Three pages

Read the article and answer 8 question for each of them. There are two article need to read. Not need to be long for every question. But need in 6 and half hours.

Comm
417a
-‐
Arroyo

Annotated Bibliography – Sunday June 16th

An annotated bibliography is an organized way of taking notes. You are going to conduct background
research on your topic. You will need to search for scholarly articles through the online library system
and gather relevant data (e.g., information, statistics) about your topic to support your
arguments/hypotheses. For each of the 5 scholarly sources, you will need cite the article in correct
APA style and you will also need to answer the following:

1. The authors felt it was important to conduct this study, and write this article, because
_________? (State the relevant background information used to justify their work.)

2. The main purpose of this article, or study, was ____________? (State as accurately as
possible the author’s purpose for writing the article.)

3. The key questions the author is addressing are __________? (Identify the key questions
in the mind of the author when they wrote the article.)

4. The methods used to answer their key questions were __________? (Describe the
general approach used and include details that assist in evaluating the quality of the
results – sample size, etc.)

5. The most important information in this article is ____________? (Identify the facts,
observations, and/or data the author is using to support their conclusions.)

6. The results can be put into context by comparing them to _________? (Place the results
into an easily understood context by expressing as %s or by comparing to an intuitively
understood value – e.g., 2x the size of a football field)

7. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are __________? (Identify the key
conclusions the author presents in the article.)

8. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are ___________? (What
consequences are likely to follow if people take the author’s reasoning seriously?)

For the annotated bibliography, I encourage you to copy and paste the questions into your document
and elaborate on them. Please also keep the numbering in place so that I can easily identify each
component. There is not a required length for the annotated bibliography, but it must be clear that you
read the article, answered all of the above questions, and correctly cited the article in APA style.

After the 5 articles you will write a one page paper summarizing the research that you found in an
organized and coherent way. At the end of this paper, you will need to formulate a hypothesis or
research question based on your research (e.g., those who engage in more conflict experience
higher/lower relationship satisfaction). Please think back to your Comm 228 days in terms of
developing your hypothesis or research questions (i.e., what two variables are you interested in? is it
a variable – i.e., does it vary? Is it a positive or negative relationship?)

This one page summary should start on its own page but be in the same document/file as the
annotated bibliography. It should be less than EXACTLY one page, but it cannot exceed a page and a
half. Your paper should be free of grammatical errors and typos (points will be deducted as necessary
for poor grammar and typos. Please do not use direct quotes – learn how to summarize – as points
will be deducted each time you use a direct quote. This page should be double-spaced, have one-inch
margins, and use 12 pt. Times New Roman font (Mac Users: the default margins are NOT 1 inch, so
you mush change this manually; additionally, Times New Roman is NOT default either, so you must
also change this manually).

Muwen Shangguan
高亮

1. The authors felt it was important to conduct this study, and write this article, because they wanted to measure whether or not there was a direct link between optimism and the success of a relationship. It seems that there are many studies that contradict the idea of whether or not it is better to be optimistic going into a relationship or not, and the idea of this study was to determine that.

The main purpose of this article, or study, was to determine the truth behind optimism in relationships and whether or not it was beneficial to be optimistic going into a relationship with your significant other. It is clear that most people have some sort of expectancy for what they would like their relationship to look like, so the study focused on whether optimism should be apart of that expectancy or if that is a violation of your expectancies.

3. The key questions the author is addressing are, is optimism a positive or negative aspect for relationship expectancy? How easily are people’s expectancies in relationships violated? And is this an easy violation to overcome? Does length of relationship play a role in the expectancy? How would you define optimism in a relationship? Is the definition of optimism determined by the physical and emotional relationship? Does the idea of optimism vary in same sex relationships?

4. The methods used to answer their key questions were based off gathering participants by sending out advertisements, and targeting specific bridal stores, as well as sending letters to people who had recently applied for a marriage license in the area. The couples that were selected (a total of 61 couples) than attended a lab session within the first 6 months of being married. After each attending a lab session, the participants were mailed a questionnaire in order to get results on self-reporting within the relationship. After each couple completed the questionnaire, they were asked to attend another lab session, and bring the packets with them. In this lab session, participants were asked to watch a short film, and then answer a discussion question related to the film, usually related to an area of difficulty or a goal within the marriage. After the entire lab session was completed, couples were asked to complete a 12-day daily diary task in order to assess conflict or behavior related to conflict within the marriage. A follow up assessment was done after 6 months, as well as after 1 year to determine where the couple was at after the lab time.

5. The most important information in this article is woman had more satisfaction in initial marital positions than men did. Contrary, woman seemed to express fewer marital problems than men did in the beginning stages of their relationship. In relation to the optimism, men ranked hire in the idea of more relational-specific optimism and both men and woman were tied when it came to dispositional optimism. After completing the follow up information in the lab, researchers found that more men experienced more problems after 1 year of marriage than woman did, and although men and woman were very close and almost tied, researchers found that woman were presented with more marital satisfaction after 1 year of marriage. Therefore, the study was very consistent with the pre and post follow up that these couples participated in and reflected the same data results.

6. The results can be put into context by comparing them to all couples within a relationship. The results showed that about 42% woman are satisfied with their initial marriage, not including the idea of optimism, whereas 49% of men seemed to illustrate that they had problems. It was clear that optimism played a large role in the success of the relationship, because with strong optimism came about 40% satisfactions, and with low optimism came about 54% problems.

7. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are that the effects of the optimism really varied according to level of expectancies the partner had considered. It seemed hard to test whether or not optimism changed anything, because it really depended on the way that people understood the word optimism to be. Due to this high range of expectancies, it was difficult to test. It was clear that spouses who had higher relational optimism experienced more problems over time with marriage, whereas those will low optimism or no expectancies seem to have more success in their relationships. It was also clear that couples who experienced high levels of relationship-specific optimism tended to have a decrease in marital satisfaction versus the other couples after a 1-year period.

8. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are that depressed people have a better chance of having a successful marriage. This being sad it is clear that happiness is not a complete judge of character for the outcome of marital satisfaction. Another implication is that people in a committed relationship should consider less amounts of optimism for the ultimate success.

Kline, S. L., Zhang, S. , Manohar, U. and Ryu, S. , 2012-05-24 “Extending Cross-Cultural Comparisons on the Role of Communication and Culture Based Concepts in Marital Role Expectations: A Five-Country Analysis” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton Phoenix Downtown, Phoenix, AZ Online . 2013-06-08 fromhttp://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p553361_index.html

1. The authors felt it was important to conduct this study, and write this article, because

2. The main purpose of this article, or study, was

3. The key questions the author is addressing are

4. The methods used to answer their key questions were

5. The most important information in this article is

6. The results can be put into context by comparing them to

7. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are

8. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are

McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst?.Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(5), 729-743.

1. The authors felt it was important to conduct this study, and write this article, because
2. The main purpose of this article, or study, was
3. The key questions the author is addressing are
4. The methods used to answer their key questions were
5. The most important information in this article is
6. The results can be put into context by comparing them to
7. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are
8. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are

χ
χ

χ χ

χ
χ

χ
χ
χ

Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a

listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or

email articles for individual use.

Positive Expectations in the Early Years of Marriage: Should Couples
Expect the Best or Brace for the Worst?

James K. McNulty
The Ohio State University

Benjamin R. Karney
University of Florida

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

Things become better when you expect the best instead of the worst.

—Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking (1952)

Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.

—Alexander Pope, Letter to Gay (1727; as cited in Bartlett & Dole,
1919/2000)

Although they lived centuries apart, poet Alexander Pope (see
Bartlett & Dole, 1919/2000) and motivational writer Norman
Vincent Peale (1952) agreed that what people expect to receive
affects how they evaluate what they actually receive. The authors
differ, however, in how they described the nature of this effect.
According to Peale, expectations inspire outcomes that are consis-
tent with those expectations. Thus, he argued that positive expec-
tations should be cultivated because they direct people toward
positive outcomes. According to Pope, however, any expectations

leave people vulnerable to disappointment should they fail to
be met. Thus, he argued that positive expectations should be
avoided because they increase the likelihood of experiencing
disappointments.

The difference between these two views mirrors an ongoing
debate within research on intimate relationships. Although studies
agree that what partners expect to receive in their relationships
affects their evaluations of those relationships (e.g., Baucom,
Epstein, Rankin, & Burnett, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, &
Khouri, 1998; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Knee, 1998;
McNulty & Karney, 2002, Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b;
Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999), there is little consensus
about the direction of this effect. One line of research suggests that
positive expectations lead to positive outcomes. On the basis of
this idea, some authors have argued that positive expectations
about a relationship are necessary for developing and maintaining
healthy relationship functioning. For example, in one approach to
preventing marital distress, researchers argued that “holding ex-
treme standards that ask a great deal of the marriage is positively
related to marital adjustment” (Baucom et al., 1996, p. 83). In
contrast, another line of research suggests that positive expecta-
tions lead to disappointment. On the basis of this idea, some
authors have argued that positive expectations can be a source of
marital dysfunction. For example, in an alternative approach to
preventing marital distress, researchers argued that “couples are at
increased risk when expectations are unreasonable” (Stanley et al.,
1999, p. 285).

Do positive expectations help maintain satisfaction, or are they
likely to lead to declines in satisfaction? The goal of the current
study is to address this question through longitudinal data on
expectations and the development of marital satisfaction in new-
lywed couples. To this end, the remainder of this introduction is
organized into three sections. The first section examines research
on the different functions of expectations, showing that positive
expectations may lead to positive outcomes when confirmed
through processes of expectancy confirmation but may lead to

James K. McNulty, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State Univer-
sity; Benjamin R. Karney, Department of Psychology, University of
Florida.

Portions of this article were presented to the Graduate School at the
University of Florida as James K. McNulty’s doctoral dissertation. Prep-
aration of this article was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant MH59712 and by a Research Development Award from the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Florida to Benjamin R.
Karney.

We thank Chris Adams, Jessica Baker, Krista Bernard, Mark DaSilva,
Nancy Frye, Katherine Leong, Sacha Lindekens, Giovanni Montrone,
Kimberly Mosler, Lisa Neff, Rachel Nitzburg, Joanna Sadowski, Jennifer
Smith, Kara Sweeney, and Mark Trujillo for their assistance in data
collection, observational coding, and data entry. Additionally, we thank the
members of James K. McNulty’s dissertation committee, James Algina,
Barry Schlenker, Larry Severy, and James Shepperd, for their insightful
comments concerning this research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James K.
McNulty, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 1680
University Drive, Mansfield, OH 44906. E-mail: mcnulty.36@osu.edu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association
2004, Vol. 86, No. 5,

729

–743 0022-3514/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729

729

negative outcomes when they serve as counterfactuals. The second
section identifies qualities of relationships that should moderate
the likelihood of expectancy confirmation and therefore predict
when positive expectations will lead to positive versus negative
outcomes. The final section describes a study designed to examine
whether two qualities, the nature of couples’ interaction behaviors
and the nature of their relationship attributions, moderate the
effects of positive expectations on changes in satisfaction over the
first years of marriage.

Positive Expectations and Relationship Functioning

Expectations about the future of an intimate relationship may
serve two different functions in evaluations of that relationship.
First, expectations can serve as goal structures that motivate pro-
cesses of expectancy confirmation (for a review, see Snyder,
1984). Given a goal expressed by an expectation for the relation-
ship, confirmation of that expectation can occur through two
mechanisms. Perceptual confirmation occurs when prior expecta-
tions for an event lead people to interpret the details of the event
in ways that give rise to expectancy-consistent evaluations of the
event (Darley & Gross, 1983; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Kelley,
1950; Miller & Turnbull, 1986). Behavioral confirmation occurs
when prior expectations for an event give rise to expectancy-
consistent behaviors during the event (Darley & Fazio, 1980;
Jussim, 1986; Merton, 1948; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Snyder,
Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977).

A number of studies have suggested that both processes operate
in close relationships (e.g., Downey et al., 1998; Fletcher et al.,
2000; Knee, 1998; McNulty & Karney, 2002; Murray et al.,
1996b). For example, in research demonstrating behavioral con-
firmation, women expecting to be rejected by their partners tended
to engage in behaviors that predicted greater negative feelings in
their partners following the interaction (Downey et al., 1998). In
research providing evidence for perceptual confirmation, spouses’
general expectations about an upcoming problem-solving discus-
sion were positively associated with their subsequent appraisals of
the interaction, independent of the behaviors they exchanged dur-
ing the discussion (McNulty & Karney, 2002). In other words,
partners perceived the interaction in a manner consistent with
their prior expectations, regardless of the behaviors that were
exchanged.

That both processes may operate in close relationships suggests
that to the extent that they are likely to be confirmed, positive
expectations should be beneficial to relationships. Research on
related constructs appears consistent with this idea (Fletcher et al.,
2000; Murray et al., 1996b). For example, Fletcher et al. (2000), in
research on relationship standards, reported that romantic partners
were more satisfied with their relationships when they possessed
higher ideal standards for their relationships. Higher standards,
like positive expectations, may encourage consistent perceptions
or inspire consistent behaviors leading to increased relationship
satisfaction.

In contrast to serving as goal structures, a second function of
expectations is that they can serve as counterfactuals to which
people compare their actual outcomes. Decision affect theory
(DAT; Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997) suggests that how
people feel about their outcomes is determined in part by coun-
terfactual thinking— comparing what occurred with what might

have occurred. According to DAT, a negative outcome feels less
disappointing when compared with an alternative, worse outcome,
and a positive outcome feels less satisfying when compared with
an alternative, better outcome. Accordingly, people should be
happy when their outcomes exceed their expectations but disap-
pointed when their outcomes fall short of their expectations. Re-
search outside close relationships supports DAT (Medvec, Madey,
& Gilovich, 1995; Mellers et al., 1997; Shepperd & McNulty,
2002). Shepperd and McNulty (2002), for example, led partici-
pants to expect that they were either likely or unlikely to test
positive for a threatening (but fictitious) medical condition. All
participants then tested themselves for the medical condition and
subsequently received feedback that they had tested positively or
negatively for the disease. Of the participants who learned they had
tested positive, those who held the most optimistic expectations
(e.g., those who expected not to have the disease) felt most
discouraged after learning the test results. Similarly, of the partic-
ipants who learned they had tested negative, those whose expec-
tations were optimistic felt least relieved after learning the test
results. In other words, following both positive and negative out-
comes, people who expected the best felt the worst.

Do partners who hold high expectations for their relationships
similarly risk being disappointed? Theoretical work within the
literature on close relationships suggests that they do. According to
interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), partners deter-
mine their satisfaction with the relationship by comparing the
outcomes they receive in their relationships with the standards they
have for those relationships. In line with DAT, if partners’ out-
comes exceed their standards, they will be satisfied with their
relationships. In contrast, if partners’ outcomes do not meet their
standards, they will be disappointed and therefore less satisfied
with their relationships.

Empirical evidence within the literature on close relationships is
consistent with these predictions. For instance, in the previously
discussed Fletcher et al. (2000) study, the positive association
between ideal standards and relationship outcomes was qualified
by partners’ perceptions of whether their standards were being
met. Partners who perceived that their ideal standards were not
being met tended to be least happy in their relationships. In related
work, Eidelson and Epstein (1982) developed an inventory to
measure beliefs about relationships they thought would be unre-
alistic for most people: the belief that disagreement is always
destructive, the belief that partners should read each other’s minds,
the belief that partners cannot change, the belief in sexual perfec-
tionism, and the belief that the sexes are inherently different.
Cross-sectionally, endorsement of these beliefs has been associ-
ated with lower levels of satisfaction with the relationship (see also
Epstein & Eidelson, 1981; Jones & Stanton, 1988). One explana-
tion for such associations is that spouses who expect their own
relationships to meet these standards may be especially disap-
pointed when their relationships inevitably fail to measure up.

So when is it beneficial to start a relationship with positive
expectations? The effects of expectations appear to depend on
whether those expectations function as goal structures, likely to
encourage expectancy confirmation, or as counterfactuals, with
which partners compare their actual outcomes. When they inspire
perceptual and behavioral confirmation, positive expectations ap-
pear to benefit relationships. When expectancy confirmations fail,
however, positive expectations may serve as contrasts to actual

730 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

outcomes, leading partners to evaluate their actual outcomes more
negatively.

Conditions of Expectancy Confirmation

To the extent that expectancy confirmation moderates the im-
pact of positive expectations on relationship outcomes, under-
standing the role of expectations in relationships requires under-
standing when positive expectations are more or less likely to be
confirmed. Within the context of relationship outcomes, confirma-
tion is not likely to be categorical. Rather, partners may possess
latitudes of confirmation or disconfirmation, similar to Sherif’s
(1960) concept of latitudes of acceptance and rejection of attitudes.
Just as Sherif described perceivers encountering a wide range of
persuasive communications, romantic partners are likely to en-
counter a wide range of experiences as their relationships develop.
Experiences that fall within a partner’s latitude of confirmation
will be seen as confirming initially positive expectations. Experi-
ences that fall outside latitudes of confirmation will be seen as
disconfirming initially positive expectations.

The likelihood that partners will perceive their expectations as
having been confirmed may therefore depend on their ability to
create events and, failing that, interpret events that fall within the
latitude of acceptance of those expectations (Miller & Turnbull,
1986; for other factors that may moderate the expectancy-
confirmation effect, see also Swann, 1984). For example, Jussim
(1986) pointed out that behavioral confirmation is generally more
likely to occur to the extent that people are capable of behaving in
ways that confirm their expectations. Within intimate relation-
ships, partners who are more skillful communicators and problem
solvers should be better able to arrange experiences that confirm
initially positive expectations. Indeed, longitudinal research dem-
onstrates that the spouses who are more skilled at resolving con-
flicts and behaving constructively tend to be more satisfied with
their relationships over time (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Gottman, Coan,
Carrere, & Swanson, 1998; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, &
George, 2001; Karney & Bradbury, 1997). Accordingly, behav-
ioral skills in the early years of the relationship may moderate the
effects of positive expectations on relationship outcomes by cre-
ating experiences that confirm or disconfirm those expectations.
That is, for partners who tend be skillful communicators, positive
expectations may be beneficial, directing partners to exploit their
skills to the benefit of the relationship, and less positive expecta-
tions may be detrimental by preventing partners from taking ad-
vantage of their skills. For partners who tend to be less skillful,
however, positive expectations may be detrimental because the
lack of behavioral skills may lead these couples to encounter
experiences that disconfirm those expectations, resulting in disap-
pointment. Such partners may benefit from less positive expecta-
tions instead because such expectations will serve as less severe
contrasts to their potentially more negative experiences.

If behavioral confirmation fails, partners may still confirm pos-
itive expectations if they are able and willing to engage in percep-
tual confirmation, interpreting events in a manner consistent with
their expectations (Miller & Turnbull, 1986). The robust literature
on attributions has revealed how the tendency to interpret specific
relationship events positively predicts greater long-term satisfac-
tion with relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Even con-
trolling for the covariance between attributions and relationship

satisfaction over time, the initial attributional tendencies of new-
lyweds have been shown to predict trajectories of satisfaction and
divorce over the first years of marriage (Karney & Bradbury,
2000). In line with this research, partners who demonstrate the
ability to interpret ambiguous events positively early in the rela-
tionship may be more able to perceive experiences as falling
within the latitude of confirmation of their initially positive ex-
pectations throughout the relationship. Accordingly, the tendency
to make positive versus negative attributions for the events that
occur in the relationship may be a second factor that moderates the
effects of positive expectations on relationship outcomes. For
partners who tend to make charitable attributions for their partners’
negative behaviors, positive expectations may be beneficial, in-
spiring them to take advantage of the cognitive relationship main-
tenance strategies they possess, and less positive expectations may
be detrimental by inhibiting them from seeing things in a positive
light. For partners less able to forgive their partners, however,
positive expectations may be detrimental, raising a standard that
the relationship can never achieve. These partners too may benefit
from less positive expectations, because such expectations will
serve as less severe contrasts to the partners’ potentially more
negative experiences.

Overview of the Current Study

To contribute to the ongoing debate about the effects of positive
expectations on relationships, we examined whether the longitu-
dinal effects of positive expectations on the trajectory of marital
satisfaction were moderated by the quality of spouses’ marital
interactions and attributions. First-married couples participating in
a broader study of relationship development were asked to report
their expectations for various relationship outcomes shortly after
their wedding. Newlyweds were an especially appropriate sample
for the current study for two reasons. First, as Jussim and Eccles
(1995) pointed out, over the course of an ongoing relationship,
specific expectations are likely to become accurate reflections of
past experience. In the current sample of newlyweds, specific
expectations and prior experience were less likely to be con-
founded, leaving open the possibility that initially positive expec-
tations may still be confirmed or disconfirmed. Second, couples in
the very early stages of their relationships are frequently the targets
of interventions aimed directly at modifying expectations (e.g.,
Stanley et al., 1999). Before such interventions become accepted in
premarital and early-marital therapy programs, it seems relevant to
examine the effects of expectations in a recently married sample.

In addition to expectations, spouses reported their satisfaction
with the relationship, responded to a measure of relationship
attributions, and engaged in two videotaped problem-solving dis-
cussions. Subsequent to that initial assessment, these couples pro-
vided reports of their relationship satisfaction every 6 months for
4 years, for a total of eight waves of marital satisfaction data.

To the extent that spouses behave more positively during their
interactions with each other or tend to make more positive attri-
butions for their partners’ behaviors, we predicted that positive
expectations should function as goal structures likely to be con-
firmed by processes of expectancy confirmation. Under these
circumstances, positive expectations should be associated with
more stable relationship satisfaction over time because spouses’
skills should allow them to confirm their positive expectations, but

731POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

less positive expectations should be associated with steeper de-
clines in satisfaction over time because they indicate a failure or an
unwillingness to take advantage of opportunities for expectancy
confirmation. In contrast, to the extent that spouses behave more
negatively during their interactions with each other or tend to make
more negative attributions for their partners’ behaviors, their pos-
itive expectations should function as counterfactuals because such
partners should lack the skills to confirm those expectations. Under
these conditions, positive expectations should lead to steeper de-
clines in satisfaction because they provide the most striking con-
trasts to actual outcomes. Less positive expectations, alternatively,
should be associated with more stable relationship satisfaction
over time because they provide less striking contrasts to actual
outcomes.

Method

Participants

All of the couples participating in this research were newlyweds, as-
sessed within the first 6 months of both partners’ first marriage. Couples
were solicited from the community using two methods. The first method
was to place advertisements in community newspapers and bridal shops,
offering up to $300 to couples willing to participate in a study of newly-
weds. The second method was to review the applications of couples who
had applied for marriage licenses in Alachua County, Florida. In Alachua
County, marriage licenses are available to the public and contain data on
spouses’ ages, whether or not this is their first marriage, and the date of the
wedding. Couples who were eligible for the study based on these criteria
were sent letters offering them up to $300 to participate in a study of
newlyweds. Couples responding to either method of solicitation were
screened in a telephone interview to determine whether they met the
following criteria: (a) This was the first marriage for each partner; (b) the
couple had been married less than 3 months; (c) neither partner had
children; (d) each partner was at least 18 years of age, and wives were less
than 35 years of age (to allow that all couples were capable of conceiving
children over the course of the study); (e) each partner spoke English and
had completed at least 10 years of education (to ensure comprehension of
the questionnaires); and (f) the couple had no immediate plans to move
away from the area. Nearly 300 couples responded to these solicitations;
the 82 eligible couples who arrived for their scheduled interview made up
the current sample. Analyses revealed no significant differences in age or
years of education between couples recruited through the different types of
solicitations (D’Angelo & Karney, 1999).

Husbands were an average of 25.1 years old (SD � 3.3) and had
received 16.3 years of education (SD � 2.4). Forty percent were employed
full time, and 54% were full-time students. Wives were an average of 23.7
years old (SD � 2.8) and had received 16.3 years of education (SD � 1.2).
Thirty-nine percent were employed full time, and 50% were full-time
students. Slightly over 70% of the sample was Christian (over 45% was
Protestant), and 83% of husbands and 89% of wives were White. The
average combined income of couples was less than $20,000 per year.1

Procedure

Couples meeting eligibility requirements were scheduled to attend a 3-hr
laboratory session. Before the session, they were mailed a packet of
questionnaires to complete at home and bring with them to their appoint-
ment. This packet included self-report measures of marital satisfaction,
relationship attributions, measures of expectations for the relationship and
the partner, as well as a letter instructing couples to complete all question-
naires independently of one another. As part of a subsequent laboratory
session, spouses each identified an area of difficulty in the marriage and

then participated in two 10-min videotaped discussions within which they
were left alone to “work towards some resolution or agreement” for each
area of difficulty. The order of the two interactions was determined through
a coin flip. After completing their interactions, couples were paid $50 for
participating in this phase of the study.

At approximately 6-month intervals subsequent to the initial assessment,
couples were recontacted by phone and then mailed additional marital
satisfaction questionnaires along with postage-paid return envelopes and a
letter of instruction reminding couples to complete forms independently of
one another. This procedure was used at every 6-month interval except for
Time 5, during which couples returned to the laboratory again. Couples
were paid $25 to continue participating at each follow-up through the mail
and $50 for the lab session at Time 5. This study examined eight waves of
marital satisfaction data, covering approximately the first 4 years of mar-
riage. Thus, analyses are based on data obtained from marital satisfaction
measures assessed at Times 1– 8 and behavioral and attribution measures
assessed at Time 1. Behavioral and attribution measures at Time 1 were
assessed as a means of estimating the experiences, positive versus nega-
tive, partners were capable of encountering over the course of their
relationships.

