Home Uncategorized DISCUSSION POST

Uncategorized

DISCUSSION POST

Main Post: What was the most intriguing or inspiring topic you learned about this week from the Week 6 learning resources? What did you learn about this topic that it capture your attention?

Write an essay of 200-400 words addressing these questions.
Give at least two examples to support your conclusion.

2. Peer follow-up: Respond to two of your classmates’ postings.

In 75-100 words, or more, provide constructive, thoughtful feedback designed to build an engaging dialog.
To achieve this, ask questions, share insights, or offer an article or other resource, that will contribute to a broader analysis of the topic at hand.

200

The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Second Edition

Justin J. Lehmiller.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion Website: www.wiley.com\go\lehmiller2e

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction, 201
Singlehood and Casual Relationships, 201

Sexuality Among Singles, 201
Hookups, 203
Friends with Benefits, 204
Singles’ Sexual Outcomes, 204

Love and Committed Relationships, 207
The Nature of Love, 207
The Nature of Commitment, 212
Varieties of Loving and Committed Relationships, 214

Why Do Some Relationships Succeed While Others Fail?, 220
Characteristics of Good Relationships, 220
The Dark Side of Relationships, 223
Coping with Breakup, 229

Intimate Relationships: Sex, Love, and Commitment

©privilege, 2013. Used under license from Shutterstock.com

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from umuc on 2020-11-30 08:17:25.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

7.
J

oh
n

W
ile

y
&

S
on

s,
In

co
rp

or
at

ed
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

http://www.wiley.com\go\lehmiller2e

Singlehhod iod as g lg aShiaeSia 201

Introduction

Intimate relationships are a central aspect of human life. Psychologists theorize that this stems
from a need to belong, or a near-universal human desire to develop and maintain social ties
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need to belong is very powerful, and developing strong social
bonds is vital to our physical and psychological well-being. Relationships with family, friends,
and various social groups help to fulfill this need; however, our sexual and romantic relation-
ships are at least as central (and some might argue even more central) to meeting our deep-
seated needs and desires for social connection. As some evidence of this, research has found
that having a high quality romantic relationship enhances personal health and longevity; in
contrast, people who are alone or who lose their partners not only tend to be in worse health,
but they tend to die sooner (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).

Although the drive to pursue intimate relationships is ubiquitous, the number and nature of
relationships necessary to fulfill one’s belongingness needs varies across persons. Some indi-
viduals prefer a series of relatively transient relationships that focus on sex and physical inti-
macy, whereas others prefer a single, stable relationship that emphasizes emotional intimacy.
As a result, intimate relationships take many different forms in adult life. One of the primary
goals of this chapter is to explore the various types of sexual and romantic relationships that
individuals pursue in the modern world and the degree to which they meet people’s needs. In
addition, we will consider the topics of sex, love, and commitment and the role that each of
these factors plays across different types of relationships. Finally, we will address both the posi-
tive and negative aspects of intimate relationships and the things you can do to enhance the
quality of your own personal relationships.

We begin by exploring variability in relationship type and status. We will talk first about
single living and relationships that focus on casual sex and then move on to discuss loving and
committed relationships.

Singlehood and Casual Relationships

Living single has become increasingly common among adults over the past few decades. In fact,
census data indicate that 27% of adult Americans are currently living single, a number that has
increased by two-thirds since the 1970s (United States Census Bureau, 2010). On a side note, the
Census Bureau defines “single” as someone who is unmarried and living alone. We will adopt
the same definition for purposes of this chapter, meaning that singles can be involved in relation-
ships, just not cohabiting or legally recognized relationships. Despite this increase in prevalence,
perceptions of singles remain largely negative. There is a widely held belief that singles are lonely
and that living life outside the context of a marital relationship is inherently unsatisfying (DePaulo &
Morris, 2006; for more on this, see the Digging Deeper 8.1 box). However, this is not necessarily
the case in reality. While some people find singlehood deeply depressing, there are others who
enjoy the freedom and independence it provides and can meet their sexual and intimate needs
through casual sex and dating. Thus, being single does not necessarily mean someone is socially
detached or inherently lonely. Below we explore just how varied the nature of singlehood is.

Sexuality Among Singles

Single persons run the gamut of sexual activity, with some being fully or partially celibate (i.e.,
intentionally abstaining from partnered sexual activity), and others having frequent sexual con-
tact with one or more partners. Believe it or not, people can be satisfied no matter where they

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from umuc on 2020-11-30 08:17:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
7.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia202

Digging Deeper 8.1 Why is it Socially Stigmatized to be Single?

If yhs rl aSingl, falr nr ods aShi aelrl Sai’a hil hcc aShi welrl ilhigl clglbr al yhs. . .
H ggm rk odhlai’a m kl “ hinr asg aShia, yhs odSodi’a m rry ael wrhin nsy” c rod. Aiod welrl’a
ael fg aw rl fhr nhSin hi v c aShi ghil?

Carrie Bradshaw (lx iod ael Say)

Despite the fact that the marriage rate is in decline, most people continue to view the insti-
tution positively and think of marriage as the ideal relationship state (Thornton & Young-
DeMarco, 2001). Just look at how much money people are willing to spend on weddings and how
it remains a social custom to shower people with gifts when they get engaged or married. In con-
trast, people who are single or divorced are rarely (if ever) celebrated for their relationship status.

Being single is viewed as a “deficit” identity (Reynolds, Wetherell, & Taylor, 2007), meaning that
singles are perceived as incomplete because of their lack of a relationship. As if that were not bad
enough, singles are blamed for this perceived “deficiency.” For instance, in one survey of college
undergraduates, participants were asked to identify the most common characteristics associ-
ated with people who are married or single (DePaulo & Morris, 2006). Whereas married people
were described in a very positive light (e.g., as nice, honest, and mature), singles were typically
described in very harsh and negative terms, including lonely, immature, and ugly.

As a result of these negative stereotypes, people seem to feel that singlism (the scientific term
for prejudice against singles) is justified. In fact, people think it is more legitimate to discriminate
against singles than it is to discriminate against people based upon other personal characteris-
tics (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation). Consistent with this idea, in one study, participants
were asked to evaluate a set of property rental applications and to select the applicant they

Figure 8.1 Single people are typically viewed and treated quite negatively in modern society. ©joseelias/
123RF.COM.

Singlehhod iod as g lg aShiaeSia 203

fall on this spectrum. I know some of you may be asking yourselves how someone can really be
happy without sex, but this idea is not as far-fetched as it may sound. For instance, in chapter 6,
we discussed the notion of asexuality, a sexual orientation in which an individual simply has
no desire for sexual contact with others. Approximately 1% of the population is thought to be
asexual (Bogaert, 2004), and for such individuals, a lack of sexual activity is not problematic at
all. Likewise, for individuals who have decided to practice celibacy, some may find the lack of
physical intimacy distressing; however, others may discover the experience is positive because
it provides opportunities for self-reflection and development. Thus, singles do not necessarily
have to be sexually active in order to be happy and they can potentially meet their belonging-
ness needs through nonsexual relationships.

That said, most singles are sexually active and these individuals can pursue many different
types of sexual relationships in order to meet their needs and desires. Below, we consider just a
few of their relationship possibilities.

Hookups

Singles sometimes engage in hookups, or one-time sexual encounters among persons who
do not know each other on a deep emotional level (Paul & Hayes, 2002). Such encounters,
also known as “one-night stands” often emerge after an evening at the bar or after a party.
Indeed, research finds that hookups are strongly associated with alcohol use (Paul, McManus,
& Hayes, 2000). After a hookup, there is usually no expectation that any kind of relationship
will develop, although it is not unheard of for casual sex to precipitate love.

People vary considerably in the frequency with which they hook-up with others. For instance,
in a study of college students, the self-reported number of hookups over the course of a year
ranged anywhere from 0 to 65 (Paul et al., 2000). Thus, some people hook-up far more often
than others. In this same study, researchers found that 78% of male and female students had
hooked up before, and among those who had done it at least once, the average number of
hookups was 10.8. However, it is worth noting that hookups comprise a wide range of sexual
activities and that sexual intercourse may or may not occur in a given encounter. In fact, most
of the hookups reported in this study involved sexual activities other than intercourse.

Although a high percentage of both men and women report having hookups, research
has found an important sex differences in how those experiences are perceived. Specifically,
men (84%) are more likely to report having enjoyed their hookups than are women (54%;
Campbell, 2008). Women are more inclined to report regretting their experiences, perhaps
because of the sexual double standard, or the idea that women are judged more harshly than
men for sex outside of a committed relationship.

Digging Deeper 8.1 (Continued)

would prefer to have as a tenant (Morris, Sinclair, & DePaulo, 2007). Participants overwhelmingly
chose married couples over single people and stated that they based their decision largely upon
the applicants’ marital status. Thus, people do not even feel ashamed or embarrassed to admit
holding this bias. This may stem, in part, from the fact that this kind of discrimination is legal in
many parts of the United States and a number of other countries.

In short, as long as people continue to put marriage and other long-term, committed rela-
tionships on a pedestal, we can expect that those who are unattached will continue to be “sin-
gled out.”

Note: Reprinted with permission from lx iod Paycehghny (www.lehmiller.com).

http://www.lehmiller.com

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia204

While much has been said and written about so-called college student “hookup culture” in
the United States, it is important to note that college students today actually appear to be hav-
ing less sex and fewer partners compared to generations past (Monto & Carey, 2014). Students
today are somewhat more likely to report having had casual sex, but the change is modest and
the overall trend we see is that students are not having as much sex. Thus, the “hookup culture”
claims would appear to be overblown.

Friends with Benefits

In contrast to the one-time nature of most hookups, singles also have the option of pursu-
ing an ongoing sexual relationship with the same person. This can take many different forms,
including “booty calls,” “fuck buddies” (by the way, that is a scientific term), and “friends with
benefits” (FWBs) (Wentland & Reissing, 2011); however, that last one appears to be especially
common. FWBs are usually defined as people who have a rather typical friendship, aside from
the fact that they occasionally have sex (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009). However, research indi-
cates that the term “friends with benefits” does not mean just one thing. In fact, there may be
as many as seven distinct types of FWBs depending upon the motivations and intentions of the
partners involved. See the Digging Deeper 8.2 box for more on this.

Studies of college students have reliably found that approximately half of the participants
sampled reported having had one or more FWBs in the past (Bisson & Levine, 2009). Fur-
thermore, these relationships appear to be on the rise. Whereas 55.7% of U.S. college students
reported having had sex with a friend in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that number jumped
to 71% by 2012 (Monto & Carey, 2014). Also, like hookups, there is an association between
alcohol consumption and sexual contact with a FWB (Owen & Fincham, 2011). However, these
relationships are by no means limited to the college crowd. In fact, Internet studies have found
that adults in their 50s and 60s have these relationships too and, furthermore, that FWBs span
a wide range of demographic groups (Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011).

It should come as no surprise that the most commonly reported reason for beginning a FWB
relationship is regular access to sex. However, according to a study by Lehmiller and colleagues
(2011), men are more likely than women to cite sex as their primary motivation for having a
FWB, whereas women are more likely than men to cite “emotional connection” as their primary
motivation. The sexes also diverged when it came to how they hoped their relationship would
develop over time. By and large, men wanted to remain FWBs as long as possible, whereas most
women hoped their relationship would ultimately revert back to a friendship or evolve into a
romance. In fact, 43.3% of women in FWBs expressed hope that their FWB would eventually
turn into a “real” relationship (by comparison, only 23.7% of men desired the same outcome).
Thus, men are more likely to see FWBs as a relationship end-state, whereas women are more
likely to see them as a means of beginning an interdependent and committed type of relation-
ship (VanderDrift, Lehmiller, & Kelly, 2012). Do such relationship transitions ever happen? Yes,
and perhaps more often than you might think. A study of college student dating relationships
revealed that approximately 1 in 5 participants reported being FWBs before they became roman-
tic partners (Owen & Fincham, 2012). This study found that whereas partners who were FWBs
before they became lovers were somewhat less satisfied with their relationships, they were no
more likely to break up over time than were romantic partners without prior FWB experience.

Singles’ Sexual Outcomes

Hookups and FWBs are just two of the potential relationship options available to singles.
Beyond this, singles may also be actively dating or pursuing a committed relationship. Dat-
ing relationships can either be exclusive (i.e., monogamous) or nonexclusive (i.e., consensually

Singlehhod iod as g lg aShiaeSia 205

non-monogamous). Persons who pursue a pattern of entering and exiting sexually exclusive
relationships are known as serial monogamists. It is worth noting that whereas some singles
may only pursue one type of relationship at a time (e.g., hookups or dating), others may pursue
multiple types of relationships simultaneously (e.g., dating someone but having a FWB at the
same time). Consequently, the sex lives of singles are highly variable.

Digging Deeper 8.2 Are There Different Types of “Friends With Benefits?”

“Friends with Benefits” (FWBs) are usually thought of as relationships in which two good friends
decide to become sexually involved. This is how they are most often depicted in the popular
media, such as in the films Nh arSina Aaa celod and FrSlioda wSae BlilfSaa. However, research sug-
gests that FWBs are much more complicated than this and do not necessarily represent just one
thing. In fact, according to a study by Mongeau and colleagues (2013) there may be as many as
seven distinct types of FWBs!

In this study, 177 heterosexual college students were asked to define what a “friends with ben-
efits relationship” means to them in their own words. Researchers analyzed the content of these
definitions and uncovered the following varieties of FWBs:

1) True Friends This most closely matches what people think of as a traditional FWB (i.e., close
friends who happen to have an ongoing sexual relationship). This was the single most com-
mon type of FWB participants reported having personal experience with.

2) Just Sex This one is exactly what it sounds like: a sexual relationship that offers little more than
the occasional sexual fling. There is no true friendship in this case—it is all about the “benefits.”

3) Network Opportunism In this setup, the partners share a common network of friends and
hang out sometimes. However, they are not necessarily good friends and mostly hang out in
situations where alcohol is being consumed. The partners tend to serve as “safeties” or “back-
ups” for each other on occasions when neither person has found another sexual partner for
the evening.

4) Successful Transition In These are cases where people reported intentionally using a FWB as
a way of starting a true romance and succeeded in making the switch.

5) Unintentional Transition In These are cases where people reported accidentally or uninten-
tionally going from being FWBs to romantic partners. Whoops! This is how things often seem
to end up in the movies: media depictions suggest that FWBs can only go on so long before
people start having romantic feelings for each other.

6) Failed Transition In This is a situation in which people reported that either one or both part-
ners wanted to turn their FWB into a true romance, but failed to make a successful conversion.

7) Transition Out In these cases, people reported that they broke up with a romantic partner,
but then became FWBs for at least a while afterward (i.e., they had “ex-sex”).

As you probably noticed when reading about these different types of FWBs, there is only
one thing they all have in common: sex. Other than that, they are quite distinct in terms of
the amount of emphasis placed on the friendship, frequency of interaction, and what the
partners want.

Please keep in mind that this research is limited in that it primarily examined heterosexual col-
lege students. Thus, we do not know whether the same variation in FWBs exists among people
of different sexual orientations and ages. Although we still have much to learn about FWBs, it
seems safe to conclude that this type of relationship is much more complicated than many of us
ever thought!

Note: Reprinted with permission from lx iod Paycehghny (www.lehmiller.com).
Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from umuc on 2020-11-30 08:17:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
7.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

http://www.lehmiller.com

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia206

Although being single comprises a wide range of relationship states, one thing is clear from
the research: on average, singles tend to be less sexually satisfied than people who are mar-
ried or involved in more committed relationships. Despite the glamorous nature of singlehood
depicted in television shows such as Sex in the City, singles report less frequent sexual activ-
ity and lower levels of sexual satisfaction compared to their married counterparts (Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). In addition, single women are less likely to reach orgasm
with casual partners than with committed partners. As some evidence of this, one survey of over
14,000 female college students found that just 11% of women reported orgasming during their
most recent hookup if they had no previous sexual experience with that partner (Armstrong,
England, & Fogarty, 2012). Among women in romantic relationships of at least six months
duration, that number was 67%. What accounts for this “orgasm gap?” One reason is because
sexual activities that increase the odds of female orgasm (e.g., cunnilingus) are more likely to
occur in committed relationships than in casual encounters. In addition, long-term partners
learn how to please each other better. Some have also argued that there is a sexual script that
values male pleasure over female pleasure in the context of hookups.

Beyond this, research has found that FWBs tend to be less satisfied and have lower lev-
els of sexual communication than people involved in committed romantic relationships
(Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2013). However, all of this should not be taken to mean
that singles are inherently dissatisfied with the sex they are having or with the quality of
their relationships; rather, it appears that singles are satisfied overall, but just not quite
as satisfied as people in more committed relationships. Moreover, for those singles who
do have an unsatisfying sex life, getting married is not necessarily the solution because
sexless marriages certainly exist. In fact, according to the National Health and Social Life
Survey, approximately 1 in 7 married adults report having had little to no sex in the past

Figure 8.2 Friends with benefits frequently try to maintain an intimate and sexual relationship without
developing romantic feelings; however, they are not always successful in doing so. ©vgstudio/123RF.COM.

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 207

year (Laumann et al., 1994). Maintaining high levels of sexual activity and satisfaction in
marriage requires work, a topic we will return to at the end of this chapter.

One final note about singles is that some of their sexual behaviors pose important health
risks. In particular, research finds that people who engage in hookups (Paul et al., 2000) and
FWBs (Lehmiller et al., 2013) have far from perfect condom use and seem to have a higher
than average number of sexual partners. Such behavior, coupled with increased alcohol use
and (potentially) impaired decision-making (Owen & Fincham, 2011; Paul et al., 2000), poses
a significant risk in terms of contracting and spreading sexually transmitted infections and
could potentially result in unintended pregnancies. Serial monogamists face a similar risk
because they often hold the mistaken belief that monogamous people do not need to use
protection (Misovich, Fisher, & Fisher, 1997). The issue here is that serial monogamists often
jump from one relationship to the next (sometimes very quickly) without being tested for
infections in between, and while they may use condoms at first, this behavior rapidly drops off
in a new relationship as the partners come to trust each other (Critelli & Suire, 1998), thereby
creating infection vulnerability. Thus, it is important for singles of all stripes to recognize the
need for consistency in safer-sex practices and to avoid falling prey to false feelings of security.

Love and Committed Relationships

At the other end of the relationship spectrum, we have loving and committed relationships.
These are relationships where there is usually some sexual component, but also a very deep
emotional and intimate aspect to the relationship. Let us begin by defining what psychologists
mean by the terms “love” and “commitment” and consider some of the major theoretical per-
spectives. These theories will provide the necessary backdrop for understanding when and why
relationships succeed or fail. After we describe these theories, we will discuss just how diverse
loving and committed relationships can be.

The Nature of Love

Everyone thinks they know what love is, but in actuality, it is difficult to pinpoint a singular
definition of this concept that all of us would agree with because love is very subjective and
means different things to different people. For instance, some people view love as an emotion
and describe it in terms of how they feel when they are around someone else. In contrast, other
people define love as a behavior and describe it in terms of the things they would do or the
sacrifices they would make for another person. Given this variability in definition and mean-
ing, we will define love very broadly for purposes of this chapter as a special set of cognitions,
emotions, and behaviors observed in an intimate relationship. Thus, love is something that
influences how we think, act, and feel toward another person.

Psychologists typically discuss love as consisting of two distinct subtypes: passionate and
companionate (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2003). Each type of love encompasses a unique set of
feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.

Passionate Love
Passionate love is an all-consuming psychological and physiological state. At the cognitive
level, it is characterized by an almost obsessive preoccupation with the other person (i.e., you
cannot stop thinking about your loved one), as well as an overly idealized view of your partner
in which you fail to recognize and acknowledge that person’s flaws. Emotionally, it is character-
ized by an intense sexual attraction, as well as frequent feelings of excitement and ecstasy in the
partner’s presence; however, when separated, feelings of sadness can be extremely intense. In

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia208

addition, at the physical level, it is characterized by elevated heart rate, sweating, “butterflies”
in the stomach, blushing, and other general signs of heightened arousal. While all of these
feelings may be very strong in the early stages of a loving relationship, their intensity tends to
decrease over time.

As you may have found in your own life, passionate love is something that usually devel-
ops before you know your partner very well. During this time, potential warning flags might
emerge, but because our feelings for the other person are so intense, they lead us to overlook
the other person’s faults and to ignore potential relationship problems. As a result, this type of
love has very little in the way of logic behind it. It is partly for this reason that passionate love
tends to be a rather brief, transitory state that may only last for a period of weeks or months.

One of the keys to relationship success is to recognize that those early butterflies usually do
not go on forever, which means it is generally advisable to avoid getting swept away and rushing
into marriage because those initial feelings of passion do not guarantee long-term relationship
success. Such relationships work out sometimes, but they often do not. As a personal example,
from the day my parents met until they got married was less than six months and they are
still together today; however, I have a close relative who followed an almost identical path to
marriage and was divorced within a year. Some amount of disillusionment inevitably sets in as
passion begins to subside, which forces couples to shift the foundation of their relationship to
something more stable. The quote below from the book Captain Corelli’s Mandolin captures
this idea far more eloquently than I possibly can.

Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when
it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have
become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because
this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulga-
tion of promises of eternal passion. That is just being “in love” which any of us can convince
ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and
this is both an art and a fortunate accident.

Companionate Love
Companionate love is much deeper and is not nearly as intense as passionate love. Compan-
ionate love is characterized by a strong emotional attachment and commitment to another per-
son. Unlike passionate love, companionate love is based on the full knowledge and appreciation
of another person’s character. Thus, rather than overlook your partner’s faults, you consciously
recognize that your partner is imperfect (as we all are) and learn to tolerate any shortcomings.
Companionate love is also characterized by a desire to make the relationship work despite any
difficulties that might arise, as well as a willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the betterment
of the relationship.

People who experience companionate love can and do still have sex, although it may not be
as frequent or as intense as it is in a passionate love relationship. However, higher levels of trust
and mutual concern for one another’s needs could potentially improve sexual communication and
satisfaction and allow partners to explore their sexual fantasies.

Companionate love obviously does not build up overnight; rather, it develops gradually as
you get to know each other. As a result, it tends to be much more enduring. This is the type of
love that can last for decades.

Relationships often begin with passionate love, and then either dissolve or transition into
companionate love. There is no exact timetable for when this occurs, but the usual time
course is somewhere between 6 and 30 months after the start of the relationship (Hatfield &
Walster, 1978); however, it is important to mention that passion does not necessarily decline
or disappear in all relationships. Some long-term couples (who have been together 3 years or

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 209

longer) report enduring passion and claim to feel as passionate today as they did when their
relationship first began (Frederick, Lever, Gillespie, & Garcia, 2017). Later in this chapter, we
will consider some of the factors associated with enduring passion. On a side note, whereas the
typical pattern is to go from passionate to companionate, the reverse can happen as well (i.e.,
when good friends become lovers), but this is far less common.

Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
This distinction between passionate and companionate love and the transition that
occurs between them was expanded upon in one of the most well-known theories of love,

Figure 8.3 Passionate love is characterized by high levels of sexual desire and activity. ©bezikus/Shutterstock.

Figure 8.4 Companionate love reflects a deep emotional connection that tends to be enduring.
©MilanMarkovic78/Shutterstock.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia210

Robert Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular Theory. The idea behind this theory is that love con-
sists of three distinct components. First, we have passion, the motivational dimension. Passion
encompasses physical attraction and sexual desire, and it is what distinguishes romantic love
from the love that we might feel toward our family and friends. Second is intimacy, the emo-
tional dimension. Intimacy refers to our sense of bondedness and emotional connection with
another person. Please note that in the context of this theory, “intimacy” does not refer to phys-
ical closeness; rather, it refers to emotional closeness (e.g., sharing personal information, giving
and receiving support). Finally, we have commitment, the cognitive dimension. Commitment
refers to our conscious decision to maintain a relationship over time, for better or for worse.

Consistent with our previous discussion of passionate love, Sternberg believes that passion
tends to build up quickly, reach a peak, and then gradually decline. To compensate for the
loss of passion, intimacy and commitment may come in, and when they do, the relationship is
likely to survive. If no such compensation occurs, however, the relationship will dissolve rather
quickly.

The Triangular Theory posits that passion, intimacy, and commitment exist to varying
degrees in a given relationship. Depending upon the unique combination of components, we
can experience a number of different forms of love. Specifically, this theory specifies eight
varieties of love, which can be seen in Table 8.1. One of the nice things about this theory is that
it helps to explain why there is so much variability in how people define love. In addition, it
provides a conceptual basis for distinguishing between the kinds of love we feel for romantic
partners and for other people in our lives (e.g., friends and family). In this theory, the ideal form
of romantic love is known as consummate love, in which passion, intimacy, and commitment
are present simultaneously. This is the kind of love most of us dream of, but it is extremely dif-
ficult to achieve and maintain.

Sternberg’s theory is called the Triangular Theory for a reason. Specifically, Sternberg views
each person as having a unique love triangle (and no, this is not the type of love triangle you
might see on a soap opera where three people are in love but not all of those feelings are recip-
rocated). Your love triangle (see Figure 8.5) is the relative amount of passion, intimacy, and
commitment you have in your relationship. However, within a given relationship, the partners’
triangles may or may not overlap very well because the overall size of the triangle and each of
the angles may be different (e.g., one person may be more committed or passionate than the
other). The better the match between two people’s triangles, the more satisfied they are likely
to be together.

Table 8.1 Sternberg’s eight varieties of love.

Type of love Passion? Intimacy? Commitment? Example

Nonlove No No No Acquaintances
Liking No Yes No Close friends
Infatuation Yes No No Crushes
Empty love No No Yes Some arranged marriages
Fatuous love Yes No Yes Long-distance relationships
Romantic love Yes Yes No Friends with benefits
Companionate love No Yes Yes Long-term, happy couples
Consummate love Yes Yes Yes “Epic” romances

Source: Sternberg (1988).

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 211

John Lee’s Styles of Loving
An alternative perspective on love was provided by John Lee (1977). Whereas Sternberg
focused on describing certain types of love, Lee’s emphasis was on individual differences in
how people approach love. Specifically, Lee argues that people can have one of six “love styles”:

1) The Romantic love style is characterized by being hopelessly romantic (as depicted in films
such as Pretty Woman and The Notebook). These are people who have a tendency to take
great pleasure in their partner’s physical appearance and often fall in love “at first sight.”

2) The Altruistic love style is characterized by selflessness and unconditional love. Such per-
sons are generous, self-sacrificing, and faithful.

3) The Pragmatic love style refers to a very rational and practical approach to love, in which
people look for partners who are likely to be compatible. Sometimes known as the “shopping
list” love style, the emphasis here is not on finding passion so much as the best life partner.

4) The Game-Playing love style emphasizes a more casual and uncommitted approach to love.
Game players take great delight in the act of seduction and view marriage as the ultimate
trap. Such individuals may not be fazed by a break-up, and they may not think twice about
committing infidelity.

5) The Companionate love style is an approach to love that begins with friendship and even-
tually transitions into a very peaceful, affectionate, and enduring form of love. These are
people who want their lover to be their best friend.

6) The Possessive love style (or as I call it, the Fatal Attraction approach) is characterized by
very intense, obsessive love relationships in which it is very easy to reach emotional highs
and lows. Such individuals can be insecure, jealous, and unstable, and they tend to see sex
as a form of emotional reassurance.

In Lee’s view, no single love style is “better” or “worse” than any of the others. Instead, what
matters when it comes to relationship success is the match between the partners’ approaches.
As you might imagine, major mismatches (e.g., game-players paired with possessives) are
unlikely to be successful. Research has revealed sex differences in love styles (Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1986). College-age men are more likely to adopt the game-playing and romantic
approaches, whereas women are more likely to adopt the pragmatic, possessive, and compan-
ionate styles. Such findings could be interpreted as evidence of evolutionary theorists’ conten-
tion that men tend to be more focused on looks and casual relationships, whereas women are
more focused on finding a long-term, reliable partner. What is your love style? Visit the Your
Sexuality 8.1 box to find out.

Passion Commitment

Intimacy

Figure 8.5 Robert Sternberg (1988) theorizes that the “triangle” of love is composed of passion, intimacy, and
commitment.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia212

The Nature of Commitment

As discussed in the context of the Triangular Theory, commitment is often defined as an
individual’s conscious decision to stick with a given partner over time. However, whereas
Sternberg conceptualized commitment as a subcomponent of love, other psychologists have
defined commitment as a separate, but overlapping construct. This makes sense because while
love and commitment do have a lot in common, it remains possible to have one without the
other. Another major distinction is that whereas love is a multi-faceted concept that has cogni-
tive, emotional, and behavioral components, commitment is often viewed as a unitary cogni-
tive construct. As a result, it is useful to consider love and commitment separately.

In this section, we will discuss commitment in the context of the Investment Model
(Rusbult, 1980), which is one of the most well-known and widely utilized theories of relation-
ship commitment in the field of psychology. This model is based heavily on the principles of
exchange theory (see Chapter 1).

The Investment Model
From the perspective of the Investment Model, commitment is usually measured as one’s
intention to persist in a given relationship over time (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). This
intention is viewed as a product of three related factors: satisfaction level, quality of alterna-
tives, and investment size. Satisfaction refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of a rela-
tionship. Are things going well, or are they going poorly? In order to make this determination,
we consider the overall ratio of good to bad things in the relationship and evaluate it relative
to some comparison level that can help to establish whether we are getting what we think we
deserve. That is, we might think about whether our relationship outcomes are better or worse
than those we have received in past relationships or those that our friends are receiving in their
relationships. To the extent that we can make downward social comparisons (i.e., comparing
ourselves to people who are worse off ), the more satisfied we are, and the more committed we
tend to be.

Quality of alternatives refers to your perception of how desirable all of the other people in
your dating pool currently are. Thus, we also have a comparison level for alternatives, in which
we compare the outcomes in our current relationship to those we think we could be getting
with someone else (e.g., could you be having more or better sex with another person?). Quality
of alternatives also encompasses different relationship states with your current partner, mean-
ing that we might also consider whether it would be more desirable to be friends or FWBs
with our current partner rather than romantic lovers. The more desirable these other options
appear, the less committed we are.

Finally, investments refer to everything we have put into our relationship over time that
would be lost or decreased in value were our current relationship to end. Investments can be
tangible (e.g., material objects, money) or intangible (e.g., shared memories, time and effort) in
nature. As more investments are made, couples become tied together because starting a new
relationship could mean losing certain things (e.g., homes, cars, custody of children) and deal-
ing with a number of complications (e.g., figuring out which friends you get to keep). Thus, the
more invested a couple is, the more committed they tend to be.

There is a vast amount of research showing that people are most committed when they are
highly satisfied, perceive few alternatives, and have many investments (Le & Agnew, 2003). In
addition, commitment strengthens a relationship by encouraging pro-relationship behavior (e.g.,
willingness to sacrifice your own interest for the sake of your partner; Van Lange et al., 1997).
This, in turn, makes it more likely that the relationship will remain intact over time.

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 213

Your Sexuality 8.1 What is Your “Love Style?”

How do you typically approach love? To figure out your own love style, please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with each of the following statements while thinking about your current
romantic relationship or the most recent person with whom you were romantically involved.
Please use a response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Love Style A
_____ My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.
_____ My partner fits my ideal standards for physical beauty/handsomeness.
_____ My partner and I have the right physical chemistry between us.

Love Style B
_____ I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her.
_____ I believe that what my partner does not know about me won’t hurt him/her.
_____ When my partner gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.

Love Style C
_____ I expect to always be friends with my partner.
_____ Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
_____ Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.

Love Style D
_____ I considered what my partner was going to become in life before I committed myself to

him/her.
_____ In choosing my partner, I believe it was best to love someone with a similar background.
_____ A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my family.

Love Style E
_____ When things are not right with my partner and me, my stomach gets upset.
_____ Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my partner that I cannot sleep.
_____ I cannot relax if I suspect that my partner is with someone else.

Love Style F
_____ I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.
_____ Whatever I own is my partners to use as he/she chooses.
_____ I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his/hers.

Now go through and tally your scores for each section. Please note that love style A = romantic,
B = game-playing, C = companionate, D = pragmatic, E = possessive, and F = altruistic. Which
scores are your highest and lowest? Is this consistent with how you have approached romantic
and sexual relationships in general, or do you tend to act differently with different partners?
Please keep in mind that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers to any of the above questions
and that no single love style is better than another.

Source of love style statements: Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke. Jhsri g hf hcS g iod Plrahi g lg aShiaeSia, 15, 147–
159, © 1998 by Clyde Hendrick, Susan S. Hendrick, and Amy Dicke. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia214

This model has been used to explain commitment across many types of relationships, includ-
ing same-sex and different-sex couples (Le & Agnew, 2003; Lehmiller 2010), but also more
casual types of relationships, such as FWBs (VanderDrift et al., 2012). One final note about
the Investment Model is that, in general, satisfaction tends to be the strongest predictor of
commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003). However, some factors may be more or less important in
certain relationships. For instance, women in abusive relationships often report being com-
mitted to their partners not because they are satisfied, but because they do not believe they
have anywhere else to go (i.e., they may have very poor alternatives; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).
Likewise, people in sexless marriages may be highly dissatisfied with their sex lives, yet remain
in their relationships because they are raising children together, have financial security, and
share a long history with many great memories (i.e., they are highly highly invested; Donnelly
& Burgess, 2008). Thus, this model is particularly valuable from the standpoint that it can help
us to understand why people remain in both good and bad relationships.

Varieties of Loving and Committed Relationships

When asked to generate a real-life example of a loving and committed relationship, more often
than not, people will point to some heterosexual married couple they know. The reason for
this is because heterosexuality (Herek, 2000), monogamy (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Zie-
gler, 2013), and marriage (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001) tend to be held up as the ideal
relationship characteristics in most societies around the world. However, relationships are far
more diverse than this. Below, we consider just a few dimensions on which loving and commit-
ted relationships vary and explore some of the characteristics associated with those relation-
ships. Specifically, we will consider relationships that differ in terms of sexual orientation, views
on monogamy, and decision to cohabit or get married.

Figure 8.6 Making comparisons to couples that appear to be worse off (e.g., couples who fight all of the time)
can make you feel better about your own relationship. ©Cathy Yeulet/123RF.COM.

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 215

Different-Sex vs. Same-Sex
Although same-sex couples can be found in most cultures and societies throughout the
world, acceptance of these relationships varies considerably. Some cultures are more tolerant
and offer government-sanctioned relationship recognition to same-sex partners; however,
the legal name applied to such relationships (marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership)
and the rights that go along with those relationship labels differ. Currently, relatively few
societies offer full marriage equality to people of all sexualities, but this has changed dra-
matically in recent years. For a list of countries that recognize same-sex marriage nationwide,
see Table 8.2.

There are a number of common myths and misconceptions about same-sex couples.
For instance, as noted in Chapter 6, same-sex couples do not typically adopt strict roles of
“ husband” and “wife”; rather, they are more inclined to establish equality and power-sharing
(Kurdek, 1998). There is also a common assumption that same- and different-sex relationships
operate in fundamentally different ways, but the reality is that they are far more similar than
they are different (Kurdek, 2004). Moreover, same-sex couples tend to be just as satisfied with
and committed to their partners as different-sex couples, which indicates that overall relation-
ship health and quality is similar across sexualities (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006). That said, some
research has found that same-sex couples tend to break up more frequently than different-sex
couples (Kurdek, 1998); however, part of the reason for this likely stems from the fact that
same-sex couples are less likely to have the option of legal marriage (Lehmiller, 2010). The lack
of institutional and social support for same-sex relationships coupled with a less complicated
exit strategy (i.e., no need for a messy divorce) would appear to be plausible explanations for
the higher breakup rate.

Figure 8.7 The degree to which same-sex relationships are socially accepted varies substantially across
cultures. ©dmbaker/123RF.COM.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia216

Monogamous vs. Non-monogamous
In the modern Western world, monogamous relationships are the norm, and they tend to be
viewed very positively. In fact, research has found that a halo effect surrounds monogamy, with
people perceiving that this practice promotes not only strong commitment, but also health
and other benefits; in contrast, non-monogamy of all types (consensual and nonconsenseual)
is socially stigmatized, and people who practice it are viewed in a very negative light (Conley
et al., 2013). Survey data utilizing online convenience samples has found that about 5% of par-
ticipants say that they are currently practicing some form of consensual non-monogamy (i.e.,
they have an explicit agreement with their partner that the pursuit of sexual and/or romantic
relationships with other people is acceptable; Rubin et al., 2014); however, far more people
appear to have tried it before. In a national US survey in which participants were asked whether
they had ever been in any kind of sexually open relationship, approximately 21% reported that
they had (Haupert et al., 2016). Please note that consensual non-monogamy is distinct from
infidelity, and that people who practice consensual non-monogamy do not necessarily endorse
or approve of cheating. In fact, consensual non-monogamy is sometimes referred to as “ethical
non-monogamy,” because the people who practice it are usually strong proponents of being
open and honest with all parties involved.

Table 8.2 Countries that recognize same-sex marriage
nationwide and year of legalization.

Same-sex marriage performed nationwide Year of legalization

Argentina 2010
Belgium 2003
Brazil 2013
Canada 2005
Colombia 2016
Denmark 2012
England and Wales 2013
Finland 2015
France 2013
Greenland 2015
Iceland 2010
Ireland 2015
Luxembourg 2014
The Netherlands 2000
New Zealand 2013
Norway 2009
Portugal 2010
Scotland 2014
South Africa 2006
Spain 2005
Sweden 2009
United States 2015
Uruguay 2013

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 217

Consensual non-monogamy can take many forms, including open relationships, swinging,
polygamy, and polyamory. Open relationships refer to couples who have a relational “home
base” with one another, but have the ability to pursue other intimate relationships at the same
time. The way open relationships work varies. Some couples require full disclosure of any out-
side sexual activities, and others adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Some couples only “play
together” (e.g., by having the occasional threesome or “fourgy”), while others may pursue out-
side relationships on their own, which may be one-time sexual encounters, ongoing FWBs, or
perhaps something even more intimate. Related to this is swinging (formerly known as “wife
swapping”), a sexual practice in which married couples swap partners for an afternoon or even-
ing. This may occur in sex clubs, at private parties, or through online arrangements.

Polygamy refers to a form of marriage featuring multiple spouses. Scientists have reported
that polygamy is permissible in 84% of human cultures; in most of those cultures, however, only
a small minority of individuals practice it (Fisher, 1992). There are two variants of polygamy:
polygyny, an arrangement in which one man has multiple wives, and polyandry, an arrange-
ment in which one woman has multiple husbands. Polygyny tends to be the more common
variation, although both forms are explicitly outlawed in the United States and in a number of
other countries. Both polygyny and polyandry have been argued to be evolutionarily adaptive
practices at times. In polygyny, the potential evolutionary benefits for men are obvious: multi-
ple female partners ensure a greater number of offspring carrying a man’s genes. In polyandry,
the proposed evolutionary benefits include protection against having just one partner who
could potentially have a gene defect, as well as promoting sperm competition (i.e., survival of
the fittest) in the fertilization of ova (for a review of these and other theories, see Cornell &
Tregenza, 2007).

Finally, we have polyamory, which refers to the practice of having multiple sexual and/or
romantic partners simultaneously. It is distinct from polygamy in the sense that someone who
is polyamorous may or may not be married. It is also distinct from swinging and open relation-
ships in the sense that within polyamory, the emphasis is generally not on recreational sex so

Figure 8.8 An infinity symbol encased within a heart is often used to symbolize polyamory, or the idea that
it is possible to love multiple persons simultaneously. ©Ratatosk (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 Germany (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/de/deed.en

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia218

much as on building intimate relationships. Polyamory is a term that means different things to
different people. Some people consider it to be a type of relationship, whereas others categorize
it as a relationship orientation (kind of like a sexual orientation). The one thing that is clear
across all of the different definitions and views of polyamory is that being polyamorous means
believing that exclusivity of both an intimate and sexual nature is not a necessary precursor to
love and commitment.

Consensual non-monogamy and its various permutations have been largely overlooked in
psychological research. As a result, relatively little is known about them and how they compare
to monogamous relationships. What little research exists suggests that people in consensually
non-monogamous relationships tend to have levels of relationship quality similar to monoga-
mists (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015), with some studies reporting that people in non-monogamous
relationships are happier in certain ways. For instance, a national US survey of 1,092 swingers
found that they reported being happier in their marriages than couples in traditional marriages
(Bergstrand & Blevins Williams, 2000). This same study revealed that the majority of swing-
ers (62.2%) said that swinging improved their relationships; the remainder said it had no effect
(35.6%) or that it made them less happy (1.7%). Of course, this is not to say that swinging would
necessarily be good for all couples, and it could be that there was a major selection effect in this
study (e.g., perhaps people who swing are less jealous than average, or perhaps when swinging
has a negative effect it leads to a speedy divorce). However, one theoretical reason that could
potentially account for why persons in consensually non-monogamous relationships might be
happier in certain respects is the so-called Coolidge Effect. The basic idea here is that as
we become more familiar with a given sexual stimulus, our arousal habituates or lessens. For
example, when someone has sex with the same partner in the same way over and over again,
their interest in sex tends to decline. However, sexual desire can be reawakened through nov-
elty in the form of new sexual activities and/or partners. Consensual non-monogamy is there-
fore one way of fending off the habituation of desire because introducing new sexual partners
helps to keep things fresh and interesting. In case you are wondering where the Coolidge Effect
got its name, it comes from a humorous anecdote about a visit to a chicken farm by former US
President Calvin Coolidge and his wife, Grace:

“Mrs. Coolidge, observing the vigor with which one particularly prominent rooster covered
hen after hen, asked the guide to make certain that the President took note of the rooster’s
behavior. When President Coolidge got to the hen yard, the rooster was pointed out and his
exploits recounted by the guide, who added that Mrs. Coolidge had requested that the
President be made aware of the rooster’s prowess. The president reflected for a moment and
replied, ‘Tell Mrs. Coolidge that there is more than one hen.’” (Hatfield & Walster, 1978)

Although many people argue that monogamy is inherently “safe” and non-monogamy is
“unsafe,” this may not be accurate. Yes, non-monogamous individuals typically report a greater
number of lifetime sexual partners, and studies suggest that more partners usually means a
higher risk of sexual infections (Levinson, Jaccard, & Beamer, 1995). However, the sexual health
disparity between monogamous and non-monogamous individuals may not be as wide as it
first seems. In fact, in a study comparing rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) between
people who had made monogamy agreements with a partner and those who had not, no dif-
ference was found in reports of having ever had an STI (Lehmiller, 2015)! What accounts for
this counterintuitive finding? For one thing, it appears that people who are consensually non-
monogamous take more sexual precautions. In this study, they had higher rates of condom use,
engaged in more sexual communication, and were more likely to have been tested for STIs com-
pared to persons who had made monogamy agreements. It is also important to note that a lot of

Lhvl iod hmmSaalod lg aShiaeSia 219

the folks who had made monogamy agreements ended up cheating. As we will see later in this
chapter, such behavior is not rare. Moreover, people who cheat are not usually practicing safe
sex with any of their partners and they tend to keep their indiscretions secret, thereby creating
an opportunity to spread infections to an unknowing partner. In light of these results, it seem
that while monogamy is safe in theory, it may not be as safe as it is assumed to be in practice.

Married vs. Cohabiting
One other dimension on which loving and committed relationships vary is in the partners’
decision to get married or to live together without a formal legal bond (i.e., to cohabit). Mar-
riage is an institution that exists in most, but not all societies to serve purposes ranging from
the practical (e.g., defining inheritance rights) to the romantic (e.g., achieving personal happi-
ness and fulfillment). However, the precise function of marriage differs widely across cultures.
For instance, in some Eastern cultures (e.g., India and China), the practice of arranged mar-
riage is common, in which two sets of parents will join their children for pragmatic reasons
(e.g., shared religion, reputation, consolidation of wealth). The children may have no or only
limited say in who their partner will be. In contrast, the more individualistic cultures of the
West consider marriage more a matter of individual choice, and religion may or may not factor
into it at all. Interestingly, in a study comparing the marital satisfaction of persons from India
who were in arranged marriages to persons from the United States who were in marriages of
personal choice, no differences in satisfaction were found (Myers, Madathil, & Tingle, 2005).
Thus, it is not necessarily the case that being able to select the partner of your choosing ensures
a happier relationship.

Worldwide, the marriage rate has declined in recent years, whereas the number of couples
who cohabit or seek to define their relationships in other ways has increased (Cohn, Passel,

Figure 8.9 In collectivistic cultures such as India, the practice of arranged marriage is common: the needs of
the family and community are given greater weight than the needs of the individual. ©Deborah Kolb/123RF.
COM.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia220

Wang, & Livingston, 2011). Part of the reason for this is because marriage is no longer viewed
as a permanent (i.e., “till death do us part”) institution. Given the high divorce rate and the
fact that dissolving a marriage can be unpleasant, expensive, and time-consuming, people are
increasingly opting to cohabit before marriage as a “trial period” or because they wish to create
legal bonds that are more easily broken in the event the relationship crumbles. For instance,
many heterosexual couples in France are opting for civil unions over marriages because civil
unions (originally designed for France’s same-sex couples) offer many of the same rights
and privileges of full marriage, but can be entered and exited far more easily (Sayare & de la
Baume, 2010).

Is the trend away from marriage and toward cohabitation and less restrictive legal arrange-
ments a good thing? It depends which outcome variables you consider because each relation-
ship type has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. For instances, different-sex couples
who cohabit tend to have more equality in their relationships and are less likely to subscribe
to the traditional gender role beliefs of male breadwinners and female housewives compared to
those who are married (Blackwell & Lichter, 2000). Cohabitation also makes it easier to end the
relationship because no divorce is typically required (unless you live in a state or country that
offers common-law marriage, in which a couple that lives together for a set amount of time
is automatically viewed as married in the eyes of the government; however, this is rare). Of
course, the downside of cohabitation is that it offers fewer legal rights and protections to the
partners (e.g., if one partner passes away, the surviving partner is not necessarily entitled to the
entire estate and, even if it is inherited, a steep tax bill may be due, unlike married couples). In
addition, couples who cohabit before marriage report lower marital quality (Jose, O’Leary, &
Moyer, 2010). Although it was previously thought that cohabiting with someone before mar-
riage increased risk of divorce, it now appears that a higher likelihood of divorce only occurs
among individuals who have had prior experience moving in and out with multiple partners.
This makes sense because if someone has dissolved several marital-like relationships in the
past, they will likely have fewer hesitations about ending an actual marriage.

Regardless of whether a couple cohabits or gets married, one advantage offered by both rela-
tionship arrangements is enhanced health. Specifically, research has found that people who
are in long-term relationships tend to have better physical and psychological health than those
who are single (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). It was originally thought that these health benefits
were unique to marriage, but more recent studies have found that the effects extend to cohab-
iting partners as well. The one caveat to this is that the health effects of being partnered are
typically much greater for men than they are for women (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). We
cannot say exactly why, but it likely has something to do with the fact that women typically have
many sources of social and emotional support outside of their primary romantic relationship
whereas men often do not.

Why Do Some Relationships Succeed While Others Fail?

To round out this chapter, we will discuss some of the characteristics associated with good
relationships, and those that are linked to relationship difficulties.

Characteristics of Good Relationships

What can you do to enhance the quality of your own sexual and romantic relationships? Psy-
chologists have identified several features of high-functioning relationships. Attempting to
model these attributes in your own relationship may enhance satisfaction for both you and
your partner(s).

ey h hml lg aShiaeSia sccllodeSgl aelra F Sg? 221

Positive Communication
Psychologist John Gottman has studied married couples extensively and has found that the way
couples communicate during conflict situations is a potent predictor of relationship success. In
one of his most well-known studies, Gottman (1994) videotaped hundreds of married couples
discussing a problem area in their relationship. These couples were then tracked over time to
see which ones stayed together. The strongest predictor of whether a given relationship suc-
ceeded or failed was the ratio of positive to negative comments that emerged during the inter-
action. Specifically, those couples who expressed at least five positive comments for every one
negative comment were the most likely to survive; couples who expressed negative comments
more frequently often headed to an early divorce. This research revealed a few other important
communication patterns. For instance, breakup rates were higher among couples who engaged
in more defensive behaviors (e.g., making excuses or failing to take responsibility) and when
male partners engaged in stone-walling (i.e., appearing indifferent or showing no emotional
response to their female partner’s concerns). Although this research focused on married het-
erosexual couples, Gottman’s work on same-sex couples has yielded similar findings about the
importance of positive communication (Gottman et al., 2003).

Healthy Sexuality
Positive communication during conflict is one important factor in relationship health, but it
is just as important for that positive communication to carry over into the bedroom, because
partners who communicate more about sex in general and during the act itself tend to be
more sexually satisfied (Babin, 2013). This is not particularly surprising, because people who
are comfortable talking about sex are more likely to give their partners direction, discuss their
sexual fantasies, and inquire about their partners’ needs. The keys to effective sexual com-
munication are (1) listening to your partner’s needs and concerns (perhaps even by repeating
their concerns back in your own words or asking clarifying questions to ensure that you have
understood), (2) expressing your own needs and concerns in very clear and unambiguous lan-
guage (i.e., do not leave any room for guesswork), and (3) keeping the conversation positive

Figure 8.10 Communicating about sex appears to enhance sexual satisfaction. ©Dmitriy Shironosov/123RF.
COM.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia222

and non-judgmental (i.e., do not just point out what your partner is doing wrong—make sure
to tell them what they are doing right!). Also, keep in mind that not all sexual communication
has to be in the form of words. Panting, moaning, and groaning can help convey your sexual
likes and dislikes as well.

In addition, couples should continue having sex with a frequency that is desirable to both part-
ners. Sexual activity provides an array of benefits both to the individuals involved and to their
relationship, but chief among them is that sex appears to have a stress-relieving effect for couples
that live together (Ein-Dor, & Hirschberger, 2012). To learn more about this research, see the
Digging Deeper 8.3 box. How much sex is necessary for optimal relationship functioning? There
is no “correct” frequency with which a couple is “supposed” to have sex, because the amount of
sex that people desire can differ widely. Different people have different sex drives, with some
desiring sex all of the time and others hardly desiring it at all. Thus, what makes one couple
happy might be seen as too little or too much by others. The key is to find a sexual frequency
that meets both partners’ needs. Of course, this is easier said than done, and in cases where
there is a large discrepancy between partners’ sexual desire, sex therapy may be the answer (see
chapter 13). Consensual non-monogamy may be a viable option for some couples too.

That said, finding the right frequency is easier if both partners possess sexual communal
strength. This can be thought of as a willingness to satisfy your partner’s sexual needs, even
when they do not necessarily align with your own personal desires (Muise, Impett, Logan, &
Desmarais, 2013). Having sexual communal strength may mean occasionally consenting to sex
even when you are not quite in the mood, or perhaps indulging one of your partner’s sexual
fantasies even though it is not as big of a turn-on for you. This is not to say that you should start
doing things that make you feel uncomfortable in order to keep your relationship alive; rather,
think of this as mutual compromise designed to help one another achieve sexual satisfaction.

One question students often have about starting and maintaining a healthy sexual relation-
ship is when a couple “should” have sex. The popular media suggests that having sex too early is

Figure 8.11 For couples in good relationships, having sex can relieve feelings of stress. ©Frenk
Kaufmann/123RF.COM.

ey h hml lg aShiaeSia sccllodeSgl aelra F Sg? 223

problematic (e.g., your partner may not respect you or think of you as “relationship material”),
but that waiting too long is equally bad (e.g., if you save yourself for marriage, you may discover
that you are sexually incompatible with your partner). The truth is that there is no “right” or
“correct” time to start having sex because each person and each relationship is different. The
key is to do it when both of you are ready and feel comfortable, whether that is your first date
or your wedding night. Consistent with this idea, research has found that there is no meaning-
ful difference in relationship satisfaction between heterosexual couples who had sex early on
and those who delayed. For example, Willoughby, Carroll, and Busby (2013) found a difference
in relationship quality of just one-tenth of one point on a 5-point scale in a study comparing
couples who had sex sooner to those who waited, which tells us that the timing of sex is not as
important as the popular media makes it out to be.

Self-Expansion
One final characteristic of high-functioning relationships is fulfillment of both partners’ needs
for self-expansion. According to self-expansion theory, human beings have a fundamental
need to “expand” or grow the self over time (Aron & Aron, 1986). This is accomplished by con-
tinually engaging in activities that are exciting, novel, and varied, as well as by developing new
relationships. In fact, just being in a relationship provides some degree of expansion because,
over time, the self will start to incorporate certain characteristics of the partner (i.e., we start
to associate our partners’ traits with ourselves; Aron & Aron, 1996). However, to meet one’s
self-expansion needs over the long run, couple members need to regularly share self-expanding
experiences. That is, couples need to continually visit new places and try exciting and different
things. When romantic partners fall into a routine of staying at home and watching TV every
night, they fail to meet their expansion needs and run the risk of the relationship going stale.
Consistent with this idea, research on long-term married couples has found that those who
engage in the most novel and exciting activities together report having the most intense feel-
ings of love for one another (O’Leary et al., 2012). Likewise, one of the big differences between
people in long-term relationships whose passion endured vs. declined is in sexual variety
(Frederick et al., 2017). Specifically, couples who mix things up in the bedroom (e.g., using sex
toys, wearing sexy underwear or lingerie, watching porn together) are more likely to main-
tain passion. Not only do such activities meet self-expansion needs, as we noted in our earlier
discussion of the Coolidge Effect, but novelty also fends off habituated desire. This suggests
that perhaps we should not resign ourselves to the idea that passion inevitably dies; rather, we
may be able to keep it alive through maintaining novel sex lives.

The Dark Side of Relationships

Not all relationships last. The divorce rate is about as high today as it has ever been, owing to
reduced pressure to get married at a young age and a reduction in the stigma associated with
ending a marriage. Only about half of all first marriages in the United States last 20 years or
longer (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012), and cohabiting relationships tend to have an
even shorter shelflife. Table 8.3 gives a breakdown of the number of divorces occurring at vari-
ous points in time and how this differs across partner race. Two things are worth noting about
these data. First, marital longevity is related to racial background. We cannot say exactly why,
but many variables could be at play, including socioeconomic factors and differences in main-
stream acculturation. Second, the observed peak in divorce rates that occurs after two decades
makes sense because for couples who had children right after getting married, this would be
about the time that the kids have grown up and moved out of the house.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia224

Digging Deeper 8.3 Does Having Sex Relieve Stress For Couples?

M kla ml fllg ah fSil, elgia ml rlgSlvl my mSiod, alxs g el gSin b by, Sa’a nhhod fhr ml.
Marvin Gaye

The idea that sex can relieve stress for couples is pervasive in popular culture. For example,
many of you have probably heard the classic song lxs g Hl gSin by Marvin Gaye. Many of you
have probably also seen television shows and movies that feature storylines about the wonders
of “makeup sex” following a couple’s argument (which, according to Jerry Seinfeld, is the second
best type of sex you can have after “conjugal visit sex”). So is there any truth to this idea? Is sex
really a stress-reliever? According to research, yes—but only for couples who are in satisfying
relationships to begin with (Ein-Dor, & Hirschberger, 2012).

In this study, 75 heterosexual men and women who were living with a romantic partner com-
pleted a sex diary for 18 consecutive days. Participants filled out their diary alone each night in
which they reported on the amount of stress they had experienced in the past 24 hours (i.e., how
many stressful events occurred and how stressful each one was) and indicated whether they had
sexual intercourse with their partner that day.

Experiencing a high level of stress increased the likelihood of having intercourse the follow-
ing day. In addition, when sex followed a particularly high-stress day, it reduced reports of stress
on the following day; when a high-stress day was not followed by sex, there was not as much
of a decrease in stress the next day. To put it more simply, when couples had sex, they felt less
stress afterward than they did before. However, it is important to point out that this finding held
only for couples who reported that their relationship was satisfying at the start of the study; for
couples who were dissatisfied with their relationship, there was no stress-reducing effect of sex.

This research is limited in that it only examined heterosexual couples and only considered the
potential stress relief associated with vaginal intercourse. Thus, it is not clear whether the same
benefits would apply in same-sex couples or in couples who engage in other types of sexual
activities. However, these results suggest that sex does have the potential to heal us from stress,
but only if we are involved in a good relationship.

Note: Reprinted with permission from lx iod Paycehghny (www.lehmiller.com).

Table 8.3 Likelihood that a first marriage will last up to 20 years by race of partners in the United States.

Duration of first marriage

Race of couple 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years

Asian 91% 83% 78% 69%
Hispanic 84% 73% 64% 54%
White 80% 68% 61% 53%
Black 72% 56% 45% 37%

Source: Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher (2012).

http://www.lehmiller.com

ey h hml lg aShiaeSia sccllodeSgl aelra F Sg? 225

As a means of coping with the high prevalence of divorce, legislators in Mexico and other
countries are considering granting “temporary” marriage licenses that would allow individuals
to have a marital trial period before making a longer term commitment (Ng, 2011). Whether
that will ever catch on remains to be seen, but it is just another symptom of the fact that rela-
tionships are not guaranteed to last. Why do so many relationships end? Below, we consider
just a few of the many factors that contribute to breakups and divorces.

Social Disapproval
Not every relationship is socially accepted. As previously mentioned, same-sex couples and
people in consensually non-monogamous relationships face widespread social stigma, but they
are far from the only ones. Any relationship that deviates from the cultural prototype may be
socially devalued. In many societies, this means that couples in which the partners differ from
one another in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, social class, or age may lack approval for their
relationship from their family, friends, and society at large. Such disapproval can take a toll on
the partners. Research has found that the more disapproval a couple perceives, the less com-
mitted the partners tend to be (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006) and the more likely they are to break
up (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2007). Not only that, but involvement in a marginalized relationship
is associated with worse physical and psychological health outcomes (Lehmiller, 2012). This
makes sense because being the target of prejudice (whether it is directed at your race, gender,
sexuality, or relationship status) is stressful, and if you have ever taken a health psychology
course, you have probably learned just how much wear and tear chronic stress can put on an
individual’s well-being. Thus, lacking relationship acceptance and approval may be destructive
to both the health of the partners and their romance.

Insecurity and Jealousy
Another factor that can generate relationship difficulties is a feeling of insecurity and/or jealousy.
Some of us have a chronic tendency to experience these feelings as a result of our attachment
style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Attachment styles refer to patterns of approaching and developing
relationships with others. These patterns at least partially develop out of our early experiences
with primary caregivers. Attachment styles tend to be relatively stable across time, but they can
change to a degree as a result of new experiences and relationships (Simpson et al., 2003). Securely
attached individuals have an easy time getting close to other people and do not worry about being
abandoned by their partners. They are highly trusting and are confident that their partners will be
there for them when it really counts. People who are anxiously attached worry that their partners
may not want to get as close as they would like. They fear that their partner does not love them
and may leave and, consequently, tend to be quite jealous. Avoidantly attached individuals are not
overly comfortable with intimacy and do not wish to become dependent on others. They recognize
that their partner will probably leave at some point, but this does not worry them because they
see love and relationships as temporary. Most people are securely attached, and it should come as
no surprise that their relationships tend to last the longest, whereas individuals with an anxious or
avoidant attachment style tend to break up sooner on average (Duemmler & Kobak, 2001).

When jealousy emerges in a relationship, there tends to be large sex differences in how it
is experienced. Men are typically more jealous about the prospect of their partner becoming
physically involved with someone else, whereas women are usually more jealous about the
prospect of their partner becoming emotionally involved with someone else (Buss, Larsen,
Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). This difference is most commonly explained in terms of evolu-
tionary theory. The idea is that men have evolved a tendency to worry about sexual infidelity
because there is paternity uncertainty (i.e., men cannot easily tell whether a pregnant women
is carrying their child) and they want to avoid expending their resources on children who are not

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia226

biologically theirs. In contrast, women are thought to have evolved a tendency to worry about
emotional infidelity in order to reduce the risk of being abandoned by the father of their children.
Consistent with the paternity uncertainly explanation, gay men tend to be more concerned with
emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity (the same holds for lesbians; Carpenter, 2012). In
addition, bisexual men tend to be more sexually jealous when dating women compared to when
they are dating men (Scherer, Akers, & Kolbe, 2013). Thus, among men who do not have to
worry about paternity issues, sexual infidelity appears to be less of a concern.

Of course, this is not the only possible explanation, and the research in this area is far from
conclusive. For example, consider that virtually all of this research is based upon asking people
whether they find physical or emotional infidelity more upsetting. This is a false dichotomy
because, for many people, emotional infidelity (e.g., falling in love with someone else) also
implies physical infidelity. In addition, if the evolutionary perspective is correct, one might
assume that sexual jealousy would be greater when a heterosexual man’s wife gets pregnant by
a random stranger as opposed to his brother because if his wife is carrying his brother’s child,
it will at least share some of his genes. In reality, however, the opposite is true—men are more
upset when their wives cheat with other relatives.

Regardless of where our feelings of jealousy come from, it is clear that jealousy has a wide
range of negative effects on our relationships. Not only does jealousy often contribute to con-
flict and breakup, but it is also frequently implicated in relationship violence. In fact, research
on men who have been sent to jail for domestic violence has revealed that jealousy was per-
vasive in almost all of these men’s relationships and was the most frequently reported factor
contributing to their violent actions (Nemeth et al., 2012).

Figure 8.12 Couples that violate societal or cultural expectations—such as persons in interracial
relationships—are often stigmatized, which may end up hurting the health of the couple members and their
relationship. ©Graham Oliver/123RF.COM.

ey h hml lg aShiaeSia sccllodeSgl aelra F Sg? 227

Cheating
Last but not least, cheating is one of the most common causes of relationship turmoil
and breakup. In fact, infidelity it is the most frequently cited reason for divorce (Amato &
Previti, 2003). Please note that by “cheating” and “infidelity,” I am referring to instances of
nonconsensual non-monogamy (i.e., cases in which a romantic partner violates a spoken or
unspoken agreement to be sexually exclusive). As mentioned above, this is not the same as
consensual non-monogamy (e.g., swinging, polyamory, etc.), wherein the partners have agreed
to some amount of outside sexual contact.

