The Implications of Sociosexuality for Marital Satisfaction and Dissolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PSSXXX10.1177/0956797619868997French et al.Sociosexuality and Marriage 868997research-article2019 ASSOCIATION FOR Research Article PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Psychological Science 1 –13 The Implications of Sociosexuality for © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Marital Satisfaction and Dissolution DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619868997 10.1177/0956797619868997 www.psychologicalscience.org/PS Juliana E. French , Emma E. Altgelt, and Andrea L. Meltzer Department of Psychology, Florida State University Abstract Most people will get married, and maintaining a quality marriage is critical to well-being. Nevertheless, many intimates experience declines in marital satisfaction, and a substantial proportion of marriages dissolve. Drawing from functional perspectives of human mating, we argue that one source of marital discord and dissolution is that people vary in their motivations to pursue uncommitted sex—that is, sociosexuality. We examined this possibility using data from two independent longitudinal studies of 204 newlywed couples and used actor–partner interdependence growth- curve modeling. Results demonstrated that relatively unrestricted (vs. restricted) sociosexuality was associated with an increased probability of relationship dissolution through declines in marital satisfaction over time. Additional exploratory analyses provided preliminary evidence suggesting that frequent sex, high sexual satisfaction, and low stress weaken this association. These primary findings suggest that strong motives to pursue uncommitted sex may interfere with marital success, and the latter findings suggest potential buffers for these negative outcomes. Keywords sociosexuality, marriage, evolutionary psychology, marital satisfaction, divorce, open materials Received 1/24/18; Revision accepted 7/2/19 Most people get married, and doing so offers copious but our goal in the current work was to draw on func- benefits. Not only is marriage associated with reproduc- tional perspectives of mating to suggest that some mar- tive benefits (Trivers, 1972) as well as social and finan- riages may be more vulnerable than others. cial benefits (see Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014), Throughout evolutionary history, ancestral humans but successful marriages also play a critical role in have maintained pair bonds that helped to promote people’s psychological and physical health (Holt- offspring survival (Trivers, 1972). Nevertheless, there Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Liu & Umberson, 2008; were also benefits associated with noncommittal mat- Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014). In fact, ing, such as procuring high-quality genes for offspring. whereas merely being married reduces mortality risk Human mating systems thus evolved to be flexible and (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010), relationship dissolution is somewhat mixed (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). That associated with significant health risks (Liu & Umberson, is, although modern humans generally desire stable 2008). long-term relationships such as marriage, they are also Nevertheless, maintaining a successful marriage is motivated to pursue sex without commitment (e.g., notoriously difficult. Marital satisfaction declines over one-night stands, extra-pair copulations). There is nota- time, on average (see Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & ble variability, however, in people’s motivations to pur- Karney, 2014), and divorce rates in numerous industrial- sue uncommitted sex (i.e., their sociosexual orientations; ized countries hover between 30% and 50% (Amato & James, 2010). Given that marriage offers many benefits, Corresponding Author: and divorce is associated with critical costs, why are Juliana E. French, Florida State University, Department of Psychology, marriages so difficult to maintain? The answer to this 1107 W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306 question is certainly complicated and likely multifaceted, E-mail: [email protected] 2 French et al. Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), which range on a contin- to which intimates’ own as well as their partners’ socio- uum from restricted sociosexuality (i.e., low motivations sexuality is associated with their marital satisfaction and to pursue uncommitted sex) to unrestricted sociosexuality dissolution. (i.e., high motivations to pursue uncommitted sex). Finally, no research, at least to our knowledge, has Nevertheless, given people’s general tendency to explored the possibility that some factors may buffer pursue long-term relationships, the numerous incen- people from any negative effects of their own or their tives to marry, and high U.S. marriage rates, it is likely partners’ sociosexuality. Nevertheless, identifying such that even relatively unrestricted individuals get married protective factors can have important theoretical as well (see Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007). How do such rela- as practical implications. Consistent with the idea that tionships fare? There are theoretical reasons to expect psychological traits are not inherently positive or nega- that they may suffer. According to the vulnerability- tive (see McNulty & Fincham, 2012), it is possible that stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), a unrestricted individuals can maintain satisfying mar- prominent model from the close-relationships literature, riages in certain contexts. Most notably, given such indi- people’s enduring vulnerabilities contribute to dyadic viduals’ proclivity toward sex (Belsky, Steinberg, & processes and subsequent relationship development. Draper, 1991) and the role of sex in pair bonding Integrating this model with prior work on sociosexual- (Meltzer et al., 2017), having an active or satisfying sex- ity suggests that unrestricted sociosexuality may be a ual relationship may provide the gratification necessary particularly debilitating enduring vulnerability that can to buffer unrestricted individuals from negative marital render established long-term relationships such as mar- outcomes. Additionally, in line with the central tenet of riage vulnerable to declines in satisfaction and stability the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model of marriage (see Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Consistent with this (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) that stress exacerbates the possibility, research has shown that unrestricted indi- effects of enduring vulnerabilities on relationship out- viduals report lower commitment (Simpson & Gangestad, comes, maintaining low levels of stress may minimize 1991), fewer relationship-maintenance motivations the negative impact of unrestricted sociosexuality. (Jones, 1998), decreased sexual interest in their partners We had two goals in the current research: (a) exam- (Hebl & Kashy, 1995), increased attention to attractive ine the implications of sociosexuality for marital satis- extra-pair partners (McNulty, Meltzer, Makhanova, & faction and dissolution and (b) explore potential Maner, 2018), and more frequent infidelity (Penke & boundary conditions. To this end, we pooled the data Asendorpf, 2008). Together, the extant literature sug- from two independent longitudinal studies of newly- gests that unrestricted sociosexuality may undermine wed couples. Our primary hypothesis was that inti- processes inherent to long-term relationship mainte- mates’ own and their partners’ sociosexuality would nance that negatively impact intimates’ relationship sat- predict their marital-satisfaction trajectories, which isfaction and long-term stability. would ultimately predict dissolution. Notably, these Indeed, we are aware of a few studies that have associations could emerge in two ways. First, own or examined this possibility (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008; partner sociosexuality may be associated with intimates’ Rodrigues, Lopes, & Smith, 2017; Simpson, 1987; Webster initial marital satisfaction, which may ultimately predict et al., 2015), and each suggest that unrestricted socio- dissolution. Second, own or partner sociosexuality may sexuality is associated with relationship distress. Nev- additionally or alternatively be associated with inti- ertheless, none of these studies exclusively examined mates’ changes in marital satisfaction over time, which married individuals, who can experience categorically may ultimately predict dissolution. We made no a priori different outcomes from those of dating individuals (see predictions regarding whether these associations would Russell, Baker, & McNulty, 2013). Likewise, none of be driven by intimates’ own or their partners’ socio- these studies examined the impact of sociosexuality on sexuality or whether such associations would emerge relationship development—perhaps the key outcome on the intercepts or slopes. We additionally explored in relationship research (see Karney & Bradbury, 1995). whether intimates’ sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, As other authors have argued (McNulty, 2016), variables and stress moderated these associations. can differ dramatically in their association with marital outcomes concurrently versus over time. Moreover, only two of these studies (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008; Webster Method et al., 2015) examined the dyadic effects of sociosexual- Participants ity; given the interdependence inherent to marriage (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), and given that intimates with Participants in Study 1 were 226 newlywed spouses unrestricted partners may worry more about their part- (composing 113 heterosexual couples) from northern ners’ infidelity, research would ideally test the extent Texas who were in their first marriage; participants in Sociosexuality and