Materials

Marital satisfaction. Most commonly used measures of marital satis-
faction ask spouses to report their global sentiments toward the marriage as
well as their level of agreement about specific problem areas (e.g., the
Marital Adjustment Test; Locke & Wallace, 1959). As several authors have
pointed out (e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1987), the use of such omnibus
measures can lead to inflated associations with other variables that also
address relationship processes. To ensure that global sentiments toward the
relationship and level of agreement about specific relationship issues were
not confounded in the current study and to ensure that any results were not
idiosyncratic to a particular measure, two measures of satisfaction were
used that assess global evaluations of the relationship exclusively. The first
measure was a version of the Semantic Differential (SMD; Osgood, Suci,
& Tannenbaum, 1957), which asks spouses to rate their perceptions of their
relationship on 7-point scales between fifteen pairs of opposing adjectives
(e.g., bad–good, dissatisfied–satisfied, unpleasant–pleasant). The SMD
yields scores from 15 to 105. Higher scores reflect more positive satisfac-
tion with the relationship. In the current sample, internal consistency of this
measure was high (across the eight waves, coefficient alpha ranged from
.91 to .97 for husbands and from .93 to .97 for wives). The second measure
was the Quality Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983), a six-item scale
asking spouses to report the extent to which they agree or disagree with
general statements regarding the quality of their marriage. Five items ask
spouses to respond according to a 7-item scale, whereas one item asks
spouses to respond according to a 10-item scale, yielding scores from 6 to
45. High scores reflect more positive satisfaction with the relationship.
Internal consistency of this measure also was high in the current sample
(across the eight waves, coefficient alpha ranged from .94 to .97 for
husbands and from .94 to .98 for wives).

Expectations. Newlywed spouses are likely to have well-defined ex-
pectations for many aspects of their relationship. Because the current study
was focused on expectations that could potentially serve as goals or as
counterfactuals, it was important to examine expectations that were both
(a) disconfirmable and (b) likely to vary across spouses. Based on these

1 Other articles have been published using this data set: Frye and Karney
(2002, in press), McNulty and Karney (2001, 2002), Neff and Karney
(2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004), and Vogel and Karney (2002). So far, how-
ever, this article is the only one to examine the effects of expectations for
the relationship and expectations for the partner and the only one to
examine eight waves of satisfaction data covering the first 4 years of
marriage.

732 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

criteria, two measures of expectations were developed for the current
study.

Given that the primary dependent variable examined here was change in
satisfaction over time, the first measure of expectations asked spouses to
describe their expectations for how their relationships would change over
time. Specifically, spouses were asked how their satisfaction was likely to
vary over the course of the relationship. Consistent with recent evidence
that variability in relationship satisfaction predicts long-term relationship
stability (Arriaga, 2001), spouses were asked to describe whether they
expected their satisfaction to vary considerably over time or whether they
expected their satisfaction to remain fairly steady over time. Spouses
responded to three items. The first item asked: “Over the next six months,
which of the following describes how your feelings towards your marriage
are likely to change?” with response possibilities of 1 � major highs/major
lows, 2 � some ups and downs, 3 � a few ups and downs, 4 � pretty
steady, and 5 � very steady. The second item asked the same question with
respect to the “next four years.” Finally, the third item asked spouses to
select from among nine pictures reflecting different patterns of growth and
variability the one pattern that best represented their expected trajectory of
marital satisfaction over the upcoming 6 months. All pictures depicted
various trajectories and various degrees of variability. Partners’ selections
were coded according to the degree of variability represented in the picture
(e.g., 1 � some variability, 2 � no variability). All three items were
standardized and summed to form a single index with adequate internal
consistency (coefficient � � .77 for husbands and .78 for wives) and
substantial between-subjects variability. Higher scores on this measure
indicate more positive expectations: a tendency for spouses to expect
greater steadiness in their satisfaction over time.

The second measure of expectations asked spouses to report their ex-
pectations for their partners in the relationship. Some spouses may hold
extremely positive expectations for how their partners are likely to behave,
expecting that their partners will be unfailingly sensitive and caring at
every occasion. Others may hold less positive expectations, recognizing
that their partners may fail or disappoint them at times. To capture
between-spouse variability in these expectations, a nine-item measure was
developed that asked spouses to rate their agreement with a series of
statements (e.g., “My partner will rarely make mistakes,” “My partner will
agree with me about the important things,” “My partner will always take
time for me when I need him/her”) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree; potential range � 7– 63). These items were summed
to form a single index that was normally distributed and had adequate
internal consistency (coefficient � � .71 for husbands and .80 for wives)
and substantial between-subjects variability. Higher scores on this measure
indicate more positive expectations: a tendency for spouses to have more
positive expectations for their partners’ behaviors (the complete measure is
presented in the Appendix).

Marital interaction behavior. The ability to behave positively in the
marriage was estimated by coding the videotapes from Time 1 using a
modified version of the Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme (Sillars, Coletti,
Parry, & Rogers, 1982). This version of the Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme
assigns one of four possible codes to each speaking turn of each spouse. A
speaker received an avoidant code for speaking turns that were off topic or
moved the discussion away from the problem at hand. A speaker received
one of two negative codes for speaking turns that either directly faulted,
rejected, or criticized the partner (direct negative), or indirectly criticized
the partner through presumptive attributions, avoiding responsibility, or
hostile questions (indirect negative). A speaker received a constructive
code for speaking turns that were on topic and furthered the resolution of
the conflict.

The reliability of this system was assessed by randomly choosing 30%
of the interactions to be coded by a second rater. Degree of agreement
between raters was estimated with an intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) comparing the amounts of each code observed by each rater across
the interactions. ICCs indicated adequate interrater reliability for the codes

analyzed in the current study (for direct negative, ICC � .67 for husbands
and .83 for wives; for indirect negative, ICC � .83 for husbands and .65 for
wives; for constructive, ICC � .77 for husbands and .87 for wives). Our
hypotheses did not distinguish between types of behavior, so we combined
the two negative codes and subtracted the positive code to arrive at an
index of the net negativity expressed by each spouse during the interaction.
The high correlations among the codes justified this procedure (absolute
values ranged from r � .40 to r � .73 for husbands and from r � .34 to
r � .70 for wives). Further, because our hypotheses did not distinguish
between husbands’ and wives’ problem-solving topics, indices were further
collapsed across both interactions (where behaviors were strongly corre-
lated: r � .49 for husbands, r � .34 for wives). Finally, because both
partners in a given interaction can create experiences that may confirm or
disconfirm expectations, and because spouses’ behaviors during the inter-
action were strongly correlated (r � .57), the index was further collapsed
across spouses, resulting in a single score that captured the nature of
couples’ observed skill at communicating about marital problems.2

Attributions. The ability to interpret events positively in the marriage
was estimated using the Relationship Attributions Measure (Fincham &
Bradbury, 1992). This 24-item measure presents spouses with four nega-
tive stimulus events that are likely to occur in all marriages (e.g., “Your
spouse criticizes something you say” and “Your spouse begins to spend
less time with you”). For each event, spouses are asked to rate their
agreement on a 7-point scale ranging from Agree strongly to Disagree
strongly, with statements that reflect six attribution dimensions. The Causal
Attributions subscale consists of 12 judgments (3 dimensions � 4 stimulus
events), and the Responsibility Attributions subscale consists of 12 judg-
ments. For Causal Attributions, the three dimensions relate to the perceived
locus, globality, and stability of the cause of the negative partner behavior.
For Responsibility Attributions, the three dimensions capture the extent to
which spouses consider their partner’s behaviors intentional, selfishly
motivated, and blameworthy. For each subscale, a composite score was
computed by summing the 12 judgments, resulting in two scores for each
spouse with possible ranges of 12 to 84. The internal consistency of each
subscale was relatively high (for Causal Attributions, coefficient � � .85
for husbands and .73 for wives; for Responsibility Attributions, coefficient
� � .89 for husbands and .90 for wives). Responses were recoded so that
higher scores indicate attributions that view the partner in a more positive
light.

Data Analysis

Because we were interested in examining the effects of expectations on
the development of marital satisfaction over time, the dependent variable in
these analyses was the trajectory of marital satisfaction over the first 4
years of marriage. To estimate this trajectory for each spouse, we con-
ducted growth curve analysis (GCA) using hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987, 1992) and the HLM/2L computer
program (Bryk, Raudenbush, & Congdon, 1994). This approach has sev-
eral advantages. First, in contrast to other approaches to analyzing trajec-
tories (e.g., structural equation modeling), HLM provides reliable estimates
of within-subject parameters even when sample sizes are relatively small.
Second, HLM provides maximally efficient estimates of these parameters
by weighting individual estimates according to Bayes’s theorem (Box &

2 Additional analyses examined the effects of negative and positive
behavior as separate indices and treated husbands’ behavior and wives’
behavior as separate indices. Results from both additional analyses were
consistent with the results reported for the index of couple-level behavior.
Because avoidant behavior is categorically different from negative and
positive behavior, and because we made no predictions regarding the
moderating effect of avoidance on the association between expectations
and satisfaction, avoidant codes were not examined in the current analyses.

733POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

Tiao, 1973). When the within-subject parameter for an individual can be
estimated precisely, the final estimate relies heavily on the individual data.
When the parameter cannot be estimated precisely (e.g., because of missing
data), the final estimate relies more heavily on the mean of the sample.
Because the most precise estimates therefore contribute more to the final
estimated variance of the sample, variances estimated in this way tend to
be more conservative than those obtained through traditional ordinary least
squares methods.

To test the hypothesis that behavior and relationship attributions interact
with initial expectations to predict changes in satisfaction over time,
two-stage growth curve analyses were conducted to model individual
change over the eight assessments of each couple. In the first stage of these
analyses, within-subjects trajectories were computed for each individual’s
marital satisfaction over time. In the second stage, the independent vari-
ables and their interactions were used to account for between-subjects
differences in the parameters of these trajectories. To control for depen-
dencies in partners’ data, parameters describing husbands’ and wives’
trajectories were estimated simultaneously in a couple-level model, accord-
ing to procedures described by Raudenbush, Brennan, and Barnett (1995).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

Of the 82 couples who responded at Time 1, 17 (21%) were
dissolved at Time 8. Nevertheless, because HLM computed satis-
faction slopes for all spouses who reported their satisfaction on at
least three occasions, some of these dissolved couples were in-
cluded in the current analyses, resulting in a relatively low rate of
attrition. Whereas the average rate of retention in prior research on
marriage is 69% (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), all 65 nondissolved
couples reported at Time 8, representing 80% of the sample.
Furthermore, 12 dissolved couples reported their marital satisfac-
tion on at least three occasions, allowing for longitudinal analyses
to be based on 77 of the original 82 couples, or 94% of the sample.3

Descriptive statistics for all independent variables are reported
in Table 1. As would be expected within a sample of newlyweds,
on average husbands and wives held very positive expectations for
their relationships and for their partners. Husbands and wives also
tended to make relatively charitable attributions for their partners’
negative behaviors, relieving their partners of blame and seeing
external causes for negative events, and tended to exchange rela-
tively high proportions of positive behaviors during their problem-
solving interactions. Paired-sample t tests revealed that no gender
differences were significantly different from zero on any of the
variables examined here.

Although, on average, expectations scores are quite positive, the
positivity does not threaten the validity of the current study for two

reasons. First, despite the positivity of these average scores, stan-
dard deviations reveal substantial variability in partners’ reports. In
fact, both measures of expectations are relatively normally distrib-
uted. Second, the central theme of this study is to examine whether
the effects of expectations depend on whether they are likely to
undergo processes of expectancy confirmation. Such expectancy
confirmation depends, not on the valence of the expectations
alone, but on comparisons between expectations and the experi-
ences couples are likely to encounter given their relationship skills.
Accordingly, even very positive expectations can be confirmed,
and even very negative expectations can fail to be confirmed.
Testing the current hypotheses requires examining the interactions
between expectations and attributions and expectations and
behavior.

Correlations among the independent variables are reported in
Table 2. As expected, both measures of expectations were signif-
icantly correlated for each spouse. Additionally, consistent with
previous work, each spouse’s attributions for responsibility and
attributions for causality were strongly correlated (Bradbury &
Fincham, 1990). Also, husbands’ and wives’ attribution scores
were significantly positively associated with each measure of their
expectations, indicating that spouses who tended to make positive
attributions also tended to hold positive expectations for their
relationships and for their partners. Observations of the positive
behavior exhibited during the interactions demonstrated a signifi-
cant positive correlation with wives’ responsibility attributions,
indicating that wives who tended to experience more positive
behavior during their interactions also tended to relieve their
husbands from blame for their negative behaviors. Observations of
behavior were not significantly correlated with any additional
wives’ cognitions, and observations of behavior were not signifi-
cantly correlated with any of the husbands’ cognitions. Finally,
between-spouse correlations are presented on the diagonal in Table
2. As can be seen, husbands’ and wives’ scores were significantly
positively associated with one another on all measures except
responsibility attributions. In sum, preliminary analyses reveal that
all measures examined here are performing as expected.

Describing the Trajectory of Satisfaction

The mean scores for husbands and wives on each measure of
marital satisfaction at each wave of data collection are presented in
Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, it appears that scores on both
measures of marital satisfaction became less positive over time for
both husbands and wives, suggesting a linear decline in satisfac-
tion within these data. Within-subject change in satisfaction over
time was assessed with GCA using HLM. The following model
was assessed:

Yij � �0j � �1j �Time� � rij, (1)

where Yij is the marital satisfaction of Individual j at Time i; �0j is
the marital satisfaction of Individual j at Time 0 (i.e., the initial
satisfaction of Individual j); �1j is the rate of linear change in

3 Subsequent analyses, including a dummy variable to represent rela-
tionship status, revealed that the effects described in the current study
remained significant controlling for relationship dissolution.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables at Time 1

Measure

Husbands Wives

M SD M SD

Expectations for satisfaction steadiness 9.0 2.1 9.1 2.1
Expectations for partner’s behaviors 45.5 6.5 43.9 8.6
Causality Attributions 53.3 11.2 51.4 9.9
Responsibility Attributions 63.6 12.1 60.8 14.6
Net positive behavior (%) 67.0 22.0 67.0 22.0

734 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

marital satisfaction of Individual j; and rij is the residual variance
in repeated measurements for Spouse j, assumed to be independent
and normally distributed across spouses. This model can be un-
derstood as a within-subjects regression of an individual’s marital
satisfaction score onto time of assessment, where time was defined
as the wave of data collection. The model was applied separately
to each measure of marital satisfaction but simultaneously to
husbands’ and wives’ data, using procedures described by Rau-
denbush et al. (1995).

Fitting the model to these data provided generalized least
squares estimates of the average intercept and slope of marital
satisfaction for husbands and wives as well as restricted
maximum-likelihood estimates of the variances of these parame-
ters. These estimates are reported in Table 4 along with t statistics
that test whether the means of each parameter are different from
zero and chi-square statistics that test whether the variances of
each parameter are different from zero. With respect to the inter-
cept, the estimates presented in Table 4 confirm that on average
husbands and wives reported relatively high initial levels of mar-
ital satisfaction. Comparison of Table 4 with Table 3 reveals that
the mean intercept for each measure is similar to the mean satis-
faction reported at Time 1. This is to be expected, because the
intercept represents the starting point of the trajectory. However,
as revealed by the chi-square tests of variance, the mean initial
satisfaction varied significantly across husbands and across wives
on both measures of marital satisfaction. In other words, even at
the outset of the marriage, some spouses were significantly happier
than others.

With respect to the slope, the estimates presented in Table 4
confirm that on average, husbands and wives tended to experience
significant declines in satisfaction over the first 4 years of mar-
riage, consistent with prior studies of marital satisfaction (e.g.,
Karney & Bradbury, 1997). The t statistics reported in Table 4
reveal significant negative trajectories for husbands and wives on
both measures of marital satisfaction. Furthermore, according to
the significance of the chi-square tests reported in Table 4, the
trajectories varied significantly across wives and marginally sig-
nificantly across husbands for both measures. In other words,
although on average husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction declined

over the first 4 years of marriage, satisfaction declined more for
some spouses than it did for others.4

Were Expectations Associated With Change in
Satisfaction Over Time?

Before addressing central hypotheses of this study involving
interactions, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine the
main effects of expectations on change in satisfaction. These
analyses ignore the cognitive and behavioral abilities of spouses to
ask whether there are overall effects on the trajectory of having
more or less positive expectations at the outset of a marriage. To
address this question, each measure of expectations was entered
into the second stage of the HLM analysis to account for between-
subjects variability in the parameters estimated by Equation 1. The
top half of Table 5 reports the associations between expectations
and initial satisfaction. The t statistics in this section reveal a
consistent pattern of significant positive associations between ex-
pectations and initial marital satisfaction, with one marginally
significant association between wives’ expectations for satisfac-
tion steadiness and initial scores on the QMI. Not surprisingly,
spouses who were initially more satisfied with the relationship
tended to hold more positive expectations about their relationships
and about their partners. Of note, although the association between
initial satisfaction and expectations for partner’s behavior was
significant for husbands and for wives, it was significantly stronger
for husbands than for wives on the SMD, �2(1, N � 80) � 3.8,
p � .05.

The associations between expectations and the slope of marital
satisfaction, controlling for associations between expectations and
the intercept, are reported in the bottom half of Table 5. As these
associations reveal, once the cross-sectional association between
expectations and initial satisfaction was controlled, expectations
rarely demonstrated significant associations with change in satis-
faction over time. The one significant association was that hus-
bands’ expectations for their wives’ behavior was significantly
negatively associated with change in satisfaction over time as
measured on the SMD, such that husbands who had more positive
expectations on average experienced steeper declines in their sat-
isfaction over time. Aside from this effect, however, neither type
of expectation was significantly associated with change in satis-
faction over time for husbands or wives on either measure of
marital satisfaction.

Do Behaviors or Relationship Attributions Moderate the
Effects of Expectations on Change in Marital
Satisfaction?

