Ch 8 - Intimate Relationships: Sex, Love, and Commitment

pgs. 197-224

Intro

• Intimate relationships are a central aspect of human life.

• Psychologists theorize that this

  stems from a need to belong, or a near-universal human desire to develop and maintain social ties. The need to belong is very powerful, and developing strong social

  bonds is vital to our physical and psychological well-being. Relationships with family, friends, and

  various social groups help to fulfill this need; however, our sexual and romantic relationships are

  at least as central (and some might argue even more central) to meeting our deep-seated needs and

  desires for social connection.

• As some evidence of this, research has found that having a high quality

  romantic relationship enhances personal health and longevity; in contrast, people who are

  alone or who lose their partners not only tend to be in worse health, but they tend to die sooner.

• Although the drive to pursue intimate relationships is ubiquitous, the number and nature of

  relationships necessary to fulfill one’s belongingness needs varies across persons. Some individuals

  prefer a series of relatively transient relationships that focus on sex and physical intimacy, whereas

  others prefer a single, stable relationship that emphasizes emotional intimacy. As a result, intimate

  relationships take many different forms in adult life.

Singlehood and Casual Relationships

• Living single has become increasingly common among adults over the past few decades. In fact,

  census data indicate that 27% of adult Americans are currently living single, a number that has

  increased by two-thirds since the 1970s. On a side note, the

  Census Bureau defines “single” as someone who is unmarried and living alone. Singles can be involved in relationships,

  just not cohabiting or legally recognized relationships. Despite this increase in prevalence,

  perceptions of singles remain largely negative. There is a widely held belief that singles are

  lonely and that living life outside the context of a marital relationship is inherently unsatisfying. However, this is

  not necessarily the case in reality. While some people find singlehood deeply depressing, there

  are others who enjoy the freedom and independence it provides and can meet their sexual and

  intimate needs through casual sex and dating. Thus, being single does not necessarily mean

  someone is socially detached or inherently lonely. Below we explore just how varied the nature of singlehood is.

Sexuality Among Singles

• Single persons run the gamut of sexual activity, with some being fully or partially celibate (i.e.,

  intentionally abstaining from partnered sexual activity), and others having frequent sexual contact

  with one or more partners. Believe it or not, people can be satisfied no matter where they fall on

  this spectrum. For instance, the notion of asexuality, a sexual orientation in which an individual simply has no desire for

  sexual contact with others. Approximately 1% of the population is thought to be asexual, and for such individuals, a lack of sexual activity is not problematic at all. Likewise, for individuals

  who have decided to practice celibacy, some may find the lack of physical intimacy distressing;

  however, others may discover the experience is positive because it provides opportunities for

  self-reflection and development. Thus, singles do not necessarily have to be sexually active in order

  to be happy and they can potentially meet their belongingness needs through nonsexual relationships.

• That said, most singles are sexually active and these individuals can pursue many different types of sexual relationships in order to meet their needs and desires.

Hookups

• Singles sometimes engage in hookups, or one-time sexual encounters among persons who do not

  know each other on a deep level. Such encounters, also known as “one-night

  stands,” tend to emerge after an evening at the bar or after a party. Indeed, research finds that

  hookups are strongly associated with alcohol use. After a hookup,

  there is usually no expectation that any kind of relationship will develop, although it is not unheard of for casual sex to precipitate love.

• People vary considerably in the frequency with which they hook-up with others. For instance,

  in a study of college students, the self-reported number of hookups over the course of a year

  ranged anywhere from 0 to 65! Thus, some people hook-up far more often than

  others. In this same study, researchers found that 78% of male and female students had hooked up

  before, and among those who had done it at least once, the average number of hookups was 10.8.

  However, it is worth noting that hookups comprise a wide range of sexual activities and that sexual

  intercourse may or may not occur in a given encounter. In fact, most of the hookups reported in this study involved sexual activities other than intercourse.

• Although a high percentage of both men and women report having hookups, research has

  found an important sex differences in how those experiences are perceived. Specifically, men (84%)

  are more likely to report having enjoyed their hookups than are women (54%).

  Women are more inclined to report regretting their experiences, perhaps because women are

  judged more harshly than men for sex outside of a committed relationship.

Friends with Benefits

• singles also have the option of pursuing an

  ongoing sexual relationship with the same person. One of the most common such relationships

  is “friends with benefits” (FWBs). FWBs are usually defined as people who have a rather typical

  friendship, aside from the fact that they occasionally have sex.

  However, research indicates that the term “friends with benefits” does not mean just one thing. In

  fact, there may be as many as seven distinct types of FWBs depending upon the motivations and intentions of the partners involved.

• Studies of college students have reliably found that approximately half of the participants sampled

  reported having had one or more FWBs in the past and, like hookups,

  there is an association between alcohol consumption and sexual contact with a FWB. However, these relationships are by no means limited to inebriated college students.

  In fact, Internet studies have found that adults in their 50s and 60s have these relationships

  too and, furthermore, that FWBs span a wide range of demographic groups.

• It should come as no surprise that the most commonly reported reason for beginning a FWB

  relationship is regular access to sex. However, according to a study by Lehmiller and colleagues

  (2011), men are more likely than women to cite sex as their primary motivation for having a FWB,

  whereas women are more likely than men to cite “emotional connection” as their primary motivation.

  The sexes also diverged when it came to how they hoped their relationship would develop

  over time. By and large, men wanted to remain FWBs as long as possible, whereas most women

  hoped their relationship would ultimately revert back to a friendship or evolve into a romance. In

  fact, 43.3% of women in FWBs expressed hope that their FWB would eventually turn into a “real”

  relationship (by comparison, only 23.7% of men desired the same outcome). Thus, men may see

  FWBs as a relationship end-state, whereas women may see them as a means of beginning a more

  interdependent and committed type of relationship. A

  study of college student dating relationships revealed that approximately 1 in 5 participants reported

  being FWBs before they became romantic partners. This study found that

  whereas partners who were FWBs before they became lovers were somewhat less satisfied with their relationships, they were no more likely to break up over time than were romantic partners without prior FWB experience.

Singles’ Sexual Outcomes

• Hookups and FWBs are just two of the potential relationship options available to singles. Beyond

  this, singles may also be actively dating or pursuing a committed relationship. Dating relationships

  can either be exclusive (i.e., monogamous) or nonexclusive (i.e., nonmonogamous). Persons who

  pursue a pattern of entering and exiting sexually exclusive relationships are known as serial monogamists. It is worth noting that whereas some singles may only pursue one type of relationship

  at a time (e.g., hookups or dating), others may pursue multiple types of relationships simultaneously

  (e.g., dating someone but having a FWB at the same time). Consequently, the sex lives of singles are highly variable.

• Although being single comprises a wide range of relationship states, one thing is clear: on

  average, singles tend to be less sexually satisfied than people who are married or involved in

  more committed relationships. Despite the glamorous nature of singlehood depicted in television

  shows such as Sex in the City, singles report less frequent sexual activity and lower levels of

  sexual satisfaction compared to their married counterparts. In addition, single women are less likely to reach orgasm with casual partners

  than with committed partners. As some evidence of this, one survey of over 14,000 female college

  students found that just 11% of women reported orgasming during their most recent hookup if they had no previous sexual experience with that partner. Among women in romantic relationships of at least six months duration, that

  number was 67%. What accounts for this “orgasm gap?” One reason is because sexual activities

  that increase the odds of female orgasm (e.g., cunnilingus) are more likely to occur in committed

  relationships than in casual encounters. In addition, long-term partners learn how to please

  each other better. Some have also argued that there is a sexual script that values male pleasure over female pleasure in the context of hookups.

• Beyond this, research has found that FWBs tend to be less satisfied and have lower levels of sexual

  communication than people involved in committed romantic relationships . However, all of this should not be taken to mean that singles are inherently dissatisfied

  with the sex they are having or with the quality of their relationships; rather, it appears that

  singles are satisfied overall, but just not quite as satisfied as people in more committed relationships.

  Moreover, getting married is not necessarily the solution for persons who have an unsatisfying sex

  life because sexless marriages certainly exist. Maintaining high levels of sexual activity and satisfaction in marriage requires work.

• One final note about singles is that some of their sexual behaviors pose important health risks.

  In particular, research finds that people who engage in hookups and FWBs have far from perfect condom use and seem to have a higher than average

  number of sexual partners. Such behavior, coupled with increased alcohol use and (potentially)

  impaired decision-making, poses a significant risk in

  terms of contracting and spreading sexually transmitted infections and could potentially result in

  unintended pregnancies. Serial monogamists face a similar risk because they often hold the mistaken

  belief that monogamous people do not need to use protection. The issue here is that serial monogamists often jump from one relationship to the next

  (sometimes very quickly) without being tested for infections in between, and while they may use

  condoms at first, this behavior rapidly drops off in a new relationship as the partners come to trust

  each other, thereby creating infection vulnerability. Thus, it is important for

  singles of all stripes to recognize the need for consistency in safer-sex practices and to avoid falling prey to false feelings of security.

Love and Committed Relationships

• At the other end of the relationship spectrum, we have loving and committed relationships. These are relationships where there is usually some sexual component, but also a very deep emotional and intimate aspect to the relationship.

The Nature of Love

• Everyone thinks they know what love is, but in actuality, it is difficult to pinpoint a singular

  definition of this concept that all of us would agree with, because love is very subjective and means different things to different people. For instance, some people view love as an emotion and

  describe it in terms of how they feel when they are around someone else. In contrast, other people

  define love as a behavior and describe it in terms of the things they would do or the sacrifices they

  would make for another person. Given this variability in definition and meaning, we will define

  love very broadly as a special set of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors

  observed in an intimate relationship. Thus, love is something that influences how we think, act, and feel toward another person.

• Passionate Love

  • Passionate love is an all-consuming psychological and physiological state. At the cognitive

    level, it is characterized by an almost obsessive preoccupation with the other person (i.e., you

    cannot stop thinking about your loved one), as well as an overly idealized view of your partner

    in which you fail to recognize and acknowledge that person’s flaws. Emotionally, it is characterized

    by an intense sexual attraction, as well as frequent feelings of excitement and ecstasy in

    the partner’s presence; however, when separated, feelings of sadness can be extremely intense.

    In addition, at the physical level, it is characterized by elevated heart rate, sweating, “butterflies”

    in the stomach, blushing, and other general signs of heightened arousal. While all of

    these feelings may be very strong in the early stages of a loving relationship, their intensity tends to decrease over time.

  • As you may have found in your own life, passionate love is something that usually develops

    before you know your partner very well. During this time, potential warning flags might emerge,

    but because our feelings for the other person are so intense, they lead us to overlook the other

    person’s faults and to ignore potential relationship problems. As a result, this type of love has very

    little in the way of logic behind it. It is partly for this reason that passionate love tends to be a rather brief, transitory state that may only last for a period of weeks or months.

  • One of the keys to relationship success is to recognize that those early butterflies usually do not

    go on forever, which means it is generally advisable to avoid getting swept away and rushing into

    marriage because those initial feelings of passion do not guarantee long-term relationship success.

    Such relationships work out sometimes, but they often do not. Some amount of disillusionment inevitably sets in as passion begins to

    subside, which forces couples to shift the foundation of their relationship to something more stable.

• Companionate Love

  • Companionate love is much deeper and is not nearly as intense as passionate love. Companionate

    love is characterized by a strong emotional attachment and commitment to another person.

    Unlike passionate love, companionate love is based on the full knowledge and appreciation of

    another person’s character. Thus, rather than overlook your partner’s faults, you consciously

    recognize that your partner is imperfect (as we all are) and learn to tolerate any shortcomings.

    Companionate love is also characterized by a desire to make the relationship work despite any

    difficulties that might arise, as well as a willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the betterment of the relationship.

  • People who experience companionate love can and do still have sex, although it may not be as

    frequent or as intense as it is in a passionate love relationship. However, higher levels of trust and

    mutual concern for one another’s needs could potentially improve sexual communication and

    satisfaction and allow partners to explore their sexual fantasies.

  • Companionate love obviously does not build up overnight; rather, it develops gradually as you

    get to know each other. As a result, it tends to be much more enduring. This is the type of love that can last for decades.

  • Relationships often begin with passionate love, and then either dissolve or transition into companionate

    love. There is no exact timetable for when this occurs, but the usual time course is

    somewhere between 6 and 30 months after the start of the relationship.

    On a side note, whereas the typical pattern is to go from passionate to companionate, the reverse

    can happen as well (i.e., when good friends become lovers), but this is far less common.

• Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory

  • This distinction between passionate and companionate love and the transition that occurs between

    them was expanded upon in one of the most well-known theories of love, Robert Sternberg’s

    (1986) Triangular Theory. The idea behind this theory is that love consists of 3 distinct components.

    First, we have passion, the motivational dimension. Passion encompasses physical attraction

    and sexual desire, and it is what distinguishes romantic love from the love that we might feel

    toward our family and friends. Second is intimacy, the emotional dimension. Intimacy refers to

    our sense of bondedness and emotional connection with another person. Please note that in the

    context of this theory, “intimacy” does not refer to physical closeness; rather, it refers to emotional

    closeness (e.g., sharing personal information, giving and receiving support). Finally, we have commitment,

    the cognitive dimension. Commitment refers to our conscious decision to maintain a relationship over time, for better or for worse.

  • Sternberg believes that passion

    tends to build up quickly, reach a peak, and then gradually decline. To compensate for the loss

    of passion, intimacy and commitment may come in, and when they do, the relationship is

    likely to survive. If no such compensation occurs, however, the relationship will dissolve rather quickly.

  • The Triangular Theory posits that passion, intimacy, and commitment exist to varying

    degrees in a given relationship. Depending upon the unique combination of components, we can

    experience a number of different forms of love. Specifically, this theory specifies 8 varieties

    of love. It helps to explain why there is so much variability in how people define love. In addition, it provides a conceptual

    basis for distinguishing between the kinds of love we feel for romantic partners and for

    other people in our lives (e.g., friends and family). In this theory, the ideal form of romantic love is known as consummate love, in which passion, intimacy, and commitment are present simultaneously.

    This is the kind of love we all dream of, but it is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain.

  • Sternberg’s theory is called the Triangular Theory for a reason. Specifically, Sternberg views

    each person as having a unique love triangle.

    Your love triangle is the relative amount of passion, intimacy, and commitment

    you have in your relationship. However, within a given relationship, the partners’ triangles may or

    may not overlap very well because the overall size of the triangle and each of the angles may be

    different (e.g., one person may be more committed or passionate than the other). The better the match between two people’s triangles, the more satisfied they are likely to be together.

• John Lee’s Styles of Loving

  • An alternative perspective on love was provided by John Lee (1977). Whereas Sternberg focused on

    describing certain types of love, Lee’s emphasis was on individual differences in how people approach love. Specifically, Lee argues that people can have 1 of 6 “love styles”:

    • 1. The Romantic love style is characterized by being hopelessly romantic (as depicted in films

      such as Pretty Woman and The Notebook). These are people who have a tendency to take great

      pleasure in their partner’s physical appearance and often fall in love “at first sight.”

    • 2. The Altruistic love style is characterized by selflessness and unconditional love. Such persons

      are generous, self-sacrificing, and faithful.

    • 3. The Pragmatic love style refers to a very rational and practical approach to love, in which people

      look for partners who are likely to be compatible. Sometimes known as the “shopping list”

      love style, the emphasis here is not on finding passion so much as the best life partner.

    • 4. The Game-Playing love style emphasizes a more casual and uncommitted approach to love.

      Game players take great delight in the act of seduction and view marriage as the ultimate trap.

      Such individuals may not be fazed by a break-up, and they may not think twice about committing infidelity.

    • 5. The Companionate love style is an approach to love that begins with friendship and eventually

      transitions into a very peaceful, affectionate, and enduring form of love. These are people

      who want their lover to be their best friend.

    • 6. The Possessive love style (or as I call it, the Fatal Attraction approach) is characterized by very

      intense, obsessive love relationships in which it is very easy to reach emotional highs and lows.

      Such individuals can be insecure, jealous, and unstable, and they tend to see sex as a form of emotional reassurance.

  • In Lee’s view, no single love style is “better” or “worse” than any of the others. Instead, what matters

    when it comes to relationship success is the match between the partners’ approaches. As you

    might imagine, major mismatches (e.g., game-players paired with possessives) are unlikely to be

    successful. Research has revealed sex differences in love styles.

    College-age men are more likely to adopt the game-playing and romantic approaches, whereas

    women are more likely to adopt the pragmatic, possessive, and companionate styles. Such findings

    could be interpreted as evidence of evolutionary theorists’ contention that men tend to be more focused on looks and casual relationships, whereas women are more focused on finding a longterm, reliable partner.

The Nature of Commitment

• As in the context of the Triangular Theory, commitment is often defined as an individual’s

  conscious decision to stick with a given partner over time. However, whereas Sternberg conceptualized

  commitment as a subcomponent of love, other psychologists have defined commitment as

  a separate, but overlapping construct. This makes sense because while love and commitment do

  have a lot in common, it remains possible to have one without the other. Another major distinction

  is that whereas love is a multi-faceted concept that has cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components,

  commitment is often viewed as a unitary cognitive construct. As a result, it is useful to consider love and commitment separately.

• The Investment Model, which is one of the most well-known and widely utilized theories of relationship commitment in the field of psychology. This model is based heavily on the principles of exchange theory.

• The Investment Model

  • From the perspective of the Investment Model, commitment is usually measured as one’s intention

    to persist in a given relationship over time. This intention is

    viewed as a product of 3 related factors: satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment

    size. Satisfaction refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of a relationship. Are things

    going well, or are they going poorly? In order to make this determination, we consider the overall

    ratio of good to bad things in the relationship and evaluate it relative to some comparison level that

    can help to establish whether we are getting what we think we deserve. That is, we think about

    whether our relationship outcomes are better or worse than those we have received in past relationships

    or those that our friends are receiving in their relationships. To the extent that we can

    make downward social comparisons (i.e., comparing ourselves to people who are worse off ), the

    more satisfied we are, and the more committed we tend to be.

  • Quality of alternatives refers to your perception of how desirable all of the other people in your

    dating pool currently are. Thus, we also have a comparison level for alternatives, in which we compare

    the outcomes in our current relationship to those we think we could be getting with someone else

    (e.g., could you be having more or better sex with another person?). Quality of alternatives also encompasses different relationship states with your current partner, meaning that we might

    also consider whether it would be more desirable to be friends or FWBs with our current partner

    rather than romantic lovers. The more desirable all of these other options appear, the less committed we are.

  • Finally, investments refer to everything we have put into our relationship over time that would

    be lost or decreased in value were our current relationship to end. Investments can be tangible

    (e.g., material objects, money) or intangible (e.g., shared memories, time and effort) in nature. As

    more investments are made, couples become tied together because starting a new relationship

    could mean losing certain things (e.g., homes, cars, custody of children) and dealing with a number

    of complications (e.g., figuring out which friends you get to keep). Thus, the more invested a couple is, the more committed they tend to be.

  • There is a vast amount of research showing that people are most committed when they are

    highly satisfied, perceive few alternatives, and have many investments. In addition, commitment strengthens a relationship by encouraging pro-relationship behavior (e.g., willingness

    to sacrifice your own interest for the sake of your partner). This, in

    turn, makes it more likely that the relationship will remain intact over time.

  • This model has been used to explain commitment across many types of relationships, including

    same-sex and heterosexual couples, but also more casual types

    of relationships, such as FWBs. One final note about the Investment Model

    is that, in general, satisfaction tends to be the strongest predictor of commitment. However, some factors may be more or less important in certain relationships. For instance,

    women in abusive relationships often report being committed to their partners not because they are

    satisfied, but because they do not believe they have anywhere else to go (i.e., they may have very poor alternatives. Thus, this model is particularly valuable from the standpoint that it can help us to understand why people remain in both good and bad relationships.

Varieties of Loving and Committed Relationships

• When asked to generate a real-life example of a loving and committed relationship, more often

  than not, people will point to some heterosexual married couple they know. The reason for this is

  because heterosexuality, monogamy, and marriage tend to be held up as the ideal relationship

  characteristics. However, relationships are far more diverse than this. Below, we consider just a few dimensions on which loving and committed relationships vary and explore some of the characteristics associated with those relationships. Specifically, we will consider relationships that differ in terms of sexual orientation, views on monogamy, and decision to cohabit or get married.

• Heterosexual vs. Same-Sex

  • Although same-sex couples can be found in most cultures and societies throughout the world,

    acceptance of these relationships varies considerably. Some cultures are more tolerant and offer

    government-sanctioned relationship recognition to same-sex partners; however, the legal name

    applied to such relationships (marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership) and the rights that go

    along with those relationship labels differ. Currently, relatively few societies offer full marriage equality to people of all sexualities.

  • There are a number of common myths and misconceptions about gay and lesbian couples. For

    instance, same-sex couples do not typically adopt strict roles of “husband”

    and “wife”; rather, they are more inclined to establish equality and power-sharing. There is also a common assumption that gay and heterosexual relationships operate in fundamentally

    different ways, but the reality is that they are far more similar than they are different. Moreover, gay and lesbian couples tend to be just as satisfied with and committed to their

    partners as heterosexual couples, which indicates that overall relationship health and quality is

    similar across sexualities. That said, some research has found that

    same-sex couples tend to break up more frequently than different-sex couples; however,

    part of the reason for this likely stems from the fact that same-sex couples are less likely to

    have the option of legal marriage. The lack of institutional and social support for

    gay relationships coupled with a less complicated exit strategy (i.e., no need for a messy divorce)

    would appear to be plausible explanations for the higher breakup rate.

• Monogamous vs. Nonmonogamous

  • In the modern Western world, monogamous relationships are the norm, and they tend to be

    viewed very positively. In fact, research has found that a halo effect surrounds monogamy, with

    people perceiving that this practice promotes not only strong commitment, but also health and

    other benefits; in contrast, nonmonogamy is socially stigmatized, and people who practice it are

    viewed in a very negative light. Although no nationally representative surveys

    have attempted to assess the prevalence of monogamy and nonmonogamy, survey data utilizing

    convenience samples has found that about 4% of participants practice some form of consensual nonmonogamy (i.e., they have an explicit agreement with their partner that the pursuit of sexual

    and/or romantic relationships with other people is acceptable). Please note that consensual nonmonogamy is distinct from infidelity, and that people who practice consensual

    nonmonogamy do not necessarily endorse or approve of cheating. In fact, consensual

    nonmonogamy is sometimes referred to as “ethical nonmonogamy,” because the people who

    practice it are usually strong proponents of being open and honest with all parties involved.

