Women Control Male Romantic Partners to Pursue Extra Pair Partners INTRODUCTION MATE GUARDING AND MATE RETENTION Mate guarding controls with whom the female has sexual contact (e.g., Emlen & Wrege, 1986; Shackelford, Goetz, Guta, & Schmitt, 2006). Mate guarding in romantic relationships reduces cost of investment in unrelated offspring (e.g., Emlen & Wrege, 1986; Shackelford, Goetz, Guta, & Schmitt, 2006). Males remove partner from social settings to decrease risk of possible threats by other males (Shackelford, et al., 2006). CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR AND INDEPENDENCE Less costly controlling behaviors (time restriction with others) can escalate to more costly behaviors (physical abuse) (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men restrict partner’s sexual contact to increase paternity certainty (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women may have different motivations. COMMITMENT AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR When women’s commitment is low, they may be more controlling to avoid partner contact. Some women benefit from having a long term partner but also pursuing an Extra Pair Partner (EPP). METHOD Participants had a mean age of (SD=6.37; N = 1069). Race/Ethnicity:Marital Status: % Caucasian - 34% Single % African American % Dating Someone - 8.6% Hispanic - 4.2% Engaged - 8.8% Other- 8% Married MEASURES Controlling Behavior Scale (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005) How frequently participants performed controlling behaviors in a romantic relationship over the course of one month. Relationship Investment (Rustbult, 1983) Degree of reported investment in relationship. Subscales: reward, costs, satisfaction, commitment, and dating alternatives. The Partner Specific Investment Inventory (Ellis, 1998) Degree of investment in a romantic relationship. Subscales: future orientated, sexualizing other, monetary and time investment. INTRODUCTION MATE GUARDING AND MATE RETENTION Mate guarding controls with whom the female has sexual contact (e.g., Emlen & Wrege, 1986; Shackelford, Goetz, Guta, & Schmitt, 2006). Mate guarding in romantic relationships reduces cost of investment in unrelated offspring (e.g., Emlen & Wrege, 1986; Shackelford, Goetz, Guta, & Schmitt, 2006). Males remove partner from social settings to decrease risk of possible threats by other males (Shackelford, et al., 2006). CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR AND INDEPENDENCE Less costly controlling behaviors (time restriction with others) can escalate to more costly behaviors (physical abuse) (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men restrict partner’s sexual contact to increase paternity certainty (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women may have different motivations. COMMITMENT AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR When women’s commitment is low, they may be more controlling to avoid partner contact. Some women benefit from having a long term partner but also pursuing an Extra Pair Partner (EPP). METHOD Participants had a mean age of (SD=6.37; N = 1069). Race/Ethnicity:Marital Status: % Caucasian - 34% Single % African American % Dating Someone - 8.6% Hispanic - 4.2% Engaged - 8.8% Other- 8% Married MEASURES Controlling Behavior Scale (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005) How frequently participants performed controlling behaviors in a romantic relationship over the course of one month. Relationship Investment (Rustbult, 1983) Degree of reported investment in relationship. Subscales: reward, costs, satisfaction, commitment, and dating alternatives. The Partner Specific Investment Inventory (Ellis, 1998) Degree of investment in a romantic relationship. Subscales: future orientated, sexualizing other, monetary and time investment. RESULTS H1: Women who were more controlling reported that their relationships were: Less rewarding (r =.-213, p=.00) Less satisfying (r = -.352, p=.00) Less committed (r = -.154, p=.00) More costly (r =.255, p=.00) H1: Women who were controlling were less likely to: Invest in the future (r = -.146, p=.00) Invest more time (r = -.343, p=.00) Be honest with partner (r =-.488, p=.00) Have a positive social attitude with partner (r = -.393, p=.00) H2: Women who reported that they were more controlling also reported that they had better alternatives to their partner than women who reported that they were less controlling, (r=.311, p=.00). RESULTS H1: Women who were more controlling reported that their relationships were: Less rewarding (r =.-213, p=.00) Less satisfying (r = -.352, p=.00) Less committed (r = -.154, p=.00) More costly (r =.255, p=.00) H1: Women who were controlling were less likely to: Invest in the future (r = -.146, p=.00) Invest more time (r = -.343, p=.00) Be honest with partner (r =-.488, p=.00) Have a positive social attitude with partner (r = -.393, p=.00) H2: Women who reported that they were more controlling also reported that they had better alternatives to their partner than women who reported that they were less controlling, (r=.311, p=.00). DISCUSSION Men’s controlling behavior is meant to inhibit their partner’s ability to pursue an EPP. Women may be using controlling behavior to gain independence from their partner to pursue EPPs. Previous research supports the idea that men control their partners to keep them from cheating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Prevention of EPPs reduce risk of potential cost to a male who may invest in unrelated offspring. Investment in unrelated offspring is costly and reduces what a male can invest in related offspring. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Our research adds to this literature by showing that women are motivated to control their male partners. However the motivation for women to control their partners appears to be different. Women desire independence in order to pursue EPPs. To our knowledge this is the first study that indicates that women may use the same controlling behaviors as men, but for different motivations. LIMITATIONS Only female participants were used; therefore we cannot determine if men use control to pursue EPPs. There is little available research on correlating women’s controlling behavior and seeking independence. Further research is essential to better understand motivations of these behaviors in women. Questions? Contact Alita Cousins at DISCUSSION Men’s controlling behavior is meant to inhibit their partner’s ability to pursue an EPP. Women may be using controlling behavior to gain independence from their partner to pursue EPPs. Previous research supports the idea that men control their partners to keep them from cheating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Prevention of EPPs reduce risk of potential cost to a male who may invest in unrelated offspring. Investment in unrelated offspring is costly and reduces what a male can invest in related offspring. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Our research adds to this literature by showing that women are motivated to control their male partners. However the motivation for women to control their partners appears to be different. Women desire independence in order to pursue EPPs. To our knowledge this is the first study that indicates that women may use the same controlling behaviors as men, but for different motivations. LIMITATIONS Only female participants were used; therefore we cannot determine if men use control to pursue EPPs. There is little available research on correlating women’s controlling behavior and seeking independence. Further research is essential to better understand motivations of these behaviors in women. Questions? Contact Alita Cousins at HYPOTHESES 1.Controlling women are less invested with their relationships 2.Women who are more controlling will report having better potential alternative partners than women who are less controlling. 3.Women are more controlling because they are seeking independence to gain an EPP. Predictorsβp Sexualize other men Self-reported dating alternatives Cheating on partner H3: Women’s controlling behavior is significantly predicted by: