New research sheds light on why some individuals choose to remain in romantic relationships characterized by high levels of conflict. The study, published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, suggests that benevolent sexism and anxious attachment styles may lead people to base their self-worth on their relationship status, prompting them to utilize maladaptive strategies to maintain the partnership.

Romantic relationships are a fundamental component of daily life for many adults and are strongly linked to psychological well-being and physical health. Despite the benefits of healthy partnerships, many people find themselves unable or unwilling to exit relationships that are unfulfilling or fraught with frequent arguments. Psychological scientists have sought to understand the specific mechanisms that motivate people to maintain troubled relationships rather than ending them.

The new study, spearheaded by Carrie Underwood, focused specifically on the role of benevolent sexism in this dynamic. Benevolent sexism is a subtle form of sexism that subjectively views women positively but frames them as fragile and in need of men’s protection and financial support. The researchers aimed to determine if having a partner who endorses these views makes a person more likely to stay in a troubled union.

“Some people find it difficult to leave romantic relationships that are characterized by high levels of conflict. This is concerning given that romantic relationships are a central part of daily life for many individuals,” explained corresponding author Rachael Robnett, the director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“We were particularly interested in whether people are more inclined to stay in conflicted relationships when their romantic partner is described as endorsing benevolent sexism, which is a subtle form of sexism that emphasizes interdependence and separate roles for women and men in heterosexual romantic relationships.”

“For example, benevolent sexism encourages men to protect and provide for women under the assumption that women are not well equipped to do these things themselves. Correspondingly, benevolent sexism also emphasizes that women’s most important role is to care for their husband and children in the home.”

The researchers conducted two studies. The first involved 158 heterosexual undergraduate women recruited from a large public university in the Western United States. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 55, with an average age of approximately 20 years. The sample was racially diverse, with the largest groups identifying as Latina and European American.

The researchers utilized an experimental design involving a hypothetical vignette. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two scenarios describing a couple, Anthony and Chloe, engaging in a heated argument. In the control condition, participants simply read about the argument.

In the experimental condition, participants read an additional description of Anthony that portrayed him as endorsing benevolent sexism. This description characterized him as a provider who believes women should be cherished, protected, and placed on a pedestal by men. Participants were instructed to imagine they were the woman in the relationship and to report how they would respond to the situation.

After reading the scenario, the women reported how likely they would be to use various relationship maintenance strategies. These included positive strategies, such as emphasizing their commitment to the partner, and negative strategies, such as flirting with others to make the partner jealous. They also rated their likelihood of dissolving the relationship.

Finally, participants completed surveys measuring their own levels of benevolent sexism and relationship-contingent self-esteem. Relationship-contingent self-esteem measures the extent to which a person’s feelings of self-worth are dependent on the success of their romantic relationship.

The researchers found distinct differences in anticipated behavior based on the description of the male partner. When the male partner was described as endorsing benevolent sexism, women were more likely to endorse using positive relationship maintenance strategies than they were to end the relationship. This preference for maintaining the relationship via prosocial means was not observed in the control condition.

The researchers also analyzed how the participants’ own attitudes influenced their anticipated behaviors. Women who scored higher on measures of benevolent sexism tended to report higher levels of relationship-contingent self-esteem. In turn, higher relationship-contingent self-esteem was associated with a greater willingness to use negative maintenance strategies.

This statistical pathway suggests that benevolent sexism may encourage women to invest their self-worth heavily in their relationships. Consequently, when those relationships are troubled, these women may resort to maladaptive coping behaviors, such as jealousy induction, to restore the bond.

“When we asked women to envision themselves in a relationship that was characterized by a high level of conflict, they reported a desire to remain in the relationship and resolve the conflict via prosocial strategies when the man in the relationship espoused ideals that are in line with benevolent sexism,” Robnett told PsyPost.

“We did not see the same pattern in a control condition in which the man’s gender attitudes were not described. This illustrates the insidious nature of benevolent sexism: Its superficially positive veneer may entice some women to tolerate relationships that do not serve their best interests.”

The second study built upon these findings by including both women and men and by incorporating attachment theory. The sample consisted of 190 heterosexual undergraduate students, with a majority being women. The average age was roughly 20 years, and the participants were recruited from the same university participant pool.

Similar to the first study, participants read the vignette about the couple in a heated argument. However, in this study, all participants were assigned to the “benevolent partner” condition. Women read the description of Anthony used in the first study. Men read a description of Chloe, who was portrayed as believing women should be domestic caretakers who rely on men for fulfillment.

Participants completed the same measures regarding relationship maintenance and self-esteem used in the previous study. Additionally, they completed the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire to assess anxious and avoidant attachment styles. Anxious attachment involves a fear of rejection and a strong desire for intimacy, while avoidant attachment involves discomfort with closeness.

The results indicated that the psychological mechanisms functioned similarly for both women and men. The researchers found that participants with higher levels of anxious attachment were more likely to base their self-esteem on their relationship. This heightened relationship-contingent self-esteem then predicted a greater likelihood of using negative relationship maintenance strategies.

The analysis provided evidence that relationship-contingent self-esteem mediates the link between anxious attachment and maladaptive relationship behaviors. This means that anxiously attached individuals may engage in negative behaviors not just because they are anxious, but because their self-worth is on the line.

The study also reinforced the connection between benevolent sexism and self-worth found in the first experiment. Higher levels of benevolent sexism predicted higher relationship-contingent self-esteem for both men and women. Conversely, participants with higher levels of avoidant attachment were less likely to base their self-worth on the relationship.

“Women and men who were high in relationship-contingent self-esteem were particularly likely to report that they would remain in the relationship and attempt to resolve the conflict via maladaptive strategies such as making their partner jealous,” Robnett explained. “Relationship-contingent self-esteem occurs when someone’s sense of self is highly invested in their romantic relationship, such that their self-esteem suffers if the relationship ends. Our findings suggest that relationship-contingent self-esteem may encourage people to (a) remain in troubled relationships and (b) cope with their dissatisfaction by engaging in maladaptive behaviors.”

“Our findings further illustrated that relationship-contingent self-esteem tends to be particularly high in women and men who are high in benevolent sexism and high in anxious attachment. In theory, this is because both of these constructs encourage people to be hyper-focused on their romantic relationships.”

“In sum, our findings suggest a possible chain of events where anxious attachment and benevolent sexism encourage people to invest their sense of self in romantic relationships,” Robnett said. “In turn, this may contribute to them staying in conflicted romantic relationships and attempting to resolve the conflict via maladaptive strategies.”

But the study, like all research, includes some limitations. Both studies relied on hypothetical vignettes rather than observing actual behavior in real-time conflicts. How people anticipate they will react to a scenario may differ from how they react in a real-world situation with an actual partner.

Additionally, the sample was comprised of undergraduate students, which may limit how well the findings apply to older adults or long-term married couples. The researchers also pointed out that the study design was cross-sectional, which prevents definitive conclusions about cause and effect.

“We can only speculate about causal flow in this chain of events,” Robnett explained. “We would need an experiment or longitudinal data to draw stronger conclusions.”

The study, “Benevolent Sexism, Attachment Style, and Contingent Self‐Esteem Help to Explain How People Anticipate Responding to a Troubled Romantic Relationship,” was authored by Carrie R. Underwood and Rachael D. Robnett.

The physical appearance of female genitalia can influence how women perceive the personality and sexual history of other women, according to new research. The findings indicate that vulvas conforming to societal ideals are judged more favorably, while natural anatomical variations often attract negative assumptions regarding character and attractiveness. This study was published in the Journal of Psychosexual Health.

The prevalence of female genital cosmetic surgery has increased substantially in recent years. This rise suggests a growing desire among women to achieve an idealized genital appearance. Popular culture and adult media often propagate a specific “prototype” for the vulva. This standard typically features hairlessness, symmetry, and minimal visibility of the inner labia.

