Advertisement

Our Fragile Relationships: Relationship Threat and Its Effect on the Allure of Alternative Mates

  • Gurit E. BirnbaumEmail author
  • Moran Mizrahi
  • Linda Kovler
  • Bar Shutzman
  • Adva Aloni-Soroker
  • Harry T. Reis
Original Paper

Abstract

Long-term romantic commitments may offer many benefits. It is thus unsurprising that people employ strategies that help protect their relationships against the allure of alternative partners. The present research focused on the circumstances under which these strategies are less effective. Specifically, four studies examined the effect of internal relationship threat on expressions of desire for alternative mates. In Study 1, participants reported perceptions of relationship threat, their desire for their partner, and expressions of attraction to alternative mates. In Studies 2–4, participants underwent a threat manipulation and then encountered attractive strangers. Their reactions during these encounters (expressed interest, provision of help, and overt flirtation in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively) were recorded. Results showed that experiencing threat led to increased expressions of desire for alternatives. As indicated in Studies 1 and 2, decreased desire for current partners partially explained this effect, suggesting that desire functions as a gauge of romantic compatibility, ensuring that only valued relationships are maintained.

Keywords

Attractive alternatives Infidelity Sexual desire Relationship threat Romantic relationships 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bat Primo, May Barbi, Taqwa Jaljolie, and Maya Davidovich for their assistance in the collection of the data and Kobi Zholtack, Romi Orr, Danelle Izakov, Gil Tsessler, Shiran Arinus, Oz Klein, and Ron Lerner for their assistance in conducting the research. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grants 86/10 and 1210/16 awarded to Gurit E. Birnbaum) and by the Binational Science Foundation (Grants #2011381 and #2016405 awarded to Gurit E. Birnbaum and Harry T. Reis).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All study procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, prior to data collection.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

References

  1. Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101–130.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 735–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atwood, J. D., & Seifer, M. (1997). Extramarital affairs and constructed meanings: A social constructionist therapeutic approach. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. C. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, G. E. (2018). The fragile spell of desire: A functional perspective on changes in sexual desire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, G. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2015). The magnetism that holds us together: Sexuality and relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mizrahi, M. (2014). When sex goes wrong: A behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 822–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birnbaum, G. E., Simpson, J. A., Weisberg, Y. J., Barnea, E., & Assulin-Simhon, Z. (2012). Is it my overactive imagination? The effects of contextually activated attachment insecurity on sexual fantasies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1131–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birnbaum, G. E., Svitelman, N., Bar-Shalom, A., & Porat, O. (2008). The thin line between reality and imagination: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threats on sexual fantasies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birnbaum, G. E., Weisberg, Y. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Desire under attack: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual motivations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Braver, S., Thoemmes, F., & Rosenthal, B. (2014). Cumulative meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, E. M. (1991). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  19. Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cavallo, J. V., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Holmes, J. G. (2010). When self-protection overreaches: Relationship-specific threat activates domain-general avoidance motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. DeWall, C., Lambert, N., Slotter, E., Pond, R., Deckman, T., Finkel, E., … Fincham, F. (2011). So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 4.1–4.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gonzalez, R. (2008). Data analysis for experimental design. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., Gable, S. L., & Keltner, D. (2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 948–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jostmann, N. B., Karremans, J., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). When love is not blind: Rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in response to romantic relationship threat. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2004). Back to caring after being hurt: The role of forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenny, D. (2013). PowMedR. R program to compute power of joint test for continuous exposure, mediator, and outcome. Retrieved December 16, 2015 from http://davidakenny.net/progs/PowMedR.txt.
  35. Leck, K., & Simpson, J. (1999). Feigning romantic interest: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: A critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lydon, J., & Karremans, J. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: A motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples: Demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 971–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mizrahi, M., Hirschberger, G., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., & Birnbaum, G. E. (2016). Reassuring sex: Can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship-specific attachment insecurities? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processing perspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 429–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ritter, S. M., Karremans, J. C., & van Schie, H. T. (2010). The role of self-regulation in derogating attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott, S. B., Parsons, A., Post, K. M., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2016). Changes in the sexual relationship and relationship adjustment precede extradyadic sexual involvement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, S. B., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Reasons for divorce and recollections of premarital intervention: Implications for improving relationship education. Couple & Family Psychology, 2(2), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Straaten, I., Holland, R. W., Finkenauer, C., Hollenstein, T., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Gazing behavior during mixed-sex interactions: Sex and attractiveness effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1055–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baruch Ivcher School of PsychologyInterdisciplinary Center HerzliyaHerzliyaIsrael
  2. 2.Ariel University Center of SamariaArielIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in PsychologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations