People in monogamous relationships can experience a conflict when they interact with an attractive individual. They may have a desire to romantically pursue the new person, while wanting to be faithful to their partner. How do people manage the threat that attractive alternatives present to their relationship goals? We suggest that one way people defend their relationships against attractive individuals is by perceiving the individual as less attractive. In two studies, using a novel visual matching paradigm, we found support for a perceptual downgrading effect. People in relationships perceived threatening attractive individuals as less attractive than did single participants. The effect was exacerbated among participants who were highly satisfied with their current relationships. The studies provide evidence for a perceptual bias that emerges to protect long-term goals. We discuss the findings within the context of a broader theory of motivated perception in the service of self-control.
AviezarH.HassinR.RyanJ.GradyC.SusskindJ.AndersonA.. . . BentinS. (2008). Angry, disgusted or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19, 724-732.
4.
BazziniD. G.ShafferD. R. (1999). Resisting temptation revisited: Devaluation versus enhancement of an attractive suitor by exclusive and nonexclusive daters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 162-176.
5.
EpleyN.WhitchurchE. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Enhancement in self-recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1159-1170.
6.
FishbachA.ConverseB. A. (2010). Walking the line between goals and temptations: Asymmetric effects of counteractive control. In HassinR. R.OchsnerK.TropeY. (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 289-407). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
FishbachA.FriedmanR. S.KruglanskiA. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 296-309.
8.
FishbachA.ShahJ. Y. (2006). Self control in action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away from temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 820-832.
9.
FishbachA.ShenL. (2014). The explicit and implicit ways of overcoming temptation. In ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories of the social mind (pp. 454-467). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
FishbachA.TropeY. (2007). Implicit and explicit counteractive self-control. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 281-294). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
FishbachA.ZhangY.TropeY. (2010). Counteractive evaluation: Asymmetric shifts in the implicit value of conflicting motivations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 29-38.
12.
FujitaK. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than just the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 352-366.
13.
FujitaK.HanH. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799-804.
14.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.
15.
HicksT. V.LeitenbergH. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else: Gender differences in incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 43-51.
16.
JohnsonD. J.RusbultC. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.
17.
JohnstonV. S.FranklinM. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 183-199.
18.
KarremansJ. C.DotschR.CorneilleO. (2011). Romantic relationship status biases memory of faces of attractive opposite-sex others: Evidence from a reverse-correlation paradigm. Cognition, 121, 422-426.
19.
KarremansJ. C.VerwijmerenT. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 939-950.
20.
KoberH.KrossE. F.MischelW.HartC. L.OchsnerK. N. (2010). Regulation of craving by cognitive strategies in cigarette smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 106, 52-55.
21.
KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (1985). Action control from cognition to behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
22.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
23.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
24.
LydonJ. E.FitzsimonsG. M.NaidooL. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: A critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349-359.
25.
LydonJ. E.MeanaM.SepinwallD.RichardsN.MaymanS. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152-161.
26.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.MillerS. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174-179.
27.
MeyerM. L.BerkmanE. T.KarremansJ. C.LiebermanM. D. (2011). Incidental regulation of attraction: The neural basis of the derogation of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 490-505.
28.
MischelW. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology. (Vol. 7, pp. 249-292). New York: Academic Press.
MoskowitzG. B.GollwitzerP. M.WaselW.SchaalB. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167-184.
31.
MyrsethK. O.FishbachA.TropeY. (2009). Counteractive self-control: When making temptation available makes temptation less tempting. Psychological Science, 20, 159-163.
Penton-VoakI. S.RoweA. C.WilliamsJ. (2007). Through rose-tinted glasses: Relationship satisfaction and representations of partners’ facial attractiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 169-181.
34.
PerrettD. (2010). In your face: The new science of human attraction. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
RachlinH. (2000). The science of self-control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
RitterS. M.KarremansJ. C.van SchieH. T. (2010). The role of self-regulation in derogating attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 631-637.
37.
SchmidK.MarxD.SamalA. (2008). Computation of a face attractiveness index based on neoclassical canons, symmetry, and golden ratios. Pattern Recognition, 41, 2710-2717.
38.
SwamiV.FurnhamA. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. London, England: Routledge.
39.
TropeY.FishbachA. (2000). Counteractive self-control in overcoming temptation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 493-506.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
