Skip to main content

Danilo Díaz Granados read: While your deliberate “monogamy maintenance strategies” probably won’t keep you faithful, your automatic psychological biases just might

GettyImages-493656728.jpgBy Alex Fradera

Half of us have been unfaithful in our lifetime, and one in five people within their current relationship. As sexual infidelity is the primary cause of divorce and one of the hardest issues to address in couples therapy, identifying any useful defences could make a huge difference to people’s happiness. In a recent paper in Personal Relationships Brenda Lee and Lucia O’Sullivan from the University of New Brunswick investigated what strategies people in relationships use to reduce the chances they will cheat – so-called “monogomy maintainance strategies” – and looked into whether or not they are actually effective. 

The pair surveyed 362 heterosexual adults aged 19-63 online about how they’d tried to resist temptation when they had been in a relationship and had felt a strong attraction to someone else. Their answers suggested there are three main types of monogomy maintainance strategy: “relationship enhancement”, used by three-quarters of participants, included things like taking a partner out on a date, making an extra effort with their appearance around their partner, or engaging in sexual acts with them;  “proactive avoidance” was similarly common, and involved maintaining distance from the temptation, both physically, and also in terms of avoiding getting close in conversation; and finally “derogation of the temptation”, which was slightly less frequent, and involved applying negativity towards the relationship threat, and guilt towards the self, in an attempt to pour cold water on the prospect. 

Lee and O’Sullivan’s findings suggest these strategies are largely ineffective. Participants reported flirting less when they applied the final, negative kind of strategy. But none of the strategies had an effect on more consequential outcomes: romantic infidelity, sexual infidelity, and whether the current relationship survived. This pattern was borne out in a followup study with more participants that asked them how they were dealing with a threat to a current relationship. So as informative as this research is, it paints a gloomy picture: we may call upon these techniques, but they don’t appear to make much difference in staving off temptation.

Thankfully, there is some optimism to be found in another recent study on the same topic, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This paper zoomed in on moment-to-moment attentional responses, and these seemed genuinely predictive of success in avoiding infidelity. 

Across two experiments, the researchers, led by James McNulty at Florida State University, asked members of 233 newly married couples whether they had ever engaged in infidelity in the relationship – 37 confessed. 

The same participants also completed a task where they had to disengage from images of attractive opposite-sex faces in order to respond quickly to stimuli flashed up elsewhere on a computer screen. McNulty and his team explain how this automatic disengagement from attractive prospects is plausibly an aid to monogamy maintenance, and the data bore this out: participants who were substantially better at disengaging from the alluring pictures were half as likely to have been unfaithful. 

Another component of the experiment involved rating the physical attractiveness of the images involved in the task. All the participants considered the images as somewhat less attractive than did a separate group of single participants, reflecting a well-established tendency for people in relationships to devalue the attractiveness of others. McNulty’s team predicted that the married participants who engaged in more of this devaluing of temptation would be more likely to be faithful, and again the results confirmed this.

Why is it that these attentional processes were associated with lower infidelity, yet Lee and O’Sullivan’s monogamy maintaining strategies (including the similar-sounding derogating and downplaying of the relationship threat) were ineffective? Perhaps it has to do with the attentional process (McNulty’s team call them “psychological biases”) being automatic, while the monogamy maintaining strategies are more deliberate and perhaps, sometimes, too late. After all, if I meet someone captivating at a party, I might get home and decide to tell myself they aren’t so great (ticking the box for that strategy). But if I’m unpracticed, I may not persuade myself. In fact I may wrestle with myself and end up ruminating on that person all the more. 

Building the automatic, habitual protective processes uncovered by McNulty’s team arguably takes practice. So if we want to maintain our relationships by staying monogamous, sacrifices are needed ahead of time. The well-trained mind can dial down the titillation of temptation to a background hum: it won’t get to enjoy the occasional harmless little interludes, but nor will it be carried away by the crescendo.

—Ain’t misbehavin? Monogamy maintenance strategies in heterosexual romantic relationships

—Attentional and evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity

Alex Fradera (@alexfradera) is Staff Writer at BPS Research Digest



View Source

Popular posts from this blog

Danilo Díaz Granados read: “Skunk” Cannabis Disrupts Brain Networks – But Effects Are Blocked In Other Strains

By Matthew Warren Over the past decade, neuroimaging studies have provided new insights into how psychoactive drugs alter the brain’s activity. Psilocybin – the active ingredient in magic mushrooms – has been found to reduce activity in brain regions involved in depression , for example, while MDMA seems to augment brain activity for positive memories . Now a new study sheds some light into what’s going in the brain when people smoke cannabis – and it turns out that the effects can be quite different depending on the specific strain of the drug. The research, published recently in the Journal of Psychopharmacology , suggests that cannabis disrupts particular brain networks  – but some strains can buffer against this disruption. Cannabis contains two major active ingredients: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for many of the drug’s psychoactive effects, such as the feeling of being stoned and the anxiety that people sometimes feel, as well as ...
Read more

Danilo Díaz Granados read: Beyond the invisible gorilla – inattention can also render us numb and anosmic (without smell)

By Emma Young It’s well-known that we can miss apparently obvious objects in our visual field if other events are hogging our limited attention. The same has been shown for sounds: in a nod to Daniel Simons’ and Christopher Chabris’ famous gorilla/basketball study that demonstrated “inattentional blindness”, distracted participants in the first “inattentional deafness” study failed to hear a man walking through an auditory scene for 19 seconds saying repeatedly “I am a gorilla”. Now, two new studies separately show that a very similar effect occurs in relation to touch ( inattentional numbness ) and to smell   ( inattentional anosmia ).   Sandra Murphy and Polly Dalton (a co-author on the inattentional deafness paper) at Royal Holloway, University of London report in the journal Cognition on inattentional numbness. They wanted to go beyond the way we rapidly tune out ongoing tactile stimulation, like the sensation of our clothes, and explore what happens when we’re tou...
Read more

Danilo Díaz Granados read: A New Study Has Investigated Who Watched The ISIS Beheading Videos, Why, And What Effect It Had On Them

By Emma Young In the summer of 2014, two videos were released that shocked the world. They showed the beheadings, by ISIS, of two American journalists – first, James Foley and then Steven Sotloff. Though the videos were widely discussed on TV, print and online news, most outlets did not show the full footage. However, it was not difficult to find links to the videos online. At the time, Sarah Redmond at the University of California, Irvine and her colleagues were already a year into a longitudinal study to assess psychological responses to the Boston Marathon Bombing, which happened in April 2013. They realised that they could use the same nationally representative sample of US adults to investigate what kind of person chooses to watch an ISIS beheading – and why. Their findings now appear in a paper published in American Psychologist .   By late spring 2013, the researchers had recruited 4,675 adults online, and assessed their mental health, TV-watching habits, demographics,...
Read more