Vote in current poll

Read the 30 psychobabble phrases then vote for the one you find most irritating.

Kissing Secrets: Why Men Prefer More Saliva (And Other Revelations)

Kissing
[Photo by johncarleton]
Susan Hughes and colleagues know how to spice up an academic paper:
"Kissing between sexual and/or romantic partners occurs in over 90 percent of human cultures [...]. Even in cultures where kissing is nonexistent or condemned, sex partners may blow in each other's faces, lick, suck, or rub their partner's face prior to intercourse." (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007, p.612).

Now, strangely, we all want to know more, so let's explore their study's results question and answer style...

Would you have sex without kissing?
Yes said around 50% of men, but only around 10% of women - meaning, of course 90% of women would not have sex without kissing.

How important is kissing before, during and after sex?
Kissing seems to reduce in importance from before to during then to after, but overall it's generally more important for women in this situation.

How important is kissing as a relationship goes on?
For our male participants it became less important as a relationship went on, but for our female participants it became more important.

How wet and how much tongue?
Overall men preferred wetter kisses and more tongue. Still, both sexes preferred more tongue with a long-term partner. The only gender difference was that men preferred more tongue contact with a short-term partner.

Why might men prefer more tongue and saliva?
Evolutionary psychology suggests kissing may provide important information about mate quality. Unfortunately men are, on average, not so gifted in the saliva-tasting department (technically men have 'reduced chemosensory detection'). Because of this they need more juice before they can decide.

Would you have sex with a bad kisser?
Only maybe baby, but women were only half as likely as men to have sex with a bad kisser.

What makes you want to kiss a person?
Men based their decision more on facial attractiveness while women were focussing on the teeth.

So, can a kiss kill the romance?
Yes, a previous study found that 59% of men and 66% of women have been put off by a potential partner's kiss.

Limitations


This study only covered those who 'only' or 'mostly' kissed the opposite sex. You same sex kissers will have to wait for future work to get the facts.

And as Dr Boynton points out it's only undergraduate students of roughly the same cultural background. Practices will probably vary considerably across different cultures.

» Discover more about the psychology of relationships.

» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)


Reference

Hughes, S.M., Harrison, M.A., and Gallup, G.G. Jr. (2007) Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology 2007. 5(3): 612-631 (Full text PDF)

Labels:

Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?

Semen Cafe
[Photo by gusset]
It's weird psychology study time again. If there was ever research guaranteed to make women suspicious of male researcher's motivations it's this one. Pointed out to me by a kind email correspondent (thank you!), this study tests a hypothesis put forward by Ney (1986) suggesting that prostaglandins, a component of semen, may actually be useful in treating depression.

No condom = less depression?


Inspired by this, Gallup, Burch and Platek (2002) decided to look for a correlation between condom use and levels of depression in undergraduate women. Their headline results were as follows:
  • Women having sex without condoms (often using alternative methods of contraception) were less depressed than those using condoms.
  • Numbers of reported suicide attempts were proportional to consistency of condom use (less consistent use was associated with fewer suicide attempts).
  • For those not using condoms, depression scores increased with the time since they last had sex.

While there's all sorts of objections flying around my head, this last one sounds particularly unconvincing. After all there could be all sorts of reasons why those who had sex more recently are less depressed, right?

But consider the fact that there was no relationship between depression scores and time since last having sex for those reported using condoms most or all of the time. Then this last finding is a little stronger.

A closer look does, however, reveal one contradictory result: that those who always used condoms had considerably lower depression scores than those who usually used condoms. This is the reverse of the headline trend.

More questions than answers


The authors are the first to admit that their data are preliminary, correlational and raise more questions than they answer. Like all good scientists they consider all sorts of alternative explanations for their findings. These include whether using an oral contraceptive, being in a relationship or taking part in high-risk activities might have an effect on depressive scores.

The authors also consider different ways of testing the hypothesis further - all of which would probably require much more work in convincing an ethics committee. In fact, this may well be one of those situations where the intrusive nature of a more conclusive study is just not warranted when balanced against the potential gain in knowledge.

Still, never say never. And if there's anything in it, no doubt we'll start seeing a new sight on the high street: 'Semen Cafes'. This time, for real.

» Read more weird psychology studies.

» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Gallup, Burch, & Platek. (2002). Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(3), 289-293.

Ney, P. G. (1986). The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behavior. Medical Hypotheses, 20, 221-231.

Labels: ,

The Hidden Purpose of Chat-up Lines

The Kiss
[Photo by Farfarm]
New research suggests men's choice of chat-up line may help quickly select for women with particular personalities.

When it comes to the human mating game, men are often portrayed as having little power or guile. Research finds it is women that control early interactions, from first signalling the man to approach to deciding whether to engage in sex. One area in which men are popularly seen as especially inept is in their choice of chat-up lines. Leading the field in crass openings are sexually-loaded remarks.

Indeed, a study by Chris Bale from the University of Central Lancashire found that sexually-loaded remarks were the type of openers least likely to lead to further interaction (Bale, 2006). Which begs the question: why do men still use them?

Chat-up lines as selection tool


An ingeniously simple answer is suggested by both Bale (2006) and Cooper et al. (2007), with some evidence to back it up. Chat-up lines may be a way for men to select for a particular type of woman. In other words, men using sexually-loaded remarks are looking for a certain type of woman (an easy one). Similarly, at the other end of the scale, men who use character-revealing or culture-based openers are probably trying to show they are a good mate looking for a long-term partner.

That's the theory and here's how Cooper and colleagues searched for evidence.

The study first asked participants to consider a series of scenarios in which men tried to strike up a conversation with a woman. In each the man used a different type of approach. Participants were then asked to rate how likely it was the conversation would continue on the basis of that opener.

These 'lines' were collated from a variety of sources and clustered into the following categories:
  1. Good mate - these included comments that made reference to culture, character or wealth. E.g. "You know I saw this fantastic piece in the Tate Modern".
  2. Compliments. E.g. "You remind me of a parking ticket because you've got fine written all over you." (Please. No!)
  3. Sex. E.g. "I may not be Fred Flintstone, but I can sure make your bedrock." (Club to the head.)
  4. Humour. "Can I buy you an island?" (Nice.)

So, now we know, generally speaking, how our female participants react to these four broad types of male approaches. Next we need to find out what types of men the female participants prefer.

Four types of men


For this they complete the Dating Partner Preference Test. An analysis of these results suggests women see men as generally falling into one of four types:
  1. Nice guy. Yes, he's helpful, he's considerate, he's appreciative. He's a puppy.
  2. Provider. Man go into woods, kill pig. Bring fire. Build log cabin. All warm and fed.
  3. Leader. He's chatty, confident and strong-willed - a captain of your heart?
  4. Bad mate. Fickle, conceited, dependent. All wrong for you. But there's something about him...

Along with these vignettes and the Dating Partner Preference Test, participants were asked to fill in personality measures of their psychoticism (tendency for inappropriate emotional responses and recklessness), extraversion (being outgoing, gregarious, externally oriented) and neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative emotional states). Now we've got all the information we need to see if there's any connection.

Results


Looking at the correlations shows there is support for the idea that chat-up lines select for women with particular personalities.
  • Women high in extraversion preferred the male 'leaders'.
  • Women high in neuroticism preferred the 'nice guys'.
  • Women high in psychoticism rejected 'nice guys', preferring the 'bad mate'.

It does seem, then, that the type of chat-up lines men choose does have a measurable effect on the types of women who respond to them. This can effectively allow men to make a quick assessment of a woman's personality by their response to a particular type of approach. Those looking for a 'bad mate' might use a sexually-loaded remark or a compliment, while those wanting an extrovert should use a joke.

Men's perceptions of women's lines


I have focussed on women's perceptions of male chat-up lines as in most cultures it's mostly the men using the lines, although this is changing. Perhaps to reflect this men's perceptions of women's chat-up lines were also included in this study.

The results for men's perceptions showed that in comparison to women, men were more likely to prefer chat-up lines involving sex (surprise surprise!) as opposed to women who preferred humour. Men also tended to be worse than women at judging what types of chat-up lines women prefer. The types of chat-up lines whose effectiveness was under-estimated by men were those involving offers of help to women, handing control of the interaction to women and (subtly) displaying wealth (surprise surprise!).

Caution


The correlations seen between personality measures and ratings of chat-up lines were not particularly high (between 0.2 to 0.4). This means that only a small proportion of the change in personality measures is associated with the chat-up lines (between 4% and 16%). So, it's far from the only thing affecting chat-up line responses, but there is still some effect.

» Read more on the psychology of relationships.

» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Cooper, M., O'Donnell, D., Caryl, P. G., Morrison, M., & Bale, C. (2007) Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects of content, sex, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1075-1085

Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655-664.

Labels:

Is Marriage Dying? No. (Well, Probably Not)

Wedding Rings
[Photo by Jeff Belmonte]
What does the future hold for the institution of marriage? I ask because we're constantly hearing about the 'deinstitutionalisation' of marriage. Marriage no longer occupies the central, solid role it once did, divorce is on the rise and people are getting married later. All these seem to point to a weakening of marriage in many Western societies.

So, how will marriage be viewed in the future? As a quaint custom fast dying out whose proponents can only be found amongst die-hard traditionalists? As an indicator of advanced age, social backwardness and constriction? In short: is marriage dying?

Clue to marriage's future


Well, we'll have to wait and see, but a clue about the future of marriage comes from a new study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family. Manning, Longmore and Giordano (2007) asked adolescents whether they expected to get married in the future and/or whether they saw themselves engaging in marriage's ambiguous rival: cohabitation. And perhaps the results might surprise those who feel marriage is on the long slide to oblivion.

First you need to know who the participants were before you can judge the results. They were kids from the 7th, 9th and 11th grades (that's 12, 14 and 16 year-olds respectively) from Lucas County, Ohio in the US. This is a mostly urban, metropolitan environment. Bear in mind that it can be difficult to generalise these findings to other areas, although they are useful indicators.

Surprisingly, then, adolescents expected it was much more likely they would marry than they would cohabit. Here are some of the headline findings for marriage:
  • 76% of adolescents expected to marry in the future (probably or definitely).
  • 19% thought it 'a little' or 'somewhat likely' they would marry.
  • 5% thought they would never marry.

And for cohabitation:
  • 30% expected to cohabit (probably or definitely).
  • 26% thought it 'somewhat likely' they would cohabit.
  • 21% said there was 'a little' chance they would cohabit.
  • 23% expected never to cohabit.

We can also make some inferences from the patterns of adolescent's responses. For example, half the adolescents thought they would cohabit and marry at some point. Also, only very few adolescents thought they would cohabit but never marry.

There were a number of factors that affected whether young people thought they would marry. For example those from single-parent families thought themselves less likely to marry, as did those from ethnic minorities and those who had never dated.

Social expectations


While these results seem positive for the institution of marriage, my main reservation is that the adolescents, especially the younger ones, are simply answering how they think they are supposed to be answering. Does a 12 year-old really know what it means to cohabit or to get married? Perhaps this study is telling us more about existing social norms than it is about the future of marriage itself.

That said, if young people still think marriage is important, then it probably still is. And it will probably continue to be important for quite some time.

Read more on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)


Reference

Manning, W.D., Longmore, M.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2007). The Changing Institution of Marriage: Adolescents Expectations to Cohabit and to Marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 559-575.

Labels:

People 'Playing the Field' More Angry At Infidelity

Piercing Eyes
[Photo by theforbzez]
If there's one subject in psychology that's guaranteed to remind me I'm part of the animal kingdom it is evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain our psychological makeup by thinking about natural selection. In other words evolutionary psychologists ask questions about what evolutionary advantage is gained by particular types of behaviour.

In the process of asking these questions they come up with terms like 'mate value', ' mate choice' and 'mating effort'. Oh, these guys are obsessed with mating, just like the rest of us. One recent study published in the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology provides an interesting examples of the genre.


Mating effort and infidelity


The term 'mating effort' doesn't necessarily refer to turning up at your date's door with two tickets to the symphony and an expensive present - although it might involve that along the way. What it means in evolutionary psychological terms is that those high in 'mating effort' tend to pursue more short-term mating strategies. These are the people with more sexual partners in a shorter time.

A study carried out by Jones, Figueredo, Dicket & Jacobs (2007) examined how mating effort affects the degree to which people are upset if their partner cheats on them. Counter-intuitively, the results show that those employing higher mating effort, were more likely to be upset by infidelity. They were also more likely to respond in a punitive fashion - presumably by breaking up with this cuckold immediately.

The evolutionary psychological explanation for this is as follows. If you are a high mating effort kind of person you are putting in more energy to finding partners. You also have to go around making sure no one else is messing with your mate. On a short-term strategy, the thinking goes, there's more emphasis on short-term sexual fidelity - essentially because all your relationships are short-term. And so you're more likely to be upset if your mate cheats on you.

