Personal Relationships, 16 (2009), 263–283. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2009 IARR. 1350-4126/09

Positive illusions about a partner’s physical

attractiveness and relationship quality

DICK P. H. BARELDS AND PIETERNEL DIJKSTRA

University of Groningen

Abstract
The present research examined the existence of positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness and its
relations to relationship quality. Positive illusions were assumed to exist when individuals rated their partner as more
attractive than their partner rated him or herself. In two Dutch community samples of 117 and 203 married or
cohabiting heterosexual couples, both partners rated their own and their partner’s facial and bodily attractiveness. In
Study 2, both partners completed three measures of relationship quality. Both studies found evidence for the existence
of positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness. Moreover, Study 2 found clear positive illusion
actor effects for relationship quality. This association differed by age of couples.

During their relationship, partners will d.p.h.barelds@rug.nl.

frequently uncover sources of negativity and
conflict that may threaten their feelings of
security by raising the fear that one’s partner
really is not the “right” person after all (e.g.,
Murray, 1999). Such doubts are troublesome
because negativity typically surfaces when
partners have already invested their hopes
in the relationship (e.g., Miller, Niehuis, &
Huston, 2006). In order to reach some sort of
cognitive resolution between their hopes and
doubts and to sustain a sense of felt security,
partners often weave an elaborate story (or
fiction) that both embellishes a partner’s
virtues and minimizes his or her faults (e.g.,
McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008; Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a). Several studies
have, for instance, found that individuals
often rate their partner overly positive on
charac- teristics such as “kind” and
“intelligent,” a phenomenon that has been
called positive

Dick P. H. Barelds and Pieternel Dijkstra, Department

of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen,
Netherlands.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dick P. H.
Barelds Department of Psychology, Grote Kruisstraat
2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, Netherlands, e-mail:
illusions (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997;
Murray et al., 1996a). By means of
positive illusions, partners enhance their
sense of secu- rity, overstate the case of
commitment, and derogate alternative
partners, thus stabilizing their long-term
bond (Murray, 1999). Several studies
indeed found positive illusions about a
partner to predict greater satisfaction, love,
and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence
in both dating and marital relationships
(Murray
& Holmes, 1997). In addition, longitudinal
studies show that the stronger individuals’
initial illusions about their partners, the
more likely their relationships are to persist
263
(Murray
& Holmes, 1997; Murray et al., 1996a).
Physical attractiveness in romantic
relationships
In general, physical attractiveness is a
potent factor fostering sexual attraction. Men
and women both highly value a potential
partner’s physical attractiveness (e.g., Buss,
1989; Feingold, 1990). As a consequence,
physically attractive individuals are more
successful in dating and more popular among
members of the opposite sex (e.g., Green,
Buchanan, & Heuer, 1984). Several theories
26
4
provide explanations for the importance of
physical attractiveness. According to evolu-
tionary psychologists, physical attractiveness
is such a valuable characteristic because it
reflects fertility (in women), dominance (in
men), and health (in both sexes) attributes that
contribute to individuals’ chances of survival
and reproduction (e.g., Buss, 1994). A social-
cultural explanation proposes that physical
attractiveness affects attraction through
a positive stereotype. When someone is
beautiful, individuals automatically attribute
many other positive characteristics to him or
her that make him or her more likable (the
beautiful-is-good effect; Dion, Berscheid, &
Walster, 1972). People, for instance, perceive
attractive individuals as sexually warmer,
more sociable, more assertive, happier, and
emotionally more stable than unattractive
individuals (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, &
Longo, 1991). In addition, people perceive
physically attractive individuals to be more
familiar than physically unattractive individu-
als, regardless of prior exposure (the so-called
beautiful-is-familiar effect ; Monin, 2003).
Because, in general, higher familiarity leads
to higher liking (e.g., Lewandowski, Aron,
& Gee, 2007; Zajonc, 2001), people perceive
attractive individuals as more likable and as
eliciting “a warmer glow,” at least more than
unattractive individuals do (Corneille, Monin,
& Pleyers, 2005). Studies also have shown
physical attractiveness to be an important
attribute once partners are already involved
in an intimate relationship. Sangrador and
Yela (2000; same sample, Yela & Sangrador,
2001), for instance, found perceptions of
a partner’s physical attractiveness to be
positively related to levels of commitment,
passion, intimacy, and satisfaction. McNulty,
Neff, and Karney (2008) found observers’
ratings of partners’ physical attractiveness
to be related to relationship quality, finding,
for instance, that both spouses behaved more
positively in relationships in which wives
were more attractive than their husbands
were.
Positive illusions and physical attractiveness
Barelds-Dijkstra and Barelds (2008) found
that individuals also hold positive illusions
D. P. H. Barelds and P. Dijkstra
about their partner’s physical attractiveness.
Positive illusions about a partner’s physical
attractiveness may seem trivial in nature
but are certainly not. As argued above, in
general, people consider physical attractive-
ness an important characteristic in a mate
(Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,
1992; Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998): Feeling
that one partner is very attractive will
therefore enhance one’s satisfaction with
one’s relationship. Partners may feel they
are lucky to have such an attractive partner.
In addition, individuals often compare their
partner’s physical attractiveness to those of
others. The media continually confronts indi-
viduals with images of extremely attractive
opposite-sex targets (e.g., Englis, Solomon,
& Ashmore, 1994). Exposure to these images
can make people feel dissatisfied with their
partner and cause them to fall out of love
with their partner (Kenrick, Gutierres, &
Goldberg, 1989). Positive illusions about a
partner’s physical attractiveness may prevent
partners from becoming dissatisfied with their
partner’s looks in response to these images
and, in so doing, protect the relationship with
the partner. Despite all of this, researchers
have hardly examined positive illusions about
a partner’s physical attractiveness. Murray,
Holmes, and Dolderman (2000) examined
self-perceptions of physical attractiveness
as part of the Self-Attributes Questionnaire
(SAQ; contains one physical attractiveness
item) and reported that intimates in satisfying
relationships perceived more virtues in
general (total SAQ scores) in each other than
partners perceived themselves. These authors
did not specifically report whether and to
what extent they found a positive illusion for
their physical attractiveness item.
Defining positive illusions
Murray and colleagues (2000) view self-
perceptions as a “reality” benchmark. As
a consequence, positive illusions occur
when individuals perceive their partners
to be physically more attractive than their
partners perceive themselves. One might
argue, however, that self-perceptions are
rarely unbiased. In general, people’s ratings
of self tend to be positively biased (e.g.,
Alicke, 1985; Brown, 1985; Taylor & Brown,
1988); that is, people rate their own qualities
more favorably than the qualities of the
typical person. Thus, rather than serving as a
“reality” benchmark, according to Miller and
colleagues (2006) self-perceptions may serve
as a conservative standard against which
to evaluate a partner’s perception of these
qualities for signs of a positive bias.
Recently, Barelds-Dijkstra and Barelds
(2008) showed that partners indeed hold
positive illusions about each other’s physical
attractiveness, in terms of the definition of
Murray and colleagues (2000) and Miller
and colleagues (2006). These authors asked
couples to fill in the Body Esteem Scale
(BES; Franzoi & Herzog, 1986; Franzoi
& Shields, 1984) for both themselves and
their partners and showed that individuals
perceived their partner to be physically
more attractive than their partners perceived
themselves. Recently, Swami, Furnham,
Georgiades, and Pang (2007) found that indi-
viduals rate their partner as more physically
attractive than they rate themselves, a finding
they refer to as “the love is blind bias” (see
also Swami, Steiger, Haubner, Voracek, &
Furnham, 2009). According to the definition
of Murray and colleagues (2000) and Miller
and colleagues (2006), however, “the love is
blind bias” is not a positive illusion: Swami
and colleagues used only within subject
comparisons of self and partner physical
attractiveness ratings. Their study included
no external standard to which it was possible
to compare individuals’ perceptions. As a
result, in theory, it might be possible that
individuals who perceive their partner as
more physically attractive than themselves
have partners who indeed are more physically
attractive, in which case there would
obviously be no positive illusion. To establish
the existence of positive illusions adequately,
one needs to compare ratings of a partner’s
physical attractiveness with external physical
attractiveness ratings, such as provided by the
partner himself or herself (cf. Murray et al.,
2000). The first aim of the present study was
to replicate Barelds-Dijkstra and Barelds’s
(2008) findings by showing that both partners
of couples indeed perceive their partner to be
physically more attractive than their partners
perceive themselves (Hypothesis 1).
Positive illusions and relationship quality
Despite the potentially important role positive
illusions about a partner’s physical attractive-
ness may play in the relationship, researchers
have not related positive illusions about a
part- ner’s physical attractiveness to
relationship quality. Both Barelds-Dijkstra
and Barelds (2008) and Swami, Furnham,
and colleagues (2007) merely speculated
about the rela- tionship between positive
illusions about a partner’s physical
attractiveness and relation- ship quality,
without examining the relation- ship
between these two constructs. A recent
study by Swami and colleagues (2009) made
progress in the right direction: These authors
found a positive relation between relation-
ship quality and the “love is blind bias” indi-
cating that individuals who view their part-
ner as more attractive than they view them-
selves have qualitatively better relationships.
As noted before, however, according to the
definition of Murray and colleagues (2000)
and Miller and colleagues (2006), the “love
is blind bias” is not a positive illusion. Thus,
although presumed, the existence of a
relation- ship between relationship quality
and positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractive- ness remains unstudied.
The present study set out to fill this gap by
examining the relation- ship between
positive illusions about a part- ner’s
physical attractiveness and relationship
quality. In addition, whereas previous stud-
ies examined positive illusions about a part-
ner’s general attractiveness, the present study
disentangled the concept of general attractive-
ness into its two most important components
(Alicke, Smith, & Klotz, 1986), that is, pos-
itive illusions about a partner’s bodily attrac-
tiveness and a partner’s facial attractiveness.
In line with the theory on positive illusions
(e.g., Murray, 1999; Murray & Holmes,
1997), we expected positive illusions about
a part- ner’s physical attractiveness— both
bodily and facial — to be positively related to
relationship quality. That is, as individuals
hold stronger positive illusions about their
partner’s physical
attractiveness, they will report higher relation-
ship quality (Hypothesis 2).
Positive illusions, relationship quality, and
age
Finally, the present research examined age
dif- ferences in the relation between
relationship quality and positive illusions
about a partner’s physical attractiveness.
Those who study pos- itive illusions have
neglected the role of age: Previous studies
examined couples in their 20s and 30s only
(e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray et
al., 1996a; Murray, Holmes,
& Griffin, 1996b; Swami, Furnham, et al.,
2007). We therefore examined positive illu-
sions about a partner’s physical attractiveness
in two samples that were highly
heterogeneous with regard to age. We
expected positive illu- sions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness to be less strongly
related to relationship qual- ity among older
couples than among younger couples
(Hypothesis 3). In general, as peo- ple age,
they become less physically attractive (e.g.,
Teuscher & Teuscher, 2007). As a result, it
becomes more difficult to uphold positive
illusions about a partner’s physical attractive-
ness. Although this may imply that people
become less satisfied with their relationship
as they age, several studies suggest that this is
not the case. With age, people come to value
different characteristics in a mate. Research,
for instance, found that, with age, individu-
als more strongly value a (potential) mate’s
education (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fletchenhauer,
& Kenrick, 2002) and socioeconomic sta-
tus (Gil-Burmann, Pela´ez, & Sa´nchez,
2002). Although a partner’s physical
attractiveness remains an important attribute
throughout marriage (e.g., Sangrador &
Yela, 2000), it becomes of less relative
importance. As a result, to remain satisfied
with their relation- ship, older individuals no
longer need to bias their partner’s physical
attractiveness in a pos- itive way to the extent
they had to when they were younger.
The present research
We conducted two studies to examine posi-
tive illusions and their relationship to
relation- ship quality. Study 1 aimed to
replicate and
extend Barelds-Dijkstra and Barelds’s (2008)
findings by showing that partners hold posi-
tive illusions about both their partner’s bodily
and facial attractiveness. Next, Study 2 exam-
ined the relationship between positive illu-
sions about a partner’s bodily and facial
attrac- tiveness and relationship quality
(Hypothesis
2) and examined age differences in this rela-
tionship (Hypothesis 3).
Study 1
Study 1 set out to replicate and extend
Barelds-Dijkstra and Barelds’s (2008) find-
ings by showing that partners hold positive
illusions about each other’s facial and bod-
ily attractiveness. In addition to perceptions
of physical attractiveness, Study 1 assessed an
objective index of physical attractiveness, that
is, individuals’ body mass index (BMI; i.e.,
a subject’s weight scaled for height). BMI is
one of the most important objective indexes
of physical attractiveness for both men and
women (e.g., Swami, Antonakopoulos, Tove
´e,
& Furnham, 2006; Swami & Tove´e, 2005)
and research has found it to explain up to
80% of the variance of attractiveness ratings
(e.g., Swami & Tove´e, 2006). In general,
individ- uals find women with a relatively
low BMI (ranging between 19 and 21;
Swami, Neto, Tove´e, & Furnham, 2007),
indicating slender- ness, to be most attractive,
at least in contexts of high socioeconomic
development (e.g., Fal- lon & Rozin, 1985;
Swami et al., 2006). For men, a curvilinear
relationship exists between BMI and ratings
of attractiveness: Individuals find both obese
and thin men to be less attrac- tive than men
with intermediate BMI (e.g., Swami &
Tove´e, 2005). One could argue that as
perceptions of a partner’s attractiveness and
his or her actual BMI are less related, individ-
uals’ perceptions of their partner’s physical
attractiveness are more illusionary in nature.
By showing that perceptions of a partner’s
physical attractiveness are not simply reflec-
tions of a partner’s BMI (or objective
physical attractiveness), Study 1 aims to
demonstrate that perceptions of a partner’s
physical attrac- tiveness are, indeed,
illusionary in nature, at least to a large
degree.
Method
Participants and procedure
We recruited participants through a postal
mail survey, as part of a large-scale study
on intimate relationships. We randomly
selected names from telephone directories
of all middle-sized cities throughout the
Netherlands. The selected individuals (1,700
in total) received a cover letter by mail asking
for their participation in the study. Criterion
for participation was that the selected indi-
vidual was either married or cohabiting at the
time of the study. Those willing to participate
could return a preaddressed response card, on
which they could also indicate if their partner
was willing to participate. To all willing to
participate, we send a set of questionnaires
by mail. Upon completion, participants
returned the questionnaires anonymously in
an enclosed preaddressed return envelope.
We removed participants from our study
whose partner did not participate and who
were homosexual (3 couples). As a result,
our sample consisted of 234 participants,
or 117 heterosexual couples. Mean age
was 49.2 years (SD = 13.1, range = 21 –
83), mean relationship length was 23.5
years (SD = 13.5, range = 6 months to 56.8
years), and mean educational level (scored
on a 5-point scale; 1 = primary school
level, 5 = higher educational level )
corresponded to a higher grade elementary
school level (M = 3.4, SD = 1.2).
Materials
Participants filled in a questionnaire
consisting of the following variables.
BES. We used the BES (Franzoi &
Shields, 1984; see also Franzoi & Herzog,
1986) as a measure for physical attractive-
ness. The BES lists 35 aspects of physical
appearance and bodily functioning. Partici-
pants had to rate their attractiveness on each
of these 35 aspects (1 = not at all attractive,
5 = very attractive). Because not all BES
items refer to physical attractiveness per
se, but rather to body esteem (e.g., sex
drive, physical stamina, reflexes, agility),
we selected only those items from the
BES that explicitly refer to a person’s
physical appearance (22 items in total). We
divided these items over two scales (see
also Alicke et al., 1986), one for facial
attractiveness (7 items: nose, lips, ears, chin,
eyes, cheeks/cheekbones, and face), and one
for bodily attractiveness (15 items: waist,
thighs, biceps, body build, buttocks, width
of shoulders, arms, chest or breasts, hips,
legs, figure, feet, sex organs, appearance of
stomach, body hair). Advantages of adopting
this procedure are that these scales may
serve as operationalizations of physical
attractiveness rather than body esteem, that
we were able to distinguish two distinct parts
of an individual’s physical attractiveness
(facial and bodily attractiveness), and that we
were able to use the same scales for both
men and women.
To examine the extent to which the fac-
tor structure of the 22 selected BES items
in the present study corresponds to the two
a priori defined scales for facial and bodily
attractiveness, we conducted a principal com-
ponents analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation
on the self-ratings on these 22 items. The
PCA yielded a solution with two components
(explaining 47.8% of the variance) that we
identified as facial attractiveness (21.7% of
the variance) and bodily attractiveness
(26.0% of the variance; all items had a high
loading on the expected component). In
addition, we cal- culated congruence
coefficients between the two-component
solution found in the present data, and the
expected (a priori) structure of the items
(simple structure, using only 1s and 0s for
factor loadings; e.g., in the a priori structure
we assigned the item “waist” a factor loading
1 for bodily attractiveness, and a fac- tor
loading 0 for facial attractiveness). In order to
optimize the opportunity for correspond-
ing factors to be identified as equivalents, we
orthogonally rotated the two-factor solutions,
using the a priori solution as the target struc-
ture (see Kiers & Groenen, 1996). The
congru- ence coefficients after rotation were
0.93 for bodily attractiveness and 0.91 for
facial attrac- tiveness. These coefficients
indicate a high level of correspondence
between factors (e.g., Haven & Ten Berge,
1977) and support the
use of separate scales for facial and bodily
attractiveness.
All participants provided both self-ratings
and partner ratings for facial attractiveness
and bodily attractiveness. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients (as an indication of reliability) for
facial attractiveness were .83 for self-ratings
and .81 for partner ratings, whereas the alpha
coefficients for bodily attractiveness were .90
for self-ratings and .91 for partner ratings.
Correlations between facial attractiveness and
bodily attractiveness were r = .55 (p < .001)
for self-ratings and r = .62 (p < .001) for
partner ratings.
BMI. We asked participants to report
their body weight (in kilograms) and body
height (in centimeters) to compute their BMI,
expressed as weight in kilograms divided by
height in meters squared (kg/m2; e.g., Bray,
1998). Table 1 shows the mean height,
weight, and BMI for men and women in the
present study. The numbers in Table 1
correspond closely to the numbers found for
the gen- eral Dutch population (Central
Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2007).
Results
Positive illusions
Because of the complex nature of the data
(self-ratings and partner ratings for facial and
bodily attractiveness are available for both
partners, which means a total of eight physi-
cal attractiveness scores per couple), we will
graphically illustrate positive physical attrac-
tiveness illusions, as defined in the present
study, by means of Figure 1.
To clarify Figure 1, we will briefly discuss
a numeric example. When the facial attrac-
tiveness scores that the husband provides are
21 for the self-rating (A) and 32 for the rat-
ing of his partner’s facial attractiveness (i.e.,
how he judges his wife; B). The facial attrac-
tiveness scores that his wife provides are 25
for the self-rating (i.e., the self-rating of facial
attractiveness the partner makes; C) and 34
for the rating of her partner’s facial attrac-
tiveness (i.e., how she judges her husband;
D). From the husband’s perspective, positive
illusions about his wife’s facial attractive-
ness are equal to B – C = 32 – 25 = 7, and
positive illusions about the husband’s facial
attractiveness held by his wife are equal to
D – A = 34 – 21 = 13.
We examined the magnitude of the posi-
tive illusions by computing the mean facial
and bodily attractiveness scores for men and
women, both for self-ratings and partner rat-
ings. For positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness to occur, we had to
find that individuals’ ratings of their partner’s
physical attractiveness are substantially higher
than their partner’s self-ratings of physical
attractiveness. Table 2 shows the results, sep-
arately for men and women.
In support of Hypothesis 1, Table 2 shows
that both men and women rated their partners
as clearly more attractive than their partners
did themselves (rowwise comparisons), repli-
cating previous findings of Barelds-Dijkstra
and Barelds (2008). In addition, we compared
individuals’ self-ratings and partner ratings of
physical attractiveness separately for men and
women (within sex comparisons; i.e., diag-
onal comparisons of the means in Table 2)
and found that both men and women rated
themselves as significantly less attractive than
they rated their partners (facial attractiveness:
men, t = −9.76, p < .001, and women, t =
−2.47, p < .01; bodily attractiveness: men,
t = −6.95, p < .001, and women, t = −9.10,
p < .001). Moreover, we found both the
mean self-ratings for facial attractiveness and
the positive illusions about a partner’s facial
attractiveness to differ significantly between
men and women (columnwise comparisons in
Table 2; facial attractiveness, t = −4.46, p <
.001; facial attractiveness illusion, t = −3.16,
p < .01), with men reporting lower self-
ratings of facial attractiveness and stronger
positive illusions about a partner’s facial
attractiveness. Finally, we computed correla-
tions for men and women separately, between
BMI and self-ratings of physical attractive-
ness, ratings of a partner’s physical attractive-
ness that are made by the partner, positive
illu- sions about a partner’s physical
attractiveness, and positive illusions about a
partner’s physi- cal attractiveness that are
held by the partner.
Table 1. Description of participants in terms of body height, body weight, and body mass index
(BMI)

Men Women
Variable M SD Range M SD Range
Body height 181.1 7.2 164 – 197 170.8 6.8 150 – 193
Body weight 82.1 10.7 54 – 125 70.5 10.7 52 – 102
BMI 25.0 2.6 18.0 – 24.2 3.3 16.8 –
32.9 33.4

Person rated
Ratings made by Self Partner

Self A B

Partner C D

Figure 1. Definition of self and partner positive illusions within couples.

Note: A = self-ratings of physical attractiveness; B = ratings of a partner’s physical attractive-
ness; C = self-ratings of physical attractiveness made by the partner; D = ratings of a
partner’s physical attractiveness made by the partner. Positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness are now defined as (B – C; solid line), and positive illusions about
a partner’s physical attractiveness held by the partner as (D – A; dotted line).

BMI addition, both men and women rated them-

There were no significant relations between
BMI and positive physical attractiveness illu-
sions. In addition, both self-ratings of facial
attractiveness and ratings of a partner’s facial
attractiveness that were made by the partner
were not significantly related to BMI. Only
for women, there were significant negative
rela- tions between BMI and self-ratings of
bodily
attractiveness (r = −.37, p < .01) and ratings
of a partner’s bodily attractiveness that were
made by their partners (r = −.26, p < .01):
As women had a higher BMI, both women
and
their male partners rated the woman’s body as
less attractive. Additional regression analyses
using BMI and BMI2 as predictors showed no
curvilinear relations between BMI and physi-
cal attractiveness ratings or positive illusions.
Discussion
Both men and women rated their partners as
clearly more attractive than their partners did
themselves, thus supporting Hypothesis 1 (see
also Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). In
selves as significantly less attractive than they
rated their partners. This finding is consistent
with previous studies by, for instance, Swami
and colleagues (2006). The present study
hardly showed significant relations between
actual body build (reflected in a person’s
BMI) on the one hand and positive physical
attractiveness illusions, self-ratings of physi-
cal attractiveness, and ratings of a partner’s
physical attractiveness made by the partner
on the other hand. Only for women, we
found BMI to be related significantly to bod-
ily attractiveness (both self-ratings and part-
ner ratings by their partners). These results
suggest that both self-perceptions and per-
ceptions of a partners’ physical attractiveness
are, to a large extent, illusionary in nature.
Naturally, one might challenge the validity
of BMI as an objective indicator of physi-
cal attractiveness as far as facial attractive-
ness is concerned. BMI by definition refers
primarily to bodily attractiveness (expressed
as the presence or absence of overweight),
and might therefore not be a valid indicator
of a person’s facial attractiveness. Hume and
 27
0

Table 2. Mean self-rated and partner-rated facial and bodily attractiveness scores for men and women (standard deviations in parentheses)

Facial attractiveness Bodily attractiveness

Participant Ratings by Positive Ratings by Positive
sex Self-ratings partner illusion t p Self-ratings partner illusion t p
Men 24.0 (4.0) 27.4 (3.9) 3.3 (4.7) −7.75 < .001 50.5 (8.6) 57.9 (8.8) 7.4 (10.1) −7.87 < .001
Women 26.4 (4.2) 27.7 (3.7) 1.3 (5.2) −2.70 < .001 49.8 (9.5) 56.9 (8.3) 7.1 (11.1) −6.88 < .001
D.
P.
H.
B
ar
el
ds
an
d
P.
Di
jk
272
Montgomery (2001), using objective ratings
of physical attractiveness, found a signifi-
cant negative relation between BMI and facial
attractiveness for women but not for men.
The fact that in the present study, at least
among men, BMI was unrelated to self-
perceptions of both facial and bodily
attractiveness under- lines the importance of
viewing self-ratings of physical attractiveness
not as “reality” bench- marks, as Murray and
colleagues (2000) sug- gested, but rather as
conservative standards against which to
evaluate a partner’s percep- tion of these
qualities for signs of a positive bias (Miller
et al., 2006).
Study 2
We conducted Study 2 to investigate the rela-
tionship between positive illusions about a
partner’s physical attractiveness and relation-
ship quality. We expected that positive illu-
sions about a partner’s physical attractive-
ness would be positively related to relation-
ship quality (Hypothesis 2). In addition,
Study
2 examined age differences in the relation
between relationship quality and positive illu-
sions about a partner’s physical attractiveness.
We expected that among older couples posi-
tive illusions about a partner’s physical
attrac- tiveness would be more strongly
related to relationship quality than among
younger cou- ples (Hypothesis 3).
With regard to a long-term partner, several
studies have shown that men find a partner’s
physical attractiveness more important than
women do (e.g., Buss et al., 1992; Buunk,
Dijkstra, Kenrick, & Warntjes, 2001). In addi-
tion, research has found one’s own and one’s
partner’s physical attractiveness to be related
differently to relationship quality for men and
women (e.g., McNulty, Neff, et al., 2008).
Therefore, in addition to examining the rela-
tions between positive illusions and relation-
ship quality in the entire sample, we also
examined potential sex differences.
Method
Participants and procedure
We recruited Study 2’s participants through
a postal mail survey (same procedure as
D. P. H. Barelds and P. Dijkstra
in Study 1). We sent letters to approxi-
mately 3,000 individuals. If only one part-
ner participated in the study, we removed
him or her from the sample, as we did
with a few homosexual participants (four
couples in total). As a result, our sample
consisted of 406 participants, or 203 cou-
ples, with a mean age of 47.4 years (SD =
13.2, range = 20 – 81). In total, 87.4%
were married and 12.6% were cohabiting.
Mean
length of the relationship was 22.7 years
(SD = 13.5 years), with a minimum of 1 year
and a maximum of 55 years. Mean edu-
cational level (1 = primary school level, 5 =
higher educational level ) corresponded to a
higher grade elementary school level (M =
3.6, SD = 1.2).
Materials
BES. As in Study 1, we used the BES as
a measure for physical attractiveness. Con-
sistent with Study 1, we constructed scales
from the BES for facial attractiveness (7
items) and bodily attractiveness (15 items; see
Study 1). To examine the validity of the a
priori defined scales, we conducted a PCA
with varimax rotation on the self-ratings on
the 22 selected BES items (see also Study 1).
The PCA yielded a solution with two compo-
nents (explaining 47.2% of the variance) that
we identified as facial attractiveness (18.6%
of the variance) and bodily attractiveness
(28.6% of the variance). Congruence coeffi-
cients between the two-factor solution found
in the present study, and the expected (a pri-
ori) structure of the items after target rotation
(see Study 1) were 0.96 for bodily attractive-
ness and 0.90 for facial attractiveness. These
coefficients are comparable to Study 1 and
again support the use of separate scales for
facial and bodily attractiveness.
All participants provided self-ratings and
ratings of a partner’s facial and bodily attrac-
tiveness (partner ratings). Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients for facial attractiveness in the
present study were .77 for self-ratings and
.84 for ratings of a partner’s facial attrac-
tiveness, and the alpha coefficients for bodily
attractiveness were .90 for self-ratings and .92
for ratings of a partner’s bodily attractive-
ness. Correlations between facial attractive-
ness and bodily attractiveness in the present
study were r = .46 (p < .001) for self-ratings
and r = .60 (p < .001) for ratings of a part-
ner’s attractiveness.
Dutch Relationship Questionnaire (DRQ).
The DRQ (Barelds, Luteijn, & Arrindell,
2003) is a measure for relationship qual-
ity with the intention of measuring the most
important aspects of marital quality. The
DRQ consists of 80 true– false items
dis- tributed over five scales: independence,
close- ness, identity, conflict resolution, and
sexu- ality. These scales are summed to
obtain a total relationship quality score.
Examples of items are “My partner tends to
control me,” “I often tell my partner that I
love him/her,” “When we have an argument,
we start yelling at each other,” and “I am
content with our sex life.” For brevity
reasons, the present study will only use the
total DRQ score. Cronbach’s alpha for the
total DRQ in the present study was .94,
which is comparable to previous stud- ies
(e.g., Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Barelds-
Dijkstra, 2006, 2007).
Relationship adjustment. In addition, the
present study used the Marital Adjustment
scale of the Dutch language version of the
Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (MMQ;
Arrindell, Boelens, & Lambert, 1983; see
also Arrindell & Schaap, 1985). The Dutch
MMQ is a 20-item questionnaire that consists
of three subscales: Marital Adjustment (10
items), Sexual Adjustment (5 items), and
General Life Adjustment (5 items). Because
previous studies have generally reported
better psychometric properties for the Marital
Adjustment scale, as compared with the
other two scales (mainly as a result of
differences in scale length), we decided to
use only the 10 MMQ items that make up
the Marital Adjustment Scale (MMQ –
MA). Because the present study also included
cohabiting nonmarried couples, we replaced
the term marriage in some items with
relationship. Participants rated these items
on 5-point scales. Examples of items are
“How committed are you to this
relationship?”
(1 = n thought of separation ever, 5 = on brink,
of separation or divorce) and “Does life with
your partner bring you satisfaction (leaving
the sexual side apart)?” (1 = completely satis-
factory, 5 = totally unsatisfactory). Alpha in
the present study was .90, and the correlation
with the DRQ total score was r = .81
(p < .001).
IPSI. The IPSI (Lange, 1983) is a 17-
item questionnaire describing couples’ behav-
iors in marital problem solving (e.g., “We
have little trouble in choosing a solution for
a given problem” and “Our quarrels often
end up in discussions about who is right and
who is wrong”). Participants rated the items
on a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 =
totally agree). Higher scores are indicative of
a couple’s greater ability to solve their prob-
lems adequately. The IPSI has good psycho-
metric properties (e.g., Hageman, Lange, van
Dyck, Hoogduin, & Meijer, 1990), and, in the
present study, an alpha of .90. The correlation
between the IPSI and the DRQ total score was
r = .74 (p < .001) and between the IPSI and
MMQ – MA was r = .73 (p < .001). These
results are consistent with previous research
(Barelds et al., 2003).
Because Study 1 found BMI to be largely
unrelated to both positive illusions about a
partner’s physical attractiveness and self and
partner perceptions of physical attractiveness,
Study 2 did not assess participants’ BMI.
Results
Positive illusions
First, and consistent with Study 1, we estab-
lished the magnitude of the positive illusions
about a partner’s physical attractiveness by
computing the mean facial and bodily attrac-
tiveness scores for men and women (self-
ratings and ratings of a partner’s facial and
bodily attractiveness). For positive illusions
to occur, we had to find that individuals rate
their partners as more attractive than their
partners rate themselves (see also Figure 1,
Study 1). Table 3 shows the results.
Table 3 again supports the existence of
positive illusions about a partner’s physical
 P
os
iti
ve
ill
us
io
ns
an
d
ph
ys
ic
al
at
tr
Table 3. Mean self-rated and partner-rated facial and bodily attractiveness scores for men and women (standard deviations in parentheses) ac

Facial attractiveness Bodily attractiveness

Participant Ratings by Positive Ratings by Positive
sex Self-ratings partner illusion t p Self-ratings partner illusion t p
Men 24.7 (3.5) 26.7 (4.1) 1.9 (4.9) −5.56 < .001 51.3 (8.3) 56.5 (9.5) 5.3 (10.6) −7.05 < .001
Women 25.6 (3.7) 27.5 (3.5) 1.9 (4.7) −5.67 < .001 47.3 (10.0) 55.2 (10.1) 7.8 (10.5) −10.59 < .001

27
3
27
4
attractiveness: Both men and women rated
their partners as significantly more attractive
than their partners rated themselves. In addi-
tion, as in Study 1, both men and women
rated themselves as significantly less attrac-
tive than they rated their partner (within-sex
comparisons, i.e., diagonal comparisons of
the means in Table 3; facial attractiveness:
men, t = −10.90, p < .001, and women,
t = −3.67, p < .001; bodily attractiveness:
men, t = −5.45, p < .001, and women, t =
−12.11, p < .001). In addition, we found
the mean self-ratings for bodily attractive-
ness to differ significantly between men and
women (columnwise comparisons in Table 3;
t = 4.37, p < .001), with men rating their
own bodily attractiveness significantly higher
than women rated their own bodily attractive-
ness. Neither the other attractiveness ratings,
nor the positive illusions differed significantly
i
between men and women (absolute t s <
i
2.44, p s > .015).
Positive illusions and relationship quality
Next, we examined the relations between pos-
itive physical attractiveness illusions and rela-
tionship quality using the actor partner inter-
dependence model (APIM; e.g., Campbell &
Kashy, 2002; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) as a
con- ceptual framework. The APIM treats
dyads (here intimate couples) as the unit
of anal- ysis (e.g., Kashy, Campbell, &
Harris, 2006) and takes into account that
scores that intimate partners provide are
interdependent. To have a rough indication
of the degree of interde- pendence with
regard to the relationship vari- ables that we
used in our study, we computed within-
couple correlations between both part- ners’
relationship quality scores. The resulting
correlations were, as expected, all substan-
i
tial and significant (all p s < .001), indicating
a high degree of interdependence: DRQ r =
.61, MMQ– MA r = .63, and IPSI r = .
51.
These correlations differed only marginally
(absolute differences ≤ .02) from the within-
couple correlations that we controlled for the
predictor variables in the following analyses
(cf. Kenny, 2004) and are comparable to
those
found in previous studies (e.g., Barelds, 2005;
see also Karney, Bradbury, Fincham, & Sul-
livan, 1994).
D. P. H. Barelds and P. Dijkstra
We examined the relations between posi-
tive illusions concerning the partner’s facial
and bodily attractiveness (actor and partner
effects) and relationship quality by means of
multilevel modeling (linear mixed models in
SPSS 14.0; cf. Kenny, 2004). Actor effects
refer to the effects of individuals’ own predic-
tor scores on the dependent variables (e.g., the
effect of A’s positive illusions on A’s
relation- ship), and partner effects refer to the
effects of the partner’s predictor scores on the
dependent variables (e.g., the effect of B’s
positive illu- sions on A’s relationship). We
entered dyads as subjects (distinguishable)
and subject sex as a repeated measures
variable (covariance type compound
symmetry heterogeneous; cf. Kenny, 2004).
We used both partners’ ratings of a
partner’s facial and bodily attractive- ness,
controlled for the other partner’s self-
ratings (e.g., Murray et al., 1996b) to estimate
actor and partner positive illusion effects. We
included the relationship variables as depen-
dent variables. Table 4 summarizes the results.
We found consistent actor positive
illusion effects: Positive illusions about a
partner’s facial and bodily attractiveness
were related positively and significantly
to all three relationship variables. That is,
supporting Hypothesis 2, as individuals held
more positive illusions about their partner’s
physical attractiveness, they reported higher
relationship quality and adjustment, and
better problem-solving skills. There were
only two marginally significant partner effects
for positive facial attractiveness illusions. To
examine potential sex differences, we com-
puted four interaction terms by multiplying
the predictor variables with the gender of
either the actor (for the two actor variables)
or the partner (for the two partner variables;
cf. Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We centered
the variables before computing the interaction
variables (e.g., Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We
added the four interaction terms to the model
separately, but the analyses showed no signif-
icant Gender × Positive Illusion interactions
(absolute t ’s between 0.04 and 1.75,
range p’s = .081 –.965), indicating that the
relations between the positive physical
attractiveness
illusions and relationship quality did not
differ significantly for men and women.
 Table 4. Actor and partner effects for the relations between positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness and relationship quality

MMQ– MA DRQ IPSI

Effect b t p b t p b t p
Actor effect
Facial attractiveness illusion .309 3.35 .001 .556 3.15 .002 .531 2.67 .008
Bodily attractiveness illusion .172 4.38 .000 .269 3.56 .000 .277 3.31 .001
Partner effect
Facial attractiveness illusion .218 2.36 .019 .371 2.11 .036 .167 0.84 .402
Bodily attractiveness illusion .041 1.02 .307 .085 1.13 .258 .146 1.72 .087

Note. MMQ –MA = Maudsley Marital Questionnaire –Marital Adjustment Scale; DRQ = Dutch Relationship
Questionnaire; IPSI = Interactional Problem Solving Inventory.

Table 5. Actor and partner effects for the relations between ratings of facial and bodily
attractiveness (self-ratings and partner ratings) and relationship variables

MMQ– MA DRQ IPSI

Effect b t p b t p b t p
Actor effect
Self-ratings of facial −.007 −0.07 .942 .093 0.54 .589 .536 2.71 .007
attractiveness Self-
ratings of bodily −.031 −0.78 .436 −.117 −1.63 .104 −.172 −2.07 .039
attractiveness
Ratings of a partner’s facial .292 2.94 .004 .496 2.66 .008 .350 1.65 .100
attractiveness
Ratings of a partner’s bodily .183 4.52 .000 .326 4.24 .000 .297 3.47 .001
attractiveness
Partner effect
Self-ratings of facial .064 0.71 .481 .436 2.51 .013 .099 0.51 .612
attractiveness
Self-ratings of bodily −.118 −3.10 .002 −.124 −1.83 .069 −.176 −2.18 .030
attractiveness
Ratings of a partner’s facial .196 1.98 .049 .152 0.81 .417 .071 0.34 .737
attractiveness
Ratings of a partner’s bodily .049 1.19 .234 .086 1.13 .261 .197 2.27 .024
attractiveness

MMQ –MA = Maudsley Marital Questionnaire –Marital Adjustment Scale; DRQ = Dutch Relationship Questionnaire;
IPSI = Interactional Problem Solving Inventory.

Next, we conducted analyses to examine
which of the physical attractiveness ratings of
both partners related most strongly to
relation- ship quality. Whereas the previous
analyses examined the effect of positive
physical attrac- tiveness illusions, these
additional analyses might show which part
of the positive phys- ical attractiveness
illusion (i.e., the ratings of a partner’s
physical attractiveness, or a part- ner’s self-
ratings of physical attractiveness) is related
most strongly to relationship quality.
For this purpose, we used all physical attrac-
tiveness ratings per couple as predictors in the
analyses: four actor variables (self-ratings of
facial and bodily attractiveness and ratings of
a partner’s facial and bodily attractiveness),
and four partner variables (the same variables,
but rated by the partner; see Table 5).
We found consistent significant actor
effects between ratings of a partner’s bodily
and (to a lesser extent) facial attractiveness
and relationship variables: Individuals
evaluated their relationships more positively
when they judge their partner to be more
physically attractive. Table 5 also shows a
tendency toward a negative partner effect of
bodily attractiveness, that is, as their partners
rated themselves as more bodily attractive,
participants reported lower relationship
quality. These results, however, did not
consistently reach significance. In addition,
we found an isolated significant positive actor
effect for self-ratings of facial attractiveness:
The more attractive participants rated their
own face, the more skilled they were at
problem solving (IPSI). The results in
Table 5 clearly indicate that particularly the
ratings of a partner’s physical attractiveness
relate positively to relationship quality.
Self-rated physical attractiveness of both
partners, however, related only weakly to
relationship quality. An additional analysis
including only self-ratings of both partners
showed (marginally) significant positive
Actor effects for facial attractiveness for
the DRQ (b = .431, t = 2.65, p < .01),
the IPSI (b = .738, t = 4.07, p < .001),
and the MMQ – MA scale (b = .
197, t = 2.23, p = .027). In addition, we
found one significant positive partner
effect, for
facial attractiveness (b = .439, t = 2.70,
p < .01). Together, these results indicate
that
primarily the ratings of a partner’s physical
attractiveness, not the partner’s self-ratings
of physical attractiveness, determine the
effect of positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness on relationship quality
(see Table 4).
Age differences
To examine potential age differences with
regard to physical attractiveness and mea-
sures of relationship quality, we first calcu-
lated correlations between age and the rela-
tionship and physical attractiveness variables.
We found significant inverse relations
between
age and the DRQ (r = −.17, p < .001), the
IPSI (r = −.18, p < .001), and self-ratings
of facial attractiveness (r = −.17, p < .001):
With age, people reported lower relationship
quality in terms of the DRQ and the IPSI
and also reported lower facial attractiveness.
We did not find a significant relation between
age and self-ratings of bodily attractiveness.
Moreover, the ratings of a partner’s facial and
bodily attractiveness did not correlate signifi-
i
cantly with age (both r s = −.07, > p). These
results suggest a potential interaction between
positive physical attractiveness illusions and
participant age, particularly with regard to
facial attractiveness: As people grow older,
self-ratings of facial attractiveness get signif-
icantly lower, but ratings of a partner’s facial
attractiveness remain virtually the same. This
would suggest stronger positive facial attrac-
tiveness illusions for older couples, whereas
older couples also report lower levels of rela-
tionship quality.
To examine potential interaction effects
between positive facial attractiveness illusions
and age with regard to relationship quality,
we computed the interactions between age
and positive facial attractiveness illusions
(actor and partner effects, i.e., the controlled
ratings of a partner’s facial attractiveness;
see pre- vious APIM analyses) after we
centered the variables around their mean
(e.g., Campbell
& Kashy, 2002). We added these interaction
effects together with age and the facial attrac-
tiveness illusions (actor and partner effects)
to the model as predictors for the relationship
variables.
We found significant Actor Age × Positive
Facial Attractiveness Illusion Effects for the
MMQ – MA scale (b = .855, t = 3.69, p
<
.001), the DRQ (b = 1.137, t = 2.57, p <
.01), and the IPSI (b = 1.357, t = 2.61, p <
.01). In addition, and in accordance with the
correlational analyses, we found significant
main effects for age for the IPSI (b =
−2.388, t = −3.36, p < .01) and the
DRQ (b =
−2.104, t = −3.12, p < .01), indicating that
older people reported lower relationship qual-
ity in terms of the DRQ and the IPSI. We did
not find significant partner interaction effects.
To illustrate the three actor interaction effects,
we computed simple slopes for low or high
levels of the positive facial attractiveness illu-
sions, and low or high age. Figures 2 – 4
show the mean DRQ, MMQ – MA, and IPSI
scores. In addition to showing the main
effects of age for the IPSI and DRQ,
Figures 2 – 4 also indicate that there is
hardly any relation
Figure 2. Interaction between self positive facial attractiveness illusions and age for the Dutch
Relationship Questionnaire (DRQ).

Figure 3. Interaction between self positive facial attractiveness illusions and age for Maudsley
Marital Questionnaire– Marital Adjustment Scale (MMQ– MA).

