Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin http://psp.sagepub.com/

Closeness Discrepancies in Romantic Relationships : Implications for Relational Well-Being, Stability, and
Mental Health
David M. Frost and Cat Forrester
Pers Soc Psychol Bull published online 13 February 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0146167213476896

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/13/0146167213476896

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 13, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

476896
ality and Social Psychology BulletinFrost and Forrester
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167213476896Person

Personality and Social

Closeness Discrepancies in
Psychology Bulletin
XX(X) 1­–14
© 2013 by the Society for Personality

Romantic Relationships: Implications and Social Psychology, Inc

Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
for Relational Well-Being, Stability, DOI: 10.1177/0146167213476896
pspb.sagepub.com

and Mental Health

David M. Frost1 and Cat Forrester2

Abstract
Experiences of closeness in romantic relationships are associated with heightened levels of relational well-being and mental
health. However, individuals differ in the degree of closeness they desire in their relationships. This study used the construct
of inclusion of other in self (IOS) to analyze discrepancies between individuals’ actual and ideal levels of closeness in their
relationships and the implications of these discrepancies for relational well-being and mental health. A longitudinal survey of
partnered individuals demonstrated that optimal levels of relational well-being and mental health existed when individuals had
minimal discrepancies between actual and ideal IOS, regardless of their actual levels of IOS. Individuals whose actual levels of IOS
moved closer to their ideal levels over a 2-year period reported improved relational well-being and mental health. Individuals
with little to no discrepancies between actual and ideal IOS were also less likely to break-up with their partners over time.

Keywords
Closeness, Health, Relationships, Discrepancies, Inclusion of Other in Self

Received June 5, 2012; revision accepted November 15, 2012

Closeness, Health, and the Quality of
Romantic Relationships
Close relationships with others—particularly romantic rela-
tionship partners—have a substantial impact on individuals’
health and well-being (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton,
2010; Kiecolt-Glaser, Gouin, & Hantsoo, 2010; Reis &
Aron, 2008; Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000; Robles &
Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003). Feelings of closeness within romantic
relationships play an important role in determining the qual-
ity of romantic relationships and partners’ mental health
(Khaleque, 2004). Feeling close to a romantic partner is
indicative of a more intimate, committed, and satisfying
relationship (Brunell, Pilkington, & Webster, 2007;
Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002). Closeness in romantic relation-
ships is further representative of the degree to which indi-
viduals include aspects of their partners within their own
self-concept: inclusion of other in self (IOS; Agnew, Loving,
Le, & Goodfriend, 2004; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992;
Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). Seeking self-expansion
by including qualities of one’s partner in one’s self-concept
(e.g., their identities, resources, experiences) is thought to
produce beneficial outcomes at both the relational and indi-
vidual levels (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 2001).
Research on IOS as an indicator of feelings of closeness in
romantic relationships has demonstrated that greater inclu-
sion of one’s partner in one’s self-concept is associated with a
multitude of indicators of relational well-being, including
greater relationship satisfaction and lower rates of dissolution
over time (Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010; Tsapelas,
Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). In addition, findings across a variety
of cognitive and linguistic studies indicate that a greater sense
of “we-ness” between partners within relationships is associ-
ated with increased relationship satisfaction and commitment
(Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Fitzsimons
& Kay, 2004; Frost, in press; Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson, &
Levenson, 2009). Self-expansion through IOS may also result
in beneficial relational outcomes by promoting positive inter-
dependence between partners in the form of shared interests
and mutuality of dependence (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003).
1
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
2
San Francisco State University, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
David M. Frost, Mailman School of Public Health, Heilbrunn Department of
Population and Family Health, Columbia University, 60 Haven Avenue B2,
New York, NY 10032, USA
Email: dmf2119@columbia.edu

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
The majority of psychological research therefore indicates
that closeness—or more overlap between one’s self and one’s
partner—is a key marker of quality, healthy relationships.
Closeness Discrepancies and Their
Potential Negative Effects
However, individuals vary in the amount of closeness they
desire within their relationships (Aron et al., 2004; Fletcher,
Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Goodboy & Booth-
Butterfield, 2009; Kashdan, Volkmann, Breen, & Han, 2007;
Mashek, Le, Israel, & Aron, 2011; Mashek & Sherman,
2004). Recent advances in work on IOS have pointed to the
phenomena of desiring less closeness in romantic relation-
ships. Specifically, too much IOS may pose a threat to per-
sonal control and identity, and therefore cause someone to
desire less closeness with an intimate partner (Aron et al.,
2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004). Similar problems arise
when considering the phenomena of enmeshment in marital
and romantic relationships. Increased experiences of close-
ness may be beneficial to relational well-being and mental
health when they take the form of intimacy, caregiving, and
nurturance, but detrimental when they take the form of intru-
siveness and loss of a sense of self and independence (Green
& Werner, 1996; Lewandowski, Nardone, & Raines, 2010;
Werner, Green, Greenberg, Browne, & McKenna, 2001).
Thus, feeling “too close” to one’s partner and the corre-
sponding perceived loss of self may have a detrimental
effect on relational well-being and mental health (Aron
et al., 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004).
Taken together, the research reviewed previously suggests
the utility of an understanding of feelings of closeness in
romantic relationships that can account for individuals’ actual
experiences of IOS in relation to their ideal experiences of
IOS. In other words, individuals in romantic relationships
who do not currently experience their ideal level of closeness
with their partners may feel either “not close enough” or “too
close” to their partners. Although the theoretical importance
and existence of these discrepancies between actual and ideal
experiences of IOS have been documented, the implications
that IOS discrepancies actually have for the quality and sta-
bility of romantic relationships remain largely unexamined
(Aron et al., 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004).
Research on individual differences in experiences of IOS
discrepancies is further suggestive of the potential detrimen-
tal effects of IOS discrepancies on relational well-being.
Attachment avoidance is associated with experiencing a dis-
crepancy between actual and ideal IOS in relationships,
whereas the lowest levels of attachment avoidance can be
found among individuals who experience no actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies (Mashek & Sherman, 2004). Avoidance in
the form of fears of intimacy and perceived threats to inde-
pendence (i.e., dismissive-avoidant attachment) may mani-
fest in feeling “too close” to a partner, while desiring closeness
yet anticipating rejection from a partner (i.e., fearful-avoidant
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
attachment) may correspond to not feeling close enough to a
partner (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Adult attachment
theory positions attachment avoidance as detrimental to rela-
tionship quality and stability because attachment avoidance is
characterized by a fear of intimacy, as well as an increased
desire to maintain distance and independence at the expense
of intimacy within the context of close relationships (see
Hazan & Shaver, 1994, for a review). Empirical evidence
exists for this connection as well: Attachment avoidance is
negatively associated with multiple indicators of well-being
in romantic and marital relationships (Birnbaum, Reis,
Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Brennan & Shaver,
1995; Butzer & Campbell, 2008). The co-occurrence of
closeness discrepancies with attachment avoidance therefore
suggests that actual–ideal IOS discrepancies will be indica-
tive of negative relationship outcomes given the demon-
strated deleterious effects of avoidance on relationship
satisfaction and stability.
Social Cognitive and Motivational
Perspectives on Closeness
Discrepancies and Well-Being
Self-discrepancy theory (e.g., Higgins, 1987)—and its exten-
sion to discrepant self-concepts within dyads (e.g., Robins &
Boldero, 2003)—provides some insight into how closeness
discrepancies may have a deleterious impact on relational
well-being, stability, and mental health. More specifically,
one’s idealized level of closeness or IOS may serve as a cog-
nitive guide to which one compares his or her actual experi-
ences of closeness or IOS. Although not focused on closeness,
discrepancies between actual and ideal selves can result in
“dejection-related emotions” such as disappointment and dis-
satisfaction (Higgins, 1987). When idealized standards for
characteristics of partners do not match perceived partner
characteristics, people become dissatisfied with their rela-
tionships (Fletcher & Simpson, 2000).
Extending this line of reasoning to understanding the
influence of closeness on relational well-being, it follows
that discrepancies between actual and ideal levels of close-
ness may translate to similar outcomes at the relational level:
decreased relationship satisfaction and commitment.
Furthermore, following findings relating self-discrepancies
to mental health (Heidrich & Powwattana, 2004; Scott &
O’Hara, 1993), actual–ideal closeness discrepancies may
result in negative mental health outcomes, such as depres-
sion, given the centrality of dejection-related emotions to
depressive symptomatology (e.g., Radloff, 1977). Finally,
just as individuals are motivated to reduce actual–ideal self-
discrepancies (Higgins, 1987) and discrepancies between
perceived and ideal partner characteristics (Fletcher &
Simpson, 2000), the drive to bring one’s actual experience of
closeness in line with one’s ideal experience of closeness
may represent an energizing cognition that, when actualized
Frost and Forrester 3
over time, should result in positive trajectories in relational
well-being and mental health. Conversely, failure to dimin-
ish actual–ideal closeness discrepancies may result in nega-
tive trajectories in relational well-being and mental health
over time, and ultimately relationship dissolution.
Similar predictions about the effects of actual–ideal close-
ness discrepancies on relational well-being and mental health
can be gained from self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Research using an SDT approach has demon-
strated that relational well-being and mental health result
from the satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs,
including relatedness and autonomy, in addition to compe-
tency (e.g., Patrick, Knee, Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007;
Sheldon, Williams, & Joiner, 2003). Feeling less closeness
than idealized may be indicative of an unmet need for relat-
edness in the context of a present partnership, whereas feel-
ing more closeness than idealized may indicate, in a sense,
over-relatedness, which poses a threat to actualization of the
need for autonomy. Alignment of actual and ideal experi-
ences of closeness may therefore represent an optimal bal-
ance between the needs for relatedness and autonomy as
subjectively experienced by the individual. As a result of
these threats to fundamental psychogenic needs for related-
ness and autonomy, closeness discrepancies in romantic rela-
tionships may put individuals at risk for diminished
well-being in both psychological and relational domains.
Beyond Actual Closeness:The
Potential Additive Influence
of Closeness Discrepancies on
Relational Well-Being and Mental
Health
Researchers have yet to understand the degree to which
actual–ideal IOS discrepancies impact relational well-being
above and beyond actual experiences of IOS alone. In other
words, it is unclear what matters most for relational well-
being: how close people actually feel to their partners, or
whether people’s actual experiences of closeness in their
relationships match how close they would like to feel to their
partners. Closeness is a subjective psychological experience,
and individuals have been shown to vary in how much close-
ness they idealize within their romantic relationships (Aron
et al., 2004; Fletcher et al., 1999; Goodboy & Booth-
Butterfield, 2009; Mashek & Sherman, 2004). Thus, a pre-
scriptive model—one in which more closeness always results
in better and healthier relationships—may not be the most
effective theoretical, empirical, and clinical approach to
understanding the role of closeness in determining relational
well-being, stability, and mental health. Although there is
evidence that, on average, closer relationships tend to be bet-
ter relationships (Brunell et al., 2007; Hassebrauck & Fehr,
2002), understanding whether and how actual–ideal close-
ness discrepancies can predict relational well-being, stability,
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
and mental health above and beyond actual closeness alone
can potentially increase the explanatory power and applied
relevance of psychological models of health and well-being
in romantic relationships.
The Current Study: Aims and
Hypotheses
The current study uses an analysis of closeness as IOS and
seeks to extend and replicate social cognitive theory and
evidence on actual–ideal discrepancies within the domain of
closeness. Utilizing the construct of actual–ideal IOS dis-
crepancies as developed in research on experiences of desir-
ing less closeness (Aron et al., 2004; Mashek et al., 2011;
Mashek & Sherman, 2004), the current study aims to exam-
ine the degree to which actual–ideal IOS discrepancies are
associated with relational well-being, stability, and mental
health above and beyond the actual experience of closeness
alone. The implications of IOS and actual–ideal discrepan-
cies for mental health in particular have yet to be examined.
Furthermore—with increased empirical attention being paid
to the ever-changing nature of romantic relationships (e.g.,
Berscheid, 2010)—it is imperative to understand how the
attenuation or exacerbation of actual–ideal IOS discrepancies
over time correspond to temporal changes in relational well-
being, stability, and mental health. Accounting for dynamic
experiences of actual–ideal IOS discrepancies and their
resulting implications is a necessary next step for a psycho-
logical science that seeks to better its understanding of the
experience of closeness, as well as improve its ability to
promote and facilitate healthy, lasting relationships.
The current study hypothesized that discrepancies between
actual and ideal levels of IOS would predict relational well-
being outcomes (i.e., relationship satisfaction, commitment,
and break-up thoughts) and mental health (i.e., depression)
above and beyond individuals’ actual experiences of IOS
alone. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the association
between IOS discrepancies and relational well-being and
mental health outcomes would be nonlinear. Individuals with
little to no discrepancies between their actual and ideal levels
of IOS were expected to demonstrate optimal levels of rela-
tional well-being and mental health. Experiencing higher lev-
els of IOS than desired (i.e., feeling “too close” with one’s
partner) as well as lower levels of IOS than desired (i.e., feel-
ing “not close enough” with one’s partner) were both hypoth-
esized to be associated with decreased levels of relational
well-being and mental health. Furthermore, changes in
actual–ideal IOS discrepancies over time were hypothesized
to be predictive of corresponding changes in relational well-
being and mental health. It was hypothesized that individuals
whose actual experiences of IOS with their partners moved
closer to their ideal IOS over time would show improvement
in relational well-being and mental health over time com-
pared with individuals whose actual experiences of IOS with
their partners moved further away from their ideal levels of
4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
IOS. Comparatively, little to no change in relational well-
being and mental health was hypothesized among individuals
with no change in actual–ideal IOS discrepancies over time.
Finally, it was hypothesized that individuals with no actual–
ideal IOS discrepancies would be less likely to break up with
their partners over time than individuals who felt “too close”
or “not close enough” to their partners.
Method
Sample
To test these hypotheses, data were obtained from the Lives
and Relationships Study: an Internet-based longitudinal survey
focused on understanding predictors of relational well-being
and health among a diverse sample of individuals living in the
United States and Canada. Four waves of data were collected,
with each wave occurring approximately 1 year (M = 370
days, SD = 13) apart. Data from the first wave were not
included in the current analysis because IOS data were only
collected during the final three waves. Participants were ini-
tially recruited into the study using three recruitment strategies.
They were active strategies (e.g., emails and listserv postings
that reached participants directly through their personal email
accounts), passive strategies (e.g., posting an announcement
on discussion forums or classified websites), and snowball
strategies (i.e., participants were provided with a link to the
study that they were encouraged to share with their friends,
family, and coworkers). Announcements were not placed on
listservs or discussion forums specifically focused on dating,
relationships, sex, or relationship problems to avoid biasing the
sample. During the first wave of data collection, participants
provided their email addresses and unique passwords that were
used to link participants’ data from wave to wave. At subse-
quent waves, participants received an email directly from the
first author announcing the new study wave, reminding them
of their username and password, and providing a link to the
study’s website. Incentive for participation at each wave was
provided in the form of a lottery drawing for 1 of 20 US$100
gift cards to a popular online retailer.
Data for the current study were obtained from the sub-
sample of individual participants who were in relationships
at the second wave of the study (N = 1,659) and their follow-
up data from Waves 3 and 4. Waves 2, 3, and 4 are hereafter
referred to as Times 1, 2, and 3 to simplify the presentation
of findings within the context of the current investigation.
The sample was diverse in terms of age (M = 34.11, SD =
10), race/ethnicity (23% non-Caucasian ethnic/racial minor-
ity), sexual orientation (14% nonheterosexual), and educa-
tional attainment (54% having a 4-year college degree or
greater). The sample was primarily female (78% female).
Participants reported being in a diverse array of relationships
with regard to relationship length (M = 8.74 years, SD =
8.27), marital status (58% married or domestic partners), and