This is particularly interesting because you might guess that people who are in a long-term relationship are more likely to be angry with infidelity.

Caution


Of course, questions have to be asked about the methodology used in this research. After all participants were filling in questionnaires asking them to conjure up imaginary situations so there's always the problem with whether this represents real behaviours and feelings.

I should point out that psychologists often get pretty riled about evolutionary psychology, as evidenced by the reaction to this recent post on so-called 'truths' about human nature. It is particularly attractive to blow up fairly limited findings out of all proportion.

You have been warned!

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Jones, D. N., Figueredo, A. J., Dicket, E. D., & Jacobs, W. J. (2007) Relations Among Individual Differences in Reproductive Strategies, Sexual Attractiveness, Affective and Punitive Intentions, and Imagined Sexual or Emotional Infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 387-410.

Labels: , ,

Objects in the Home Reflect Your Relationship

Objects and Relationships
[Photo by afeman]
When I walk into someone's home, almost without thinking I look around at the whole decor, but I'm particularly interested in prominently displayed objects. It gives me a sense of the person. Indeed studies have shown it is possible to draw some limited conclusions about personality from personal spaces like homes or offices (Gosling et al., 2002). What about couples though? Is it possible to tell anything about relationships from objects that are prominently displayed? Research by Lohmann, Arriaga and Goodfriend (2003) suggests it is.

In this research participants were asked to sit in the room in which they most often entertained guests and list their five favourite objects. They were then asked a subtly different question: which objects did they most want visitors to notice?

Then later on in the questionnaire they were asked how these objects had been acquired. Were they acquired on their own, by their partner or together? Joint acquisition covered the situation where the object had been given as a gift to both of them, or was bought when they were together.

Two measures were calculated from this data:
  • Couple markers - percentage of favourite objects jointly acquired.
  • Couple displays - percentage of objects jointly acquired that they wanted visitors to notice

Results

These percentages were then compared with a series of measures assessing the health of participant's relationships. First, the results showed that couples who were closer, better adjusted and perceived their relationship as long-term were more likely to want visitors to notice jointly acquired objects.

Second, the results also showed that closer couples were more likely to have a higher percentage of 'couple markers' - favourite objects that were jointly acquired.

This study is a really good illustration of the way in which a person's environment can reflect not only their own personality but their relationship with their significant other. Why not look around your own living room - perhaps it contains some home truths?

Thanks to Dr Grumpus for suggesting this study.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels:

The Nonverbal Symphony of Attraction

Whirling
[Photo by hendriko]
Glossy magazine articles on the body language of attraction often quote two vital nonverbal factors: posture mirroring and movement echo. The first is where the other person has adopted the same position as you and the second is where they copy your movement. While they both play a role, research suggests it's not in fact the individual movements, but the patterns of movements that tell the story of attraction between two people.

In a study of nonverbal behaviour, Grammer, Kruck and Magnusson (1998) analysed videos of people meeting for the first time. Interactions were videotaped from behind a one-way screen and participants were asked afterwards how likely they would be to go on a date with the person they'd met.

The videos were analysed by categorising movements of the head, shoulders, arms, hands, trunk and legs. This information was then run through software to search for patterns. Overall, around 4,000 patterns of nonverbal behaviour were analysed.


Results
Contrary to many previous findings, attraction was predicted by patterns of synchronisation and not simple mirroring of body language. What emerged were rhythmic structures of movement synchrony - patterns of bodily movement people adopted. In common with previous research, Grammer et al. (1998) found it was women who tended to start and control these patterns. Indeed, the more interested a woman was in a man, the more complicated these patterns became.

Effectively, then, potential couples test their compatibility nonverbally by constructing symphonies of body language, with women as conductors. Considering the complexity of this description, it's clear why 'movement synchrony' never makes it to the glossies, although it's probably much closer to the truth of how nonverbal attraction is negotiated.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels: ,

A Slow Smile Attracts

Smile
[Photo by kalandrakas]
Psychology research is not generally very good at capturing change. Measurements tend to be fairly static, either looking at one slice of time or asking participants to average over a period. Which is why this research on smiling is so unusual. Some of the best known research on smiling is about how people judge an authentic smile - the so-called 'Duchenne smile' or the 'crinkly-eyed smile'. What this research asks, though, is how does a smile's speed in combination with head-tilt and gender affect its perception.

In this experiment, one hundred participants, half men half women, were sat in front of a monitor to judge the smiles of synthetic faces (Krumhuber, Manstead & Kappas, 2007). They watched the faces smiling - some whose smile appeared in just over 0.1 of a second, and some whose smile appeared in just over 0.5 of a second. At the same time, some of the heads were tilted to the left and some to the right. Participants then had to judge the smiles on how trustworthy, attractive, dominant, fake and flirtatious they made the faces seem.


Results
The study replicated a previous finding that a long-onset smile (0.5s onset) is seen as more authentic and flirtatious. On top of this, the researchers found long-onset smiles were perceived as more attractive, more trustworthy and less dominant. Head tilting also increased attractiveness and trustworthiness but only if the head was tilted in the right direction. In this case, the right direction was the same way as eye orientation or towards a partner.


Gender
There was also evidence that smiles are perceived in different ways depending on the gender of both the target and the observer. Previous research has found that smiling is associated with attractiveness in women, but dominance in men. These are probably a result of gender stereotypes. One finding in the present study was that women's smiles were judged less authentic than men's. Krumhuber et al. (2007) speculate that this is because women tend to smile more than men, so their behaviour is seen as more usual and therefore less informative. The reverse may be true for men.

While women's smile were more likely to be discounted, it seemed women were generally better at detecting the difference between short- and long-onset smiles. The differences found in this study, therefore, were mostly due to female participants rather than the men. Krumhuber et al. (2007) suggest this ties in with findings men are more likely to interpret ambiguous or inauthentic signals (short-onset smiles) as flirtatious behaviour. They can't (or won't) tell the difference.


And finally...
I've discovered that psychologists studying nonverbal behaviour have the most fantastic terminology. This study is about the 'Temporal Dynamics of Smiling' and I also came across one titled 'Spontaneous vs. posed facial behavior: automatic analysis of brow actions' (think Groucho Marx). This one is particularly intriguing: 'Head Canting in Paintings: An Historical Study' - I may just give that a read.

Perhaps I'm weird, but those titles really tickle me.

» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels: , ,

Is Sacrifice in Relationships Related to Commitment and Functioning?

Sacrifice
[Photo by j.simpson]
Most people make relationship sacrifices in one way or another, but I'm always suspect of people who specifically emphasise them. It's inevitable that one partner's interests in a relationship will clash with the other, perhaps only occasionally, perhaps frequently. They get a job at the other end of the country, your family and friends live close by. What to do? When two people have to make this kind of choice, a compromise is eventually reached. New research suggests, though, that it is the way this compromise is interpreted that will have important implications for the relationship.


Two views of sacrifice
Research has seen relationship sacrifice in two markedly different ways (Whitton, Stanley & Markman, 2007). The first sees sacrifice as 'a good thing', which is associated with positive aspects of relationships. The idea is that a willingness to make sacrifices for your partner shows you've evolved past the early stages of a relationship. Theoretically, then, sacrifice is linked to commitment.

Feminist theory has a quite different take on sacrifice. Feminists point to a finding that women feel they have to make greater sacrifices than men to maintain their relationship. Here, sacrifice is also associated with depression. Similar findings for men have also been reported, although these findings are questioned.


Perception of sacrifice
How can these apparently opposing ideas be resolved? Whitton et al. (2007) suggest that it is not the sacrifice itself, but the way in which the individual views that sacrifice which is most important. To quantify this they created a measure of the perception of sacrifice as harmful to the self.

The results showed that within heterosexual couples, for both men and women, better relationship functioning was associated with sacrifices that were perceived as less harmful to the self. One possible explanation for this would be that higher commitment to a relationship actually lowers the perception that sacrifices are being made.

Unlike relationship functioning, however, connections between measures of commitment and lowered perceptions of sacrifice as harmful were only seen in men (also within heterosexual relationships). Whitton et al. (2007) suggest this might be explained by the finding from feminist theory that women feel a greater need than men to make sacrifices in their relationship.

In other words, women expect to make sacrifices in relationships, whether they are committed or not. As a result women's perception of sacrifice is unrelated to their relationship commitment. Men, in contrast, only tend to perceive sacrifices as less harmful when they are more committed to a relationship, hence the association.


Caution
  • This finding is from only one study, which needs to be replicated.
  • 90% of the participants were married, all were heterosexual. This may limit the generalisability of the findings.
  • Self-report measures are open to all sorts of variances. E.g. the need to present the self in a good light to the researcher.
Nevertheless it certainly provides food for thought about the ways in which we view sacrifice in our relationships.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels:

Parental Relationships After Divorce: From 'Perfect Pals' to 'Fiery Foes'

Relationship break-down
[Photo by jeffhurlow]
Although divorce/relationship breakdown happens at a number of levels - psychological, legal, economic - it is children that are usually the first concern. Who will take custody? How will the parents manage their relationship after they have separated? Continuing the series on the psychology of relationships, this post examines five broad ways psychological research has found people negotiate their newfound status as 'separated parents'.

Ahrons (1983) finds that co-parenting post-divorce can go one of five ways, the first three of which are considered relatively functional:


1. Dissolved Duos (or "Is Daddy dead?")
Dad disappears (and it is normally Daddy) and the children lose the relationship with their father. This is the only category resulting in a true single-parent family.

2. Perfect Pals (or "Mummy and Daddy are divorced? Are you sure?")
The 'Perfect Pals' continue to carry out their parenting duties together, still claim each other as their best friends and often do not remarry. Other people (not least psychologists) find their relationship mysterious.

3. Cooperative Colleagues (or "Mummy and Daddy work together.")
Less mysterious than the 'Perfect Pals', 'Cooperative Colleagues' work together but wouldn't describe each other as their best friend. This is code for: have remarried/got a new partner. This type of parenting style has often been reached only after a long, concerted effort.


These are the post-divorce/separation co-parenting styles considered less functional by Ahrons (1983):

4. Angry Associates (or "Mummy and Daddy shout at each other. A lot.")
Divorce didn't stop the fighting. There's plenty of anger and resentment to go around here. The children often lose out although 'Angry Associates' occasionally manage to be friendly.

5. Fiery Foes (or "Mummy and Daddy are spending my college fund on lawyers.")
All out warfare between parents. There's little escape from the rage for anyone in the family. Children often become pawns in the fight and parents frequently end up in court fighting over custody.


Unable to move on?
These categories, broad as they are, raise some interesting points that often remain concealed.

The idea is still floating around that hanging onto a relationship post-divorce/separation spells trouble. As a result people are often suspicious of the 'Perfect Pals', thinking they have been unable to 'move on' with their lives. But this isn't necessarily true. The 'Perfect Pals' along with the 'Cooperative Colleagues' are doing what's best for the children, trying to cope with a less than ideal situation.


In whose interests?
With all the talk of the children's welfare, parents get forgotten. While research is adamant that the both 'Perfect Pals' and 'Cooperative Colleagues' are doing the best for their children, it's less clear what's good for the parents themselves (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1989).

The best category to be in, from the child's perspective, is the 'Cooperative Colleagues' or 'Perfect Pals' who continue to have respect for each other, carry out their parental duties and can still remember the good times of their relationship. Unfortunately the mere existence of the other categories proves things don't always go so smoothly.


The 'binuclear family'
What four of these categories show is that the so-called 'single-parent' is something of a misnomer. Only the 'Dissolved Duo' really falls into this category, while all the rest, for better or worse, clearly do not.

Commentators on the family have been much too quick to talk of the father (or mother) being either present or absent (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1989). Often the truth lies somewhere in between. What more normally emerges from separation or divorce is the 'binuclear family', a new family system orbiting around two centres: some stable, others less so.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels:

Seven Signs of Relationship (Dis)Satisfaction

Argument
[Photo by Michael Sarver]
Unlike 'love' and 'commitment', the words 'relationship satisfaction' are unlikely to strike fear into the heart of the unreconstructed man (or reconstructed woman). But once a relationship has become long-term, although we still talk about love and commitment, in some ways it's satisfaction that comes to the forefront. Indeed, low satisfaction is an important predictor of relationship breakdown. So, what factors have psychologists found are important in how satisfied we are with our relationships?

Relationship satisfaction has been measured at both cognitive and behavioural levels (Fincham & Beach, 2006). Here are the main behaviours important in satisfaction:

1. Support behaviour. The giving and receiving of supportive behaviour has not only been found to affect relationship satisfaction but also general health levels.

2. The negative loop. One of the signatures of a dissatisfied couple is the negative loop. This is where you start off commenting on the lack of milk in the fridge and end up trading full-scale character assassinations.

3. Demand-withdrawal pattern. Another signature of the dissatisfied couple is the demand-withdrawal pattern: you wonder out-loud about a visit to the in-laws, they turn the TV up. The stereotype is that women demand and men withdraw, but who wants to be stereotyped?

And here are some of the main cognitions (thoughts) that are important:

4. Unrealistic beliefs. She's not stubborn. She's determined and principled. He's not lazy. He's laidback, chilled out. It may seem strange to say that 'cognitive distortions' and 'unrealistic beliefs' are associated with relationship satisfaction. But, as long as your reinterpretations of what others might consider flaws are positive, then unrealistic beliefs can be very good for your relationship.

5. Attribution patterns. Was she late from work 'just this once' for reasons beyond her control? Or, is this sort of thing always happening and she could just as easily make it home if she tried? Attributions are the reasons we attach to our own and other's behaviour, what we see as its cause. Patterns of attributions which paint partners in a good light are associated with relationship satisfaction.

6. Partner and ideal standards discrepancies. Guaranteed dissatisfaction: I want Angelina Jolie. I will accept no substitute.

7. Memory. Satisfaction is associated with feeling your relationship has improved in recent times.


Satisfied: yes or no?
Intuitively it seems obvious that relationship satisfaction should be a sliding scale, say, from 1 to 10. But, what some of the evidence suggests is that it might be just yes or no. Many of the processes important for relationship satisfaction tend to operate in self-reinforcing loops. So that if you start to become dissatisfied, for example, by a change in attributional patterns, things rapidly go from bad to worse.

Whether or not relationships can really be put into two categories, it certainly makes for an entertaining game while you're out people watching: them? No, not satisfied. Those two? Yes, satisfied.


Caution
Before you rush off to practice your attributional processes or work on your demand-withdrawal patterns, it's useful to know some limitations of this research:
  • Most of these findings are based on research carried out in the US meaning it might not generalise to the rest of the world.
  • Most studies are based on self-report data. Psychologists are acutely aware of the fact that people don't always tell the truth, or even know what's going on in their own heads, but sometimes there's no alternative. Flawed understanding is better than ignorance (just).
  • One glaring omission is any mention of emotion in relationship satisfaction. While emotion is clearly important, Fincham & Beach report the research on emotion has been contradictory.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels:

Affectionate Writing Can Reduce Cholesterol

Pen
[Photo by phil h]
According to new research, writing down affectionate thoughts about close friends and family can reduce your cholesterol levels. Floyd et al. (2007) randomly assigned participants to one of two groups: one experimental and one control. The experimental group wrote with affection about one person in their lives for 20 minutes on three occasions over a five-week period. The control group wrote mundane descriptions of their activities over the week, jobs they had done and places they had lived.

The results from two separate studies demonstrated that after only 25 days, the experimental group who had written affectionate notes, showed a significant reduction in cholesterol. These reductions were seen independently from the effects of general health factors like age, drinking, smoking and so on. Mean cholesterol levels reduced from 170 mg/dL to 159 mg/dL (figures are from the second study which was methodologically more secure).

The researchers also examined whether linguistic features of the experimental group's writing affected cholesterol reduction. They found that those who wrote directly to someone showed greater reductions in cholesterol than those who wrote in the third person about someone.

One of the strengths of this study was that it specifically examined the benefits of expressing affection. Other studies have found evidence for the benefits of expressing affection but have had difficulties separating the expressing from the receiving. This is because when you express affection towards someone else, they are likely to reciprocate. Expressing is, therefore, tightly bound up with receiving.

In an age where human nature is often considered profoundly selfish, here's a selfish reason to be nice to people. Of course compared with all the money-spinning methods of reducing cholesterol levels around nowadays, you'll never see this one advertised (except on PsyBlog!) because it's essentially free. So, pass it on...


Caution
These are preliminary results. The research was carried out in a small sample (Study 1, N=34; Study 2, N=30) of healthy US college students all in the normal range for cholesterol. More research will be required to see if this generalises across cultures, overall health status and so on. On the other hand, the possible side-effects of writing affectionate letters are not that worrying, unless you count paper cuts.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References - Click here to toggle visibility

Labels: ,

How 'Naive Cynicism' May Poison Your Relationships

Cynicism has its uses. Being suspicious about the motives of others won't leave you gasping when you are tricked. Expecting negative events means you are never disappointed. Anything good is a bonus. But can cynicism go to far? A study by Kruger and Gilovich (1999) suggests it can.

The authors asked married couples to estimate how often their partner was responsible for both desirable and undesirable relationship events. This came out about even: each person admitted causing some bad events while claiming responsibility for some of the good events in the relationship. Half and half, fair's fair.

They then asked each person to estimate what their partner had claimed. Here's the surprise. On average people assumed their partners would take more responsibility for the good events and deny the bad events. Actually they'd done nothing of the sort.

"People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are."It's not just married people who show this bias. The authors also studied video game players, debaters and darts players. A similar type of bias was seen in these groups as well. People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are. This bias is called 'naive cynicism'. It is wrongly thinking the worst of other people.

Research in children shows this bias develops early. Mills and Keil (2005) found that by as young as seven children have learnt to be cynical. The authors even suggest children may be more cynical than adults.

Life can be more pleasant - especially with your partner - when you give the benefit of the doubt. It may well be the cynics who are deluding themselves.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Naive cynicism. everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 743-753.

Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2005). The Development of Cynicism. Psychological Science, 16(5), 385-390.

Labels:

Your Partner Has Been Unfaithful. The Question is Why.

Continuing the ongoing series on the psychology of relationships, this post takes a look at an event that can end everything: infidelity. A lot of the psychology research on relationships has focussed on the predictors of infidelity. But what tends to get lost is its affect on the relationship. A new study by Hall and Fincham (2006) looks at just this and finds it comes down to how you answer the question why.

Attributions are the reasons or explanations that we attach to things. So if we see the dog standing by the front door with the lead in its mouth we assume it wants to go for a walk. Psychologists have applied these potentially complex models of the way we make attributions to the study of relationships. So, I might make two opposing attributions for why my partner cheated on me:
  • It's just the way they are built, it will probably happen again and there's no changing it.
  • It was a momentary aberration in those particular circumstances and it probably won't happen again.
The type of attributions I make about my partner's behaviour will have an important affect on whether I can get over what they've done, or not. It will also affect whether I can save the relationship - if I want to that is. Even if I don't want to save the relationship, adopting the wrong attributional style could have serious consequences for my sanity.

