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

Abstract

Monogamy is a near universal expectation in intimate relationships in Western societies and is typically defined as sexual and romantic exclusivity to one partner. This research informs the paradox between monogamy intentions and high rates of infidelity. Monogamy maintenance (MM) strategies used in response to relationship threats posed by attraction to extradyadic others were identified and characterized. Across three samples, 741 U.S. adults in intimate relationships completed surveys addressing MM. Twenty‐four strategies emerged in three factors—Proactive Avoidance (of attractive alternatives), Relationship Enhancement, and Low Self‐Monitoring and Derogation (in the face of extradyadic attraction). All MM factors were commonly endorsed, yet were largely unsuccessful at forestalling infidelity.

Walk the Line: How Successful Are Efforts to Maintain Monogamy in Intimate Relationships?

“…Monogamy maintenance efforts were identified by respondents as their attempts to realign interest in a primary partner and avoid an attractive other, but these efforts did not appear to be effective in thwarting interest in an attractive other. Monogamy maintenance previously was found to be predictive of extradyadic flirtation (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018). Self-Monitoring and Derogation efforts were found to be positively associated with flirtation, whereas Relationship Enhancement efforts were negatively associated with flirtation (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018), in patterns consistent with the current findings.…”

“…Monogamy maintenance previously was found to be predictive of extradyadic flirtation (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018). Self-Monitoring and Derogation efforts were found to be positively associated with flirtation, whereas Relationship Enhancement efforts were negatively associated with flirtation (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018), in patterns consistent with the current findings. Monogamy maintenance appears to be more effective in redirecting individuals from engaging in flirtation, a subtler and more socially tolerated extradyadic behavior which may lead to infidelity, but other motivations and risk factors likely override monogamy maintenance when sexual or romantic infidelity is being considered.…”

“…Proactive Avoidance, Relationship Enhancement, Self-Monitoring and Derogation, and relationship commitment at T1 were regressed onto the romantic infidelity and sexual infidelity outcomes at T2, which were then regressed onto relationship commitment at T2. Self-Monitoring and Derogation at T1 was allowed to covary with the other two monogamy maintenance factors to reflect the correlations previously found (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018). Romantic and sexual infidelity outcomes at T2 also were allowed to covary, reflecting the overlap between infidelity types.…”

“…Participants completed the 24-item measure of monogamy maintenance efforts (Lee & O’Sullivan, 2018; see Appendix). They indicated whether they had engaged in any of the 24 efforts during an episode of strong attraction toward another member of the opposite sex during their current romantic relationship.…”

“…For each act, please indicate whether you have engaged in this behavior when you felt the most strongly drawn to, or experienced the greatest attraction to another member of the opposite sex who is not your partner.” Sample items include “turned down a plan that this other person tried to make with me” and “felt guilty that I flirted too much with this other person.” Higher values indicated greater efforts to maintain monogamy. This measure consists of three subscales: Proactive Avoidance (10 items), which includes efforts to avoid physical distance, face-to-face interactions, and conversational intimacies with a specific attractive other, or with members of the other sex more generally; Relationship Enhancement (7 items), which captures efforts to enrich one’s primary relationship sexually, materially, and emotionally to ensure monogamy is maintained; and Self-Monitoring and Derogation (7 items), which represents emotional and cognitive strategies in the face of extradyadic attraction, such as mentally downplaying one’s attraction to the attractive other and attempts to direct one’s attention back to the primary relationship (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2018). The internal consistency within the total monogamy maintenance (MM) inventory ( α = .82) and its subscales (Proactive Avoidance α = .78, Relationship Enhancement α = .75, and Self-Monitoring and Derogation α = .76) were considered acceptable to good in the current sample.…”