Cognitive science suggests that people rely on “prototypes” to categorize the world around them. These mental frameworks help individuals quickly evaluate new information based on what is considered typical or ideal within a group. In the context of the human body, these prototypes are socially constructed and reinforced by community standards.

When an individual’s physical features deviate from the prototype, they may be subject to negative social judgments. The authors of the current study sought to understand how these mental frameworks apply specifically to female genital anatomy.

Previous research has found that people form immediate impressions of men’s personalities based on images of their genitalia. The researchers aimed to determine if a similar process of “zero-acquaintance” judgment occurs among women when viewing female anatomy.

“I wanted to take the design used from that research and provide some more in-depth analysis of how women perceive vulvas to help applied researchers who study rates and predictors of genital enhancement surgeries, like labiaplasty,” said Thomas R. Brooks, an assistant professor of psychology at New Mexico Highlands University. “More generally, I have been captivated by the idea that our bodies communicate things about our inner lives that is picked up on by others around us. So, this study, and the one about penises, was really my first stab at investigating the story our genitals tell.”

The research team recruited 85 female undergraduate students from a university in the southern United States to participate in the study. The average age of the participants was approximately 21 years old. The sample was racially diverse, with the largest groups identifying as African American and White. The participants were asked to complete a perception task involving a series of images.

Participants viewed 24 unique images of vulvas collected from online public forums. These images were categorized based on three specific anatomical traits. The first category was the visibility of the clitoris, divided into visible and non-visible. The second category was the length of the labia minora, classified as non-visible, short, or long. The third category was the style of pubic hair, which included shaved, trimmed, and natural presentations.

After viewing each image, the participants rated the genitalia on perceived prototypicality and attractiveness using a seven-point scale. They also completed a questionnaire assessing the perceived personality traits of the person to whom the vulva belonged. These traits included openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Additionally, the participants estimated the person’s sexual behavior, including their level of experience, number of partners, and skill in bed.

The data revealed a strong positive association between perceived prototypicality and attractiveness. Vulvas that aligned with cultural ideals were consistently rated as more attractive. Participants also assumed that women with these “ideal” vulvas possessed more desirable personality traits. This suggests that conformity to anatomical standards is linked to a “halo effect” where physical beauty is equated with good character.

Specific anatomical variations led to distinct social judgments. Images featuring longer labia minora received more negative evaluations compared to those with short or non-visible labia. Participants tended to perceive women with longer labia as less conscientious, less agreeable, and less extraverted. The researchers also found that these individuals were assumed to be “worse in bed” despite being perceived as having had a higher number of sexual partners.

The visibility of the clitoris also altered perceptions in specific ways. Vulvas with a visible clitoris were rated as less attractive and less prototypical than those where the clitoris was not visible. Participants rated these images lower on traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness. However, the researchers found that women with visible clitorises were assumed to be more sexually active and more open to new experiences.

Grooming habits played a major role in how the women were assessed. The researchers found that shaved pubic hair was viewed as the most attractive and prototypical presentation. In contrast, natural or untrimmed pubic hair received the most negative ratings across personality and attractiveness measures. Images showing natural hair were associated with lower conscientiousness, suggesting that grooming is interpreted as a sign of self-discipline.

Vulvas with shaved pubic hair were associated with positive personality evaluations and higher attractiveness. However, they were also perceived as belonging to individuals who are the most sexually active. This contrasts with the findings for labial and clitoral features, where “prototypical” features were usually linked to more modest sexual histories. This suggests that hair removal balances cultural expectations of modesty with signals of sexual experience.

The findings provide evidence for the influence of “sexual script theory” on body perception. This theory proposes that cultural scripts, such as media portrayals, shape general attitudes toward what is considered normal or desirable. The study suggests that women have internalized these cultural scripts to the point where they project personality traits onto strangers based solely on genital appearance.

“Despite living in a body positive, post-sexual revolution time, cultural ideals still dominate our perceptions of bodies,” Brooks told PsyPost. “Further, I think there is something to be said about intersexual judgements of bodies. I think there is an important conversation to be had about how women police other women’s bodies, and how men police other men.”

But the study, like all research, includes some caveats. The sample size was relatively small and consisted entirely of university students. This demographic may not reflect the views of older women or those from different cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. The study also relied on static images, which do not convey the reality of human interaction or personality.

“Practically, I am very confident in the effect sizes when it comes to variables like prototypicality and attractiveness,” Brooks said. “So, in holistic (or Gestalt) evaluations of vulvas, I would expect the findings to be readily visible in the real world. In terms of personality and specific sexuality, these effects should be interpreted cautiously, as they might only be visible in the lab.”

The stimuli used in the study only featured Caucasian genitalia. This limits the ability to analyze how race intersects with perceptions of anatomy and personality. Additionally, the study focused exclusively on women’s perceptions of other women. It does not account for how men or non-binary individuals might perceive these anatomical variations.

Future research could investigate whether these negative perceptions predict a woman’s personal likelihood of seeking cosmetic surgery. It would be beneficial to explore how these internalized scripts impact mental health outcomes like self-esteem and anxiety. Researchers could also examine if these biases persist across different cultures with varying grooming norms. Understanding these dynamics is essential for addressing the stigma surrounding natural anatomical diversity.

“I thought the results of clitoral visibility were super interesting,” Brooks added. “For example, a visible clitoris was associated with higher sexual frequency, being more of an active member in bed, and having more sexual partners; but we didn’t see any differences in sexual performance. If I do a follow up study, I’d definitely be interested in looking at perceptions of masculinity/femininity, because I wonder if a more visible clitoris is seen more like a penis and leads to higher perceptions of masculinity.”

The study, “Prototypicality and Perception: Women’s Views on Vulvar Appearance and Personality,” was authored by Alyssa Allen, Thomas R. Brooks, and Stephen Reysen.

A new study suggests that changing how parents perceive scheduled intimacy can lead to tangible improvements in their sex lives. The findings indicate that encouraging parents of young children to view planned sex as a positive strategy results in more frequent sexual activity and higher levels of desire. This research was published in The Journal of Sex Research.

Many people in Western cultures hold the belief that sexual intimacy is most satisfying when it occurs spontaneously. This cultural narrative often frames scheduled sex as unromantic or a sign that a relationship has lost its spark. However, this ideal of spontaneity can become a source of frustration for couples navigating the transition to parenthood.

New parents frequently face significant barriers to intimacy, including sleep deprivation, physical recovery from childbirth, and the time-consuming demands of childcare. These factors often lead to a decline in sexual frequency and satisfaction during the early years of child-rearing. When couples wait for the perfect spontaneous moment to arise, they may find that it rarely happens.

The authors of the new study, led by Katarina Kovacevic of York University, sought to challenge the prevailing view that spontaneity is superior to planning. They hypothesized that the negative association with planned sex might stem from beliefs rather than the act of planning itself. They proposed that if parents could be encouraged to see planning as a way to prioritize their relationship, they might engage in it more often and enjoy it more.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted two separate investigations. The first was a pilot study designed to determine if reading a brief educational article could successfully shift people’s attitudes. The team recruited 215 individuals who were in a relationship and had at least one child between the ages of three months and five years.

Participants in this pilot phase were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group read a summary of research highlighting the benefits of planning sex for maintaining a healthy relationship. The control group read a summary stating that researchers are unsure whether planned or spontaneous sex is more satisfying.

The results of the pilot study showed that the manipulation worked. Participants who read the article promoting planned sex reported stronger beliefs in the value of scheduling intimacy compared to the control group. They also reported higher expectations for their sexual satisfaction in the coming weeks.

Following the success of the pilot, the researchers launched the main study with a larger sample of 514 parents. These participants were recruited online and resided in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. All participants were in romantic relationships and had young children living at home.

