The Michelangelo Phenomenon

This paper reviews theory and research regarding the ‘‘Michelangelo phenomenon.’’ The Michelangelo model suggests that close partners sculpt one another’s selves, shaping one another’s skills and traits and promoting versus inhibiting one another’s goal pursuits. As a result of the manner in which partners perceive and behave toward one another, each person enjoys greater or lesser success at attaining his or her ideal-self goals. Affirmation of one another’s ideal-self goals yields diverse benefits, both personal and relational. The Michelangelo model and supportive empirical evidence are reviewed, the phenomenon is distinguished from related interpersonal processes, and directions for future work are outlined. Michelangelo phenomenon; interdependence; ideal self; relationships People have dreams and aspirations, or mental representations of the skills, traits, and resources that they ideally would like to acquire. These aspirations include diverse goals: People may want to acquire desirable traits such as warmth, confidence, or decisiveness; to achieve professional success in the form of advancement, peer respect, or financial benefits; or to advance important pursuits involving religion, travel, or athletics. Most explanations of how people acquire new skills, traits, and resources are intrapersonal, examining the individual in isolation (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1998). But granting that people sometimes achieve desirable goals through their own actions, this personcentric approach ignores the important role that close partners play in helping people achieve their dreams and aspirations. In the following pages we review theory and research regarding the ‘‘Michelangelo phenomenon,’’ one of the most prominent interpersonal models of how close partners promote versus inhibit each person’s pursuit of ideal self goals (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999). THE IDEAL SELF AND PARTNER AFFIRMATION Michelangelo Buonarroti described sculpting as a process whereby the artist releases an ideal figure from the block of stone in which it slumbers. The sculptor’s task is simply to chip away at the stone so as to reveal the ideal form (Gombrich, 1995).  1 depicts one of Michelangelo’s unfinished captives, vividly illustrating this process. One can readily feel the force with which the ideal form strives to emerge from the stone, shedding its imperfections. The sculptor chisels, carves, and polishes the stone to reveal the ideal form slumbering within. Humans, too, possess ideal forms. The ideal self describes an individual’s dreams and aspirations, or the constellation of skills, traits, and resources that an individual ideally wishes to acquire (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). For example, Mary’s ideal self might include goals such as completing medical school, becoming more sociable, or learning to speak fluent Dutch. Whether images of the ideal self constitute vague yearnings or clearly articulated mental representations, dreams and aspirations serve a crucial function, providing direction to personal growth strivings and thereby helping people reduce the discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self (Higgins, 1987). Although people sometimes achieve ideal-relevant goals solely through their own actions, the acquisition of new skills, traits, and resources is also shaped by interpersonal experience. People adapt to one another during the course of interaction, changing their behavior so as to coordinate with one another and respond to each person’s needs and expectations (Kelley et al., 2003). For example, John may help Mary become more sociable by subtly directing conversation during a dinner party, leading Mary to tell one of her most charming stories. Adaptation may transpire in interactions with diverse types of partner, including romantic partners, kin, friends, or colleagues. However, adaptation is most probable, powerful, and enduring in highly interdependent relationships, in that the mutual dependence of close partners provides good opportunities for exerting strong, frequent, and benevolent influence across diverse behavioral domains (Kelley et al., 1983). Over time, adaptations that begin as temporary, interaction-specific adjustments become stable components of the self, such that over the course of extended interaction, close partners sculpt one another’s selves: People come to reflect what their partners ‘‘see in them’’ and ‘‘elicit from them’’ (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Address correspondence to Caryl E. Rusbult, Department of Social Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Number 6 305 Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science Is such adaptation a good thing or a bad thing? The concept of partner affirmation describes whether the partner is an ally, neutral party, or foe in individual goal pursuits (Drigotas et al., 1999). As noted in Figure 2, affirmation has two components: Partner perceptual affirmation describes the extent to which a partner consciously or unconsciously perceives the target in ways that are compatible with the target’s ideal self. For example, John may deliberately consider the character of Mary’s ideal self, consciously developing benevolent interpretations of disparities between her actual self and ideal self. Alternatively, if John and Mary possess similar life goals or values, John may rather automatically perceive and display faith in Mary’s ideal goal pursuits. Partner behavioral affirmation describes the extent to which a partner consciously or unconsciously behaves in ways that elicit ideal-congruent behaviors from the target. For example, John may rather automatically communicate confidence in Mary’s abilities, he may consciously or unconsciously react in a positive manner when she enacts ideal congruent behaviors, or he may provide direct assistance in her goal pursuits. Of course, John may also disaffirm Mary by communicating indifference, pessimism, or disapproval, by undermining her ideal pursuits, or by affirming qualities that are antithetical to Mary’s ideal self. The model proposes that partner affirmation yields target movement toward the ideal self  Because John affirms Mary’s ideals, Mary increasingly comes to resemble her ideal self. Prior research has revealed good support for this claim. For example, in one study we videotaped married partners while they discussed a goal relevant to each person’s ideal self. Trained coders rated the extent to which the partner exhibited affirming behaviors (e.g., helped target clarify plans, offered assistance, or praised goal pursuits). Four months later, we asked targets whether they had achieved the goals they discussed in the conversations. Analyses revealed that when partners were more affirming during goal-relevant conversations, targets were more likely to achieve their ideal-self goals (Rusbult, Coolsen, et al., 2009). In another study we asked pairs of friends to provide complementary questionnaire data wherein (a) one friend served as ‘‘target,’’ rating his or her own experiences of partner affirmation and target movement (how affirming is your dating partner?; how successful are you at your goal pursuits?), and (b) the second friend served as ‘‘observer,’’ also rating partner affirmation and target movement (how affirming is the target’s dating partner?; how successful is the target at his or her goal pursuits?). Analyses revealed sizable across-friend associations—for example, when friends (as observers) described the target’s partner as highly affirming, individuals themselves (as targets) reported greater movement toward their ideal selves (Drigotas et al., 1999). Of what consequence is the Michelangelo phenomenon? Growth striving is a primary human motive (cf. Deci & Ryan, 2000)—a motive that is directly gratified by movement toward the ideal self. Accordingly, when a partner is affirming and a target moves closer to his or her ideals, the target enjoys enhanced personal well-being, including greater life satisfaction and psychological health (e.g., Drigotas, 2002). Moreover, when a partner serves as an ally in promoting target growth, the target enjoys enhanced couple well-being, including greater adjustment and probability of persistence (e.g., Drigotas et al., 1999; Kumashiro, Rusbult, Finkenauer, & Stocker, 2007). PARTNER AFFIRMATION AND RELATED INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES Partner Enhancement In what ways does partner affirmation differ from related interpersonal processes? To begin with, how does partner affirmation relate to partner enhancement, which describes the extent to which a partner perceives the target and behaves toward the target in ways that are more positive than may be ‘‘realistically’’ warranted—for example, in a manner that is more positive than the target perceives the self. Numerous studies have revealed that partner enhancement is beneficial to individuals and to relationships: For example, when partners perceive one another more positively than each person perceives himself or herself, relationships exhibit superior functioning (e.g., Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996)Number 6 The Michelangelo Phenomenon