V. Swami et al.: Love Is Blind Journalof IndividualD ifferences 2009 Vol. 30(1):35���43 �� 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Evaluating the Physical Attractiveness of Oneself and One���s Romantic Partner Individual and Relationship Correlates of the Love-Is-Blind Bias Viren Swami1, Stefan Stieger2, Tanja Haubner3, Martin Voracek3, and Adrian Furnham4 1Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, London, UK, 2Core Unit for Medical Education, Medical University of Vienna, Austria, 3Department of Basic Psychological Research, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria, 4Department of Psychology, University College London, UK Abstract. The present study sought to extend recent work by examining individual and relationship variables that predict the love-is- blind bias, that is, a tendency to perceive one���s romantic partner as more attractive than oneself. A sample of 113 men and 143 women completed a battery of tests that included various demographic, individual difference, and relationship-related measures. Results pro- vided support for a love-is-blind bias, in that both women and men rated their romantic partners as significantly more attractive than themselves on overall attractiveness and the attractiveness of various body components. Results also showed that the Big Five person- ality factor of Extraversion, self-esteem, relationship satisfaction, and romantic love were positively correlated with the love-is-blind bias, whereas relationship length and playful love were negatively correlated with the bias. The results of this study are considered in relation to previous work on positive partner illusions. Keywords: love-is-blind bias, positive illusions, self-rated attractiveness, physical attractiveness, partner perceptions In the past several decades, psychologists have shown that our everyday experiences of social interactions are based, at least in part, on perceptions and cognitions that deviate from reality (e.g., Alicke, 1985 Lipkus, Martz, Panter, Drigotas, & Feaganes, 1993 Showers, 1992). One such deviation is positive illusions ��� misconceptions or misunderstandings (rather than ���errors��� in the strict sense) that are self-enhancing in some way (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Positive illusions may be protective for the individual that possesses them because they act as self-esteem buffers in the face of threats posed by nega- tive information (see Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003). In the present paper, we examine one specific type of positive illusion, namely the ���love-is- blind bias��� in perceived physical attractiveness of a ro- mantic partner, which refers to a tendency to view one���s romantic partner as being more physically attractive than oneself (Swami, Furnham, Georgiades, & Pang, 2007). More specifically, we investigated whether there are any individual and relationship correlates of the love-is-blind bias. Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships Although some research exists to show that individuals typ- ically self-enhance in relation to others, positive illusions may also serve to differentiate intimates from other persons (Brown, 1986 Taylor, & Koivumaki, 1976). Thus, a num- ber of studies have reported that individuals tend to evalu- ate themselves more positively than they evaluate their in- timates, and their intimates more positively than strangers or the average person (Campbell, 1986 Hall & Taylor, 1976 Vallone, Griffin, Lin, & Ross, 1990 van Lange, 1991). In short, self-enhancement is less pronounced in close relationships than in more distant relationships (Ken- ny, 1994), possibly as a means of reducing partner deroga- tion and associated negative effects on the self and the re- lationship. However, romantic relationships are extremely complex, as they involve a range of perceptions of the self and partner, as well as comparisons with others (e.g., Rusbult & Buunk, 1993 Rusbult, van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000 van Lange, Rusbult, Semin-Goossens, Goerts, & Stal- DOI 10.1027/1614-0001.30.1.35 �� 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2009 Vol. 30(1):35���43

pers, 1999). In general, individuals tend to hold a greater number of positive beliefs and fewer negative beliefs about their own relationships in comparison with others��� relation- ships (Buunk & van Yperen, 1991 van Lange & Rusbult, 1995). For instance, surveys have reported that up to 80% of spouses describe their marriages in very positive terms (Lee, Seccombe, & Sheehan, 1991), while underestimating their chances of divorce in comparison with other couples (Fow- ers, Lyons, Montel, & Shaked, 2001). The studyof cognitivebiasesmay be particularly informa- tive in romantic relationships, as they are often based on pos- itive illusions that help foster better relationships (Martz et al., 1998 Murray & Holmes, 1997) and enhance the per- ceived image of the other person in the relationship (Byrne, 1971 Murstein, 1972). For instance, one study showed that individuals in dating and married relationships projected im- ages of what they considered to be their ideal partner onto their current partners, thus, imbuing them with all kinds of idealized qualities (McNulty, O���Mara,&Karney,2008 Mur- ray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a). Even when confronted with their partners��� faults, such as an attraction to someone else (Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995), individuals tend to denytheimportanceofthosefaults(Murray&Holmes,1993, 1994). Such positive illusions may serve to enhance an indi- vidual���s sense of security in the relationship and stabilize the long-term pair bond (Murray, 1999). Indeed, previous work has shown that positive illusions about a partner are associat- ed with greater relationship satisfaction and less conflict in dating and marital relationships (Murray & Holmes, 1997). Moreover, positive illusions concerning nonphysical partner traits appear to have a positive effect on relationship satisfac- tion both in the short- (Miller, Niehuis, & Huston, 2006) and long-term (Murray & Holmes, 1997 see also Murray et al., 1996a Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b). One particular form of positive partner illusions is what has been termed the ���love-is-blind bias��� (see Swami & Furn- ham,2008a)inperceivedpartnerphysicalattractiveness.Per- haps because of the infancy of research in this area, the love- is-blind bias has been operationalized in different ways (Ba- relds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008 Swami et al., 2007), but in general it refers to a tendency to perceive one���s partner as being more attractive than objective reality. This focus on perceptions of physical attractiveness within romantic rela- tionships is not misplaced: Physical attractiveness plays an influential role both in the formation and maintenance of ro- mantic relationships (see Swami & Furnham, 2008b). In terms of the latter, for instance, studies have shown that per- ceptions��� of partner physical attractiveness are associated with relationship indicators such as commitment, intimacy, satisfaction, and passion (Yela & Sangrador, 2001 see also McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008). The Present Study In the present study, we sought to examine the love-is-blind bias in ratings of partner physical attractiveness in compar- ison with ratings of the self. This work stems from a study by Swami et al. (2007), who asked participants to provide ratings of overall physical attractiveness and the attractive- ness of various body parts for themselves and their oppo- site-sex romantic partners (Swami et al., 2007). Their re- sults showed that both women and men rated their partners as being significantly more attractive than themselves, a finding that appears to be rather robust (Byrne, 1971 Mur- stein, 1972) and generalizable (see Barelds-Dijkstra & Ba- relds, 2008, who measured the love-is-blind bias as the dif- ference between perceptions of one���s partner and the part- ner���s self-ratings). That the love-is-blind bias is held by both women and men is important, as it suggests that the existence of cog- nitive bias that is general to both sexes. As such, the defin- ing characteristics of the love-is-blind bias may have little to do with demographic factors such as sex, and more to do with relationship variables such as satisfaction and love (Swami et al., 2007). Moreover, both women and men should be expected to hold the love-is-blind bias if it serves some beneficial function. Indeed, recent work has suggest- ed that the love-is-blind bias may buffer individuals against negative appraisals while enhancing self-beliefs (Barelds- Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008 Swami & Furnham, 2008a Swa- mi et al., 2007). That is, positive illusions about partner physical attractiveness may initially serve to focus one���s perceptions of a new partner on their positive qualities, thus helping individuals navigate early romance (Swami & Furnham, 2008a). In the long term, the love-is-blind bias may serve to enhance commitment to the relationship, which in turn results in improved relationship satisfaction and self-esteem (see Taylor & Brown, 1988). To date, however, research has not examined the indi- vidual and relationship variables that might predict the love-is-blind bias. Because self- and other evaluations are grounded within specific socioindividual contexts (Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond, & Robins, 2004), it is possible that individual difference variables influence the direction or strength of the love-is-blind bias. The present study, there- fore, set out to replicate previous work documenting a love- is-blind bias (operationalized as the difference between partner perceptions and self-perceptions of physical attrac- tiveness see Gagn�� & Lydon, 2004), before examining var- ious individual and relationship correlates of the bias. In terms of individual difference variables, we examined the relationship of the love-is-blind bias with an individual���s Big Five personality factors (see Goldberg, 1993). The Big Five framework is a hierarchical model of per- sonality with five bipolar traits or factors (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, and Extraver- sion) representing personality at a broad level of abstrac- tion (McCrae & Costa, 1997), and has recently been shown to influence perceptions of the physical attractiveness of potential partners (e.g., Swami, Furnham, Balakumar et al., 2008, Swami, Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2008). However, no previous work has assessed the Big Five framework in relation to the love-is-blind bias, which the 36 V. Swami et al.: Love Is Blind Journal of Individual Differences 2009 Vol. 30(1):35���43 �� 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers