当前位置:
X-MOL 学术
›
Psychological Bulletin
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A meta-analytic review of accuracy and bias in romantic partner perceptions.
Psychological Bulletin ( IF 17.3 ) Pub Date : 2023-01-01 , DOI: 10.1037/bul0000405 Jessica E LaBuda 1 , Judith Gere 1
Psychological Bulletin ( IF 17.3 ) Pub Date : 2023-01-01 , DOI: 10.1037/bul0000405 Jessica E LaBuda 1 , Judith Gere 1
Affiliation
People's perceptions of their romantic partners are somewhat accurate but also contain biases. In the current meta-analytic review, we sought to examine overall levels of accuracy and bias in romantic partner perceptions and moderators of accuracy and bias. We examined tracking accuracy (k = 157), projection (k = 157), indirect accuracy (k = 69), and mean-level bias (k = 153) in perceptions of a romantic partner across samples that estimated tracking accuracy and projection simultaneously. Gender, relationship length, study design, geographic region, publication year, and judgment type were examined as potential moderators. Results revealed significant mean effect sizes for tracking accuracy (β = .24), projection (β = .42), similarity (β = .22), and indirect accuracy (β = .11). Overall, people tended to have mean-level accuracy (d = -0.006) even when constructs were coded as conceptually positive or negative (d = -0.03). Men seemed to view their partners more negatively. Publication year and relationship length did not matter for any perceptual process. Tracking accuracy was higher in overall judgments, whereas projection was higher in daily judgments. Positive interaction traits and mind-reading judgments showed a negative bias. Greater projection and positive bias in noninteraction judgments were associated with higher relationship quality. Our results are the first to provide effect sizes for projection, tracking accuracy while controlling for projection, and indirect accuracy, and build on prior research concerning the complex ways in which partners perceive each other. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
中文翻译:
对浪漫伴侣认知的准确性和偏见的荟萃分析回顾。
人们对伴侣的看法有些准确,但也存在偏见。在当前的荟萃分析综述中,我们试图检查浪漫伴侣认知的准确性和偏见的总体水平以及准确性和偏见的调节因素。我们在同时估计跟踪准确性和预测的样本中检查了对浪漫伴侣的感知中的跟踪准确性(k = 157)、预测(k = 157)、间接准确性(k = 69)和平均水平偏差(k = 153) 。性别、关系长度、研究设计、地理区域、出版年份和判断类型被视为潜在的调节因素。结果显示,跟踪精度 (β = .24)、投影 (β = .42)、相似性 (β = .22) 和间接精度 (β = .11) 的平均效应大小显着。总体而言,即使构造被编码为概念上的积极或消极(d = -0.03),人们也倾向于具有平均水平的准确性(d = -0.006)。男性似乎更消极地看待自己的伴侣。出版年份和关系长度对于任何感知过程都无关紧要。整体判断中的追踪准确度较高,而日常判断中的预测准确度较高。积极的互动特征和读心判断表现出消极的偏见。非互动判断中更大的预测和积极偏差与更高的关系质量相关。我们的研究结果首次提供了预测的效果大小、控制预测时的跟踪准确性以及间接准确性,并建立在有关合作伙伴相互感知的复杂方式的先前研究的基础上。 (PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2023-01-01
中文翻译:
对浪漫伴侣认知的准确性和偏见的荟萃分析回顾。
人们对伴侣的看法有些准确,但也存在偏见。在当前的荟萃分析综述中,我们试图检查浪漫伴侣认知的准确性和偏见的总体水平以及准确性和偏见的调节因素。我们在同时估计跟踪准确性和预测的样本中检查了对浪漫伴侣的感知中的跟踪准确性(k = 157)、预测(k = 157)、间接准确性(k = 69)和平均水平偏差(k = 153) 。性别、关系长度、研究设计、地理区域、出版年份和判断类型被视为潜在的调节因素。结果显示,跟踪精度 (β = .24)、投影 (β = .42)、相似性 (β = .22) 和间接精度 (β = .11) 的平均效应大小显着。总体而言,即使构造被编码为概念上的积极或消极(d = -0.03),人们也倾向于具有平均水平的准确性(d = -0.006)。男性似乎更消极地看待自己的伴侣。出版年份和关系长度对于任何感知过程都无关紧要。整体判断中的追踪准确度较高,而日常判断中的预测准确度较高。积极的互动特征和读心判断表现出消极的偏见。非互动判断中更大的预测和积极偏差与更高的关系质量相关。我们的研究结果首次提供了预测的效果大小、控制预测时的跟踪准确性以及间接准确性,并建立在有关合作伙伴相互感知的复杂方式的先前研究的基础上。 (PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。