cohabitation (77% lived with their partners).
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
Forty-four percent (n = 732) of the originally coupled par-
ticipants were retained for all waves of the study. Participants
were invited to complete all waves of the survey regardless
of whether they were in the same relationship, had broken up
with their previous partner, and/or started a new relationship.
There were no significant differences in the demographic
and relationship characteristics reported above between
retained participants and those who were lost to follow-up,
with the exception of sexual orientation. More attrition was
observed among heterosexual participants (64%) than among
gay men and lesbians (50%) and bisexuals (56%), χ2(2) =
16.08, p < .001. There were also no differences between
retained participants and those lost to follow-up on any of
the relational well-being outcomes in the study. However,
those lost to follow-up were significantly more depressed as
measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies—
Depression scale (CESD; M = 9.06, SD = 6.09) than retained
participants (M = 7.91, SD = 5.76), t = 4.03, p < .001.
Procedures and Measures
After consenting to participate and entering their email
addresses and passwords, participants were granted access to
the online questionnaire that contained the measures below.
IOS (Times 1, 2, and 3). Aron and colleagues’ (1992) IOS scale
was used to measure how individuals conceptualized their
own experiences of relational closeness. This pictorial scale
depicted six sets of two circles in which one circle repre-
sented the participant’s “self” and the other represented the
participant’s “partner.” The sets were presented with varying
degrees of overlap ranging from completely separate to
almost completely overlapping. The IOS has empirically
demonstrated validity and reliability (see Aron et al., 1992),
most notably in its robust correlations with several other
multi-item scales that measure closeness within relation-
ships, such as the Subjective Closeness Index and the Rela-
tionship Closeness Inventory. The current study used a
2-item approach to assessing IOS, where one version of the
scale assessed participants’ actual (i.e., “current”) levels of
IOS and a second version assessed participants’ ideal levels
of IOS (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997;
Mashek & Sherman, 2004). IOS discrepancy scores were
computed by subtracting each participant’s ideal IOS rating
from their actual IOS rating. Negative numbers on this IOS
discrepancy score indicated feeling “not close enough” to
one’s partner, while positive numbers indicated feeling “too
close” to one’s partner, and scores of 0 indicated no discrep-
ancy between actual and ideal experiences of IOS.
Relationship Satisfaction (Times 1, 2, and 3). The 4-item version
of the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007)
was included to assess individuals’ satisfaction with their cur-
rent primary romantic relationships. The CSI was developed
using item response theory and is the result of a factor analysis
Frost and Forrester 5
of items pooled from eight previously validated measures of
relationship satisfaction. Example items include “How
rewarding is your relationship with your partner?” and “In
general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?” Par-
ticipants responded to such items on a scale of “not at all” to
“completely.” The CSI not only demonstrates strong validity
correlations with existing measures of the construct, but it also
demonstrates less noise and more power in detecting individ-
ual differences in satisfaction than existing measures (Funk &
Rogge, 2007). The measure is scored on a scale of 0 to 21,
with scores of 13.5 or below indicating relationship distress.
In its originating study (Funk & Rogge, 2007), CSI (4-item)
scale scores were internally consistent at .94 and were highly
correlated with the eight previously validated measures of
relationship satisfaction (rs ranged from .84 to .94). In the cur-
rent study, participants’ scores on the CSI were internally con-
sistent with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .91 at each of the
three time points of the current study.
Commitment (Time 1). Commitment was measured using the
9-item Relationship Commitment Scale (Lund, 1985). Com-
mitment was included as a complement to relationship satis-
faction given its ability to assess participants’ expectations
about the future of their relationships in addition to their cur-
rent levels of satisfaction. Example items read, “How likely
is it that your relationship will be permanent?” and “How
likely are you to pursue another relationship or single life in
the future?” Participants responded to items on a scale of
1 = not at all to 7 = extremely. Final scale average scores
were created that ranged from 1 to 7. In its originating study,
scores on the measure demonstrated internal consistency at
.82, and the scale demonstrated an ability to distinguish
between other relational constructs focused on positive affect
(e.g., love; Lund, 1985). Scores on the Relationship Com-
mitment Scale in the current study were internally consistent
at .76 at Time 1.
Break-Up Thoughts (Times 1, 2, and 3). A single item was
included in the survey to measure how often participants
thought about ending their relationships with their current
primary partners. The item read, “How often in the past
month have you considered ending your relationship with
your current partner?” Participants responded on a scale of
0 = never to 4 = a lot. Higher scores were considered indica-
tive of more seriousness of participants’ considerations to
dissolve their relationships, which have been demonstrated
to be key determinants of actual relationship dissolution
(e.g., Gottman, 1993).
Mental Health (Times 1, 2, and 3). Mental health was assessed
in the form of symptoms of depression using the short form
CESD (Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994). The
CESD short form is a 10-item measure of depressive symp-
toms experienced over a 1-week period prior to the study
view. The 10-item version uses a subset of the items from the
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
original 20-item version (Radloff, 1977). Participants were
asked how often during the past week they “could not get
going,” “felt depressed,” “felt hopeful about the future,” and
“felt people dislike you.” Participants responded on a 4-point
scale ranging from 0 = rarely or none of the time (<1 day) to
3 = most or all of the time (5-7 days). Numerous studies have
demonstrated the convergent validity of the CESD among
both clinical and nonclinical samples in the form of large
correlations with clinical reports of depression, Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders depression diag-
noses, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the
Symptom Checklist–90 (for a review of validity evidence,
see McDowell & Newell, 1996; Roberts & Vernon, 1983).
Although the scale has been shown to correlate moderately
to highly with other measures of anxiety and psychological
distress, it has been successful in identifying depression in
several clinical and community samples (McDowell & New-
ell, 1996) and as a result is one of the most widely used mea-
sures of depressive symptoms. Internal consistency for
scores on the CESD in the current study ranged from .85 to
.87 over the three time points.
Analysis Plan
Cross-Sectional Segmented Regression Models. To estimate the
effect of actual–ideal IOS discrepancies on relational well-
being and mental health, it was necessary to fit a spline to the
data. A spline, in its simplest form, can be tested in the form
of a segmented regression model in which linear change is
expected to be continuous up to a certain value (i.e., a knot),
after which the size and direction of change will be altered. In
the current study, it was hypothesized that an actual–ideal
IOS discrepancy of 0—where actual closeness and ideal
closeness are equal—would represent the point of expected
linear change. Specifically, it was hypothesized that a posi-
tive relationship would exist between closeness discrepancies
and positively valenced study outcomes (i.e., relationship sat-
isfaction and commitment) as negative values of closeness
discrepancies (i.e., feeling not close enough) approached 0.
Alternatively, a negative relationship between closeness dis-
crepancies and positively valenced outcomes was expected as
positive closeness discrepancies (i.e., feeling too close)
increased beyond 0. This pattern was expected to reverse for
negatively valenced outcomes (i.e., break-up thoughts and
depression). Put more simply, having no actual–ideal IOS
discrepancy was hypothesized to correspond to optimal lev-
els of relational well-being and mental health, with relational
well-being and mental health worsening as closeness discrep-
ancies increased beyond 0 in either direction.
Segmented linear regression models were fit to test these
hypotheses (following Keele, 2008). These models included a
parameter to estimate the size and direction of the relation-
ship between closeness discrepancies and study outcomes for
values of actual–ideal IOS discrepancies ranging from −6 to 0,
and a separate parameter to estimate the size and direction of
6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
the relationship between actual–ideal IOS discrepancies and
study outcomes for values of closeness discrepancies ranging
beyond 0 to 6. This segmented linear regression model is rep-
resented in the equation below where x = an individual’s
closeness discrepancy score and k = the knot discrepancy
value of 0 at which the direction of linear change is expected
to be altered:
Y = b0 + b1 x + b2 ( x) + + e,
 x if x > k 
where x+ =  .
 0 if x ≤ k 
In this equation, b0 is the initial intercept for an outcome
Y. The sign and size of b1 represent the direction and slope of
the segment of the equation linking negative actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies (i.e., feeling not close enough) to study
outcomes. The sign and size of b2 represent the direction and
slope of the segment of the equation linking positive actual–
ideal IOS discrepancies (i.e., feeling too close) to study out-
comes. To examine the extent to which the association
between actual–ideal IOS discrepancies and study outcomes
remained robust and statistically significant above and
beyond actual levels of closeness, actual IOS was controlled
for in all segmented regression models along with gender,
marital status, and length of relationship. It was not possible
to include ideal IOS in these analyses because its inclusion
would produce a linear dependency within the models (i.e.,
participants’ ideal IOS is reflected in the difference between
their actual IOS and actual–ideal IOS discrepancies).
Repeated-Measures Mixed General Linear Models. To test the
study’s longitudinal hypotheses, change scores were com-
puted reflecting the change in participants’ actual–ideal IOS
discrepancies over Times 1, 2, and 3 of the current study.
Participants were classified into three groups for comparison
based on whether the absolute value of their actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies (a) diminished over time, (b) increased
over time, or (c) remained the same over time. This between-
subjects factor was examined within repeated-measures
mixed general linear models, which examined whether
change in the relational well-being and mental health out-
comes over time was dependent on the type of change in
participants’ actual–ideal IOS discrepancies. To examine the
extent to which changes in actual–ideal IOS discrepancies
corresponded to changes in study outcomes above and
beyond actual levels of IOS, average levels of actual IOS
across the three time points were included as a covariate
given covariates in repeated-measured mixed general linear
models are required to be time invariant. These models were
also controlled for gender, and Time 1 marital status and
length of relationship. Only participants who completed all
waves of the study and reported being with the same rela-
tionship partner at each time point were included in longitu-
dinal analyses. Missing data on variables within follow-up
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
assessments among retained participants were minimal, with
no more than 17 participants missing data on a given vari-
able. Missing values were imputed using Expectation Maxi-
mization, an imputation technique based in Maximum
Likelihood Estimation (Roth, 1994; Schafer & Olsen, 1998).
Binary Logistic Regression Models. Finally, logistic regression
models were computed to examine whether actual–ideal IOS
discrepancies were predictive of relationship dissolution
over a 1-year period. Binary indicator variables were com-
puted at Time 1 for those who reported higher actual IOS
than ideal IOS with their partner (i.e., “too close”: 1 = yes;
0 = no) and lower actual IOS than ideal IOS with their part-
ner (i.e., “not close enough”: 1 = yes; 0 = no). Those who
reported no actual–ideal IOS discrepancies with their part-
ners were the reference group. These binary predictor vari-
ables were entered into logistic regression models to obtain
the odds ratios (ORs) regarding relationship dissolution
observed over a period of 1 year associated with each type of
actual–ideal IOS discrepancy. These analyses controlled for
Time 1 actual IOS, gender, marital status, and length of
relationship.
Results
Preliminary and Descriptive Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate Pearson correla-
tions are presented in Table 1 for IOS-derived variables and
relational well-being and mental health outcomes across the
three time points in the study. As indicated by the mean
levels of actual and ideal IOS, participants’ actual experi-
ences of closeness were on average less than their ideal
levels of closeness, resulting in negative mean actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies at each time point. Types of actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies at initial participation were not evenly
distributed in the sample: 57.1% of the sample reported
negative discrepancies (i.e., actual IOS < ideal IOS); 37.6%
reported no discrepancies (i.e., actual IOS = ideal IOS); and
5.3% reported positive discrepancies (i.e., actual IOS >
ideal IOS).
Bivariate correlations demonstrated robust and statisti-
cally significant associations between actual IOS and all
study outcomes, such that greater closeness was associated
with higher levels of relationship satisfaction and commit-
ment, as well as fewer break-up thoughts and depressive
symptoms. Associations between ideal IOS and relational
well-being and mental health outcomes—although statisti-
cally significant at times—were not robust in any instance
given their corresponding effect sizes were uniformly small
(i.e., Pearson rs ~ .10; Cohen, 1992). Actual–ideal IOS dis-
crepancies demonstrated robust and statistically significant
bivariate associations with relational well-being and mental
health. However, these bivariate relationships are not directly
interpretable given both the scaling of the discrepancy score
Frost and Forrester 7

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between IOS Predictors and Relational Well-Being and Mental Health Outcomes

Bivariate correlations
Actual IOS Ideal IOS Actual–ideal IOS discrepancy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 M SD
Relationship satisfaction
  Time 1 .68*** .49*** .45*** .15*** .13*** .05 .61*** .41*** .45*** 17.89 4.89
  Time 2 .46*** .71*** .49*** .06 .19*** .04 .44*** .60*** .50*** 18.11 4.71
  Time 3 .43*** .51*** .69*** .08 .10* .10* .39*** .45*** .66*** 18.31 4.57
Commitment
  Time 1 .44*** .27*** .28*** .17*** .12*** .06 .36*** .19*** .26*** 6.00 0.92
Break-up thoughts
  Time 1 −.57*** −.37*** −.33*** −.12*** −.10** −.07 −.52*** −.31*** −.31*** 1.75 1.01
  Time 2 −.34*** −.59*** −.37*** −.08* −.15*** −.03 −.30*** −.51*** −.37*** 1.70 0.97
  Time 3 −.30*** −.43*** −.56*** −.05 −.11*** −.10* −.27*** −.35*** −.53*** 1.61 0.94
Depression
  Time 1 −.32*** −.24*** −.24*** −.08** −.08* −.05 −.28*** −.20*** −.22*** 8.62 5.99
  Time 2 −.22*** −.37*** −.29*** −.02 −.04 −.05 −.22*** −.35*** −.27*** 8.48 6.13
  Time 3 −.20*** −.30*** −.34** −.05 −.11** −.10* −.17*** −.23*** −.30*** 8.03 6.19
M 4.37 4.41 4.43 5.32 5.24 5.27 −.96 −.84 −.83  
SD 1.34 1.30 1.28 0.87 0.88 0.83 1.29 1.26 1.21  
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

and the unequal representation of the types of actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies in the dataset, and are thus better under-
stood via the results of the segmented regression analyses
reported below.
Associations Between IOS Discrepancies and
Relational Well-Being and Mental Health
Outcomes
Complete results of the segmented linear regression models
examining associations between actual–ideal IOS discrepan-
cies and relational well-being and mental health are pre-
sented in Table 2. In summary, these analyses demonstrated
that participants’ actual ratings of IOS were robust and sta-
tistically significant predictors of relationship satisfaction
and commitment in a positive direction and break-up
thoughts and depression in a negative direction. However,
coefficients corresponding to the hypothesized segmented
association between IOS discrepancy scores and relational
well-being and mental health outcomes were robust and
statistically significant above and beyond the effects of
actual IOS. These segmented equations indicated that opti-
mal levels of relational well-being (i.e., highest levels of
relationship satisfaction, commitment, and lowest levels of
break-up thoughts) and mental health (i.e., lowest levels of
depression) occurred among those who experienced no dis-
crepancy between their actual and ideal levels of IOS with
their partners (IOS discrepancy = 0). As participants reported
feeling increasingly “too close for comfort” (IOS discrep-
ancy > 0), their reported relational well-being and mental
health decreased in kind. Similarly, feeling increasingly “not
close enough” (IOS discrepancy < 0) was associated with
corresponding decreases in relational well-being and mental
health. These associations remained robust and statistically
significant controlling for gender, relationship length, and
marital status. Regression equations constructed from the
values presented in Table 2 were used to compute adjusted
predicted scores for each outcome and visually plot the
resulting segmented linear relationships, as presented in
Figure 1.
Type of Change in IOS Discrepancies as a
Predictor of Change in Relational Well-Being
and Mental Health Over Time
Participant representation across the three levels of the
between-subjects factor of type of IOS discrepancy change
were as follows: 125 participants’ actual–ideal IOS discrep-
ancies increased over time (i.e., demonstrated a net increase
in a positive or negative direction, moving away from 0);
126 participants’ actual–ideal IOS discrepancies diminished
over time (i.e., demonstrated a net decrease in a positive or
negative direction, moving toward 0); and 260 participants’
actual–ideal IOS discrepancies remained unchanged over
the 3 yearly assessments (i.e., were the same at Times 1 and
3). Means for each of these three groups defined by type of

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)

Table 2. Segmented Associations Between IOS Discrepancies and Relational Well-Being and Mental Health Outcomes

Relationship satisfaction Commitment Break-up thoughts Depression

  B SE β p rs B SE β p rs B SE β p rs B SE β p rs
Intercept 9.44 0.60 .00 4.96 0.15 .00 2.45 0.14 .00 9.85 1.01 .00  
Female 0.61 0.20 .05 .00 .05 0.28 0.05 .13 .00 .12 −0.07 0.05 −.03 .17 −.03 0.24 0.34 .02 .47 .02
Relationship length −0.04 0.01 −.06 .00 −.05 0.01 0.00 .10 .00 .09 0.00 0.00 −.04 .10 −.03 0.01 0.02 .02 .55 .01
Married −0.02 0.20 .00 .92 .00 0.47 0.05 .25 .00 .21 −0.13 0.05 −.06 .01 −.05 −0.17 0.34 −.01 .62 −.01
Actual IOS 1.42 0.11 .39 .00 .22 0.16 0.03 .23 .00 .13 −0.21 0.03 −.27 .00 −.16 −0.65 0.18 −.15 .00 −.08
Negative IOS 1.65 0.12 .43 .00 .23 0.21 0.03 .30 .00 .16 −0.33 0.03 −.43 .00 −.22 −1.21 0.21 −.26 .00 −.14
discrepancy (≤0)
Positive IOS −3.94 0.28 −.29 .00 −.24 −0.61 0.07 −.23 .00 −.20 0.75 0.07 .27 .00 .22 3.61 0.47 .22 .00 .18
discrepancy (>0)
F 321.27 114.54 178.83 42.45
R2 .54 .35 .40 .14
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self.

IOS discrepancy change on relational well-being and mental
health outcomes are displayed in Figure 2 for each of the 3
yearly assessments.
Results of the repeated-measures mixed general linear
models examining the degree to which the type of change in
participants’ actual–ideal IOS discrepancies was associated
with changes in relational well-being and mental health over
time are presented in Table 3. Only relationship satisfaction
demonstrated statistically significant change over time.
However, despite the lack of change in average levels of
break-up thoughts and depression over time, all analyses
indicated uniform and statistically significant interactions
between the within-subjects factor of time and the between-
subjects factor of type of change in actual–ideal discrepan-
cies. In other words, the direction of change over time in
relational well-being and mental health depended on the type
of change participants experienced within their actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies. These interactions (see means plots in
Figure 2) indicated that, as hypothesized, those individuals
whose actual experiences of IOS became closer to their ideal
IOS over time demonstrated increases in relational well-
being (i.e., increased satisfaction and decreased break-up
thoughts) and mental health (i.e., fewer depressive symp-
toms) across the three time points. Those whose actual expe-
riences of IOS moved further away from their ideal over
time demonstrated decreases in relational well-being (i.e.,
decreased satisfaction and increased break-up thoughts) and
mental health (i.e., increased depressive symptoms) across
the three time points. Finally, those whose actual–ideal IOS
discrepancies evidenced no change over time demonstrated
relatively unchanging levels of relational well-being and
mental health, remaining virtually constant over the three
yearly assessments.
The time by type of change in actual–ideal IOS discrep-
ancy interactions remained robust and statistically signifi-
cant even when the effects of average actual IOS were
accounted for in the models. However, only changes in
relationship satisfaction over time evidenced a dependency
on average levels of actual IOS. The effects of gender, rela-
tionship length, and marital status were also accounted for,
although they evidenced no influence on the rate of change
in relational well-being or mental health over time.
Actual–Ideal IOS Discrepancies as Predictors
of Relationship Dissolution
Results of the binary logistic regression models testing the
extent to which IOS discrepancies at Time 1 were predictive
of relationship dissolution at follow-up assessment are pre-
sented in Table 4. Of the original Time 1 sample retained at
the first yearly follow-up, 7.2% (n = 139) of participants
reported ending their relationships with their previous part-
ners. Individuals who felt “not close enough” to their partners
(i.e., had negative actual–ideal IOS discrepancies) at Time 1
were approximately twice as likely to break up with their
partners at follow-up than individuals who experienced no
discrepancy in actual and ideal IOS at Time 1. Similarly, indi-
viduals who felt “too close” to their partners (i.e., had positive
actual–ideal IOS discrepancies) at Time 1 were approximately
twice as likely to break up with their partners over 1 year than
individuals who experienced no discrepancy in actual and
ideal IOS at Time 1; however, this association was not statisti-
cally significant. These findings were obtained from models
controlling for actual IOS at Time 1, which demonstrated a
protective effect on relationship dissolution along with rela-
tionship length and marital status.
Discussion
The findings of the current study demonstrate the robust util-
ity of the construct of IOS in predicting relational well-
being, stability, and mental health among a diverse sample
of individuals in romantic relationships. Consistent with
previous theory and research (Aron et al., 2004; Tsapelas

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
9
Figure 1. Actual–ideal IOS discrepancies as a predictor of relational well-being and mental health
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self.
10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)

Figure 2. Change in relational well-being and mental health as a function of type of change in actual–ideal IOS discrepancies
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self.

et al., 2009), experiences of closeness with one’s relationship
partner—as evidenced via greater inclusion of one’s partner
within one’s own self-concept—is indicative of heightened
relational well-being across a variety of indicators, including
increased satisfaction, commitment, and fewer thoughts
about ending one’s relationship. However, this study’s find-
ings indicate that individuals’ actual experiences of IOS in
their relationships are only part of a broader experience of
closeness, which must be accounted for in attempts to fully
understand the association between closeness and well-
being in romantic relationships. Specifically, these findings
indicate that optimal levels of relational well-being and

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

Frost and Forrester 11

Table 3. Change in Relational Well-Being and Mental Health Over Time As a Function of Type of Change in IOS Discrepancies

Relationship satisfaction Break-up thoughtsa Depressiona

Within-subjects effects F df η2p F df η2p F df η2p
Time 5.16** 2 0.01 1.34 1.97 0.00 0.19 2.00 0.00
Time × Change in actual– 19.55*** 4 0.07 13.86*** 3.93 0.05 3.41** 4.00 0.01
ideal IOS discrepancy
Time × Actual IOS 4.52** 2 0.01 1.10 1.97 0.00 0.80 2.00 0.00
Time × Female 1.61 2 0.00 0.55 1.97 0.00 1.83 2.00 0.00
Time × Relationship length 0.27 2 0.00 1.34 1.97 0.00 0.86 2.00 0.00
Time × Married 0.68 2 0.00 2.06 1.97 0.00 1.65 2.00 0.00
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self.
a
Sphericity not assumed based on results of Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity, df adjusted using Huynh–Feldt correction.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Actual–Ideal IOS Discrepancies as Predictors of relationships match how close they would like to feel to their
Relationship Dissolution partners.
Furthermore, this study provides empirical evidence that
B p OR 95% CI for OR
the abatement of discrepancies between experienced and
Intercept 0.24 .71 1.28   idealized levels of closeness in relationships can lead to
Negative IOS discrepancy 0.73 .04 2.07 [1.04, 4.14] improved relational well-being, stability, and mental health
Positive IOS discrepancy 0.77 .15 2.16 [0.75, 6.18] over time. Specifically, the findings from the current study
Actual IOS −0.33 .00 0.72 [0.58, 0.88] show that if experiences of closeness with a partner move in
Female −0.12 .66 0.89 [0.52, 1.52] line with ideal experiences of closeness, individuals will
Relationship length −0.21 .00 0.81 [0.74, 0.88] experience significant and substantial increases in relational
Married −0.99 .00 0.37 [0.19, 0.72] well-being and mental health over time. However, the oppo-
Note: IOS = inclusion of other in self; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence site is true under conditions where experiences of closeness
interval. move further away from ideal levels of closeness over time,
resulting in decreased relational well-being and mental
health. Those whose discrepancies remained constant over
mental health are achieved when individuals’ actual experi- time did not experience much change in their relational well-
ences of closeness in their relationships match their ideal- being or mental health over time. It is important to note that
ized levels of closeness with their relationship partners. This the effects of participants’ closeness discrepancies on
finding provides further evidence for existing theory and changes in relational well-being and mental health persisted
research on the phenomena of feeling “too close” in roman- regardless of how close they actually felt to their partner.
tic relationships (Mashek & Sherman, 2004) by providing an This novel finding demonstrates the impact and importance
overarching explanatory model of closeness discrepancies of closeness discrepancy reduction—above and beyond the
and their impact on individual health and romantic relation- promotion of closeness itself—in efforts to improve rela-
ship quality. tional well-being and mental health over time.
The current study extends this line of research by demon- Even further, experiencing a discrepancy in actual–ideal
strating that individuals who feel “too close” and “not close levels of IOS was associated with an increased likelihood of
enough” to their partner—as operationalized via actual–ideal relationship dissolution, above and beyond actual experi-
IOS discrepancies—fare increasingly less well as the size of ences of closeness. Even though feeling “not close enough”
their IOS discrepancies increase, regardless of what their to a partner was significantly associated with dissolution rates
actual experiences of IOS may be. This finding was consis- and feeling “too close” to a partner was not significantly asso-
tent not only across a variety of indicators of relational well- ciated with dissolution rates, it is important to note that the
being, but extended to the domain of mental health as well. effect sizes for both were nearly equal (ORs = 2.07 and 2.16,
Thus, accounting for individuals’ actual experiences of respectively). Thus, it is not possible to conclude that there
closeness with their partners in relation to their desired levels were differential effects of the type of closeness discrepancy
of closeness is necessary to maximize the success of attempts on relationship dissolution. The magnitude and direction of
to understand the effect of closeness on relational well-being the effects associated with both types of closeness discrepan-
and mental health in relationships. What seems to matter cies indicate that individuals with any type of discrepancy
most for both relational well-being and mental health is not between their actual and idealized experiences of closeness
only how close people actually feel to their partners, but are at substantial risk for relationship dissolution compared
whether people’s actual experiences of closeness in their with individuals who experience no discrepancy.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013

