Category: Relationships

The most common form of relationship abuse is psychological.

Women stay in abusive relationships due to a combination of low self-esteem, poor alternatives and how much they have already invested in the relationship, research finds.

Despite being abused, many women (and men) find it hard to leave their partner.

Only 12 percent of the women in this study who were abused — psychologically or physically — left their partner within two months.

Many women felt they were not worthy of something better.

Their low self-esteem was sometimes the result of experiencing childhood abuse — this appeared to raise their tolerance for abuse.

The conclusions come from a study of 323 women, all of whom reported at least one incident of abuse, whether physical or psychological.

Psychological abuse included things like “called me fat or ugly” or “insulted or swore at me”.

Most of the abuse reported in the study was psychological.

The results showed that 88 percent of women were still with an abusive partner over two months later.

The authors write that:

“…women experiencing high levels of psychological distress may not feel efficacious in their ability to leave their partners.”

Childhood abuse was an important contributory factor, the authors write:

“…women who were abused in childhood were more satisfied with their current relationships than women who were not abused in childhood.

It is possible that women with childhood abuse histories are more satisfied in their relationships than women without childhood abuse histories because they have more tolerance for mistreatment based on early life experiences and resulting interpersonal schemas.”

Being abused had an unusual effect on women: it encouraged them to work harder at their relationship.

“…the more psychological abuse women are exposed to, the more energy and effort they put forth to resolve the conflict, thus leading to increases in perceived investment.”

And the more women invested in their relationship, the more likely they were to stay in it.

The study was published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (Edwards et al., 2010).

The top two psychological causes of infidelity.

Men and women cheat on their partners at about equal rates.

According to various studies, somewhere between 40 percent and 76 percent of people cheat on their partners over the course of their relationship.

The type of people most likely to cheat are those with ‘avoidant attachment styles’.

In other words: these are people who find intimacy uncomfortable.

They are the kind of people who want to avoid being too attached to one person.

This could be because of poor parental relationships when they were young.

They could also value their independence more highly than being very close to one person.

Ms Geneviève Beaulieu-Pelletier, author of a study on the subject, said:

“These numbers indicate that even if we get married with the best of intentions things don’t always turn out the way we plan.

What interests me about infidelity is why people are willing to conduct themselves in ways that could be very damaging to them and to their relationship.”

The top two reasons for infidelity that people cited were: (1) distancing themselves from commitment and (2) distancing themselves from their partner.

“The emotional attachment we have with others is modelled on the type of parenting received during childhood.

Infidelity could be a regulatory emotional strategy used by people with an avoidant attachment style.

The act of cheating helps them avoid commitment phobia, distances them from their partner, and helps them keep their space and freedom.”

No difference was seen between men and women in the study.

Ms Beaulieu-Pelletier said:

 “Contrary to popular belief, infidelity isn’t more prevalent in men.”

The study was published in the journal Attachment and Human Development (Beaulieu-Pelletier et al., 2009).

A warning signal that someone is a higher risk for cheating on their partner.

A man with a deeper voice and a woman with a higher voice are more likely to cheat on their partner, research finds.

Voice pitch is linked to levels of the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen.

People naturally find men with deeper voices and women with higher voices more attractive.

However, they also seem to be naturally aware that they could be markers of trouble down the line.

Dr Jillian O’Connor, the study’s first author, said:

“In terms of sexual strategy, we found that men and women will use voice pitch as a warning sign of future betrayal.

So the more attractive the voice — a higher pitch for women and lower pitch for men — the more likely the chances he or she will cheat.”

In the study people listened to recordings of male and female voices that were manipulated to be higher and lower in pitch.

They were asked which one was most likely to cheat on their partner.

Both men and women thought that lowered male voices and raised women’s voices suggested the person would be more likely to cheat.

Dr O’Connor said:

“Infidelity is costly with the emotional impact, financial costs and potential loss of the family unit.

But this suggests that through the evolutionary process, we have learned ways to avoid partners who may be unfaithful as a protection mechanism.”

Dr David Feinberg, study co-author, said:

“The reason voice pitch influences perceptions of cheating is likely due to the relationship between pitch, hormones and infidelity.

Men with higher testosterone levels have lower pitched voices, and women with higher estrogen levels have higher pitched voices.

High levels of these hormones are associated with adulterous behaviour and our findings indicate individuals are somewhat aware of the link and may use this in their search for a romantic partner.”

The study was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology (O’Connor et al., 2011).

Naive cynicism can poison your relationships, psychological research finds.

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.

Naive cynicism example

Of course, 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.

Naïve cynicism develops early

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.

.

Parenthood brings many stressors including lack of sleep and endless chores, which puts immense strain on parents and their relationship.

Most couples remain committed to each other and satisfied with their relationships after having children, a study finds.

While the transition to parenthood is filled with stressors, like lack of sleep and endless chores, the majority of couples get through it with their connection to each other intact.

The conclusions come from a study of over 200 couples who were tracked over more than a year as they had their first child.

Mr Nathan Leonhardt, the study’s first author, explained the results:

“The clear majority (81 percent) of the 203 couples navigated the transition with high commitment and at least moderately high satisfaction.

And we learned that a huge differentiation as far as who ended up transitioning well were people that had good relationships going into this transition period.”

The study also found some factors that predicted the most successful transition to parenthood:

• More realistic expectations of having children,
• feeling their partner helped them grow as a person,
• believing their partner was committed to the relationship,
• and remaining emotionally connected to their partner.

Professor Emily Impett, study co-author, said:

“I think the focus on commitment as an outcome during the transition to parenthood is really important, and the take-home that most couples begin but remain highly committed over this life transition is a message that should be music to many couples’ ears.”

Many people believe that relationships suffer from parenthood, but Mr Leonhardt thinks this is unnecessarily gloomy:

“I like being able to point out exceptions to the norm, to ‘myth bust’ a little bit.

So with something like the transition to parenthood, I wanted to be able to see if we could break some of the common narratives and give people a little bit more hope.”

Children won’t save a relationship

However, parents should not expect having a child to save their relationship, Mr Leonhardt said:

“As a general rule, if things aren’t going well in your relationship, adding another person to this family probably isn’t the thing that you should be doing to try to resolve any relationship problems that you have.”

Mr Leonhardt is fascinated by relationships and how they affect our lives:

“If you were to ask somebody about the best and worst experiences they’ve had in their lives, there’s a high percentage of experiences that would have something to do with their relationship.

It’s just such an integral part of who we are as human beings and how we come to understand ourselves, and what’s ultimately most important to us in our lives.”

The study was published in the journal Journal of Marriage and Family (Leonhardt et al., 2021).

Single vs married: two surveys reveal who is happier.

Being married brings people more lifelong happiness than being single, research finds.

The boost to happiness in being married also persists into old age.

The positive effect of marriage is even stronger for those people who described their partner as their best friend.

The findings were just the same for those people who lived together but were not actually married.

Professor John Helliwell, study co-author, said:

“Even after years the married are still more satisfied.

This suggests a causal effect at all stages of the marriage, from pre-nuptial bliss to marriages of long-duration.”

Surveys of single vs married

The results come from two surveys that involved around 370,000 people in the UK.

The honeymoon phase was not the only time when marriage boosted happiness.

Typically, middle-aged people see a dip in their satisfaction with life.

However, Professor Helliwell said:

“Marriage may help ease the causes of a mid-life dip in life satisfaction and the benefits of marriage are unlikely to be short-lived.”

The social effects of being married appeared to be how it increases happiness.

Having a lifelong friend — indeed a ‘super-friend’ — helps explain why the positive effects of a partnership last so long.

Professor Helliwell said:

“The well-being benefits of marriage are much greater for those who also regard their spouse as their best friend.

These benefits are on average about twice as large for people whose spouse is also their best friend.”

The study was published in the Journal of Happiness Studies (Grover & Helliwell, 2017).

Divorce runs in families because negative personality traits like neuroticism are passed down genetically.

Genetics is the main reason why divorce runs in families, research finds.

Psychologists used to think that the potential for divorce was transmitted from one generation to the next by psychological means.

But this study finds that it is really genetics that are at the root — although psychological factors are important.

For example, neurotic people tend to see their partners in a more negative light.

The personality trait of neuroticism is passed down through the generations.

This, along with other psychological characteristics passed on genetically, mostly explains why divorce runs in families.

Why divorce runs in families

Dr Jessica Salvatore, the study’s first author, said:

“At present, the bulk of evidence on why divorce runs in families points to the idea that growing up with divorced parents weakens your commitment to and the interpersonal skills needed for marriage.

So, if a distressed couple shows up in a therapist’s office and finds, as part of learning about the partners’ family histories, that one partner comes from a divorced family, then the therapist may make boosting commitment or strengthening interpersonal skills a focus of their clinical efforts.”

However, strengthening commitment may not be the best way to approach the problem, said Dr Salvatore:

“…what we find is strong, consistent evidence that genetic factors account for the intergenerational transmission of divorce.

For this reason, focusing on increasing commitment or strengthening interpersonal skills may not be a particularly good use of time for a therapist working with a distressed couple.”

Instead, the key for couples having problems may be looking at personality issues.

Dr Salvatore said:

“For example, other research shows that people who are highly neurotic tend to perceive their partners as behaving more negatively than they objectively are [as rated by independent observers].

So, addressing these underlying, personality-driven cognitive distortions through cognitive-behavioral approaches may be a better strategy than trying to foster commitment.”

The study was published in the journal Psychological Science (Salvatore et al., 2018).

The technique does not help you work out what they are feeling or if they are lying, despite the constant claims.

Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes does NOT help you understand what they are thinking, a series of 25 experiments has shown.

It debunks one of the most commonly used ways to work out what other people are thinking.

In fact, putting yourself in someone else’s shoes only gives you the impression that you know them better.

Far better, to just ask them.

The study’s author’s explain:

“We incorrectly presume that taking someone else’s perspective will help us understand and improve interpersonal relationships.

If you want an accurate understanding of what someone is thinking or feeling, don’t make assumptions, just ask.”

Across 25 different experiments, people were asked to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and imagine all kinds of things about them, such as:

• whether they were truly smiling,
• whether they were lying,
• and what they were really feeling.

The authors explain the results:

“Initially a large majority of participants believed that taking someone else’s perspective would help them achieve more accurate interpersonal insight.

However, test results showed that their predictive assumptions were not generally accurate, although it did make them feel more confident about their judgement and reduced egocentric biases.”

Dale Carnegie popularised this way of understanding other people in his bestseller ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’.

The only benefit to imagining you are someone else is in reducing the ‘egocentric bias’.

This is the tendency people have to rely too much on their own opinions in order to satisfy their own egos.

Imagining you are someone else helps people take into account other perspectives and reduces reliance on egotistical opinions.

What it doesn’t do, though, is let you read other people’s minds.

The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Eyal et al., 2018).