  • Consensual non-monogamy can take many forms, including open relationships, swinging,

    polygamy, and polyamory. Open relationships refer to couples who have a relational “home base”

    with one another, but have the ability to pursue other intimate relationships at the same time. The

    way open relationships work varies. Some couples require full disclosure of any outside sexual

    activities, and others adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Some couples only “play together” (e.g.,

    by having the occasional threesome or “fourgy”), while others may pursue outside relationships

    on their own, which may be one-time sexual encounters, ongoing FWBs, or perhaps something

    even more intimate. Related to this is swinging (formerly known as “wife swapping”), a sexual

    practice in which married couples swap partners for an afternoon or evening. This may occur in

    sex clubs, at private parties, or through online arrangements.

  • Polygamy refers to a form of marriage featuring multiple spouses. Scientists have reported that

    polygamy is permissible in 84% of human cultures; in most of those cultures, however, only a

    small minority of individuals practice it. There are 2 variants of polygamy:

    polygyny, an arrangement in which one man has multiple wives, and polyandry, an arrangement

    in which one woman has multiple husbands. Polygyny tends to be the more common variation,

    although both forms are explicitly outlawed in the US and in a number of other countries. Both

    polygyny and polyandry have been argued to be evolutionarily adaptive practices at times. In

    polygyny, the potential evolutionary benefits for men are obvious: multiple female partners ensure

    a greater number of offspring carrying a man’s genes. In polyandry, the proposed evolutionary

    benefits include protection against having just one partner who could potentially have a gene

    defect, as well as promoting sperm competition (i.e., survival of the fittest) in the fertilization of ova.

  • Finally, we have polyamory, which refers to the practice of having multiple sexual and/or

    romantic partners simultaneously. It is distinct from polygamy in the sense that someone who is

    polyamorous may or may not be married. It is also distinct from swinging and open relationships

    in the sense that within polyamory, the emphasis is generally not on recreational sex so much as

    on building intimate relationships. Polyamory is a term that means different things to different

    people. Some people consider it to be a type of relationship, whereas others categorize it as a relationship

    orientation (kind of like a sexual orientation). The one thing that is clear across all of the

    different definitions and views of polyamory is that being polyamorous means believing that

    exclusivity of both an intimate and sexual nature is not a necessary precursor to love and commitment.

  • Consensual nonmonogamy and its various permutations have been largely overlooked in psychological

    research. As a result, relatively little is known about them and how they compare to

    monogamous relationships. What little research exists suggests that people in nonmonogamous

    relationships tend to be sexually satisfied. For instance, a national US survey of 1,092 swingers

    found that they reported being happier in their marriages than couples in traditional marriages. This same study revealed that the majority of swingers

    (62.2%) said that swinging improved their relationships; the remainder said it had no effect (35.6%)

    or that it made them less happy (1.7%). Of course, this is not to say that swinging would necessarily

    be good for all couples, and it could be that there was a major selection effect in this study (e.g.,

    perhaps people who swing are less jealous than average, or perhaps when swinging has a negative effect it leads to a speedy divorce).

  • Although many people argue that monogamy is inherently “safe” and nonmonogamy is “unsafe,”

    this may not be accurate. While nonmonogamous individuals may accumulate a greater number of

    lifetime sexual partners because they have more opportunity and more partners mean a higher risk

    of sexual infections, the sexual health disparity between monogamous

    and nonmonogamous individuals is not likely to be as wide as it first seems. For one thing,

    monogamy is not 100% safe because people cheat, cheating is

    far from a rarity. Compounding the problem of cheating is that when it occurs, condom use tends to

    be low. In fact, people in monogamous relationships who cheat are less likely to use condoms than

    people who practice consensual nonmonogamy. People who practice serial monogamy increase their infection

    risk each time they move on to a new partner because the transition between partners is often quick and the period of practicing safer-sex may be very short. Thus, while monogamy is safe in theory, it may not be as safe as it is assumed to be in practice.

• Married vs. Cohabiting

  • One other dimension on which loving and committed relationships vary is in the partners’ decision

    to get married or to live together without a formal legal bond (i.e., to cohabit). Marriage is an

    institution that exists in most, but not all societies to serve purposes ranging from the practical

    (e.g., defining inheritance rights) to the romantic (e.g., achieving personal happiness and fulfillment).

    However, the precise function of marriage differs widely across cultures. For instance, in

    some Eastern cultures (e.g., India and China), the practice of arranged marriage is common, in

    which two sets of parents will join their children for pragmatic reasons (e.g., shared religion, reputation,

    consolidation of wealth). The children may have no or only limited say in who their partner

    will be. In contrast, the more individualistic cultures of the West consider marriage more a matter

    of individual choice, and religion may or may not factor into it at all.

  • Worldwide, the marriage rate has declined in recent years, whereas the number of couples

    who cohabit or seek to define their relationships in other ways has increased. Part of the reason for this is because marriage is no longer viewed

    as a permanent (i.e., “till death do us part”) institution. Given the high divorce rate and the

    fact that dissolving a marriage can be unpleasant, expensive, and time-consuming, people are

    increasingly opting to cohabit before marriage as a “trial period” or because they wish to

    create legal bonds that are more easily broken in the event the relationship crumbles. For

    instance, many heterosexual couples in France are opting for civil unions over marriages

    because civil unions (originally designed for France’s same-sex couples) offer many of the same rights and privileges of full marriage, but can be entered and exited far more easily.

  • Is the trend away from marriage and toward cohabitation and less restrictive legal arrangements

    a good thing? It depends which outcome variables you consider because each relationship

    type has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. For instances, couples who cohabit tend to

    have more equality in their relationships and are less likely to subscribe to the traditional gender

    role beliefs of male breadwinners and female housewives compared to those who are married. Cohabitation also makes it easier to end the relationship because no

    divorce is typically required (unless you live in a state or country that offers common-law marriage,

    in which a couple that lives together for a set amount of time is automatically viewed as married

    in the eyes of the government; however, this is rare). Of course, the downside of cohabitation is

    that it offers fewer legal rights and protections to the partners (e.g., if one partner passes away,

    the surviving partner is not necessarily entitled to the entire estate and, even if it is inherited,

    a steep tax bill may be due, unlike married couples). In addition, couples who cohabit before marriage

    report lower marital quality. Although it was previously

    thought that cohabiting with someone before marriage increased risk of divorce, it now appears

    that a higher likelihood of divorce only occurs among individuals who have had prior experience

    moving in and out with multiple partners. This makes sense because if someone has dissolved

    several marital-like relationships in the past, they will likely have fewer hesitations about ending an actual marriage.

  • Regardless of whether a couple cohabits or gets married, one advantage offered by both relationship

    arrangements is enhanced health. Specifically, research has found that people who are

    in long-term relationships tend to have better physical and psychological health than those who

    are single. It was originally thought that these health benefits were

    unique to marriage, but more recent studies have found that the effects extend to cohabiting

    partners as well. The one caveat to this is that the health effects of being partnered are typically

    much greater for men than they are for women. We cannot say

    exactly why, but it likely has something to do with the fact that women typically have many

    sources of social and emotional support outside of their primary romantic relationship whereas men often do not.

Why Do Some Relationships Succeed While Others Fail?

Characteristics of Good Relationships

• What can you do to enhance the quality of your own sexual and romantic relationships? Psychologists

  have identified several features of high-functioning relationships. Attempting to model these attributes

  in your own relationship may enhance satisfaction for both you and your partner(s).

• Positive Communication

  • Psychologist John Gottman has studied married couples extensively and has found that the way

    couples communicate during conflict situations is a potent predictor of relationship success. In one

    of his most well-known studies, Gottman (1994) videotaped hundreds of married couples discussing

    a problem area in their relationship. These couples were then tracked over time to see which

    ones stayed together. The strongest predictor of whether a given relationship succeeded or failed

    was the ratio of positive to negative comments that emerged during the interaction. Specifically,

    those couples who expressed at least five positive comments for every one negative comment were

    the most likely to survive; couples who expressed negative comments more frequently often

    headed to an early divorce. This research revealed a few other important communication patterns.

    For instance, breakup rates were higher among couples who engaged in more defensive behaviors

    (e.g., making excuses or failing to take responsibility) and when male partners engaged in stonewalling

    (i.e., appearing indifferent or showing no emotional response to their female partner’s

    concerns). Although this research focused on married heterosexual couples, Gottman’s work on

    same-sex couples has yielded similar findings about the importance of positive communication

    (Gottman et al., 2003).

• Healthy Sexuality

  • Positive communication during conflict is one important factor in relationship health, but it is just

    as important for that positive communication to carry over into the bedroom, because partners

    who communicate more about sex in general and during the act itself tend to be more sexually

    satisfied. This is not particularly surprising, because people who are comfortable

    talking about sex are more likely to give their partners direction, discuss their sexual fantasies, and

    inquire about their partners’ needs. The keys to effective sexual communication are (1) listening to

    your partner’s needs and concerns (perhaps even by repeating their concerns back in your own

    words or asking clarifying questions to ensure that you have understood), (2) expressing your own

    needs and concerns in very clear and unambiguous language (i.e., do not leave any room for guesswork),

    and (3) keeping the conversation positive and non-judgmental (i.e., do not just point out

    what your partner is doing wrong – make sure to tell them what they are doing right!). Also, keep

    in mind that not all sexual communication has to be in the form of words. Panting, moaning, and groaning can help convey your sexual likes and dislikes as well.

  • In addition, couples should continue having sex with a frequency that is desirable to both partners.

    Sexual activity provides an array of benefits both to the individuals involved and to their

    relationship, but chief among them is that sex appears to have a stress-relieving effect for couples

    that live together. How much sex is necessary for optimal relationship functioning? There

    is no “correct” frequency with which a couple is “supposed” to have sex, because the amount of sex

    desired differs widely across relationships. Different people have different sex drives, with some

    desiring sex all of the time and others hardly desiring it at all. Thus, what makes one couple happy

    might be seen as too little or too much by others. The key is to find a sexual frequency that meets

    both partners’ needs. Of course, this is easier said than done, and in cases where there is a large discrepancy between partners’ sexual desire, sex therapy may be the answer. Consensual nonmonogamy may be a viable option for some couples too.

  • That said, finding the right frequency is easier if both partners possess sexual communal strength. This can be thought of as a willingness to satisfy your partner’s sexual needs, even when they do not necessarily align with your own personal desires. Having sexual communal strength may mean occasionally consenting to sex

    even when you are not quite in the mood, or perhaps indulging one of your partner’s sexual fantasies

    even though it is not as big of a turn-on for you. This is not to say that you should start doing

    things that make you feel uncomfortable in order to keep your relationship alive; rather, think of this as mutual compromise designed to help one another achieve sexual satisfaction.

  • One question students often have about starting and maintaining a healthy sexual relationship

    is when a couple “should” have sex. The popular media suggests that having sex too early is problematic

    (e.g., your partner may not respect you or think of you as “relationship material”), but that

    waiting too long is equally bad (e.g., if you save yourself for marriage, you may discover that you

    are sexually incompatible with your partner). The truth is that there is no “right” or “correct” time

    to start having sex because each person and each relationship is different. The key is to do it when

    both of you are ready and feel comfortable, whether that is your first date or your wedding night.

    Consistent with this idea, research has found that there is no meaningful difference in relationship

    satisfaction between heterosexual couples who had sex early on and those who delayed. For

    example, Willoughby, Carroll, and Busby (2013) found a difference in relationship quality of just

    one-tenth of one point on a 5-point scale in a study comparing couples who had sex sooner to those who waited, which tells us that the timing of sex is not as important as the popular media makes it out to be.

• Self-Expansion

  • One final characteristic of high-functioning relationships is fulfillment of both partners’ needs for

    self-expansion. According to self-expansion theory, human beings have a fundamental need to

    “expand” or grow the self over time. This is accomplished by continually

    engaging in activities that are exciting and novel, as well as by developing new relationships. In fact, just being in a relationship provides some degree of expansion because, over time, the self

    will start to incorporate certain characteristics of the partner (i.e., we start to associate our partners’

    traits with ourselves). However, to meet one’s self-expansion needs over

    the long run, couple members need to regularly share self-expanding experiences. That is, couples

    need to continually visit new places and try exciting and different things. When romantic partners

    fall into a routine of staying at home and watching TV every night, they fail to meet their expansion

    needs and run the risk of the relationship going stale. Consistent with this idea, research on

    long-term married couples has found that those who engage in the most novel and exciting activities together report having the most intense feelings of love for one another. This suggests that perhaps we should not resign ourselves to the idea that passion inevitably dies; rather, we may be able to keep it alive through self-expansion.

The Dark Side of Relationships

• Not all relationships last. The divorce rate is about as high today as it has ever been, owing to

  reduced pressure to get married at a young age and a reduction in the stigma associated with ending

  a marriage. Only about half of all first marriages in the US last 20 years or longer, and cohabiting relationships tend to have an even shorter shelflife.

• The number of divorces occurring at various points in time and how this differs across partner race. Two things are worth noting about these data. First, marital

  longevity is related to racial background. We cannot say exactly why, but many variables could be

  at play, including socioeconomic factors and differences in mainstream acculturation. Second, the

  observed peak in divorce rates that occurs after two decades makes sense because for couples who

  had children right after getting married, this would be about the time that the kids have grown up and moved out of the house.

• As a means of coping with the high prevalence of divorce, legislators in Mexico and other countries

  are considering granting “temporary” marriage licenses that would allow individuals to have

  a marital trial period before making a longer term commitment. Whether that will ever

  catch on remains to be seen, but it is just another symptom of the fact that relationships are not guaranteed to last.

• Social Disapproval

  • Not every relationship is socially accepted. Same-sex couples and people

    in nonmonogamous relationships face widespread social stigma, but they are far from the only

    ones. Any relationship that deviates from the cultural prototype may be socially devalued. In many

    societies, this means that couples in which the partners differ from one another in terms of race,

    ethnicity, religion, social class, or age may lack approval for their relationship from their family,

    friends, and society at large. Such disapproval can take a toll on the partners. Research has found

    that the more disapproval a couple perceives, the less committed the partners tend to be and the more likely they are to break up. Not only that,

    but involvement in a marginalized relationship is associated with worse physical and psychological

    health outcomes. This makes sense because being the target of prejudice

    (whether it is directed at your race, gender, sexuality, or relationship status) is stressful, and if you

    have ever taken a health psychology course, you have probably learned just how much wear and tear chronic stress can put on an individual’s well-being. Thus, lacking relationship acceptance and approval may be destructive to both the health of the partners and their romance.

• Insecurity and Jealousy

  • Another factor that can generate relationship difficulties is a feeling of insecurity and/or jealousy.

    Some of us have a chronic tendency to experience these feelings as a result of our attachment style. Attachment styles refer to patterns of approaching and developing relationships

    with others. These patterns at least partially develop out of our early experiences with primary

    caregivers. Attachment styles tend to be relatively stable across time, but they can change to a

    degree as a result of new experiences and relationships. Securely attached individuals

    have an easy time getting close to other people and do not worry about being abandoned by

    their partners. They are highly trusting and are confident that their partners will be there for them

    when it really counts. People who are anxiously attached worry that their partners may not want to

    get as close as they would like. They fear that their partner does not love them and may leave and,

    consequently, tend to be quite jealous. Avoidantly attached individuals are not overly comfortable

    with intimacy and do not wish to become dependent on others. They recognize that their partner

    will probably leave at some point, but this does not worry them because they see love and relationships

    as temporary. Most people are securely attached, and it should come as no surprise that their

    relationships tend to last the longest, whereas individuals with an anxious or avoidant attachment style tend to break up sooner on average.

  • When jealousy emerges in a relationship, there tends to be large sex differences in how it is

    experienced. Men are typically more jealous about the prospect of their partner becoming physically

    involved with someone else, whereas women are usually more jealous about the prospect

    of their partner becoming emotionally involved with someone else. This difference is most commonly explained in terms of evolutionary theory.

    The idea is that men have evolved a tendency to worry about sexual infidelity because there is

    paternity uncertainty (i.e., men cannot easily tell whether a pregnant women is carrying their

    child) and they want to avoid expending their resources on children who are not biologically theirs.

    In contrast, women are thought to have evolved a tendency to worry about emotional infidelity in

    order to reduce the risk of being abandoned by the father of their children. Consistent with the

    paternity uncertainly explanation, gay men tend to be more concerned with emotional infidelity

    than sexual infidelity (the same holds for lesbians). Thus, among men who do not have to worry about paternity issues, sexual infidelity appears to be less of a concern.

  • Of course, this is not the only possible explanation, and the research in this area is far from conclusive.

    For example, consider that virtually all of this research is based upon asking people

    whether they find physical or emotional infidelity more upsetting. This is a false dichotomy

    because, for many people, emotional infidelity (e.g., falling in love with someone else) also implies

    physical infidelity. In addition, if the evolutionary perspective is correct, one might assume that

    sexual jealousy would be greater when a heterosexual man’s wife gets pregnant by a random stranger

    as opposed to his brother because if his wife is carrying his brother’s child, it will at least share

    some of his genes. In reality, however, the opposite is true – men are more upset when their wives cheat with other relatives.

  • Regardless of where our feelings of jealousy come from, it is clear that jealousy has a wide

    range of negative effects on our relationships. Not only does jealousy often contribute to conflict

    and breakup, but it is also frequently implicated in relationship violence. In fact, research on men

    who have been sent to jail for domestic violence has revealed that jealousy was pervasive in almost all of these men’s relationships and was the most frequently reported factor contributing to their violent actions.

• Cheating

  • cheating is one of the most common causes of relationship turmoil and breakup.

    In fact, infidelity it is the most frequently cited reason for divorce. “Cheating” and “infidelity” refer to instances of nonconsensual nonmonogamy

    (i.e., cases in which a romantic partner violates a spoken or unspoken agreement to be sexually

    exclusive). This is not the same as consensual nonmonogamy (e.g., swinging,

    polyamory, etc.), wherein the partners have agreed to some amount of outside sexual contact.

  • Prevalence estimates depend upon the type of relationship (e.g., dating vs. married), the timeframe

    assessed (e.g., in your current relationship vs. your entire life), and how “infidelity” is defined

    (i.e., physical vs. emotional). The definitional issue is perhaps the most vexing. As some evidence

    of just how widely people’s definitions of cheating vary, consider a study in which college student

    participants were provided with a checklist of 27 interpersonal behaviors and were asked to rate

    the likelihood that each one represented cheating if someone in a relationship performed that

    behavior with someone who was not their current partner. The behaviors

    included sexual interactions (e.g., intercourse, taking a shower together), emotional interactions

    (e.g., sharing secrets), and casual interactions (e.g., loaning someone $5, brief hugs). Interestingly,

    there was no universal consensus that any one behavior was definitely cheating or definitely not

    cheating! Researchers also found that participants’ behavioral ratings depended upon both their sex and their attachment style. Specifically, women were more likely than men to rate emotional

    interactions as cheating, and persons who were anxiously attached were more likely to label casual

    interactions as cheating than were securely attached individuals.

  • Given this vast variability in definitions, it is perhaps not surprising that a meta-analysis of 31

    studies of infidelity revealed that the number of participants who reported cheating ranged anywhere

    from 1.2 to 85.5% depending upon how cheating was operationalized! The 85.5% figure comes from a study in which college students were asked whether

    they had ever flirted with someone else while in a romantic relationship; estimates of sexual infidelity

    tend to be lower. The aforementioned meta-analysis (which focused mostly on data from the

    US and other Western cultures) revealed that among college students, most studies put the number

    who have committed sexual infidelity at one in two or one in three, and among married couples,

    it is more like one in four or one in five. However, there is significant cross-cultural variability,

    with much lower rates of infidelity in some cultures (e.g., the Philippines) and much higher rates

    in others (e.g., Cameroon). Regardless of definition, type of

    relationship, and culture, one thing is clear with respect to cheating: men do it more than women (or at least men admit to doing it more than women).

  • Given the relatively high prevalence of cheating and the devastating effects it can have on a relationship,

    some scholars have questioned whether an expectation of lifelong monogamy and fidelity

    is even realistic for human beings and if perhaps destigmatizing consensual nonmonogamy could

    eliminate a lot of heartache and improve people’s relationships At the same time, evolutionary psychology would seem to be suggesting that monogamy has some adaptive

    value in the long run (i.e., it helps men to avoid being cuckolded, or having a partner who is pregnant

    with another man’s child, and ensures male investment in any offspring produced). Also, if humans

    were designed for nonmonogamy, then why do they engage in so much mate-guarding behavior

    (e.g., checking up on each other) and become so jealous when their partners’ eyes wander?

  • The question of whether human beings are “meant” to be monogamous or nonmonogamous

    remains a topic of scholarly debate. However, the question of what we were “meant” to be is counterproductive and it would be wrong

    to argue that all humans have a monogamous or nonmonogamous orientation. The fact of the

    matter is that monogamy works very well for some, but not for others. For example, research on

    same-sex couples has found that among people with moderate to high levels of attachment anxiety,

    having a monogamy agreement is linked to higher relationship satisfaction and commitment;

    however, for persons with low attachment anxiety, having a monogamy agreement is unrelated to

    how they feel about their relationship. Thus, while monogamy

    may be a good idea for some people, it does not necessarily provide universal benefits. One key to a successful relationship is to find someone who shares your sexual values, not to impose a set of sexual expectations on another person.

Coping with Breakup

• No matter what the cause, relationship breakups can be incredibly upsetting. After a breakup, it is

  common to feel depressed, to have lower self-esteem, to have difficulty concentrating, and to experience

  a range of other negative emotions and cognitions. In order to deal

  with these aftereffects, people adopt various coping strategies, with some of them being more effective

  than others. For example, a study of college students revealed that the most frequently reported

  methods of coping were to simply talk about their breakup and to try and remain friends with their ex-partner. Research suggests that active coping strategies (i.e., attempts to confront the problem) such as these are typically linked to better psychosocial adjustment following any type of relationship stressor. Passive and avoidant forms of coping (e.g., drowning one’s sorrows in alcohol, or socially withdrawing) are generally less adaptive.

• Another way that some people cope is to see the end of their relationship as an opportunity for

  personal growth. For example, following a breakup, people frequently report learning things about

  themselves (e.g., what they do and do not want in a partner), skills for navigating relationships in

  the future (e.g., better communication), and a renewed focus on other aspects of their lives (e.g.,

  greater appreciation for one’s friends and family. By dealing with your

  emotions head-on and searching for the silver lining in the breakup, you may find that you are able to move on with your life sooner.