final exam

Lecture 13-14 Communication

communication in relationships

  • couples spend about 14 hours a week in communication with one another

  • couples who communicate with warmth, positivity, affection experience higher relationship quality than couples who communicate with anger, hostility and contempt

  • the sensitivity and accuracy of a couple’s communications predicts their relationship well-being

  • but can be subject to errors of encoding and decoding (or both)


gender and communication (noller, 1980, 1981)

  • examined husbands’ and wives’ abilities to encode and decode messages

  • 48 married couples took turns encoding (sending) and decoding (interpreting) a message

sample “wife” card

  • you and your husband are sitting alone on a winter evening . you feel cold

  • intention: you wonder if it’s only you who’s cold, or if he’s cold too

  • statement: “im cold, aren’t you?”

sample “husband” card

  • husband would choose from:

    a. your wife wonders if it’s only she who is cold, or if you are cold too

    b. your wife wants you to warm her with physical affection

    c. your wife is feeling that you are inconsiderate by not having turned up the heat, and wants you to turn it up

sample “husband” card

  • “your wife just presented you with your birthday present. you had been expecting a completely different gift.”

  • intention: “you are very disappointed and annoyed that she didn’t get you what you had expected”

  • statement: “you really surprised me this time.”

sample “wife” card

  • wife would choose from:

    a. he is quite satisfied with the gift although he really would have preferred what he was expecting

    b. he is very disappointed and annoyed that you didn’t get him what he was expecting

    c. he is pleasantly surprised


accuracy in communication

  • if there is a communication error, who is at fault?

  • noller had a separate group of participants observe the interactions and serve as decoders

  • this provides a “benchmark” to determine if people accurately encoded the message they were meant to send

  • if encoding problem, neither spouses nor strangers should be accurate

  • if decoding problem, spouses should be less accurate than observers


results

  • wives were better encoders than husbands, especially when the messages were positive

  • might explain why communication difficulties are associated with marital quality

  • further analysis: men who did well in the task reported being in more satisfying marriages


follow-up study (noller, 1981)

  • people who were bad at encoding and decoding messages: are these skill deficits generalized, or do they relate only to the marital partner?

  • called back the same participants

  • shown a video tape of strangers sending similar messages

    • married people served as decoders for someone who was not their spouse

  • in this study, marital satisfaction and decoding abilities were unrelated

  • dissatisfied couples show differences in performance, not in skill

    • those with low marital quality are worse at decoding their spouse than decoding strangers


gender and commuinication

  • if gender differences not due to skill, can they be altered?

    • affected by motivation?


motivation or ability? (klein and hodges, 2001)

  • empathic accuracy is the ability to correctly infer another person’s thoughts and emotions

  • accuracy, not amount of empathy

  • gender differences: conflicting evidence

    • some studies find no differences, some find women better than men

  • 107 undergraduates (53 women, 54 men)

  • watched a video of a female discussing an academic problem

    • had taken GRE and her math scores were not high enough to make cutoff for graduate school

  • completed empathic accuracy procedure

  • before completing this, participants assigned to one of three conditions

    • control condition

    • feedback condition

      • told they were going to be given feedback on their performance

    • money condition

      • told they would get $2 for every ‘correct’ response

  • motivation (either being evaluated or receiving money) eliminates gender differences between men and women’s decoding

  • extra motivation (money) makes people more accurate


empathic accuracy procedure

  • original video created by actual person

  • this person then watched the video and stopped it each time they changed how they were thinking and feeling

  • first minute might be calm, then might shift to anxious, then might be sad, then might be determined, etc…

  • participants watch this video

  • video is stopped at each point that target person in the video reported a thought or feeling

  • participants asked to infer what the target was thinking/feeling at this moment


communication in context

attraction: communicating for connection

  • most relationships begin with a form of nonverbal communication

    • flirtatious looks


flirting

  • male and female students interviewed by an attractive opposite-sex person for a potential date

    • videotaped and shown to two groups of raters

  • group 1: rated amount of time each participant spent:

    • smiling, making direct eye contact, open body posture, leaning toward camera, looking down, tilting head

    • also rated number of times each P smiled, laughed, made hand gestures, looked down, eyebrow flash, gave flirty look

  • group 2: rated each participant on 34 attributes representing five general factors

    • social engagement/dominance: good at drawing attention, social presence, engagement, self-disclosing, self-confident, charming, socially skilled, etc.

    • interest: inviting, ingratiating, bold, flirtatious

    • comfort: anxious, relaxed, self-conscious

    • provocativeness: sex appeal, provocative, seductive

    • arrogance: phony, arrogant, nice


attraction and direct communication

  • highest rated pickup lines among women (from men):

    1. hi

    2. do you want to dance? (at a bar)

    3. want to play frisbee? (at a beach)

  • highest rated pickup lines among men (from women):

    1. since we’re both sitting alone, would you care to join me?

    2. hi

    3. i’m having trouble getting my car started. will you give me a hand?

  • lowest rated pickup lines among women (from men):

    1. is that really your hair?

    2. bet i can outdrink you (at a bar)

    3. did you notice me throwing that football? good arm, huh? (at a beach)

  • lowest rated pickup lines among men (from women):

    1. didn’t we meet in a previous life?

    2. it’s been a long time since i had a boyfriend

    3. hey baby, you’ve got a gorgeous chassis. mind if i look under the hood?

  • recall from attraction lecture that people generally prefer direct pickup lines

  • opening lines that are intended to be cute or flippant are consistently rated as the least appealing

  • women rate sexually loaded pickup lines even more negatively than direct requests for sex


clark and hatfield (1989)

  • undergraduate confederate hired to approach opposite sex peers on campus

    • pretested to be 7.3-7.7 out of 9 on attractiveness

  • script: i have been noticing you around campus. i find you to be very attractive

    • condition 1: “would you go out with me tonight?”

    • condition 2: “would you come over to my apartment tonight?”

    • condition 3: “would you go to bed with me tonight?”


explanation

  • men more receptive than women to direct requests for sex. why?

    • evolution: men are more comfortable with casual sex than women are

    • socialization: women are socialized to be sexually conservative

  • may have more to do with the gender of the proposer (conley et al., 2011)

    • women perceive men who make sexual propositions as more dangerous, more likely to have an STD, and less likely to pleasure them sexually, relative to how men perceived women who offer them the same propositions


sexual communication: communication for fornication

  • how do people communicate to initiate sex?

    • directly: “do you want to have sex?”

    • indirectly: “are you sleepy?”

  • also use a lot of nonverbal communication

    • start removing clothing

    • touch a partner seductively

    • lying on a bed

    • initiate hugging and kissing

  • most consent happens nonverbally

    • people being undressing or touching their partner, or just start to have sex

    • verbal communication tends to limit to general comments such as “okay”

  • couples who communicate well with one another about sex tend to feel happier about their sex lives, and happier about their relationship in general

  • in particular, those who share more about their sexual preferences with their partners tend to be more satisfied with their sex lives

  • not everyone finds it easy to communicate about sex

    • people may worry their partners may not share their preferences

    • may also believe discussing sex is not necessary

    • ashamed or embarrassed to admit their preferences

    • may be concerned about making partner feel inadequate


macneil and byers (2009)

  • 104 couples

    • mean length 14.5 years

    • 84% married

  • given sexual self-disclosure questionnaire

    • how much have you told your partner A about:

      • the way you like to be kissed

      • the way you liked to be touched sexually

      • the way you like to have intercourse

      • the way you like receiving oral sex

      • the amount of variety in your sex life

    • rating scale from “nothing at all” to “everything”

  • also rated sexual satisfaction with items “in general, how would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?”

    • good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, positive-negative, satisfying-unsatisfying, valuable-worthless

  • most couples don’t communicate about sex

    • even couples who had been together for >14.5 years did not fully disclose likes and dislikes to each other

    • follow up analyses showed that partners only understood 62% of each others’ “likes” and 26% of others’ “dislikes”

  • partners who reported more sexual self-disclosure also reported greater sexual satisfaction

    • but effect 6x bigger for men than for women

  • greater inaccuracy associated with less satisfying sex life and less frequent orgasms (for women)


communication

  • communication is difficult but is important to many relationship processes

    • attraction, intimacy, partner regulation, sex, etc

  • the quality of couples’ communication is closely linked with relationship quality

  • particularly important in conflict situations


self-disclosure: communicating for intimacay

  • disclosure and liking (collins and miller, 1994)

  • people who disclose personal information tend to be liked more than those who disclose less

  • people disclose more to those they initially like

  • people like others who disclose to them


results of in-class demonstration

  • based on Aron et al. (1997), the experimental generation of interpersonal closeness

  • participants given one of two question sets:

    • set a: high disclosure questions

    • set b: small talk questions



self-disclosure and intimacy

  • social penetration theory

    • relationships develop through changes in communication

    • as relationships develop:

      • increase breadth - the number of topics people talk about

      • increase depth - the personal meaning of the topics they discuss

  • interpersonal process model of intimacy

    • just disclosing is not enough to build intimacy

    • people must be responsive - understanding, validating, and caring


partner regulation: communicating for change

  • people in relationships communicate strategically

    • to convey what they are thinking and feeling

    • also to improve their relationships

  • how do people communicate to try and change their partners?


regulating partners

  • how do individuals try to change partners?

  • examined strategies varying in valence and directness

  • assessed perceived short-term effectiveness as well as demonstrated change (assessed every three months for one year)

  • 61 couples (18 to 43 years old)

  • identified something they would like to change in partner

  • discussed issues (2 male and 2 female; counterbalanced) in front of camera

  • tapes were coded

  • rated the issue immediately, and then every three months for a year (via phone interviews)

  • women used more negative strategies than men

  • right after the conversation:

    • negative and direct strategies rated least successful

    • positive/indirect strategies rated most successful

  • but one year later:

    • direct strategies produced greater change, whereas indirect strategies did little at all

      • even negative ones


different communication styles

Lecture 15 Support I

social support

  • actions that communicate caring to partner and validate others’ thoughts, feelings, or actions

  • facilitate coping with problems by providing information, assistance, or tangible resources

  • people can receive support from all members of their social networks (i.e., friends, family) but romantic partners have special status as support providers

  • quality of support interactions is associated with marital quality over time


the positive effects of social support

  • romantic partners

    • help us reach our goal


support and goal pursuit

  • self-regulation: the ability to energize one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions in a goal-directed fashion

  • self-regulation usually done in social context

  • individuals with strong social support networks

    • adhere better to medial regimens

    • engage in more physical activity

    • keep regular sleep hours

    • eat more fruits and vegetables

    • more likely to quit smoking


drawing closer to instrumental others (fitzsimons and shah, 2008)

  • 49 undergraduate students

  • participants asked to think about the goal of achieving in university and nominate:

    • one friend who is instrumental (i.e., helps you make progress toward achieving your goal)

    • one friend who is successful, but not instrumental

    • one friend who is not instrumental

  • returned 4-5 weeks later

  • completed one of two tasks:

    • goal prime condition

    • control condition

    • goal prime manipulated by scrambled sentence task


control group

  • “begin you green will when”

    • when will you begin”

  • “beautiful total here is everything”

    • everything here is beautiful


achievement prime group

  • “strived car finish to he”

    • he strived to finish

  • “did achieve knife what they”

    • what did they achieve

  • to wants he wash succeed”

    • he wants to succeed"


participants were asked to indicate how close they felt to friends they nominated at time 1

  • we feel closer to others who help us with our goals

  • what happens when we make progress or complete the goal?


  • 56 undergraduates

  • nominated one friend who was instrumental to their achievement goals and one who was not

  • manipulated to feel like they were making lots of progress toward their goal (how much have you done) or low progress (how much do you still have left to do?)

  • completed measure of closeness



the positive effects of social support

  • romantic partners:

    • help us reach out goals

    • help us become our ideal selves


the michelangelo phenomenon

  • close others help us pursue our goals

    • help us become our ideal selves

    • reach our dreams and aspirations

  • partners “sculpt” us by:

    • seeing us in ideal ways

    • behaving in ways that “bring out” our ideal selves


the michelangelo phenomenon (drigotas et al. 1999)

  • longitudinal studies of dating and married couples

  • participants completed measures of their ideal selves by listing four traits most important to them

  • partners rated:

    • how much of these trials they perceived in the participant

    • how much they helped their partner reach their goals

  • both people rated relationship quality

  • results (3 months later)

    • people whose partners saw more of their ideal selves reported making progress toward these ideals

    • people whose partners helped them made more progress toward these ideals

    • receiving support for the ideal self led to improved relationship quality in both partners


sharing good news

  • people often turn to others to share good news, particularly close to others

  • when partners respond in an active and constructive manner, can actually enhance the importance of the effect

  • can also affect relationship quality


capitalization (gable et al., 2006)

  • 79 couples in the lab discussed a recent positive event with one another (took turns)

  • interactions were videotaped and behaviour coded for patterns of responding

  • capitalization efforts - responses to good news - fell into four major categories

intrapersonal benefits of capitalization

  • people whose partners respond in an active-constructive manner:

    • experience more positive emotions

      • even after controlling for the positivity of the event itself

    • remember the event better later on


interpersonal benefits of capitalization (reis et al., 2010, study 3)

  • 76 undergraduates

  • participants interacted with a confederate

  • 3 conditions

    • capitalization condition

      • asked to recall one of their most positive events from the past few year and describe the event to the other person and confederate responded enthusiastically

        • “that’s really great!”; ‘what a great opportunity”

    • notes condition

      • same as above, but C acted neutrally and took notes

        • “how did you feel at the time of the event? why?”

    • fun condition: participants were given pictures from Dr. Seuss books and asked to describe them to C without using literal descriptions, who was supposed to redraw them

      • “this is so funny!”; “i can’t wait to see how these pictures compare”

  • measured liking and closeness for the confederate after interaction and 1 week later



interpersonal benefits of capitalization study 4

  • 205 undergraduate participants asked to participate in exchange for $1

  • participants approach by experimenters on campus

    • asked to recall one of their most positive events from the past few year and describe the event to the experimenter

  • experimenter’s reaction manipulation

  • experimenter responded by giving:

    • active constructive feedback

      • “that’s really great!”; “how exciting!”

    • disparaging feedback

      • “what’s so positive about that?”; “that’s your best event?”

    • neutral feedback

      • no verbal nonverbal expressions

    • candy

      • same as neutral feedback, but participants given small candy

  • participants then given $2 instead of $1 they were promised

    • did they return the money?



when bad things happen…

  • people turn to their partners for emotional and practical support

  • stress-buffering hypothesis

    • we often experience stressors (acute or chronic) and we are unable to address them alone

    • social support helps us cope with these stressors and “buffers” us against the negative outcomes of stress


social support is good

  • people who receive a lot of social support from their partners for stressful events:

    • are more satisfied in their relationships

    • experience more positive (and less negative) moods

    • experience increases in self-esteem

    • experience better health outcomes

  • these effects accumulate over time

    • newlyweds who show lots of support to each other are more satisfied 2 years later


social support is bad

  • wives more likely to lose weight when husbands are instructed to be an uninvolved as possible

  • individuals suffering from heart attacks recover more slowly when their partners are supportive

  • people who perceive that support is available to them often experience better outcomes than people who actually receive support


why does social support go wrong?

  • the situation:

    • social support processes go wrong


when support goes wrong (bolger, zuckerman, & kessler, 2000)

  • study of law students preparing for the bar exam

  • daily diary for 32 days before the exam

  • each day, examinees reported on their:

    • negative mood (anxious, uneasy, on edge, sad, discouraged, worthless)

    • if their partner listened to or comforted them that day

  • examinees’ partners reported

    • if they listened to or comforted their partner that day

  • on days partners reported providing support, examinees’ experienced less negative mood

  • on days when examinees reported receiving support, negative mood increased

  • support that is invisible (given without being noticed) is often more effective than visible support


why is invisible support better? (bolger & amarel, 2007)

  • 86 female participants

  • led to believe they were giving a speech, while another participant (a confederate) was assigned to write an essay

  • participant given a few minutes to practice, and other participant commented on it

  • experimenter asks confederate: do you have any questions for me before we proceed?

visible support condition

  • not really. but i would like to say something to [participant] if that’s all right. look, you’ve got nothing to worry about, you’ll do fine. i understand if you were nervous, but i really think it’s going to be okay

invisible support condition

  • yes. can you please tell me more about what i’m doing? i mean, [participant] is going to do fine, she’s got nothing to worry about, but i still don’t know what i’m supposed to do

control condition

  • not really. unless you’re going to tell me more about what i’m supposed to do?


  • DV: participant’s ratings of distress immediately before giving speech



  • visible support often backfires because it:

    • draws attention to the problem

    • makes the recipient feel like they can’t handle the problem themselves

    • is not always carried out well, and may add stress to the recipient


Lecture 16 Support II

high maintenance interactions (finkel et al., 2006)

  • people often have difficulty coordinating when doing tasks with others

  • when these social interactions are difficult (“high-maintenance”) they can be exhausting, and deplete mental resources for subsequent tasks

  • support giving and receiving can be high maintenance

  • undergraduate participants led to believe they would be completing two tasks:

    • one with another person

    • one alone

  • first completed the joint task

    • P assigned the role of “tracker”

    • confederate assigned the role of “communicator”

  • P and C sat at a table that was divided by a partition

    • P given joystick to use

    • C could see a computer with a maze on it

  • P told to control the movements and move through the maze

  • had to listen to C for instructions

  • two conditions:

    • low maintenance: confederate stuck to a script and made no mistakes

    • high maintenance: confederate made a series of scripted errors and became out of sync with P

      • wait

      • right… i mean left

  • participants then went on to complete a number of difficult GRE problems

    • DV: performance



why does social support go wrong?

  • the situation:

    • social support processes go wrong

  • the person

    • individual differences in provider

    • individual differences in recipient


gender differences

  • in married relationships

    • men report receiving more support than wives

    • men report receiving better support than wives

  • after a stressful work day

    • wives more likely than husbands to increase their workload at home in response to partner’s stressful day


gender and social support (kirschbaum et al., 1995)

  • participants completed trier social stress (TSST)


TTST

  • phase 1

    • participants asked to prepare a speech as part of a ‘job interview’

    • allowed to use pencil and pen… but this is taken away before they begin

  • phase 2

    • participants give the speech and the judges observe without comment

    • if it does not go to five minutes, participant is asked to continue

  • phase 3

    • participant is asked to count backwards from 1022 in steps of 13

    • if make a mistake, have to start again


  • assigned to one of three conditions

    • no support

    • support provided by stranger (confederate trained to be supportive)

    • support provided by romantic partner

  • measured physiological stress (cortisol) and perceived supportiveness (e.g., “the presence of my partner had a relaxing influence”)


cortisol

perceived supportiveness

types of social support

  • emotional support

    • providing warmth, nurturance, and reassurance

  • information support

    • providing information that helps person understand stressful event; advice

  • instrumental support

    • providing tangible assistances such as services, money, etc


gender and social support

  • why are men less helpful than women?

    • skill: men are less capable of giving effective support

    • responsiveness: men don’t understand when their partners need support

  • tested in a daily diary study (7 days)

  • do men provide more advice than women?

    • no

  • do women provide more emotional support than men?

    • no

    • they say they do

    • they do when interacting with men

  • for 7 days, both partners report on:

    • external stressors that happened to them

      • bad evaluation at work/school; overwhelmed with work, sickness/injury, arguments with friends

    • negative spousal behaviours

      • argument with spouse, spouse broke promise, spouse

    • spousal support behaviours

      • spouse said something nice, spouse listened/comforted you, spouse helped you with something important

    • across the 7 days

      • no gender differences in amount of support or negative behaviours generally

      • husbands and wives did differ in when they provided support

    • when husbands had a really stressful problem, wives increased their support

    • when wives had a really stressful problem, husbands didn’t increase their support

      • wives even reported more negative husband behaviour


attachment styles and social support

  • attachment anxiety

    • concerns about rejection

  • attachment avoidance

    • concerns about the trustworthiness of others


highly anxious recipients

  • less optimistic about receiving support

  • are more likely to see negative intent when support is ambiguous

  • more likely to remember support as being negative


highly avoidant recipient

  • less likely to seek support

  • more likely to hint and sulk rather than ask directly

  • direct attention away from close others


highly anxious providers

  • intrusive and over involved

  • controlling

  • provide less instrumental support

  • out of sync with partner’s needs

  • more mentally distracted

  • high motivation, low ability


highly avoidant providers

  • neglectful

  • also controlling

  • unmotivated to provide support

  • high ability, low motivation


support seeking

  • participants asked to approach strangers and ask them for one of two favours

    • “can i borrow your cell phone to make a phone call?”

    • “can you show me where the gym is? can you walk me there?”

  • before doing this, asked to predict how many people they would need to approach before people agreed to their request

  • people tend to underestimate others’ willingness to help

    • focus on costs of saying yes, rather than social costs of saying “no”

  • helpers also underestimate how uncomfortable help seeking is

    • “why didn’t you just ask?”

  • when people seek support in indirect ways (e.g., sulking, looking sad but not providing details, being irritated without explanation), partners provide worse support


when support goes wrong (and it’s the recipient’s fault)

  • if others help us with our goals, do we also rely on them?

  • study: participants asked to think of

    • one example of how their partner helped them with health and fitness goals

    • one example of how their partner helped them with their career goals

    • one thing they liked about their partner

  • DV: how much time do you plan to spend pursuing health and fitness goals in the coming week?


  • social support is a complex phenomenon

  • relationship partners often help us in a number of ways and helping partners is good for relationships

  • but its very easy for this to go awry

    • most important thing is that partner feels supported


lecture 17 conflict in relationships


conflict

  • conflict is an inevitable part of close relationships

    • relationships are interdependent and people often have competing interests

  • most common topics in marriages

    • children (differences in parenting styles, discipline, childcare duties)

    • chores (who does what)

    • money (spending, wages, bills, etc)

    • free time (spending together, vs activities)

    • communication (spouse not listening, understanding)


is conflict bad

  • frequent conflict lowers relationship quality

  • but people argue all the time, even with long-term partners

  • most fights arise from nothing

  • what matters most is how conflict is handled


john gottman

  • studies of distressed couples for 30 years

    • based on observations

    • what do strong couples do well, and what do distressed couples do poorly?

  • much of what we know about conflict originates with gottman

    • but interpret with caution

    • not empirically tested


gottman’s “four horsemen”

  • criticism

    • attacking partner’s personality and character

    • “kitchen-sinking”

  • contempt

    • trying to insult or psychologically abuse partner

    • name-calling, sarcasm

  • defensiveness

    • seeing self as victim

    • cross-complaining

    • yes-butting

    • mind-reading (e.g., i know how you think)

    • rubber man/woman (e.g., im rude - youre rude)

  • stonewalling

    • stoney silence, removing self physically

    • withdrawal


demand/withdraw pattern

  • demander: person criticizes, nags, makes demands

  • withdrawer: avoids confrontation, withdraws, becomes defensive

  • strong link to gender



gender and demand/withdraw

  • sociostructural account

    • women are more likely than men to ask their partner to change, specifically to be more helpful around the house, to take a greater role in caring for children, and to express more intimacy

    • women are often thrust into the demander role and men respond with withdrawal

  • physiological account

    • men tend to get more aroused by conflict with their partners and tend to withdraw to regulate this arousal


demand/withdraw

  • demand-withdraw is reliably associated with:

    • relational outcomes (r = 0.423)

    • wellness outcomes (r = 0.249)

    • communication outcomes (r = 0.418)

  • effect is more pronounced for distress than non-distressed couples


conflict and relationship success

  • “the most important advice i can give to men who want their marriages to work is to try not to avoid conflict” - gottman

  • in general, it’s not whether you fight that matters so much as how you fight


resolving conflict

  • separation

    • withdrawal of one or both partners without conflict being resolved

  • domination

    • one partner continues to pursue his or her goals, while the others give in

  • compromise

    • both partners give up their original ideal in favor of a mutually acceptable alternative

  • integrative agreements

    • satisfy both partners’ original ideas

  • structural improvement

    • when argument results in fundamental positive change in the relationship


when is conflict good?

  • can vary depending on the personality of the individuals (e.g., self-esteem, attachment style)

  • can vary as a function of a person’s “implicit theories” about relationships (growth vs destiny)

  • can vary depending on whether conflicts are resolved

  • can depend on whether a person has the motivation and ability to accommodate a partner’s bad behaviour


accommodation

  • our partners behave badly all the time… and we behave badly in return

  • partners can be thoughtless, uncaring, inconsiderate

  • partners often fail to be ‘good” all the time

  • how do we react to these breaches of good behaviour?

    • four general types of responses


active strategies

exit

  • separating, moving out of a joint residence, actively abusing one’s partner, breaking up, divorcing, threatening to leave, or screaming at one’s partner

voice

  • discussing problems, seeking help from a friend or therapist, suggesting solutions, changing oneself, or urging one’s partner to change


passive strategies

loyalty

  • waiting and hoping that things will improve, supporting the partner in the face of criticism, or praying for improvement

neglect

  • ignoring the partner or spending less time together, avoiding discussing problems, treating the partner poorly (being cross with him or her), criticizing the partner for things unrelated to the real problem, or just letting things fall apart


accommodating a partner’s bad behaviour

positive responses to relationship dissatisfaction

  • avoidance of issues: loyalty

    • “good manners” policy

    • breaks negative reciprocity cycle

    • can be extended too far; resentment can build

    • under-adjustment

  • engagement of issues: voice

    • related to satisfaction (“short-term pain, long-term gain”)

    • conflict in itself is not diagnostic of relationship quality


accommodation

  • this is very difficult

    • people’s automatic response is to react negatively

    • requires self-control and time (i.e., counting to ten) to respond positively

  • both partners’ tendency to accommodate linked with higher relationship quality

    • both loyalty and voice work (constructive)

    • exit and neglect do not (destructive)

  • pro-relational responses to provocations always a good thing?

    • forgiveness is very good for relationships

    • aggressive husbands with less forgiving wives become less aggressive over time

    • aggressive husbands with more forgiving wives don’t change


conflict and intimate partner violence

  • police reported 129 876 victims of family violence in canada in 2022

    • females about 2x more likely to be victims

  • 117 093 victims of intimate partner violence in 2022

    • women and girls 12-24 most likely to be victims

    • 3x as likely to be victims vs. men and boys

    • more likely to result in injury

    • 79% of intimate partner homicide victims are women


straus, 2004

  • international dating violence study

    • 31 universities, 8666 students total

  • asked students to complete questionnaire about major and minor assaults against their partners (i.e., how many times in last year?)

  • minor assault

    • threw something at my partner that could hurt, twisted my partner’s arm or hair, pushed or shoved my partner, my partner, slapped my partner

  • major assault

    • used a knife or gun on my partner, punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt, choked my partner, slammed my partner against a wall, beat up my partner, burned or scalded my partner on purpose, kicked my partner

  • 29% of university students reported physically assaulting a dating partner in last 12 months (range 17% to 45%)

    • 9.4% of students reported severe assault (4-20%)

  • at 21 of 31 schools, a larger percentage of women (vs. men) reported assaulting a dating partner

    • similar pattern for severe assaults, but not as robust (18 out of 31)

  • male assault more likely to result in injury in 21/31 sites


common misconceptions

  • violence is common among married couples but dating couples even more so

  • gender differences in perpetration not as strong as assumed

    • men and women report assaulting partners at equal rates

    • among couples where only one partner is violent, women are more likely to be perpetrators

  • controversial finding

    • male violence much more likely to result in injury

    • some argue that these data minimize the effects of violence on women

    • others argue that discussions around gender violence are biased against men


understanding gender differences

  • most studies on intimate partner violence comes from self-report data

    • much evidence for gender symmetry

  • but sociologists and the general public think about “domestic violence” differently than psychologists

    • survey data misses out on the coercive/controlling aspect


types of IPV

  • situational couple violence

    • arises in the context of specific arguments that turn aggressive, then violent

    • gender symmetrical (50/50 male female)

    • equally likely to occur in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships

    • typically more frequent, less intense

    • data from surveys

  • intimate terrorism

    • arises from one partner using violence to coerce or exert control over the other

    • over 90% male perpetrated

    • most common in heterosexual relationships

    • data from shelters, hospitals, police records

    • typically less frequent, more intense


distinguishing IPV

  • finding evidence of Intimate Terrorism is difficult

    • rarer than situational couple violence

    • perpetrators and victims refuse to participate in surveys about it

  • surveys of ex-spouses are most informative

    • 9% of ex-wives reported to be violent (4% SCV, 5% IT)

    • 30% of ex-husbands (7% SCV, 22% IT)

  • 83% of intimate terrorism is male perpetrated


predictors of violence

  • numerous attempts to find predictors of violence

    • socioeconomic status (weak/moderate effect)

    • race/ethnicity (weak)

    • childhood victimization (small-medium, but consistent)

    • personality (depression, drug/alcohol use, personality disorder; strong predictors)

    • relationship variables (satisfaction, jealousy, partner hostility; moderate effects)

  • I³ theory (i-cubed theory) of intimate partner violence

  • individuals are violent when their impulses to aggress exceed their restraint of this impulse


  • instigating triggers

    • perceived provocation

    • perceived rejection

    • goal obstruction

  • violence-impelling

    • testosterone

    • attachment anxiety

    • long-standing jealousy

  • violence-inhibiting

    • strong legal legal sanctions

    • high self-control

    • high commitment


jealousy and violence

  • IPV often linked to sexual jealousy as a violence-impelling force

  • mullen and maack (1985) assessed 138 cases of jealousy-induced violence:

    • partner attacked in 71 cases

    • rival attacked in 7 cases

    • other victims?

  • violence accompanied by jealousy changes the meaning

    • people see jealousy as a rationalizing factor


jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence

  • can male jealousy be viewed as a rationale for IPV?


puente and cohen (2003) study 1

  • 156 students (89 women, 66 men) were randomly assigned in a 3 × 2 design

  • participants told they were going to provide their opinion about the results from another study

    • they were told about a male participant who was imagining his wife and another man

    • three conditions

      • innocuous: wife talking a man you don’t know

      • flirting: wife is touching other man’s thigh, gives him kiss on the cheek

      • cheating: you find wife in bed with other man

  • man’s supposed reaction varied: either jealous (6 on a 7-point scale) or not jealous (2 on a 7-point scale)

    • also heart rate and blood pressure spiked (did not spike)

    • dependent measure

      • how much did husband love his wife

      • how much does husband respect his wife

      • how long should their marriage last

      • how understandable/acceptable is the husband’s reaction


  • same pattern of results for:

    • how much does husband respect his wife?

    • how long should their marriage last?

    • how understandable/acceptable is the husband’s reaciton?

  • no gender differences among participants


study 2

  • 49 students (24 women, 25 men) listened to “real husband” talk about conflict in audio tape

  • manipulated two independent variables

    • conflict topic

      • wife flirted at a party (jealousy) vs. wife maxed out credit card (non-jealousy)

    • man’s reaction

      • hit wife (violence) vs. went to a friend’s house to cool off (non-vioence)

  • participants asked whether man loved his wife, whether the wife should stay or leave, whether they understood the husband’s actions, and whether he was morally bad



study 3

  • replicated and extended study 2

  • included a sexual assault condition



jealousy and IPV

  • people are more likely to justify men’s violence when perpetrated by jealousy

  • people also justify women’s violence in other ways

    • people find it more acceptable for women to hit men to “keep them in line”

    • people erroneously less likely to judge punching/slapping as illegal when perpetrated by women (vs. men)

    • people perceive men’s violence as more intentional/controlling than women’s


self-control and IPV

  • do people engage in intimate partner violence think this is acceptable, or do they lose control

  • violent impulses: people can act on them or over-ride them

    • recall I³ model


what predicts the likelihood that one will self-regulate in response to violent impulses?

  • 33 couples participated together

    • manipulated self-control (depleted or control)

  • participants then given paper and pencil crayons and told to draw the most creative picture possible including a house, car, tree, and two people

    • told their partners would evaluate this and could get $0.50 for each point partner evaluated them on scale up to 10

  • led to believe partner was rating the drawing and then given bogus feedback

    • non-provoking condition

      • partner has rated you a 9/10 on creativity. said your drawing was fantastic and they are really proud of you

    • provoking condition

      • partner has rated you a 3/10 on creativity. said your drawing was really boring and they are disappointed in you

  • dependent measure

    • Participants decided how long their partners would have to maintain demanding yoga poses


self-control

  • linked to

    • responses to conflict

    • aggression toward partner

  • stresses importance of practice (making habits)


lecture 19-20 sex and infidelity (sexual behaviour)


the mystery of sex

  • sexuality is the primary feature distinguishing romantic relationships from others

  • why dont we know much about it?


it’s so hard to study

  • unlike almost every other relationship construct, it cannot (should not) be directly observed

    • mostly self-report

      • subject to individual inhibitions and social taboos

  • very little experimental control

  • viewed as an important part of relationships, but not more important than other constructs (satisfaction, commitment, love)


sex in relationships

  • how often do couples have sex?

    • cohabiting couples: average 12.2x a month

    • married couples: average 6.5x a month

  • but…

    • married couples happier, less likely to break up


sexual frequency

  • many studies have examined how demographic factors influence sexual frequency

    • ethnicity

    • geography

    • income

    • education

    • religion

    • age

    • relationship length

  • seen in almost every published study

  • people will have more sex in the first year of their relationship than they will ever have again


reasons for decline in sexual frequency

  • habituation

    • longer term relationships report less sexual desire and arousal

    • hints at primary psychological function of sexual activity - to develop relationships

      • intimacy development is stimulus for sex

  • children

    • pregnancy is uncomfortable and tiring

    • reestablishing sexual intimacy less important to women after childbirth

    • kids are exhausting

  • getting older


sex in relationships

  • biggest predictors of sexual frequency in marriages (all decrease):

    • age

    • poor marital satisfaction

    • poor health

    • having a baby/young child

    • being catholic

  • much smaller predictions (all increase)

    • being a newlywed (years 1-3)

    • being remarried

    • being sterile

    • wanting a child


getting older

  • getting older affects sexual frequency

    • 50-54 year olds have sex 5.5x a month

    • 65-69 approximately 2.4x a month

    • 75 and over, less than 1x a month

  • but not a uniform decline

    • some couples stop having sex altogether as they age

    • other couples who remain sexually active continue at stable rates

  • getting older usually affects health

    • but where there’s a will, there’s a way

    • couples sometimes replace vaginal intercourse with oral or manual stimulation, or with other physically affectionate behaviours to maintain sexual intimacy


how important is sex to relationships

  • sexual frequency associated with relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability

  • sex may be part of calculating rewards/costs (remember interdependence theory)

  • but sexual satisfaction may be more important

    • frequency and satisfaction are correlated

    • sexual frequency declines over time, but sexiaul satisfaction doesn’t

    • having sex more than once a week doesn’t provide any additional relationship benefits


what predicts good sex?

  • relationship quality

    • relationship satisfaction

      • happier couples more satisfied with sex

    • feelings of love

    • attachment security

    • commitment

    • seems to be a reciprocal link between sexual satisfaction and relationship quality

  • actual sex

    • sexual satisfaction derived from

      • more frequent sex

      • greater variety of sexual activity

      • occurrence and consistency of orgasm (especially female)

      • communicating about sex (reciprocity in initiating, accepting; disclosure of likes/dislikes)


macneil and byers (2009)

  • 104 couples

    • mean length 14.5 years

    • 84% married

  • given sexual self-disclosure questionnaire

    • how much have you told your partner about

      • the way you like to be kissed?

      • the way you like to be touched sexually?

      • the way you like to have intercourse?

      • the way you like receiving oral sex?

      • the way you like giving oral sex?

      • the amount of variety in your sex life?

    • rating scale from “nothing at all” to “everything’

  • also rated sexual satisfaction with items “in general, how would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?”

    • good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, positive-negative, satisfying-unsatisfying, valuable-worthless

  • most couples don’t communicate about sex

    • even couples who had been together for >14.5 years did not fully disclose likes and dislikes to each other

    • follow up analyses showed that partners only understood 62% of each others’ “likes” and 26% of others’ “dislikes”

  • partners who reported more sexual self-disclosure also reported greater sexual satisfaction

    • but effect 6x bigger for men than for women


motivations for sex

  • why do people have sex?

    • more reasons than you think

      • reproduction, pleasure

      • to promote intimacy, to gain sexual experience, to avoid conflict, to impress friends, etc

  • do the various reasons people have sex affect their relationship with their sexual partner?


  • 1221 undergraduates participated in 14-day study

  • each days, participants indicated

    • relationship well-being (feelings of closeness, satisfaction, conflict)

    • sexual behaviour

    • motives for sex

      • approach motives

      • avoidance motives

  • approach sexual motives

    • aimed toward obtaining positive outcomes

      • “to pursue my own sexual pleasure”

      • “to feel good about myself”

      • “to please my partner”

  • avoidance sexual motives

    • aimed toward avoiding negative outcomes

      • “to avoid conflict in my relationship”

      • “to prevent my partner from becoming upset”

      • “to prevent my partner from losing interest in me”


results

  • when people had sex for approach-motivated reasons, they experienced more satisfaction, closeness and less conflict

  • when they had sex for avoidance-motivated reasons, they experienced less satisfaction, closeness and more conflict

    • also more likely to break up 1 month later

  • these were true even controlling for how frequently people had sex and how much they wanted to have sex (sexual desire)


hooking up

  • physical intimacy with a stranger, friend, or acquaintance without mutually agreed upon commitment

  • often fall in gray area between traditional friendship (e.g., shared activities, trust, mutual reliance) and romantic relationships (e.g., sexual intimacy)


  • 394 undergraduates

    • measured a number of variables at time 1

    • assessed number of hook-ups at time 2 (4 months later)

  • how common is hooking up?

    • 78% of participants reported at least one hook up

      • 20% reported a “non-penetrative” hook up

      • 58% reported oral sex or intercourse

  • what predicts frequency of hooking up


biggest predictors of hooking up

  • + alcohol use

  • + previous hook up experience (particularly positive experiences)

  • - relationship awareness (e.g., “i usually weigh the pros and cons before allowing myself to take the next step in relationships”)

  • - religiousity

  • gender (52% of women, 68% of men)

  • - loneliness


consequences of hooking up

  • 500 participants who reported hooking up within last year

    • assessed emotional experiences the following day

  • people report more positive emotions (e.g., happy, desirable, pleased, excited) than negative emotions (e.g., empty, confused, awkward, disappointed)

    • men even moreso than women

  • condom use

    • women who reported greater condom use reported fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions

    • men’s condom use did not predict emotions, but associated with fewer negative emotions

  • alcohol use

    • more alcohol use associated with fewer positive and more negative emotions


hooking up and relationships

  • people often report wanting to start relationship with hookup or FWB

    • 25% of men and 40% of women hope their hookups will develop into a committed relationship

  • but only 10 to 20% actually transition to a committed relationship

  • is it healthy to have FWB relationships?


becoming committed to FWB

  • 764 participants in exclusive relationships; 150 of which started as FWB

  • compared to no-FWB, people who started as FWB had

    • lower relationship satisfaction

  • but did not differ on

    • quality of communication

    • ambiguity of commitment

    • likelihood of breaking up a year later

  • although hooking up beforehand is not necessarily bad for a relationship, it is a relatively rare pathway to commitment


infidelity

is this cheating?

what is cheating?

  • gave participants each of the 27 items and asked them to rate to what extent it constituted cheating (on a scale from 0 to 100)

  • most representative

    • penile-vaginal intercourse (M=97.7)

  • least representative

    • giving $5 to other person (M=8.1)

  • asked people to list as many behaviours as they could that might be considered “unfaithful” if they or their primary partner engaged in them in a dating relationship

  • behaviours mentioned by >5% of the sample

  • general agreement on what defines cheating

  • some ambiguity for less commonly cited behaviours


how common is infidelity?

  • study of 700 college students

  • kissed or had some sexual contact with someone else?

    • 50% women

    • 75% men

  • intercourse with someone else?

    • 33% women

    • 50% men


study 1: 14 men, 60 women, all exclusive daters

  • completed infidelity questionnaire


commitment and fidelity results

  • 72% of people reported emotional infidelity

  • 48% reported physical infidelity (27% > midpoint)


prevalence of infidelity

  • bad news

    • rates of cheating relatively high

    • despite the fact that it’s hard to get accurate estimates due to self-report biases

      • people don’t want to admit cheating

      • also may be differences in how one defines cheating

  • good news

    • no gender differences

    • the most extreme behaviours are least common

  • men

    • most common

      • casually flirted with, fantasized about sexual play, mild romantic feelings, was sexually attracted to, group study, and fantasize about intercourse

    • least common

      • gave oral sex to, received oral sex from, engage in intercourse, went on a date with, engaged in sexual play with, formed deep romantic attachment

  • women

    • most common

      • casually flirted with, group dinner, group study, had mild romantic feelings, group lunch, was sexually attracted to

    • least common

      • gave oral sex to, received oral sex from, fantasizing about both, engaging in intercourse and forming deep romantic attachment


cheating among married couples

  • survey of 1250 married people asked “how many people (either men or women) have you had sexual intercourse with in the past 12 months?”

    • 2.3% (29 people) of respondents said more than 1 (i.e., were unfaithful)

  • sample of 4884 women married for at least 13 months

    • asked the same question first face-to-face, and then again on a computer

    • face-to-face interview: 1.08% of people were unfaithful (N = 48)

    • computer questionnaire: 6.13% (N = 275)

  • % of people who were only with partner this year

    • 95% married men and women

    • 82% cohabiting (divorced)

    • 75% cohabiting (never married)

  • % of people who never had extra-marital sex

    • 88% married women

    • 78% married men


why do people cheat

  • people report a variety of reasons for cheating

    • sexuality (need for variety)/sexual incompatibility

    • emotional satisfaction (e.g., self-esteem; marital quality)

    • social context (opportunity, separation)

    • attitudes/norms (liberal)

    • revenge/hostility (partner treatment)

  • can we trust these reasons? based on retrospective self-report


who is most likely to cheat?

  • research has looked at a variety of factors that might predict cheating

    • demographic factors

    • interpersonal factors

    • personality factors


demographic predictors of cheating

  • gender

    • most commonly studied

    • men tend to report cheating more than women in early studies

    • but… more recent studies show no differences

    • also, if you define cheating broadly (i.e., not just intercourse), then no gender difference in infidelity

  • religiousity

    • routinely found as predictor of infidelity

    • people who report being more religious tend to cheat less

  • education

    • highly educated individuals more likely to report infidelity than less educated individuals

  • income

    • individuals with higher income more prone to infidelity

    • likely have more opportunities to do so

      • one study found that 50% of cheaters found their extradyadic partner through work


interpersonal predictors of cheating

  • relationship quality

    • low marital satisfaction associated in many studies with infidelity

    • but not all

  • commitment

    • less committed people more likely to cheat

    • because they are less satisfied, have higher quality of alternatives, and less investment


who is most likely to cheat?

  • 107 newlywed couples

  • completed a number of personality measures for themselves and their partners

  • asked to indicate how likely it was that they would engage in 6 types of cheating behaviour in the next year

    • flirting, passionately kissing, going on a romantic date, having a one night stand, having a brief affair, having a serious affair



  • self-predictors

    • narcissism

    • conscientiousness (negative)

    • impulsivity, low self-control

  • partner predictors

    • partner sexualizing others (commenting on others’ attractiveness)

    • partner is jealous and possessive

    • partner withholds sex

    • partner abuses alcohol

  • contextual predictors

    • marital dissatisfaction

    • sexual dissatisfaction


detecting cheaters

  • people believe they can detect cheating, but how accurate are they?

  • study of 90 couples (surveyed at STD clinic) asked to report whether they had sex partners outside of the relationship, and whether they they believed their partner did

    • about 66% of inferences were correct

  • study of 203 undergraduate couples revealed that men were correct 89.7% of the time, whereas women were correct 79.8% of the time


how do people know?

cues for physical infidelity

  • how do (people think) you know your partner is physically cheating on you?

    • physical evidence

      • e.g., partner contracts STI, partner smells like sex

    • partner gets caught or admits it

    • partner becomes uninterested in sex

    • partner changes normal routine (clothes, diet, sleep)

    • partner displays more sexual interest than normal; acts overly affectionate


cues for emotional infidelity

  • how do (people think) you know your partner is emotionally cheating on you?

    • partner becomes dissatisfied/falls out of love

    • partner is inconsiderate and rejecting

    • partner is angry and critical

    • partner doesn’t want to spend time together

    • partner doesn’t want to discuss another person

    • partner acts guilty


how do you actually know?

detecting cheaters

  • 51 participants came into lab with partner

  • asked to complete infidelity questionnaire assessing physical and emotional intimacy with another person

  • couples then completed drawing task

    • one partner blindfolded and instructed by other partner about what to draw

    • this was videotaped


  • coders then rated:

    • how likely is it that this person has shown interest in someone other than his/her partner?

    • how likely is it that the person flirted or made advances on someone other than the partner?

    • how likely is it that this person has had sexual intercourse with someone other than their partner?

  • results showed a significant correlation between participants actual infidelity and coder ratings

  • researchers had 10 males and 10 females make a voice recording

    • recorded them counting to 10 (pace:1 number per second)

  • 5 men and 5 women had self-identified as having had sexual intercourse with someone outside of a committed relationship

  • tested whether “cheaters” differed from “noncheaters” in attractiveness of voice and vocal pitch

    • they did not

    • also tested and did not find differences in physical characteristics (height, weight, BMI, WHR) and other sexual behaviours (e.g., number of sex partners)

  • recruited 152 participants (64 men, 88 women)

  • asked to listen to each of the voice samples and asked “how likely is it that the person speakers has ‘cheated’ on a romantic partner with whom they are in an exclusive, committed, relationship”


  • participants were able to detect cheating based on vocal samples

    • also main effect of speaker voice

  • why?

    • no idea

    • measured a number of acoustic properties of the vocal samples, but found no differences between cheaters and non-cheaters

  • what about participant sex?

    • female participants more likely to perceive cheating than male participants

  • participants shown pictures of 189 faces (101 male, 88 female) with neutral expressions

  • the faces in the data set reported whether they a) had ever had sex with someone other than their partner and b) whether they ever had sex with someone already in a relationship

  • participants shown opposite-sex faces and asked to rate how unfaithful each face was on a 1 to 10 scale

  • among female participants

    • their own rating of unfaithfulness showed small but significant correlations with faces’ own cheating behaviour

  • among male participants

    • little evidence of accuracy

    • ratings of unfaithfulness unrelated to faces’ cheating behaviour

    • but were correlated with attractiveness and femininity

      • men rate attractive and feminine women as more likely to cheat, but no evidence that is the case


detecting cheaters based on face alone

  • when rating “unfaithful” faces

    • false negative (e.g., believing someone is faithful when they are not)

    • women made errors 38% of the time

    • men made errors 77% of the time

  • when rating “faithful” faces

    • false positive (i.e., calling someone a cheater when they are not)

    • women made mistakes 62% of the time

    • men made mistakes 67% of the time

      • not significantly different


detecting cheaters

  • people seem to be able to detect cheating with some accuracy based on minimal information

    • but it’s not clear exactly why

  • evidence of gender differences are mixed

    • men assume the worst of female partners

    • men generally overestimate partner’s infidelity and get it wrong

  • can interpret this through evolutionary lens

    • useful to be able to detect infidelity

    • but perhaps more necessary for men (vs. women)


once a cheater, always a cheater?

  • unclear, since few studies follow people over time

  • marital studies show less prevalent cheating

  • but one study found that participants who cheated once before in a relationship were highly likely to do it again

    • cheating behaviour predicted by prior cheating behaviour


lectures 21-22 jealousy


reactions to cheating

  • do men and women differ in how they feel about infidelity?

  • 202 undergraduate students complete the following question


results

  • men are more upset than women by sexual infidelity, whereas women are more upset than men by emotional infidelity

  • effects have been replicated in 25 countries


evolutionary explanation

  • evolutionary explanation

    • men and women have different reasons for jealousy

  • men: paternity uncertainty

    • men uncertain of paternity, so evolution favoured men who were sensitive to sexual infidelity

    • men must avoid being “cuckolded” meaning they should control women’s sexual behaviour

  • women: differential investment hypothesis

    • women invest more in parenting, so evolution favoured women who were more sensitive to threats of loss of investment from mate

    • women must avoid getting ill, or abandoned


harris and christenfeld (1996)

  • 137 undergraduates given similar paradigm


  • results


  • but also gave them two more questions

    • please think of a serious romantic relationship you have had in the past, currently have, or would like to have. imagine that you discover that your romantic partner is engaging in sexual intercourse with someone else. how likely do you think it is that your mate is in love with that person?

    • please think of a serious romantic relationship you have had in the past, currently have, or would like to have. imagine that you discover that your romantic partner is in love with someone else. how likely do you think it is that your mate is also engaging in sex with the other person

  • results



double-shot explanation

  • “double-shot” hypothesis

    • responses to hypothetical infidelity based on differential implications learned through socialization

  • gender differences in what each type of infidelity implies

    • men believe that women’s sex implies love

    • women believe men’s love implies sex

  • thus, gender differences are due to different assumptions about sex, not necessarily different feelings toward it


methodological explanation

  • effects have been replicated in 25 cultures

    • 23 were samples of undergraduates

  • effects replicate when people are asked about hypothetical infidelity but no differences when people asked to recall partner’s actual infidelity

    • both men and women more distressed about emotional infidelity when it actually happens

  • methodological challenge

    • these findings rely on the use of the terms “upset” and/or “distressed”

    • these terms are emotionally ambiguous

  • effects should disappear when more specific terms are used


sabini and green (2004)

  • participants in three samples

    • 46 male and 37 female undergrads at a state university

    • 53 male and 99 female undergrads at a private university

    • 66 males and 63 females recruited at a train station

  • asked to imagine partner “falling in love” or “having sexual intercourse’

  • asked

    • which one would upset you more

    • which one would make you more angry

    • which one would hurt you more

    • which one would cause you to blame your partner\

results

  • in the school samples, men reported being more “upset” by physical vs. emotional infidelity whereas women reported the opposite

    • this was not significant in the non-student sample. both genders more upset by emotional infidelity

  • men and women both reported that they would be more hurt by emotional than sexual infidelity

    • no gender difference

  • both men and women reported that they would be more angered by sexual than emotional infidelity

    • no gender difference

  • both genders assigned more blame to their partners for sexual infidelity vs. emotional infidelity

    • no gender difference


reactions to jealousy


jealousy vs. envy

  • jealousy: intolerance of a rival

  • envy: chagrin or discontent at the good fortune of another


dealing with romantic rivals

  • jealousy triggered by threat of loss of partner

  • but not just losing a partner… losing a partner to an interloper

    • this does particular damage to self-esteem

  • loss to a rival more distressing than sheer rejection


the interloper

  • what characteristics of a rival would bother you most?

  • do men and women differ?

    • physical attractiveness vs. dominance


characteristics of the interloper

  • participants asked to imagine partner flirting with an opposite-sex person at a party, then are presented with a photo and personality profile of the “interloper”

  • picture was someone who was high vs. low in attractiveness

  • personality depicted someone high vs. low in dominance

  • DV: how jealous would you be in this scenario?


reacting to rivals

  • the presence of a threatening rival may motivate people to try and retain their partner’s interest

    • how might they do this

    • by trying to be similar to a romantic rival

  • 71 participants, all in dating relationships

    • rated themselves on 10 traits (athletic, artistic, warm, intelligent, funny, etc)


each scenario began by asking the participants to imagine they are meeting their partner for lunch on campus, but are running a few minutes late. as they make their way toward their partner they see and overhear their partner being asked for directions by an attractive individual…


neutral condition

  • the partner provides the rival with directions and the rival thanks the partner. the partner then turns around and notices the participant who he/she rushes toward with a smile on his/her face


rival flirtation

  • the potential rival unabashedly flirts with the partner, despite the fact that the partner mentions being in a romantic relationship. the rival comments on how “cute” the partner is, even offering the partner his/her phone number for a future coffee date

  • during this flirtation, the partner remains cordial but clearly rebuffs the rival, again rushing toward the participant with a smile


partner flirtation

  • the partner unabashedly flirts with the rival, never mentioning being in a romantic relationship. the partner comments on how “cute” the rival is, even offering the rival his/her phone number for a future coffee date

  • during this flirtation, the rival remains cordial but unreceptive of the partner, and the partner trudges toward the participant with an annoyed look on his/her face


reacting to rivals

  • viewed a photo of the supposed “romantic rival” accompanied by a personality profile of the romantic rival

    • four traits: three similar to participant and one different

  • completed another personality measure at the end of the study


beliefs about jealousy

  • jealousy is an emotional reaction to a perceived or real threat

    • is a very negative experience

    • harmful to relationship quality

    • major trigger for intimate partner violence

  • some people (i.e., people high in romantic beliefs) see jealousy as a sign of love

  • jealous people perceive other jealous people as being more in love

  • but also can elicit positive reactions from partners


making our partners jealous

  • do people sometimes try to elicit jealousy in their romantic partners?

    • 75% of people report doing this

  • why induce jealousy?

  • to seek reward

    • to test the relationship

    • to bolster self-esteem

    • to improve the relationship

    • it’s fun

  • to punish partner

    • teach him/her a lesson

    • for revenge

    • for control

  • how do people induce jealousy?

    • relational distancing

      • make plans with own group of friends without partner, vague about plans and people we are with, say we’re too busy to hang out, make plans with known rivals

    • flirtation facade

      • send flowers to myself, leave fake numbers around for partners to find, leave pictures of others around

    • highlight alternatives

      • talk about past partners, other men, compare partner to past partners, tell partner about others flirting with you


behavioural reactions to jealousy

  • when people are threatened by a potential rival, they often feel angry and fearful

  • but they also feel guilty as well

    • embarrassed about feeling insecure

    • responsible for their partner being interested in someone else

    • engage in negative behaviours they regret (e.g., snooping, yelling)

  • jealousy is an aversive state


mate guarding

  • people are motivated to think and behave in ways that minimize jealous feelings

  • mate guarding behaviours keep partners close

    • intersexual directed at one’s own mate

    • intrasexual directed at same-sex rivals


intersexual mate guarding

  • direct mate guarding

    • vigilance - calling partner unexpectedly

    • concealment of mate - taking partner away from party where other same-sex rivals may be present

    • monopolizing time - spending all free time with mate

  • intersexual negative inducements

    • infidelity threat - flirt with others in front of partner

    • punishing mate’s infidelity threat - getting angry with partner for flirting

    • emotional manipulation - making partner feel guilty for talking to members of opposite sex

    • derogation of competitors - insulting same-sex rivals in front of partner

    • violence

  • intersexual positive inducements

    • resource display - giving gifts to partner

    • sexual inducement - giving into partner’s sexual requests

    • appearance enhancement - dressing nicely, grooming

    • submission and debasement - doing whatever partner wants

  • public signals of possession

    • verbal signals - loudly introducing partner as boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband

    • physical signals - holding hands in front of same-sex rivals

    • possessive ornamentation - giving partner visible jewelry

  • intrasexual negative inducements

    • derogation of one’s own mate to same-sex rivals

    • intrasexual threats - yelling at same-sex rivals

    • violence toward same-sex rivals


mate guarding and deterring rivals

  • 137 female participants

  • four conditions

    • mate guarding condition - women imagined themselves at a party with a date and noticing another woman flirting with him while getting drinks

    • mate attraction condition - women imagined themselves single and on vacation meeting on attractive man

    • neutral condition - women imagined themselves doing laundry

    • negative condition - women imagined themselves looking for lost keys


  • participants asked to indicate their favourite brand of luxury handbags, shoes, t-shirts and sports car

  • given a blank image of each and asked to draw the logo of their favourite luxury brand

results

  • women in the mate-guarding condition drew larger logos for luxury goods

    • follow-up study found that women who imagined male partner flirting also reported more willingness to spend money on cars, shoes, and jewelry relative to control participants

  • why

  • women who are feeling jealous have implicit preference for luxury products as way to signal to potential rivals that they have a partner that is able and willing to devote resources to them

  • a form of intrasexual deterrence


mate guarding

  • evolutionary psychologists point out that mate guarding occurs in all human societies as well as many other species

    • men who mate guard more have sex with their partners more frequently

    • men mate guard more when married to younger and attractive wives

    • women mate guard more when husbands have higher income

    • men guard mates more when they are closer to ovulation

    • women mate guard more against rivals who are ovulating

  • all serves to prevent infidelity and cuckolding for men

    • but men also have other “contingency” tactics they employ

  • one study found that the less time men had spent from female partners since last sexual encounter, the more they found their partners attractive and were interested in having sex

  • another study found that men with more attractive female partners reported last sexual intercourse to be longer and also reported thrusting more deeply

    • why does this matter

    • this behaviour serves to displace semen of a potential rival


rivals

  • most research on jealousy doesn’t specify whether rivals known they person they are flirting with in is in a relationship

  • when they do, they are called mate poachers


frequency of mate poaching

  • knowing, from the start, that a person was already in an exclusive relationship, have you ever attempted to attract this person as a short-term sexual partner

    • men 54%

    • women 24%

  • even if you did not initially know that a person whom you were attempting to attract was already in an exclusive relationship, have you, after finding out about the person’s existing relationship, ever continued to pursue this person as a short-term sexual partner?

    • men 40%

    • women 27%


mate poaching

  • mate poaching is risky

    • risk retaliation from the poachee’s current partner

    • also risk reputational damage if they become known as a serial poacher

  • mate poachers often try to disguise their efforts

    • by initiating friendships with poachees first

    • by selecting targets who are easier to poach

  • mate poachers tend to be higher in risk-taking, competitiveness, manipulativeness and narcissism


moran & wade (2022)

  • male participants shown three photos of a man sitting with his arm around a woman

  • manipulated differences in attractiveness

  • results showed that women as rated easiest to poach when with a man less attractive than she was


does mate poaching work?

  • mate poachers have more lifetime sex and more dating partners than non-poachers

    • might be because they target less committed individuals

    • also might be power of reciprocity

  • people in friendships with people trying to poach them become less committed to romantic partners over time

  • one study showed that participants who were flirted with by an attractive confederate reported more desire and fantasizing about having sex with people other than their romantic partners

  • people in “mate poached” relationships report lower relationship quality, less trust, more jealousy and are more likely to commit infidelity


conclusion

  • fear of losing a partner to a potential rival is distressing because it threatens their relationship and self-esteem

  • we have a number of strategies to guard against the real or imagined threat of rivals

    • much of this research guided by evolutionary theory

  • jealousy and infidelity are closely related and are a leading cause of relationship dissolution


lecture 23 later relationship stages


relationships are hard

  • maintaining long-term relationships is very difficult


trajectory of satisfaction

  • historically, and in this course, we have noted that marital satisfaction declines over time

  • due to advances in statistics, we now know that this is not true for everyone)

  • most marriages start out happy and stay that way

    • declines primarily among those with low relationship quality at time of marriage


why are relationships hard?

  • require a lot of effort, practice, and good luck


which relationships last?

  • many of the things we talked about already are important

    • but environment also plays a role

  • knowledge does not guarantee success


karney and bradbury (1995)

  • meta-analysis of 115 longitudinal studies assessing marital stability

  • top 5 predictors of stability were:



parental divorce

  • parental divorce has some negative intrapersonal effects of children

    • during childhood and continuing into adulthood

    • effects are relatively small

  • parental divorce has consistently negative interpersonal effects

    • parental divorce predicts marital quality

    • children of divorced parents have significantly higher divorce rate than children whose parents never divorced

    • many studies

    • “intergenerational transmission”


parental divorce and marital quality

  • why does intergenerational transmission occur?

  • two explanations:

    • parental divorce causes marital discord

    • statistics are misleading


causal explanation: parental divorce causes discord

  • why would this be?

    • strains parent-child relationship quality

    • children experience negative affect

    • emotional insecurity results in bad life choices (getting married young, having child outside of marriage)

    • interferes with educational attainment and results in low SES

    • observational learning


spurious explanation

  • what are some third variables that could cause why parents marital quality is associated with child’s marital quality?

    • parents’ education

    • parents’ income

    • parents’ negative affect

    • parent's’ poor life choices


amato and booth (2001)

  • taken from a national longitudinal study of 297 families

  • parents married at time of assessment in 1980; children married at time of assessment in 1997

  • assessed relationship between parents’ marital quality and children’s subsequent marital quality


  • does parents’ marital quality predict children’s marital quality?

    • yes

  • more accurately, parental marital discord predicted children’s marital discord

  • effect size moderate (about 0.20 to 0.30)


  • is this relationship spurious?

    • no

  • stayed significant and did not decline appreciably after controlling for parent’s education, income, religiosity, negative affect, age at marriage, prior divorces


what seems to mediate the relationship between parental marital discord and marital discord in children?

  • observational learning

    • the items that significantly predicted child’s marital discord were evidence that parent(s) were: jealous, domineering, easily angered, critical, moody, uncommunicative

    • didn’t matter whether it was mom, dad, or both


consequences of dissolution


baxter (1994)

  • 76% of students reported using indirect strategies to break up

    • mostly withdrawal-avoidance (88%)

    • manipulation less common

  • 24% of students reported using direct strategies

    • mostly open confrontation (73%), with no opportunity for discussion

    • others (27%) are direct but leave room for discussion (e.g., “State of the relationship” talks)


consequences for well-being

  • divorce is associated with negative physical and mental health

    • higher mortality rates among divorced individuals (if not remarried)

    • breakup predicts diverse forms of emotional distress, including depression

    • failing relationships predict impaired life satisfaction, which doesn’t fully recover over time (on average)


exes

  • exes complicate adjustment to breakup

  • evaluating an ex-partner negatively facilities coping

    • women tend to evaluate exes more negatively than men

    • also adjust better

  • the more contact one has with an ex, the more distress about separation they feel

  • one thing that helps

    • finding a new partner


maintaining relationships


how to make relationships good?

  • relationship scientists are good at studying how to avoid making relationships bad

    • accommodate partner’s bad behaviour

    • engage in constructive conflict

    • provide (invisible) social support

    • don’t cheat or be jealous

    • have secure attachment

    • etc

  • how do we make relationships better?

    • capitalize on good news

    • what else?


doing new things

  • how can we keep excitement alive?

  • novelty and arousal normally decline

  • can recapture arousal by sharing new, self-expanding activities together


  • 63 couples in experimental procedure

    • participants crawl on hands and knees carrying a pillow between them

    • cannot use hands, arms, or teeth

    • told if they could do it under 1 minute, they would get a prize

  • randomly assigned

    • novel task: pillow carrying

    • mundane task: partner 1 rolls ball to center of room, partner 2 retrieves it; repeat for 7 mins

    • no activity

  • DV: relationship quality

  • why?

    • classical conditioning

    • misattribution of arousal

    • cooperation enhances interdependence

    • perception of relationship as exciting


doing secret things

  • groups of 4 unacquainted students

    • formed mix-sex pairs to play a card game

  • one pair received instructions to play “footsie” while playing cards

    • “try to work out nonverbal communication system using your feet”

  • manipulated secrecy

    • secret condition: “don’t let other couple know what you’re doing”

    • nonsecret condition: “it’s acceptable for you to let the other couple know what you’re doing”


good relationships

  • do new things, excitedly and share them with partners

  • avoid doing harmful things

    • practice (make it a habit)

    • short-term pain, long-term gain

  • pay attention to the environment

    • try to anticipate stressors

    • try to avoid biases in judging partner