between positive facial attractiveness illusions facial attractiveness were not or hardly related
and relationship quality for younger people, to relationship quality, in older couples pos-
whereas particularly older people with low itive illusions about a partner’s facial attrac-
positive facial attractiveness illusions report tiveness were related positively to relationship
lower relationship quality. Simple slopes tests quality. We also examined potential interac-
confirm this: For younger people, there is tion effects between positive bodily attractive-
no significant effect of positive facial attrac- ness illusions and age on relationship qual-
i ity. We only found one marginally significant
tiveness illusions (t s < 2.01, > p), whereas
for older people we found significant effects interaction effect, for the MMQ – MA scale
(b = .442, t = 2.07, p = .039).
for all three dependent variables (DRQ t =
2.57, p < .01; MMQ– MA t = 4.31, p
< Discussion
.001; IPSI t = 3.36, p < .01). Thus, contra- Study 2 found positive illusions about a part-
dicting Hypothesis 3, whereas for younger ner’s facial and bodily attractiveness to be
couples positive illusions about a partner’s
Figure 4. Interaction between self positive facial attractiveness illusions and age for the
Interactional Problem Solving Inventory (IPSI).
positively related to relationship quality vari-
ables, particularly as a result of strong rela-
tions between ratings of a partner’s facial and
bodily attractiveness and relationship quality.
In addition, we found an interaction between
facial attractiveness illusions and couple age:
particularly for older couples there is a posi-
tive relation between positive facial attractive-
ness illusions and relationship quality. Con-
sistent with studies that have shown men and
women respond similarly to a (potential) part-
ner’s physical attractiveness (e.g., Eastwick
& Finkel, 2008), the present study did not
find participant’s sex to moderate the
relation- ship between relationship quality
and positive illusions.
General Discussion
Consistent with a previous study by Barelds-
Dijkstra and Barelds (2008), both of our
studies found evidence for the existence of
positive illusions about a partner’s bodily
and facial attractiveness. That is, we found
perceptions of a partner’s physical attrac-
tiveness to be more positive than a part-
ner’s self-perceptions of physical attractive-
ness. In addition, the present research is the
first to present convincing evidence for a
positive relationship between positive illu-
sions about a partner’s physical attractive-
ness and relationship quality. As individuals
held stronger positive illusions about their
partner’s physical attractiveness, they reported
higher relationship quality and relationship
adjustment and dealt more constructively with
relationship problems. Positive illusions about
one’s partner’s physical attractiveness may
enhance relationship quality because they
may increase levels of sexual satisfaction,
facilitate relationship-enhancing attributions,
and help partners accept and overcome their
weaknesses, dissimilarities, and doubts (e.g.,
McNulty & Karney, 2004; Murray & Holmes,
1997; Murray et al., 1996b). We would like to
note, however, that the opposite might be true
as well. That is, high relationship quality may
strengthen, facilitate, or even evoke positive
illusions about a partner’s physical attractive-
ness. Because our data were cross-sectional,
we could not test causal relationships between
our study’s variables. Nonetheless, previous
longitudinal studies, by showing that positive
illusions have predictive power with regard
to relationship quality, have shown positive
illusions to be an important and positive shap-
ing factor of feelings of satisfaction with the
relationship (e.g., Miller et al., 2006; Murray
et al., 1996a). Although positive illusions are
related positively to relationship quality, we
would like to note that, according to Swami
and Furnham (2008), positive illusions may
also have negative consequences for the rela-
tionship. People who perceive their partner as
highly attractive may, for instance, become
unreasonably jealous. Particularly men, who
highly value a mate’s attractiveness, may
become overly vigilant in response to
potential rivals for their, in their perception,
extremely attractive partner (Dijkstra &
Buunk, 1998).
Positive illusions, relationship quality,
and age
Of much interest is also our finding that the
relationship between positive illusions about
a partner’s physical attractiveness and
relation- ship quality depends on the couples’
age. Our results refute the expectation that
positive illu- sions about a partner’s physical
attractiveness would be more strongly related
to relationship quality among younger than
among older cou- ples. We found no age
differences in the rela- tionship between
positive bodily attractiveness illusions and
relationship quality. This is quite intriguing
given the fact that, with age, the body
becomes less attractive and a partner’s
physical attractiveness, relative to other part-
ner characteristics, less important. A possi-
ble explanation is that bodily attractiveness
means something different to young people
than to older people. Whereas young peo-
ple may emphasize the beauty side or esthet-
ics of bodily attractiveness, such as having
a tight waist or large breasts, older individ-
uals may define bodily attractiveness more in
terms of health and physical condition. As a
result, bodily attractiveness does not become
less important with age nor will positive illu-
sions about a partner’s physical attractiveness.
Contrary to our expectations, we even
found that, with age, positive facial attrac-
tiveness illusions were more rather than
less strongly tied to relationship quality.
Especially older couples who held low
positive facial illusions reported lower
relationship quality. A possible explanation
for the intriguing finding that positive facial
attractiveness illusions are, with age, more
strongly tied to relationship quality may lie in
the fact that biasing one’s perception of a rel-
atively old (i.e., facially unattractive) partner
requires more cognitive effort than biasing
one’s perception of a relatively young (i.e.,
facially attractive) partner. As a consequence,
only those older individuals who are highly
motivated to maintain the quality of their
relationship will be able to adopt or uphold
positive illusions about their partner’s facial
attractiveness. Alternatively, it is also possible
that, in contrast to what we argued earlier,
as people age, facial attractiveness becomes
a more important characteristic in a mate,
for instance, because it becomes a stronger
marker of physical health and condition. It is,
however, hard to find support for a growing
importance of facial attractiveness with age:
There are no studies on facial attractiveness
that show that older individuals value facial
attractiveness more than younger individuals.
Finally, it is also possible that our findings
are due to a restriction of range; that is,
among young individuals the variability in
ratings of relationship quality was much
smaller than among older couples. Regardless
of the most valid explanation, our study raises
an interesting question concerning the results
of previous studies that studied relatively
young individuals. If the relation between
relationship quality and positive illusions
about a mate’s facial attractiveness differs for
people of different ages, might this not also
be the case with regard to positive illusions
about other mate characteristics, such as those
Murray and colleagues (1996a, 1996b; e.g.,
kindness, dominance, patience, etc.) studied?
Positive illusions or partner perceptions?
One of the most important findings of the
present studies, the one with probably the
most implications, is that the positive rela-
tion between positive illusions and relation-
ship quality can be attributed primarily to the
evaluations individuals make of their part-
ners’ physical attractiveness, not to the eval-
uations partners make of their own physical
attractiveness. This finding strongly indicates
that individuals’ perceptions of their partner
are the driving force behind the potentially
relationship-enhancing effect individuals may
derive from positive illusions. Our finding
is consistent with previous studies on part-
ner idealization (Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor,
Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001; Miller, Caughlin,
& Huston, 2003; Miller et al., 2006). Miller
 Positive illusions and physical attractiveness
and colleagues (2006), for instance, found
that, as newlyweds idealized each other more,
over the next 13 years, they reported less
decline in love. These studies, however, did
not include self-perceptions and thus were not
able to detect to what extent self-perceptions
matter or not. The present study did and can
therefore confidently state that partner percep-
tions drive partner idealization and positive
illusions, not self-perceptions nor the differ-
ence between self- and partner perceptions.
It would be interesting to examine the
existence of positive illusions about a part-
ner’s physical attractiveness in other cultures
than the Dutch culture. Are people even more
inclined to bias their partner’s physical attrac-
tiveness in a positive way, for instance, in
more primitive cultures where people are not
confronted on a daily basis with innumer-
able images of highly attractive opposite-sex
individuals? Or, instead, do they care less
about their partner’s looks? Another intrigu-
ing question is whether positive illusions dif-
fer between individualistic and collectivistic
cultures. Compared with people in individual-
istic cultures, such as the Netherlands, people
in collectivistic cultures are more altruistic
and more concerned about satisfying others’
wishes (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As
a result, partners in collectivistic cultures may
be more concerned by what they can con-
tribute to the relationship and what they can
offer their partner (such as a physically attrac-
tive body or face) than what they may take or
demand from their partner (such as a partner’s
physically attractive body or face). This may
result in a qualitatively different type of posi-
tive illusion with regard to physical attractive-
ness, that is, one in which self-perceptions of
physical attractiveness play a more important
role than perceptions of a partner’s physical
attractiveness. As a result, it is possible that,
in collectivistic cultures, relationship quality
is more strongly tied to self-perceptions of
physical attractiveness than to perceptions of
a partner’s physical attractiveness.
Implications, limitations, and conclusion
Our finding that, among older couples, posi-
tive illusions constitute a positive relationship
281
phenomenon, suggests that especially older
couples struggling with relationship problems
may benefit from interventions that help them
adopt or maintain a positive image of their
partner. Psychologists may, for instance, help
older couples to learn to focus on their part-
ner’s physically attractive features, especially
facial ones, rather than on his or her physical
shortcomings. Therapists may, for instance,
ask partners to write down the physical fea-
tures of their partner they find attractive,
remember what about their partner’s appear-
ance initially attracted them, and help partners
openly talk about their wishes with regard
to each other’s physical appearance. If part-
ners communicate wishes that are not
realistic, therapists may help them accept
their partner’s physical shortcomings and
look at those short- comings more mildly.
Our study suffers from several limitations.
First the present study explained the existence
of positive illusions about a partner’s physi-
cal attractiveness by referring to individuals’
need for cognitive resolution between their
relationship hopes and doubts (e.g., McNulty,
O’Mara, et al., 2008; Murray et al., 1996a).
That is, by adopting positive illusions about
their partner’s physical attractiveness individ-
uals may strengthen their commitment to the
relationship and their sense of security (Mur-
ray, 1999). An entirely other possibility, how-
ever, is that people are merely more gener-
ous when they rate someone else’s body than
when they rate their own body. To check for
this possibility, we should have asked partici-
pants to rate, in addition to their own and
their partner’s physical attractiveness, the
physi- cal attractiveness of others (e.g.,
friends or strangers). Neither did the present
study assess other people’s perceptions of a
partner’s phys- ical attractiveness, such as
those of friends or strangers. Murray and
colleagues (2000) have shown that ratings of
friends are relatively objective. Because self-
perceptions are often positively biased (e.g.,
Alicke, 1985; Brown, 1985; Taylor &
Brown, 1988), using percep- tions of friends
or strangers might result in a less
conservative and more objective indica- tion
of positive illusions regarding a partner’s
physical attractiveness. An interesting topic
for future research would therefore be to
study
the relationship between relationship quality
and positive illusions about a partner’s physi-
cal attractiveness as rated by both partners and
objective observers. In addition, the present
study was cross-sectional in nature. We do
not know whether positive illusions lead to
higher relationship quality, or vice versa, or
whether a third variable is responsible for the
relationship between positive illusions about
