JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY, 41(3), 325–338, 2015 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright  ISSN: 0092-623X print / 1521-0715 online DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.915901

Regretful Liaisons: Exploring the Role of Partner Regret in the Association Between Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction Karlene Cunningham Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA, and Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

Nicole M. German Department of Pyschology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

Richard E. Mattson Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA

Regrets over partner selection can negatively influence romantic relationship functioning. It may even undermine stability in otherwise satisfied unions. The present study extends research on partner regret by exploring its several possible links with sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with the relationship as a whole. The authors analyzed data provided by 351 individuals using path analysis. Primary findings indicate that partner regret reduces sexual satisfaction by first depreciating satisfaction with the relationship as a whole. This effect was especially pronounced for parents and women. Implications for assessment and targeted interventions for partner regret are discussed.

Considering what “could have” or “should have” been is an essential part of the human experience. Often referred to as counterfactual thinking, the “mental alteration” of past events allows individuals to consider how different actions could have changed their long-term outcomes for better or worse (Zeelenberg et al., 1998). Imagining better alternative outcomes (i.e., upward counterfactual thinking), however, can create feelings of regret (Roese, 1994). In terms of a broad definition, regret is an aversive affective experience involving self-blame for making a poor choice relative to the imaginable alternatives. This experience is potentially beneficial in some situations. For example, it enables an individual to compare current outcomes with likely better options, which can assist in future decision making. In other ways, however, the experience of regret can be counterproductive (Roese, 1997). For example, regret is often felt most intensely when there is limited ability to alter the outcome (Beike, Markman, & Karadogan, Address correspondence to Karlene Cunningham, The Miriam Hospital, Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, Coro Building, Suite 309, 164 Summit Ave., Providence, RI 02906, USA. E-mail: Karlene Cunningham@ brown.edu

326

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

2009); that is, when it fosters dissatisfaction in the absence of any avenue of recourse (Roese, 1997). Although widely studied across various decision-making contexts (e.g., health care choices; Connolly & Zeelenberg, 2002; Joseph-Williams, Edwards, & Elwyn, 2011), researchers are only beginning to appreciate the role of regret within romantic partnerships. Yet, the available data indicate that romantic regret is one of the most commonly reported types of regret (Barry, Lawrence, & Langer, 2008; Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Roese & Summerville, 2005; Rusbult, 1980). Moreover, the choice to stay or leave may hinge on the regret experienced when faced with an alternative partner, thoughts of a forgone opportunity, or the prospect of being single (Mattson, Franco-Watkins, & Cunningham, 2012). It is interesting that the experience of partner regret may be an early signal of instability and withdrawal within a romantic relationship (see Schoemann, Gillath, & Sesko, 2012). Regret over a current partner also correlates with lower overall relationship satisfaction (Mattson et al., 2012)—an important indicator of relationship health (Fincham & Rogge, 2010). In the literature on consumer behavior (Taylor, 1997), there is evidence for directional link between experienced regret and diminished consumer satisfaction, although the mechanisms are still not fully understood. Considered within a social exchange framework (see Thibaut & Kelly, 1959), however, satisfaction may decline because better alternatives raise the criterion level for expected outcomes (also see Duck, 1982; Saffrey, Summerville, & Roese, 2008). In other words, an individual’s experience of partner regret may also recalibrate what constitutes a satisfactory relationship, leading, in turn, to decreased relationship satisfaction with one’s current partner. Although regret may act globally on relationship satisfaction, it is important to consider that global relationship appraisals are reducible into domain-specific evaluative judgments, such as satisfaction with sexual intimacy (McNulty & Karney, 2001). It is possible that the same processes linking partner regret to global satisfaction can operate at the domain-specific level. For example, viewing an alternative as more sexually favorable may undermine the perceived value for sexual exchanges with one’s current partner. This, in turn, could decrease satisfaction with the sexual aspects of one’s relationship (Sprecher, 2002). In a similar manner, sexual counterfactuals portrayed in the media may diminish one’s sexual satisfaction by fostering unrealistic expectations about sexual activity or experiences (e.g., Brown, 2002). Either way, these processes may lead to greater regret over one’s currently selected partner, with correspondingly low levels of sexual satisfaction as a related consequence. Examining the sexual domain in particular is especially relevant, as happiness with one’s sexual life may heavily influence the global appraisal of relationship quality for many (e.g., Hassebrauk & Fehr, 2002; also see Nisbett & Wilson, 1977a). In addition, there is evidence that greater sexual satisfaction influences other aspects of relationship functioning (e.g., emotional satisfaction; Waite & Joyner, 2001), which may then generalize to satisfaction with the relationship as a whole (e.g., Yeh, Lorenz, Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006). As noted previously, however, a number of different counterfactual alternatives may inspire partner regret (e.g., foregone alternatives) and could pertain to the relationship more holistically, as opposed to any specific domain of relationship functioning. In such cases, partner regret may directly generate relationship dissatisfaction, rather than indirectly through domain-specific evaluative judgments.

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

327

Present Study Although the possible associations of partner regret with relationship evaluations are interesting and may have applied value in couple therapy, there is little in the way of a well-delineated understanding of how partner regret exerts its influence in the context of sexual satisfaction. This is partially due to the lack of empirical data to support theory formation. As a starting point, the main goal of the present study was to evaluate two possible pathways in which partner regret associates with sexual satisfaction. The first model assumes that the effects of partner regret on sexual satisfaction are mediated by changes in the global attitude toward the relationship. The second model examined whether increased partner regret would predict lowered global evaluations of the relationship by way of diminished sexual satisfaction. We also explored the potential gender and parent effects, as the relationship and sexuality literatures are littered with research indicating that men and women differentially value aspects of the relationship (e.g., sexuality; Kisler & Christopher, 2008; McNulty & Fisher, 2008), as well as research suggesting that relational unions change after the transition to parenthood (for a recent review, see Cunningham & Mattson, 2012). As such, these two groups may be ideal to identify whether the possible associations explored between partner regret and sexual and relationship satisfaction differ as a function of the broader individual and relational context

METHOD Participants Four hundred and sixty participants were recruited online through search engines, social networking, psychology study recruitment websites, and relationship-specific websites. Of the initial sample, 351 provided valid and sufficient information for inclusion in the primary analyses.1 The excluded participants either did not meet age requirements for participation (n = 50) or did not complete more than the initial consent items (n = 59). The majority of the completing sample resided in the United States (76.6%). The remaining participants resided in Europe (11.7%), Canada (4.7%), Asia (3.9%), Australia (1.6%), and Africa (1.6%). The majority were female (59.8%), Caucasian (68.0%), had no children (68.1%), had some college education or had completed an undergraduate degree (39.8% and 29.7%, respectively), and made between US$25,000 and US$50,000 (87.5%) annually. The mean age of participants was 27.6 years (SD = 8.7) and they were either married (24.1%), engaged (8.3%), or in a serious (53.2%) or casual dating relationship (14.4%). The average relationship duration in months for married, engaged, seriously dating and casually dating participants was 102.3 (SD = 81.6), 40.88 (SD = 32.6), 22.1 (SD = 20.6), and 13.58 (SD = 25.1), respectively. Seventeen participants reported being married at least once before. Approximately 49% of the sample were cohabiting, and the average length of cohabitation for married, engaged, and seriously dating couples was 107.6 (SD = 102.6), 43.3 (SD = 39.7), and 14.0 (SD = 14.8) months, respectively.

1As

will be noted in the procedures, study measures were presented at random and thus any participant attrition affected each measure differently as to the extent of missingness.

328

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

Measures Global Evaluations of Sexual Satisfaction The Global Satisfaction Scale (Cunningham, 2010) is a combination of 22 global satisfaction questions from seven frequently used multi-item measures of sexual satisfaction, all of which demonstrate good internal consistency and reliability across a diversity of samples including college students, married couples, and sexually dysfunctional individuals (Lawrance & Byers, 1995; Pinney, Gerrard, & Denney, 1987; Rosen et al., 2000). The item selection process initially resulted in 28 items, which we piloted and refined to the 22 items currently in use. This process resulted in the Global Satisfaction Scale being a relatively strong composite proxy of current sexual satisfaction measures, which demonstrated convergent and criterion-related validity (Cunningham, 2010). Item stems were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Specific items were reverse-scored before analysis so that higher scale values indicated higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Responses were then summed to create a total score. Total scores ranged from 22 to 143 (maximum possible = 154) with a sample mean of 109.9 (SD = 32.0). The Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .95.

Relationship Satisfaction The Couple Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007) was derived from item response theory (for a review, see Harvey & Hammer, 1999) analysis of several of the most widely used and wellvalidated measures of relationship satisfaction (as well as additional items created by the authors). We used the four-item version of the Couple Satisfaction Index, which contains the most highly informative and precise items available for assessing relationship satisfaction. Scores ranged from 4 to 28 and higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with one’s relationship. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .92. The present sample mean for the Couple Satisfaction Index was 22.9 (SD = 5.3).

Partner Regret The Partner Regret Scale (Mattson, Franco-Watkins, & Cunningham, 2012) is an adaption of regret items from Schwartz and colleagues’ (2002) measure, which were respecified to assess regret tendency specific to partner selection. This five-item measure assesses the individual’s engagement in counterfactual thinking about previous partners compared to one’s current partner (e.g., “I try to get information about how my life would be if I stayed with a previous partner, as opposed to the one I’m with.”), as well as unknown alternatives (e.g., “I think I might have found a better relationship partner if I had kept looking instead of choosing to be with my current partner.”). This measure has been shown to be distinctly different from relationship satisfaction using the Couple Satisfaction Index, as well as to account for unique variance not attributable to general tendency to regret (Mattson, Franco-Watkins, & Cunningham, 2012). Total

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

329

5

TABLE 1 Summary of Correlations Variable 1. Relationship satisfaction 2. Sexual satisfaction 3. Partner regret 4. Parental status 5. Interaction

1

2

3

4

0.47∗ −0.65∗ −0.22∗ −0.34∗

−0.44∗ −0.26∗ −0.40∗

0.12 0.37∗

.83∗

Note. Interaction term = Parental status∗ Partner regret. ∗ p < .01.

scores ranged from 5 to 35 (M = 13.52, SD = 7.6), with higher scores indicating greater regret (α = .88).

Procedures The present investigation was part of a larger online study on measures of sexual satisfaction. To participate in the study, individuals needed to be 19 years or older, and in relationship for the last 3 months. After we obtained consent and conducted an initial demographic questionnaire, participants were presented with the study measures in a random sequence to protect against order effects. At the conclusion of the study, a debriefing screen indicated the purpose of the study, as well as websites for therapist referrals (e.g., http://locator.apa.org). Participants were compensated with a chance to win one of four US$50 Visa gift cards.

Data Preparation Several participants had missing data. Missing value analysis (SPSS: An IBM Company, 2010) was used to determine if the data met the missing completely at random criteria (Little & Rubin, 1989). As certain items did differ significantly between those with missing and non-missing data, the data was deemed not to meet missing completely at random criteria. However, it is still assumed that the data is missing at random.2 Because the data were treated as missing at random, multiple imputation was used to estimate missing values. Correlations between the measures in the model are reported in Table 1. Analyses were conducted using Mplus version 7 (Muth´en & Muth´en, 2012).

2Bonder (2008) demonstrated that taking into account the fraction of missing information and increasing the number of imputations accordingly increases the precision of estimates, over and above that of the typically suggested 10 imputed sets. Using the equation posited by Bodner (2008), it was determined that 59 imputed datasets were required. These datasets were created using NORM (Schafer, 1997), and all demographic variables were used as auxiliary variables in addition to model variables.

330

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

RESULTS Mediation Analysis Mediation by Relationship Satisfaction We first examined a full mediation model with regret influencing sexual satisfaction through relationship satisfaction. As was hypothesized, partner regret demonstrated a statistically significant effect on relationship satisfaction with the standardized estimate indicating a moderate negative effect (–.65); meaning, a one standard deviation increase in partner regret associates with a .65 standard deviation decrease in relationship satisfaction. Similarly, relationship satisfaction demonstrated a statistically significant positive effect on sexual satisfaction with a standardized estimate indicating a modest effect size (.48); suggesting that a one standard unit increase in relationship satisfaction associates with approximately a half standard increase in reported sexual satisfaction scores. Together, this pattern of effects implies that increased partner regret associates with lower relationship satisfaction, which, in turn (i.e., indirectly) leads to decreased sexual satisfaction. We used PRODCLIN3 (Mackinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007) to test the significance of the indirect effect of partner regret on sexual satisfaction through relationship satisfaction. PRODCLIN produces a confidence interval, which is a range of possible values for an effect given the error within the sample. If these values contain 0, it is statistically nonsignificant. Our findings suggest that partner regret had a negative indirect effect on sexual satisfaction, 95% CI [–.40, –.23], indicating a small to moderate effect size. This effect roughly translates to the prediction of a 7 to 12 point decrease in sexual satisfaction score for every 7.6-point increase in partner regret total scores. In essence, these results suggest a pathway in which partner regret exerts a negative influence on sexual satisfaction through a mediator—in this case, sexual satisfaction. In addition, this configuration appears to fit the data well, χ 2(1, 351) = 3.03, ns. Mediation by Sexual Satisfaction We also examined a full mediation model with increased regret influencing decreased relationship satisfaction through lowered sexual satisfaction. This is the same model as before with the causal placement of sexual and relationship being reversed. In this model, partner regret again demonstrated a significant effect on sexual satisfaction (–.44). In turn, sexual satisfaction demonstrated a significant effect on relationship satisfaction (.48). The indirect effect of partner regret on relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction was also significant, 95% CI [–.29, –.14]. However, the examination of fit statistics for this alternative model indicates it explains much less of the variability in the data than did our first model, χ 2(1, 351) = 34.50, p < .001.4 A significant chi-square indicates that the association of the variables specified in the second 3Because of the use of multiple imputations, we were unable to generate confidence intervals using bootstrapping within Mplus. 4Additional analysis was also done exploring partner regret mediating the relation between sexual and relationship satisfaction, but it also resulted in a poor fitting model. Reverse but equivalent models will be detailed in the discussion.

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

Regret

Regret

-.45 (-.65)*

-1.82 (-.44)*

Relationship Satisfaction

Sexual Satisfaction

2.84 (.47)*

-.08 (.48)*

331

Sexual Satisfaction

Relationship Satisfaction

FIGURE 1 Path model for the indirect effect of partner regret on sexual satisfaction (Model 1) and the indirect effect of partner regret on relationship satisfaction (Model 2). Results are presented as unstandardized (standardized) estimates.

model is distinctly different from what the data would suggest. Taken together, these findings suggest that although both models are conceptually plausible, for the present data, it appears that partner regret exerts its influence on the domain-specific evaluation of the sexual relationship through a reduction in the domain-general evaluation of relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, this influence appears to approximate a small to moderate reduction in the evaluation of the sexual relationship. See Figure 1 for visual depiction of these mediation models.

Exploratory Analyses Our findings suggest that partner regret affects sexual satisfaction through the reduction in relationship satisfaction. However, group differences may alter the association of partner regret and sexual satisfaction. To evaluate this potential, parental status and gender—alongside their interaction with partner regret—were included in separate path models.

Parental Partner Regret and Sexual Satisfaction We first analyzed a model in which regret acted indirectly on sexual satisfaction through relationship satisfaction, but also exerted a direct (i.e., not mediated) influence on sexual satisfaction for parents. This configuration was based on research suggesting that the alteration in the sexual relationship after children may make parents more susceptible to counterfactuals that specifically enhance sexual alternatives (Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav, 2007), thus decreasing evaluations of sexual relationship more specifically. Estimates suggested no specific effect of parental status on sexual satisfaction but did indicate a significant interaction of parental status and partner regret (see Figure 2). This indicates that, for parents within the sample, increases in partner regret directly predict decreases in sexual satisfaction. Note that the effect size was moderate (–.32). Fit indices indicated a good model fit to the data, χ 2(2, 351) = .84, ns; RMSEA = .00, 95% CI [.00, .08]; SRMR = .04 (see Figure 2).

332

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

Relationship Satisfaction 1.70 (.28)* -.45 (-.65)*

Regret

-.62 (-.15)

Sexual Satisfaction -1.25(-.32)*

Parent*Regret 5.98 (.08)

Parent

FIGURE 2 Partial mediation of partner regret on sexual satisfaction with moderation of parental status (Model 3). Results are presented as unstandardized (standardized) estimates.

Gender Differences and Partner Regret The previous exploratory model was run again; however, path coefficients were allowed to differ across men and women, χ 2(4, 296) = 2.21. Then, the same path model was run, but the path coefficients were constrained to be equal across gender. If the former model is found to be a worse fit to the data, the assumption that the model fits equally well across gender will be rejected. Constraining the paths across groups yielded an overall χ 2(9, 296) = 16.02. The difference, χ 2(5) = 13.81, between models was significant (p < .01), indicating that the value of the path coefficients differed for men and women. Specifically, it appears that partner regret carries a more direct influence on the evaluation of sexual satisfaction for mothers compared to fathers (see Figure 3). DISCUSSION As one of only a small number of studies exploring partner regret, our study aimed to explore whether and how partner regret associates with broad relational thoughts. We hypothesized that partner regret would negatively affect evaluations of the sexual relationship, as well as the overall relationship. Our findings add to the growing literature linking regret with decreased romantic relationship health. In addition, our findings expand on the extant literature by demonstrating the specific route of causal influence between regret and relationship and sexual satisfaction. Of the

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

333

two proposed pathways, it appears that partner regret reduces sexual satisfaction indirectly by influencing global perceptions of the relationship. This finding suggests a possible causal chain that proceeds from general cognitions and affects (i.e., partner regret and relationship satisfaction) to more domain-specific cognitions (in this case, sexual satisfaction). Thus, it is possible that partner regret causes declines in sexual satisfaction through the process of negative sentiment override, in which the stimulus value of a given relationship interaction is aversively impacted by global negative feelings towards the relationship (Fincham, Garnier, Gano-Phillips, & Osborne, 1995; Weiss, 1980). In this instance, the value of sexual interactions may be negatively influenced by the stimulus value of the regretted partner. Therefore, while the quality of sexual interactions may remain objectively similar, general dissatisfaction with one’s partner—and consequently one’s relationship—may alter the perceptions of the quality of sexual interactions. This result differs somewhat from previous work with partner regret (Mattson et al., 2012), which indicated that partner regret is itself predicted by relationship satisfaction, as opposed to the other way around. Nevertheless, the causal direction of the current findings is consistent with those from consumer research (e.g., Hetts, Boninger, Armor, Gleicher, & Nathanson, 2000; Inman, Dyer, & Jia, 1997) and may imply a bidirectional relation between these two constructs overall. For example, regret over partner choice may lead to increased attention towards more attractive alternative partners, thus decreasing satisfaction (as in the investment model; Rusbult, 1980). Furthermore, lower satisfaction may promote rumination about the negative aspects of one’s partner, increasing partner regret. Alternatively, support for these differing models perhaps suggests that the specific effects of partner regret may vary across relationship contexts. For example, it is possible that other relational studies have not observed relationship attitudinal decline because of their sample types (e.g., very young, dating couples) and how easily the regret over one’s current partner selected can be remedied (i.e., partner switching intention). This is in contrast to our current sample who were generally older (M age = 27 years), and in more committed relationships. Similarly, our exploratory analyses evaluated some of the potential contextual factors that might alter how partner regret associates with evaluative relational judgments, particularly sexual satisfaction. As was noted, the transition to parenthood and thereafter is generally difficult on relationships (Lawrence, Rothman, Cobb, Rothman, & Bradbury, 2008). This can be especially

Women

Men Relationship Satisfaction -.43 (-.62)*

Regret

Relationship Satisfaction 1.81 (.31)*

-.53 (-.13)

Sexual Satisfaction

Regret

-.49 (-.12)

-1.37( -.32)

Parent*Regret

-1.47( -.39)*

Sexual Satisfaction

Parent*Regret 9.95(.15)

2.84(.04)

Parent

1.74 (.29)*

-.47 (-.62)*

Parent

FIGURE 3 Multiple group analysis. Results are presented as unstandardized (standardized) estimates.

334

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

true in the bedroom (Dixon, Booth, & Powell, 2000). Specifically, individuals with preexisting relationship vulnerability, such as partner regret, may have difficulty adapting to the stressful circumstances of parenthood (as in the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model; Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009). Although our findings are not longitudinal, they suggest that partner regret may be a vulnerability that acts on sexual satisfaction more forcefully among parents. It is plausible that the stress of parenthood compounds the effect of partner regret, amplifying its salience so that it has direct and indirect influences on sexual satisfaction. It is surprising that mothers appear to drive the differential effects of parenthood and partner regret on sexual satisfaction. This finding suggests that a mother’s regret of her partner choice decreases perceptions of the sexual relationship directly, while partner regret causes more general relationship dissatisfaction among fathers. Clinical Application This study laid out potential pathways in which partner regret may affect both relationship and sexual satisfaction. Although in no way conclusive, these models can serve as a starting place for theory as well as practice. It is notable that these findings hint that individuals who regret their partner choice may be comparing their partners to more attractive alternative partners, thus changing the comparison points for evaluations of relationship and sexual satisfaction. Clinically, then, targeting these counterfactual thoughts related to one’s partner may help regulate regrets. Regret regulation may then allow for improvement in the evaluation of a client’s overall and sexual relationship. When regret regulation becomes untenable, partner-regret centered discussions may alternatively provide a way to empower clients to make difficult stay/leave decisions. It is widely thought that regret is a motivating emotional process; thus, partner regret could be a focus in order to assist clients in identifying an impetus to leave an unsatisfying relationship (Roese & Summerville, 2005). Although additional empirical investigation is needed, these examples fall well within the scope of treatment targets currently addressed by therapist using cognitive, emotion-focused, and other approaches to couple therapy (e.g., Friedlander & Tuason, 2000; Jacobson, Christensen, Prince, Cordova, & Eldridge, 2000). Moreover, regret is an easily accessible treatment target, as it may be identified through a screening as simple as the item-level analysis of popular relationship satisfaction measures, such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (“Do you ever regret that you married or lived together?”; Spanier, 1976). Thus, the ability to assess and to target cognitions related to partner are well within the purview of clinicians. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions The present study has at least three notable strengths. First, the present study used maximum likelihood estimation and took a model testing approach allowing for the comparison and consideration of theory based alternative models. Although, the evaluation of fit does not indicate causality, it does allow for consideration of which model is a more valid representation of the data. Second, unlike other studies that have assessed partner regret, a multi-item measure versus a single-item scale was used to evaluate the construct. The additional items were able to tap the different ways counterfactual thoughts are tied to regret. Similarly, our measures of relational and sexual satisfaction are concise proxies for typically used measures of these constructs, allowing for the use of the most informative items across multiple measures. Last, the study participants

