PosterPDF Available

The Romantic Self-Saboteur: How Do People Sabotage Love?

Authors:
Raquel Peel at The University of Notre Dame Australia
Raquel Peel
Kerry Mcbain at James Cook University
Kerry Mcbain
Nerina Jane Caltabiano at James Cook University
Nerina Jane Caltabiano
Beryl Buckby at James Cook University
Beryl Buckby
Download file PDF
Read file
Download citation

Abstract

There is a distinct lack of knowledge to explain why some people, having successfully initiated a relationship, embark upon a path to certain dissolution of that engagement. Research looking at self-sabotage provides some answers. However, no measure exists to test self-sabotage in romantic relationships. This study investigated key self-sabotaging behaviours implemented in romantic relationships towards developing the Relationship Self-Sabotage Scale.
Content uploaded by Raquel Peel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raquel Peel on May 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Romantic Self-Saboteur: How Do People Sabotage Love?
Raquel Peel, Kerry McBain, Nerina Caltabiano, & Beryl Buckby
Introduction: There is a distinct lack of knowledge to explain why some people, having successfully initiated a relationship, embark upon a path to cer tain dissolution of that engagement. Research looking at self-sabotage provides some answers1,2,3. However, no measure exists to test self-sabotage in romantic relationships. This study investigated key self-sabotaging behaviours implemented in romantic
relationships towards developing the Relationship Self-Sabotage Scale.
Methods: A total of 608 participants, aged between 17-80, from all over the globe, were recruited using an online survey. These included 156 males (26%) and 452 females (74%). Regarding sexual orientation, the majority of participants reported being heterosexual (486, 80%). Recruitment occurred via online sites such as the primary researcher’s website and social media sites such as facebook and twitter; the
APS research page; and fellow researchers’ online pages. Additionally, the James Cook University SONA research participation system and snowballing techniques were used.
Results: A confirmatory factor analysis of an a priori hypothesis showed a good model fit for three factors (with a total of 12 items) contributing to one single construct (χ2
(39) = 34.962, p = .655; RMSEA < .001 [.001, .024], p = 1; SRMR = .0195; GFI = .990; TLI = 1; CFI = 1). Retained factors were defensiveness, trust difficulty, and relationship skill.
Conclusion: The newly developed scale was based on extensive theoretical investigations and stringent model re-specifications. The final retained model showed defensiveness as the stronger factor. Further, defensiveness and trust difficulty are contributing uniquely to relationship self-sabotage. However, the same is not true for relationship skill. Therefore, investigations should continue to improve the scale
and build a theoretical model for predicting relationship self-sabotage.
FACTORS QUESTIONS
DEFENSIVENESS
28. My partner makes me feel a lesser person.
23. I constantly feel criticized by my partner.
27. I feel respected by my partner.
18. I get blamed unfairly for issues in my relationship.
22. I feel like I am always being tested in my relationships as to whether or not I am a good partner.
25. I feel like my partner is ashamed of me.
5. Fights with my partner often end with yelling and name calling.
19. I often feel misunderstood by my partner.
TRUST DIFFICULTY
8. I get upset about how much time my partner spends with their friends.
46. I do not always believe when my partner tells me where they have been or who they have been with.
44. I often get jealous of my partner.
43. I find it difficult to trust my romantic partners.
11. I like to check if my partner still loves me.
6. I like to know what my partner is doing when we are not together.
45. I sometimes check my partner’s social media profiles.
RELATIONSHIP SKILL
42. I am open to my partner telling me about things I should do to improve our relationship.
26. When I notice that my partner is upset, I try to put myself in their shoes so I can understand where they are coming from.
15. I like to discuss issues in the relationship with my partner.
41. I will admit to my partner if I know I am wrong about something.
40. I am open to finding solutions and working out issues in the relationship.
4. I communicate well with my partner.
7. I understand if my partner does not reply to my text or phone call straight away.
10. I check-in with my partner after arguments to see if we are still ok.
60. A successful relationship takes hard work and perseverance.
57. I believe someday I will have a great romantic relationship with someone.
The Relationship Self-Sabotage Scale Results
Demographic Characteristics
M SD
Age 32.30 13.76
Range (17 - 80 years)
Longest Relationship Duration 8.63 10.56
Range (0 - 61 years)
Relationship Quality 24.84 4.67
Range (8 - 30)
N Percentage
(%)
Gender
Male 156 26
Female 452 74
Other 0 0
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 486 80
Homosexual 28 4.5
Bisexual 77 12.5
Other 12 2
Prefer not to answer 5 1
Relationship Status
In a Relationship
(Committed, Defacto, Married) 394 65
Not in a Relationship 214 35
Affair
Yes 183 30
No 425 70
Seen a Psychologist for Relationship Issues
Yes 210 34.5
No 398 65.5
Discussion References
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Research looking at self-sabotage provides some answers for why some people cannot maintain romantic relationships. Defensiveness is the stronger factor contributing to
relationship self-sabotage. This is in accordance with the understanding that self-sabotage is a strategy people use to protect themselves. Lack of trust is also a strong
contributor. However, relationship skill shows high covariance with the other two factors. This finding possibly indicates that those high in defensiveness and trust
difficulty lack relationship skill. Nevertheless, further investigations are needed.
WHERE TO NOW?
Recommendations for future research include testing a theoretical model for self-sabotage in relationships. More specifically, it is proposed that self-esteem might be a
moderator for self-sabotage. Another consideration for a prediction model will be relationship beliefs, which is hypothesized to be a key indicator for how people behave in
relationships4. Cultural differences are also expected to come into effect.
1. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.511
2. Rusk, N., & Rothbaum, F. (2010). From stress to learning: Attachment theory meets goal orientation theory. Review of General Psychology, 14(1), 31-43. doi: 10.1037/a0018123
3. Wei, M., & Ku, T.-Y. (2007). Testing a conceptual model of working through self-defeating patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 295-305. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.295
4. Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 360-370. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360
5. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. (Classical ed.). NY: New York: Psychology Press
6. Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of A ffectional Bonds. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Raquel Peel, Kerry McBain, Nerina Caltabiano, & Beryl Buckby
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 1987
This article explores the possibility that romantic love is an attachment process--a biosocial process by which affectional bonds are formed between adult lovers, just as affectional bonds are formed earlier in life between human infants and their parents. Key components of attachment theory, developed by Bowlby, Ainsworth, and others to explain the development of affectional bonds in infancy, were translated into terms appropriate to adult romantic love. The translation centered on the three major styles of attachment in infancy--secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent--and on the notion that continuity of relationship style is due in part to mental models (Bowlby's "inner working models") of self and social life. These models, and hence a person's attachment style, are seen as determined in part by childhood relationships with parents. Two questionnaire studies indicated that relative prevalence of the three attachment styles is roughly the same in adulthood as in infancy, the three kinds of adults differ predictably in the way they experience romantic love, and attachment style is related in theoretically meaningful ways to mental models of self and social relationships and to relationship experiences with parents. Implications for theories of romantic love are discussed, as are measurement problems and other issues related to future tests of the attachment perspective.
View
Implicit Theories of Relationships: Assessment and Prediction of Romantic Relationship Initiation, Coping, and Longevity
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 1998
Belief in romantic destiny holds that potential relationship partners are either meant for each other or they are not. As hypothesized, a longitudinal study of romantic relationships revealed that the relation between initial satisfaction and relationship longevity was stronger for those who believe in romantic destiny. In addition, belief in destiny was associated with avoidance coping strategies in dealing with relationship stressors, and with taking more responsibility for ending the relationship. Belief in growth independency holds that successful relationships are cultivated and developed, and was associated with long-term approaches to dating, relationship-maintaining coping strategies and, once the relationship had ended, disagreeing that it seemed wrong from the beginning. Implications and future research avenues are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
View
Testing a Conceptual Model of Working Through Self-Defeating Patterns
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2007
The present study developed and examined a conceptual model of working through self-defeating patterns. Participants were 390 college students at a large midwestern university. Results indicated that self-defeating patterns mediated the relations between attachment and distress. Also, self-esteem mediated the link between self-defeating patterns and depression, whereas social self-efficacy mediated the association between self-defeating patterns and interpersonal distress. A total of 33% of the variance in self-defeating patterns was explained by attachment anxiety and avoidance; 39% of the variance in self-esteem and 13% of the variance in social self-efficacy were explained by self-defeating patterns and/or attachment anxiety; 50% of the variance in depression was explained by attachment anxiety, self-defeating patterns, and self-esteem; 45% of the variance in interpersonal distress was explained by attachment anxiety and avoidance, self-defeating patterns, and social self-efficacy.
View
Patterns of attachment: A Psychological Study Of The Strange Situation
Article
  • Jan 1979
Ethological attachment theory is a landmark of 20th century social and behavioral sciences theory and research. This new paradigm for understanding primary relationships across the lifespan evolved from John Bowlby's critique of psychoanalytic drive theory and his own clinical observations, supplemented by his knowledge of fields as diverse as primate ethology, control systems theory, and cognitive psychology. By the time he had written the first volume of his classic Attachment and Loss trilogy, Mary D. Salter Ainsworth's naturalistic observations in Uganda and Baltimore, and her theoretical and descriptive insights about maternal care and the secure base phenomenon had become integral to attachment theory. Patterns of Attachment reports the methods and key results of Ainsworth's landmark Baltimore Longitudinal Study. Following upon her naturalistic home observations in Uganda, the Baltimore project yielded a wealth of enduring, benchmark results on the nature of the child's tie to its primary caregiver and the importance of early experience. It also addressed a wide range of conceptual and methodological issues common to many developmental and longitudinal projects, especially issues of age appropriate assessment, quantifying behavior, and comprehending individual differences. In addition, Ainsworth and her students broke new ground, clarifying and defining new concepts, demonstrating the value of the ethological methods and insights about behavior. Today, as we enter the fourth generation of attachment study, we have a rich and growing catalogue of behavioral and narrative approaches to measuring attachment from infancy to adulthood. Each of them has roots in the Strange Situation and the secure base concept presented in Patterns of Attachment. It inclusion in the Psychology Press Classic Editions series reflects Patterns of Attachment's continuing significance and insures its availability to new generations of students, researchers, and clinicians.
View
From Stress to Learning: Attachment Theory Meets Goal Orientation Theory
Article
  • Mar 2010
Few investigators have explored connections between attachment theory and goal orientation theory. Although the theories differ in important ways, we suggest there is a striking similarity in their depiction of an adaptive pathway leading from stress to learning goals and constructive strategies, and a contrasting pathway leading from stress to self-validation goals and defensive strategies. We review evidence from two leading investigators—Mario Mikulincer in adult attachment theory and Carol Dweck in goal orientation theory—to show that, following failure and other setbacks, learning as compared to self-validation goals are more likely to lead to cognitive openness, problem-solving, support-seeking, and adaptive emotion regulation. The theories differ in their understanding of the views underlying learning and self-validation goals, and those differences have led to qualitatively different interventions. We suggest how attachment and goal orientation theory interventions can be integrated to maximize optimal functioning in stressful conditions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
View