It's complicated: The good and bad of ambivalence in romantic relationships.

People often feel mixed and conflicting feelings (i.e., ambivalence) toward their romantic partner. So far, research has primarily shown that ambivalence is linked to negative outcomes in relationships, but is this always true? Building off the affect, behavior, cognition model of ambivalence, the present work tests the idea that, when ambivalent, individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitive and behavioral responses toward their partner. This idea was tested in three different studies with people in romantic relationships: a cross-sectional international study (n = 665), a 10-day daily diary study (n = 171), and a 12-day daily diary study with two follow-ups (n = 176 couples and nine individuals). Across studies, when people experienced greater subjective ambivalence (i.e., explicitly reported feeling mixed and conflicted) toward their partner, they spent more time thinking about the difficulties they faced in their relationship but also about ways in which they can make it better and, in turn, engaged in both constructive (e.g., wanting to spend more time with the partner) and destructive (e.g., ignoring or criticizing the partner) behaviors toward their partner. Ambivalence was also associated with greater fluctuations in both constructive and destructive behaviors daily and over time. This work advances the current knowledge about ambivalence in romantic relationships and further demonstrates that individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitions and behaviors toward a partner when ambivalent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The Perks of Pet Ownership? The Effects of Pet Ownership on Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Pet ownership has often been lauded as a protective factor for well-being, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We expanded this question to consider how pet (i.e., species, number) and owner (i.e., pet relationship quality, personality, attachment orientations) characteristics affected the association between pet ownership and well-being in a pre-registered mixed method analysis of 767 people assessed three times in May 2020. In our qualitative analyses, pet owners listed both benefits and costs of pet ownership during the COVID-19 pandemic. In our quantitative analyses, we found that pet ownership was not reliably associated with well-being. Furthermore, this association largely did not depend on the number of pets owned, the species of pet(s) owned, the quality of the human-pet relationship, or the owner's psychological characteristics. Our findings are consistent with a large body of research showing null associations of pet ownership on well-being (quantitatively) but positive reports of pet ownership (qualitatively).

Extraversion, social interactions, and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: Did extraverts really suffer more than introverts?

A large body of research suggests that extraversion is positively related to well-being. However, it is unclear whether this association can be explained by social participation (i.e., more extraverted individuals engage in social interactions more frequently) or social reactivity (i.e., more extraverted individuals profit more from social interactions) processes. Here, we examined the role of social interactions for the extraversion-well-being relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented time of reduced social contact. We analyzed data from an international, longitudinal study (Study 1: 10,523 assessments provided by 4,622 participants) and two experience sampling studies (Study 2: 29,536 assessments provided by 293 participants; Study 3: 61,492 assessments provided by 1,381 participants). Preregistered multilevel structural equation models revealed that extraversion was robustly related to well-being, even when social restrictions were in place. Across data sets, we found some support for the social participation hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between extraversion and well-being is mediated by social interactions), but the social reactivity hypothesis (i.e., extraversion moderates the relationship between social interactions and well-being) was not consistently supported. Strikingly, however, exploratory analyses showed that the social reactivity hypothesis was supported for specific facets of extraversion (i.e., sociability) and well-being (i.e., activated positive affect). Moreover, changes in social interaction patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., decreases in face-to-face interactions and interactions with friends) were unrelated to extraversion, and more extraverted individuals did not suffer more from these changes. Taken together, these findings underline the robustness of the effect of extraversion on well-being during a societal crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Relationship difficulties and "technoference" during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has touched many aspects of people's lives around the world, including their romantic relationships. While media outlets have reported that the pandemic is difficult for couples, empirical evidence is needed to test these claims and understand why this may be. In two highly powered studies (N = 3271) using repeated measure and longitudinal approaches, we found that people who experienced COVID-19 related challenges (i.e., lockdown, reduced face-to-face interactions, boredom, or worry) also reported greater self and partner phone use (Study 1) and time spent on social media (Study 2), and subsequently experienced more conflict and less satisfaction in their romantic relationship. The findings provide insight into the struggles people faced in their relationships during the pandemic and suggest that the increase in screen time - a rising phenomenon due to the migration of many parts of life online - may be a challenge for couples.

Sexual Desire in the Time of COVID-19: How COVID-Related Stressors Are Associated with Sexual Desire in Romantic Relationships.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting social distancing measures have caused widespread social and economic disruptions, resulting in spikes in unemployment and financial instability, along with drastic changes to people's ability to feel socially connected. Many of the changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are risk factors for depressive symptoms, which are associated with lower levels of sexual desire. The current research (N = 4,993) examined whether responses to external stressors brought on by COVID-19 (i.e., financial concern, worry, loneliness, stress) were associated with sexual desire among a multi-national sample of people in relationships (Studies 1-2), and whether this association was, in part, due to reports of depressive symptoms (Study 2). In the period immediately following the onset of the pandemic, more financial concern (Study 1) and worry (Study 2) were associated with higher sexual desire, while other factors, like stress (Studies 1-2), were associated with lower desire. We also followed a subset of participants every two weeks during the initial stages of the pandemic and at times when people reported greater stress, loneliness, financial strain, or worry than their average, they reported greater depressive symptoms, which was, in turn, associated with lower sexual desire. Results suggest that the social isolation and stress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have mixed associations with sexual desire at the onset of the pandemic. But over time, when people report heightened COVID-related stressors, they tend to report lower sexual desire for their partner, in part because these stressors are associated with more depressive symptoms.

Security motives and negative affective experiences during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Self-regulation can help individuals cope during stressful events, but little is known about why and when this might occur. We examined if being more focused on prevention was linked to negative affective experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also examined possible underlying mechanisms for this association, and whether social support buffered it. DESIGN: Pre-registered longitudinal study, with surveys every 2 weeks over one month (N = 1269). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regulatory focus and worry for health (T1), adherence to self-isolation and preventive health behaviours (T2), negative affective experiences, positive affect, frequency of online interactions, and perceived social support (T3). RESULTS: Prevention focus was associated with health worries at baseline and linked to greater adherence to preventive health behaviours (T2). Only adherence to self-isolation was linked to more negative affective experiences (T3). Exploratory analyses showed that prevention focus was linked to more negative affective experiences (T3), but only for participants with fewer online interactions with their family and less perceived social support from family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention motives in threatening times can be a double-edged sword, with benefits for health behaviours and consequences for negative affective experiences. Having a strong social network during these times can alleviate these consequences.

Mixed and conflicted: The role of ambivalence in romantic relationships in light of attractive alternatives.

People in romantic relationships tend to have positive feelings toward their partner and want their relationship to last. However, maintaining a romantic relationship over time is challenging, and people can often experience mixed and conflicting feelings (i.e., ambivalence) toward their significant other. While research has identified the serious consequences that ambivalence can have for personal and relational well-being, very little is known about the factors that can lead people to experience ambivalence in relationships. The present work examines how extradyadic desire (i.e., desire for someone other than the partner), a common difficulty people face in the context of monogamy, is a situation in which people feel more ambivalent toward their partner. In three studies (N = 1,178) using experimental, daily diary, and longitudinal approaches, we find that feelings of desire for an attractive alternative increase ambivalence toward the current partner, above and beyond how much people actually value their partner, and that this has short- and long-term negative consequences for personal and relational well-being. Furthermore, while most people could identify an attractive alternative in their life, desire for the alternative-rather than just their presence-seems to play a stronger role in increasing ambivalence. This work highlights the emotional processes through which attractive alternatives pose a threat to romantic relationships and the role that ambivalence plays in daily life and over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).