So far, how-
relationship attributions, measures of expectations for the relationship and ever, this article is the only one to examine the effects of expectations for
the partner, as well as a letter instructing couples to complete all question- the relationship and expectations for the partner and the only one to
naires independently of one another. As part of a subsequent laboratory examine eight waves of satisfaction data covering the first 4 years of
session, spouses each identified an area of difficulty in the marriage and marriage.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 733

criteria, two measures of expectations were developed for the current analyzed in the current study (for direct negative, ICC ⫽ .67 for husbands
study. and .83 for wives; for indirect negative, ICC ⫽ .83 for husbands and .65 for
Given that the primary dependent variable examined here was change in wives; for constructive, ICC ⫽ .77 for husbands and .87 for wives). Our
satisfaction over time, the first measure of expectations asked spouses to hypotheses did not distinguish between types of behavior, so we combined
describe their expectations for how their relationships would change over the two negative codes and subtracted the positive code to arrive at an
time. Specifically, spouses were asked how their satisfaction was likely to index of the net negativity expressed by each spouse during the interaction.
vary over the course of the relationship. Consistent with recent evidence The high correlations among the codes justified this procedure (absolute
that variability in relationship satisfaction predicts long-term relationship values ranged from r ⫽ .40 to r ⫽ .73 for husbands and from r ⫽ .34 to
stability (Arriaga, 2001), spouses were asked to describe whether they r ⫽ .70 for wives). Further, because our hypotheses did not distinguish
expected their satisfaction to vary considerably over time or whether they between husbands’ and wives’ problem-solving topics, indices were further
expected their satisfaction to remain fairly steady over time. Spouses collapsed across both interactions (where behaviors were strongly corre-
responded to three items. The first item asked: “Over the next six months, lated: r ⫽ .49 for husbands, r ⫽ .34 for wives). Finally, because both
which of the following describes how your feelings towards your marriage partners in a given interaction can create experiences that may confirm or
are likely to change?” with response possibilities of 1 ⫽ major highs/major disconfirm expectations, and because spouses’ behaviors during the inter-
lows, 2 ⫽ some ups and downs, 3 ⫽ a few ups and downs, 4 ⫽ pretty action were strongly correlated (r ⫽ .57), the index was further collapsed
steady, and 5 ⫽ very steady. The second item asked the same question with across spouses, resulting in a single score that captured the nature of
respect to the “next four years.” Finally, the third item asked spouses to couples’ observed skill at communicating about marital problems.2
select from among nine pictures reflecting different patterns of growth and Attributions. The ability to interpret events positively in the marriage
variability the one pattern that best represented their expected trajectory of was estimated using the Relationship Attributions Measure (Fincham &
marital satisfaction over the upcoming 6 months. All pictures depicted Bradbury, 1992). This 24-item measure presents spouses with four nega-
various trajectories and various degrees of variability. Partners’ selections tive stimulus events that are likely to occur in all marriages (e.g., “Your
were coded according to the degree of variability represented in the picture spouse criticizes something you say” and “Your spouse begins to spend
(e.g., 1 ⫽ some variability, 2 ⫽ no variability). All three items were less time with you”). For each event, spouses are asked to rate their
standardized and summed to form a single index with adequate internal agreement on a 7-point scale ranging from Agree strongly to Disagree
consistency (coefficient ␣ ⫽ .77 for husbands and .78 for wives) and strongly, with statements that reflect six attribution dimensions. The Causal
substantial between-subjects variability. Higher scores on this measure Attributions subscale consists of 12 judgments (3 dimensions ⫻ 4 stimulus
indicate more positive expectations: a tendency for spouses to expect events), and the Responsibility Attributions subscale consists of 12 judg-
greater steadiness in their satisfaction over time. ments. For Causal Attributions, the three dimensions relate to the perceived
The second measure of expectations asked spouses to report their ex- locus, globality, and stability of the cause of the negative partner behavior.
pectations for their partners in the relationship. Some spouses may hold For Responsibility Attributions, the three dimensions capture the extent to
which spouses consider their partner’s behaviors intentional, selfishly
extremely positive expectations for how their partners are likely to behave,
motivated, and blameworthy. For each subscale, a composite score was
expecting that their partners will be unfailingly sensitive and caring at
computed by summing the 12 judgments, resulting in two scores for each
every occasion. Others may hold less positive expectations, recognizing
spouse with possible ranges of 12 to 84. The internal consistency of each
that their partners may fail or disappoint them at times. To capture
subscale was relatively high (for Causal Attributions, coefficient ␣ ⫽ .85
between-spouse variability in these expectations, a nine-item measure was
for husbands and .73 for wives; for Responsibility Attributions, coefficient
developed that asked spouses to rate their agreement with a series of
␣ ⫽ .89 for husbands and .90 for wives). Responses were recoded so that
statements (e.g., “My partner will rarely make mistakes,” “My partner will
higher scores indicate attributions that view the partner in a more positive
agree with me about the important things,” “My partner will always take
light.
time for me when I need him/her”) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree; potential range ⫽ 7– 63). These items were summed
to form a single index that was normally distributed and had adequate Data Analysis
internal consistency (coefficient ␣ ⫽ .71 for husbands and .80 for wives)
and substantial between-subjects variability. Higher scores on this measure Because we were interested in examining the effects of expectations on
indicate more positive expectations: a tendency for spouses to have more the development of marital satisfaction over time, the dependent variable in
positive expectations for their partners’ behaviors (the complete measure is these analyses was the trajectory of marital satisfaction over the first 4
presented in the Appendix). years of marriage. To estimate this trajectory for each spouse, we con-
Marital interaction behavior. The ability to behave positively in the ducted growth curve analysis (GCA) using hierarchical linear modeling
marriage was estimated by coding the videotapes from Time 1 using a (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987, 1992) and the HLM/2L computer
modified version of the Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme (Sillars, Coletti, program (Bryk, Raudenbush, & Congdon, 1994). This approach has sev-
Parry, & Rogers, 1982). This version of the Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme eral advantages. First, in contrast to other approaches to analyzing trajec-
assigns one of four possible codes to each speaking turn of each spouse. A tories (e.g., structural equation modeling), HLM provides reliable estimates
speaker received an avoidant code for speaking turns that were off topic or of within-subject parameters even when sample sizes are relatively small.
moved the discussion away from the problem at hand. A speaker received Second, HLM provides maximally efficient estimates of these parameters
one of two negative codes for speaking turns that either directly faulted, by weighting individual estimates according to Bayes’s theorem (Box &
rejected, or criticized the partner (direct negative), or indirectly criticized
the partner through presumptive attributions, avoiding responsibility, or
hostile questions (indirect negative). A speaker received a constructive 2
Additional analyses examined the effects of negative and positive
code for speaking turns that were on topic and furthered the resolution of behavior as separate indices and treated husbands’ behavior and wives’
the conflict. behavior as separate indices. Results from both additional analyses were
The reliability of this system was assessed by randomly choosing 30% consistent with the results reported for the index of couple-level behavior.
of the interactions to be coded by a second rater. Degree of agreement Because avoidant behavior is categorically different from negative and
between raters was estimated with an intraclass correlation coefficient positive behavior, and because we made no predictions regarding the
(ICC) comparing the amounts of each code observed by each rater across moderating effect of avoidance on the association between expectations
the interactions. ICCs indicated adequate interrater reliability for the codes and satisfaction, avoidant codes were not examined in the current analyses.
734 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

Tiao, 1973). When the within-subject parameter for an individual can be reasons. First, despite the positivity of these average scores, stan-
estimated precisely, the final estimate relies heavily on the individual data. dard deviations reveal substantial variability in partners’ reports. In
When the parameter cannot be estimated precisely (e.g., because of missing fact, both measures of expectations are relatively normally distrib-
data), the final estimate relies more heavily on the mean of the sample. uted. Second, the central theme of this study is to examine whether
Because the most precise estimates therefore contribute more to the final
the effects of expectations depend on whether they are likely to
estimated variance of the sample, variances estimated in this way tend to
be more conservative than those obtained through traditional ordinary least
undergo processes of expectancy confirmation. Such expectancy
squares methods. confirmation depends, not on the valence of the expectations
To test the hypothesis that behavior and relationship attributions interact alone, but on comparisons between expectations and the experi-
with initial expectations to predict changes in satisfaction over time, ences couples are likely to encounter given their relationship skills.
two-stage growth curve analyses were conducted to model individual Accordingly, even very positive expectations can be confirmed,
change over the eight assessments of each couple. In the first stage of these and even very negative expectations can fail to be confirmed.
analyses, within-subjects trajectories were computed for each individual’s Testing the current hypotheses requires examining the interactions
marital satisfaction over time. In the second stage, the independent vari- between expectations and attributions and expectations and
ables and their interactions were used to account for between-subjects behavior.
differences in the parameters of these trajectories. To control for depen-
Correlations among the independent variables are reported in
dencies in partners’ data, parameters describing husbands’ and wives’
trajectories were estimated simultaneously in a couple-level model, accord- Table 2. As expected, both measures of expectations were signif-
ing to procedures described by Raudenbush, Brennan, and Barnett (1995). icantly correlated for each spouse. Additionally, consistent with
previous work, each spouse’s attributions for responsibility and
attributions for causality were strongly correlated (Bradbury &
Results
Fincham, 1990). Also, husbands’ and wives’ attribution scores
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses were significantly positively associated with each measure of their
expectations, indicating that spouses who tended to make positive
Of the 82 couples who responded at Time 1, 17 (21%) were attributions also tended to hold positive expectations for their
dissolved at Time 8. Nevertheless, because HLM computed satis- relationships and for their partners. Observations of the positive
faction slopes for all spouses who reported their satisfaction on at behavior exhibited during the interactions demonstrated a signifi-
least three occasions, some of these dissolved couples were in- cant positive correlation with wives’ responsibility attributions,
cluded in the current analyses, resulting in a relatively low rate of indicating that wives who tended to experience more positive
attrition. Whereas the average rate of retention in prior research on behavior during their interactions also tended to relieve their
marriage is 69% (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), all 65 nondissolved husbands from blame for their negative behaviors. Observations of
couples reported at Time 8, representing 80% of the sample. behavior were not significantly correlated with any additional
Furthermore, 12 dissolved couples reported their marital satisfac- wives’ cognitions, and observations of behavior were not signifi-
tion on at least three occasions, allowing for longitudinal analyses cantly correlated with any of the husbands’ cognitions. Finally,
to be based on 77 of the original 82 couples, or 94% of the sample.3 between-spouse correlations are presented on the diagonal in Table
Descriptive statistics for all independent variables are reported 2. As can be seen, husbands’ and wives’ scores were significantly
in Table 1. As would be expected within a sample of newlyweds, positively associated with one another on all measures except
on average husbands and wives held very positive expectations for
responsibility attributions. In sum, preliminary analyses reveal that
their relationships and for their partners. Husbands and wives also
all measures examined here are performing as expected.
tended to make relatively charitable attributions for their partners’
negative behaviors, relieving their partners of blame and seeing
external causes for negative events, and tended to exchange rela- Describing the Trajectory of Satisfaction
tively high proportions of positive behaviors during their problem-
solving interactions. Paired-sample t tests revealed that no gender The mean scores for husbands and wives on each measure of
differences were significantly different from zero on any of the marital satisfaction at each wave of data collection are presented in
variables examined here. Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, it appears that scores on both
Although, on average, expectations scores are quite positive, the measures of marital satisfaction became less positive over time for
positivity does not threaten the validity of the current study for two both husbands and wives, suggesting a linear decline in satisfac-
tion within these data. Within-subject change in satisfaction over
time was assessed with GCA using HLM. The following model
was assessed:
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables at Time 1 Yij ⫽ ␤ 0j ⫹ ␤ 1j 共Time兲 ⫹ r ij , (1)
Husbands Wives
where Yij is the marital satisfaction of Individual j at Time i; ␤0j is
Measure M SD M SD the marital satisfaction of Individual j at Time 0 (i.e., the initial
satisfaction of Individual j); ␤1j is the rate of linear change in
Expectations for satisfaction steadiness 9.0 2.1 9.1 2.1
Expectations for partner’s behaviors 45.5 6.5 43.9 8.6
Causality Attributions 53.3 11.2 51.4 9.9 3
Subsequent analyses, including a dummy variable to represent rela-
Responsibility Attributions 63.6 12.1 60.8 14.6 tionship status, revealed that the effects described in the current study
Net positive behavior (%) 67.0 22.0 67.0 22.0
remained significant controlling for relationship dissolution.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 735

Table 2 over the first 4 years of marriage, satisfaction declined more for
Correlations Among Independent Variables at Time 1 some spouses than it did for others.4

Measure 1 2 3 4 5
Were Expectations Associated With Change in
Expectations Satisfaction Over Time?
1. Expectations for steadiness .35** .36** .24* .24* ⫺.04
2. Expectations for partner .33** .53** .27* .29** ⫺.08 Before addressing central hypotheses of this study involving
interactions, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine the
Moderators main effects of expectations on change in satisfaction. These
3. Causality Attributions .26* .34** .25* .62** ⫺.06 analyses ignore the cognitive and behavioral abilities of spouses to
4. Responsibility Attributions .31** .22* .56** .09 ⫺.03 ask whether there are overall effects on the trajectory of having
5. Positive behavior .16 .03 .07 .36** — more or less positive expectations at the outset of a marriage. To
address this question, each measure of expectations was entered
Note. Correlations between husbands and wives appear in boldface type.
Husbands’ correlations are above those in boldface; wives’ correlations are
into the second stage of the HLM analysis to account for between-
below. subjects variability in the parameters estimated by Equation 1. The
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed. top half of Table 5 reports the associations between expectations
and initial satisfaction. The t statistics in this section reveal a
consistent pattern of significant positive associations between ex-
pectations and initial marital satisfaction, with one marginally
marital satisfaction of Individual j; and rij is the residual variance significant association between wives’ expectations for satisfac-
in repeated measurements for Spouse j, assumed to be independent tion steadiness and initial scores on the QMI. Not surprisingly,
and normally distributed across spouses. This model can be un- spouses who were initially more satisfied with the relationship
derstood as a within-subjects regression of an individual’s marital tended to hold more positive expectations about their relationships
satisfaction score onto time of assessment, where time was defined and about their partners. Of note, although the association between
as the wave of data collection. The model was applied separately initial satisfaction and expectations for partner’s behavior was
to each measure of marital satisfaction but simultaneously to significant for husbands and for wives, it was significantly stronger
husbands’ and wives’ data, using procedures described by Rau- for husbands than for wives on the SMD, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 80) ⫽ 3.8,
denbush et al. (1995). p ⬍ .05.
Fitting the model to these data provided generalized least The associations between expectations and the slope of marital
squares estimates of the average intercept and slope of marital satisfaction, controlling for associations between expectations and
satisfaction for husbands and wives as well as restricted the intercept, are reported in the bottom half of Table 5. As these
maximum-likelihood estimates of the variances of these parame- associations reveal, once the cross-sectional association between
ters. These estimates are reported in Table 4 along with t statistics expectations and initial satisfaction was controlled, expectations
that test whether the means of each parameter are different from rarely demonstrated significant associations with change in satis-
zero and chi-square statistics that test whether the variances of faction over time. The one significant association was that hus-
each parameter are different from zero. With respect to the inter- bands’ expectations for their wives’ behavior was significantly
cept, the estimates presented in Table 4 confirm that on average negatively associated with change in satisfaction over time as
husbands and wives reported relatively high initial levels of mar- measured on the SMD, such that husbands who had more positive
ital satisfaction. Comparison of Table 4 with Table 3 reveals that expectations on average experienced steeper declines in their sat-
the mean intercept for each measure is similar to the mean satis- isfaction over time. Aside from this effect, however, neither type
faction reported at Time 1. This is to be expected, because the of expectation was significantly associated with change in satis-
intercept represents the starting point of the trajectory. However, faction over time for husbands or wives on either measure of
as revealed by the chi-square tests of variance, the mean initial marital satisfaction.
satisfaction varied significantly across husbands and across wives
on both measures of marital satisfaction. In other words, even at Do Behaviors or Relationship Attributions Moderate the
the outset of the marriage, some spouses were significantly happier Effects of Expectations on Change in Marital
than others. Satisfaction?
With respect to the slope, the estimates presented in Table 4
confirm that on average, husbands and wives tended to experience The primary goal of the current study was to examine whether
significant declines in satisfaction over the first 4 years of mar- the effects of positive expectations on changes in satisfaction are
riage, consistent with prior studies of marital satisfaction (e.g., moderated by behavior and attributions. The previous analyses
Karney & Bradbury, 1997). The t statistics reported in Table 4 revealed that on average neither type of expectation was consis-
reveal significant negative trajectories for husbands and wives on tently associated with changes in relationship satisfaction over
time in the current sample. Nevertheless, it remains possible that
both measures of marital satisfaction. Furthermore, according to
the significance of the chi-square tests reported in Table 4, the
trajectories varied significantly across wives and marginally sig- 4
These data were also examined for the presence of nonlinear (i.e.,
nificantly across husbands for both measures. In other words, quadratic) changes in marital satisfaction over time. A quadratic model of
although on average husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction declined change provided a significantly worse fit to these data.
736 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

Table 3
Mean Marital Quality Scores Across Eight Waves of Measurement for Husbands and Wives

Spouse Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6 Time 7 Time 8

Semantic Differential
Husbands
M 96.3 92.0 92.5 92.1 93.5 92.1 91.1 92.8
SD 8.8 14.1 14.8 14.7 13.9 15.5 19.9 12.7
N 81 76 74 67 64 59 60 66
Wives
M 97.7 94.8 93.3 92.1 93.8 90.0 89.1 92.1
SD 10.7 12.9 16.0 14.7 15.6 19.3 19.6 17.5
N 82 77 73 68 66 60 62 65

Quality Marriage Index

Husbands
M 42.1 40.3 40.3 40.1 40.8 40.2 38.9 40.2
SD 4.0 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.5 6.5 8.4 6.0
N 81 76 74 67 64 59 60 66
Wives
M 42.1 40.8 39.9 39.0 40.2 38.3 38.3 39.3
SD 5.3 6.0 7.5 8.6 7.3 9.4 9.1 8.2
N 82 77 73 68 66 61 62 65

Note. Means using only participants reporting at Time 8 are similar and demonstrate similar trends.

when partners’ positive expectations were likely to be confirmed satisfaction. To examine these possibilities, each measure of ex-
by their experiences, either because of a tendency to engage in pectations and each potential moderator were centered and entered
more positive behaviors or a tendency to make positive attribu- separately into a second-stage analysis, along with the appropriate
tions, they did predict more stable satisfaction over time. In con- interaction term, to account for between-subjects variability in
trast, when spouses’ positive expectations were unlikely to be within-subject change in satisfaction as estimated in Equation 1.
confirmed by their experiences, either because of a tendency to The results of the analyses regarding the interactions between
engage in more negative behaviors or a tendency to make negative expectations and behavior on change in satisfaction are reported in
attributions, it remains possible that they predicted declines in the first two columns of Table 6. The effect sizes in these two
columns reveal a pattern of significant negative interactions be-
tween wives’ expectations for their husbands’ behavior and the
Table 4
Change in Marital Satisfaction
Table 5
Measure M SD t(81)a ␹2(1, N ⫽ 81) Effects of Expectations on the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction

Intercept Husband Wife

SMD Expectations t(80) d t(80) d
Husbands 95.2 1.1 — 181.9***
Wives 97.3 1.3 — 238.5*** Satisfaction intercepts
QMI
Husbands 41.7 0.52 — 170.3*** For satisfaction steadiness
Wives 41.8 0.56 — 195.0*** SMD 2.83** 0.30** 2.63** 0.28**
QMI 2.06* 0.23* 1.66† 0.17†
Slope For partner’s behaviors
SMD 4.48*** 0.45*** 2.20* 0.24*
SMD QMI 3.47*** 0.36** 2.04* 0.22*
Husbands ⫺0.64 0.16 ⫺3.9*** 100.9†
Wives ⫺1.06 0.21 ⫺5.2*** 160.2*** Satisfaction slopes
QMI
Husbands ⫺0.35 0.08 ⫺4.4*** 98.2† For satisfaction steadiness
Wives ⫺0.49 0.09 ⫺5.3*** 133.2*** SMD 0.09 0.01 ⫺0.97 ⫺0.11
QMI 0.53 0.06 ⫺0.46 ⫺0.05
Note. SMD ⫽ Semantic Differential (Osgood et al., 1957); QMI ⫽ For partner’s behaviors
Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983). SMD ⫺3.57** ⫺0.37** ⫺0.72 ⫺0.08
a
The t test of the intercepts addresses the hypothesis that the intercepts QMI ⫺1.37 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.01
differ significantly from zero. Because the lowest possible score on each of
these measures is greater than zero, these tests are not meaningful and Note. SMD ⫽ Semantic Differential (Osgood et al., 1957); QMI ⫽
hence are not reported. Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983).
† p ⬍ .10. *** p ⬍ .001, one-tailed. † p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001, one-tailed.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 737

Table 6
Moderating Effects of Positive Behavior and Attributions on the Association Between
Expectations and the Trajectory of Satisfaction

Responsibility Causality
Positive behavior attributions attributions

Expectations Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife

For satisfaction steadiness

SMD ⫺0.01 ⫺0.13 0.23* 0.32** 0.22* 0.28**
QMI ⫺0.05 ⫺0.15 0.24* 0.18† 0.09 0.07
For partner’s behaviors
SMD ⫺0.02 ⫺0.32** 0.20* 0.35*** 0.28** 0.19*
QMI ⫺0.09 ⫺0.35*** 0.22* 0.35*** 0.29** 0.18†

Note. SMD ⫽ Semantic Differential (Osgood et al., 1957); QMI ⫽ Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983).
† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001, one-tailed.

