Love in the Time of COVID: Perceived Partner Responsiveness Buffers People from Lower Relationship Quality Associated with COVID-Related Stressors

External stressors can erode relationship quality, though little is known about what can mitigate these effects. We examined whether COVID-related stressors were associated with lower relationship quality, and whether perceived partner responsiveness—the extent to which people believe their partner understands, validates, and cares for them—buffers these effects. When people in relationships reported more COVID-related stressors they reported poorer relationship quality at the onset of the pandemic (N = 3,593 from 57 countries) and over the subsequent three months (N = 1,125). At the onset of the pandemic, most associations were buffered by perceived partner responsiveness, such that people who perceived their partners to be low in responsiveness reported poorer relationship quality when they experienced COVID-related stressors, but these associations were reduced among people who perceived their partners to be highly responsive. In some cases, these associations were buffered over the ensuing weeks of the pandemic

Self-esteem, relationship threat, and dependency regulation:Independent replication of Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) Study 3

Across three studies, Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) found that low self-esteem individuals responded in a negative manner compared to those high in self-esteem in the face of relationship threat, perceiving their partners and relationships less positively. This was the first empirical support for the hypothesized dynamics of a dependency regulation perspective, and has had a significant impact on the field of relationship science. In the present research, we sought to reproduce the methods and procedures of Study 3 of Murray et al. (2002) to further test the two-way interaction between individual differences in self-esteem and situational relationship threat. Manipulation check effects replicated the original study, but no interaction between self-esteem and experimental condition was observed for any primary study outcomes

Unweaving the rainbow of human sexuality : a review of one-night stands, serious romantic relationships, and the relationship space in between

For 50 years, relationship researchers have primarily focused on two varieties of relationships; one-night stands and serious romantic relationships. Both of these are treated as (1) distinct relationships and (2) a comprehensive list of the relationships people of any sexual orientation engage in. However, over the last 10 years this apparent simplicity has been called into question; researchers have revealed a rainbow of potential relationships that individuals can and do engage in. From this perspective, relationships may act as “compromises” between two extremes (i.e., pure monogamy or pure zero-acquaintance sex) and are negotiated in the course of relationship development. Relationships then reflect different levels of short-term mating and long-term mating aspects simultaneously. In this review, we examine research on one-night stands, serious romantic relationships, booty-call relationships, friends-with-benefits, swinging, and polyamory. Throughout, we highlight the utility of evolutionary models to account for behaviors and patterns in these relationships and discuss the importance of an unbiased and unabashed look at the sex lives of people

Eroticism Versus Nurturance : How Eroticism and Nurturance Differs in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships

Romantic partners provide both erotic and nurturing experiences, though these may emerge more strongly in different phases of a relationship. Unlike individuals in monogamous relationships, those in polyamorous relationships can pursue multiple romantic relationships simultaneously, potentially allowing them to experience higher levels of eroticism and nurturance. This research examined eroticism and nurturance among individuals in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. As expected, polyamorous participants experienced less eroticism but more nurturance in their relationships with their primary partner compared to secondary. Furthermore, people in polyamorous relationships reported more nurturance with primary partners and eroticism with secondary partners compared to people in monogamous relationships. These findings suggest that polyamory may provide a unique opportunity for individuals to experience both eroticism and nurturance simultaneously

Pornography’s associations with open sexual communication and relationship closeness vary as a function of dyadic patterns of pornography use within heterosexual relationships

Couples who use pornography together (shared pornography use) and couples in which both members use pornography alone (concordant solitary pornography use) may have more sexual interests, preferences, and values in common than couples in which one couple member uses pornography and the other does not (discordant pornography use). From this perspective, the associations between pornography use, comfort in sexual communication, and relationship closeness should vary depending on patterns of pornography use within relationships. Several related pre-registered hypotheses were tested using an online cross-sectional survey of heterosexual dyads (N ¼ 200) that were quota sampled to reflect the distribution of age and political affiliation of married American couples. Dyadic analysis indicated that participants who shared pornography use with their partner reported more open sexual communication and greater closeness

Dimming the “Halo” Around Monogamy: Re-assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships as a Function of Personal Relationship Orientation

Previous research suggests that both monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) participants rate monogamous targets more positively. However, this pattern of stigma toward CNM relationships and the “halo effect” surrounding monogamy is at odds with the view that people typically favor members from their own groups over members of other groups. In the current research, we sought to re-examine the halo effect, using a more direct measure of stigma (i.e., desired social distance), in a methodological context that differentiates between the three most common types of CNM relationships. A convenience sample (N = 641) of individuals who self-identified as monogamous (n = 447), open (n = 80), polyamorous (n = 62), or swinger (n = 52) provided social distance ratings in response to these same relationship orientations in a counterbalanced order. Congruent with prior findings, CNM participants favored monogamous targets over CNM targets as a broad category (replicating the halo effect). However, results indicated this effect dissipated when participants were asked to differentiate between relationships they identify with, and other CNM relationships. Furthermore, supplementary findings suggest that monogamous targets were perceived to be the least promiscuous and were associated with the lowest perceived sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates, while swinger targets were perceived as the most promiscuous and were associated with the highest perceived STI rates. Consequently, our results imply social distance is partly attributable to the perception of STI risk, but not perceptions of promiscuity

Sexual Attitudes, Erotophobia, and Sociosexual Orientation Differ Based on Relationship Orientation

Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) is an overarching term for relationship orientations that differ based on the degree to which consensual sexual and emotional needs are fulfilled outside of a dyad. Despite the diversity of CNM relationship orientations and growing research examining CNM, it is unclear whether the sexual attitudes, inclination to approach/avoid sexual stimuli (i.e., erotophobia-erotophilia), and sociosexuality differ among individuals who identify with distinct CNM relationships. Further, as the agreements made in CNM relationships permit extradyadic relationships, important differences might emerge for CNM and monogamous individuals. A convenience sample (N = 641) of individuals who self-identified as monogamous (n = 447), open (n = 80), polyamorous (n = 62), or swinger (n = 52) provided ratings of their sexual attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and sociosexuality. Results indicated that swingers had the most permissive and instrumental attitudes, were the most erotophilic, and were the most unrestricted sexually. Conversely, monogamists scored the lowest on these traits. No differences emerged between relationship orientations for attitudes toward communion and birth control. These findings have important implications for sexuality research because they reinforce the view that some underlying differences and similarities exist between monogamous and CNM individuals