tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/relationship-science-4870/articlesRelationship science – The Conversation2022-10-18T17:35:10Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1912882022-10-18T17:35:10Z2022-10-18T17:35:10ZHappy wife, happy life? A harmonious relationship is the responsibility of both partners<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489893/original/file-20221016-26-sj8g8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C53%2C6000%2C3934&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women are often considered the barometers of a relationship.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/happy-wife--happy-life-a-harmonious-relationship-is-the-responsibility-of-both-partners" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Relationships play a key role in people’s happiness. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00026-2">There are scholars</a> who study how people maintain good quality relationships and the challenges they face. </p>
<p>Some challenges are beyond people’s control, including financial, familial and health stressors — however, there are things people can control to make their relationships stronger. </p>
<p>For instance, people can avoid escalating conflict, criticizing a partner or acting too jealous. They can also do positive things in the relationship in the form of gratitude, laughter, sharing good news and experiencing new things together.</p>
<p>Given that there are many needs to be juggled within and outside relationships, people have to decide what to focus on. In other words, to manage their lives, it is good for people to assess how things are going in various domains of their life by asking questions like: “Is my relationship satisfying? Could I be doing more to make it more satisfying?”</p>
<h2>Women as barometers</h2>
<p>There is a view among laypeople and relationship researchers that women are the “barometers” of relationships — that is, women’s judgments about their relationships are more predictive than men’s of future relationship satisfaction. </p>
<p>There are several origins of this view including an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1">evolutionary</a> perspective that women have adapted a special ability that make them better able to sense when things are off or going well in relationships. </p>
<p>Another explanation relates to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038593027002003">gender roles</a> and the idea that women serve the primary role in tending to relationships. </p>
<p>The barometer hypothesis is captured by the popular saying “Happy wife, happy life,” but does the research support it?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a man and a woman sit together on steps" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489892/original/file-20221016-24-bkbnhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Popular opinion believes that women’s perception of their relationships is more accurate than those of men.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Testing the truth</h2>
<p><a href="https://carleton.ca/pair/">As a professor of social psychology at Carleton University and researcher</a> who studies happiness in relationships, I was part of an international team of researchers led by University of Alberta professor of family science and couples researcher <a href="https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=3AJzUnEAAAAJ&hl=en">Matthew Johnson</a> that analyzed more than 50,000 relationship-satisfaction reports to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209460119">examine the validity of the old adage “happy wife, happy life.”</a> </p>
<p>More specifically, in one study, a team of us recruited over 900 mixed-gender couples from the community and tracked their relationship satisfaction on a daily basis over three weeks. In another study, over 3,000 mixed-gender couples were assessed annually across five years.</p>
<p>More broadly, we found that changes in relationship satisfaction today were linked to how satisfied people felt down the road. In other words, if a person feels higher-than-usual relationship satisfaction, the feeling seems to carry over into the next day and year.</p>
<p>We also found that men’s and women’s relationship satisfaction ratings were equally strong predictors of their own, and their partner’s, relationship satisfaction reported the next day and the next year. That is, women’s judgements were not uniquely predictive of the future state of the relationship; women’s <em>and</em> men’s current ratings of relationship satisfaction had similar predictive effects.</p>
<h2>Satisfying relationships</h2>
<p>People’s relationship satisfaction levels change over time. It is important for couples to reflect and be aware of how things are going in their relationship and take stock and act on it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a woman yells across a table at a man with his hands behind his head" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489894/original/file-20221016-18412-mi69sv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It is important to regularly assess how a relationship is going.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, if things are going well in the relationship, people should double down on that so they can reap more rewards into the future. So if a couple just had a fun date night, rather than take a break, the couple should be looking for more opportunities to bond together. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if a relationship is not going well, for instance, arguments are frequently escalating or the spark has fizzled, it is time to make some changes to alter the course of the relationship satisfaction path.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-here-are-the-relationship-factors-people-ponder-when-deciding-whether-to-break-up-153707">Should I stay or should I go? Here are the relationship factors people ponder when deciding whether to break up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Happy spouse, happy house’</h2>
<p>Our results imply that maintaining a relationship is a shared responsibility. This underscores the idea that <em>partners</em> influence one another and jointly shape romantic relationship satisfaction. </p>
<p>Taken together, a more fitting way to describe the role of gender and relationship satisfaction predictions is “happy spouse, happy house.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cheryl Harasymchuk receives funding from SSHRC. </span></em></p>Women are often considered the barometer of a relationship’s success, but research shows that it takes both people to contribute to a relationship’s satisfaction and happiness.Cheryl Harasymchuk, Professor, Psychology, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1754222022-02-09T13:24:04Z2022-02-09T13:24:04ZPartnering up can help you grow as an individual – here’s the psychology of a romantic relationship that expands the self<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445285/original/file-20220209-16-129wbzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=443%2C474%2C3884%2C2981&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Following a partner's lead in an activity they enjoy can foster growth for you.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-woman-leading-boyfriend-up-a-mountain-trail-royalty-free-image/1283508188">The Good Brigade/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s common to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3">want to become a better version of yourself</a>. Much like the desires to eat, drink and avoid harm, human beings also experience a fundamental need to learn, grow and improve – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005">what psychologists call self-expansion</a>.</p>
<p>Consider your favorite activities. Things like reading a book, spending time in nature, volunteering with a new organization, taking a class, traveling, trying a new restaurant, exercising or watching a documentary all broaden the self. Those experiences add new knowledge, skills, perspectives and identities. When who you are as a person expands, you enhance your competence and capabilities and increase your ability to meet new challenges and accomplish new goals. </p>
<p>Of course, you can achieve self-expansion on your own by trying new and interesting activities (like playing Wordle), learning new things (like advancing through a language app) or working on a skill (like practicing meditation). Research confirms that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.746999">these kinds of activities help individuals expand themselves</a>, which encourages them to put forth more effort on subsequent challenging tasks.</p>
<p>Interestingly, romantic relationships can also be a key source of growth for people. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=v2ai_5wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a relationship scientist</a> for over 20 years, I’ve studied the effects all kinds of romantic relationships can have on the self. Today’s modern couples hold high expectations for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569274">a partner’s role in one’s own self-development</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="man and woman with musical instruments sit on couch" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445301/original/file-20220209-16-xdvsn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You can hold onto what makes you your own person while learning from a partner’s strengths.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/panoramic-view-of-woman-receiving-musical-course-in-royalty-free-image/1215994594">beavera/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Growing in your relationship</h2>
<p>Falling in love feels good, and spending time with a romantic partner is enjoyable, but love’s benefits run even deeper. People tend to value partners who help them become a better version of themselves.</p>
<p>One way to optimize self-growth in your relationship is by sharing in your partner’s unique interests and skills. When “me” becomes “we,” partners <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02399">blend their self-concepts and include the other in the self</a>. That merging encourages partners to take on each other’s characteristics, quirks, interests and abilities to some extent. Romantic partners inevitably have different life experiences, knowledge bases, perspectives and skills. Each area is an opportunity for growth.</p>
<p>For example, if your partner has a better sense of humor than you do, over time, yours will likely improve. If they have an eye for interior design, your ability to put together a room will evolve. A partner’s differing views on climate change, politics or religion will grant you new perspectives and a deeper understanding of those topics. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241">Your relationship helps you become a better person</a>.</p>
<p>This isn’t to say that individuals should try to completely merge, running the risk of losing themselves. Rather, each person can maintain their own identity while augmenting it with desirable elements from their partner. </p>
<h2>Relationship consequences of more or less</h2>
<p>The science makes it abundantly clear that couples with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005">more self-expansion are better relationships</a>. Specifically, people who report more self-expansion in their relationship also report more passionate love, relationship satisfaction and commitment. It’s also associated with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519875217">more physical affection, greater sexual desire, less conflict and couples being happier with their sex life</a>.</p>
<p>Because self-expansion is so critical, when expanding relationships end, participants describe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00120.x">feeling like they have lost a part of themselves</a>. Importantly, when less-expanding relationships break up, individuals <a href="https://youtu.be/Cw2qD87KDHc">experience positive emotions and growth</a>.</p>
<p>When a relationship provides insufficient expansion, it can feel like it’s stuck in a rut. That stagnant malaise has consequences. Research finds that married couples who at one point indicated more boredom in their current relationship also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x">reported less marital satisfaction nine years later</a>. Insufficient relationship self-expansion also encourages people to have more of a wandering eye and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382321">pay more attention to alternative partners</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.4.389-403">increases susceptibility to cheating on one’s partner</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000148">lowers sexual desire</a> and comes with a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518768079">greater likelihood of breakup</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="man and woman relaxing on couch" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445302/original/file-20220209-13-pkvsbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The self-expansion provided by a strong relationship has benefits for the relationship itself.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/husband-and-wife-embracing-on-couch-royalty-free-image/1300319639">MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How does your relationship measure up?</h2>
<p>Maybe you’re now wondering how your own relationship is doing on this front. To provide some insight, <a href="https://www.garylewandowski.com/post/sustainable-marriage-quiz">I created the Sustainable Marriage Quiz</a>. On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “very little” and 7 being “very much,” answer these questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>How much does being with your partner result in you having new experiences?</li>
<li>When you are with your partner, do you feel a greater awareness of things because of them?</li>
<li>How much does your partner increase your ability to accomplish new things?</li>
<li>How much does your partner help to expand your sense of the kind of person you are?</li>
<li>How much do you see your partner as a way to expand your own capabilities?</li>
<li>How much do your partner’s strengths as a person (skills, abilities, etc.) compensate for some of your own weaknesses as a person?</li>
<li>How much do you feel that you have a larger perspective on things because of your partner?</li>
<li>How much has being with your partner resulted in your learning new things?</li>
<li>How much has knowing your partner made you a better person?</li>
<li>How much does your partner increase your knowledge?</li>
</ol>
<p>Before adding up your score, know that these categories are generalizations. They suggest where your relationship may need attention, but also where it’s already strong. Relationships are complicated, so you should see your score for what it is: one small piece of the puzzle about what makes your relationship work.</p>
<ul>
<li>60 and above – Highly Expansive. Your relationship provides lots of new experiences and helps you reach new goals. As a result, you likely have a more fulfilling and sustainable relationship.</li>
<li>45 to 60 – Moderately Expanding. Your relationship has produced some new experiences and additions to your self-concept, but you have some room for improvement.</li>
<li>Below 45 — Low Expansion. Currently your relationship isn’t creating many opportunities to increase your knowledge or enhance you. Consequently you likely aren’t improving yourself as much as you could. Consider making an effort to seek out more new and interesting experiences with your partner. You may even rethink if this is the right partner for you. </li>
</ul>
<p>What makes a relationship great? While there are many factors to consider, one area deserves more attention: how much it helps you grow. A relationship that fosters self-expansion will make you want to be a better person, help you increase your knowledge, build your skills, enhance your capabilities and broaden your perspectives.</p>
<p>[<em>More than 140,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-140K">Join the list today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It almost sounds like a paradox, but pairing with the right person can help you grow as an individual as you blend your interests with theirs and learn from their strengths.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1537072021-02-12T13:16:45Z2021-02-12T13:16:45ZShould I stay or should I go? Here are the relationship factors people ponder when deciding whether to break up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/383885/original/file-20210211-15-158vmy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=275%2C351%2C4028%2C2621&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are you feeling more 'soul mate' or 'k bye' about your relationship?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/heart-shaped-conversation-candies-background-copy-royalty-free-image/1200840322">Christine_Kohler/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Where do you see yourself in five years? It’s a standard job interview question, but it’s an even better question to ask yourself about your relationship.</p>
<p>The person you talk to, date, move in with, get engaged to, marry, break up with or divorce – it’s all up to you. You’re in the driver’s seat regarding your relationship’s trajectory.</p>
<p>Most of the time, you probably cruise along on autopilot, maintaining the status quo. Every once in a while, though, something disrupts that equilibrium and you seriously ponder your relationship’s fate.</p>
<p>At some point, most people find themselves facing the complicated decision of whether to stick with it or call it quits. While there’s lots to consider when you’re pondering your own situation, maybe it would be helpful to know how others deal with these important life decisions. Recent research, <a href="https://www.littlebrown.com/titles/gary-w-lewandowski-jr-phd/stronger-than-you-think/9780316454704/">including my own in the field of relationship science</a>, has explored how people make these choices. </p>
<h2>Factors when weighing a relationship</h2>
<p>It feels as if there could be as many reasons someone would decide to maintain or end a relationship as there are relationships.</p>
<p>To learn more about what people actually consider, psychology researchers <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3lKgR-QAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Samantha Joel</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Xji4sRAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Geoff Macdonald</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VhP69dEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Elizabeth Page-Gould</a> asked over 400 individuals who were questioning their own relationship: “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722834">What are some reasons</a> someone might give for wanting to stay with or leave their romantic partner?”</p>
<p>Out of all the specific circumstances, 50 common themes emerged.</p>
<p><iframe id="SHah9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SHah9/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>People came up with 27 broad reasons for staying. These focused on key relationship components such as attraction, physical and emotional intimacy and support. People were reluctant to lose the time and effort they had already invested and were fearful of being alone. They considered pluses, such as the desirable aspects of their partner’s personality and how much fun they had together. They also factored in practical issues, including potential family disruption and financial implications.</p>
<p>Participants also suggested 23 general reasons to leave. These included many of the same themes as the reasons to stay, but focused on the negative side – things like a partner’s problematic personality, acts of deception or cheating, emotional distance, lack of support and insufficient emotional or physical intimacy.</p>
<h2>So many reasons, but what to do?</h2>