proportions of positive behavior observed in the relationship on of Table 6. The effect sizes in these columns reveal a pattern of
changes in their satisfaction over time. To determine the nature of significant positive interactions for both wives and husbands. To
these interactions, they were deconstructed by substituting values determine the nature of these interactions, they were deconstructed
one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation in the same manner as the previous interactions. Again, these plots
below the mean into the regression equation and plotting the revealed the same pattern of interactions across all significant
predicted outcomes (see Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, interactions. Samples of these plots are presented in Figures 2 and
1983). The resulting plots revealed the same pattern of interactions 3. To illustrate that the pattern of results is robust across different
across all significant interactions. A representative sample of these measures and across gender, each figure depicts a different mea-
plots is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 depicts the interactive effects sure of expectations, a different measure of satisfaction, and a
of positive behavior and wives’ expectations for their husbands’ different gender. Thus, Figure 2 depicts the interactive effects of
behaviors on change in satisfaction on the QMI. Consistent with wives’ responsibility attributions and their expectations for steadi-
predictions, this figure illustrates that when behavior was the most ness in the relationship on change in satisfaction on the SMD, and
positive at the outset of the marriage, more positive expectations Figure 3 depicts the interactive effects of husbands’ causality
predicted the most stable satisfaction and less positive expectations attributions and their expectations for their wives’ behaviors on
predicted steeper declines in satisfaction over the subsequent 4 change in satisfaction on the QMI. Consistent with predictions,
years. In contrast, when behavior was least positive at the outset of these figures illustrate that when attributions were more positive at
the marriage, more positive expectations predicted steeper declines the outset of the marriage, more positive expectations predicted
in marital satisfaction whereas less positive expectations predicted more stable satisfaction, and less positive expectations predicted
more stable satisfaction. Of note, although the interactions were steeper declines in satisfaction over the subsequent 4 years. In
significant for wives but not husbands, none of the gender differ- contrast, when attributions were least positive at the outset of the
ences were significantly different from zero. marriage, more positive expectations predicted steeper declines in
The results of the analyses regarding the interactions between marital satisfaction, whereas less positive expectations predicted
expectations and attributions are reported in the last four columns more stable satisfaction. Again, although some interactions were
significant for wives but not husbands, none of the gender differ-
ences in these effects were significantly different from zero.

Discussion
Rationale and Summary of Results
Given that expectations influence a wide variety of interpersonal
phenomena (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1998), the initially positive
expectations that partners have for their intimate relationships
should have implications for the development of those relation-
ships over time. Prior literature on the effects of positive expec-
tations confirms this idea but offers competing descriptions of the
nature of this effect. When they function as goal structures, posi-
tive expectations appear to be beneficial because they inspire
perceptual and behavioral confirmation processes that in turn lead
to positive outcomes. When they function as counterfactuals, how-
Figure 1. Moderating effects of behavior on the association between ever, positive expectations can be detrimental because partners
expectations and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. may be disappointed when their expectations are not met. The
738 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

ble satisfaction, whereas their less positive expectations for

their husbands’ behaviors predicted steeper declines in satis-
faction. In contrast, when behaviors were most negative, wives’
more positive expectations for husbands’ behaviors predicted
steeper declines in marital satisfaction, whereas their less pos-
itive expectations for husbands’ behaviors predicted more sta-
ble satisfaction. In sum, which expectations are adaptive de-
pends on the relationship context. When the relationship
context is positive, positive expectations appear to be adaptive.
When the relationship context is less positive, less positive
expectations appear to be adaptive.
It may seem counterintuitive that spouses who entered their
relationships with positive abilities but less positive expecta-
tions experienced steeper declines in their relationship satis-
faction. After all, both DAT and interdependence theory pre-
dict that these people should be pleasantly surprised by the
Figure 2. Moderating effects of husbands’ responsibility attributions
on the association between expectations and the trajectory of marital positive outcomes that their skills should provide. Neverthe-
satisfaction. less, the current results are consistent with predictions. Such
spouses may have been less likely to put forth the effort to
take advantage of their skills throughout the remainder of
their relationships because they lacked the positive expecta-
current study examined the possibility that the ability to behave tions that would motivate such effort. Therefore, their more
constructively and the ability to make positive attributions may moderate expectations prevented them from achieving positive
be two factors that determine which role expectations play in experiences.
the evaluation process and therefore may moderate the effects It is also important to note that although partners who lacked
of positive expectations on changes in relationship satisfaction. relationship skills and possessed less positive expectations for
Specifically, positive expectations should be beneficial when their relationships appear to have experienced the most stable
partners’ ability to behave constructively or make charitable satisfaction over time, the level of satisfaction for these couples
attributions enables their expectations to function as goals that was not as high as it was for couples who possessed more
can be achieved through processes of expectancy confirmation. positive skills. Rather, expectations were positively associated
For these couples, less positive expectations may be a liability with initial satisfaction in the current study, suggesting that
because they do not allow couples to take advantage of the partners in this sample who began their marriages with low
skills they possess. In contrast, positive expectations may prove expectations and poor skills were less stably happy over the
harmful for partners whose weaker ability to behave positively first years of their marriages. Nevertheless, these partners did
or make charitable attributions makes it more likely that their benefit from their less positive expectations relative to partners
expectations will serve as counterfactuals and lead to disap- with low skills and more positive expectations, demonstrating
pointments. For these couples, less positive expectations may the potential benefits of less positive expectations for partners
be more beneficial because they may serve as less severe who are likely to encounter negative experiences over the
contrasts to actual outcomes. course of their relationships.
Preliminary analyses revealed that although spouses’ expec-
tations were positively associated with their initial marital
satisfaction, on average they had few significant main effects on
changes in satisfaction over time. Consistent with predictions,
however, longitudinal effects of positive expectations did
emerge in interactions with marital behavior and attributions.
With respect to attributions, the patterns of these interactions
were robust across spouses and across different measures of
expectations and satisfaction. When attributions were most
positive, more positive expectations predicted more stable sat-
isfaction, whereas less positive expectations predicted steeper
declines in satisfaction. In contrast, when attributions were
most negative, more positive expectations predicted steeper
declines in marital satisfaction, whereas less positive ex-
pectations predicted more stable satisfaction. With respect
to marital behavior, the patterns of interactions arose for
wives’ expectations for husbands’ behavior but not for hus-
bands’ expectations for wives’ behavior. When relationship
behaviors were most positive, wives’ more positive ex- Figure 3. Moderating effects of wives’ causality attributions on the
pectations for their husbands’ behaviors predicted more sta- association between expectations and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 739

Theoretical and Applied Implications discussed above, research by Fletcher et al. (2000) demonstrated
that the benefits of positive relationship standards depended on
The current findings have several implications for research on whether they were confirmed or disconfirmed. When ideal stan-
close relationships. First, they contribute to debates about whether dards for the relationship were held and met, they were associated
accurate beliefs or positively biased beliefs are more beneficial for with higher levels of relationship satisfaction. When such stan-
relationship functioning (Armor & Taylor, 1998; Baumeister, dards were held but not met, however, they were associated with
1989; Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Similarly, in research on
1996a; Radcliffe & Klein, 2002; Robins & Beer, 2001; Swann, couples in long-distance dating relationships, positive beliefs about
1990; Taylor & Brown, 1994; Wiebe & Black, 1997). Although a the relationship were beneficial to coping, but only when the
number of studies have demonstrated the benefits of positively couples stayed together (Helgeson, 1994). When positive beliefs
biased beliefs about relationships, the current findings offer two about the relationship were disconfirmed by relationship dissolu-
potential boundary conditions of these benefits. First, the current tion, they led to greater levels of distress. Future research may
findings suggest that the benefits of positive bias may be limited to benefit from examining the potential that other relationship cog-
the short term. Much of the research on the benefits of positive bias nitions may similarly interact with specific experiences to influ-
has demonstrated such benefits over a relatively short period of ence relationship outcomes.
time. Consistent with this research, in the current study positive Finally, the current findings have implications for interventions
expectations about the relationship were cross-sectionally associ- designed to alleviate or prevent marital distress. To the extent that
ated with positive relationship satisfaction. Nevertheless, over an the effects of expectations on relationship outcomes are moderated
interval of 4 years, positive expectations were more beneficial to by qualities of the relationship, general advice about expectations
the extent that they were realistic (i.e., held by partners who may not apply equally well to all couples. Positive expectations are
possessed the skills to confirm them) and predicted steeper de- not harmful for everyone, nor are they beneficial for everyone.
clines in relationship satisfaction to the extent that they were less Instead, when advising clients about what to expect from the
realistic (i.e., held by partners who lacked sufficient relationship future, therapists might consider whether positive expectations will
skills to confirm them; for related discussions, see Radcliffe & function as goals, likely to be confirmed by processes of expect-
Klein, 2002; Robins & Beer, 2001; Wiebe & Black, 1997). Sec- ancy confirmation, or as counterfactuals, likely to lead to disap-
ond, the current findings suggest that the benefits of positive bias pointment. Spouses who possess the skills necessary to confirm
may be more evident for beliefs about global, ambiguous qualities. positive expectations may benefit from fostering and maintaining
Whereas work demonstrating the benefits of positive bias in rela- positive expectations about their likelihood for future relationship
tionships typically has addressed relatively global perceptions of success. For such individuals, positive expectations may inspire
the partner (e.g., my partner is kind; Murray & Holmes, 1997; them to persist in resolving problems that may arise and view even
Murray et al., 1996a), the current work demonstrated no such negative experiences in a positive light. In contrast, couples who
benefits for unrealistically positive expectations regarding aspects lack these skills or who are otherwise at risk to encounter negative
of a relationship that are less open to interpretation (e.g., my experiences that will disconfirm positive expectations may benefit
partner will always get along well with my parents; for related from moderating excessively positive expectations for their future
discussions, see Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, & Yurak, 1995; outcomes. Such couples may respond more favorably to their
Dunning, 1995; Dunning & McElwee, 1995; Dunning, Meyerow- negative experiences when they are expected rather than
itz, & Holzberg, 1989; Hampson, Goldberg, & John, 1987; Hamp- unexpected.
son, John, & Goldberg, 1986; Karney, McNulty, & Bradbury,
2001; Karney, McNulty, & Frye, 2001; McNulty & Karney, 2001).
In sum, whereas it appears beneficial for partners to maintain Additional Directions for Future Research
positive views of the more global qualities of their partners and
relationships, the current study suggests that over the long term it Where do unrealistically positive expectations come from? One
is important for partners to have accurate knowledge of their source may be personality. For instance, recent work has demon-
relationship’s specific strengths and weaknesses as well (for re- strated an association between depressive personality disorder and
lated discussions, see Neff & Karney, 2002a, 2002b). perfectionism (Huprich, 2003). It has been proposed that people
A second implication of these results is that they may reveal a with depressive personalities may try to gain acceptance from
common mechanism through which relationship cognitions influ- others by trying to avoid mistakes (Huprich, 2003). Given this
ence relationship functioning. In contrast to the idea that positive possibility, and given that partners who experience higher levels of
expectations exert main effects on relationship outcomes, the cur- depression in their relationships tend to be less happy in those
rent findings suggest that the effects of expectations may depend relationships (see O’Mahen, Beach, & Banawan, 2001), it may be
on whether couples’ experiences confirm or disconfirm those that unrealistically positive standards mediate the effects of de-
expectations. Likewise, the effects of other relationship cognitions pression on declines in relationship satisfaction. That is, depressed
(e.g., beliefs, values, standards, etc.; see Karney, McNulty, & individuals may be less satisfied with their relationships because
Bradbury, 2001) may similarly influence relationships by interact- they hold standards for those relationships that are too high. In
ing with the specific experiences that partners encounter over the contrast to this idea, others have argued that depression is linked to
course of their relationships. Several lines of research provide more pessimistic expectations (e.g., Isaacowitz & Seligman, 2001;
support for this idea (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Eidel- Roberts, Roberts, & Chen, 2000), suggesting that the effects of
son, 1981; Fletcher et al., 2000; Helgeson, 1994; Jones & Stanton, depression on declines in relationship satisfaction may be medi-
1988; Swann, de la Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). For example, as ated by more negative expectations. Additional research is re-
740 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

