Primenjena psihologija

Vol. 15, No4., pp. 507-525, 2022

Research Article

The effect of dispositional mindfulness on

positive illusions in romantic relationships:

dyadic approach

Filipa Ćavar 1 and Lana Batinić 2

1 Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, Croatia

2 Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT

Implicit beliefs and cognitions largely direct behavioral and emotional interaction

between intimate partners which in turn determines relationship satisfaction of both

partners. Positive illusions, based on automatic thinking, represent a possible

strategy for coping with relationship stress caused by the discrepancy between ideal

and perceived partner’s attributes. Contrary, research suggests that mindfulness, a

conscious alternative to functioning on automatic pilot, has numerous benefits on

relationship satisfaction and partner dynamic. However, the role of mindfulness in

the context of relationship cognition is still not fully researched. The aim of this

research was to examine the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and

positive illusions about intimate partners. Survey was conducted online, and it

included participants living in Croatia. Dyadic analysis included 106 heterosexual

couples (mean age for women was 23.17 years, and for men 24.54 years) who were

in a relationship for at least 6 months. Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale –

MAAS is used as a measure of dispositional mindfulness, and Interpersonal Qualities

Scale as a measure of partners’ positive illusions. The actor and partner effects of

dispositional mindfulness on illusory perception of partners’ attributes were tested

by Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Contrary to hypothesized, mindfulness

did not negatively affect biased perception of intimate partner. Partner effects for

both men and women, and men’s actor effect are shown to be significant in our

model, suggesting that dispositional mindfulness contributed positively to partner’s

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

508

illusory perception of their intimate partner attributes, on both dyad level and

individual level only for men.

Key words

: dispositional mindfulness, positive illusions, relationship cognition,

dyadic approach

UDC: 159.942.075:392.6(497.5)

DOI: 10.19090/pp.v15i4.2417

Received: 29.06.2022.

Revised: 16.09.2022.

Accepted: 08.11.2022.

This is an open access article distributed

under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original author

and source are credited.

 Corresponding author email: filipa.cavar@pilar.hr

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

509

Introduction

Romantic relationship cognition, a relatively new field of research interest,

includes persons’ thoughts and beliefs about their intimate partner and romantic

relationship (Karremans et al., 2017). Same as when thinking about social world

around us, relationship cognition is not black or white, and mostly always contains

some level of cognitive bias. Brewer (1991; as cited in Leonardelli et al., 2010)

described this type of cognitive bias as a persons’ tendency to perceive their

significant other in a more positive light, emphasizing their virtues, and diminishing

their flaws. This type of positive perception is common for all partners throughout

the relationship but is mostly prominent for couples at the early start of their

intimate relationship. Social psychologists agree that automatic thinking of one of

the most important intimate relationships in adult age largely shapes and directs

emotional reactions and behavior of both partners, affects relationship stability

(Fletcher & Kerr, 2010), and is reference point upon which partners assess their

relationship satisfaction (McNulty et al., 2013). Fletcher et al. (2000) note that

cognitive evaluation of partner’s attributes opposed to ideal is an underlying process

that directs relationship dynamic and is naturally happening throughout the

relationship. Further research suggests that this type of evaluation happens at

automatic level of processing (Overall et al., 2006), suggesting that underlying

cognitive schemas and implicit beliefs greatly shape intimate relationships (Knee et

al., 2015). Eventually, realizing partners’ flaws and doubting their compatibility as a

couple, partners’ relationship satisfaction decreases (Keizer, 2014). However, the

outcome – relationship stability versus ending, depends on how both partners cope

with relationship stress (Barnes et al., 2007), that is, how they deal with this type of

cognitive dissonance.

At this point, one might wonder to what degree partners willingly direct

their relationship outcomes and do they even have necessary resources, both

emotional and behavioral, needed to appropriately respond to possible relationship

stress (Doss et al., 2005), as opposed to thinking and functioning on automatic pilot.

Answer might be found in mindfulness, a state of awareness that emerges through

paying attention to one’s own thoughts, emotions, and sensations, and experiencing

them non-judgmentally in a present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Mindfulness-

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

510

related research in the field of romantic relationships has become more popular,

with researchers finding numerous benefits of this phenomena to relationship

satisfaction (Karremans et al., 2017; Kozlowski, 2013), especially in the context of

couples therapy (Carson et al., 2004; Doss et al., 2005). However, little is known of

possible mindfulness effects on cognitive processes that underlie relationship

dynamic. Relatively unexplored field of relationship cognition concerns possible

mindfulness effects on automatic thinking that directs partner interaction, such as

positive illusions. Furthermore, relationship cognition-mindfulness-focused research

still lacks dyadic perspective that would provide broader insight of partners’

interdependence and relationship dynamic.

Positive illusions

Positive illusions represent relatively permanent types of cognitive bias

(Martz et al., 1998). The purpose of this biased perception is best understood through

the analogy of defense mechanism. Stressful relationship events, such as perceiving

partners’ flaws and less desired behavior, often represent a threat to relationship

stability. To maintain intimate relationships, and prevent possible negative

outcomes, partners tend to mask negative aspects of their relationship, thus

creating overly positive image of their significant other (Murray et al., 2003; Barelds

& Dijkstra, 2011). This trend of positive polarization when evaluating intimate partner

and relationship quality is becoming more prominent, and up to 80% of people tend

to idealize their current intimate partner (Fowers et al., 2002).

Although often considered as negative and idealized perceptive bias

(Murray at al., 1996b), researchers had found positive effects of positive illusions to

numerous aspects of intimate relationship, such as supporting feelings of devotion

and security (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011). On a dyadic level, positive illusions of both

actor and partner positively contribute to decrease of relationship conflict and

promotion of relationship satisfaction (Furler at al., 2014; Murray et al., 1996a). Murray

et al. (2003) suggests that, with time, dyad members show tendency to strive

toward those qualities that their partner did, but they initially had not perceive in

themselves. Thus, discrepancy between actors’ perception of intimate partner, and

partners’ self-assessment decreases with relationship duration, suggesting that

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

511

partners strive for achieving a more positive self-image (Murray et al., 2003).

Although considered a less optimal coping strategy with cognitive dissonance,

positive illusions positively contribute to relationship satisfaction and insure long-

term relationship stability (Karremans et al., 2017).

Dispositional mindfulness in romantic relationships

Mindfulness, in the context of relationship cognition, implies directing and

focusing attention on thoughts and feelings that can directly or indirectly affect the

stability of one’s intimate relationship and can possibly disrupt partner dynamic

(Karremans et al., 2017). Dispositional mindfulness positively predicts less anxiety and

aggression directed behavior between partners after a conflict and is positively

correlated with women’s feelings of support and respect toward their partner

(Barnes at al., 2007). Barnes et al. (2007) showed that male partners, whose female

partners expressed higher levels of dispositional mindfulness, reported feeling less

angry and hostile during relationship conflict, thus indicating possible

interdependence model of mindfulness between partners, suggesting of

mindfulness, being a possible protective factor of relationship stability (Wachs &

Cordova, 2007). Direct and positive effects of dispositional mindfulness on

relationship satisfaction, partner behavior and emotions that direct partner dynamic,

are relatively stable and had been found in numerous research (Adair et al., 2018;

Barnes et al., 2007). Theorists argue that underlying mindfulness processes allow us

to respond to external stimuli more objectively and have more clarity about own

internal processes (Brown & Ryan, 2003) which is in accordance with beneficial

mindfulness effects to numerous relationship outcomes when facing relationship

stress (Karremans et al., 2017).

However, positive illusions do not represent a threat to relationship stability,

but rather promote partners’ relationship satisfaction. Although seen as a negative

coping strategy, positive illusions represent the part of automatic thinking

continuum that positively contributes to relationship satisfaction (Furler et al., 2014).

Contrary, mindfulness, being a more conscious aspect of own thoughts and

emotional reactions, and possibly partner’s negative attributes and behavior,

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

512

represents an opposite to automatic pilot (Karremans et al., 2017), and might redirect

relationship dynamic.

Present study

Shifting research perspective from individual assessment to dyadic is

especially important when exploring the field of partner dynamic and romantic

relationship, while both partners’ attributes and interaction are interdependent

within dyad, suggesting that partners within dyad share more similar characteristics

than they have with other people involved in romantic relationships (Kenny et al.,

2006, as cited in Kaizer, 2014). While no known research has been done assessing

mindfulness effects on positive illusions on the dyadic level of analysis, our study

investigates possible mindfulness effects on partners’ cognitive bias. The main

objective is to examine whether, and in what direction, dispositional mindfulness

contributes to persons’ own positive illusions about their significant other (actor

effect), as well as on the existence of partners’ positive illusions (partner effect). It is

hypothesized that dispositional level of women’s mindfulness significantly

negatively contributes to both positive illusions she holds about her own partner

and partner’s positive illusions. The same is hypothesized for men – higher

dispositional level of men’s mindfulness will decrease his own positive illusions, and

positive illusions his female partner might hold about him.

