Sex Differences in Reconciliation Behavior After Romantic Conflict
- 3k Downloads
Prior research shows that patterns of mate selection, attraction, and expulsion are the product of evolved sex differences in computational adaptations. Within long-term romantic relationships, men typically prioritize information relevant to a mate’s reproductive (i.e., sexual) value whereas women more often prioritize a mate’s willingness to invest romantic (i.e., emotional) resources into a stable pair-bond. Although these differences in preference are well established within mate selection and relationship maintenance literature, relatively fewer studies have examined differences in how men and women reconcile after romantic conflict. Using an act nomination procedure, the present research tests the prediction that men and women differ by which partner reconciliation behaviors they evaluate as most effective in resolving a romantic conflict. In study 1, participants nominated common reconciliation behaviors which were subsequently sorted into 21 distinct actions. In study 2, participants rated each behavior by how effectively it would resolve conflict if performed by their romantic partner. Overall, acts suggesting emotional commitment were expected to be rated as most effective. Men were expected to rate actions which signal sexual accessibility as more effective compared to women. Women were expected to rate acts which signal emotional accessibility as more effective compared to men (study 2). Results were largely consistent with our predictions, though notable deviations are documented and discussed within the context of contemporary romantic relationship research.
KeywordsReconciliation Sex Sexual accessibility Emotional commitment
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This research was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Bucknell University and complies with Ethical Standards.
Conflict of Interest
the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children—a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.Google Scholar
- Arnocky, S., Piché, T., Albert, G., Ouellette, D., & Barclay, P. (2016). Altruism predicts mating success in humans. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 1–20.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M. (1988a). Love acts: the evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100–118). New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
- Fisher, H. (2006). Broken hearts: the nature and risks of romantic rejection. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: risks and opportunities (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: costs experienced and coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 147470490800600119.Google Scholar
- Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Cutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex Differences in jealousy: a meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 595-614.Google Scholar
- Schneider, C.S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: are they platonic friendsnow? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451–466.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (pp. 136–179). Aldine de Gruyter, New York: Sexual selection & the descent of man.Google Scholar
- Wade, T. J., & Brown, K. (2012). Mate expulsion and sexual conflict. In T. Shackelford & A. Goetz (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wade, T. J., & Mogilski, J. (2013). Mate expulsion decisions across sex: a conjoint analysis. Presented at the 7 th Northeastern Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference. Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA.Google Scholar
- Wade, T. J., & Vanartsdalen, J. (2013). The Big-5 and the perceived effectiveness of love acts. Human Ethology Bulletin., 28(2), 3–12.Google Scholar