Advertisement

Evolutionary Psychological Science

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Reconciliation Behavior After Romantic Conflict

  • T. Joel Wade
  • Justin Mogilski
  • Rachel Schoenberg
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Reconciliation Sex Sexual accessibility Emotional commitment 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Allan, A., & McKillop, D. (2010). The health implications of apologizing after an adverse event. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 22(2), 126–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children—a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 482–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, D. S., & Willingham, J. K. (1997). Affective traits, responses to conflict, and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bevan, J. L., Cameron, K. A., & Dillow, M. R. (2003). One more try: compliance-gaining strategies associated with romantic reconciliation attempts. The Southern Communication Journal, 68, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Buss, D. M. (1988b). From vigilance to violence: tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management with friends and romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative mood regulation expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dailey, R. M., Rossetto, K. R., Pfiester, A., & Surra, C. A. (2009). A qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships: “It’s up and down, all around”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Field, T., Diego, M., Pelaez, M., Deeds, O., & Delgado, J. (2010). Breakup distress and loss of intimacy in university students. Psychology, 1, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geary, D. C., DeSoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., & Cooper, M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy. Human Nature, 12(4), 299–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Spousal mate retention in the newlywed year and three years later. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Labott, S. M., Martin, R. B., Eason, P. S., & Berkey, E. Y. (1991). Social reactions to the expression of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 5(5–6), 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsen, B. A., Darby, R. S., Harris, C. R., Nelkin, D. K., Milam, P. E., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2012). The immediate and delayed cardiovascular benefits of forgiving. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(7), 745–750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson, M., & Sweeten, G. (2012). Breaking up is hard to do: romantic dissolution, offending, and substance use during the transition to adulthood. Criminology, 50, 605–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lukacs, V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: new scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 492–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacDonald, G., Marshall, T. C., Gere, J., Shimotomai, A., & Lies, J. (2012). Valuing romantic relationships: the role of family approval across cultures. Cross-Cultural Research, 46, 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mearns, J. (1991). Coping with a breakup: negative mood regulation expectancies and depression following the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 327–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, C. E., Reiber, C., & Roman, E. (2015). Quantitative sex differences in response to the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohbuchi, K. I., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 219–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: costs experienced and coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 147470490800600119.Google Scholar
  37. Phillips, T., Ferguson, E., & Rijsdijk, F. (2010). A link between altruism and sexual selection: genetic influence on altruistic behaviour and mate preference towards it. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 809–819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinlan, R. J. (2008). Human pair-bonds: evolutionary functions, ecological variation, and adaptive development. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 17(5), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhoades, G. K., Kamp Dush, C. M., Atkins, D. C., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Breaking up is hard to do: the impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 366–374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sbarra, D. A. (2006). Predicting the onset of emotional recovery following nonmarital relationship dissolution: survival analyses of sadness and anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 298–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2011). Coping with relationship stressors: a decade review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silk, J. B. (2002). The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tashiro, T. Y., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (pp. 136–179). Aldine de Gruyter, New York: Sexual selection & the descent of man.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Wade, T. J., & Feldman, A. (2016). Sex and the perceived effectiveness of flirtation techniques. Human Ethology Bulletin, 31(2), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: considerations of rival attractiveness and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Wade, T. J., Auer, G., & Roth, T. M. (2009a). What is love: further investigation of love acts. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(4), 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wade, T. J., Butrie, L. K., & Hoffman, K. M. (2009b). Women’s direct opening lines are perceived as most effective. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2), 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Welling, L. L., Puts, D. A., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2012). Hormonal contraceptive use and mate retention behavior in women and their male partners. Hormones and Behavior, 61(1), 114–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Winegard, B. M., Reynolds, T., Baumeister, R. F., Winegard, B., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Grief functions as an honest indicator of commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 168–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Laan, K. L. V. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12(2), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Joel Wade
    • 1
  • Justin Mogilski
    • 2
  • Rachel Schoenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA
  2. 2.Oakland UniversityRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Bucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations