Pair-Bonded Relationships and Romantic Alternatives

What's love got to do with jealousy?

Romantic love and jealousy seem antagonistic, but the expression of both emotions have evolutionary functions that can go in the same direction of maintaining a relationship. Considering natural selection designed adaptations to solve the problems surrounding reproduction, then love and romantic jealousy are emotions aimed at staying cooperative for a period of time, where love solves the adaptive challenges of promoting pair bonding, cooperation, and protecting offspring; and jealousy is triggered by a threat or the loss of a valuable cooperative relationship, either on behalf of descendants in need of resources, or a close romantic bond. Consequently, understanding love and romantic jealousy points in the same adaptive functional domain of protecting a romantic pair bond. Specifically, love can be comprehended in two different ways and in regard to jealousy. First, conceiving love as the attachment to significant others one develops throughout lifetime, and secondly, it contemplates affective dependence. Results from a sample of single and committed individuals (n = 332) show the predicted positive correlation between attachment and jealousy as stable traits, consistent with previous literature. In addition, there is a non-significant and low correlation, respectively, between attachment and love as a measure of dependence. Furthermore, in the single participants group, jealousy was associated with love. The discussion emphasizes the need for expanding a functional account of love and jealousy as complementary emotions of our human affective endowment. Finally, it would be informative to study attachment as a relational trait and love as a specific affection for a romantic partner that could be manipulated to elucidate the functional design of jealousy.

Women's Estrus and Extended Sexuality: Reflections on Empirical Patterns and Fundamental Theoretical Issues

How do women's sexual interests change across their ovulatory cycles? This question is one of the most enduring within the human evolutionary behavioral sciences. Yet definitive, agreed-upon answers remain elusive. One empirical pattern appears to be robust: Women experience greater levels of sexual desire and interest when conceptive during their cycles. But this pattern is not straightforward or self-explanatory. We lay out multiple possible, broad explanations for it. Based on selectionist reasoning, we argue that the conditions that give rise to sexual interests during conceptive and non-conceptive phases are likely to differ. Because conceptive and non-conceptive sex have distinct functions, the sexual interests during conceptive and non-conceptive phases are likely to have different strategic ends. We discuss provisional evidence consistent with this perspective. But the exact nature of women's dual sexuality, if it exists, remains unclear. Additional empirical research is needed. But perhaps more crucially, this topic demands additional theory that fruitfully guides and interprets future empirical research.

Newlywed Couples' Own and Partner Sexual Disgust Sensitivities Interact to Predict Their Marital Satisfaction Through Their Sexual Satisfaction

Sex is integral to maintaining a satisfying long-term romantic relationship such as marriage. It is thus important to identify the factors that promote sexual satisfaction in these relationships. To this end, we examined the extent to which a crucial evolved individual difference-sexual disgust sensitivity-impacts people's sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. Using a two-year longitudinal study of 102 newlywed couples (204 individuals), we demonstrated that, rather than exerting main effects, the interaction of both couple members' sexual disgust sensitivities was indirectly associated with marital satisfaction through sexual satisfaction. People whose partners' sexual disgust sensitivities were relatively similar (versus dissimilar) to their own maintained higher levels of sexual satisfaction across the first two years of marriage, which was associated with similarly elevated marital satisfaction. Not only do these findings highlight the importance of integrating evolutionary perspectives and relationship science, they underscore the value of conducting dyadic research to examine the unique intersection of both couple members' characteristics for people's relationship outcomes.

Jealousy, Consent, and Compersion Within Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships

Evolutionary psychological research has studied romantic jealousy extensively within monogamous relationships, but has largely ignored jealousy among partners who mutually consent to forming extra-pair relationships (i.e., consensual non-monogamy; CNM). We examined monogamous (n = 529) and CNM (n = 159) individuals' reactions to imagining their romantic partner(s)'s extra-pair involvement. For each romantic partner, men and women completed measures of relationship jealousy and reacted to scenarios of their partner's extra-pair emotional and sexual involvement. Scenarios prompted participants to indicate which type of involvement would be more distressing and more enjoyable. They also described whether or not participants had consented to their partner's extradyadic relationship. Monogamous men were more distressed by a partner's extradyadic sexual versus emotional involvement (and a partner's emotional involvement was more enjoyable) whether the scenario was consensual or not. Monogamous women were more distressed by a partner's emotional versus sexual involvement (and a partner's sexual involvement was more enjoyable) for consensual, but not non-consensual, scenarios. There were no gender differences among CNM participants. Monogamous individuals reported greater emotional distress toward a partner's imagined extradyadic involvement, whereas CNM individuals reported thinking about their partner's extra-pair relationships more frequently. Monogamous (vs. CNM) individuals reported greater confidence that their partner would never cheat on them (i.e., enter another relationship without their consent), and CNM participants were more confident that their primary versus secondary partner would never cheat, although this effect was stronger among CNM women. Moreover, CNM participants rated that it was more important that their primary versus secondary partner did not cheat, and reported greater distress imagining that their primary versus secondary partner had cheated. Women in CNM relationships rated it more important that their partner did not cheat sexually than emotionally. Finally, we replicated previous research showing that monogamous individuals mate guard more than CNM individuals, who mate guard their primary versus secondary partner more frequently. Future directions for developing evolutionary and romantic relationship research on CNM are discussed.

Life History, Fertility, and Short-Term Mating Motivation

The current research examines the impact of women's early-life socioeconomic status (SES; used as a proxy measure of life history strategy), relationship status, and ovulatory cycle phase on their desire for short-term mating. Results revealed that during the periovulatory phase (i.e., the high-fertility phase of the monthly ovulatory cycle), single women from low SES environments expressed an increased desire for short-term mating, whereas the opposite was found for single women from high SES environments. No such pattern was found for partnered women. These results suggest that one's early-life environment and relationship status may play a key role in how women respond to internal fertility cues, providing important new insights into factors that may moderate ovulatory shifts in mating behavior. Results provide some of the first evidence that one's developmental history may alter the expression of ovulatory cycle adaptations.

Relational Motives Reduce Attentional Adhesion to Attractive Alternatives in Heterosexual University Students in China

In heterosexual individuals, attention is automatically captured by physically attractive members of the opposite sex. Although helpful for selecting new mates, attention to attractive relationship alternatives can threaten satisfaction with and commitment to an existing romantic relationship. The current study tested the hypothesis that although a mating prime would increase selective attention to attractive opposite-sex targets (relative to less attractive targets) among single participants, this effect would be reduced among people already committed to a long-term romantic partner. Consistent with hypotheses, whereas single participants responded to a mating prime with greater attentional adhesion to physically attractive opposite-sex targets (relative to less attractive targets), participants in a committed romantic relationship showed no such effect. These findings extend previous research suggesting the presence of relationship maintenance mechanisms that operate at early stages of social cognition.

The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles

Relationship science is a theory-rich discipline, but there have been no attempts to articulate the broader themes or principles that cut across the theories themselves. We have sought to fill that void by reviewing the psychological literature on close relationships, particularly romantic relationships, to extract its core principles. This review reveals 14 principles, which collectively address four central questions: (a) What is a relationship? (b) How do relationships operate? (c) What tendencies do people bring to their relationships? (d) How does the context affect relationships? The 14 principles paint a cohesive and unified picture of romantic relationships that reflects a strong and maturing discipline. However, the principles afford few of the sorts of conflicting predictions that can be especially helpful in fostering novel theory development. We conclude that relationship science is likely to benefit from simultaneous pushes toward both greater integration across theories (to reduce redundancy) and greater emphasis on the circumstances under which existing (or not-yet-developed) principles conflict with one another.

The Emerging Integration of Close Relationships Research and Evolutionary Psychology

Romantic relationships are a central focus of scientific inquiry within two psychological literatures—those on close relationships and evolutionary psychology—yet attempts to bridge these topics have been surprisingly rare. Recently, several lines of research have begun drawing from the methodological and theoretical traditions of each literature to inform the other. For example, evolutionary perspectives have recently made important contributions to the study of romantic relationships by highlighting the positive effects of negative emotions (e.g., jealousy) and the potentially negative implications of hormonal contraception use. In addition, the emphasis in the close relationships literature on relationship development over time has begun to refine scholars’ understanding of the ubiquitous evolutionary psychological distinction between short-term and long-term relationships as well as the classic concept of mate value. These lines of work exemplify how the edges of two intersecting literatures can generate intellectual sparks that ignite both fields.