How common is cheating? Unfortunately, that is a difficult question to answer because
prevalence estimates depend upon the type of relationship (e.g., dating vs. married), the time-
frame assessed (e.g., in your current relationship vs. your entire life), and how “infidelity” is
defined (i.e., physical vs. emotional). The definitional issue is perhaps the most vexing. As
some evidence of just how widely people’s definitions of cheating vary, consider a study in
which college student participants were provided with a checklist of 27 interpersonal behav-
iors and were asked to rate the likelihood that each one represented cheating if someone
in a relationship performed that behavior with someone who was not their current part-
ner (Kruger et al., 2013). The behaviors included sexual interactions (e.g., intercourse, tak-
ing a shower together), emotional interactions (e.g., sharing secrets), and casual interactions
(e.g., loaning someone $5, brief hugs). Interestingly, there was no universal consensus that
any one behavior was definitely cheating or definitely not cheating! Researchers also found
that participants’ behavioral ratings depended upon both their sex and their attachment style.
Specifically, women were more likely than men to rate emotional interactions as cheating, and
persons who were anxiously attached were more likely to label casual interactions as cheating
than were securely attached individuals.

Figure 8.13 Infidelity is one of the biggest causes of relationship turmoil, breakup, and divorce. ©Konrad
Bak/123RF.COM.

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia228

Given this vast variability in definitions, it is perhaps not surprising that a meta-analysis
of 31 studies of infidelity revealed that the number of participants who reported cheating
ranged anywhere from 1.2 to 85.5% depending upon how cheating was operationalized (Luo,
Cartun, & Snider, 2010)! The 85.5% figure comes from a study in which college students
were asked whether they had ever flirted with someone else while in a romantic relationship;
estimates of sexual infidelity tend to be lower. The aforementioned meta-analysis (which
focused mostly on data from the US and other Western cultures) revealed that among college
students, most studies put the number who have committed sexual infidelity at one in two or
one in three, and among married couples, it is more like one in four or one in five. However,
there is significant cross-cultural variability, with much lower rates of infidelity in some cul-
tures (e.g., the Philippines) and much higher rates in others (e.g., Cameroon) (Zhang, Parish,
Huang, & Pan, 2012). Regardless of definition, type of relationship, and culture, one thing
is clear with respect to cheating: men are more likely to report having done it than women.
Interestingly, however, this sex difference has decreased in recent years. We do not know if
that is because more women today are cheating, or if women are just becoming more willing
to admit to the behavior.

Aside from how common it is, one of the biggest questions people have about infidelity is
why people do it. There is not a simple answer. As it turns out, infidelity is a biopsychosocial
phenomenon. For instance, as discussed in Chapter 1, there may be a biological component
to cheating for sensation seekers, who have a deficiency in some of their dopamine recep-
tors that predisposes them to engaging in riskier behaviors (Garcia et al., 2010). However,
for others, cheating may stem from a problem in their relationship, such as being extremely
unhappy or contemplating breakup (Previti & Amato, 2004). Psychological factors can play
a role in cheating, too. For instance, anxiously attached individuals are more inclined to
cheat if they are not getting their desired level of emotional closeness in their primary rela-
tionship (Russell, Baker, & McNulty, 2013). Thus, cheating can occur for an extremely wide
range of reasons.

Given the relatively high prevalence of cheating and the devastating effects it can have on
a relationship, some scholars have questioned whether an expectation of lifelong monog-
amy and fidelity is even realistic for human beings and if perhaps destigmatizing consensual
non-monogamy could eliminate a lot of heartache and improve people’s relationships (Ryan &
Jetha, 2010).

At the same time, evolutionary psychology would seem to be suggesting that monogamy
has some adaptive value in the long run (i.e., it helps men to avoid being cuckolded, or having
a partner who is pregnant with another man’s child, and ensures male investment in any off-
spring produced). Also, if humans were designed for non-monogamy, then why do they engage
in so much mate-guarding behavior (e.g., checking up on each other) and become so jealous
when their partners’ eyes wander?

The question of whether human beings are “meant” to be monogamous or non-monogamous
remains a topic of scholarly debate. However, if I may offer one small piece of insight, I believe
that the question of what we were “meant” to be is counterproductive and that it would be wrong
to argue that all humans have a monogamous or non-monogamous orientation. The fact of the
matter is that monogamy works very well for some, but not for others. For example, research
on same-sex couples has found that among people with moderate to high levels of attachment
anxiety, having a monogamy agreement is linked to higher relationship satisfaction and com-
mitment; however, for persons with low attachment anxiety, having a monogamy agreement is
unrelated to how they feel about their relationship (Mohr, Selterman, & Fassinger, 2013). Thus,
while monogamy may be a good idea for some people, it does not necessarily provide universal

SacsaaShi slaaShia: e a Sa hsr PlrailcaSvl hi lx? 229

benefits. One key to a successful relationship is to find someone who shares your sexual values,
not to impose a set of sexual expectations on another person.

Coping with Breakup

No matter what the cause, relationship breakups can be incredibly upsetting. After a breakup,
it is common to feel depressed, to have lower self-esteem, to have difficulty concentrating,
and to experience a range of other negative emotions and cognitions (Perilloux & Buss, 2008).
In order to deal with these aftereffects, people adopt various coping strategies, with some of
them being more effective than others. For example, a study of college students revealed that
the most frequently reported methods of coping were to simply talk about their breakup and
to try and remain friends with their ex-partner (Perilloux & Buss, 2008). Research suggests
that active coping strategies (i.e., attempts to confront the problem) such as these are typically
linked to better psychosocial adjustment following any type of relationship stressor (Seiffge-
Krenke, 2011). Passive and avoidant forms of coping (e.g., drowning one’s sorrows in alcohol,
or socially withdrawing) are generally less adaptive.

Another way that some people cope is to see the end of their relationship as an opportu-
nity for personal growth. For example, following a breakup, people frequently report learning
things about themselves (e.g., what they do and do not want in a partner), skills for navigating
relationships in the future (e.g., better communication), and a renewed focus on other aspects
of their lives (e.g., greater appreciation for one’s friends and family; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). By
dealing with your emotions head-on and searching for the silver lining in the breakup, you may
find that you are able to move on with your life sooner.

Key Terms

need to belong
singlism
hookups
friends with benefits
serial monogamists love
passionate love
companionate love
passion
intimacy
commitment

consummate love
satisfaction
quality of alternatives
investments
consensual

non-monogamy

open relationships
swinging
polygamy
polyamory
Coolidge Effect

arranged marriage
stonewalling
sexual communal

strength
self-expansion theory
attachment style
paternity uncertainty
nonconsensual

non-monogamy

Discussion Questions: What is Your Perspective on Sex?

● Is it possible for “friends with benefits” to maintain a “no strings attached” relationship or is
it inevitable that one or both partners will end up developing feelings for each other?

● What role does sexual passion plays in relationship success? How much does it matter to you
in the context of a long-term romantic relationship?

● What is your “cheating threshold?” That is, where do you draw the line in terms of what con-
stitutes cheating? Fantasizing? Flirting? Cybersex? Watching pornography? Kissing? Some-
thing else?

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia230

References

Amato, P.R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the
life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626. doi:10.1177/01925
13X03024005002

Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and
sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77,
435–462. doi:10.1177/0003122412445802

Aron, A., & Aron, E.N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and
satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere/Harper & Row.

Aron, E.N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and the expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal
Relationships, 3, 45–58. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00103.x

Babin, E.A. (2013). An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of
pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30,
270–292. doi:10.1177/0265407512454523

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.3.497

Bergstrand, C., & Blevins Williams, J. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of
swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/
swing/body.htm (accessed September 3, 2013).

Bisson, M.A., & Levine, T.R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2

Blackwell, D.L., & Lichter, D.T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples.
Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275–302. doi:10.1177/019251300021003001

Bogaert, A.F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample.
Journal of Sex Research, 41, 279–287. doi:10.1080/00224490409552235

Buss, D.M., Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution,
physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.
tb00038.x

Campbell, A. (2008). The morning after the night before: Affective reactions to one-night stands
among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature, 19, 157–173. doi:10.1007/s12110-
008-9036-2

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analysis of sex differences in responses to sexual versus emotional
infidelity: Men and women are more similar than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36,
24–37. doi:10.1177/0361684311414537

Cohn, D., Passel, J., Wang, W., & Livingston, G. (2011). Barely half of U.S. adults are married—A
record low. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/
barely-half-of-u-sadults-are-married-a-record-low/ (accessed September 3, 2013).

Conley, T.D., Moors, A.C., Matsick, J.L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier? Assessing
stigma surrounding non-normative romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x

Copen, C.E., Daniels, K., Vespa, J., & Mosher, W.D. (2012). First marriages in the United States:
Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports,
49, 1–22.

Cornell, S.J., & Tregenza, T. (2007). A new theory for the evolution of polyandry as a means of
inbreeding avoidance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2873–2879.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0926

http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-sadults-are-married-a-record-low/

lflrlicla 231

Critelli, J.W., & Suire, D.M. (1998). Obstacles to condom use: The combination of other forms
of birth control and short-term monogamy. Journal of American College Health, 46, 215–219.
doi:10.1080/07448489809600225

DePaulo, B.M., & Morris, W.L. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination
against singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 251–254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2006.00446.x

Donnelly, D.A., & Burgess, E.O. (2008). The decision to remain in an involuntarily celibate
relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 519–535. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2008.00498.x

Duemmler, S.L., & Kobak, R. (2001). The development of commitment and attachment in dating
relationships: Attachment security as relationship construct. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
401–415. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0406

Ein-Dor, T., & Hirschberger, G. (2012). Sexual healing: Daily diary evidence that sex relieves stress
for men and women in satisfying relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29,
126–139. doi:10.1177/0265407511431185

Fisher, H.E. (1992). Anatomy of love. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
Frederick, D., Lever, J, Gillespie, B., & Garcia, J. (2017). What keeps passion alive? Sexual

satisfaction is associated with sexual communication, mood setting, sexual variety, oral sex,
orgasm, and sex frequency in a national U.S. study. Journal of Sex Research, 54(2), 186–201.

Garcia, J.R., MacKillop, J., Aller, E.L., Merriwether, A.M., Wilson, D.S., & Lum, JK. (2010).
Associations between dopamine D4 receptor gene variation with both infidelity and sexual
promiscuity. PLoS ONE 5(11): e14162. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014162

Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, J., Levenson, R., Swanson, C., Swanson, K., Tyson, R., & Yoshimoto, D. (2003).
Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of
conflict interaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91. doi:10.1300/J082v45n01_04

Hatfield, E. & Walster, W.G. (1978). A new look at love. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2016). Prevalence of experiences

with consensual non-monogamous relationships: Findings from two nationally representative
samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. doi:10.1080/00926
23X.2016.1178675

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S.S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 392–402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S.S. (2003). Romantic love: Measuring cupid’s arrow. In S. J. Lopez &
C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures
(pp. 235–249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147–159. doi:10.1177/0265407598152001

Herek, G.M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 19–22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051

Jose, A., Daniel O’Leary, K.K., & Moyer, A. (2010). Does premarital cohabitation predict
subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, 105–116. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x

Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 472–503. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia232

Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Strout, S. L. (2013).
Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary
Psychology, 11, 159–171.

Kurdek, L.A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from
heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 60, 553–568.

Kurdek, L.A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual
married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445
.2004.00060.x

Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality:
Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Le, B., & Agnew, C.R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the
investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035

Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3,
173–182. doi:10.1177/014616727700300204

Lehmiller, J.J. (2010). Differences in relationship investments between gay and heterosexual men.
Personal Relationships, 17, 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01254.x

Lehmiller, J.J. (2012). Perceived marginalization and its association with physical and
psychological health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 451–469.
doi:10.1177/0265407511431187

Lehmiller, J. J. & (2015). A comparison of sexual health history and outcomes among monogamous
and consensually non-monogamous sexual partners. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12,
2022–2028. doi:10.1111/jsm.12987

Lehmiller, J.J., & Agnew, C.R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval
on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
doi:10.1177/0146167205278710

Lehmiller, J.J., & Agnew, C.R. (2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic
relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737
.2007.00429.x

Lehmiller, J.J., VanderDrift, L.E., & Kelly, J.R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with
benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275–284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694

Lehmiller, J.J., VanderDrift, L.E., & Kelly, J.R. (2013). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and
condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. Journal of Sex Research.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.719167

Levinson, R., Jaccard, J., & Beamer, L. (1995). Older adolescents’ engagement in casual sex: Impact
of risk perception and psychosocial motivations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 349–364.
doi:10.1007/BF01537601

Luo, S., Cartun, M.A., & Snider, A.G. (2010). Assessing extradyadic behavior: A review, a
new measure, and two new models. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 155–163.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.033

Misovich, S.J., Fisher, J.D., & Fisher, W.A. (1997). Close relationships and elevated HIV risk
behavior: Evidence and possible underlying psychological processes. Review of General
Psychology, 1, 72–107. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.1.72

Mohr, J. J., Selterman, D., & Fassinger, R. E. (2013). Romantic attachment and relationship functioning
in same-sex couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 72–82. doi:10.1037/a0030994

Mongeau, P.A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating
variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 37–47.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.619282

lflrlicla 233

Monto, M. A., & Carey, A. G. (2014). A new standard of sexual behavior? Are claims associated
with the “hookup culture” supported by general social survey data?. Journal of Sex Research,
51(6), 605–615. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.906031

Morris, W.L., Sinclair, S., & DePaulo, B.M. (2007). No shelter for singles: The perceived legitimacy
of marital status discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 457–470.
doi:10.1177/1368430207081535

Muise, A., Impett, E.A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (20132). Keeping the spark alive:
Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term
romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 267–273.
doi:10.1177/1948550612457185

Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation
and changes in wellbeing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2011.00873.x

Myers, J.E., Madathil, J., & Tingle, L.R. (2005). Marriage satisfaction and wellness in India and
the United States: A preliminary comparison of arranged marriages and marriages of choice.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 183–190. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00595.x

Nemeth, J.M., Bonomi, A.E., Lee, M.A., & Ludwin, J.M. (2012). Sexual infidelity as trigger for
intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 21, 942–949. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.3328

Ng, C. (2011). Mexico City considers temporary marriage licenses. ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/mexico-city-considers-temporary-marriage-
licenses/ (accessed September 3, 2013).

O’Leary, K. D., Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Huddy, L., & Mashek, D. (2012). Is long-term love more
than a rare phenomenon? If so, what are its correlates? Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 3, 241–249. doi:10.1177/1948550611417015

Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on ‘friends with
benefits’ relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311–320.
doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6

Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 982–996.
doi:10.1177/0265407512448275

Paul, E.L., & Hayes, K.A. (2002). The causalities of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the
phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,
639–661. doi:10.1177/0265407502195006

Paul, E.L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college
students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.
doi:10.1080/00224490009552023

Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breakup up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and
coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164–181.

Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 217–230. doi:10.1177/0265407504041384

Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., & Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and chance: Negotiating agency in narratives
of singleness. The Sociological Review, 55, 331–351. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00708.x

Rubel, A.N., & Bogaert, A.F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and
relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. doi:10.1080/002244
99.2014.942722

Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins:
Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für
Psychologie, 22(1).

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/mexico-city-considers-temporary-marriage-licenses/

8 IiaSm al lg aShiaeSia: lx, Lhvl, iod hmmSamlia234

Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-
1031(80)90007-4

Rusbult, C.E., & Martz, J.M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model
analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.
doi:10.1177/0146167295216002

Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., & Agnew, C.R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2013). Attachment insecurity and infidelity in
marriage: Do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage? Journal of Family
Psychology, 27, 242–251. doi: 10.1037/a0032118

Ryan, C., & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: How we mate, why we stray, and what it means for
modern relationships. New York: HarperCollins.

Sayare, S., & de la Baume, M. (2010). In France, civil unions gain favor over marriage. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.
html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0 (accessed September 3, 2013).

Scherer, C.R., Akers, E.G., & Kolbe, K.L. (2013). Bisexuals and the sex differences in
jealousy hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1064–1071.
doi:10.1177/0265407513481446

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2011). Coping with relationship stressors: A decade review. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 21, 196–210. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00723.x

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C.L. (2003). Changes in attachment
orientations across the transitions to parenthood. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,
317–331. doi:10.1016/S00221031(03)00030-1

Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.
doi:10.1037/0033 295X.93.2.119

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.
doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00039

Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of attitudes toward family issues in the
United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 1009–1037.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x

United States Census Bureau (2010). America’s families and living arrangements: 2010. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html (accessed
September 3, 2013).

Van Lange, P.M., Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M., Arriaga, X.B., Witcher, B.S., & Cox, C.L. (1997).
Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
1373–1395. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373

VanderDrift, L.E., Lehmiller, J.J., & Kelly, J.R. (2012). Commitment in friends with benefits
relationships: Implications for relational and safe-sex outcomes. Personal Relationships, 19,
1–13. doi:10.1111/j.14756811.2010.01324.x

Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of
casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75–89.

Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. (2013). Differing relationship outcomes when sex
happens before, on, or after first dates. The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.714012

Zhang, N., Parish, W.L., Huang, Y., & Pan, S. (2012). Sexual infidelity in China: Prevalence and gender-
specific correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 861–873. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9930-x

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html

CLASSMATE 1

This week’s reading material had a few things that I found interesting. As we all know, “fantasies are generally considered a sign of a healthy sex life” (as cited in Lehimiller, 2017, pg 242). It amazes me to what extent people are willing to go or push circumstances to receive that sexual pleasure. For instance, people known as feeders are people who put their partner’s health in danger for them to get sexually aroused. More specifically, feeders feed their partners and make them gain an excessive amount of weight to the point they are entirely dependent on them. In my opinion, that is bizarre. I would not let anyone overfeed me every day to the extent of having health conditions and dying at an early age. I have heard people having a hand, feet, and hair fetishes; those are more acceptable, in my opinion, because it does not put someone’s life at risk for someone else’s pleasure.

Moreover, I was amused by the fact that “the world’s first vibrator was designed as a therapeutic device” for female patients who had hysteria (Lehimiller, 2017, pg 243). It made me giggle how the reading says that doctors would get paid by married men to pleasure their wives. I guess people were naive at that time towards sexuality. I’m content that we have grown our knowledge in many ways.

Lastly, what captured my attention was the lack of research we have on elderly people when it comes to sexual behavior. Yes, it is a touchy subject since there are barriers that can come about while researching. Those barriers could be from health issues to disabilities. However, as a society, we should stop denying elderly people’s needs and take them into account just like we do with our sexual needs.

(2017). Sexual Behaviors. In The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Chapter 9 (p. 235-260). Document posted in University of Maryland Global Campus PSYC 332 E250 online, archived at:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umuc/reader.action?docID=5106984&ppg=274

CLASSMATE 2:

Hello everyone,

Wow, this week had some seriously interesting material to read through! As I made my way through the content I think to two most interesting things were the dark side of fantasy and the amount of time sex toys have been in use!

While reading about the dark side of fantasy I was honestly rather shocked by the “feeders”

Fetish. I cannot seem to wrap my head around a person allowing another person to have that kind of control over their life. I mean what are they are getting out of the relationship. These people are literally risking their life to arouse someone else. It is extremely interesting. Lehmiller asks, “At what point does a sexual fantasy cross the line?” This is certainly a hard question to answer because I know that some people enjoy pain during sex, but at what point is it too much or unsafe? In addition, who are we to tell a person what is okay and not okay in the bedroom… especially if both people are consenting?

The second part that caught my eye was the fact that sex toys have been around for ages! Am I the only one who thought that those were a more modern accessory in the bedroom? I also found it interesting that almost the same percentage of men and women have used vibrators before. For whatever reason I would have assumed that the percentage of woman would be much higher. I also found it hilarious that they were trying to call woman crazy “hysterical” When really, they just were not sexually satisfied. Leave it to men to put the blame on us!

(2017). Sexual Behaviors. In The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Chapter 9 (p. 235-260). Document posted in University of Maryland Global Campus PSYC 332 E250 online, archived at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umuc/reader.action?docID=5106984&ppg=274

CLASSMATE 1

(2017). Sexual Behaviors. In The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Chapter 9 (p. 235-260). Document posted in University of Maryland Global Campus PSYC 332 E250 online, archived at:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umuc/reader.action?docID=5106984&ppg=274

CLASSMATE 2:

Hello everyone,

While reading about the dark side of fantasy I was honestly rather shocked by the “feeders”

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ DISCUSSION POST ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now