The primary goal of the current study was to examine whether
the effects of positive expectations on changes in satisfaction are
moderated by behavior and attributions. The previous analyses
revealed that on average neither type of expectation was consis-
tently associated with changes in relationship satisfaction over
time in the current sample. Nevertheless, it remains possible that

4 These data were also examined for the presence of nonlinear (i.e.,
quadratic) changes in marital satisfaction over time. A quadratic model of
change provided a significantly worse fit to these data.

Table 2
Correlations Among Independent Variables at Time 1

Measure 1 2 3 4 5

Expectations

1. Expectations for steadiness .35** .36** .24* .24* �.04
2. Expectations for partner .33** .53** .27* .29** �.08

Moderators

3. Causality Attributions .26* .34** .25* .62** �.06
4. Responsibility Attributions .31** .22* .56** .09 �.03
5. Positive behavior .16 .03 .07 .36** —

Note. Correlations between husbands and wives appear in boldface type.
Husbands’ correlations are above those in boldface; wives’ correlations are
below.
* p � .05. ** p � .01, two-tailed.

735POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

when partners’ positive expectations were likely to be confirmed
by their experiences, either because of a tendency to engage in
more positive behaviors or a tendency to make positive attribu-
tions, they did predict more stable satisfaction over time. In con-
trast, when spouses’ positive expectations were unlikely to be
confirmed by their experiences, either because of a tendency to
engage in more negative behaviors or a tendency to make negative
attributions, it remains possible that they predicted declines in

satisfaction. To examine these possibilities, each measure of ex-
pectations and each potential moderator were centered and entered
separately into a second-stage analysis, along with the appropriate
interaction term, to account for between-subjects variability in
within-subject change in satisfaction as estimated in Equation 1.

The results of the analyses regarding the interactions between
expectations and behavior on change in satisfaction are reported in
the first two columns of Table 6. The effect sizes in these two
columns reveal a pattern of significant negative interactions be-
tween wives’ expectations for their husbands’ behavior and the

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

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

Semantic Differential

Husbands
M 96.3 92.0 92.5 92.1 93.5 92.1 91.1 92.8
SD 8.8 14.1 14.8 14.7 13.9 15.5 19.9 12.7
N 81 76 74 67 64 59 60 66

Wives
M 97.7 94.8 93.3 92.1 93.8 90.0 89.1 92.1
SD 10.7 12.9 16.0 14.7 15.6 19.3 19.6 17.5
N 82 77 73 68 66 60 62 65

Quality Marriage Index

Husbands
M 42.1 40.3 40.3 40.1 40.8 40.2 38.9 40.2
SD 4.0 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.5 6.5 8.4 6.0
N 81 76 74 67 64 59 60 66

Wives
M 42.1 40.8 39.9 39.0 40.2 38.3 38.3 39.3
SD 5.3 6.0 7.5 8.6 7.3 9.4 9.1 8.2
N 82 77 73 68 66 61 62 65

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

Table 4
Change in Marital Satisfaction

Measure M SD t(81)a �2(1, N � 81)

Intercept

SMD
Husbands 95.2 1.1 — 181.9***
Wives 97.3 1.3 — 238.5***

QMI
Husbands 41.7 0.52 — 170.3***
Wives 41.8 0.56 — 195.0***

Slope

SMD
Husbands �0.64 0.16 �3.9*** 100.9†
Wives �1.06 0.21 �5.2*** 160.2***

QMI
Husbands �0.35 0.08 �4.4*** 98.2†
Wives �0.49 0.09 �5.3*** 133.2***

Note. SMD � Semantic Differential (Osgood et al., 1957); QMI �
Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983).
a The t test of the intercepts addresses the hypothesis that the intercepts
differ significantly from zero. Because the lowest possible score on each of
these measures is greater than zero, these tests are not meaningful and
hence are not reported.
† p � .10. *** p � .001, one-tailed.

Table 5
Effects of Expectations on the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction

Expectations

Husband Wife

t(80) d t(80) d

Satisfaction intercepts

For satisfaction steadiness
SMD 2.83** 0.30** 2.63** 0.28**
QMI 2.06* 0.23* 1.66† 0.17†

For partner’s behaviors
SMD 4.48*** 0.45*** 2.20* 0.24*
QMI 3.47*** 0.36** 2.04* 0.22*

Satisfaction slopes

For satisfaction steadiness
SMD 0.09 0.01 �0.97 �0.11
QMI 0.53 0.06 �0.46 �0.05

For partner’s behaviors
SMD �3.57** �0.37** �0.72 �0.08
QMI �1.37 �0.15 �0.05 �0.01

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

736 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

proportions of positive behavior observed in the relationship on
changes in their satisfaction over time. To determine the nature of
these interactions, they were deconstructed by substituting values
one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation
below the mean into the regression equation and plotting the
predicted outcomes (see Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen,
1983). The resulting plots revealed the same pattern of interactions
across all significant interactions. A representative sample of these
plots is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 depicts the interactive effects
of positive behavior and wives’ expectations for their husbands’
behaviors on change in satisfaction on the QMI. Consistent with
predictions, this figure illustrates that when behavior was the most
positive at the outset of the marriage, more positive expectations
predicted the most stable satisfaction and less positive expectations
predicted steeper declines in satisfaction over the subsequent 4
years. In contrast, when behavior was least positive at the outset of
the marriage, more positive expectations predicted steeper declines
in marital satisfaction whereas less positive expectations predicted
more stable satisfaction. Of note, although the interactions were
significant for wives but not husbands, none of the gender differ-
ences were significantly different from zero.

The results of the analyses regarding the interactions between
expectations and attributions are reported in the last four columns

of Table 6. The effect sizes in these columns reveal a pattern of
significant positive interactions for both wives and husbands. To
determine the nature of these interactions, they were deconstructed
in the same manner as the previous interactions. Again, these plots
revealed the same pattern of interactions across all significant
interactions. Samples of these plots are presented in Figures 2 and
3. To illustrate that the pattern of results is robust across different
measures and across gender, each figure depicts a different mea-
sure of expectations, a different measure of satisfaction, and a
different gender. Thus, Figure 2 depicts the interactive effects of
wives’ responsibility attributions and their expectations for steadi-
ness in the relationship on change in satisfaction on the SMD, and
Figure 3 depicts the interactive effects of husbands’ causality
attributions and their expectations for their wives’ behaviors on
change in satisfaction on the QMI. Consistent with predictions,
these figures illustrate that when attributions were more positive at
the outset of the marriage, more positive expectations predicted
more stable satisfaction, and less positive expectations predicted
steeper declines in satisfaction over the subsequent 4 years. In
contrast, when attributions were least positive at the outset of the
marriage, more positive expectations predicted steeper declines in
marital satisfaction, whereas less positive expectations predicted
more stable satisfaction. Again, although some interactions were
significant for wives but not husbands, none of the gender differ-
ences in these effects were significantly different from zero.

Discussion

Rationale and Summary of Results

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

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

Expectations

Positive behavior
Responsibility

attributions

Causality

attributions

Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife

For satisfaction steadiness
SMD �0.01 �0.13 0.23* 0.32** 0.22* 0.28**
QMI �0.05 �0.15 0.24* 0.18† 0.09 0.07

For partner’s behaviors
SMD �0.02 �0.32** 0.20* 0.35*** 0.28** 0.19*
QMI �0.09 �0.35*** 0.22* 0.35*** 0.29** 0.18†

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

Figure 1. Moderating effects of behavior on the association between
expectations and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.

737POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

current study examined the possibility that the ability to behave
constructively and the ability to make positive attributions may
be two factors that determine which role expectations play in
the evaluation process and therefore may moderate the effects
of positive expectations on changes in relationship satisfaction.
Specifically, positive expectations should be beneficial when
partners’ ability to behave constructively or make charitable
attributions enables their expectations to function as goals that
can be achieved through processes of expectancy confirmation.
For these couples, less positive expectations may be a liability
because they do not allow couples to take advantage of the
skills they possess. In contrast, positive expectations may prove
harmful for partners whose weaker ability to behave positively
or make charitable attributions makes it more likely that their
expectations will serve as counterfactuals and lead to disap-
pointments. For these couples, less positive expectations may
be more beneficial because they may serve as less severe
contrasts to actual outcomes.

Preliminary analyses revealed that although spouses’ expec-
tations were positively associated with their initial marital
satisfaction, on average they had few significant main effects on
changes in satisfaction over time. Consistent with predictions,
however, longitudinal effects of positive expectations did
emerge in interactions with marital behavior and attributions.
With respect to attributions, the patterns of these interactions
were robust across spouses and across different measures of
expectations and satisfaction. When attributions were most
positive, more positive expectations predicted more stable sat-
isfaction, whereas less positive expectations predicted steeper
declines in satisfaction. In contrast, when attributions were
most negative, more positive expectations predicted steeper
declines in marital satisfaction, whereas less positive ex-
pectations predicted more stable satisfaction. With respect
to marital behavior, the patterns of interactions arose for
wives’ expectations for husbands’ behavior but not for hus-
bands’ expectations for wives’ behavior. When relationship
behaviors were most positive, wives’ more positive ex-
pectations for their husbands’ behaviors predicted more sta-

ble satisfaction, whereas their less positive expectations for
their husbands’ behaviors predicted steeper declines in satis-
faction. In contrast, when behaviors were most negative, wives’
more positive expectations for husbands’ behaviors predicted
steeper declines in marital satisfaction, whereas their less pos-
itive expectations for husbands’ behaviors predicted more sta-
ble satisfaction. In sum, which expectations are adaptive de-
pends on the relationship context. When the relationship
context is positive, positive expectations appear to be adaptive.
When the relationship context is less positive, less positive
expectations appear to be adaptive.