a partner’s physical attractiveness and
relation- ship quality. It would therefore be
interesting for future research to follow
couples longitudi- nally and examine
whether positive illusions about a partner’s
physical attractiveness are able to predict
future relationship quality and stability.
Nonetheless, by using large and het-
erogeneous community samples, the present
research showed that positive illusions about
a partner’s physical attractiveness are a posi-
tive and constructive relationship
phenomenon that should we should cherish.
References
Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as deter-
mined by the desirability and controllability of trait
adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychol- ogy , 49 , 1621–1630.
Alicke, M. D., Smith, R. H., & Klotz, M. L. (1986).
Judgments of physical attractiveness: The role of
faces and bodies. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 12 , 381–389.
Arrindell, W. A., Boelens, W., & Lambert, H. (1983).
On the psychometric properties of the Maudsley Mar-
ital Questionnaire (MMQ): Evaluation of self-ratings
in distressed and “normal” volunteer couples based
on the Dutch version. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 4 , 293–306.
Arrindell, W. A., & Schaap, C. (1985). The Maudsley
Marital Questionnaire (MMQ): An extension of its
construct validity. British Journal of Psychiatry , 147
, 295–299.
Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in
intimate relationships. European Journal of Personal-
ity , 19 , 501–518.
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2006). Partner
personality in distressed relationships. Clinical Psy-
chology and Psychotherapy , 13 , 392–396.
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Rela-
tionship onset and personality similarity. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships , 24 , 479–496.
Barelds, D. P. H., Luteijn, F., & Arrindell, W. A. (2003).
Nederlandse Relatievragenlijst (NRV): Handleiding
[Dutch Relationship Questionnaire (DRQ): Manual].
Amsterdam: Harcourt.
Barelds-Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). Positive
illusions about one’s partner’s physical attractiveness.
Body Image, 5 , 99–108.
Bray, G. A. (1998). Contemporary diagnosis and man-
agement of obesity. Newton, PA: Handbooks in
Health Care.
Brown, J. D. (1985). Evaluations of self and others:
Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social
Cognition, 4 , 353–376.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate
preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 , 1–49.
Buss, D., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J.
(1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, phys-
iology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3 ,
251–255.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of
human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fletchenhauer, D., & Ken-
rick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in
mate selection criteria for various involvement levels.
Personal Relationships , 9 , 271–278.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D. T., & Warnt-
jes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as related
to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution
and Human Behavior , 22 , 241–250.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor,
partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using
PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide.
Personal Relationships , 9 , 327–342.
Central Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). (2007). Zelfger-
apporteerde medische consumptie, gezondheid en
leefstijl [self reported medical consumption, health
and lifestyle]. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb.
Corneille, O., Monin, B., & Pleyers, G. (2005). Is pos-
itivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs
evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive
and not-so-attractive face. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology , 41 , 431–437.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Jealousy as a func-
tion of rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspec-
tive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 ,
1158–1166.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 24 , 285–290.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., &
Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good,
but. . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the
physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bul-
letin, 110 , 109–128.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences
in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what
they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 245–264.
Englis, B. G., Solomon, M. R., & Ashmore, R. D.
(1994). Beauty before the eyes of the beholders: The
cultural encoding of beauty types in magazine adver-
tising and music television. Journal of Advertising,
23 , 49–64.
 Positive illusions and physical attractiveness
Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in per-
ceptions of desirable body shape. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology , 94 , 102–105.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of
physical attractiveness on romanticattraction: A com-
parison across five research paradigms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 59 , 981–993.
Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1986). The Body
Esteem Scale: A convergent and discriminant validity
study. Journal of Personality Assessment , 50 , 24–31.
Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body
Esteem Scale: Multidimensional structure and sex dif-
ferences in a college population. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment , 48 , 173–178.
Gil-Burmann, C., Pela´ez, F., & Sa´nchez, S. (2002).
Mate choice differences according to sex and age:
An analysis of personal advertisements in Spanish
newspapers. Human Nature, 13 , 493–508.
Green, S. K., Buchanan, D. R., & Heuer, S. K. (1984).
Winners, losers, and choosers: A field investigation
of dating initiation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 10 , 502–511.
Hageman, P., Lange, A., van Dyck, R., Hoogduin, K.,
& Meijer, A. M. (1990). Het voorspellend vermogen
van de Interactionele Probleem Oplossings Vragen-
lijst; een onderzoek bij agorafobici, dwangneurotici,
ouders van astmapatie¨nten en drugsverslaafden
[The prognostic abilities of the Interactional Problem
Solv- ing Inventory: A study of agoraphobics,
obsessive- compulsives, and parents of asthma
patients and drug addicts]. Nederlands Tijdschrift
voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden, 45 ,
335–344.
Haven, S., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Tucker’s coef-
ficient of congruence as a measure of factorial invari-
ance: An empirical study . Unpublished manuscript,
University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Hume, D. K., & Montgomery, R. (2001). Facial attrac-
tiveness signals different aspects of “quality”’ in
women and men. Evolution and Human Behavior , 22
, 93–112.
Karney, B. R., Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Sul-
livan, K. T. (1994). The role of negative affectivity in
the association between attributions and marital satis-
faction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
, 66 , 413–424.
Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D. W. (2006).
Advances in data analytic approachesfor relationships
research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear
modelling. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships
(pp. 73–89). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis
of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis &
C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods
in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. A. (2004). Dyadic analysis. Retrieved Febru-
ary 22, 2007, from http://davidakenny.net/dyad.htm.
Kenrick, D. T., Gutierres, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L.
(1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of
283
strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology , 25 , 159–167.
Kiers, H. A. L., & Groenen, P. (1996). A monotonically
convergent algorithm for orthogonal congruence rota-
tion. Psychometrika, 61 , 375–389.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neigh-
bors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of
relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less
than ideal? Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 27 , 808–819.
Lange, A. (1983). De Interactionele Probleem Oplossings
Vragenlijst [The Interactional Problem Solving Inven-
tory]. Deventer, Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Lewandowski, G., Aron, A., & Gee, J. (2007). Personal-
ity goes a long way: The malleability of opposite-sex
physical attractiveness. Personal Relationships , 14 ,
571–585.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review , 98 , 224–253.
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expec-
tations in the early years of marriage: Should couples
expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 86 , 729–743.
McNulty, J. K., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2008).
Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in
newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology ,
22 , 135–143.
McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R. (2008).
Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship
maintenance: “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. . . . But
it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 94 , 631–646.
Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2003).
Trait expressiveness and marital satisfaction: The role
of idealization processes. Journal of Marriage and
the Family , 65 , 978–995.
Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006). Pos-
itive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year lon-
gitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32 , 1579–1594.
Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking
leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 85 , 1035–1048.
Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Moti-
vated cognition in romantic relationships. Psycholog-
ical Inquiry , 10 , 23–34.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith?
Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 , 586–604.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J., & Dolderman, D. (2000).
What the motivated mind sees: Comparing friends’
perspectives to married partners’ views of each
other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 36
, 600–620.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a).
The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in
romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but pre-
scient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,
71 , 1155–1180.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b).
The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and
the construction of satisfaction in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ,
79–98.
Sangrador, J. L., & Yela, C. (2000). “What is beautiful is
loved”: Physical attractiveness in love relationships in
a representative sample. Social Behavior and Person-
ality , 28 , 207–218.
Swami, V., Antonakopoulos, N., Tove´e, M. J., &
Furn- ham, A. (2006). A critical test of the waist-to-
hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness
in Britain and Greece. Sex Roles, 54 , 201–211.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Is love really so
blind? The Psychologist , 21 , 108–111.
Swami, V., Furnham, A., Georgiades, C., & Pang, L.
(2007). Evaluating self and partner physical attrac-
tiveness. Body Image, 4 , 97–101.
Swami, V., Neto, F., Tove´e, M. J., & Furnham, A.
(2007). Preferences for female body weight and shape
in three European countries. European Psychologist ,
12 , 220–228.
Swami, V., Stieger, S., Haubner, T., Voracek, M., &
Furnham, A. (2009). Evaluating the physical attrac-
tiveness of oneself and one’s romantic partner:
Individual and relationship correlates of the love- is-
blind bias. Journal of Individual Differences, 30 ,
35–43.
Swami, V., & Tove´e, M. J. (2005). Male physical
attrac- tiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-
cultural study. Body Image, 2 , 383–393.
Swami, V., & Tove´e, M. J. (2006). The influence of
body mass index on the physical attractiveness
preferences of feminist and nonfeminist
heterosexual women and lesbians. Psychology of
Women Quarterly , 30 , 252–257.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-
being: A social psychological perspective on mental
health. Psychological Bulletin, 103 , 193–210.
Teuscher, U., & Teuscher, C. (2007). Reconsidering
the double standard of aging: Effects of gender
and sexual orientation on facial attractiveness rat-
ings. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 ,
631–639.
Yela, C., & Sangrador, J. L. (2001). Perception of phys-
ical attractiveness throughout loving relationships.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 6 , 57–75.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to
the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 10 , 224–228.
Copy r ight of Personal Relationshi ps is the property of Blackwell Pu bl ishing Li mi ted and its
content may not be copied or emai led to mul ti ple sites or posted to a l istserv wi thout the copy r
ight
holder 's express wr itten permission. However. users may pr int. download. or emai l articles for
ind ividual use.