bims-chumac 2021-05-09 papers

Issue of 2021–05–09
four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Body Image. 2021 Apr 28. pii: S1740-1445(21)00062-0. [Epub ahead of print]38 219-229

Targets of comparison and body image in women's everyday lives: The role of perceived attainability.

Jasmine Fardouly, Rebecca T Pinkus, Lenny R Vartanian.

Appearance comparisons can negatively influence women's body image, but little is known about the potential impact of comparison targets. We conducted an ecological momentary assessment study in which female undergraduate students (N = 146) completed a brief online survey at five random times every day for five days. In this survey, participants were asked if they had made an appearance comparison. If so, they were asked who they compared themselves to (i.e., close peer, acquaintance, stranger, celebrity/model), how they rated compared to that person (i.e., more attractive, just as attractive, less attractive), and how attainable that person's appearance is to them. All participants then completed state measures of mood, appearance satisfaction, and intention to diet and exercise. Upward comparisons (i.e., to more attractive others) to all targets were associated with less appearance satisfaction, lower positive mood, and more thoughts of dieting and exercising than when no comparisons were made. There were indirect relationships between comparisons to celebrities/models versus all other targets and appearance satisfaction via perceived attainability of the target's appearance. These findings suggest that celebrities may be particularly harmful appearance comparison targets in women's everyday lives because their attractive appearance is perceived to be less personally attainable than other targets.

Keywords: Attainability; Body image; Mood; Naturalistic; Social comparison; Social comparison target

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.04.009

Arch Sex Behav. 2021 May 04.

What Drives the Dehumanization of Consensual Non-Monogamous Partners?

David L Rodrigues, Diniz Lopes, Aleksandra Huic.

We built upon a recent study by Rodrigues, Fasoli, Huic, and Lopes (2018) by investigating potential mechanisms driving the dehumanization of consensual non-monogamous (CNM) partners. Using a between-subjects experimental design, we asked 202 Portuguese individuals (158 women; Mage = 29.17, SD = 9.97) to read the description of two partners in a monogamous, open, or polyamorous relationship, and to make a series of judgments about both partners. Results showed the expected dehumanization effect, such that both groups of CNM partners (open and polyamorous) were attributed more primary (vs. secondary) emotions, whereas the reverse was true for monogamous partners. Moreover, results showed that the dehumanization effect was driven by the perception of CNM partners as less moral and less committed to their relationship. However, these findings were observed only for individuals with unfavorable (vs. favorable) attitudes toward CNM relationship. Overall, this study replicated the original findings and extended our understanding of why people in CNM relationships are stigmatized.

Keywords: Commitment; Consensual non-monogamy; Dehumanization; Morality; Stigmatization

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01895-5

PLoS One. 2021 ;16(5): e0251004

Remembering the romantic past: Autobiographical memory functions and romantic relationship quality.

Cagla Aydin, Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik.

Do the reasons why we think about our memories and share them with others have implications for our romantic relationship quality? In the present series of studies (total N = 1,102), we aimed to answer this question by examining whether the self (e.g., creating a stable self-image), social (e.g., connecting with others) and directive (e.g., guiding future behavior) functions of regular memories (Study 1, Study 2) and relationship memories (Study 2, Study 3) were related to intimacy and satisfaction in the current relationship. We further investigated these links when relationship memories were shared with the romantic partner (Study 3). Results showed no association between the self-reported uses of memory for regular events and relationship quality. In contrast, the social function served by the relationship events was positively associated, and the directive function was negatively associated with intimacy and relationship satisfaction. When the memories were to be shared with the partner, only social function was related, positively, to the relationship satisfaction. Findings were discussed in terms of the importance of considering the self-reported reasons for recalling an event and understanding of the contextual factors in remembering.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251004

Arch Sex Behav. 2021 May 06.

A Closer Look at Relationship Structures: Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment Among People Who Practice Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Polyamory.

Sharon M Flicker, Flavia Sancier-Barbosa, Amy C Moors, Lindsay Browne.

Although polyamorous relationships have received increasing attention from researchers over the past decade, little attention has been paid to differences in relationship configurations: some individuals arrange their relationships hierarchically, prioritizing a primary partner; other relationship structures are non-hierarchical with no relationships prioritized over others. Across two samples (NStudy1= 225; NStudy2= 360), we compared relationship satisfaction and attachment security between individuals in hierarchical and non-hierarchical configurations. Greater variability in attachment security was found between partners in hierarchical relationships than those in non-hierarchical relationships; no significant differences were found in variability in relationships satisfaction across these groups. Furthermore, individuals in hierarchical relationships reported lower overall relationship satisfaction and attachment security compared to individuals in non-hierarchical relationships. More specifically, although no significant differences were found between non-hierarchical and primary partners, participants reported lower relationship satisfaction and attachment security with secondary and tertiary partners compared to non-hierarchical and primary partners. Findings suggest that these differences may attenuate with time. Although previous research has found that differences (e.g., in investment) between partners exist in both non-hierarchical and hierarchical configurations, the current research suggests that differences that occur organically rather than in a predetermined manner may be related to greater similarities in attachment security across partners as well as greater overall levels of relationship satisfaction and attachment security for individuals in non-hierarchical configurations. More research is needed to determine whether the observed between-partner differences are consistent with the relationship goals of individuals in hierarchical relationships.

Keywords: Attachment; Consensual non-monogamy; Hierarchy; Polyamory; Relationship anarchy; Relationship quality

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01875-9