It may seem counterintuitive that spouses who entered their
relationships with positive abilities but less positive expecta-
tions experienced steeper declines in their relationship satis-
faction. After all, both DAT and interdependence theory pre-
dict that these people should be pleasantly surprised by the
positive outcomes that their skills should provide. Neverthe-
less, the current results are consistent with predictions. Such
spouses may have been less likely to put forth the effort to
take advantage of their skills throughout the remainder of
their relationships because they lacked the positive expecta-
tions that would motivate such effort. Therefore, their more
moderate expectations prevented them from achieving positive
experiences.

It is also important to note that although partners who lacked
relationship skills and possessed less positive expectations for
their relationships appear to have experienced the most stable
satisfaction over time, the level of satisfaction for these couples
was not as high as it was for couples who possessed more
positive skills. Rather, expectations were positively associated
with initial satisfaction in the current study, suggesting that
partners in this sample who began their marriages with low
expectations and poor skills were less stably happy over the
first years of their marriages. Nevertheless, these partners did
benefit from their less positive expectations relative to partners
with low skills and more positive expectations, demonstrating
the potential benefits of less positive expectations for partners
who are likely to encounter negative experiences over the
course of their relationships.

Figure 3. Moderating effects of wives’ causality attributions on the
association between expectations and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.

Figure 2. Moderating effects of husbands’ responsibility attributions
on the association between expectations and the trajectory of marital
satisfaction.

738 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

Theoretical and Applied Implications

The current findings have several implications for research on
close relationships. First, they contribute to debates about whether
accurate beliefs or positively biased beliefs are more beneficial for
relationship functioning (Armor & Taylor, 1998; Baumeister,
1989; Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996a; Radcliffe & Klein, 2002; Robins & Beer, 2001; Swann,
1990; Taylor & Brown, 1994; Wiebe & Black, 1997). Although a
number of studies have demonstrated the benefits of positively
biased beliefs about relationships, the current findings offer two
potential boundary conditions of these benefits. First, the current
findings suggest that the benefits of positive bias may be limited to
the short term. Much of the research on the benefits of positive bias
has demonstrated such benefits over a relatively short period of
time. Consistent with this research, in the current study positive
expectations about the relationship were cross-sectionally associ-
ated with positive relationship satisfaction. Nevertheless, over an
interval of 4 years, positive expectations were more beneficial to
the extent that they were realistic (i.e., held by partners who
possessed the skills to confirm them) and predicted steeper de-
clines in relationship satisfaction to the extent that they were less
realistic (i.e., held by partners who lacked sufficient relationship
skills to confirm them; for related discussions, see Radcliffe &
Klein, 2002; Robins & Beer, 2001; Wiebe & Black, 1997). Sec-
ond, the current findings suggest that the benefits of positive bias
may be more evident for beliefs about global, ambiguous qualities.
Whereas work demonstrating the benefits of positive bias in rela-
tionships typically has addressed relatively global perceptions of
the partner (e.g., my partner is kind; Murray & Holmes, 1997;
Murray et al., 1996a), the current work demonstrated no such
benefits for unrealistically positive expectations regarding aspects
of a relationship that are less open to interpretation (e.g., my
partner will always get along well with my parents; for related
discussions, see Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, & Yurak, 1995;
Dunning, 1995; Dunning & McElwee, 1995; Dunning, Meyerow-
itz, & Holzberg, 1989; Hampson, Goldberg, & John, 1987; Hamp-
son, John, & Goldberg, 1986; Karney, McNulty, & Bradbury,
2001; Karney, McNulty, & Frye, 2001; McNulty & Karney, 2001).
In sum, whereas it appears beneficial for partners to maintain
positive views of the more global qualities of their partners and
relationships, the current study suggests that over the long term it
is important for partners to have accurate knowledge of their
relationship’s specific strengths and weaknesses as well (for re-
lated discussions, see Neff & Karney, 2002a, 2002b).

A second implication of these results is that they may reveal a
common mechanism through which relationship cognitions influ-
ence relationship functioning. In contrast to the idea that positive
expectations exert main effects on relationship outcomes, the cur-
rent findings suggest that the effects of expectations may depend
on whether couples’ experiences confirm or disconfirm those
expectations. Likewise, the effects of other relationship cognitions
(e.g., beliefs, values, standards, etc.; see Karney, McNulty, &
Bradbury, 2001) may similarly influence relationships by interact-
ing with the specific experiences that partners encounter over the
course of their relationships. Several lines of research provide
support for this idea (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Eidel-
son, 1981; Fletcher et al., 2000; Helgeson, 1994; Jones & Stanton,
1988; Swann, de la Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). For example, as

discussed above, research by Fletcher et al. (2000) demonstrated
that the benefits of positive relationship standards depended on
whether they were confirmed or disconfirmed. When ideal stan-
dards for the relationship were held and met, they were associated
with higher levels of relationship satisfaction. When such stan-
dards were held but not met, however, they were associated with
lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Similarly, in research on
couples in long-distance dating relationships, positive beliefs about
the relationship were beneficial to coping, but only when the
couples stayed together (Helgeson, 1994). When positive beliefs
about the relationship were disconfirmed by relationship dissolu-
tion, they led to greater levels of distress. Future research may
benefit from examining the potential that other relationship cog-
nitions may similarly interact with specific experiences to influ-
ence relationship outcomes.

Finally, the current findings have implications for interventions
designed to alleviate or prevent marital distress. To the extent that
the effects of expectations on relationship outcomes are moderated
by qualities of the relationship, general advice about expectations
may not apply equally well to all couples. Positive expectations are
not harmful for everyone, nor are they beneficial for everyone.
Instead, when advising clients about what to expect from the
future, therapists might consider whether positive expectations will
function as goals, likely to be confirmed by processes of expect-
ancy confirmation, or as counterfactuals, likely to lead to disap-
pointment. Spouses who possess the skills necessary to confirm
positive expectations may benefit from fostering and maintaining
positive expectations about their likelihood for future relationship
success. For such individuals, positive expectations may inspire
them to persist in resolving problems that may arise and view even
negative experiences in a positive light. In contrast, couples who
lack these skills or who are otherwise at risk to encounter negative
experiences that will disconfirm positive expectations may benefit
from moderating excessively positive expectations for their future
outcomes. Such couples may respond more favorably to their
negative experiences when they are expected rather than
unexpected.

Additional Directions for Future Research

Where do unrealistically positive expectations come from? One
source may be personality. For instance, recent work has demon-
strated an association between depressive personality disorder and
perfectionism (Huprich, 2003). It has been proposed that people
with depressive personalities may try to gain acceptance from
others by trying to avoid mistakes (Huprich, 2003). Given this
possibility, and given that partners who experience higher levels of
depression in their relationships tend to be less happy in those
relationships (see O’Mahen, Beach, & Banawan, 2001), it may be
that unrealistically positive standards mediate the effects of de-
pression on declines in relationship satisfaction. That is, depressed
individuals may be less satisfied with their relationships because
they hold standards for those relationships that are too high. In
contrast to this idea, others have argued that depression is linked to
more pessimistic expectations (e.g., Isaacowitz & Seligman, 2001;
Roberts, Roberts, & Chen, 2000), suggesting that the effects of
depression on declines in relationship satisfaction may be medi-
ated by more negative expectations. Additional research is re-

739POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

quired to tease apart the precise role of expectations in mediating
the effects of personality variables on relationship functioning.

Strengths and Limitations

Our confidence in the findings reported here is enhanced by
several strengths of this research. First, the general pattern of
results was replicated across conceptually distinct measures of
expectations and conceptually distinct measures of disconfirma-
tion, suggesting that results were not unique to one construct or
one method of measurement. Second, whereas the average rate of
retention in prior research on marriage is 69% (Karney & Brad-
bury, 1995), analyses in the current study were able to use data
from 94% of the initial sample, reducing the likelihood that the
results were affected by attrition bias. Third, all spouses entering
the study were newlyweds. Thus, although partners are likely to
adjust their expectations as a result of experience (e.g., Fletcher et
al., 2000), participants in the current study were less likely to have
adopted expectations that completely overlapped with experiences,
allowing for the possibility that expectations would be discon-
firmed (Jussim & Eccles, 1995; see also Booth, Johnson, White, &
Edwards, 1985; South & Spitze, 1986). Fourth, the current study
assessed expectations during a phase in which expectations are
likely to be most critical: the beginning of the relationship. This
phase of the relationship is likely to be a time when expectations
for the marriage are just forming and thus are least likely to
measure up to the realities that couples encounter. Fifth, whereas
the majority of longitudinal research on marriage has collected and
analyzed only two waves of data, the current analyses examined
eight waves of data and analyzed all waves simultaneously using
GCA.

Despite these strengths, several factors nevertheless limit inter-
pretations of the current findings. First, whereas the homogeneity
of this sample enhances our confidence in the pattern of associa-
tions, generalizations to other samples should be made with cau-
tion. For example, although the expectations spouses have in the
beginning of their relationships appear to influence the later de-
velopment of those relationships, the expectations of more estab-
lished couples may more accurately reflect prior experience (see
Jussim & Eccles, 1995). If so, then the early years of marriage may
be a unique period of relationship adjustment during which expec-
tations are particularly important. Additional research may benefit
by examining this possibility. Second, the homogeneity of the
sample also limited the range of expectations assessed in the
current study. Because all couples assessed in the current study
were newlyweds, very few held expectations for their relationships
that could be described as negative. Research examining a wider
range of expectations may yield effects different from those ob-
tained in the current study. For instance, although the current study
revealed that more moderate expectations were more adaptive than
very positive expectations for couples likely to experience nega-
tive outcomes, it is unlikely that truly negative expectations would
also be adaptive for the relationship. Instead, negative expectations
may lead couples to abandon their efforts to resolve relationship
problems, leading to the eventual dissolution of the relationship
(see Knee, 1998). Third, although the sample size in this study
compared favorably with other longitudinal studies of marriage, a
larger sample size would have provided greater power to detect

additional effects not detected in the current study (e.g., gender
differences).

Conclusion

Who was correct about the effects of positive expectations:
Peale (1952), who suggested that positive expectations should lead
to positive outcomes, or Pope (as cited in Bartlett & Dole, 1919/
2000), who argued that positive outcomes may lead to disappoint-
ment? Results of the current study suggest that within the context
of close relationships, the answer may depend on various factors
associated with relationship functioning. Consistent with Peale’s
view, spouses who have the skills to attain positive outcomes
benefit from positive expectations. Consistent with Pope’s view,
spouses who lack the skills to cultivate positive experiences may
benefit from more moderate expectations. Given that the benefits
and costs of positive expectations depend on other relationship
factors, the effects of other cognitive variables on long-term rela-
tionship outcomes may similarly depend on how those cognitions
interact with the experiences couples are likely to encounter.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., & Yurak, T. J. (1995).
Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804 – 825.

Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome
expectations and self-regulation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 309 –379). New York:
Academic Press.

Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in
satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 80, 754 –765.

Bartlett, J. (Compiler), & Dole, N. H. (Ed.). (2000). Familiar quotations
(10th ed. rev.). Boston: Little, Brown. Retrieved February 23, 2004,
from www.bartleby.com/100/ (Original work published 1919)

Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996).
Assessing relationship standards: The Inventory of Specific Relationship
Standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 72– 88.

Baumeister, R. F. (1989). The optimal margin of illusion. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 8, 176 –189.

Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., & Edwards, J. N. (1985).
Predicting divorce and permanent separation. Journal of Family Issues,
6, 331–346.

Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical
analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage:
Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical
linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–
158.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1994). HLM: Hier-
archical linear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs
[Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlational
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Angelo, C., & Karney, B. R. (1999, March). A comparison between
sampling methods in marital research. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Savannah, GA.

740 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes
arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35,
867– 881.

Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in
labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
20 –33.

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The
self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and
rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 75, 545–560.

Dunning, D. (1995). Trait importance and modifiability as factors influ-
encing self-assessment and self-enhancement motives. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1297–1306.

Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. O. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions:
Implications for self-description and social judgment. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 68, 936 –946.

Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and
self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving
assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 1082–1090.

Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship malad-
justment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship be-
liefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715–720.

Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical cou-
ples: Their relationship to expectations, goals, and satisfaction. Ameri-
can Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 13–22.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital
quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797–
809.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in
marriage: The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 457– 468.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, percep-
tions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.

Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Being better or getting better? Social
and temporal comparisons as coping mechanisms in close relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1287–1299.

Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (in press). Revision in memories of relation-
ship development: Do biases persist over time? Personal Relationships.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting
marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., & John, O. P. (1987). Category-breadth
and social-desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Jour-
nal of Personality, 1, 241–258.

Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth
and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in
judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 37–54.

Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 129 –134.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). The effects of self-beliefs and relationship beliefs
on adjustment to a relationship stressor. Personal Relationships, 1,
241–258.

Huprich, S. K. (2003). Depressive personality and its relationship to
depressed mood, interpersonal loss, negative parental perceptions, and
perfectionism. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 73–79.

Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J.
(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital
delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 80, 237–252.

Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Is pessimism a risk factor
for depressive mood among community-dwelling older adults? Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 39, 255–272.

Jones, M. E., & Stanton, A. L. (1988). Dysfunctional beliefs, belief
similarity, and marital distress: A comparison of models. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 1–14.

Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative
review. Psychological Review, 93, 429 – 445.

Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1995). Naturally occurring interpersonal expect-
ancies. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social development: Review of personality
and social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 74 –108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction,
and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or
trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 78, 295–309.

Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Cognition and
the development of close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S.
Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology. Vol. 2: Inter-
personal processes (pp. 32–59). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers
Limited.

Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Frye, N. (2001). A social– cognitive
perspective on the maintenance and deterioration of relationship satis-
faction. In J. H. Harvey & A. E. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic rela-
tionships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 195–214). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm– cold variable in first impressions of
persons. Journal of Personality, 18, 431– 439.

Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and
prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping and longevity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360 –370.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment prediction
tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21,
251–255.

McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Inte-
grating specific and global evaluations of a relationship. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943–955.

McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Expectancy confirmation in
appraisals of marital interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 764 –775.

Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more:
Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603– 610.

Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect
theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psycho-
logical Science, 8, 423– 429.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8,
193–210.

Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal
processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256.

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions
in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
23, 586 – 604.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of
positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
79 –98.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling
nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,

741POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–
1180.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002a). Judgments of a relationship partner:
Specific accuracy but global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70,
1077–1110.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002b). Self-evaluation motives in close
relationships: A model of global enhancement and specific verification.
In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Develop-
ments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 32–58). Cambridge, En-
gland: Cambridge University Press.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationship
perceptions: Differential importance as a strategy of relationship main-
tenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1433–1446.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate
relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within
marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134 –148.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the depen-
dent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.

Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Expectancies. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
basic principles (pp. 211–238). New York: Guilford Press.

O’Mahen, H. A., Beach, S. R. H., & Banawan, S. F. (2001). Depression in
marriage. In J. H. Harvey & A. H. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic
relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 299 –319). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement
of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Prentice-
Hall.

Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and
comparative optimism: Differential relations with the knowledge and
processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 836 – 846.

Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., & Barnett, R. C. (1995). A multivar-
iate hierarchical model for studying psychological change within mar-
ried couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161–174.

Roberts, R. E., Roberts, C. R., & Chen, I. G. (2000). Fatalism and risk of
adolescent depression. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Pro-
cesses, 63, 239 –252.

Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self:
Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 340 –352.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:
Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shepperd, J. A., & McNulty, J. K. (2002). The affective consequences of
expected and unexpected outcomes. Psychological Science, 13, 85– 88.

Sherif, M. (1960). Some needed concepts in the study of social attitudes. In
J. G. Peatman & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Festschrift for Gardner Murphy
(pp. 194 –213). Oxford, England: Harper.

Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding
verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the
“avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication
Research, 9, 83–95.

Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 248 –305).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656 – 666.

South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1986). Determinants of divorce over the marital
life course. American Sociological Review, 51, 583–590.

Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (Eds.). (1999). Helping
couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. Philadelphia:
Brunner/Mazel.

Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of
pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457– 477.

Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of
self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M Sor-
rentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of
social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408 – 448). New York: Guilford Press.

Swann, W. B., de la Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994) Authenticity and
positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 857– 869.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being
revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116,
21–27.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
Oxford, England: Wiley.

Vogel, D. L., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Demands and withdrawal in
relationships: Elaborating on the social structure hypothesis. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 685–701.

Wiebe, D. J., & Black, D. (1997). Illusional beliefs in the context of risky
sexual behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1727–1749.

742 MCNULTY AND KARNEY

Received May 13, 2003
Revision received October 31, 2003

Accepted November 5, 2003 �

Appendix

A Measure of Expectations for Partner

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

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

743POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS IN MARRIAGE

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Three pages ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now