<p>Listing these themes is one thing. How do individuals factor them into real-life decisions of whether to stay or go? To find out, the researchers did a follow-up study with over 200 people who were contemplating breaking up or getting a divorce.</p>
<p>Roughly half of these participants reported feeling, on balance, more inclined to stay in the troubled relationship. That makes sense – inertia is powerful. Staying often takes the least effort.</p>
<p>However, those same exact people simultaneously had an above-average inclination to leave, meaning they rated themselves as leaning toward breaking up. See the problem? Participants were motivated to stay with their partner at the same time they were motivated to end things. And this ambivalence was very common. </p>
<p>That relationship doubts are so common and people are often conflicted about what to do are what make this kind of research potentially helpful. It lends some order to the chaos by helping to identify what’s most important. </p>
<h2>A long and winding road</h2>
<p>Relationship decisions are rarely as clear cut as “should I stay or should I go?” Instead, people experience subtle shifts in their commitment that build up over time. What contributes to these variations in commitment? </p>
<p>Relationship researchers <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aJgXSyoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">Laura Machia</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aCOyAim5Kz4C&hl=en&oi=sra">Brian Ogolsky</a> sought to find out by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220966903">interviewing participants in stable relationships</a>. At each of eight monthly interviews, 464 participants indicated how serious their relationship was by rating how likely it was they’d marry their current partner – “0% if they were certain they would never marry their partner or never thought about marriage, and 100% if they were certain they would marry their partner in the future.” Each time their “commitment to wed” percentage shifted from one interview to the next, researchers asked why. </p>
<p>Participants expressed a lot of reasons for commitment fluctuations – 13,598, to be exact. The researchers distilled them down to 14 key themes. The most influential reasons were positive and negative characterizations of the partner and relationship. These included direct statements about the partner – such as “he was fun, considerate and kind” – or about them as a couple – such as “we were drifting apart.” As you’d expect, positive statements related more to increased commitment, while negative statements were associated with declines.</p>
<p><iframe id="CUdm0" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CUdm0/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The next-most-mentioned reason was circumstances – unforeseen events or experiences such job loss, a partner becoming ill or needing to move. Interestingly, this kind of life change could either increase or decrease an individual’s commitment to the relationship. This finding is further evidence that events by themselves – say, a worldwide pandemic – aren’t the sole determinant of a relationship’s fate. A couple’s existing dynamics play a large role too.</p>
<p>Out of all the possible reasons that nudged people up or down the commitment scale, there was one that stood out as actually predicting whether a couple would break up: cheating. As much as other factors made people feel more or less likely to consider marriage, involvement with another dating partner was the one true relationship-killer. </p>
<p>In the other direction, the study also identified one factor that increased commitment and pushed relationships closer toward marriage: positive disclosure. That’s what psychologists call it when you share information with each other that encourages positive feelings, which in turn supports your relationship. Think exchanging stories about your childhoods, getting to know each other on a deeper level, or sharing good news. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904">These kinds of disclosures strengthen relationships</a>. </p>
<h2>Love is a decision – and rarely clear cut</h2>
<p>Relationships are complicated, and no one knows for sure what the future holds. It’s hard to know what the best decision is if you’re thinking about whether to stay with a partner or move on. The best relationships have their issues, while the worst relationships still have their virtues. While you don’t want to get stuck with an awful partner, you also don’t want to be unnecessarily harsh on what could be a great relationship. Maybe knowing what others consider important factors can help you make your own best choice.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153707/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People have plenty of individual reasons to stick with or end a romantic relationship. But researchers have identified some common themes that influence this big decision.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1523492020-12-28T13:32:28Z2020-12-28T13:32:28Z7 research-based resolutions that will help strengthen your relationship in the year ahead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498728/original/file-20221202-16594-93wqvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=90%2C98%2C4792%2C3121&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consider some science-backed ways to keep the home fires burning in 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/senior-couple-holding-numbers-2023-while-royalty-free-image/1431943120">DjordjeDjurdjevic/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The new year is going to be better. It has to be better. Maybe you’re one of the <a href="https://www.finder.com/new-years-resolution-statistics">74% of Americans</a> in one survey who said they planned on hitting the reset button on Jan. 1 and resolving to improve. Those <a href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/marist-poll-national-results-analysis-4/">New Year’s resolutions most commonly focus on</a> eating healthier, exercising, losing weight and being a better person. </p>
<p>Admirable goals, to be sure. But focusing on body and mind neglects something equally important: your romantic relationship. Couples with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x">better marriages report higher well-being</a>, and one study found that having a better romantic relationship not only promoted well-being and better health now but that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2020.1838238">those benefits extend into the future</a>. </p>
<p>The lesson is clear: Your relationship is important. Resolve to get it right. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean you have to be perfect. But here are seven resolutions based on recent psychological research that you can make this New Year to help keep your relationship going strong. </p>
<h2>1. Set yourself up for success</h2>
<p>Adjust your mindset so you see your relationship as a key <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00373.x">source of positive experiences</a>. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=v2ai_5wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Psychologists like me</a> call this boosting your social approach motivation. Instead of merely trying to avoid relationship problems, those with an approach motivation seek out the positives and <a href="http://peplab.web.unc.edu/files/2020/11/Don-Fredrickson-Algoe-JPSP-In-press-Approach-Paper-In-Press-.pdf">use them to help the relationship</a>.</p>
<p>Here’s how: Imagine a conversation with your partner. Having more of an approach motivation allows you to focus on positive feelings as you talk and to see your partner as more responsive to you. Your partner gets a burst of positivity, too, and in return sees you as more responsive. One partner’s good vibes spill over to the other partner, ultimately benefiting both. After a year when your relationship may have felt unprecedented external strains, laying the foundation to take advantage of any positives is good place to start. </p>
<h2>2. Be optimistic</h2>
<p>While things in the past may not have always gone how you wanted, it’s important to be optimistic about the future. But the right kind of optimism matters. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12342">2020 research study</a> from <a href="https://cns.utexas.edu/directory/item/84-human-dev-family-sci/3008-farnish-krystan?Itemid=349">Krystan Farnish</a> and <a href="https://cns.utexas.edu/directory/item/14-human-ecology/259-neff-lisa-a?Itemid=349">Lisa Neff</a> found that generally looking on the bright side of life allowed participants to deal with relationship conflict more effectively – as they put it, better able to “shake it off” – than did those who were optimistic specifically about their relationship.</p>
<p>It seems that if people focus all their rosy expectations just on their relationship, it encourages them to anticipate few negative experiences with their partner. Since that’s unrealistic even in the best relationships, it sets them up for disappointment. </p>
<h2>3. Increase your psychological flexibility</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006">Try to go with the flow</a>. In other words, work on accepting your feelings without being defensive. It’s OK to adjust your behaviors – you don’t always have to do things the way you always have or go the places you’ve always gone. Stop being stubborn and experiment with being flexible.</p>
<p>A 2020 study by <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karen_Twiselton">Karen Twiselton</a> and colleagues found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12344">when you’re more flexible psychologically</a>, relationship quality is higher, in part because you experience more positive and fewer negative emotions. For example, navigating the yearly challenge of holidays and family traditions is a relationship minefield. However, if both partners back away from a “must do” mentality in favor of a more adaptable approach, relationship harmony will be greater. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="couple calmly enjoying tea together" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When you’re both in a good headspace, it’s easier to keep the relationship moving in the right direction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/couple-asian-young-adult-feeling-relax-making-and-royalty-free-image/1283799454">skaman306/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. It’s OK to put ‘me’ before ‘we’</h2>
<p>It’s easy for some people to play the self-sacrificing martyr in their romantic relationship. If this sounds like you, try to focus more on yourself. It doesn’t make you a bad person or a bad partner. When you’re psychologically healthy, your partner and your relationship also benefit. </p>
<p>Researchers have identified <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000231">four main traits that are part of good mental health</a>: openness to feelings, warmth, positive emotions and straightforwardness. These traits help with being more clear about who you are, feeling better about who you are, expressing greater optimism and less aggression, exploiting others less and exhibiting less antisocial behavior. You can see how what’s good for you in this case would be good for your partner too.</p>
<h2>5. Do something for your partner</h2>
<p>But it’s not all about you. Putting your partner first some of the time and catering to your partner’s desires is part of being a couple. A 2020 study by <a href="https://carleton.ca/psychology/people/johanna-peetz/">Johanna Peetz</a> and colleagues found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12357">prioritizing your partner</a> makes you feel closer to them, increases positive feelings, reduces negative ones and boosts perceived relationship quality. </p>
<p>In the new year, look for ways to give your partner some wins. Let them get their way from time to time and support them in what they want to do, without exclusively prioritizing your own wants and needs. </p>
<h2>6. Don’t be so hard on yourself</h2>
<p>So many New Year’s resolutions focus on body image. Aspirations to eat better and work out often stem from the same goal: a hotter body. Yet, research from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xue_Lei8">Xue Lei</a> shows that you may not really know what your partner wants you to look like.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12451">Women tend to overestimate how thin</a> male partners want them to be. Similarly, men believe that female partners want them to be more muscular than women say they do. It may seem harmless, but in both cases individuals are more critical and demanding toward themselves, in part based on misreading what a partner truly desires.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="couple embrace while sitting on the grass" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Caring physical contact has a lot of upsides for your relationship.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/gay-couple-latino-and-european-millennial-men-royalty-free-image/1159681114">Drazen_/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>7. Stay in touch</h2>
<p>I saved the easiest item on the list for last: Touch your partner more. When <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cheryl_Carmichael">Cheryl Carmichael</a> and colleagues followed 115 participants over a 10-day period, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929164">they found that initiating and receiving touch</a> – things like holding hands, cuddling, kissing – were associated with both a boost in closeness and relationship quality. Importantly, being touched by your partner has the added benefit of making you feel more understood and validated. Who couldn’t use more of that in the coming year?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychology studies suggest a variety of ways you can strengthen your bond and increase your satisfaction with your partner.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1358242020-06-05T02:25:27Z2020-06-05T02:25:27ZLove lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here’s how to tell if yours will survive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340449/original/file-20200609-176538-fk8pgv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C0%2C5272%2C3525&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Soroush Karimi/Unsplash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Life in lockdown has been tough on many relationships. But negotiating the transition back to “normal” as restrictions continue to lift could also be a challenge for couples.</p>
<p>So what are some of the key factors that affect how relationships fare during such times?</p>
<p>To answer this, I’m going to draw on an important model in relationship science called the <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-36558-001">vulnerability stress adaptation model</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-lockdown-could-test-your-relationship-heres-how-to-keep-it-intact-and-even-improve-it-134532">The coronavirus lockdown could test your relationship. Here's how to keep it intact (and even improve it)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3 important factors</h2>
<p>As its name suggests, the <a href="http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n554.xml">model</a> proposes three broad factors that affect relationship outcomes: vulnerabilities, stressors and adaptions.</p>
<p><strong>Vulnerabilities</strong> are any kind of factor that makes it harder for a person to maintain enduring and satisfying relationships. Vulnerabilities can include mental health issues, personality traits (such as neuroticism), past bad relationships, addiction, and the like.</p>
<p><strong>Stressors</strong> are challenging life events and experiences external to the relationship, but which put a strain on maintaining a lasting and satisfying bond. These can include financial hardship, work stress, and difficult relationships with extended family or friends.</p>
<p><strong>Adaptations</strong> reflect the skills and capabilities couples possess to effectively deal with and adapt to challenging circumstances. Adaptations can include a couple’s sense of fun or humour, constructive ways of handling conflict and solving problems, and supporting one another.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340450/original/file-20200609-176580-ydxece.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A number of factors make some relationships more resilient than others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Stressors and vulnerabilities increase negative relationship behaviours (such as criticism and insensitivity), and in turn increase negative relationship outcomes (dissatisfaction and relationship breakdown). </p>
<p>On the other hand, adaptations buffer the effects of stress and reduce the risk of relationship dissatisfaction and breakdown. </p>
<h2>Framing this model around COVID-19</h2>
<p>The social distancing rules enforced during the pandemic have seen couples spending long periods of time together, often in close quarters.</p>
<p>Accounts from across the world show us not all couples have adjusted well. China reported an increase in the number of married couples <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/divorces-spike-in-china-after-coronavirus-quarantines">filing for divorce</a>. Worryingly, incidents of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52157620">domestic abuse</a> may also have increased. </p>
<p>Lengthy periods of close contact may have acted as a stressor which intensified negative relationship behaviours and dissatisfaction, particularly for people with existing personal vulnerabilities. </p>
<p>The changes associated with social distancing rules, such as working from home and supervising home schooling, are additional stressors. These too are likely to have exacerbated personal vulnerabilities and destructive relationship behaviours for some couples.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-domestic-terrorism-how-to-stop-family-violence-under-lockdown-135056">Coronavirus and 'domestic terrorism': how to stop family violence under lockdown</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some vulnerable couples may be able to keep their relationship stable, provided that the stress of social isolation and other COVID-19-related stressors remain low, or that supports are in place to minimise stress. </p>
<p>However, these same couples may encounter problems if stressors increase (for example, one partner suddenly loses their job) or supports are removed (such as from friends or family).</p>
<p>Similarly, high-functioning couples may cope well with the challenges of social restriction and other COVID-19 hardships. But, if the stressors become too great, they’re likely to experience declines in relationship satisfaction. </p>
<h2>What’s the ideal?</h2>
<p>People in loving and supportive relationships are likely to cope more effectively with the enforcement and relaxation of social distancing guidelines (and other challenges, whether related to the pandemic or not). </p>
<p>These are typically couples who constructively deal with conflict by working together towards solving issues, take on each others’ perspectives, and respond sensitively when the other is feeling stressed.</p>
<p>That’s not to say these couples never argue and don’t sometimes get frustrated with one another. But their adaptive ways of communicating and supporting each other mean these couples are likely to fare better.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-stressful-here-are-some-ways-to-cope-with-the-anxiety-133146">Coronavirus is stressful. Here are some ways to cope with the anxiety</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>There’s help if you need it</h2>
<p>Some couples may benefit from <a href="https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.5.609">relationship education programs</a> that teach communication skills and how to manage conflict constructively. </p>
<p>For couples that require more intensive support, couple therapy can be <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-03880-001">effective</a>.</p>