12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
Accounting for the existence and size of the discrepancy
between individuals’ actual and ideal levels of closeness in
their relationships is paramount in attempts to explain its
effects on relational well-being and mental health. Less impor-
tant in this regard is the nature or direction of the discrepancy
(Aron et al., 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004). In other words,
optimal levels of relational well-being and mental health exist
when actual–ideal closeness discrepancies do not. Feeling
both “too close” and feeling “not close enough” to a relation-
ship partner have detrimental effects on relational well-being
and mental health. The deleterious implications posed by the
encroachment on personal identity and control likely associ-
ated with feeling “too close” to one’s partner seem to be equal
to those posed by the lack of closeness experienced in the form
of less-than-desirable levels of closeness.
Understanding individuals’ experiences of closeness in
their romantic relationships via their reports of actual–ideal
IOS discrepancies has tremendous potential not only for future
research on closeness, IOS, and health and well-being in close
relationships, but for clinical and counseling work with cou-
ples and individuals as well. The present findings highlight
necessary next steps in research on IOS and relational well-
being and mental health, which have thus far overly relied on
single indicators of IOS in relational contexts. Measuring
actual–ideal IOS discrepancies takes seriously individuals’
own desires for closeness in relationships and avoids forcing
couples’ lived experiences into a researcher-imposed expecta-
tion of what their relationships “should” look like (e.g., health-
ier relationships = more closeness). It is this kind of
constructivist approach to understanding closeness in relation-
ships that, as the current study demonstrates, provides an
improved explanation of relational functioning over what
static measures of closeness can explain by themselves.
Accounting for actual–ideal IOS discrepancies in the clin-
ical intake process and assessment of couples counseling
interventions may thus prove to be a useful tool for clinicians
seeking to improve relational well-being and mental health
in relational contexts. Having couples reflect on their current
and ideal levels of closeness on multiple occasions can assist
clinicians and counselors in their abilities to target interven-
tions aimed at eliminating closeness discrepancies and prob-
lematic experiences of enmeshment and intrusiveness,
thereby improving the health and well-being of their patients
and clients (e.g., Green & Werner, 1996). Furthermore, the
present findings suggest that efforts focused on improving
relational well-being and mental health in couples should not
limit themselves to the promotion of closeness but instead
focus on the alignment of individuals’ experiences of close-
ness and their ideal levels of closeness with their partners.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future
Research
The findings of the current study should be interpreted in
light of some limitations. Although the study reports on lon-
gitudinal findings, the data are nonetheless correlational in
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
nature and causality cannot be inferred. Second, the sample
is biased by self-selection and is not random or representa-
tive of the U.S. and Canadian populations from which it was
drawn. Although research indicates men and women do not
differ in their experiences of IOS discrepancies (Frost &
Eliason, in press) and the effects of gender were controlled
for in all analyses, the underrepresentation of men in the
study did not permit an examination of potential gender dif-
ferences in the associations between IOS discrepancies and
study outcomes. Despite these limitations, it is important to
note that the size and diversity of the present sample pro-
vides a complement to the existing research on closeness
and IOS, which has been conducted primarily with under-
graduate student samples or geographically restricted sam-
ples of mostly married individuals.
Significant amounts of attrition were observed that were
likely due to the challenges of conducting longitudinal
research on the Internet and the minimal incentive structure
used. However, there were very few differences between
retained participants and those lost to follow-up. As a result
of higher attrition among those who were more depressed,
the effect sizes of coefficients linking IOS discrepancies
with mental health are likely attenuated and thus underesti-
mated in the current study. Also, associations between IOS
discrepancies and dissolution are likely attenuated, given
individuals who break up with their partners may be less
motivated to continue participation in a study about relation-
ships than those who stay together. In addition, the lack of
statistical significance associated with the robust OR linking
positive actual–ideal IOS discrepancies to dissolution was
likely a result of the low frequency of positive IOS discrep-
ancies in the sample, as well as the difficulty in observing
relationship dissolution in survey studies with yearly assess-
ments (Gottman, 1993).
The study used a limited set of indicators of relational
well-being and mental health; thus, future work is needed to
examine the extent to which the current findings generalize to
other indicators of relationship quality and health. Given
depressive symptoms are just one indicator of a broader con-
struct of mental health, future studies should include addi-
tional measures of negative (e.g., anxiety) and positive
functionality (e.g., psychological well-being). Also, the cur-
rent study examined only individuals in romantic relation-
ships. Future studies should explore how processes related to
closeness and IOS discrepancies in relationships play out
within couples. For example, the use of dyadic analyses will
allow for the examination of research questions surrounding
partner effects of IOS discrepancies on relational well-being
and mental health (e.g., How do husbands’ IOS discrepancies
impact their wives’ depression?). Additional research is also
needed to explore the implications of actual–ideal IOS dis-
crepancies in other types of close relationships given the cen-
trality of closeness to positive relations with others. Important
research questions can be posed regarding the impact
of actual–ideal IOS discrepancies on a multitude of out-
comes across a variety of relationship contexts such as job
Frost and Forrester 13
performance among coworkers, familial conflict in parent–
child relationships, and satisfaction with clinical care in
patient–provider interactions.
Conclusion
The present study’s focus on actual–ideal closeness discrep-
ancies deepens psychological understandings of the effects
of closeness on relationship quality and individual health in
the context of romantic relationships. Accounting for indi-
viduals’ actual experiences of closeness in romantic relation-
ships is necessary but not sufficient in effectively explaining
their relational well-being, stability, and mental health.
Psychological inquiries into the phenomenon of closeness
must additionally account for individuals’ idealized notions
of closeness in their relationships with their partners, given
discrepancies between actual and ideal experiences of close-
ness can be detrimental to relational well-being and mental
health, both in the present and over time. Future work must
take seriously where individuals’ experiences of closeness
with their partners are in relation to where they would ide-
ally like them to be to more fully understand and promote
their experiences of closeness, well-being, health, and rela-
tional stability over time.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank members of the Psychology of Sexuality and
Relationships Lab and the Columbia and NYU Couples Labs for
their comments on presentations of the data reported in this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., Le, B., & Goodfriend, W. (2004). Think-
ing close: Measuring closeness as perceived self-other inclusion.
In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 103-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston,
C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the
mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.74.4.939
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L.
(1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evalua-
tion of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preven-
tive Medicine, 10, 77-84.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in
the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close
relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.60.2.241
Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G.,
Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the
self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101-132.
doi:10.1080/10463280440000008
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E., Vallone, R. E., & Bator, R. J.
(1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness:
A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 365-378.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., & Aron, E. N. (2001). Shared self-
expanding activities as a means of maintaining and enhancing
close romantic relationships. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.),
Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement
(pp. 47-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles
among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review
of Psychology, 61, 1-25.
Birnbaum, G., Reis, H., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A.
(2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orienta-
tions, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929-943.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attach-
ment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.
Brunell, A. B., Pilkington, C. J., & Webster, G. D. (2007). Percep-
tions of risk in intimacy in dating couples: Conversation and
relationship quality. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,
26, 92-119.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satis-
faction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married cou-
ples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141-154.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155-159.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2004). Language and interper-
sonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage
on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 547-557. doi:10.1177/0146167203262852
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close
relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9, 102-105.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L.
(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.76.1.72
Frost, D. M., & Eliason, M. (in press). Challenging the assump-
tion of fusion in female same-sex relationships. Psychology of
Women Quarterly.
Frost, D. M. (in press). The narrative construction of intimacy and
affect in relationship stories: Implications for relationship qual-
ity and mental health. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships. DOI: 10.1177/0265407512454463
14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item
response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for
relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.
Goodboy, A. K., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Love styles and
desire for less closeness in romantic relationships. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 105, 191-197.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability.
Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57-75.
Green, R., & Werner, P. D. (1996). Intrusiveness and closeness-care-
giving: Rethinking the concept of family “Enmeshment.” Family
Process, 35, 115-136. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00115.x
Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship
quality. Personal Relationships, 9, 253-270. doi:10.1111/1475-
6811.00017
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological
Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Heidrich, S. M., & Powwattana, A. (2004). Self-discrepancy and
mental health in older women with chronic illnesses. Journal of
Adult Development, 11, 251-259.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and
affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social rela-
tionships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS
Medicine, 7, e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Kashdan, T. B., Volkmann, J. R., Breen, W. E., & Han, S. (2007).
Social anxiety and romantic relationships: The costs and ben-
efits of negative emotion expression are context dependent.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 475-492.
Keele, L. J. (2008). Semiparametric regression for the social sci-
ences. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Khaleque, A. (2004). Intimate adult relationships, quality of life
and psychological adjustment. Social Indicators Research, 69,
351-360. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-1543-x
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Gouin, J.-P., & Hantsoo, L. (2010). Close rela-
tionships, inflammation, and health. Neuroscience & Biobehav-
ioral Reviews, 35, 33-38.doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.09.003
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A.
(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolu-
tion: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17,
377-390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
Lewandowski, G. W., Nardone, N., & Raines, A. J. (2010). The role
of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity,
9, 416-433. doi:10.1080/15298860903332191
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commit-
ment scales for predicting continuity of personal relation-
ships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23.
doi:10.1177/0265407585021001
Mashek, D. J., Le, B., Israel, K., & Aron, A. (2011). Wanting less
closeness in romantic relationships. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 333-345.
Mashek, D. J., & Sherman, M. D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with
intimate others. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of
closeness and intimacy (pp. 343-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by guest on February 17, 2013
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996) Measuring health: A guide to
rating scales and questionnaires (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The
role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-
being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 92, 434-457.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psycho-
logical Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter,
and how does it operate? Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 3, 80-86.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The rela-
tionship context of human behavior and development.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844-872. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.126.6.844
Roberts, R. E., & Vernon, S. W. (1983). The Center for Epidemio-
logic Studies Depression Scale: Its use in a community sample.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 41-46.
Robins, G., & Boldero, J. (2003). Relational discrepancy theory:
The implications of self-discrepancy theory for dyadic relation-
ships and for the emergence of social structure. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 7, 56-74.
Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of
marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behavior, 79,
409-416. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00160-4
Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied
psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47, 537-560.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence,
interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 351-375.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for mul-
tivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571.
Scott, L., & O’Hara, M. W. (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically
anxious and depressed university students. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 102, 282-287.
Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W.
(2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pro-
nouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology
and Aging, 24, 604-613. doi:10.1037/a0016950
Sheldon, K. M., Williams, G., & Joiner, T. (2003). Self-determination
theory in the clinic: Motivating physical and mental health.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now
predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science,
20, 543-545. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x
Werner, P. D., Green, R. J., Greenberg, J., Browne, T. L., & McK-
enna, T. E. (2001). Beyond enmeshment: Evidence for the
independence of intrusiveness and closeness-caregiving in
married couples. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 27,
459-472.