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

335

were varied and diverse, spanning a wide age range and relational lengths, as well as relational status allowing for wider generalizability of the sample. Our study was also limited in a number of ways. As has been discussed, our sample was cross-sectional in nature and, therefore, we are unable to make any causal statements about the association between these variables. Similarly, we only examined parental status and gender as factors that might alter the association partner regret has with our constructs of interest. In addition, our study sample contained missing data. Although corrected for using the most up-to-date methods, replication is needed to establish stability of the findings. Last, our study did not specifically evaluate the content of counterfactual thoughts within our measure of regret, but instead more broadly assessed thoughts about changing partners. Consequently, we are unable to describe whether counterfactual thoughts for parents highlight regret about having a child with the partner, consideration about prior or imagined sexual partners, or even if this group’s counterfactuals orient towards the sexual relationship more so than other aspects of the partner’s ability. Similarly, we were also unable to discern the content of nonparent counterfactuals, thus leaving us unable to explore fully the focus of regretful thoughts for these two groups. The results and limitations of the present study, as well as others (e.g., Schoemann et al., 2012), point to several fruitful areas for future research. In particular, studies of a longitudinal nature are needed to help clarify the association of these constructs. For instance, longitudinal studies would allow researchers to determine whether regret itself leads to declines in sexual satisfaction, whether the reverse association exists, or whether these constructs are bi-directionally connected. Longitudinal studies that assess the specific counterfactuals that elicit partner regret may clarify the cognitive mechanisms (e.g. attributions; McNaulty & Karney, 2001; changes in cognitive structure; Neff & Karney, 2002) directly linking partner regret and sexual judgments. In addition, specific consideration for other contextual factors, such as depression level (Nicolosi, Moreira, Villa, & Glasser, 2004), parenthood, or even financial barriers to relational switching (Knoester & Booth, 2000) should also be taken into account. This would help to better delineate which models, and possibly, under what conditions we can expect regret to be actively working on the relational system. Last, treatment outcome studies focused on the use of regret-centered interventions—such as the targeting of partner counterfactual thoughts or partner regret—may clarify the usefulness of these constructs in couples therapy. Conclusion The present study set out to examine the role of partner regret in the evaluative process of relationship and sexual satisfaction. To that end, we were able to demonstrate that partner regret indeed associates with declines in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. In addition, we were able to model how this mediation may function under different group conditions (i.e., parental status and gender). Findings suggest that for those that have undergone the parental transition, partner regret diminishes the evaluation of their sexual relationship independently, as well as through reductions in the overall relationship. Exploratory work suggests that this may be particularly true for the mothers of our sample. Our findings highlight the importance of regret in the relationship system. In addition, interventions that target counterfactual about partner choice may be helpful in stabilizing or increasing both relationship and sexual satisfaction.

336

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

REFERENCES Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., & Langer, A. (2008). Conceptualization and assessment of disengagement in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 15, 297–315. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00200.x Beike, D. R., Markman, K. D., & Karadogan, F. (2009). What we regret most are lost opportunities: A theory of regret intensity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 385–397. doi:10.1177/0146167208328329 Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.91.5.929 Bodner, T. E. (2008). What improves with increased missing data imputations? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 651–675. doi:10.1080/10705510802339072 Brown, J. D. (2002). Mass media influences on sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 39(1), 42–45. Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 212–216. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2012815 Cunningham, K. (2010). Reevaluating sexual satisfaction through an expectancy lens: Validation of the sexual activity frequency and expectation scale (Master’s thesis). Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/10415/2405 Cunningham, K., & Mattson R. E. (2012). Here comes the baby carriage, but where goes our sex life? In P. E. Esposito & C. I. Lombardi (Eds.), Marriage: Psychological implications, social expectations, and role of sexuality (pp. 1–36). New York, NY: Nova Science. Dixon, M., Booth, N., & Powell, R. (2000). Sex and relationships following childbirth: A first report from general practice of 131 couples. The British Journal of General Practice, 50, 223–224. Retrieved from https://www.pubmedcentral. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1313658/pdf/10750236.pdf Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601. Duck, S. W. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Academic Press. Fincham, F. D., Garnier, P. C., Gano-Phillips, S., & Osborne, L. N. (1995). Preinteraction expectations, marital satisfaction, and accessibility: A new look at sentiment override. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 3–14. doi:10.1037/08933200.9.1.3 Fincham, F. D., & Rogge, R. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 227–242. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x Friedlander, M. L., & Tuason, M. T. (2000). Processes and outcomes in couples and family therapy. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 797–824). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 Harvey, R. J., & Hammer, A. L. (1999). Item response theory. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 353–383. doi:10.1177/0011000099273004 Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 9, 253–270. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00017 Hetts, J. J., Boninger, D. S., Armor, D. A., Gleicher, F., & Nathanson, A. (2000). The influence of anticipated counterfactual regret on behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 345–368. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200004)17:43.0.CO;2-M Inman, J. J., Dyer, J. S., & Jia, J. (1997). A generalized utility model of disappointment and regret effects on post-choice valuation. Marketing Science, 16, 97–111. http://www.jstor.org/stable/184213 Jacobson, N. S., Christensen, A., Prince, S. E., Cordova, J., & Eldridge, K. (2000). Integrative behavioral couple therapy: An acceptance-based, promising new treatment for couple discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 351–355. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.68.2.351 Joseph-Williams, N., Edwards, A., & Elwyn, G. (2011). The importance and complexity of regret in the measurement of ‘good’ decisions: A systematic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments. Health Expectations, 14, 59–83. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00621.x

REGRETFUL LIAISONS

337

Kisler, T. S., & Christopher, F. S. (2008). Sexual exchanges and relationship satisfaction: Testing the role of sexual satisfaction as a mediator and gender as a moderator. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 587–602. doi:10.1177/0265407508090874 Knoester, C., & Booth, A. (2000). Barriers to divorce: When are they effective? When are they not? Journal of Family Issues, 21, 78–99. Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x Lawrence, E., Rothman, A. D., Cobb, R. J., Rothman, M. T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2008). Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 41–50. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.41 Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 292–326. doi:10.1177/0049124189018002004 Mackinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384–389. doi:10.3758/BF03193007 Mattson, R. E, Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Cunningham, K. (2012). How do I regret thee? Let me count my alternatives: Regret and decision making in intimate relationships. Psychology, 3, 657–665. doi:10.4236/psych.2012. 39100 McNulty, J. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2008). Gender differences in response to sexual expectancies and changes in sexual frequency: A short-term longitudinal study of sexual satisfaction in newly married couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 229–240. McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Integrating specific and global evaluations of a relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943–955. Muth´en, L. K., & Muth´en, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgments of a relationship partner: Specific accuracy but global enhancement. Journal of personality, 70(6), 1079–1112. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationship perceptions: Differential importance as a strategy of relationship maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1433–1446. Nicolosi, A., Moreira Jr E. D., Villa, M., & Glasser, D. B. (2004). A population study of the association between sexual function, sexual satisfaction and depressive symptoms in men. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 235–243. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977a). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., & Denney, N. W. (1987). The Pinney Sexual Satisfaction Inventory. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 233–251. doi:10.1080/00224498709551359 Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.805 Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133–148. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133 Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most . . . and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1273–1285. doi:10.1177/0146167205274693 Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., . . . D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208. doi:10.1080/009262300278597 Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 Saffrey, C., Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Praise for regret: People value regret above other negative emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 46–54. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9082-4 Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, England: Chapman & Hall. Schoemann, A. M., Gillath, O., & Sesko, A. K. (2012). Regrets, I’ve had a few: Effects of dispositional and manipulated attachment on regret. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 795–819. doi:10.1177/0265407512443612 Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197. doi:10.1037/00223514.83.5.1178 Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 38, 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547

338

CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190–196. doi:10.1080/00224490209552141 SPSS: An IBM Company (Version 19). (2010). [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation. Taylor, K. (1997). A regret theory approach to assessing consumer satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 8, 229–238. doi:10.1023/A:1007966621364 Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford: Wiley. Waite, L. J., & Joyner, K. (2001). Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 247–264. Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 320. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.320 Yeh, H., Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2006). Relationships among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 339–343. doi:10.1037/08933200.20.2.339 Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A. S. R., van Empelen, P., & Reinderman, D. (1998). Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 117–141. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2784

Copyright of Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.