Method

Sample

Participants from Croatia were recruited by snow-ball method, according to

participation criteria that were following: minimum relationship duration of 6

months; not married and/or cohabiting and/or having children. Inclusion criteria

were based on prior knowledge of romantic relationship dynamic (Miller et al., 2006;

Murray et. al, 1996a) that differs significantly between married couples (with

children) and cohabitating partners. Furthermore, minimum relationship duration

criterion was set to include merely couples that, in the time, were in a more serious

stage of their intimate relationship where initial infatuation had passed, and partners

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

513

were more familiar with each other’s flaws and virtues. In total, 106 heterosexual

couples, aged from 18 to 38 years, took part in the research. Mean age for women

was 23.17 years (

= 2.95) and for men 24.54 (

= 3.28). Majority of women in our

sample had bachelor's degree (49.1%), 25.5% had finished high-school, 24.5% had

master's degree, and 1 female participant has finished elementary school. Most of

men (36.8%) had finished high-school, 32.1% had bachelor's and 28.3% master's

degree, 1.9% had finished postgraduate studies, and 1 male participant had finished

only elementary school. The average length of the relationship was 3 years.

Procedure

Data were collected in January 2020 via online questionnaire, within a larger

survey on romantic relationship cognition conducted for the purpose of the

graduation thesis of one of the authors of this article. According to the internal

procedures, research was approved by the expert council of the Department of

Psychology at the Catholic University of Croatia. Prior to participation, each dyad

member was given a 5-digit code (e.g., M2156 & Z2156), that allowed us to

differentiate dyad partners by gender. Participants were informed of research aim,

procedure, right to withdraw from participating and were assured that their answers

would remain anonymous.

Measures

Dispositional mindfulness

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale

–

MAAS

(Brown & Ryan, 2003) was

used as a measure of dispositional mindfulness. On Likert type (

1 = almost always

6 = almost never

) 15-item scale participants had to assess to what degree they

encounter these sensations and experiences (e.g., “

I find myself doing things without

paying attention”

). All items are to be recoded, prior to calculating linear

combination of all the items, so the overall higher result reflects higher dispositional

mindfulness. Factor structure of Croatian version of MAAS is identical to the original

unidimensional structure found by Brown & Ryan (2003), with Cronbach alpha

coefficient (α = .85) indicating satisfactory scale reliability.

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

514

Positive illusions

Interpersonal Qualities Scale

(Murray et al., 1996a) was used as a measure of

partners’ positive illusions. The original scale consists of 23 interpersonal attributes –

virtues, flaws and socially acceptable attributes that are driven from the larger pool

of interpersonal attributes (Murray et al., 1996a). For this research, original attributes

were double blinded translated to Croatian and tested for their comprehensibility.

Final version of

Croatian Interpersonal Qualities Scale

consisted of 21 positive

attributes (e.g. kind, patient) and negative (e.g. lazy, impulsive) attributes.

Participants had to rate how well these attributes described themselves and their

partner on a 9-point scale (

1 = not at all characteristic to

9 = completely

characteristic

). According to researchers in this field (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011; Murray

et al., 1996b) there are a few possible statistical calculations of positive illusions.

However, residual score, that is believed to be a more reliable measure of positive

illusions (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011; Murray et al., 2003), was given priority over

difference score. Thus, illusion of partners’ attributes was formed as a residual score

between participants’ perception of partner characteristics (

actor perception

) and

partners’ self-assessment (

partner reality

) that are believed to be some level of

objective benchmark. Residual score indicates that some amount of illusory

perception exists when perceiving intimate partner, while partner does not perceive

these qualities when thinking about self (Murray et al., 1996b). A positive score

indicates existence of illusory perception, while negative result implies objective or

even negative perception of partner in comparison to partners’ self-assessment.

Socio-demographic variables

The questionnaire included demographic variables such as age, gender,

duration, and nature of relationship. Along with questions regarding experience with

meditation/mindfulness practice, participation criteria questions were also included.

