Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 3, pp 821–828 | Cite as

Executive control and faithfulness: only long-term romantic relationships require prefrontal control

  • Ryuhei UedaEmail author
  • Kuniaki Yanagisawa
  • Hiroshi Ashida
  • Nobuhito Abe
Research Article


Individuals in the early stages of a romantic relationship generally express intense passionate love toward their partners. This observation allows us to hypothesize that the regulation of interest in extra-pair relationships by executive control, which is supported by the function of the prefrontal cortex, is less required in individuals in the early stages of a relationship than it is in those who are in a long-term relationship. To test this hypothesis, we asked male participants in romantic relationships to perform a go/no-go task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which is a well-validated task that can measure right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) activity implicated in executive control. Subsequently, the participants engaged in a date-rating task in which they rated how much they wanted to date unfamiliar females. We found that individuals with higher right VLPFC activity better regulated their interest in dates with unfamiliar females. Importantly, this relationship was found only in individuals with long-term partners, but not in those with short-term partners, indicating that the active regulation of interest in extra-pair relationships is required only in individuals in a long-term relationship. Our findings extend previous findings on executive control in the maintenance of monogamous relationships by highlighting the role of the VLPFC, which varies according to the stage of the romantic relationship.


Monogamy fMRI Self-control Prefrontal cortex Romantic relationship 



We are grateful to Maki Terao for her assistance in data collection. This study was conducted using the MRI scanner and related facilities of the Kokoro Research Center, Kyoto University. This work was partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17J01776 and the ImPACT Program of the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan). Nobuhito Abe was supported by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Acevedo BP, Aron A, Fisher HE, Brown LL (2012a) Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7:145–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Acevedo BP, Aron A, Fisher HE, Brown LL (2012b) Neural correlates of marital satisfaction and well-being: reward, empathy, and affect. Clin Neuropsychiatry 9:20–31Google Scholar
  3. Aleman-Gomez Y, Melie-Garcia L, Valdes-Hernandez P (2006) IBASPM: toolbox for automatic parcellation of brain structures. In: Presented at the 12th annual meeting of the organization for human brain mapping, 11–15 June 2006, Florence. Available on CD-ROM in NeuroImage, vol 27, no. 1Google Scholar
  4. Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2004) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8:170–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aron A, Fisher H, Mashek DJ, Strong G, Li H, Brown LL (2005) Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J Neurophysiol 94:327–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkins DC, Baucom DH, Jacobson NS (2001) Understanding infidelity: correlates in a national random sample. J Fam Psychol 15:735–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barkley RA (1997) Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol Bull 121:65–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barta WD, Kiene SM (2005) Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: the roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. J Soc Pers Relat 22:339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4 (version 1.1–13) (software).
  11. Brett M, Anton JL, Valabregue R, Poline JB (2002) Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox (abstract). In: Presented at the 8th international conference on functional mapping of the human brain, 2–6 June, Sendai, Japan. Available on CD-ROM in NeuroImage, vol 16, no. 2Google Scholar
  12. Buss DM, Schmitt DP (1993) Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100:204–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss DM, Shackelford TK (1997) Susceptobolity to infedility in the first year of marriage. J Res Pers 31:193–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss DM, Goetz C, Duntley JD, Asao K, Conroy-Beam D (2017) The mate switching hypothesis. Pers Individ Dif 104:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casey BJ, Somerville LH, Gotlib IH et al (2011) Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:14998–15003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ciarocco NJ, Echevarria J, Lewandowski GW Jr (2012) Hungry for love: the influence of self-regulation on infidelity. J Soc Psychol 152:61–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dale AM (1999) Optimal experimental design for event-related fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 8:109–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Drigotas SM, Safstrom CA, Gentilia T (1999) An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:509–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eigsti IM, Zayas V, Mischel W et al (2006) Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychol Sci 17:478–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher HE (1989) Evolution of human serial pairbonding. Am J Phys Anthropol 78:331–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher HE, Xu X, Aron A, Brown LL (2016) Intense, passionate, romantic love: a natural addiction? How the fields that investigate romance and substance abuse can inform each other. Front Psychol 7:687CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Campbell L, Overall NC (2015) Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: the curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:20–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatfield E, Rapson RL, Martel LD (2010) Passionate love and sexual desire. In: Kitayama S, Cohen D (eds) Handbook of cultural psychology. Guilford Press, New York, pp 760–779Google Scholar
  24. Johnson DJ, Rusbult CE (1989) Resisting temptation: devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:967–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karremans JC, Verwijmeren T (2008) Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: the role of romantic relationship status. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:939–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilner JM, Neal A, Weiskopf N, Friston KJ, Frith CD (2009) Evidence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal gyrus. J Neurosci 29:10153–10159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2015) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (version 2.0–25) (software).
  28. Le B, Dove NL, Agnew CR, Korn MS, Mutso AA (2010) Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Pers Relationship 17:377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewandowski GW Jr, Mattingly BA, Pedreiro A (2014) Under pressure: the effects of stress on positive and negative relationship behaviors. J Soc Psychol 154:463–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Linardatos L, Lydon JE (2011) Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes. J Pers Soc Psychol 101:737–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Logan GD, Cowan WB (1984) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control. Psychol Rev 1984:295–327Google Scholar
  32. Lopez RB, Hofmann W, Wagner DD, Kelley WM, Heatherton TF (2014) Neural predictors of giving in to temptation in daily life. Psychol Sci 25:1337–1344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Ludecke D, Schwemmer C (2017) sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science (version 2.3.1) (software).
  34. Lydon JE, Fitzsimons GM, Naidoo L (2003) Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: a critical test using the calibration paradigm. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:349–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH (2003) An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage 19:1233–1239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Maner JK, Gailliot MT, DeWall CN (2007) Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evol Hum Behav 28:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maner JK, Rouby DA, Gonzaga GC (2008) Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: the evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evol Hum Behav 29:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maner JK, Gailliot MT, Miller SL (2009) The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: inattention to attractive alternatives. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marazziti D, Canale D (2004) Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrino 29:931–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer ML, Berkman ET, Karremans JC, Lieberman MD (2011) Incidental regulation of attraction: the neural basis of the derogation of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships. Cogn Emot 25:490–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller RS (1997) Inattentive and contented: relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:758–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mischel W, Ayduk O, Berman MG et al (2011) ‘Willpower’ over the life span: decomposing self-regulation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6:252–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Murstein BI (1970) Stimulus, value, role: a theory of matital choice. J Marriage Fam 32:465–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murstein BI (1974) Love, sex, and marriage through the ages. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Nash JC, Varadhan R, Grothendieck G (2013) optimx: a replacement and extension of the optim function (version 2013.8.7) (software).
  46. Ochsner KN, Gross JJ (2005) The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn Sci 9:242–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2000) Female preferences for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav 21:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R (1999) Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399:741–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pronk TM, Righetti F (2015) How executive control promotes happy relationships and a well-balanced life. Curr Opin Psychol 1:14–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pronk TM, Karremans JC, Wigboldus DHJ (2011) How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved individuals to stay faithful. J Pers Soc Psychol 100:827–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  52. Ritter SM, Karremans JC, van Schie HT (2010) The role of self-regulation in derogating attractive alternatives. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenblatt PC, Hillabrant WJ (1972) Divorce for childlessness and the regulation of adultery. J Sex Res 8:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rusbult CE (1983) A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott ES (2000) Social norms and the legal regulation of marriage. Virginial Law Rev 86:1901–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shackelford TK, Buss DM (1997) Cues to infidelity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:1034–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simmons LW, Firman RC, Rhodes G, Peters M (2004) Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations. Anim Behav 68:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simpson JA, Gangestad SW, Lerma M (1990) Perception of physical attractiveness: mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 59:1192–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sternberg RJ (1986) A triangular theory of love. Psychol Rev 93:119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tennov D (1979) Love and limerence: the experience of being in love. Stein and Day, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson AP (1983) Extramarital sex: a review of the research literature. J Sex Res 19:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Traupmann J, Hatfield E (1981) Love and its effect on mental and physical health. In: Fogel R, Hatfield E, Kiesler S, Shanas E (eds) Aging: stability and change in the family. Academic Press, New York, pp 253–274Google Scholar
  63. Tucker P, Aron A (1993) Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition points in the family life cycle. J Soc Clin Psychol 12:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ueda R, Ashida H, Yanagisawa K, Abe N (2017a) The neural basis of individual differences in mate poaching. Soc Neurosci 12:391–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Ueda R, Yanagisawa K, Ashida H, Abe N (2017b) Implicit attitudes and executive control interact to regulate interest in extra-pair relationships. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 17:1210–1220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiederman MW (1997) Extramarital sex: prevalence and correlates in a national survey. J Sex Res 34:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of LettersKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Kokoro Research CenterKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations