Mixed and Conflicted: The Role of Ambivalence in Romantic Relationships in Light of Attractive Alternatives

Abstract

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).

Full text

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
1
Mixed and Conflicted:
The Role of Ambivalence in Romantic Relationships in Light of Attractive Alternatives
Giulia Zoppolat1, Ruddy Faure1, 2, María Alonso-Ferres3, Francesca Righetti1
1 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
2 Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University
3 University of Granada
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Giulia Zoppolat, Department
of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. Email: g.t.zoppolat@vu.nl. Material and syntax for all studies can be found on
the project’s OSF page.
This paper has been accepted for publication at Emotion (September, 2021). This version
has not been copy-edited and thus may differ from the final published version.
The published version is available through the publisher’s website.
Zoppolat, G., Faure, R., Alonso-Ferres, M., & Righetti, F. (2022). Mixed and conflicted:
The role of ambivalence in romantic relationships in light of attractive
alternatives. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001055

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
2
Abstract
People in romantic relationships tend to have positive feelings towards 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) towards their significant other. While research has identified the serious
consequences that ambivalence can have for personal and relational wellbeing, very little is
known about the factors that can lead people to experience ambivalence in relationships. The
present work examines how extra-dyadic 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 towards their partner. In three studies (N = 1178) using
experimental, daily diary, and longitudinal approaches, we find that feelings of desire for an
attractive alternative increase ambivalence towards 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 wellbeing. 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.
Keywords: attractive alternatives, ambivalence, close relationships, desire, repeated
measure design

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
3
Mixed and Conflicted:
The Role of Ambivalence in Romantic Relationships in Light of Attractive Alternatives
In most contemporary societies around the world, romantic relationships are
conceived as the union between two people (Watkins & Boon, 2015), with expectations for
emotional and sexual fidelity, at least for the majority of couples (Conley et al., 2013).
Therefore, for people in an exclusive romantic relationship, the presence of attractive others
(i.e., other potential partners who capture either short-term or long-term interest) can be a
serious threat to the stability of the relationship (e.g. Finkel et al., 2002). In fact, monogamy
deviations are common and are often the impetus for relationship dissolution (Amato &
Previti, 2003). Given the risk that alternatives pose, people engage in a wide array of
relationship maintenance behaviors, both consciously and non-consciously, in order to
protect their current relationship against the threat of attractive alternatives (e.g. devaluating
the alternative, Lydon & Karremans, 2015). However, these strategies do not always work,
and, at times, even the most committed individual can fall under the allure of an attractive
other (Ritter et al., 2010). When this occurs, how do people feel when they experience extra-
dyadic interest?
For those in generally satisfactory relationships, experiencing interest in an attractive
other may be destabilizing. Because people tend to view their partner and their relationship in
a positive light, even exaggerating their virtues and downplaying their faults (Barelds et al.,
2011; Murray et al., 1996), finding someone else to be desirable may put that evaluation into
question, and create inner conflict. While existing theoretical perspectives have highlighted
the disruptive role that attractive alternatives can play in relationships (Rusbult et al., 1998),
such as by threatening its longevity (e.g. Ritchie et al., 2020), surprisingly not much is known
about the emotional experiences and evaluative processes that people face in these (common)
situations. In these instances, people are caught between wanting to maintain their current

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
4
relationship and experiencing a pull towards another person and, in the context of
monogamy, they cannot pursue both without potential serious consequences for their
personal and relational wellbeing (e.g. Emmers-Sommers et al., 2010). Therefore, the way
that people experience this desire and evaluate their current relationship in the face of an
attractive alternative will likely shape the future of their relationship, whatever that may be.
In the present work, we use experimental, daily diary, and longitudinal approaches to
test how people evaluate their current romantic partner and relationship when experiencing
desire for another person. We propose that when people experience interest in an attractive
other, they experience greater ambivalence towards their current romantic partner (i.e.
experience mixed and conflicted feelings; Fincham & Linfield, 1997), ultimately impacting
their relational and personal well-being in the long-run. By testing this, we shed light on two
frequent and often distressing experiences in romantic relationships: feelings of attraction
towards an alternative and ambivalence towards the current romantic partner, thus extending
the theoretical understanding of how alternatives pose a threat to relationships and
highlighting the complex role that mixed and conflicting feelings can play in people’s most
intimate relationships.
The Threat of Attractive Alternatives
Generally, people have a great desire to maintain their current romantic relationship
given the strong attachment that they form with their partner (e.g. Fraley et al., 2005) and the
important psychological and physical benefits that close relationships confer (e.g. Holt-
Lunstad et al., 2010). But maintaining this relationship over time can be difficult. One of the
biggest challenges that monogamous couples face is the presence and allure of potential other
relationship partners. Indeed, stemming from classic theories of interpersonal relationships,
such as interdependence theory and the investment model of relationships (Rusbult, 1980;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), numerous studies show that relationship longevity is greatly

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
5
influenced by the quality of alternatives to the current relationship (e.g., Emmers-Sommers et
al., 2010): the more the alternative is perceived as being able to provide better outcomes than
the current relationship, the greater the likelihood that the person may leave (Le & Agnew,
2003).
Given the motivation and importance of maintaining relationships over time,
deliberative and automatic strategies are often used to defend against the threat of attractive
alternatives, downregulating their potential appeal (Lydon et al., 1999; Lydon & Karremans,
2015), and ultimately their threat. Early work in relationship science has argued for this
devaluation effect (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Lydon et al., 1999), and a plethora of more
recent empirical research has found that people do indeed defend their relationship from
external threats by inoculating the threat at the start. For example, romantically involved
individuals tend to quickly reveal their relationship status to an attractive other (Linardatos &
Lydon, 2011), judge them as less attractive than single people do (Karremans et al., 2011),
pay less deliberative and automatic attention to them (Linardatos & Lydon, 2011; Maner et
al., 2009; McNulty et al., 2018), and remember more negative than positive attributes
(Visserman & Karremans, 2014). Given that people’s evaluation of their relationship is
greatly influenced by the quality of their alternatives and the extent to which they perceive
them to be more or less desirable than their current partner (Le & Agnew, 2003; Lydon et al.,
1999; Rusbult, 1983), these processes that downgrade the appeal of alternatives are powerful
relationship maintenance tools. Indeed, social comparison processes are activated when
people are confronted with an attractive alternative to their current romantic partner,
threatening their relationship satisfaction (Rusbult, 1983) and rendering other options
potentially more appealing (MacDonald et al., 2021). To the extent that people continue to
ignore alternatives or view them as less appealing, their current romantic partner will remain

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
6
the better and more appealing option, supporting relationship longevity. However, despite
these strategies, the eye and heart often still wander (Emmers-Sommers et al., 2010).
While relationship maintenance processes help protect the current relationship,
safeguarding the benefits that the bond provides (e.g. Dush & Amato, 2005), people do not
always downplay or ignore attractive others. Indeed, despite the strong monogamy norms in
most contemporary societies (Conley et al., 2013), infidelity is common, with reports ranging
from 20% to 60% for committed couples (e.g. Emmers-Sommers et al., 2010; Mark et al.,
2011). As infidelity is a clear violation of the exclusivity expectation, it is one of the most
distressing events for intimate relationships (Hall & Fincham 2009), and the most prevalent
reason for marriage dissolution (Amato & Previti, 2003; Yuan & Weiser, 2019).
Given the significant consequences of straying from one’s relationship partner, it is
surprising that very little is known about how people feel when they do encounter feelings of
attraction towards an alternative potential mate, and particularly how this plays out in daily
life and overtime. Previous research has shown that the quality of attractive alternatives in
one’s life is negatively associated with commitment and satisfaction in the current
relationship (Le & Agnew, 2003; Tran et al., 2019). Yet, given the scarcity of longitudinal
evidence documenting actual changes over time, it remains unclear whether the desire for
alternatives is a precursor or consequence of how people evaluate their partner and
relationship. A notable exception comes from a study showing that having the automatic
tendency to direct attention to general attractive others (as measured in a dot probe paradigm;
Maner et al., 2007) is a predictor of later infidelity and break up (McNulty et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, very little is known about the evaluative process that occurs when desire
toward another person arises and how this desire in turn may alter the appraisal of the partner
and relationship. Instead, prior research has primarily focused on the automatic relationship
maintenance processes that suppress desire, leaving the questions of a) what happens when