Data analysis

Partner's characteristics and attributes can affect not only their own

perception of intimate relationship but can also impact their partner’s perception of

the relationship. While most research on romantic relationships includes variables

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

515

and constructs that are characteristic for one specific relationship, and are rather

interdependent for both dyad members, we can no longer validly measure partners’

attributes as independent entities (Kenny & Cook, 1999). The most popular dyadic

model – Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), enables us to statistically

consider partners’ non-independence and to determine not only how one's result

on independent variable affects his/her own outcome (result in dependent variable),

but also what effect one's result on the independent variable has on their partner's

outcome. In other words, we can assess actor effect, which is shown using

horizontal lines in the model, and partner effect which is represented by diagonal

lines (Figure 1). In our model shown in Figure 1, predictor (independent variable) was

dispositional mindfulness and curved arrow between men's and women's result

allows partners' results to be correlated. Positive illusions were dependent variable.

Circles marked with E and E' indicate that residual results covary between dyad

members due to a cause that was not measured by the conducted research and

point to the interdependence of dyad members. To test hypothesized relationships,

we have used structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood

estimation in R (lavaan) program.

Results

Since preliminary analysis did not establish the existence of outliers

(according to Mahalanobis distance), all the 106 dyads were included in dyadic

analysis. Women and men showed about the same, relatively high level of

dispositional mindfulness (Table 1). Descriptive results indicate that partners differ in

how they perceive one another. While women tend to have positive illusions about

men, men in our sample do not show the same for their partners. Therefore, in

average, women perceive their partners more positively than their partners perceive

themselves. However, men seem to have mostly negative perception about

women, so they estimate their partner’s attributes in a more negative light than she

perceives herself.

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

516

Table 1

Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations in the APIM model

Min

Max

1. Dispositional mindfulness_W

4.01

0.75

2.00

5.33

-.043

.128

.240*

2. Positive illusions_W

- 0.19

0.54

1.21

1.47

.314**

-.155

3. Dispositional mindfulness_M

4.06

0.76

1.80

5.60

.252**

4. Positive illusions_M

-0.19

0.70

1.85

1.23

Notes.

W – women; M – men. *

< .05; **

< .01.

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions are positively

correlated within dyad members. Positive correlation has been found between

one partner’s mindfulness and other partner’s positive illusions, respectively for

both partners. Effect between men’s mindfulness and women’s positive illusions

suggests that the more mindful men are, their partners tend to perceive their

attributes in a more positive, rather illusory light. The same effect has been

shown for women - the more mindful women are, the more positive illusions

men have about them. Accordingly, the same pattern is found on individual level,

but only for men. The more mindful men were, more positively they perceived

their partners.

Table 2

Unstandardized estimates of actor and partner effects in APIM model

Effect

Estimate

Dispositional mindfulness (M) –

Positive illusions (M)

actor effect (M)

0.206*

0.084

.014

Dispositional mindfulness (W) -

Positive illusions (W)

actor effect (W)

-0.062

0.067

.35

Dispositional mindfulness (W) -

Positive illusions (M)

partner effect (M)

0.197*

0.077

.011

Dispositional mindfulness (M) -

Positive illusions (W)

partner effect (W)

0.231**

0.063

.00

Notes.

W – women; M – men. *

< .05; **

< .01.

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

517

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model showed significant actor effect

for men, suggesting that more mindful men have more positive illusions about

their partner (Table 2 and Figure 1). Furthermore, both partner effects proved to

be significant – men's mindfulness positively contributes to women's positive

illusions and same pattern is true for women – the more mindful women are, the

more positive illusions their partner has about them.

Dyadic patterns: parameter k

To statistically determine dyadic pattern in the results, Kenny and

Ledermann (2010) suggest calculating parameter

which is ratio of partner and

actor effect and should be calculated only when standardized actor effects in

model are greater than .10 and are statistically significant (which is case in our

model). In our model,

for the women equals -3.76, and for the men 0.95 (Stas et

al., 2018). For the women, 95% percentile confidence interval ranges from -37.33

to 32.85. For men, confidence interval ranges from 0.12 and 4.46 (Stas et al., 2018).

