Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Happy to Know You: An Examination of Subjective Well-Being and Partner Knowledge

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we examined an unexplored type of partner knowledge—familiarity with partners’ subjective well-being (i.e., SWB familiarity). Using multilevel models, we analyzed data from 101 heterosexual couples to examine how SWB was associated with partner knowledge and to determine whether SWB familiarity was associated with relationship and mental health benefits. We found that higher levels of positive affect and life satisfaction and lower levels of negative affect were associated with greater normative and distinctive accuracy in partner knowledge of attitudes and traits. We also calculated both normative and distinctive indices of SWB familiarity and found that participants’ and their partners’ familiarity with normative (i.e., average) profiles of SWB were associated with respondents reporting greater relationship satisfaction, perceived support from their partner, positive affect, and life satisfaction, as well as less negative affect. Conversely, distinctive (i.e., unique) SWB familiarity was not related to any relationship or mental health outcomes. Thus, one’s perception of their partner as having normative levels of SWB appears to be more important for relationship and mental health outcomes than knowledge of partners’ unique experiences of SWB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While this study found that attitude familiarity was significantly associated with less interpersonal stress, this association disappeared when attitude similarity was entered as a predictor as well.

  2. For reference, we also computed the overall level of partners’ similarity for attitudes, traits, and SWB. Participants’ attitude similarity ranged from -.41 to .82 (M = .34, SD = .25). Participants’ trait similarity ranged from -.49 to .87 (M = .31, SD = .29). Participants’ SWB similarity ranged from -.65 to .97 (M = .48, SD = .27). On average, people were fairly similar to their partners in terms of attitudes, traits, and SWB, as indicated by these average positive correlations.

  3. Across these analyses, we did not find evidence for moderation of our effects by age, gender, or relationship length.

  4. Across these analyses, we did not find consistent evidence for moderation of our effects by age, gender, or relationship length. There were no significant interactions between age, gender, or relationship length and our indices of distinctive SWB familiarity. There were a handful of significant interactions between age, gender, and relationship length and normative SWB familiarity, however these interaction effects did not emerge consistently across analyses. Interested readers can email the authors for more information about these effects.

  5. All significant effects held when controlling for partner subjective well-being (i.e., partner PA, partner NA, or partner LS).

References

  • Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21(4), 589–594.

  • Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Forming first impressions: The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 117–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 99–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R. (1988). Does happiness mean friendliness? Induced mood and heterosexual self-disclosure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Neve, J. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2012). Estimating the influence of life satisfaction and positive affect on later income using sibling fixed effects. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(49), 19953–19958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (Vol. 37). Springer Science and Business Media.

  • Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7(3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00354.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Diener, C., Choi, H., & Oishi, S. (2018). Revisiting “Most People Are Happy”—and discovering when they are not. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618765111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2014). Why people are in a generally good mood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(3), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Nickerson, C., Lucas, R. E., & Sandvik, E. (2002). Dispositional affect and job outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 59, 229–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010a). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010b). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J., & Kerr, P. S. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, F. (1991). An investigation of the relationship between extraversion, neuroticism, positive affect, and negative affect. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Gil, K. M., Carson, J. W., Porter, L. S., Scipio, C., Bediako, S. M., & Orringer, E. (2004). Daily mood and stress predict pain, health care use, and work activity in African American adults with sickle-cell disease. Health Psychology, 23, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 80, 112–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011a). Target adjustment and self-other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011b). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human, L. J., Carlson, E. N., Geukes, K., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2018). Do accurate personality impressions benefit early relationship development? The bidirectional associations between accuracy and liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218–250). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 13, 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, M., Lucas, R. E., Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2013). The prospective effect of life satisfaction on life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, S., & Snyder, A. G. (2009). Accuracy and biases in newlyweds’ perceptions of each other: Not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1332–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G. N., & Fleming, N. (1999). Influences and consequences of well-being among Australian young people: 1980–1995. Social Indicators Research, 46, 301–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clark, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping on happiness: Well-being is related to having less small talk and more substantive conversations. Psychological Science, 21, 539–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milek, A., Butler, E. A., Tackman, A. M., Kaplan, D. M., Raison, C. L., Sbarra, D. A., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2018). “Eavesdropping on happiness” revisited: A pooled, multisample replication of the association between life satisfaction and observed daily conversation quantity and quality. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1451–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. M. (2016). Support preferences familiarity: How is it related to social support, health, and personality? (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah).

  • Moore, S. M., Diener, E., & Tan, K. (2018). Using multiple methods to more fully understand causal relations: Positive affect enhances social relationships. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. DOI: nobascholar.com

  • Moore, S. M., & Geuss, M. N. (2020). Familiarity with teammate’s attitudes improves team performance in virtual reality. PLoS ONE, 15(10), e0241011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. M., Uchino, B. N., Baucom, B. R., Behrends, A. A., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (2017). Attitude similarity and familiarity and their links to mental health: An examination of potential interpersonal mediators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(1), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Personality, 88, 480–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Uchino, B. N., & Birmingham, W. (2011). On the importance of knowing your partner’s views: Attitude familiarity is associated with better interpersonal functioning and lower ambulatory blood pressure in daily life. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Uchino, B. N., Wong, K. K., & Seo, J. Y. (2012). Getting along better: The role of attitude familiarity in relationship functioning. Social Cognition, 30, 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Oriña, M. M., & Ickes, W. (2003). When accuracy hurts, and when it helps: A test of the empathic accuracy model in marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 881–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B., Hixon, J. G., & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Embracing the bitter “truth”: Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science, 3, 118–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uchino, B. N., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Birmingham, W. (2013). Knowing your partner is not enough: Spousal importance moderates the link between attitude familiarity and ambulatory blood pressure. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 36(6), 549–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a tripartite model: II. Exploring the symptom structure of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, T. V., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118(2), 357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Furr, M. R. (2015). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, USA

    Shannon M. Moore

  2. Saint Norbert College, De Pere, USA

    Danielle M. Geerling

  3. The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

    Ed Diener

Authors
  1. Shannon M. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle M. Geerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ed Diener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon M. Moore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

Human and animal participants

We have adhered to ethical standards in the treatment of our human participants.

Informed consent

We received informed consent from all individuals participating in the present research.

Additional information

Sadly, Ed Diener passed away on April 27, 2021, after final revisions to this paper had been completed. We dedicate this paper to his memory as an inspirational professor, mentor, and person.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, S.M., Geerling, D.M. & Diener, E. Happy to Know You: An Examination of Subjective Well-Being and Partner Knowledge. J Happiness Stud 23, 1333–1357 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00451-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00451-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation