Good Mates Retain Us Right: Investigating the Relationship between Mate Retention Strategies, Mate Value, and Relationship Satisfaction

Abstract

Mate retention strategies are an important tool in keeping a partner, and their use is determined by the mate value (MV) of the partner one is trying to keep. The type of strategy used is also dependent on one's own MV: mates of lower MV are more prone to exhibiting strategies that are cost-inflicting for their partners, whereas partner-benefiting strategies are used by mates of higher value. The type of strategies used affects relationship satisfaction (RS), and is also affected by the perceived difference in MVs. However, it is unclear how someone's perception of their partner's MV is related to that partner's behavior and their own RS. To this aim, we investigated the relationship between these variables on a sample of 178 couples. Our results showed that benefit-inducing strategies were used more by-and towards-partners of higher MV, and were positively connected with RS. Cost-inflicting strategies were more used by-and towards-partners of lower MV, and were negatively connected with RS. Less MV difference was positively correlated with RS and benefiting strategies, and negatively correlated with cost-inflicting strategies. It seems that good mates use strategies that benefit their partners, which, in turn, make them more valuable and, consequently, their partner more satisfied.

Mate Value Discrepancy and Mate Retention Behaviors of Self and Partner

“…These studies are the first to investigate (a) directional mate value discrepancy (as opposed to absolute differences in mate value; Salkicevic al., 2014) as it relates to mate retention behaviors, (b) the frequency of performing mate retention behaviors relative to one's partner, and (c) the relationship between mate value discrepancy and relative mate retention between members of a couple. Individuals who perceive they are of higher short-term mate value perform Benefit-Provisioning behaviors less frequently when mated to a lower (vs. higher) short-term mate value partner, and individuals who perceive that they could less easily replace their partner perform Benefit-Provisioning behaviors and Cost-Inflicting behaviors more frequently when they perceive their partner can more (vs. less) easily replace them.…”

“…Given the documented associations between mate retention and mate value, we expected that people would adjust their mate retention behaviors relative to their partner's mate retention behaviors as a result of comparing their own mate value to their partner's mate value. Differences between men's mate value (as perceived by their female partner) and women's mate value (as perceived by their male partner) predict the frequency of self's mate retention behaviors differently for each mate retention domain: Individuals who perceive their mate value to be closer to their partner's mate value perform more frequent Benefit‐Provisioning mate retention behaviors, and individuals who perceive their mate value to be further from their partner's mate value perform more frequent Cost‐Inflicting mate retention behaviors (Salkicevic, Stanic, & Grabovac, ). Although this demonstrates that absolute mate value discrepancy predicts the types of mate retention an individual performs, previous research has not investigated whether self ‐perceived mate value discrepancy—and, in a particular direction—predicts the frequency with which people engage in various types of mate retention relative to their partner .…”

Non‐verbal mate retention behaviour in women and its relation to couple's relationship adjustment and satisfaction

“…relationship satisfaction increasing) tactic, while direct guarding is listed among cost‐inflicting mate retention strategies. A contrast between a positive association of dyadic satisfaction with benefit‐provisioning mate retention tactics (positive inducements and public signals of possession) and a negative association of dyadic satisfaction with cost‐inflicting mate retention tactics has also been reported by other authors (such as Salkicevic et al, ). Although we are not aware of any study focused specifically on the opposite effect of short versus long look in terms of mate retention effectiveness, studies from other areas of psychology do provide evidence about the different effects of short and long looks in interpersonal contexts (Argyle, Lefebvre, & Cook, ; Bente, Eschenburg, & Krämer, ).…”

“…Intrasexual mate retention manipulations include (a) public signals of possession; (b) derogation of mate to rivals; (c) threats to rivals, and even violence (Buss, 1988a). There is evidence that benefit-provisioning mate retention tactics are positively associated with relationship satisfaction, while cost-inflicting mate retention tactics are negatively associated with it (Salkicevic, Stanic, & Grabovac, 2014).…”

Mate retention Strategies, Self-Esteem, Mate Value and Facial Attractiveness Disparity in Brazil and in the UK

“…Important variables that are associated with the deployment of MRS include: 1the relative value of the mate; (2) the discrepancy between members of the couple in their relative "mate value"; and (3) the perceived probability of infidelity or defection (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Specifically, positive inducements and public signals of possession have been found to be positively correlated with a person's own mate value, whereas strategies such as direct guarding and intrasexual negative inducements were found to be negatively associated with own mate value (Salkicevic, Stanic, & Grabovac, 2014). Higher discrepancies between the partners in age and physical attractiveness also increase the frequency of a person's mate retention performance in both men and women, as well as their experience of jealousy (Buss & Shackelford, 1998;Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2007).…”