Discussion

Differences in Positive illusions

Interestingly, our partners differentiate when thinking about their

partner. While women have positive illusions about their partners, men perceive

their partners more negatively, or one might argue even more objectively, in

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

518

comparison to partners' self-assessment (see Table 1). While residual score is

calculated as difference between one's perception of their partner's attributes

and partners' self-assessment on those same attributes, negative illusions that

men have about women could be result of a more favorable women’s self-

assessment. Steenkamp et al. (2010) argue that women are more prone to give

socially desirable responses on items that assess affiliation, belonging, intimacy,

love, approval, and nurturance. Many personal attributes that our participants

were asked to assess belong to that category. Paulhus and John (1998) called this

tendency moralistic response and research consistently shows that women have

higher moralistic response tendencies than men (Heine & Lehman, 1995; Lalwani,

et al., 2006). These results indicate that, despite of men’s tendencies to perceive

their partners in a less positive, rather objective, light, our couples are prone to

illusory perception of intimate partner characteristics that is believed to further

relationship satisfaction (Miller et al., 2006; Murray et al., 1996a, 2003). While

interpreting this result, it is important to remind that couples have been in

romantic relationship for a longer period (3 years, on average). By that we can

conclude that, women’s tendencies to (overly) positively attribute intimate

partner and perceive them through pink-colored glasses is preserving even in the

mature stage of the relationship when knowledge of intimate partners’

attributes and behavior is expected to be relatively objective (Miller et al., 2006).

However, it seems that our women fall within that 80% statistic of people that

overestimate their intimate partner and romantic relationship, which only

supports previous findings (Murray et al., 1996a). This surely questions how well

partners know one another, and if is justified to assume that illusory perception

functions to promote feelings of security and commitment for possibly the most

important intimate relationship that we achieve in adult age?

Actor and partner effects of dispositional mindfulness on positive

illusions

On grounds of the assumption that mindfulness and positive illusions are

based on opposite underlying cognitive processes, we hypothesized that

dispositional mindfulness might shift partner perception from automatic pilot to

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

519

more conscious functioning, thus contributing more negatively to positive

illusions. However, our results indicate the contrary. One’s higher level of

mindfulness seems to be positively correlated with other partner’s illusory

perception. Positive and significant partner effects of dispositional mindfulness

to positive illusions indicate that women’s mindfulness only supports overly

illusory perception among men, and the same is true for men. Murray et al. (1996a;

1996b) state that this cognitive bias only further supports implicit belief of “blind

love”, by thus positively contributing to relationship satisfaction. This leads to

questioning how truly intimate partners know each other, that is how prominent

is this illusory effect of automatic thinking over our objective perception?

Based on interdependence theory, Kenny and Cook (1999) have

established four different patterns that could be determined using dyadic

analysis: only actor, only partner, couple pattern and social comparison, or

contrast pattern (Kenny & Ledermann, 2010). The dyadic pattern is established

based on 95% confidence interval of the parameter

that is calculated using

bootstrapping method because of the non-normal distribution of parameter. In

our model confidence interval for women is very wide and includes -1, 0 and 1,

so we can’t determine which dyadic pattern is most likely. For men, confidence

interval includes 1, so we conclude that couple pattern fits these data the most.

To be more precise, couple patterns occur when actor and partner effects are

equal (a = p; k = 1), that is when on person's result on dependent variable (in our

case, positive illusions), the same effect has their own as well as their partner's

score on causal variable (dispositional mindfulness, in our model) (Kenny &

Ledermann, 2010). Specifically, in our sample, men's dispositional mindfulness,

and women's dispositional mindfulness both have equally significant positive

effect on men's positive illusions.

It appears that cognitive schemas are relatively fixed and, working on

automatic level of thinking, represent more prominent cognitive shortcuts

opposed to mindful perceiving and directed attention. Thus, mindfulness in our

participants did not negatively affect neither their own, nor partner’s positive

illusions. Another explanation of these findings lies within cognitive willpower

that is needed for two opposed cognitive processes, where automatic thinking

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

520

develops on its own, while mindful awareness demands more focused and

directed consciousness (Brown et al., 2007). Therefore, being mindful did not

affect the persistence of cognitive bias of illusory perception, but is rather

positively related to perceiving own partner in a more positive light. It might be

argued that this underlying automatic thinking is relatively permanent due to

partners’ need to positively resolve cognitive dissonance that appears with low

congruency of partners’ current and believed attributes. Therefore, as Karremans

et al. (2017) suggest, partners’ first urge is to ensure relationship stability and are

automatically motivated to do so. In context of the proposed assumption,

mindfulness might even represent a risk factor to relationship stability among

couples that have low emotional and coping resources (Doss & Christensen,

2006).

Even thought our hypothesis did not emerge to be true, results are in

accordance with Boatright and McIntosh (2008) research that suggests positive

correlation of mindfulness and positive illusions about self, indicating that, more

mindful individuals are more likely to have overly positive perception.

Explanation of these findings might also lie within the construct of mindfulness.

While being mindful allows us to non-judgmentally observe experience and

sensations in the present moment, it might be argued that processes beneficial

to own well-being, in this context relationship stability and satisfaction, are

beyond mindful awareness, or just beyond uncultivated mindful awareness.

Theorists argue that underlying mindfulness processes allow us to respond to

external stimuli more objectively (Brown & Ryan, 2003) which largely benefits in

the context of threatening stimuli which positive illusions do not represent.

Contributions, limitations, and implications

The novelty of our study lies within the dyadic approach to assessing

mindfulness and relationship cognition. This shift in methodology is still

insufficiently embraced, but necessary for broader understanding of the field of

relationship cognition and its role in partners’ dynamic. Understanding

relationship cognition and mindfulness mechanisms that could have significant

effect on recognition of maladaptive behavior that threatens relationship quality

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

521

(Kappen et al., 2018; Karremans et al., 2017), provides knowledge for practical

implications beneficial to practitioners that work with couples in troubled

relationships who have little emotional and cognitive resources to deal with

relationship stress. Due to auto selection, our participants were on average

highly satisfied with their relationship, which limits our findings. Thus, it would

be of great interest to include less satisfied and troubled couples when assessing

mindfulness effects on relationship cognition, especially combining dyadic

perspective with experimental approach. Furthermore, as the field of

mindfulness research in the context of relationship cognition is expanding, some

authors (Kimmes et al., 2018) differentiate relationship mindfulness from

dispositional mindfulness and new aspects of assessing mindfulness are

considered. While our research assessed only trait mindfulness that both

partners bring in interaction, further research of these constructs and their

relationship, especially seen from different methodological and theoretical

perspectives, is welcomed.

More research on underlying mindfulness mechanisms and automatic

thinking is needed. Thus, it would be interesting to examine a more

comprehensive mediation model of mindfulness and positive illusions on

relationship satisfaction, to investigate how two constructs affect relationship

dynamic and whether they promote partners’ satisfaction. Though our research

only focused to investigate direct relationship between dispositional

mindfulness and positive illusions, it might be interesting to research possible

mediation models of two constructs with motivation to maintain the

relationship and other emotional aspects that affect relationship satisfaction.

Moreover, while dispositional levels of mindfulness did not have expected

negative effects on illusory perception, it might be interesting to examine

whether cultivated mindfulness might redirect partners’ perception, especially

considering possible partner effects. Finally, positive illusions represent one

possible strategy for dealing with cognitive dissonance, with partner acceptance

being the other. Consciousness of own emotional reactions when perceiving

partner’s flaws is in the basis of partner acceptance (Doss et al., 2005), indicating

of possible similar mechanisms that underly mindfulness and even questioning

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

522

whether mindfulness might lie in greater partner acceptance. Thus, further

investigating the interaction of these two constructs would be of great interest.

Conflict of interest

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data availability statement

Available upon request. For further details on data contact the authors.

Authors Note

The sample presented in this research was used for the purpose of other analyses

of relationship cognition.

References

Adair, K. C., Boulton, A. J., & Algoe, S. B. (2018). The effect of mindfulness on relationship

satisfaction via perceived responsiveness: Findings from a dyadic study of

heterosexual romantic partners.

Mindfulness

(2), 597–609.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0801-3

Barelds, D.P.H., & Dijkstra, P. (2011). Positive illusions about a partner's personality and

relationship quality.

Journal of Research in Personality

, 37–43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.009

Barnes, S., Brown, K.W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W.K., & Rogge, R.D. (2007). The role of

mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship

stress.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33

, 482–500.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x

Boatright, R. A., & McIntosh, W. D. (2008). The relationship between mindfulness and

self-promoting illusions.

Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 11

(6), 561–566.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670701686626

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, D. J. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations

and Evidence for its Salutary Effects,

Psychological Inquiry, 18

(4), 211–

237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298

Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being

, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

523

Carson, J.W., Carson, K.M., Gil, K., & Baucom, D.H. (2004). Mindfulness-based relationship

enhancement.

Behavior Therapy, 35

, 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-

7894(04)80028-5

Chiesa, A., Serretti, A., & Jakobsen, J. C. (2013). Mindfulness: top-down or bottom-up

emotion regulation strategy?