The procedure for the main study mirrored the pilot but included a longer follow-up period. At the start of the study, participants completed surveys measuring their baseline sexual desire, distress, and beliefs about spontaneity. They were then randomized to read either the article extolling the virtues of planned sex or the neutral control article.

One week after reading the assigned material, participants received a “booster” email. This message summarized the key points of the article they had read to reinforce the information. Two weeks after the start of the study, participants completed a final survey detailing their sexual behaviors and feelings over the previous fortnight.

The researchers measured several outcomes, including how often couples had sex and how much of that sex was planned. They also assessed sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and feelings of sexual desire. To gauge potential downsides, they asked participants if they felt distressed about their sex life or obligated to engage in sexual activity.

The researchers that the intervention had a significant impact on behavior. Participants who were encouraged to value planned sex reported engaging in more frequent sexual activity overall. In fact, the experimental group reported having approximately 28 percent more sex than the control group over the two-week period.

“From previous research we know that most people idealize spontaneous sex, but that doesn’t necessarily correlate with actual sexual satisfaction,” explained Kovacevic, a registered psychotherapist. “For this study, we wanted to see if we could shift people’s beliefs about planning sex so they could see the benefits, which they did.”

In addition to increased frequency, the experimental group reported higher levels of sexual desire compared to the control group. This suggests that the act of planning or thinking about sex intentionally did not dampen arousal but rather enhanced it. The researchers posit that planning may allow for anticipation to build, which can fuel desire.

A common concern about scheduling sex is that it might feel like a chore or an obligation. The study provided evidence to the contrary. Among participants who engaged in sex during the study, those in the planning group reported feeling less obligated to do so than those in the control group.

The researchers also identified a protective effect regarding satisfaction. Generally, people tend to report lower satisfaction when they perceive a sexual encounter as planned rather than spontaneous. This pattern held true for the control group. When control participants had planned sex, they reported lower sexual satisfaction and higher sexual distress.

However, the experimental group did not experience this decline. The intervention appeared to buffer them against the typical dissatisfaction associated with non-spontaneous sex. When participants in the experimental group engaged in planned sex, their satisfaction levels remained high.

Furthermore, for the experimental group, engaging in planned sex was associated with greater relationship satisfaction. This link was not present in the control group. This suggests that once people view planning as a valid tool for connection, acting on that belief enhances their overall view of the relationship.

The researchers also analyzed open-ended responses from participants to understand their experiences better. Many participants in the experimental group noted that the information helped them coordinate intimacy amidst their busy lives. They described planning as a way to ensure connection happened despite exhaustion and conflicting schedules.

Some participants mentioned that planning allowed them to mentally prepare for intimacy. This preparation helped them shift from “parent mode” to “partner mode,” making the experience more enjoyable. Others highlighted that discussing sex ahead of time improved their communication and reduced anxiety about when intimacy might occur.

Despite the positive outcomes, the study has some limitations. The research relied on self-reported data collected through online surveys. This method depends on the honesty and accurate memory of the participants.

Additionally, the sample was relatively homogenous. The majority of participants were white, heterosexual, and in monogamous relationships. It is unclear if these findings would apply equally to LGBTQ+ couples, those in non-monogamous relationships, or individuals from different cultural backgrounds where attitudes toward sex and scheduling might differ.

The intervention period was also brief, lasting only two weeks. While the short-term results are promising, the study cannot determine if the shift in beliefs and behaviors would be sustained over months or years. It is possible that the novelty of the intervention wore off after the study concluded.

Future research could explore the long-term effects of such interventions. It would also be beneficial to investigate whether this approach helps couples facing other types of challenges. For instance, couples dealing with sexual dysfunction or chronic health issues might also benefit from reframing their views on planned intimacy.

The study, “Can Shifting Beliefs About Planned Sex Lead to Engaging in More Frequent Sex and Higher Desire and Satisfaction? An Experimental Study of Parents with Young Children,” was authored by Katarina Kovacevic, Olivia Smith, Danielle Fitzpatrick, Natalie O. Rosen, Jonathan Huber, and Amy Muise.