The reason attributions are important is they're directly related to whether or not we can forgive. Returning to the two examples above, you can see that infidelity is easier to forgive if you believe it was an isolated mistake that was at least understandable in the circumstances. On the other hand, if you think there's no changing your partner then there's less chance of forgiving them.

Hall and Fincham (2006) tested exactly this connection in people who had been cheated on by their partners, running from the types of attributions they made, through to whether they were able to forgive and how that related to relationship termination. The 'bad' attributions I've been discussing are labelled 'conflict-promoting' attributions by Hall and Fincham (2006). These were associated more strongly with the ending of the relationship.

Vitally even if you finish your relationship, Hall and Fincham (2006) emphasise that you must find a way to forgive the other person. Forgiveness will often come more easily if you can answer the question of why they cheated without scowling.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Hall, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.

Labels: ,

Getting Closer: The Art of Self-Disclosure

Turning an acquaintance into a good friend can be hard. Whether it's romantic or platonic, there are endless reasons why people fail to connect and maintain their relationships with each other. This disconnect isn't always a result of some huge mistake by one person or the other, more often it's just that people drift apart. Social bonds can be hard to maintain, especially when they aren't based on firm routine footings like work, marriage or other institutions.

In explaining how people form strong relationships, psychologists - along with other social scientists - have long been interested in what personal information people reveal to each other. This research has culminated in recent studies of how internet daters reveal (or fail to reveal) information about themselves.


Not just deep and meaningful
Research on self-disclosure is enormous, addressing issues such as when people choose to self-disclose, for what reasons and whether it is effective. Within this research though, Greene, Derlega and Mathews (2006) point out some highlights.

Self-disclosure brings to mind earnest conversations about our deepest hopes and fears. But self-disclosure is also about simply sharing our preferences for music, food or books. These can play an equally important role in forming relationships as those deep and meaningful conversations.

"When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away."
Changing circumstances reveal different patterns of self-disclosure. Romantic partners often go through an initial stage of frantic self-disclosure. In contrast, long-term partners may reduce their self-disclosure alarmingly as the relationship lengthens. But not all disclosure is good disclosure. Early studies on self-disclosure confirm that too much self-disclosure too soon can be off-putting. When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away.


Effectiveness
One of the main reasons we engage in self-disclosure is because of how it affects other people's perceptions of us, and indeed, our perceptions of other people. We want others to like us so we tell them our secrets. Does this really work or is it just a fantasy peddled by movie and TV script-writers?

Reviewing a range of studies, Collins and Miller (1994) found there are three main effects of self-disclosure on liking:
  • Those who disclose intimate secrets tend to be more liked than those who don't.
  • People disclose more to those they like (relatively obvious).
  • People prefer those to whom they have made personal disclosures (not so obvious).

Being responsive
While increasing intimacy between people through self-disclosure is often seen as 'a good thing', there are many ways it can go wrong.
"People want to be 'understood' not just 'heard'."
Again, you can disclose too much too soon. More importantly, self-disclosure is not just about blurting out your darkest secret, it's about negotiating a complex relationship.

Process models of self-disclosure have looked at how disclosures are dynamically dealt with in relationships. The way in which you react to the self-disclosure of others is of vital importance. People want to be 'understood' not just 'heard'. This is demonstrated through behaviours like responsiveness, attentiveness and timing. The way in which listening occurs has a huge impact on whether intimate information grows and blooms or falls on fallow ground.


Self-disclosure online
More recent research has focussed on the ways in which self-disclosure occurs in online relationships. Two aspects of internet dating make it particularly interesting to study in relation to self-disclosure:
  • Those communicating online have more control over the way they present themselves. When speaking face-to-face, a huge amount of information is transmitted through nonverbal communication. Much of this is involuntary, but this becomes largely irrelevant online.
  • It easier to construct an identity online. Emails can be crafted and photographs retouched.
"...the best strategy is the polar opposite of many people's actual practice in online dating."
As a result of both of these, it is easier to carry out 'impression management' (lying). These points are made in a study by Gibbs, Ellison and Heino (2006) in which the perceived success of members of an internet dating service was related to self-disclosure.

The study came to some rather complex conclusions but one clear finding emerged. Those successful at online dating tended to use large amounts of positive self-disclosure, along with an openness about their intent. So, generally it is better to be open about yourself and honest and clear about your intentions. In other words, the best strategy is the polar opposite of many people's actual practice in online dating.


The art of self-disclosure
The idea that self-disclosure is important in relationships is no big surprise. But while it may be easy to understand in principle, the complexity of the process means it's much harder to do in practice. The art of self-disclosing, then, is giving information to others in the right way and at the right time. Receiving intimate information is no less of a skill, involving the verbal and nonverbal communication of understanding. Online dating offers the huge temptation to cheat at self-disclosure, but, to be successful, the art of self-disclosure is much the same in the online world as the offline.


Note
Hopefully this brief survey of some issues from the self-disclosure research has been useful. Please don't hesitate to comment, especially if you know of other good resources or articles on this subject.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)


References

Collins, N., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-75.

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152.

Greene, K., Derlega, V., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In: A. L. Vangelisti, D. Perlman (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labels: , ,

Personality Secrets in Your Mp3 Player

iPOD Hand
[Photo by Ariz]
Once past saying 'hello' and 'how are you?' to someone you've just met, what is next? How do we make friends and get to know other people? Psychologists have talked about the importance of body language, physical appearance and clothing but they've not been so keen on what we actually talk about. A recent study put participants in same-sex and opposite-sex pairings and told them to get to know each other over 6 weeks (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Analysing the results, they found the most popular topic of conversation was music. What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?

"how good is music as a measure of personality?"
The number of people who talked about music was surprisingly high. In the first week on average 58% of the pairs discussed music compared to 37% of all the other categories of conversation combined. Other categories included books, movies, TV, football and clothes.

Why then do we use music as a first port of call in getting to know another person? We probably think that music is indirectly telling us something about the other person's personality. For this reason, the second question this study tried to answer was: how good is music as a measure of personality?


Top 10 personalities
To measure this, participants were asked to judge people's personality solely on their top 10 list of songs.
"...a person's openness to experience was best communicated by their top 10 list of songs."
This was compared to participants results on a standard type of personality test measuring the big five personality traits: openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Overall the results showed that music preferences were reasonably accurate in conveying aspects of personality. Of the five traits, it was a person's openness to experience that was best communicated by their top 10 list of songs, followed by extraversion and emotional stability. On the other hand, music preferences didn't say much about whether a person was conscientious or not.

What some music preferences mean for personality:
  • Likes vocals: extraverted
  • Likes country: emotionally stable. On the face of it, this is bizarre really because country music is all about heartache. Either the emotionally stable are attracted to country music or it has a calming effect on the unstable!
  • Likes jazz: intellectual
This raises the question of why people listen to particular types of music. One theory is that people simply find some music more pleasant for aesthetic or cognitive reasons. Another is that people use music to regulate their mood: I want to get hyper for a night out so I put on some dance music. Another is that music is related to identity; people listen to music that expresses they way they see themselves. It seems likely that a combination of all these theories is probably true.

"...this finding might not hold in different age-groups."
One really important caveat for this study was that the average age of the participants was around 18 so this finding might not hold in different age-groups. My experience is young people talk about music much more than older people. This raises the question of what, for example, might be the most common topic of conversations for other age-groups getting acquainted. Any suggestions?

Despite this limitation it seems that talking about music might be a very powerful way to make a connection with another person.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

References

Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2006). Message in a Ballad. The Role of Music Preferences in Interpersonal Perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.

Labels: ,

Why Health Benefits of Good Relationships Rival Exercise and Nutrition

Entwined
[Photo by naama]
"...although people often talk up relationships, their behaviour tells a different story."
This series of posts starts - at the start - with the simple question of why we even need strong relationships. This might seem like asking why do we need food, water or oxygen. But, although people often talk up relationships, their behaviour tells a different story.

Likening relationships to basic physiological needs, some might argue, is a step too far. After all if I was stranded on a desert island I'd survive longer with just fresh drinking than with only a friend to talk to. But that isn't a fair comparison. For many of us in modern Western societies, our basic physiological needs are fulfilled and it is on higher goals that our mental and physical health depends. When arguing relationships are as important to health as exercise and nutrition, it is really a reflection on the relative comfort we enjoy.


Physical wear and tear
So what does the research tell us? Carol Ryff has been carrying out research into the connection between relationships and health for some time. In one study which followed 10,317 people from birth over 36 years, data on social relationships was collected along with biological markers important for indicating wear and tear on the body. Measures included systolic blood pressure, urinary cortisol levels and epinephrine levels. The data support the idea that negative relational experiences are associated with greater wear and tear on the body (Hauser et al., 1993).

Like any good scientist you'll be saying: well there may be an association but does that mean that poor relationships actually cause poor health? As it's not ethical to deliberately subject humans to desert island conditions - unless it's for TV of course - we just don't know.
"...Levels of oxytocin have been causally linked to lowering blood pressure and heart rate."
That said, there's evidence from measuring oxytocin in animal studies. Levels of oxytocin have been causally linked to lowering blood pressure and heart rate (Ryff et al., 2001). Indeed in a recent study a relationship was found between poor social relationships and oxytocin levels (Taylor et al., 2006).

If living a longer and happier life relies on our relationships, how exactly do we start these relationships? In the next few posts I'll move on to look at what research is telling us about finding both friends and partners.

» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.

See also: Review of The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier by Richard G Wilkinson (The Guardian)

References

Hauser, R., Carr, D., Hauser, T., Hayes, J., Krecker, M., Kuo, H., et al. (1993). The class of 1957 after 35 years: Overview and preliminary findings (Center for Demography and Ecology Paper 93-17). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., Wing, E., Dienberg Love, G. (2001) Elective affinities and uninvited agonies. In: C. Ryff, & B. Singer (Eds.). Emotion, social relationships, and health. Oxford University Press New York.

Taylor, S.E., Gonzaga, G.C., Klein, L.C., Hu, P., Greendale, G.A., Seeman, T.E., et al. (2006) Relation of oxytocin to psychological stress responses and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis activity in older women. Psychosomatic medicine, 68(2), 238-45.

Labels: ,

The Psychology of Relationships

Hug
[Photo by e.dward]
It is now a truism that our relationships have important effects on our psychological well-being. Some even suggest maintaining and fuelling good relationships might be as vital for our health as good nutrition and regular exercise (Ryff et al., 2001). Not only that but according to the social epidemiologist Richard G. Wilkinson the health of our society may depend on the quality of our relationships.

Unfortunately many aspects of our modern lives work against our relationships. Changes at work send us to opposite ends of the country, weak social and family ties lead to isolation and loneliness. What can psychology tell us about how we meet, how we get on and what happens if it all goes wrong?

In this series of posts I'll be taking an accessible look at some of the major themes emerging in the psychology of relationships.


1. Why Health Benefits of Good Relationships Rival Exercise and Nutrition
"For many of us in modern Western societies, our basic physiological needs are fulfilled and it is on higher goals that our mental and physical health depends."

2. Personality Secrets in Your Mp3 Player
"What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?"

3. Getting Closer: The Art of Self-Disclosure
"When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away."

4. Your Partner Has Been Unfaithful. The Question is Why.
"The type of attributions I make about my partner's behaviour will have an important affect on whether I can get over what they've done, or not. It will also affect whether I can save the relationship - if I want to that is."

5. How 'Naive Cynicism' May Poison Your Relationships
"Cynicism has its uses, but can it go too far? A study by Kruger and Gilovich (1999) suggests it can."

6. Affectionate Writing Can Reduce Cholesterol
"According to new research, writing down affectionate thoughts about close friends and family can reduce your cholesterol levels."

7. Seven Signs of Relationship (Dis)Satisfaction
"Once a relationship has become long-term, although we still talk about love and commitment, in some ways it's satisfaction that comes to the forefront. Indeed, low satisfaction is an important predictor of relationship breakdown. So, what factors have psychologists found are important in how satisfied we are with our relationships?"

8. Parental Relationships After Divorce: From 'Perfect Pals' to 'Fiery Foes'
"Although divorce/relationship breakdown happens at a number of levels - psychological, legal, economic - it is children that are usually the first concern. Who will take custody? How will the parents manage their relationship after they have separated?"

Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)

Labels:

Learning The Psychology of Seduction

Leicester Square
Apparently there are some men out there who will stop at nothing to sleep with beautiful women. One of these men has compiled a book containing all the dirty, and downright underhand psychological tricks that can be used for this purpose. I'm shocked! Almost as shocked as I am by the news that the sun rose in the east this morning - again!

Neil Strauss is the author of The Game: Undercover in the Secret Society of Pick-up Artists which is sure to produce disgusted reviews like this one in The Independent. It describes how AFCs - average frustrated chumps - can turn themselves into PUAs - pick up artists. Many of the techniques used are based on neuro-linguistic programming, which, in this context, is perhaps most usefully likened to hypnosis. It's all about influencing another person by learning how to manipulate all their senses to produce a change in their beliefs or behaviours.

If you've ever seen the 'mentalist' Derren Brown in action then you know how powerful some of these techniques can be.

PickupGuide contains many of the techniques.
The Times reports Leicester Square is the best place for PUAs to practice

Labels:

Speed Dating is Survival of the Hottest

Speed dating is huge now, but be careful you know what you're getting into. The latest psychological research suggests your 'great personality' might not get ticks in boxes. So what have psychologists found out so far?

Robert Kurzban and Jason Weeden from the University of Pennsylvania investigated more than 10,000 speed daters in the US. What their research showed was that many of the things that had previously been found to be important in choosing a mate, like education, income or smoking and drinking habits were found to be irrelevant in people's choices.

What is relevant then? You guessed it:
  • 34% of women's desirability was predicted by their physical attractiveness

  • 18.4% of men's desirability was predicted by their physical attractiveness
The research is showing speed dating is focussing people's attention on physical attractiveness to an even greater extent than normal. Three minutes, the standard amount of time each speed date lasts, might well be two minutes and fifty-nine seconds more than you need.

This means that the practical advice when you go to a speed dating event is:
  • Be honest about your own physical attractiveness and,

  • Aim for members of the opposite sex at a similar level
In a longer encounter in the 'real world' you may have a chance with those out of your league, but in speed dating it's survival of the hottest.

HurryDate: Mate preferences in action

Labels:

The Polyamorous or Ethical Sluts

"Polyamory is a neologism, signifying having more than one long term sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. Persons who enter into or consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly. The term is sometimes extended to refer to similar committed familial relationships that are not sexual in nature." [From Wikipedia]
Wikipedia has an excellent discussion of some of the issues this raises. Still it doesn't address the more practical points. Which partner do you go home to in the evening? What happens if two of your partners share the same birthday? Whose parents do you visit at Christmas?

All the normal problems of a monogamous relationship are suddenly mulitplied two, three or four-fold. I have the greatest respect for anyone who can even aspire to the ideals of polyamory, let alone pull it off.
The Guardian
The Independent

Labels:

Reasons For Online Dating Vary Widely

[Internet Dating Focus] People going in search of love online have found that their high hopes for online romance have been hit by some unexpected behaviour. Emails are routinely ignored and many people seem loathe to meet in the dangerous offline world. Are internet daters simply floundering in a new medium with unclear rules or is there a more fundamental problem? Research into people's motivations is beginning to uncover some answers.

James, 29, has only just started internet dating and is having a few teething troubles:
"I'm finding it really frustrating at the moment, I've been sending out a few messages to women whose profiles I like and I haven't been getting much response. Sometimes they will email you a few times then go quiet. Or when you offer to meet up in real life, they suddenly turn out to be extremely busy. Frankly, I wonder why a lot of the women are on there."
Becky, 31, is having similar problems with the men she has contacted:
"We'll be getting along well," she explains. "But they are sometimes very slow to want to actually have a face-to-face meeting. It's as though they're scared to step outside the safe cocoon that email and messaging provide and take a chance. Perhaps the men on there really are just scared to meet a real life woman. That's why they've got to rely on internet dating."
As in real life, there are a huge variety of people all looking for different things on internet dating sites. Your task, as a fresh-faced adventurer, is to work out who wants what, and whether anyone wants the same thing as you.

Research carried out in 2001 provides some interesting clues to the motivations of internet daters. While this research was carried out fairly early on in the life of online dating it does provide some useful pointers. Overall, the survey presents a confusing picture, which is not surprising as people's motivations are not always straightforward.

I Just Put it There for a Laugh

Of most interest to James and Becky is the statistic that about 40% of both sexes (men: 39%, women: 45%) put their profile on internet dating sites, "Out of curiosity or fun with no intention of making any kind of contact." This fact provides a clear lesson for those disappointed to receive no reply to their carefully crafted emails. Some people are never going to reply whatever you write or whatever your photo looks like. That's a fact you need to be aware of straight away otherwise you'll be easily disheartened.

Time Wasters

While many internet daters are not prepared to make any contact whatsoever, these might be considered a reasonable bunch compared to the next category. According to this survey 40% of women and 30% of men often using internet dating sites, "For casual online chatting or flirting and nothing more." This means that these people are not intending to ever meet up in the real world - an attitude many people would consider wasting other people's time.

Finally. A Real Live Person. I Think.

The good news is that almost 80% of both men and women do often use internet dating sites, "To find someone you'd like to meet." That's encouraging, but confusing, as this category must overlap with those who responded positively to the two previous categories. This gives the first clue as to people's confusion about why they are using these internet dating sites.

Sex and/or marriage

Around 50% of men and 20% of women claim to be using online dating to obtain a sexual relationship. On the other hand around 60% of both men and women claim to be also using the sites to obtain a long-term partner and around 37% of both sexes are looking for a marriage partner online.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

If you assume people's motivations are always pure and simple then some aspects of this research seem directly contradictory and confusing. How can 80% of people want to meet someone online, while 40% don't want to? If, however, you see people's motivations as more complex and inherently contradictory, then perhaps the research is providing some very clear messages.

I'm In Two, No, Four Minds About This

There are always going to be some people at the extreme ends of the spectrum who are using internet dating just as a way of obtaining sex, and there are going to be those who are just interested in marriage. What this research is telling us is that most people lie somewhere in between. It's quite normal for people to be thinking that it would be nice to have sex, but then again it would be nice to have a long-term relationship. These two motivations are not mutually exclusive, although some might disagree!

The moral of the story

When you start out as an internet dating newbie, it seems only reasonable to assume that the majority of other people are going onto internet dating sites for the same reasons that you are. The most usual reason being meeting someone you get on with on the site, then in the flesh, and then hopefully going on to have a long-term relationship with them.

What this research does is point to some fairly common alternative motivations for being on an internet dating site as well as highlighting people's confusion about their own reasons. And as you negotiate the online dating jungle, you need to be aware that not everyone's motivations are as pure (or as debased) as your own.

*This research was carried out in 2001, since when people's online attitudes and behaviours have certainly changed somewhat. Just how much, is a question for future research.

Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada [PDF File, 432K]