Clinical Psychology Review, 33

, 82–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.006

Doss, B. D. Christensen, A. (2006). Acceptance in romantic relationships: the frequency

and acceptability of partner behavior inventory.

Psychological Assessment,

, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.3.289

Doss, B.D., Thum, Y.M., Sevier, M., Atkins, D.C., & Christensen, A. (2005). Improving

relationships: mechanisms of change in couple therapy.

Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 73

(4), 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

006X.73.4.624

Fletcher, G.J., & Kerr, P.S. (2010). Through the eyes of love: reality and illusion in intimate

relationships.

Psychological Bulletin, 136

, 627–658.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019792

Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations

in early relationship development.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

79(

6), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933

Fowers, B.J., Veingrad, M.R., & Dominicis, C. (2002). The unbearable lightness of positive

illusions: engaged individuals' explanations of unrealistically positive

relationship perceptions.

Journal of Marriage and Family 64

, 450–460.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00450.x

Furler, K., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2014). Personality perceptions and relationship

satisfaction in couples.

Journal of Research in Personality, 50

, 33–41.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.02.003

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Social desirability among Canadian and Japanese

students.

The Journal of Social Psychology

135

(6), 777–779.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713982

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and

future.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10

, 144–156.

https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

Kappen, G., Karremans, J.C., Burk, W.J., & Buyuckan-Tetik, A. (2018). On the Association

Between Mindfulness and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction: The Role of

Partner Acceptance.

Mindfulness

, 1543–1556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-

018-0902-7

Ćavar & Batinić

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

524

Karremans, J.C., Schellekens, M.P.J., & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences of

mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research

agenda.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21

(1), 29–49.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315615450

Keizer, R. (2014). Relationship satisfaction. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.).

Encyclopedia of quality

of life and well-being research

(pp. 5437–5443). Dodrecht: Springer.

Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual

issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations.

Personal relationships

(4), 433–

448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x

Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns

in the actor–partner interdependence model.

Journal of Family Psychology

(3), 359–366. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019651

Kimmes, J. G., Jaurequi, M. E., May, R. W., Srivastava, S., & Fincham F.D. (2018).

Mindfulness in the Context of Romantic Relationships: Initial Development and

Validation of the Relationship Mindfulness Measure.

Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 44

(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12296

Knee, R.C., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N.A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2015). Implicit

theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal?

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(

7), 808–819.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277004

Kozlowski, A. (2013). Mindful mating: exploring the connection between mindfulness

and relationship satisfaction.

Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28

(1-2), 92–104.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.748889

Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural

orientation and socially desirable responding?.

Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology

(1), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165

Leonardelli, G.J., Pickett, C.L., & Brewer, M.B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: a

framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In G.J.

Leonardelli, C.L. Pickett & M.B. Brewer (Ed.),

Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology

(pp. 63–113). Academic Press.

Martz, J.M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X.B., Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L., & Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive

illusion in close relationships.

Personal relationships, 5

, 159–181.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00165.x

McNulty, J.K., Olson, M.A., Meltzer, A.L., & Shaffer, M.J. (2013). Though they may be

unaware, newlyweds implicitly know whether their marriage will be satisfying.

Science

342

, 1119–1120. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243140

PP (2022) 15(4), 507-525

Dispositional mindfulness and positive illusions

525

Miller, P.J.E., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T.L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: a

13-year longitudinal study.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32

(12),

1579–1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292691

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

(1), 79–98.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79

Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.L., & Griffin, D.W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive

illusions in romantic relationships: love is not blind, but prescient.

Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology

(6), 1155–1180.

Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.L., & Griffin, D.W. (2003). Reflections on the self-fulfilling effects of

positive illusions.

Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the

Advancement of Psychological Theory

(3-4), 289–295.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682895

Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Simpson, J.A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate

relationships: the role of ideal standards.

Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 91

(4), 662–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662

Paulhus, D., & John, O. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The

interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives.

Journal of

Personality 66

(6), 1025–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00041

Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A

user-friendly app for Actor-Partner Interdependence Models.

Personal

Relationships, 25

(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12230

Steenkamp, J. B. E., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response

tendencies in survey research.

Journal of Marketing Research

(2), 199–214.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199

Wachs, K., & Cordova, J.V. (2007). Mindful relating: exploring mindfulness emotion

repertoires in intimate relationships.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,

(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x