quired to tease apart the precise role of expectations in mediating additional effects not detected in the current study (e.g., gender
the effects of personality variables on relationship functioning. differences).

Conclusion
Strengths and Limitations
Who was correct about the effects of positive expectations:
Our confidence in the findings reported here is enhanced by Peale (1952), who suggested that positive expectations should lead
several strengths of this research. First, the general pattern of to positive outcomes, or Pope (as cited in Bartlett & Dole, 1919/
results was replicated across conceptually distinct measures of 2000), who argued that positive outcomes may lead to disappoint-
expectations and conceptually distinct measures of disconfirma- ment? Results of the current study suggest that within the context
tion, suggesting that results were not unique to one construct or of close relationships, the answer may depend on various factors
one method of measurement. Second, whereas the average rate of associated with relationship functioning. Consistent with Peale’s
retention in prior research on marriage is 69% (Karney & Brad- view, spouses who have the skills to attain positive outcomes
bury, 1995), analyses in the current study were able to use data benefit from positive expectations. Consistent with Pope’s view,
from 94% of the initial sample, reducing the likelihood that the spouses who lack the skills to cultivate positive experiences may
results were affected by attrition bias. Third, all spouses entering benefit from more moderate expectations. Given that the benefits
the study were newlyweds. Thus, although partners are likely to and costs of positive expectations depend on other relationship
adjust their expectations as a result of experience (e.g., Fletcher et factors, the effects of other cognitive variables on long-term rela-
al., 2000), participants in the current study were less likely to have tionship outcomes may similarly depend on how those cognitions
adopted expectations that completely overlapped with experiences, interact with the experiences couples are likely to encounter.
allowing for the possibility that expectations would be discon-
firmed (Jussim & Eccles, 1995; see also Booth, Johnson, White, & References
Edwards, 1985; South & Spitze, 1986). Fourth, the current study
assessed expectations during a phase in which expectations are Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
likely to be most critical: the beginning of the relationship. This interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
phase of the relationship is likely to be a time when expectations Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., & Yurak, T. J. (1995).
Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Jour-
for the marriage are just forming and thus are least likely to
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804 – 825.
measure up to the realities that couples encounter. Fifth, whereas Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome
the majority of longitudinal research on marriage has collected and expectations and self-regulation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
analyzed only two waves of data, the current analyses examined experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 309 –379). New York:
eight waves of data and analyzed all waves simultaneously using Academic Press.
GCA. Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in
Despite these strengths, several factors nevertheless limit inter- satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Person-
pretations of the current findings. First, whereas the homogeneity ality and Social Psychology, 80, 754 –765.
of this sample enhances our confidence in the pattern of associa- Bartlett, J. (Compiler), & Dole, N. H. (Ed.). (2000). Familiar quotations
(10th ed. rev.). Boston: Little, Brown. Retrieved February 23, 2004,
tions, generalizations to other samples should be made with cau-
from www.bartleby.com/100/ (Original work published 1919)
tion. For example, although the expectations spouses have in the Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996).
beginning of their relationships appear to influence the later de- Assessing relationship standards: The Inventory of Specific Relationship
velopment of those relationships, the expectations of more estab- Standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 72– 88.
lished couples may more accurately reflect prior experience (see Baumeister, R. F. (1989). The optimal margin of illusion. Journal of Social
Jussim & Eccles, 1995). If so, then the early years of marriage may and Clinical Psychology, 8, 176 –189.
be a unique period of relationship adjustment during which expec- Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., & Edwards, J. N. (1985).
tations are particularly important. Additional research may benefit Predicting divorce and permanent separation. Journal of Family Issues,
by examining this possibility. Second, the homogeneity of the 6, 331–346.
Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical
sample also limited the range of expectations assessed in the
analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
current study. Because all couples assessed in the current study Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage:
were newlyweds, very few held expectations for their relationships Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33.
that could be described as negative. Research examining a wider Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical
range of expectations may yield effects different from those ob- linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–
tained in the current study. For instance, although the current study 158.
revealed that more moderate expectations were more adaptive than Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
very positive expectations for couples likely to experience nega- Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
tive outcomes, it is unlikely that truly negative expectations would Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1994). HLM: Hier-
archical linear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs
also be adaptive for the relationship. Instead, negative expectations
[Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
may lead couples to abandon their efforts to resolve relationship Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlational
problems, leading to the eventual dissolution of the relationship analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(see Knee, 1998). Third, although the sample size in this study D’Angelo, C., & Karney, B. R. (1999, March). A comparison between
compared favorably with other longitudinal studies of marriage, a sampling methods in marital research. Paper presented at the annual
larger sample size would have provided greater power to detect meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Savannah, GA.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 741

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Is pessimism a risk factor
arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, for depressive mood among community-dwelling older adults? Behav-
867– 881. iour Research and Therapy, 39, 255–272.
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in Jones, M. E., & Stanton, A. L. (1988). Dysfunctional beliefs, belief
labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, similarity, and marital distress: A comparison of models. Journal of
20 –33. Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 1–14.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative
self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and review. Psychological Review, 93, 429 – 445.
rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1995). Naturally occurring interpersonal expect-
chology, 75, 545–560. ancies. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social development: Review of personality
Dunning, D. (1995). Trait importance and modifiability as factors influ- and social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 74 –108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
encing self-assessment and self-enhancement motives. Personality and Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1297–1306. marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research.
Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. O. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions: Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
Implications for self-description and social judgment. Journal of Per- Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction,
sonality and Social Psychology, 68, 936 –946. and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.
self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or
assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
57, 1082–1090. chology, 78, 295–309.
Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship malad- Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Cognition and
justment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship be- the development of close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S.
liefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715–720. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology. Vol. 2: Inter-
Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical cou- personal processes (pp. 32–59). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers
ples: Their relationship to expectations, goals, and satisfaction. Ameri- Limited.
can Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 13–22.
Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Frye, N. (2001). A social– cognitive
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital
perspective on the maintenance and deterioration of relationship satis-
quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797–
faction. In J. H. Harvey & A. E. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic rela-
809.
tionships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 195–214). Mahwah, NJ:
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in
Erlbaum.
marriage: The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality
Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm– cold variable in first impressions of
and Social Psychology, 62, 457– 468.
persons. Journal of Personality, 18, 431– 439.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, percep-
Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and
tions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of
prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping and longevity.
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360 –370.
Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Being better or getting better? Social
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment prediction
and temporal comparisons as coping mechanisms in close relationships.
tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1287–1299.
251–255.
Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (in press). Revision in memories of relation-
ship development: Do biases persist over time? Personal Relationships. McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Inte-
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between grating specific and global evaluations of a relationship. Personality and
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943–955.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Expectancy confirmation in
marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of appraisals of marital interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. Bulletin, 28, 764 –775.
Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., & John, O. P. (1987). Category-breadth Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more:
and social-desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Jour- Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists.
nal of Personality, 1, 241–258. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603– 610.
Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect
and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psycho-
judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- logical Science, 8, 423– 429.
chology, 51, 37–54. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8,
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. 193–210.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 129 –134. Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). The effects of self-beliefs and relationship beliefs processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256.
on adjustment to a relationship stressor. Personal Relationships, 1, Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions
241–258. in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Huprich, S. K. (2003). Depressive personality and its relationship to 23, 586 – 604.
depressed mood, interpersonal loss, negative parental perceptions, and Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of
perfectionism. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 73–79. positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital 79 –98.
delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling
chology, 80, 237–252. nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,
742 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155– Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:
1180. Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York:
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002a). Judgments of a relationship partner: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Specific accuracy but global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70, Shepperd, J. A., & McNulty, J. K. (2002). The affective consequences of
1077–1110. expected and unexpected outcomes. Psychological Science, 13, 85– 88.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002b). Self-evaluation motives in close Sherif, M. (1960). Some needed concepts in the study of social attitudes. In
relationships: A model of global enhancement and specific verification. J. G. Peatman & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Festschrift for Gardner Murphy
In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Develop- (pp. 194 –213). Oxford, England: Harper.
ments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 32–58). Cambridge, En- Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding
gland: Cambridge University Press. verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationship “avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication
perceptions: Differential importance as a strategy of relationship main- Research, 9, 83–95.
tenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1433–1446. Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 248 –305).
relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134 –148. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the depen- interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
dent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656 – 666.
Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Expectancies. In E. T. South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1986). Determinants of divorce over the marital
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of life course. American Sociological Review, 51, 583–590.
basic principles (pp. 211–238). New York: Guilford Press. Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (Eds.). (1999). Helping
O’Mahen, H. A., Beach, S. R. H., & Banawan, S. F. (2001). Depression in couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. Philadelphia:
marriage. In J. H. Harvey & A. H. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic Brunner/Mazel.
relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 299 –319). Mahwah, Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of
NJ: Erlbaum. pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457– 477.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of
of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M Sor-
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Prentice- rentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of
Hall. social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408 – 448). New York: Guilford Press.
Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and Swann, W. B., de la Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994) Authenticity and
comparative optimism: Differential relations with the knowledge and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and
processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk. Person- Social Psychology, 66, 857– 869.
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 836 – 846. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being
Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., & Barnett, R. C. (1995). A multivar- revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116,
iate hierarchical model for studying psychological change within mar- 21–27.
ried couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161–174. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
Roberts, R. E., Roberts, C. R., & Chen, I. G. (2000). Fatalism and risk of Oxford, England: Wiley.
adolescent depression. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Pro- Vogel, D. L., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Demands and withdrawal in
cesses, 63, 239 –252. relationships: Elaborating on the social structure hypothesis. Journal of
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 685–701.
Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Wiebe, D. J., & Black, D. (1997). Illusional beliefs in the context of risky
Social Psychology, 80, 340 –352. sexual behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1727–1749.
 POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE 743

Appendix

A Measure of Expectations for Partner

In response to the following statements, indicate how strongly you agree by filling in the appropriate bubble.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My partner will always take time for me when I need him/her. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬

My partner will rarely make mistakes. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will agree with me about the important things. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will always get along well with my parents. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will sometimes lose his/her temper. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will never disappoint me. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will always take care of me. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will always be attractive to me. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬
My partner will always make me happy. 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬 䡬

Received May 13, 2003

Revision received October 31, 2003
Accepted November 5, 2003 䡲