A prototype analysis of relational boredom

Abstract

Boredom has been described as a major obstacle to maintaining lasting love (Aron & Aron (1986). However, empirical research on this important challenge to relationship maintenance has been hampered by the lack of an agreed-upon definition of the construct. We tested the hypothesis that relational boredom is amenable to a prototype conceptualization. In study 1, participants provided prototypicality ratings for the features of relational boredom. Features such as ''lack of interest in partner'' and ''no longer exciting'' were considered prototypical of the construct, whereas features such as ''nothing in common'' and ''too similar'' were considered nonprototypical. We confirmed this prototype structure in the remaining studies. In study 2, when information that a couple was experiencing boredom was given, participants were more likely to infer that prototypical, than nonprototypical, features characterized the relationship. In study 3, the prototypical features were verified more quickly than the nonprototypical features in a reaction time task. In study 4, when a relationship was described in terms of prototypical, rather than nonprototypical, features of boredom, participants inferred greater boredom in the relationship. Moreover, these inferences were drawn more strongly for boredom than another negative relational state, namely conflict. Implications of these findings for theorizing and research on relational boredom are discussed.

A prototype analysis of infidelity

“…Birnie-Porter and Lydon (2013) argue that a prototype analysis is warranted when researchers attempt to answer the question: "What is it?" and Harasymchuk and Fehr (2013) advocated for a prototype approach when there is lack of consensus on the definition of a concept. No simple infidelity definition exists because the concept cannot be classically defined in black and white terms.…”

“…It is possible that how an individual conceptualizes and understands infidelity may relate to the likelihood that they engage in this behavior. Second, a prototype approach allows researchers to understand the breadth of a concept (Gregg, Hart, Sedikides, & Kumashiro, 2008) and potentially highlight previously ignored components of the concept (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013). Lay theories of relationships shape individuals' relationship behaviors (Fletcher & Thomas, 1996), so further identifying the various components of these lay theories may again help us to better understand infidelity.…”

Lay perceptions of mental toughness: Understanding conceptual similarities and differences between lay and sporting contexts

“…As mental toughness is typically measured through self-report scales that are developed from theoretical or sporting-based conceptualisations, it is important for researchers to understand how these tools correspond to participants' ideas of the concept. Second, as the meaning of mental toughness is likely to be contextually bound (Bull et al, 2005;Fawcett, 2011;Madrigal, Hamill, & Gill, 2013), lay theories may highlight previously overlooked components of mental toughness (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013). Finally, understanding lay perceptions of mental toughness may contribute to promoting further recognition and understanding of the benefits that can be attained by mental toughness beyond sporting and achievement-related contexts.…”

Preliminary Findings Supporting a New Model of How Couples Maintain Excitement in Romantic Relationships

“…Studies have found that boredom predicts relationship dissatisfaction and break-down (Aron & Aron, 1996;Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013;Tsapelas, Aron & Orbuch, 2009). In prototype analysis of relational boredom, Harasymchuk and Fehr (2013) found that a main feature of boredom in a romantic relationship was loss of positive qualities once experienced in the relationship (e.g., lack of excitement, passion, fun, and surprises).…”