1. C. Veronica Smith David Rodrigues & Diniz Lopes
Caught in a “Bad” Romance? Reconsidering the Negative Association Between Sociosexuality and Relationship Functioning
C. Veronica Smith David Rodrigues & Diniz Lopes
University of Mississippi Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
ABSTRACT
We examined consensual non-monogamy (CNM), commitment, sociosexuality and relationship quality in adults. Study 1 found an association between extradyadic sex (EDS) and sociosexuality but only for less committed individuals. Study 2 showed that CNM individuals were the most sociosexually unrestricted, but showed no differences in relationship quality.
INTRODUCTION
Sociosexuality is an individual difference in interest in, and willingness to engage in, sexual activity without an emotional connection or an established relationship (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991).
Unrestricted individuals experience less relationship satisfaction and less commitment (Webster et al., 2015), and report a greater willingness to engage in infidelity (Mattingly et al., 2011).
Relationships differ in the expectations for monogamy
In consensual monogamous (CM) relationships, partners have a consensual agreement regarding sexual exclusivity
In consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, partners consent to allow sexual encounters with other people (Cohen, 2015; Matsick et al., 2014; Rubel & Bogaert, 2015).
The current studies examine whether the relationships of unrestricted people are inherently worse
Are unrestricted people less likely to cheat if committed to their relationship?
Do unrestricted people have better relationship quality if in CNM relationships?
STUDY 1 METHOD & RESULTS
300 Portuguese heterosexual adults (164 women), ages ranging from 18 to 51 years (M = 21.64) in CM relationships
Relationship length: 6-70 months
21% reported engaging in EDS
Measures
Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke and Asendorpf, 2008; Portuguese by Rodrigues & Lopes, 2016)
Commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998; Portuguese by Rodrigues & Lopes, 2013)
EDS: Based on answers to 2 questions (Rodrigues & Lopes, 2016)
“Have you had sexual encounters outside your current relationship?”(Y)
“Does your partner know of these sexual encounters?” (N)
An invitation for romantically involved heterosexuals to participate in an online questionnaire was sent through mailing lists and published on social network websites
SOI negatively predicted commitment: b = -0.46, SE = .06, t(296) = -7.17, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.59, -0.33]
Those who had engaged in EDS were:
more unrestricted: t(298) = 6.34, p < .001, d = 0.73
less committed: t(298) = -8.81, p < .001, d = 1.02
Regressions (using PROCESS) showed the SOI-EDS link is moderated by commitment:
Significant for less committed individuals: b = 0.88, z(300) = 3.78, p < .001, 95% CI [0.42, 1.34]
Not significant for more committed individuals: b = 0.06, z(300)= -0.25, p=.80
STUDY 2 METHOD & RESULTS
270 Portuguese heterosexual adults (141 women), ages ranging from 18 to 50 years (M = 28.66)
Relationship length: months
Same Measures and Procedures as in Study 1 with the following exceptions
Satisfaction (Rusbult et al., 1998; Portuguese by Rodrigues & Lopes, 2013)
Relationship type: based on an additional question (Rodrigues & Lopes, 2016)
“Have sexual encounters outside your current relationship been previously discussed and agreed upon with your partner?”
Participant Categorization
CM = 39.6% - No prior EDS and sexual encounters with other people were not allowed
CM_EDS = 30.4% - Prior EDS outside their current relationship without it being agreed upon with the partner
CNM = 30.0% - Relationship in which sexual encounters were consensually agreed upon (all reported EDS)
Main effect of relationship agreement in:
SOI: F(2,263)= 67.91, p < .001, η2p= .32
Commit: F(2,263)=11.22, p < .05, η2p= .03
Satisfaction, F(2,263)=6.23, p<.05, η2p = .04
CNM were the most sociosexually unrestricted and CM were the least
CM_EDS people relationships were the least committed and the least satisfied
In predicting commitment, the interaction between SOI and relationship agreement was significant, b = 0.55, t(261) = 6.16, p < .001, 95% CI [0.37, 0.73].
In predicting satisfaction, the interaction between SOI and relationship agreement was significant, b = 0.39, t(261) = -3.89, p < .001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.58].
DISCUSSION
Although previous research suggests that unrestricted orientations may be associated with problematic relationship outcomes, our results suggests that this is not necessarily the case in all relationships
We extended the literature by showing that relationship quality interacts with SOI and may be a barrier to prevent EDS
Potential limitations include the cross-sectional nature of this data and the possibility of other moderating variables
Future research should examine these variables from a dyadic perspective
Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Smith, C. V. Caught in a “bad romance”? Reconsidering the negative association between sociosexuality and relationship functioning. Journal of Sex Research. doi: /