<p>These options are available online.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339409/original/file-20200603-130903-1ro82ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The pandemic has created a lot of stress, which can easily affect relationships.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As well as working on the relationship itself, the alleviation of stressors can help a relationship. </p>
<p>Studies have found that for couples and families experiencing stressors such as economic hardship or housing instability, providing them with financial aid, jobseeker programs and affordable housing can <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X16300057">improve relationship satisfaction</a> and reduce family breakdown to a similar extent as relationship education or counselling. </p>
<p>Hopefully, some of the measures the government has put in place, such as JobKeeper, have reduced stress for couples. </p>
<p>The easing of social distancing restrictions may also significantly reduce stress in some couples, shrinking “relationship cracks” that emerged during lockdown. </p>
<p>You may need to address these cracks if they resurface, but reductions in coronavirus-related stressors may well see transient relationship problems disappear.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-safest-sex-youll-never-have-how-coronavirus-is-changing-online-dating-134382">The safest sex you'll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A return to normal won’t be the answer for all relationships</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, for some couples, the easing of restrictions may intensify relationship conflicts and dissatisfaction.</p>
<p>For example, if one person has health anxieties and the other is highly impulsive, they may hold very different attitudes on how to navigate situations such as social gatherings. </p>
<p>These differences are likely to create conflict that may increase dissatisfaction and relationship difficulties, particularly if both members of the couple typically respond to conflict in destructive ways. </p>
<p>So the easing of social restrictions may not have the same outcome for all. It depends in part on a couple’s existing vulnerabilities and their way of handling conflict and supporting one another.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135824/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gery Karantzas is the founder of <a href="http://www.relationshipscienceonline.com">www.relationshipscienceonline.com</a> and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>While coronavirus restrictions are easing, you may still be feeling a strain on your relationship. This crisis has thrown a variety of challenges at couples.Gery Karantzas, Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1140702019-04-01T19:15:01Z2019-04-01T19:15:01ZMarried at First Sight - a ‘social experiment’ all but guaranteeing relationship failure<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266698/original/file-20190331-177193-av2zri.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C2362%2C1078&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Married at First Sight's many failed relationships are not a surprise, given the way the show is made.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.9now.com.au/married-at-first-sight/season-6/episode-37">9Now</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite its <a href="https://tvtonight.com.au/category/ratings">obvious appeal</a>, the Nine Network’s reality TV show <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4771108/?ref_=nv_sr_2">Married at First Sight</a> is based on a false premise. This “<a href="https://www.9now.com.au/married-at-first-sight">social experiment</a>” is built on the notion that individuals looking for love are matched by experts, increasing the probability of a lasting and satisfying union.</p>
<p>However, it is entirely apparent that the show all but guarantees relationship failure. From the first five seasons, it seems that only <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mafs/10822980">one couple has stayed together</a>. </p>
<p>Many would say this is due to the way the program is produced, with the emphasis on heightened drama and ensuring high ratings. But the real science of relationships can provide very specific reasons as to why contestants experience relationship breakdown and report <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mafs/10822980">personal distress</a>.</p>
<p>Research from the past 30 years suggests two of the most important factors in determining relationship success are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/current-opinion-in-psychology/vol/13/suppl/C">stress</a> and people’s level of <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08145-034">relationship commitment</a>. Based on these two variables alone, we can predict that very few of Married at First Sight’s couples would last.</p>
<h2>The strain of stress</h2>
<p>Over six seasons, it has become clear that the Australian show <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/entertainment/tv/110045155/Prepare-for-Married-At-First-Sight-Australias-most-controversial-season-yet">places a premium</a> on creating “drama” and situations of heightened stress.</p>
<p>For instance, when asked earlier this year how they would “top” the scandals of the previous season, one of its experts John Aiken <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mafs/10822980">told Today</a>: “We will top it … Boundaries will be crossed. There will be temptation.” The strain associated with such an environment can only increase the likelihood that relationships will fail. The science tells us so.</p>
<p>Across many relationship studies – conducted in the laboratory as well by tracking couples over time – we find that the more stress couples are exposed to, the more likely it is they will experience relationship problems, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X16300665">reductions in satisfaction</a>, and even, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08138-005">relationship dissolution</a>.</p>
<p>This is because stress taxes our physical and psychological resources, making it harder to regulate emotions, engage in effective problem solving, and put the needs of our partners first. </p>
<p>In times of stress, we require comfort, support and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X16300884">reassurance</a> – but if our partners are also stressed, then we are unlikely to receive this response. This only heightens distress and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00209.x">dissatisfaction</a>. </p>
<p>Numerous studies have found that when people are put in situations of high stress or conflict, they are more likely to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.01215">criticise and blame their partner, and even express contempt towards them</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-romance-can-we-predict-a-breakup-26041">The science of romance – can we predict a breakup?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Importantly, these tendencies are more likely to occur when people already have particular personal <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.118.1.3">vulnerabilities</a>. These can include (but are not limited to): a greater sensitivity to fear and rejection, a history of past negative relationship experiences, or a history of <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.118.1.3">mental health issues</a>.</p>
<p>All this raises the question of to what extent personal vulnerabilities are taken into account when Married at First Sight contestants are screened. And what duty of care is provided to ensure the wellbeing of contestants?</p>
<p>Season six contestant Lauren Huntriss has been <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/it-was-disgusting-lauren-from-mafs-unleashes-on-show-s-producers-20190219-p50yqc.html">critical</a> of the selection of contestants with preexisting mental health conditions, explaining she and her designated partner both suffered from anxiety. (The production company Endemol Shine Australia rejected her version of events, saying she had ongoing access to support and had not responded to their attempts to contact her). In February, the company told <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mafs/10822980">Media Watch</a> there was “a dedicated show psychologist and support team available to every participant throughout the entire production, broadcast and beyond”.</p>
<h2>A lack of commitment</h2>
<p>Relationship commitment is defined as holding a desire and intent to continue with a relationship well into the future. Popular <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08145-034">models of commitment</a> suggest people are more likely to be committed if they invest time and effort into the relationship, are highly satisfied with it, and if the the quality of viable alternatives (i.e., other potential partners) is low. </p>
<p>Participants are unlikely to be high in commitment at the outset of the Married at First Sight experiment. Firstly, they have yet to invest time and effort in the union (they might be invested in the “idea” of it, but no time and effort has been invested prior to the commitment ceremony). </p>
<p>Secondly, they have no sense of relationship satisfaction, not having spent any time with the partner. And if a given couple is exposed to stress early on, this is likely to sabotage any future satisfaction. </p>
<p>Thirdly, the quality of viable alternative partners is high. In recent seasons, the show has portrayed situations that make other partners very accessible, such as the introduction of <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv/married-at-first-sight/mafs-insider-spills-on-another-shock-secret-affair/news-story/be0c13d42b242b39a17b2710275b3aac">“intruder” couples</a>. </p>
<p>So if relationship science already tells us that stress and a lack of commitment (alongside personal vulnerabilities) can produce a “perfect storm”, why do the show’s makers actively work to create these conditions – while selling a story of the search for true love?</p>
<p>These kinds of “social experiments” are not the sorts that real science is based on, and no research ethics committee would ever provide approval for such an experiment to go ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gery Karantzas receives funding from the Australian Research Council
Gery Karantzas is the founder of relationshipscienceonline.com</span></em></p>Married at First Sight is meant to be about finding love. But relationship science suggests the experiment is actually a perfect storm of factors that predict relationship breakdown.Gery Karantzas, Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1116932019-02-13T22:39:52Z2019-02-13T22:39:52ZThink you love your Valentine? What’s beneath the surface may be more complicated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258573/original/file-20190212-174883-1k7gv3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=420%2C884%2C4554%2C2955&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Real love has more nuance than a candy heart's message.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/zAOBpEE_vV4">Laura Ockel/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Valentine cards are filled with expressions of unequivocal adoration and appreciation. That’s fitting for the holiday set aside to express love and reaffirm commitment to one’s romantic partner.</p>
<p>But what if there’s more going on below the surface of these adoring declarations? How might thoughts and feelings that people are not even aware of shape their romantic relationships?</p>
<p>We are two psychology researchers interested in how the mind works, and how it affects a variety of experiences, including romantic relationships. In our studies, we’ve found that how people feel about their partners at a nonconscious level may be a bit more complicated than the typical message in a Valentine. Even for those who consciously express only love and fondness, thinking about a partner can elicit ambivalence – both positive and negative responses of which they’re not consciously aware.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258793/original/file-20190213-181593-d219y7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just thinking of your love can warm your heart – without you consciously noticing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/ACt2UZwHsIk">DESIGNECOLOGIST/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reactions you don’t know you have</h2>
<p>People need to quickly, effortlessly and continuously make sense of their world: Who is a friend and who is not? What is desirable versus harmful? Human beings are always evaluating people, places and things on basic dimensions of goodness and badness.</p>
<p>Psychology studies show that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204274100">mere thought of your partner</a> – or the sight of their photograph or name – spontaneously activates <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.003">nonconscious feelings you hold toward them</a>. For most people in healthy relationships, thinking of their partner elicits a “good” response.</p>
<p>Research into these kinds of nonconscious evaluations suggests they can be a better barometer of relationship quality than what people explicitly say about their partner. For example, people who have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204274100">stronger positive nonconscious partner evaluations</a> tend to feel greater emotional commitment, security and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612448196">satisfaction in their relationship</a>. They are also more likely to have a brighter outlook about the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243140">future of their relationship</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618785899">more constructive behaviors in interactions</a>, and are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371342">less likely to break up</a>.</p>
<p>But poets and song writers have long lamented that those you love are also those <a href="https://youtu.be/G_1LP3Z6pW4">who can hurt you most</a>. Psychologists too have long recognized that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010">lovers’ thoughts are complex</a>. It seemed to us that when it comes to romantic partners, people may not have positive reactions only.</p>
<h2>Accessing what’s beneath the surface</h2>
<p>So how did we tap into that ambivalence people may not even be aware of having? In our work, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614541297">published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science</a>, <a href="https://www.millisecond.com/download/library/significantothersequentialpriming/">we used an indirect method</a>. It assesses how people feel about their partner not based on what they say, but by inferring their feelings based on how they do on a word classification task.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258846/original/file-20190213-181612-t75uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Example of the computerized word-sorting task.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Vivian Zayas</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/476/SPP_illustration_R1.pdf?1550083405">Here’s how it works</a>. Imagine that we were looking for evidence of how people felt about something that is clearly positive, like flowers. We would quickly flash the word flower on the screen, then replace it with a second word that is unambiguously good or bad in meaning, such as sunshine or garbage. Participants’ task is seemingly simple: ignore the first word and classify the second “target” word as good or bad.</p>
<p>Even though people are told to ignore flower, they can’t. Thinking of flowers brings to mind not just specific objective features – flowers have petals, a stem – but also feelings and attitudes about them – flowers are beautiful, good.</p>
<p>As a result, after seeing a positive word like flower, most people are faster at classifying targets, such as sunshine, as “good,” and slower at classifying targets, such as garbage, as “bad.” In fact, research shows that the first word, flower, triggers a motor response towards the “good” response. So, if the target word is also “good,” like sunshine, seeing flower facilitates the correct classification. But, when the target word is “bad,” like garbage, there is what psychologists call response competition; since flower triggers a motor response towards “good,” people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01055.x">need to override it to correctly classify</a> a “bad” target.</p>
<p>Of course it works in the other direction too. If, instead of flower, the first word has negative connotations, such as cockroach, people are faster at classifying garbage as “bad” and slower at classifying sunshine as “good.”</p>
<h2>Mixed emotions</h2>
<p>We used this type of indirect method to assess the feelings that spontaneously come to mind when people think about their partners. So, instead of flower, imagine that the first word flashed was your nickname for your sweetheart.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, people tend to be faster at classifying positive target words after seeing their partner’s name. But something very interesting happened when the second word was negative – people were also faster at classifying negative targets after seeing the name of their partner.</p>
<p>This boost in response speed to the negative targets was almost as big as when thinking about a cockroach! It’s as though thinking of one’s partner spontaneously brought to mind a negative evaluation.</p>
<p>So while the mere thought of a romantic partner whom you love is enough to spark a nonconscious positive evaluation, we also found that it may simultaneously elicit a nonconscious negative evaluation. Perhaps when thinking about romantic partners, people can’t help but think about both the good and bad. </p>
<p>Research like our study is just beginning to reveal the complexity of these nonconscious feelings toward partners. Why might someone simultaneously hold such conflicting emotions?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258580/original/file-20190212-174880-rh5rwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even a great relationship has storms as well as rainbows.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/sRAWQyoUiVQ">Katarzyna Grabowska/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our findings fit with both theory and intuition. Even in the most satisfying and secure relationships, partners experience <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641">disagreements, frustrations and misunderstandings</a>. And even the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619">most supportive and responsive partners</a> aren’t always available. Experiencing a negative emotion or interaction is not necessarily an issue. In fact, it seems to be a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631">normal part of relationships</a>.</p>
<p>Psychologists have long <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017366">considered ambivalence</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.2.123.31014">to be pathological</a>, characterized by anxiety and internal conflict, experienced only by a troubled few. Such consciously experienced ambivalence may well be problematic. But the sort of nonconscious ambivalence revealed by our research does not seem pathological. Rather, it appears typical and may occur even when you very much love your partner. </p>
<p>Research has found that positive nonconscious partner evaluations can predict relationship quality and stability. Now we need to figure out how negative nonconscious partner evaluations work.</p>
<p>So if you are feeling at some level a tinge of ambivalence towards your partner, know that you are far from alone. Perhaps on this Valentine’s Day, consider honoring your relationship by fully embracing the complexity of your feelings.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111693/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vivian Zayas receives funding from National Science Foundation (Award ID: 1749554) and has received past funding from National Institutes of Health (PA-01-079) and (PA-95-029).
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yuichi Shoda received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health.</span></em></p>Even when everything’s going great in your relationship, you likely harbor some ambivalence toward your partner deep down. Psychology research suggests it’s not just OK, but normal.Vivian Zayas, Associate Professor of Psychology, Cornell UniversityYuichi Shoda, Professor of Psychology, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/897332018-02-09T14:13:01Z2018-02-09T14:13:01Z15 questions to determine if your relationship is Hall of Fame material or a strikeout<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205703/original/file-20180209-51700-1v9wr7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=535%2C147%2C4276%2C3135&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Relationship science can weigh in on whether you're with a winner.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/check-sheet-gifts-favorite-female-hand-785823808">Evgeniia Trushkova/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Decisions are a part of life. At various times you may need to choose the best vacation spot, job candidate, babysitter, or place to live. Your most important decision may be figuring out your best romantic partner. Relationships matter – a lot. They have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501">implications for your health</a>, your <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.71.1.176">reactions to stress</a> and even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12201">how you look at the world</a>.</p>
<p>But how can you determine if your current romantic partner is the best of the best for you? It’s hard to know what factors truly matter, what you should not overvalue, or what is best to ignore entirely.</p>
<p>This kind of assessment comes up in a variety of contexts. Consider, for example, something that may seem entirely unrelated to relationships: determining whether a baseball player qualifies for the Hall of Fame. The task requires wading through dozens and dozens of highly qualified candidates, each with various outstanding characteristics, to determine who warrants permanent enshrinement. Still, no candidate is absolutely perfect – just like finding a quality relationship partner. </p>
<p>So as a relationship scientist, I’ve gathered inspiration from the Hall of Fame selection process and infused some science to draw up a checklist of intangibles you can use to think about your own relationship. </p>
<h2>Instinct adds nuance to hard numbers</h2>
<p>There are two general ways to make assessments: data and your gut feeling. In a sport like baseball, with a plethora of statistics, a data-based approach makes sense. But for a player to be truly Hall of Fame worthy, numbers may not tell the whole story. It should be visceral, a player should feel like a Hall of Famer. As Malcom Gladwell famously observed in his book “<a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/malcolm-gladwell/blink/9780316005043/">Blink</a>,” snap judgments can have astounding accuracy. As a psychology professor myself, one example that always amazes me is that student assessments of a professor <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431">based on a 30-second silent video clip</a> matches students’ evaluations based on the entire semester. </p>
<p>Relying on gut feelings isn’t perfect. But <a href="http://www.sydneysymposium.unsw.edu.au/2011/chapters/DijksterhuisSSSP2011.pdf">intuition is an important component of decisions</a>, especially social ones. Clearly, people rely on instincts in a variety of situations such as deciding which job to take, which daycare is best, and who you should date. Trusting your own feelings is sometimes necessary because expert information is hard to access – published research articles are often locked behind paywalls – or written in a way that defies comprehension. And of course, the very nature of science and statistics is to focus on what is most typical in a population, instead of what is best for any individual.</p>
<p>Experts also aren’t perfect and new research shows that people have a sense of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1378721">when to value nonexpert opinions over experts</a>. In fact, some experts admit to using intuition themselves. A study revealed that marriage therapists acknowledge using their intuition and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-011-9161-7">consider it a valuable tool</a> in clinical settings.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205708/original/file-20180209-51710-72q8y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Hall of Fame is forever – you have to be sure before you celebrate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Hall-of-Fame-Baseball/8005577fa1574e4b8e73199ab63da417/1/0">AP Photo/Mike Groll</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Deserving of Hall of Fame enshrinement?</h2>
<p>Perhaps with the value of instinctive evaluation in mind, famous baseball statistician Bill James created the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltner_list">Keltner List</a>.” Named for a seven-time All-Star with borderline qualifications, the list was devised as a way to help assess a player’s Baseball Hall of Fame viability. </p>
<p>Even though James is a statistician, the Keltner List is intentionally nonscientific. Rather, it’s a <a href="https://www.billjamesonline.com/article1238/">collection of 15 questions</a> that anyone can quickly answer to help guide an overall assessment of a player’s worthiness for the Hall of Fame. (Think: “Was he the best player on his team?”) The answers are not meant to provide a definitive conclusion, but rather to force a careful consideration of the most important information.</p>
<p>Back to relationships. A similar process can help you determine whether your current romantic partner belongs in your relationship Hall of Fame. Inspired by the Keltner List concept, I’ve put together a list of 15 questions to highlight what matters most. Like the Keltner List, my approach to relationship assessment is intentionally not scientific and has not been tested empirically (though that isn’t a bad idea for future research).</p>
<p>That said, as a relationship scientist, I couldn’t help but use science as a guide. In crafting each question, I consulted the existing research to ground it in the science of what contributes to a healthy relationship. Note that this list isn’t about helping you pick the best Tinder date, hookup or short-term fling. The questions focus on what matters for serious, long-term, committed, sustainable love. To benefit from this exercise, you need to be honest. If you’re lying to yourself, you won’t gain any insight. As computer programmers say, “garbage in, garbage out.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205704/original/file-20180209-51723-760tbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Remove your romance blinders and prepare to be honest with yourself.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-romantic-couple-having-fun-hearts-434746606">Kamil Macniak/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A Keltner List for relationships</h2>
<p>Consider each question and answer truthfully with a simple yes or no response:</p>
<ol>
<li> Does your partner <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005">make you a better person</a>, and do you <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/weekinreview/02parkerpope.html">do the same for them</a>?</li>
<li> Are you and your partner both comfortable with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.511">sharing feelings, relying on each other, being close,</a> and able to avoid worrying about the other person leaving?</li>
<li> Do you and your partner <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.3.289">accept each other for who you are</a>, without <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00627.x">trying to change each other</a>? </li>
<li> When disagreements arise, do you and your partner <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/353438">communicate respectfully and without contempt or negativity</a>?</li>
<li> Do you and your partner share <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/6/16/power-in-relationships-predictors-and-outcomes.html">decision-making, power and influence</a> in the relationship?</li>
<li> Is your partner <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-date-your-best-friend-72784">your best friend</a>, and are you theirs?</li>
<li> Do you and your partner think more in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596">terms of “we” and “us,”</a> rather than “you” and “I”?</li>
<li> Would <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.942">you and your partner</a> <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/10/30/what-matters-for-intrusive-behavior-trust-self-control-or-bo.html">trust each other</a> with the passwords to social media and bank accounts?</li>
<li> Do you and your partner have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79">good opinions of each other</a> – without having <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/11/15/and-for-my-next-trick-the-magical-effects-of-positive-illusi.html">an overinflated positive view</a>?</li>
<li><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1042">Do your close friends</a>, as well as your partner’s, think you have a great relationship that will stand the test of time?</li>
<li>Is your relationship <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n123">free of red flags</a> like cheating, jealousy and controlling behavior?</li>
<li>Do <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1992.00369.x">you and your partner</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024">share the same values</a> when it comes to politics, religion, the importance of marriage, the desire to have kids (or not) and how to parent?</li>
<li>Are you and your partner willing to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373">sacrifice your own needs</a>, desires and goals for each other (without being a doormat)?</li>
<li>Do you and your partner both have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1948">agreeable and emotionally stable personalities</a>?</li>
<li>Are you and your partner <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2013.807336">sexually compatible</a>?</li>
</ol>
<p>At this point you may be tempted to tally your responses. Remember, this isn’t about generating a score, but rather engaging in a self-guided tour through what’s important in relationships. That said, the best answer for every question is a quick, certain and unqualified “yes.”</p>
<p>Looking at the list, you may take issue with a question or two and think, “that’s not important.” First, I’d say that the scientific evidence begs to differ. But that’s also why there are 15 questions. More questions provide greater accuracy. While any one question may not perfectly capture your relationship, 15 different perspectives gives a fairly complete picture.</p>
<p>Are there different questions you could ask? Sure. More questions? No doubt, but Bill James stuck to 15 questions for his Keltner List, so I did as well. </p>
<p>With relationships, like selections to a Hall of Fame, there aren’t easy answers and no guarantees for what the future holds. As much as you may like a definitive scoring system where a partner with at least a 12 out of 15 is a “keeper,” that isn’t possible. Relationships are complex. Any attempt at an easy answer is inevitably an oversimplification.</p>
<p>Instead, consider your responses to this list as additional data points that provide new insights. Don’t stop here. When you make important decisions – like who you’re going to spend the rest of your life with! – collect as much data as possible. Consult the experts, yourself and, as Question 10 suggests, your friends. By using both your head and your heart you can make the best decision about whether your romantic partner is Hall of Fame material.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If there were a Keltner List for relationships – as for induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame – what would be on it? A relationship scientist draws on psychology research to help you assess your love.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727842017-02-12T01:19:52Z2017-02-12T01:19:52ZWhy you should date your best friend<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156404/original/image-20170210-23337-uiov1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C115%2C590%2C452&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bestie + Lover = Relationship Nirvana?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/aspaonline/16672454745">Aspa</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156405/original/image-20170210-23321-ydohl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One person fills two roles.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Being someone’s BFF is a big deal – you don’t hand over the other half of your “Best Friends” necklace to just anyone. Having a romantic partner who is also your best friend potentially sounds perfect. With your BFF as your romantic partner, you get the best of both worlds, someone with whom you can laugh, share your life and cuddle. When you look at seemingly happy celebrity couples like Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, or Leslie Mann and Judd Apatow, not only do they appear to be in love, but they also seem to genuinely enjoy hanging out together.</p>
<p>How many people feel as though they have attained that type of ideal? And do psychologists confirm this new paradigm is a good one to strive for? I enlisted the help of <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/">Monmouth University Polling Institute</a> to investigate.</p>
<h2>How many have two-in-one relationships?</h2>
<p>To help figure out how many best-friend couples are out there, we asked 801 adults across the United States the <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_020917/">following question</a>: “Do you consider your partner to be your best friend or do you call somebody else your best friend?”</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SCoCT/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" style="min-height:415px;" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Among adults currently in a romantic relationship, the vast majority (83 percent) considered their current partner to be their best friend. For those who are currently married, the rate was even higher. Men and women had similar rates, while younger respondents were slightly less likely than older respondents to view their partner as their best friend.</p>
<p>The overall numbers from this recent poll <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593103011">dwarf the earlier reported rate of best-friend romantic partners</a>. In a 1993 study, only 44 percent of college students indicated their romantic partner was also their best bud. The difference in best-friend/love rates – almost doubling over the past 20 years – could just be an artifact of the published research’s college student sample.</p>
<p>But expectations for modern relationships have evolved in the intervening years. Compared to previous generations, today’s heterosexual men and women are more accustomed to thinking of each other as friends on equal footing, even outside of the romantic realm. Once a romantic couple forms, we’re more likely to look for more <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=O9hBQ_GJ6XYC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false">egalitarian splits of power and divisions of labor</a>. We hold <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.863723">our relationships to higher standards</a> than we have in previous decades.</p>
<p>In particular, couples now expect their relationships to promote personal growth and help individuals fulfill their own goals. For example, your partner should help you become a better person by teaching you new things like how to make the perfect creme brulee, taking you places like the cool new trampoline park and opening your eyes to new perspectives such as the benefits of eating a more vegetarian-based diet. Although this expectation for growth could conceivably place an unwieldy burden on your relationship, researchers believe that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.878683">modern relationships are up to the task</a>. In fact, the idea that a relationship can help an individual become a better person, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wUcGAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA90&dq=The+self+expansion+model+of+motivation+and+cognition+in+close+relationships.&ots=Y9AFoA14oe&sig=KEDm0E2v5GYma63XPgJ-bcdwiRw#v=onepage&q=The%20self%20expansion%20model%20of%20motivation%20and%20cognition%20in%20close%20relationships.&f=false">a phenomenon that researchers call self-expansion</a>, is a useful one; relationships that provide more expansion are also of higher quality.</p>
<p>In order to hit all these self-improvement targets, you may need more from a spouse or romantic partner than was expected in years past – and a partner who is also your best friend may be a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>To see if those who consider their partner their best friend also expect more from them, the Monmouth University Poll asked, “For an ideal relationship, how much should you expect your partner to help you grow and expand as a person?” Our poll results indicated generally high expectations overall, and individuals with best-friend romantic partners expected a bit more from them.</p>
<p>Of course, while individuals can expect more, that won’t automatically translate into better results. Think of it this way: Simply because you want more from your job, it doesn’t guarantee you’re going to get what you want. </p>
<h2>Are best-friend partners better partners?</h2>
<p>We wanted to see if these best-friend romances were really better. To do that, we asked poll respondents, “How satisfied are you with your current relationship – extremely, very, somewhat, not too, or not at all satisfied?” We then compared those who said their partner was their best friend to those who responded it was someone else.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Haw47/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="225"></iframe>
<p>Those who considered their partner their best friend were indeed much more satisfied in their relationship than those who didn’t. This finding is consistent with research showing that relationships with more companionate love – based on friendship, feelings of affection, comfort and shared interests – <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513515618">last longer</a> and are <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594111002">more satisfying</a>. In fact, companionate love is more closely associated with relationship satisfaction <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1998.tb00459.x">than is passionate love</a> – the type of romantic love based on intense feelings of attraction and preoccupation with one’s partner.</p>
<p>Other research shows that those in <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00066.x">friendship-based love relationships</a> feel they have a highly likable partner, and that shared companionship is an important part of the love. A study of 622 married individuals revealed that those with higher scores on the friendship-based love scale also reported more relationship satisfaction, greater perceived importance of the relationship, greater respect for their spouse, and felt closer to their spouse. More recently, across two studies with nearly 400 participants in relationships, those who place <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453009">more value on the friendship aspect</a> of their relationship also report more commitment, more love and greater sexual gratification. In addition, valuing friendship also decreased the chances of the couple breaking up. Best-friend love is starting to sound better and better.</p>
<p>All of these benefits are backed up by accounts from a special type of relationship expert: <a href="http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/49838503/marriages-made-last">couples who’ve been happily married for over 15 years</a>. When researchers asked over 350 of these couples about their secret to relationship success and longevity, what was the number one reason? Simple: their partner was their best friend. The second most common response was liking their spouse as a person, another key facet of friendship-based love. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156429/original/image-20170211-23347-gkj6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Why you like someone as a friend may be what makes them a great romantic partner.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/senior-couple-playing-computer-games-280358012?src=8Jwf2h2q-T2YAFoNssFHYQ-1-9">Couple image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why are best-friend partners so beneficial?</h2>
<p>These findings demonstrating the benefits of dating or marrying your best friend make perfect sense when you consider the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00173.x">type of relationship best friends share</a>. Friends enjoy spending time together, share similar interests, take care of each other, trust each other and feel a lasting bond between them. It isn’t a coincidence that these all happen to be <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507081451">qualities that also define successful intimate relationships</a>.</p>
<p>By recognizing the parallels between best friends and romantic partners, you can benefit from holding both types of relationships to the same standards. All too often it seems individuals are overly forgiving of a relationship partner’s bad behavior, when they would never accept similar behaviors from a friend. For example, if your friend was mean, rude, perpetually grumpy, nagging, dishonest, argumentative, emotionally unstable, ignored your texts, called you names or didn’t want to have meaningful conversations with you, would you still want to be friends? If not, it’s fair to hold similar expectations for your romantic partner. Take the time to find a romantic partner who truly is your best friend. </p>
<p>To be clear, the argument here isn’t that you should try to convert an existing best friend into a romantic partner. You may not want to run the risk of compromising that friendship, anyway. Rather, the data here point out the importance of your romantic partner also being one of your best friends. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the best way to have true love forever may be to be best friends forever first.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Looking for a lifelong Valentine? Psychologists suggest taking a closer look at your best friend. The things we want in a good friend are many of the same things we expect from a romantic partner.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Chair and Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/623872016-08-22T00:21:08Z2016-08-22T00:21:08ZRelationship advice from the government doesn’t help low-income couples – here’s what might<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134829/original/image-20160819-30366-qb7wzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">External stressors might have more to do with a low-income couple's success.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mzn37/277597583">Michael Newman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Stable, satisfying marriages <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031859">promote physical</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369">mental health</a> for adults <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x">and their children</a>. However, <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/">marriage rates in the United States have dropped</a> over the last few decades as more couples are <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/MS-2.pdf">choosing to delay marriage</a> or simply <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr064.pdf">live together instead</a>. </p>
<p>These trends are especially pronounced among <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/">low-income couples</a>, and correspond with an <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf">increase in the percent of children who are born outside of marriage</a>. Although there has been <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x">considerable debate</a> about the implications of these trends, some scholars have argued they are problematic given that, statistically, children living with two biological married parents do better (on average) academically, socially and behaviorally compared to other children. </p>
<p>Concerned about the impact of these trends on children’s well-being, the federal government has tried to promote marriage and strengthen couples’ relationships through a <a href="http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/">range of initiatives</a> over the past two decades.</p>
<p>These bipartisan efforts began in 1996 under President Clinton’s welfare reform legislation. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ193/PLAW-104publ193.pdf">Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act</a> authorized states to pay for marriage and relationship skills programs – including premarital education and marriage mentoring – with federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money. <a href="http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-14-02_HMIInitiative.pdf">Funding increased</a> under President George W. Bush’s <a href="http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html#background">Healthy Marriage Initiative</a> and continued under President Obama. Currently the Department of Health and Human Services supports these kinds of efforts through the <a href="https://www.healthymarriageandfamilies.org/">National Resource Center for Healthy Marriage and Families</a>. All told, hundreds of millions of dollars have been set aside for states to administer marriage programs.</p>
<p>With so much time and money spent on these programs to date, are the relationships of low-income Americans in better shape than they would have been without them? What’s the evidence from social science research on what really strengthens couples’ relationships? </p>
<h2>Teaching relationship skills</h2>
<p>Relationship education programs are the cornerstone of these government efforts to strengthen low-income Americans’ relationships. These federally funded programs focus on teaching couples new skills to improve their relationships, targeting areas like healthy communication, showing affection and conflict management.</p>
<p>Relationship education has been around for several decades, and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012584">evidence from trials of primarily middle-class white couples</a> had shown modest results. The <a href="http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html#ms">hope of the federal initiatives</a> was that by increasing access to these types of programs among low-income couples, their relationships would benefit and so would their children. </p>
<p>To test the effectiveness of relationship education programs, starting in 2002 the government funded the two largest randomized controlled trials on the issue ever conducted. The first, <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bsf_36_mo_impact_exec_summ.pdf">Building Strong Families</a>, included unmarried low-income couples who were expecting or just had a baby. The second, <a href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/shm2013_30_month_impact_reportrev2.pdf">Supporting Healthy Marriage</a>, focused on married low-income couples who had been married for an average of six years. Other than these differences in the type of couples involved, the evaluations were set up to be similar.</p>
<p>Researchers randomly assigned thousands of couples either to receive relationship education or to receive no services as part of the control group. Then couples were assessed twice to examine how effective the program was: once after about a year, and a second time about three years later. The programs evaluated a host of outcomes, including couples’ communication and relationship satisfaction, marriage rates and whether the couple was still together.</p>
<p>Even though couples in the control condition received no treatment at all, results from both groups were weaker than anticipated. The unmarried couples who participated in Building Strong Families were no more likely to be married or to report higher-quality relationships. The more established couples who participated in Supporting Healthy Marriage showed some small benefits for relationship satisfaction and their communication, but were no more likely to be together than couples in the control group. The benefits from the programs were especially small when considering their costs, which averaged between <a href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/shm2013_30_month_impact_reportrev2.pdf">US$9,000</a> and <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bsf_36_mo_impact_exec_summ.pdf">$11,000</a> per couple.</p>
<p>What went wrong? Why didn’t these programs help as much as expected? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134835/original/image-20160819-30387-sseidd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Communication training isn’t all it takes to keep marriages going.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=133609583">Couple image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More to marriage than communication</h2>
<p>In the years since these programs were first developed, researchers have devoted more attention to understanding low-income couples’ relationships.</p>
<p>Our own research has focused on newlywed couples living in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles. In a <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301">recent study</a>, we examined how these couples’ marriages changed over time, and what predicted changes in couples’ marital satisfaction.</p>
<p>We visited couples in their homes four times over the first three years of marriage. During these visits, couples reported how happy they were with their marriage, and participated in conversations about issues in their marriage. These ran the gamut: from management of money, to division of chores, to children. </p>
<p>We were interested in how couples communicated during these conversations, in keeping with the emphasis on communication in the relationship education programs supported by the recent federal initiatives. We considered positive communication to reflect behaviors like positive mood, warmth, humor and responsiveness. On the flip side, contempt, denial, dominance and hostility would be reflected as negative communication. </p>
<p>As we expected, communication and relationship satisfaction over time were associated: At any one of our four assessment points, couples who communicated better – with more positivity and less acrimony – tended to be happier in their marriages. </p>
<p>Prediction, however, was much harder to come by. The quality of their communication at any one point in time did not tell us much about which couples would become more or less happy over time. So happier couples did communicate better, but their mode of communication wasn’t the reason they were happier.</p>
<p>Communication, it seems, may not be the main driver of relationship satisfaction, at least among couples living with low incomes. To understand what might matter more, we asked the couples themselves about the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000158">biggest sources of disagreement</a> in their marriages. They reported that management of money – things like paying bills or not having enough money to both pay for baby items and go out – was their most salient problem. Other issues like household chores, decisions about leisure time, their in-laws and children followed. Communication could be a problem too, but they didn’t identify it as nearly as much of a big deal as these other areas. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134839/original/image-20160819-30409-1nx5vva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">First things first; we’ve got bills to pay.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=231990565">Bills image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dealing with the big picture first</h2>
<p>These studies, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031104">among many others</a>, highlight a deceptively simple point: Partners living with low incomes are likely to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00977.x">struggle because they face challenges outside of their marriage</a>. Healthy communication of the sort encouraged in relationship education does go hand-in-hand with how couples feel about their relationship, but outside factors may be more immediately pressing and need more attention. Families who are struggling to afford everyday expenses may find it difficult to prioritize spending meaningful time with a partner.</p>
<p>External stressors (like finances) can place a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013">tremendous burden on couples’ relationships</a> for two reasons: They create more problems for them to deal with (like money management), and they limit couples’ capacity to solve these problems.</p>
<p>To help low-income couples’ relationships, we may need policies and programs that reduce stress directly, such as assistance with child care, finances or job training. Admittedly, these types of strategies are not typically thought of as being part of programs to help couples. But, by targeting the relationship problems identified by low-income couples themselves, we might be able to provide them with some much-needed relief. Helping couples square away some of these immediate problems might allow them to devote more time and energy to each other, their relationship and their children.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62387/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Lavner's research has been supported by funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Karney is a Professor of Social Psychology at UCLA and an Adjunct Behavioral Scientist with the RAND Corporation. His work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Bradbury served as a paid expert consultant on the Building Strong Families and Strengthening Healthy Marriages projects. His research at UCLA has been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and the National Institute of Mental Health, and he currently collaborates on projects supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</span></em></p>Relationship education programs are meant to strengthen low-income couples, with the idea children would benefit. But focusing on communication skills overlooks what really matters to these Americans.Justin Lavner, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of GeorgiaBenjamin Karney, Professor of Social Psychology, University of California, Los AngelesThomas Bradbury, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/562832016-03-18T01:49:44Z2016-03-18T01:49:44ZRelationship reality TV: entertainment masquerading as science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115544/original/image-20160318-3196-o8992v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Channel 7's new program Seven Year Switch is not based on evidence, despite couching itself in scientific terms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Channel 7</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over recent years we’ve seen an increasing number of reality TV shows on the topic of relationships. Much of the viewing audience understands these shows sensationalise relationships and that, in the “real world”, romantic relationships don’t play out as they do on these programs. </p>
<p>But what do the viewing public make of reality TV shows about relationships when they masquerade as “science” and feature “relationship experts”?</p>
<p>The most recent instalment to hit our screens was this week’s <a href="https://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/seven-year-switch/-/watch/30807080/seven-year-switch-coming-to-seven/">Seven Year Switch</a>. The program takes four fragile heterosexual couples in relationship turmoil to engage in a partner swap in which they live and sleep with a like-minded individual in the hope that it will save their relationship. </p>
<p>In the process, the couples are shepherded by relationship experts – who also decide the partner swaps. The program has elements in common with Married at First Sight, another “social experiment” in which relationship experts partnered off individuals who had never met in the hope that their scientific approach to partner matching would result in relationship longevity. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115545/original/image-20160318-3171-5y980u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Channel 9’s Married at First Sight contestants were paired up by ‘experts’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Proponents of these shows contend they create an atmosphere for viewers to explore their own relationships. By watching and listening to the couples and experts, the viewers supposedly develop insights that enhance their relationships. One of the producers of Married at First Sight told me these shows do for couples “what MasterChef did for amateur cooks”. </p>
<p>In principle, this sounds fine, but these programs are problematic on many levels, none more so than that they attach science and relationship experts in an attempt to legitimise experiments with little scientific evidence or preliminary testing to support them.</p>
<p>Let me reframe the premise behind the Seven Year Switch. Imagine you and your partner are experiencing significant problems and you seek the advice of a relationship expert who says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I have an untried intervention that may do the trick. Leave your partner for two weeks, spend that time investing in someone else, someone you may end up liking a great deal, we’ll give you a bed to share, and then let’s see how this helps your troubled relationship.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What would you make of such advice from a relationship expert? Would you be concerned about such an intervention? Or would you think seriously about taking part because an “expert” has endorsed the intervention and you are desperate for help? </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115542/original/image-20160318-3185-1wlkcmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">So many books. So much science. Seven Year Switch relationship expert Peter Charleston.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Channel 7</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Feedback via social media suggests many viewers of the Seven Year Switch and Married at First Sight perceive the contrived nature of these social experiments to be anything but real. However, some people find the shows more acceptable because they are framed as having a scientific basis. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.618900">Research</a> on viewing shows about relationships suggests that watching does influence people’s perceptions about their own relationships.</p>
<p>While these shows may not necessarily alter what people want in a partner, they do appear to affect the way they evaluate their partners. They largely view their partners as falling short of their ideals, and overestimate viable alternatives to their current relationship. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/%2010.1177/0146167201274006">Research</a> tells us <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758">these perceptions reduce</a> relationship satisfaction and increase your chance of defaulting on the relationship. </p>
<p>And what of the couples taking part in these programs? While many motives may be driving their participation, these are vulnerable couples whose lives are being sensationalised via some crafty editing to get the audience’s attention and strike a ratings bonanza. </p>
<p>In research, we take participation in experiments very seriously. We are required to submit ethics applications that address issues of risks and benefits for participants involved. If we increase the risk above and beyond what they would experience in everyday life, then we need to put in place controls to safeguard the well-being of participants. These TV shows fall well short of the ethical benchmarks we uphold when undertaking scientific studies.</p>
<p>We know from years of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035">research</a> that commitment is one of the most important factors in the success of a relationship. It requires people to make investments in their own relationship and to consider viable alternatives as unworthy pursuits. </p>
<p>How does the Seven Year Switch experiment stack up with 30 years of commitment research? Pretty poorly. And what message does it send if partner swapping results in people comforting and supporting another person’s companion instead of investing that effort in their own relationship? </p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016961">Research suggests</a> we feel the greatest sense of validation when our partners sensitively and responsively attend to our needs. How can this be achieved in light of separation and an alternative partner? Relationship science provides no basis for these social experiments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gery Karantzas receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>What do the viewing public make of reality TV shows about relationships when they’re masqueraded as “science” and feature “relationship experts”?Gery Karantzas, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/540232016-02-12T11:10:32Z2016-02-12T11:10:32ZAre dating apps killing long-term relationships?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111232/original/image-20160211-29172-41sb42.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is a relationship that's quick to form quick to fall apart?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-263078921/stock-vector-vector-illustration-of-online-chat-man-and-woman-app-icons-in-flat-style.html?src=4ADHvwpFr5vsqhUMAFZJzg-1-13">"Chatting" via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Online dating sites and apps are transforming relationships. More than 10 percent of American adults – and almost 40 percent of people who identify as “single and looking” – <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/part-2-dating-apps-and-online-dating-sites/">are using them</a>. </p>
<p>But what might someone from the 19th century think about this unique fusion of technology and romance?</p>
<p>In the late 1800s, German philosopher <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/">Friedrich Nietzsche</a> had a lot to say about love. Arguing that society was heading toward <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/">nihilism</a> – that is, a world without meaning, morals and values – Nietzsche thought that romantic love was <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12321.Beyond_Good_and_Evil">frivolous</a>, with <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51893.Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra">friendship</a> acting as a much stronger foundation for relationships. </p>
<p>From a Nietzschean perspective, the rise of dating apps like Tinder, Hinge and Grindr that encourage us to “swipe” or judge potential lovers in a nanosecond could be cited as examples of a society that has become obsessed with pleasure and instant gratification. </p>
<p>Nietzsche also <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31785.The_Will_to_Power">said</a> that instinctive judgments are misleading because they “pronounce their Yes and No before the understanding can speak.” Furthermore, to act impulsively is decadent and hedonistic, and these are “signposts to nihilism.”</p>
<p>So does the rise of online dating in our culture signal an embrace of self-indulgence? And does it come at the expense of long-term relationships? </p>
<p>The research is mixed, but a few dominant themes emerge, including findings showing that “swiping right” might not be the best way to find a true match. </p>
<h2>Quick picks</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261233/Dating-app-Tinder-killing-romance-says-BBC-historian.html">Tinder certainly isn’t killing romance</a> – at least, that of the ephemeral kind. </p>
<p>More choices, more relationships, and more socializing open up new kinds of opportunities that wouldn’t have existed without dating apps and websites. A <a href="http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/4/523.full">2012 study</a> found that the Internet has allowed users to find partners more easily, especially homosexuals and middle-aged people who operate in a “thin market.” </p>
<p>The big question is whether marriages that originate online work out in the long run. Here, the research is mixed. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135.abstract?sid=5cd492d6-5f29-42a1-91f1-4e3ea16b5da2">Some studies</a> suggest that American marriages that begin online are slightly less prone to collapse than those who met offline. <a href="http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2014.0302?journalCode=cyber&">Other studies</a> find the opposite. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, there’s an inherent problem with how these online relationships begin – at least, from a Nietzschean perspective. </p>
<p>Because users instinctively react to photographs, they’re choosing dates or matches based on sexual attraction and airbrushed beauty. (<a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/8/1023.short">Studies also show</a> that users will misrepresent themselves on their online profiles.)</p>
<p>So sure, there might be an initial physical spark. But what about the things that ensure a long-term relationship, like <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201210/7-keys-long-term-relationship-success">trust</a>, <a href="http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/healthy-relationships.aspx">constructive communication</a> and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201206/the-12-ties-bind-long-term-relationships">enjoying joint activities</a>? </p>
<h2>Tired romance</h2>
<p>The fundamental problem with modern Western coupling is the ideal that romantic love culminates in marriage – and will last forever. </p>
<p>This ignores the fact that romantic passion <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/sexual-desire-often-fades-in-relationships-20150216-13fzgh.html">dissolves over time</a>. Nietzsche likened it to an <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/451565.Human_All_Too_Human">engraving</a> that fades when bare fingers continually touch it. Lovers tire of each other. Habits weigh them down. Love’s passion and beauty atrophy. </p>
<p>Research about how long romance lasts tends to vary. But most arrive at the same conclusion: it doesn’t last forever. </p>
<p>A group of Italian scientists found that neuropeptides – molecules associated with the euphoria of love – returned to normal levels within <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16289361">12 to 24 months</a> of being in a romantic relationship. Another group of neurobiologists found that levels of hormones such as cortisol change upon falling in love and return to normal levels after <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177709">12 to 18 months</a>. Other researchers found that people in a relationship for 28.8 months on average appeared <a href="http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/15npolve.pdf">less intensely in love</a> than those who had been in love for 7.4 months.</p>
<p>On the other hand, in <a href="http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/gpr13159.pdf">2009</a>, researchers at Stony Brook University conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies of romantic lovers who were college age or older. They suggested that as long as we don’t include the obsessiveness of the early phases of romantic love in our definition of it, then long-term romance may be possible. </p>
<p>Whatever the lucky number, the reality is that over one-third of marriages <a href="https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf">do not make it to a 25-year silver anniversary</a>. And even without the work of social scientists at hand, Nietzsche understood that, in many cases, romantic passion fades. As a solution, he suggested <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/philosophy/philosophy-texts/nietzsche-daybreak-thoughts-prejudices-morality-2nd-edition">banning marriage</a> for a couple in the initial throes of romantic passion.</p>
<p>He fantasized about giving two lovers a <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/451565.Human_All_Too_Human">special pair of glasses</a> so that they could see how the other would look in 20 years’ time. Presumably, it would either extinguish their attraction, or they’d be better prepared to grow old together. </p>
<p>Sexual attraction is undoubtedly an important part of romance. But from a Nietzschean perspective, strong-willed people enjoy the intoxication of loving, but have the big picture in mind: they realize the main criterion for choosing a long-term partner ought to be the ability to hold a decent <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/451565.Human_All_Too_Human">conversation</a>. Nietzsche suggested that intellectual attraction would provide a deeper and more durable foundation for relationships than sex appeal. </p>
<p>Research suggests that the ability to communicate is central to relationship durability. <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-24645-001">A 2012 study</a> published in the <em>Journal of Family Psychology</em> suggested that negative communication is one of the key culprits of divorce. <a href="http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/09/30/conflict-patterns-increase-divorce-risk/18930.html">Another 2010 study</a> found – unsurprisingly – that couples who criticized and yelled at each other early in the marriage had higher divorce rates.</p>
<h2>Forming an über-relationhip</h2>
<p>Apps discourage friendship more than any other form of courtship because they rush “Yes and No” snap judgments of others with information that’s highly edited. </p>
<p>Nietzsche warned that by presenting ourselves in highly curated ways, we risk becoming victims of our own acting skills because we have to <em>become</em> our <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/451565.Human_All_Too_Human">masks</a> in order to sustain the illusions we create. In the process, we sacrifice authenticity. (A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-4560.00246/abstract">study in 2002</a> found that the few people who reveal their “true” selves online create more enduring friendships.) </p>
<p>If lovers were better friends, relationships would be healthier. Great friends support and encourage each other to look beyond themselves, to achieve their goals and to become better people. Nietzsche referred to this as striving toward the ideal of the <em>Übermensch</em>. </p>
<p>Marriage is still useful when taken seriously, but it’s not the only valuable structure. Married or cohabiting, open or closed, gay or straight, sexual or platonic, brief or lifelong – all can work just as well, as long as they’re built on a foundation of trust, respect and friendship.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Skye C. Cleary does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to dating, take Nietzsche’s advice and have the big picture – finding a lifelong friend – in mind.Skye C. Cleary, Philosopher & Lecturer, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/541372016-02-11T05:54:38Z2016-02-11T05:54:38ZShould you be my Valentine? Research helps identify good and bad romantic relationships<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110686/original/image-20160208-2634-klq2gg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Remove your rose-colored glasses and take a cold, hard look at your potential Valentine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/britpendleton/5446460324">Brittanie Loren Pendleton</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Will you be my Valentine?” </p>
<p>People all across the country say those words in the run-up to February 14 and the Valentine’s Day holiday. Whether you’re asking a brand new paramour or a long-term partner, the question can evoke feelings both of romantic uncertainty and possibility. </p>
<p>But for the well-being of ourselves and our relationships, “Will you be my Valentine?” is the wrong question. Instead, the more important question to ask yourself is “<em>Should</em> you be my Valentine?” </p>
<p>Relationships can be one of the most important sources of happiness in your life, with social connections serving as a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764">key provider of happiness and meaningfulness</a>. Not surprisingly, human beings have a very <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497">powerful drive to form and maintain relationships</a>. After all, the future of humankind depends on people coupling up to conceive and raise the next generation. Because forming relationships is such a powerful motivator, being in any relationship can seem better than being alone. A variety of factors can lull us into relationship complacency – compatibility, friendship, shared interests, inertia, fear of being single or low expectations. The drive to be paired off may lead you to settle for the relationship you have, instead of the relationship you deserve. </p>
<p>Figuring out whether your relationship is thriving or merely surviving is daunting. In the hunt for “the one,” how can you know for sure if your partner is the type of person who’s best for you and your long-term happiness? Thankfully, scientists who study relationships know a lot about factors to consider when weighing whether your partner should be your Valentine, this year and beyond.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110693/original/image-20160208-2602-mephfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is there a better Valentine prospect for you out there?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vintagehalloweencollector/3196479757">Dave</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The problem of greener grass</h2>
<p>No one wants to settle. We all want to be with the best possible partner. In your relationship, how often do you find yourself wondering if you could do better? Are there preferable partners out there whom you’d find more interesting, enjoyable, smarter or funnier? Does your current partner pale in comparison with what else might be out there?</p>
<p>Researchers call these perceptions of other possible partners your <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x">quality of alternatives</a>. Psychologists measure your perceived quality of alternatives by assessing responses to statements such as “If I weren’t dating my partner, I would do fine – I would find another appealing person to date.”</p>
<p>Agreeing with this kind of statement and believing you have high-quality alternatives may sound desirable because you have confidence in yourself and your ability to attract a good partner. However, thinking about and monitoring other partner options can undermine your present relationship’s stability. This type of decreased commitment to whom you’re currently with <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/25/let-me-count-the-ways-5-reasons-commitment-is-good-for-your.html">increases negative behaviors like cheating</a>. </p>
<p>Ultimately, you should be in a relationship where you don’t even notice any other greener grass because you’re with someone whom you think is the best for you, and who thinks you’re the best for him or her. </p>
<h2>Building a better you</h2>
<p>Relationships provide a lot of benefits. Someone to share your Netflix account with, to talk with about your day, to take care of you when you’re not feeling well. Our social relationships positively affect our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676">physical health</a>, including buffering against <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/75106/report.pdf">high blood pressure and heart disease, and improving mental health</a> by decreasing depression, anxiety and substance abuse. It all adds up to building a healthy, meaningful life together with someone. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110692/original/image-20160208-2625-12qb4z9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does your Valentine help make you a better you?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vintagehalloweencollector/3233736009">Dave</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A good relationship also provides a partner who helps you become a better person. Researchers refer to this experience as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005">self-expansion</a>. It’s your relationship’s ability to provide you with opportunities for self-growth. Whether you learn new photography skills, develop a new perspective on politics, gain a new identity such as “organic gardener” or simply feel like a better, more capable person, self-expansion has benefits.</p>
<p>Relationships that include more self-expansion are more satisfying, more committed, have higher levels of passionate love, experience less boredom, and have partners who are less likely to pay attention to other potential partners and less likely to cheat. (If you’re wondering how much of this valuable quality you have in your relationship, check out the <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/2/23/sustainable-marriage-quiz.html">self-expansion quiz</a>.)</p>
<p>Given the potential consequences of being stuck in a rut, less passionate love and more cheating, if your partner is not helping build a better you, it is time for a better partner. </p>
<h2>Check with your peeps</h2>
<p>Who is the best judge of your relationship’s future? You, or your friends and family?</p>
<p>To investigate, researchers asked people in romantic relationships to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259007">predict their relationship’s future</a> and compared their predictions to those made by their roommate and mom. The daters thought their own relationship would last two to three times longer than what their friends and family anticipated. And people rated their own relationships as significantly better than how others saw them from the outside.</p>
<p>Parents, perhaps because their own longer relationship experiences gave them insight into what to look for, were most likely to identify problems. Friends made the most accurate predictions, but it was the person in the relationship who was most confident in the assessment they made about their own relationship.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1074&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1074&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110694/original/image-20160208-2634-1wp0ets.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1074&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Romeos and Juliets are more optimistic and confident about their relationships’ prospects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vintagehalloweencollector/3212945820">Dave</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider that for a second – it’s not a good combination. When thinking about our own relationship, this research suggests that we are highly confident in our predictions, which are often inaccurate.</p>
<p>Give your friends and family some credit, because this research shows that they have unique insights into your relationship. After all, they’re looking out for your best interests and have a greater ability to see the relationship clearly and objectively without getting swayed by the heady mix of feelings and attraction you likely have for your partner. When in doubt, ask the people in your life who care about you whether your partner really should be your Valentine.</p>
<p>Knowing whether you are with the best possible partner for you is difficult. While many of us get driver’s education and sex education in high school, we don’t get “relationships ed.” </p>
<p>But learning what science has to say about what makes for a good relationship can help. Being informed ultimately helps us make better decisions about whether to stay or go. After all, not being part of a sappy couple during the chocolates-and-flowers Valentine’s hoopla is hardly the end of the world – especially if it means you’re ready to find the relationship you should have, according to science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54137/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is your relationship thriving or merely surviving? Scientists who study these matters of the heart have some insights into figuring out whether you’re with your best possible partner.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/417842015-05-26T14:28:22Z2015-05-26T14:28:22ZHow sharing your success is perceived as bragging – more often than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82936/original/image-20150526-24754-1t9msvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Think you're being modest? Think again.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you just received a great bit of news at work – a promotion, pay rise, new car, an acceptance letter from the top journal in your field. If you are like me, you would probably like to open your door or pick up your phone and share your happiness with co-workers and friends. But research that colleagues and I have recently carried out suggested you should think twice. </p>
<p>Despite your genuine intentions, your friends or colleagues may not be as excited as you think to hear your good news. Most people probably realise that they experience emotions other than pure joy when they are on the receiving end of someone else’s self-promotion. Yet, when we engage in self-promotion ourselves – by tagging ourselves at a first-class airline lounge on social media or sharing news of the triathlon we just completed – we tend to overestimate the extent that others will share in our joy and underestimate the negative reactions this can provoke.</p>
<h2>Empathy gap</h2>
<p>Colleagues and I conducted a series of experiments to investigate this phenomenon, which we recently <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/05/07/0956797615573516.abstract">published in the journal Psychological Science</a>. We asked participants to recall situations in which they engaged in self-promotion, or were the recipients of someone else’s. Participants recalled boasting or hearing boasts about a variety of topics – from achievements and special abilities to money, status and material possessions, from knowing the right people to having great partners, children and lovers. </p>
<p>We found that self-promoters overestimated the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion felt proud and happy for them and underestimated the extent to which recipients felt annoyed. We were fascinated by these results, and attributed this miscalibration to a phenomenon called the empathy gap. Both parties – self-promoters and recipients – have trouble imagining how they would feel if their roles were reversed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82937/original/image-20150526-24754-gy5yvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How not to win friends and influence people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/celestinechua/11583365926/in/photolist-iDzM8C-91vi1q-8n216U-91xwbj-bw7s9n-91q4Cu-91msXM-91kboN-91mUUD-91m1Tv-91kC9g-91jNPu-91scs4-91vfwY-91mfQt-91phf1-91nq4v-7zQB7x-8mWXkB-91pa7E-amfUtf-91trJX-akhXS4-91kViV-8mXqhk-8mWJnx-8mWRS2-oV1dgk-91ucAG-2tRot-8mX8ir-8yPTFg-fnbc4p-6EdzdS-kz3Cxk-8n1giq-ooU7zx-91vznW-4SFYMK-5QJo8-4TJkbs-8n1JNo-8mXhX6-8n24Zm-amd7Dg-6yX5dU-d6ox8Y-9thtCj-fuQa4U-fuzR2B">Celestine Chua</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We then conducted another experiment to examine the consequences of this miscalibration. We wanted to know whether people who try to make a good impression actually self-promote more. In the first part of the experiment, 99 participants were instructed to create a profile to present themselves to others – similar to what people do on social media or dating websites. We told them they could talk about their work or education, sports activities or other hobbies, looks or personality, family or social life. </p>
<p>Half of the participants were given an additional instruction. They had to try to make readers of their profile most interested in them. In the second part of the experiment, a large sample of participants read their profiles and indicated how much they liked the authors, their interest in actually meeting them, how successful they thought the authors were and the extent to which the author appeared to be bragging.</p>
<p>We observed that participants who created their profile with the intention of maximising others’ interest, bragged more and were perceived as such. Although the goal they were given was to increase the likelihood that other people would be interested in meeting them, their efforts backfired. More self-promotion did not change perceptions of their success or interest in meeting them. Instead it decreased those reading their profiles’ liking of them and increased the perception that they were braggarts. </p>
<h2>Little nudges</h2>
<p>These results are particularly important in an age where a great deal of our interactions with others take place online and opportunities for self-promotion have proliferated via social networking sites. The emotional miscalibration that we observed in our study may be increased by the additional distance there is between people sharing information and their recipients. This can both reduce the empathy of the self-promoter and decrease the sharing of pleasure by the recipient.</p>
<p>So what can be done to reduce the negative social consequences of self-promotion? Some little nudges may be very helpful. For example, when we feel the urge to share some good news we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of those on the receiving end. Will they interpret our news as a brag or share in our enjoyment? </p>
<p>Thinking about how others will hear or read our news may help us realise that others may actually be less happy than we think to hear about our latest achievement. At the same time, when we are on the other end of someone else’s self-promotion, and find ourselves very annoyed at our self-praising friend, we might likewise try to bolster our tolerance in the knowledge that braggarts genuinely underestimate others’ negative reactions to their bragging.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Irene Scopelliti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite your genuine intentions, your friends or colleagues may not be as excited as you think to hear your good news.Irene Scopelliti, Lecturer in Marketing, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374172015-02-12T20:44:35Z2015-02-12T20:44:35ZHappy Valentine’s Day? Depends how you invest in your relationship<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71809/original/image-20150212-16611-omdknr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science can tell us much about our relationships.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordferguson/2288595733">Flickr/Pablo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you think our romantic relationships are based on the passions of the heart and the melding of minds – both beyond explanation or reason – then think again.</p>
<p>People in love might seem preoccupied, emotional and at times downright irrational, but there might just be some surprisingly logical foundations underpinning our romantic relationships. In fact, there are some things about our intimate relationships that can be predicted by our behaviours and how we react and relate to our loved ones.</p>
<p>Rightly or wrongly, it’s not surprising that things such as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.12">physical attractiveness</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992">financial resources</a> can be important factors when first selecting a mate. But once someone is in a relationship, what happens next?</p>
<p>An often cited explanation for how romantic relationships play out is the “<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103180900074">investment model</a>”, which can often predict relationship commitment. Although commitment in this context can be hard to define, it is usually considered to reflect <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/27/9/1190.short">attachment to a partner</a> with an intention to remain with that partner in the longer term.</p>
<h2>So what predicts relationship commitment?</h2>
<p>A key theme of the investment model (as the name suggests) is to look at relationships a little like a balance sheet, but not in the way you might expect.</p>
<p>There are many rewards that can come from being in a relationship, such as having emotional, intellectual and physical needs met. There are also costs associated with a relationship: perhaps arguments or perhaps a perceived loss of independence.</p>
<p>But rather than just tallying up the pros and cons of being in a relationship, the investment model says that we will look at the overall outcomes of these <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12144-001-1014-3">costs and rewards</a>. We will compare those outcomes to what we believe are appropriate for a good relationship (that is, our own personal standard).</p>
<p>If we expect that the good should outweigh the bad in our relationships, and our partner is very kind but can be grumpy in the morning, then our personal standard is met or even exceeded (as general kindness trumps morning grumpiness), and we will experience relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>But if our personal standard is that relationships should be good all the time, and if our partner is grumpy in the mornings, then even if our partner is exceptionally kind-hearted, we will not be satisfied with the relationship.</p>
<p>This can explain why two couples might have very different relationships, yet still experience similar levels of relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>Sounds straightforward enough: find the person who matches or exceeds your personal standards and you will have a good relationship. They must be “the one”. But the investment model suggests that relationships satisfaction on its own is not enough to predict relationship commitment.</p>
<h2>Is the grass is greener?</h2>
<p>The next thing we consider in relationships is the “quality of alternatives”. When all other things are equal, we will evaluate the merits of other choices and if we perceive them to be “better” then we <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/22/12/1244.abstract">might move towards that alternative</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71812/original/image-20150212-16623-clfewf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Love can soon deflate if one partner seeks alternatives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/esparta/2261606837/">Flickr/Esparta Palma</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fortunately, this isn’t (quite) as callous as it sounds. Alternatives might refer to a new individual who we perceive to be superior to our current partner. Perhaps the superior choice is sexier, smarter or more socially mobile than your current partner (obviously, this depends on what is important to you).</p>
<p>Happily, this doesn’t translate to mean that everyone is looking to upgrade to a supermodel or Noble Laureate; superiority is only important if your current partner doesn’t match your idea of what a partner should be like.</p>
<p>But alternatives might also refer to an alternative situation. For example, if you experience a lot of conflict in your relationship, you might feel you would be better off alone.</p>
<p>This cuts both ways: if you enjoy being single, then someone will need to be pretty special if they are likely to sweep you off your feet. </p>
<p>Finally, the investment model considers the role of – you guessed it – investments.</p>
<p>These investments can be concrete (say a house you share with your partner), or less tangible, like the time and effort put into a relationship to improve it. Investments can also be indirect, such as a shared social network or a shared social status.</p>
<p>Whatever the nature of the investment, the more you invest, the more you risk by leaving the relationship. Consequently, research found the bigger the investment you have made in your relationship, the more likely you are to be <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/12/1639.abstract">committed to your partner</a>.</p>
<p>If you are thinking all of this feels vaguely familiar from other contexts, you are right. The investment model can be used to explain a number of outcomes, such as why someone will <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/096317904X23745/full">stay in a job</a> whether they will <a href="http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/1/25.short">stay loyal to a brand</a> as well as to <a href="http://journals.humankinetics.com/jpah-back-issues/jpah-volume-8-issue-3-march/the-roles-of-want-to-commitment-and-have-to-commitment-in-explaining-physical-activity-behavior">predict physical activity</a>.</p>
<p>Just how much can relationships be predicted to last, or to fail? Well these investment model factors contribute substantially to relationship commitment, in fact <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6811.00035/abstract">explaining around 60% of our commitment</a>, with satisfaction being the most important component.</p>
<p>But whether this means that people will stay in a relationship or leave is less clear: the link between relationship commitment and relationship persistence is only small to moderate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71810/original/image-20150212-16601-kda5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who knows how long a relationship will last.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fidanovska/6864023981">Flickr/Elena Fidanovska</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many other things can also influence whether the relationship will go the long haul. For example, if you perceive that your <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675472?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">family and friends approve</a> of the relationship, then it was more likely to last.</p>
<p>Even if you do not have particularly strong emotional intimacy with your partner, but if you have close relationships with your friends and relatives your belongingness needs can still be met.</p>
<p>How your <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463370409370196#.VNsBs_mUeCk">last relationship ended</a> can also make a difference. Break ups that are mutual (where neither person singularly initiated the break up) tend to be related to less satisfaction and commitment in future relationships than if one person decided to end the relationship. </p>
<p>So this Valentine’s Day, what do you need to do to make sure things are going well in your relationship and to avoid things ending in disaster?</p>
<ul>
<li><p>have <a href="http://psr.sagepub.com/content/8/4/322.abstract">realistic expectations</a> about your relationship because that means you are more likely to have greater relationship satisfaction</p></li>
<li><p>identify the things that you and your partner value in each other and try to find opportunities to boost your <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/39/10/1333.abstract">emotional capital</a> </p></li>
<li><p>evaluate your relationship investment portfolio because <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/39/10/1333.abstract">the more you put in, the more you will get out</a> </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Happy Valentine’s Day!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Grieve does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you think our romantic relationships are based on the passions of the heart and the melding of minds – both beyond explanation or reason – then think again. People in love might seem preoccupied, emotional…Rachel Grieve, Lecturer in Psychology, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/371052015-02-12T20:44:29Z2015-02-12T20:44:29ZDealing with love, romance and rejection on Valentine’s Day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71695/original/image-20150211-25722-hq3f1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Playing with the affections of the heart can be tricky on Valentine's Day.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/28481088@N00/4300302800">Flickr/tanakawho </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Take care lovers, wherever you are, as Valentine’s Day is soon upon us. Whether you’re in a relationship or want to be in a relationship, research over a number of years shows that February 14 can be a day of broken hearts and broken wallets.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00095.x/abstract">study</a> by US psychologists in 2004 found that relationship breakups were 27% to 40% higher around Valentine’s Day than at other times of the year. Fortunately, this bleak trend was only found amongst couples on a downward trajectory who weren’t the happiest to begin with.</p>
<p>For stable or improving couples, Valentine’s Day thankfully didn’t serve as a catalyst for breakup. (That said, science has more to say on the predictions of any <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-romance-can-we-predict-a-breakup-26041">breakup in a relationship</a>.)</p>
<p>But it’s hard to avoid the pressure of Valentine’s Day. This time of year, television, radio, printed publications and the internet are littered with advertisements reminding people of the upcoming celebration: Buy a gift! Make a reservation! Don’t forget the flowers! And by all means be romantic!.</p>
<p>Think you’re safe and single? Not so fast – ads urging those not in romantic relationships to seek one out (namely, via fee-based dating websites) are rife this time of year.</p>
<p>The origins of Valentine’s Day go back many centuries and it is a time of <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133693152/the-dark-origins-of-valentines-day">dubious repute</a>. Originally it was a day set aside to celebrate Christian saints named Valentine (there were many). The association with romantic love was only picked up in the UK during the Middle Ages. Thank you, <a href="http://machias.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/pf/pf.html">Chaucer</a> and <a href="http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_238.html">Shakespeare</a>.</p>
<p>Mass-produced paper Valentines <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/valentines-day/history-of-valentines-day">appeared on the scene</a> in the 1800s, and it seems that the commercialisation of the day has increased ever since. Now, many refer to Valentine’s Day as a “Hallmark Holiday” – a reference to the popular producer of many Valentine’s cards.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71696/original/image-20150211-25693-3l8zg7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Avoid the commercialism by making your own Valentine’s Day card.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/xelcise/5445598713">Flickr/Jamie Henderson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No matter the history, or whether you are a conscientious objector to the commercialisation of love, it is difficult not to get swept up in the sentiment. </p>
<p>Despite the research (mentioned earlier) that Valentine’s Day can be calamitous for some, other research speaks to how to make this day a positive and beneficial one for you and your loved ones.</p>
<h2>My funny Valentine</h2>
<p>For those not in a romantic relationship, it’s hard to avoid the normative message that you are meant to be in one. But is it worth risking social rejection by asking someone for a date on Valentine’s Day?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IATTu8bQfXU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, science can’t answer that one. What we do know is that social rejection hurts –- <a href="http://edge.org/conversation/why-rejection-hurts">literally</a> – according to Professor Naomi Eisenberger, a social psychologist and director of the Social and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at UCLA. She found that being socially rejected results in activation in the same brain areas that are active during physical pain.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even though we may treat physical pain more seriously and regard it as the more valid ailment, the pain of social loss can be equally as distressing, as demonstrated by the activation of pain-related neural circuitry upon social disconnection.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A low dose of <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-analgesics/">over-the-counter pain-killer</a> can buffer against the sting of rejection. And, as silly as it seems, holding a <a href="http://digest.bps.org.uk/2011/11/feeling-socially-excluded-try-touching.html">teddy bear</a> after the fact can provide relief.</p>
<p>If you do decide to seek a partner, dating websites and smartphone apps are a popular option. In 2013, <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships/">38% of American adults</a> who were “single and looking” used dating websites or apps.</p>
<p>Dating websites such as <a href="http://www.eharmony.com.au/">eHarmony</a> even claim to use scientific principles in their matching system (though this claim has been <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/pspi/online-dating.html">heavily critiqued</a> by relationship researchers).</p>
<p>On this point, US psychology professor Eli Finkel provides a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-tinder.html">timely commentary</a> on smartphone dating apps such as <a href="http://www.tinder.com/">Tinder</a>. He says he can see the benefits but he also points out that “algorithm matchmaking” is still no substitute for the real encounter.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As almost a century of research on romantic relationships has taught us, predicting whether two people are romantically compatible requires the sort of information that comes to light only after they have actually met.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71697/original/image-20150211-25693-1qtbuh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can’t beat the face to face encounter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/amandaoliveira_/12520165004">Flickr/Amanda Oliveira</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The multi-billion dollar dating website industry would have you think it is a path to true-love. Though the fact of the matter is, despite several studies, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/30/does-online-dating-work-lets-be-honest-we-have-no-idea/">we simply don’t know</a> if dating websites are any more effective than more traditional approaches to mate-finding. So, on this point, single-and-looking payer beware.</p>
<h2>Can’t buy me love</h2>
<p>Speaking of money, the <a href="http://angelineclose.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Loved-and-Loathed.pdf">consumerism</a> surrounding Valentine’s Day is undeniable. <a href="http://www.ibisworld.com.au/media/2014/02/05/lovers-pick-premium-valentines-day/">Australians</a> last year spent upwards of A$791 million on gifts and such. Americans are <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-valentines-day-spending-20150209-story.html">estimated to spend</a> US$19 billion (A$24 billion) this year.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N69e6n1zJok?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Spending in and of itself, however, isn’t a bad thing. It turns out it’s how you spend that matters.</p>
<p>First, given the choice between buying a thing and buying an experience – ongoing research by Cornell University’s psychology professor Thomas Gilovich favours <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/buy-experiences/381132/">opting for the latter</a>. Chances are, you’ll be happier.</p>
<p>In the case of Valentine’s Day, spending on a shared experience will make your partner happier too – research from US relationship researcher Art Aron suggests that spending on a shared experience will reap more benefit than a piece of jewelry or a gadget, especially to the extent that this shared experience is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/health/12well.html">new and exciting</a>. </p>
<p>Second, if you’re going to part with that cash in the end, you might as well <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/money-can-buy-happiness_n_1467789.html">spend it on someone else</a>. Across numerous experiments (see <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1687.full">here</a>, <a href="http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11320609/aknin,et-al_prosocial_JPSP.pdf">here</a>, <a href="http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/aknin%20dunn%20norton.pdf">here</a>, <a href="http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11320613/aknin,et-al_making-a-difference_%20JEBO.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2014.891154#">here</a>), individuals instructed to spend on others experienced greater happiness than those instructed to spend the same amount on themselves.</p>
<p>The effect is even stronger if you spend that money on a <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017018">strong social bond</a>, such as your Valentine.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71698/original/image-20150211-25688-906wew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s not always about the gift, sometimes it’s the shared encounter that’s more important.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/quattro_ftw/3424691075/">Flickr/julian wylegly</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Third, if you do give a gift, you’re best to pay heed to any dropped hints by your partner about desired gifts.</p>
<p>This is especially the case if your loved one is a man. <a href="http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/2/12/bad-valentines-day-gifts-do-they-hurt-your-relationship.html">In one study</a>, men who received an undesired gift from their partners became pessimistic about the future of their relationship. Women didn’t react quite so poorly to a bad gift.</p>
<h2>All you need is love</h2>
<p>Of course, don’t think that love is just for lovers – even on Valentine’s Day.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F_Dn0pnscKg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Love Actually anyone?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the robustly supported conclusion that close non-romantic friendships can be just as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/david-brooks-there-are-social-and-political-benefits-to-having-friends.html">rewarding</a> (and <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/a-new-risk-factor-your-social-life/">health promoting</a>) as romantic relationships, an alternative is to treat Valentine’s Day as an opportunity to celebrate all of your social relationships.</p>
<p>Scientific research supports the benefits of the following, simple (and free) acts:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-words-saying-thank-you-does-make-a-difference-30920">thank you note</a> can boost relationships of all types </p></li>
<li><p>a hug can make both parties <a href="http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/7-ways-hugging-makes-you-healthier-and-happier.html">happier</a> and even <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/01/31/can_hugs_make_you_healthier/">less stressed</a> </p></li>
<li><p>simply engaging in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/sunday/hello-stranger.html">chit-chat</a> with those around you could be extremely rewarding</p></li>
<li><p>just a few minutes of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-seppala-phd/18-sciencebased-reasons-t_b_5823952.html">loving-kindness mediation</a> – wishing for happiness for yourself and those around you – can lead to a sense of deeper connection with others.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>If all else fails on Valentine’s Day, then settle back and listen to Stephen Stills’ classic song Love The One You’re With: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v2z0us0JPM4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa A Williams receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP130102110, DP130104468, LP140100034).</span></em></p>Take care lovers, wherever you are, as Valentine’s Day is soon upon us. Whether you’re in a relationship or want to be in a relationship, research over a number of years shows that February 14 can be a…Lisa A Williams, Lecturer, School of Psychology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/286732014-07-04T04:55:57Z2014-07-04T04:55:57ZPsychologists thought meddling parents were good for couples – they were wrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/52783/original/ctgcxy97-1404224276.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mum and dad really shouldn't have got involved.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ceefax55/5805046674">ceefax55</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1972, <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/24/1/1/">a study</a> showed scientific support for the so-called “Romeo and Juliet effect”: that the more parents interfere in a couple’s relationship, the more intense their romantic bond becomes and the stronger the relationship actually gets.</p>
<p>Given both the name and intuitive appeal of this idea, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that this effect has been cited hundreds of times in academic journals and textbooks. In recent years, however, several scientists (myself included) have grown sceptical. It just doesn’t seem to fit with what the broader literature on social approval and relationships has reported.</p>
<p>For instance, I published a series of three studies over the past decade showing that when one’s family and friends do not accept or approve of one’s relationship, the health of the partners and the quality of the relationship tends to suffer. Specifically, when people perceive that their romantic relationship is marginalised, not only do they report <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431187">worse physical and psychological health</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278710/">less commitment to their relationship</a>, but they also have an <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00429.x/">increased likelihood of breaking up</a> in the next year. </p>
<p>In light of these results, one might reasonably predict the opposite of the Romeo and Juliet effect: when parents don’t approve of a relationship and try to interfere, that relationship is more likely to deteriorate rather than flourish.</p>
<p>But if this is the case, how do we explain the findings of the 1972 study? Since the Romeo and Juliet effect was first reported, no one has studied this idea using the exact same set of measures as the original researchers. A new study just published in the journal <a href="http://www.psycontent.com/content/rq834j532548k670/fulltext.html">Social Psychology</a> tried a direct replication of the original study in an attempt to see if the findings hold up. </p>
<p>In this replication attempt, a sample of 396 adults who were currently involved in a romantic relationship (half married, half dating) completed two surveys about four months apart. The first time, participants reported on the degree to which their parents approved of and interfered in their relationship. Four months later, participants were asked about the quality of their relationship – that is, how much love and commitment they felt. </p>
<p>The results shows that the more parental approval reported at beginning, the more love and commitment was reported four months later. This was true for both dating and married couples. </p>
<p>Also, the more parental interference at the beginning, the less love and commitment reported four months later. However, this effect only held for married couples. For dating couples, parental interference was unrelated to future relationship quality.</p>
<p>As you can see, the Romeo and Juliet effect as popularised by the 1972 study did not hold up a direct replication attempt. In fact, researchers found exactly the opposite of what this effect would predict. </p>
<p>We do not know for sure how to explain the failed replication attempt. It would not appear to be an issue with statistical power in the new study, given that the sample size was almost 400. However, it is important to remember that the replication was conducted more than 40 years after the original, and a number of cultural and other factors have changed during that time, which could be responsible for the different findings.</p>
<p>In light of this and a growing body of studies finding that parental disapproval is linked to breakup and other poor relationship outcomes, it seems increasingly likely that the original report of the Romeo and Juliet effect may have been a statistical fluke.</p>
<p>This is an excellent reminder that replication is one of the hallmarks of good science and that it is wise not to get too excited about any single finding (no matter how catchy the name or how intuitive it seems) until it has been verified. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Lehmiller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In 1972, a study showed scientific support for the so-called “Romeo and Juliet effect”: that the more parents interfere in a couple’s relationship, the more intense their romantic bond becomes and the…Justin Lehmiller, College Fellow, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/282302014-06-19T13:58:35Z2014-06-19T13:58:35ZThinking about breaking up? You may as well flip a coin<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51671/original/m33zxxby-1403185848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No icky feelings later.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-163430561/stock-photo-businessman-s-hand-flipping-a-coin-isolated-on-white-background.html?src=y5XhFC4GS5FIIz8CY4AMhA-1-41">Boule/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In their latest book, Think Like a Freak, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner urge readers to think about the world differently by training readers’ brains to approach problems in unique ways. In the final chapter, the Upside of Quitting, Levitt and Dubner suggest that, contrary to what many people have told you in life, you should quit. That is, when things get tough, you shouldn’t always tough them out and stick with it. Instead, you should quit and do so sooner rather than later. </p>
<p>Because many of us believe in the adage “winners never quit”, giving up is a difficult thing to do. The authors describe an experiment where readers submitted a tough decision they wanted the site to decide for them. You might assume that since economists were behind this experiment, they would implement a fancy algorithm or formula to help readers make the most data-based decision. Instead they used a simple computerised coin flip to spit out an answer. Despite putting a button that said “flip a coin” before the decision was given, readers submitted some rather serious questions, such as, should I quit my job?</p>
<p>What caught my eye was that more than 200 people asked the question: should I break up with my partner? Given that the coin flip said “Yes” half the time, it must have led to 100 break ups. Of course, not everyone who asked the question would follow through on their decision. But the book’s authors suggest that most people did follow through.</p>
<p>Think about how bizarre that is. Roughly 100 people who were in a relationship broke up based on a random decision made by a computer. A survey later on revealed that they were generally happy about their decision. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, this result agrees with research findings. We know that people in relationships predict that they will be sadder about the break-up than they are when it <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.001">actually happens</a>. My <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760601069234">research</a> found that when you ask undergraduates who recently broke up, “Overall, how would you describe the break-up’s impact on you?” a majority (41.3%) rated their break-up as positive, while 25.7% said it was neutral. Only 33% reported that the break-up was negative.</p>
<p>Of course not everyone would be happy submitting their relationship’s future to a coin flip. In fact, doing so in the first place says something about your relationship. If you are willing to take a 50% chance of your relationship ending, it is quite likely that your relationship already has less commitment. Those with more commitment wouldn’t take the chance. </p>
<p>Relationships with less commitment are <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x">more likely to break up</a>, which may also explain why users were happy when the coin suggested ending the relationship. These users may have sensed that a break-up was imminent and conveniently had a coin-flip to blame. Of course, that coin may be doing both partners a favour since having doubts about your relationship prior to marriage relates to less marriage satisfaction and a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029912">higher likelihood for divorce</a>, especially for women. </p>
<p>Ultimately, as far as your relationship is concerned, whether a coin flip can effectively make relationship decisions isn’t that important. What may be most revealing is whether you would be willing to allow a coin flip to determine the fate of your relationship.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Next, read this: <a href="https://theconversation.com/smug-couples-patronise-singles-to-feel-better-about-themselves-21770">Smug couples patronise singles to feel better about themselves</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28230/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In their latest book, Think Like a Freak, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner urge readers to think about the world differently by training readers’ brains to approach problems in unique ways. In the final…Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/124522013-02-26T19:29:07Z2013-02-26T19:29:07ZIt’s the next Facebook and it doesn’t even need you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20610/original/df2btht8-1361837436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=61%2C88%2C5579%2C4127&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The reputation economy is growing - and it may not even need you to do it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At first it was organising and selling user-generated content and data, now it seems “they” don’t even need you. </p>
<p>What if there was a company that scraped the web and mapped your connections, showing you how many “degrees of separation” you were from other power players in your industry? Key decision makers? Policy makers? Unlike Facebook and Linkedin, it doesn’t require any input from you – as your data is already out there. </p>
<p>And to see these connections, it would cost say $3000 a year. You could type in “James Packer” and the search engine would scan for people you know and who also know James Packer, mapping secondary or tertiary connections.</p>
<p>It will then tell you how you are connected, maybe through friends or boards or organisations and even grade the quality of those connections (strong, average or weak). </p>
<p>And it’s already here according to <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/a-database-of-names-and-how-they-connect/?hp">an article</a> in the New York Times by Andrew Ross Sorkin. It seems this is another technology that will be in play in the <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/09/features/welcome-to-the-new-reputation-economy?page=all">“reputation economy”</a>. </p>
<p>Neil Goldman is the founder of the start-up Relationship Science that is focusing on mapping the corporate elite of America. As Goldman comments in Sorkin’s NYT article: “We live in a service economy… building relationships is the most important part for selling and growing.” Yet, there are limits, says Mr Goldman; while the technology provides the map, you still need the “art” of relationship building. </p>
<p>The way this technology provides a map of network ties, relates to classic sociological ideas about networks; ideas that are increasingly important to articulate in entrepreneurship education. Beyond widely understood notions of six degrees of separation, sociologist <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/people/mgranovetter/">Professor Mark Granovetter</a> coined the now classic phrase “the strength of weak ties”. </p>
<p>This refers to the value that comes from having access and connections to many diverse groups of people. These ties, while weak or casual, are indispensable for entrepreneurs in identifying opportunities, gathering knowledge across multiple industries or multiple levels in an organisation, creating and recognising market trends, and hopefully positioning yourself as a broker between these diverse groups. </p>
<p>This is important in our understandings of the entrepreneurial process as most new ideas don’t come from the strike of a lightning bolt, they are often borrowed, adapted, transplanted from one industry or sector to another. What might seem old fashioned in one industry is breakthrough in another.</p>
<p>In addition to thinking more instrumentally about entrepreneurial networks (and your position in them), the issue then becomes the social skills you have to build meaningful relationships – both online and offline. And this isn’t just about personality. Sure, if you have a bit of charisma it might be less awkward in social settings. </p>
<p>However, Professor of Psychology, Robert Cialdini has <a href="http://www.influenceatwork.com/">written</a> extensively on the universal laws of persuasion, assembling much data to unpack the science of persuasion. He has identified principles of persuasion that hold across social settings, industries and cultures – such as reciprocity, commitment, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. Importantly, these skills can be learnt and applied by anyone, regardless of personality. </p>
<p>So understanding the sociological and psychological underpinnings of networks and (some) social skills are helpful in navigating the reputation economy. But perhaps, the implications of working and succeeding in the reputation economy need to back grounded against bigger questions: Who owns our online reputation? How will we, as individuals and organisations, create, curate, manage and recreate our online reputations and digital history? What start ups will emerge offering such services? Who will you trust? What happens when two years of your online activity is stored and captured? </p>
<p>These concerns don’t emanate only from observing the likes of new start-ups like Relationship Science that is building profiles and dossiers, but the actions of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-29/governments-cant-be-trusted-with-our-data/4490226">our own government</a>. According to <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-inventor-warns-against-data-storage-20130129-2dixg.html">Sir Tim Berners-Lee</a>, such storing and recording of data is the equivalent of dynamite.</p>
<p>While at the moment it may seem novel to create <a href="http://klout.com/home">reputation measures</a> and to ask for these in job applications, the data that can be amassed - by a range of parties - positions the reputation economy at a centre of issues such as identity, privacy, security and ultimately freedom (to change). </p>
<p>Be alert and possibly alarmed at what will be required to be successful in the (digital and historically archived) reputation economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Logue does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At first it was organising and selling user-generated content and data, now it seems “they” don’t even need you. What if there was a company that scraped the web and mapped your connections, showing you…Danielle Logue, Lecturer in Strategy, Innovation & Organisation, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.