The Role of Nonsexual Exclusivity Ideals in College Dating Relationships: Relationship Quality, Attachment, and Aggression

This study explored the associations between nonsexual exclusivity ideals and relationship quality, adult attachment, and aggression in college students' dating relationships. Nonsexual exclusivity ideals were defined as the desired amount of time, emotional support, and self-disclosure engaged in exclusively with one's romantic partner. It was predicted that the discrepancy between nonsexual exclusivity ideals and perceptions would be a significant predictor of relationship quality, trust, and love, and relationship aggression; such that individuals whose perception of exclusivity in their current relationship met or exceeded their ideals would perceive significantly higher relationship quality, trust, and love for their partner and would be less likely to use aggression against their partner than those whose perception of exclusivity did not meet their ideal. Nonsexual exclusivity ideal-perception discrepancy and attachment anxiety were also expected to interact in the prediction of physical and psychological aggression in the relationship. A survey was administered to 400 undergraduates in order to test these predictions. Results supported hypotheses for the prediction of relationship quality, trust, love, and psychological aggression in the participant's current relationship. Implications of these results as well as suggestions for future research are discussed

Not Bad, For a Man: Shifting Standards in the Provision of Emotional Support Within Romantic Relationships

Previous research has found mixed results in terms of gender differences in the provision of emotional support to a relationship partner. Some studies support the popular stereotype that women are more emotionally supportive than men, while others find no gender differences in the amount of emotional support men and women provide to one another in a romantic relationship. These conflicting findings may be the result of shifting standards for men and women in terms of the amount of emotional support that is expected to be provided by each within a relationship. Since women are stereotypically assumed to be more nurturing and emotionally supportive than men, more emotional support will be expected of them in comparison with men who are assumed to be unemotional and largely unsupportive of their partners. Therefore, women will be held to a higher standard than men with regard to the provision of emotional support. The purpose of the current study was to test this shifting standards effect as it relates to the provision of emotional support within dating relationships. Heterosexual male and female undergraduates currently involved in a dating relationship were asked to rate their partners’ provision of emotional support using either an objective scale or a subjective scale. It was predicted that objective ratings of emotional support provision would reflect stereotypical gender differences with women being rated as providing more support than men. However, subjective ratings, which are subject to shifting standards, would not display gender differences in the provision of emotional support. These results were predicted to be associated with within-gender social comparison and adherence to gender stereotypes. Contrary to predictions, women rated their partners as providing significantly more emotional support than men on both the objective and subjective scales. Despite this fact, analyses of items measuring within-gender and between-gender comparisons revealed that participants adhered to the stereotype that women typically provide more emotional support than men. Ratings of emotional support provision were related to adherence to benevolent stereotypes about men and women, especially for men. The implications of these surprising results and suggestions for future research are discussed