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
7
this desire is felt – both in the short and long term – and b) how this desire affects the
individual’s own well-being outside of the context of sexual infidelity (e.g. Hall & Fincham,
2009) greatly unexplored. This is a significant theoretical and practical gap considering the
likely frequency at which interest in others is piqued and the consequences it may have for
those who experience it. Thus, understanding people’s experiences when encountering
feelings of attraction towards an alternative is important both for understanding the ways in
which alternatives pose a threat to relationships as well as to develop interventions to help
people understand and cope with their extra-dyadic feelings, potentially preventing
subsequent sexual infidelity.
Ambivalence and Attractive Alternatives
People in non-distressed relationships tend to hold their partner and relationship in
high esteem (Barelds et al., 2011). These positive evaluations are valuable for relationship
prosperity, as they help people feel good about their relationship and maintain their
commitment over time (e.g. Murray et al., 1996). However, people are not always so secure
in their evaluations, and most people experience some conflicting feelings – or ambivalence -
towards their partner at some point (e.g. Birmingham et al., 2019; Uchino et al., 2013; Zayas
& Shoda, 2015). These conflicting feelings can arise or be exacerbated by various diagnostic
events or situations within the relationship (Joel et al., 2021). Although people are not always
aware of their mixed feelings or experience them continuously, ambivalence is a common
and normal part of relationships (e.g. Fincham & Linfield, 1977; Uchino et al., 2014; Zayas
et al., 2017), given that the benefits and rewards associated with them, such as love and
companionship, are also accompanied by inevitable costs and threats, such as disappointment
and conflict (e.g. Gable et al., 2003). These mixed experiences give rise to conflicting
feelings towards the partner (Zayas & Shoda, 2015), which can be troublesome, as they often
occur when people are already invested in the relationship (Miller et al., 2006).

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
8
While people may not necessarily be aware of these mixed evaluations (e.g. Zayas et
al., 2017), ambivalence is particularly distressing when people do become consciously aware
of it, that is when they experience subjective ambivalence (e.g. Priester & Petty, 1996; Van
Harreveld et al., 2015). In particular, previous research has shown that ambivalence becomes
more salient (and therefore people are more aware of it) when needing to make a personally
relevant choice (e.g. Schneider & Schwarz, 2017). For example, in a study in which students
wrote about a labor law that could affect their future employment, they experienced greater
ambivalence when needing to choose whether they were in favor or against the new
regulation, rather than when simply writing about it without having to take a position (Van
Harreveld et al., 2009a). This is because, when making a decision, the individual must
evaluate all the different options and doing so brings saliency to both the positive and
negative aspects of each option (Reich & Wheeler, 2016).
While most of the research on the emergence of subjective ambivalence as a function
of decision making has centered around more abstract attitude objects, such as in the example
provided above, initial evidence suggests that a similar process occurs in close relationships.
For example, in a study with people contemplating a break-up, people experienced a great
deal of inner conflict when thinking about their choice, feeling strongly about both the
reasons for staying and also the reasons for leaving the relationship (Joel et al., 2018). In a
subsequent study, Joel and colleagues (2021) found that people who scored higher on a
“stay/leave ambivalence” scale, that is people who were more torn on the decision of whether
to remain in their relationship or not, experienced greater daily turmoil in their relationship
evaluations. Thus, while people tend to generally have mixed feelings throughout their
relationship (Zayas & Shoda, 2015), these mixed feelings may become particularly salient or
become exacerbated when having to make a relationship-relevant decision.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
9
A particularly tricky situation in which people may consider this type of decision –
and thus experience greater ambivalence – is in the context of extra-dyadic interest. As social
exchange and interdependence theory suggest (Levinger, 1976; Rusbult, 1983), relational
stability and satisfaction are greatly influenced by the subjective evaluation of one’s own
relationship ‘rewards’ and ‘costs’ compared to those that could be obtained through other
possible relationships (e.g. Amato & Hohman-Marriot, 2007; Levinger, 1976). According to
these perspectives, the positive and negative outcomes associated with the current
relationship provide valuable information that motivates people to make an important
relationship relevant choice, and having good alternatives is one of the strongest reasons to
change the relationship one is currently in (e.g. transforming a monogamous relationship to a
consensually non-monogamous one; MacDonald et al., 2021) or leave the relationship
altogether (Machia & Ogolsky, 2020). Importantly, the evaluative process that people go
through when making these relationship decisions and evaluating its costs and benefits is a
turbulent one (Joel et al., 2021), as it likely brings saliency to the conflicting emotions
present in the relationship, highlighting and exacerbating pre-existing feelings of
ambivalence towards their current romantic partner. Thus, when an attractive alternative is
present, people may experience two different forces, one that pulls them toward protecting
their current relationships and one that pulls them toward increasing proximity with the
appealing alternative. In this way, attractive alternatives likely represent a serious threat to
the relationship regardless of whether sexual infidelity occurs, simply by requiring a critical
evaluation of the current partnership compared to another and thus triggering or enhancing
feelings of ambivalence towards the partner.
All of this is important because experiencing ambivalence towards a partner can have
serious implications for relational and personal well-being. While mixed emotions, including
ambivalence, are not always linked with poorer outcomes (Hershfield et al., 2013), and can

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
10
even be adaptive in certain contexts (Berrios et al., 2018; Moss & Wilson, 2015), feeling
ambivalence towards close others is generally a highly aversive experience (e.g. Hsieh &
Hawkley, 2018). In line with the “ABC Model of Ambivalence” (van Harreveld et al., 2015),
ambivalence has affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences; when ambivalent, people
experience greater negative affect and discomfort (particularly when confronted with a
choice), tend to want to change their discomfort through behavior (such as changing aspects
of the current situation), and engage in greater cognitive processing to try to make sense of
their ambivalence (thus bringing saliency to the issue at hand). While ambivalence is
unpleasant when felt towards a variety of attitude objects, from political topics to food
(Nohlen et al., 2014; Schneider et al., 2015), it is especially disconcerting in the context of
close relationships because it conflicts with the overly positive way people would prefer to
see and feel about their partner (Miller et al., 2006; Murray, 1999).
Importantly, ambivalence is distinct from simply having negative affect, and previous
research has found that those who experience evaluation conflict (i.e. ambivalence)
experience worse relational as well as personal outcomes compared to those who have more
stable evaluations (e.g. Whitton et al, 2014). When experiencing ambivalence, people are also
more likely to experience poorer relationship satisfaction (Lavner et al., 2012) and, given its
troublesome nature, be motivated to reduce their conflicting feelings (Van Harreveld et al.,
2015). One way to reduce ambivalence is to change the situation – by altering it or exiting
from it altogether. Thus, we suggest that when experiencing extra-dyadic interest, in addition
to experiencing lower relationship satisfaction, people may come to desire to change their
partner (perhaps in an attempt to change the value derived from their relationship compared
to a potential alternative one) and come to think about leaving the relationship all together
(Joel et al., 2018; Righetti et al., 2020). Furthermore, in addition to the implications that it has
for relationships, ambivalence in close relationships is also linked with serious health

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
11
outcomes, such as poorer cardiovascular and immune functioning, and greater stress and
anxiety (Birmingham et al., 2015, 2019; Herr et al., 2019; Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019;
Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018; Uchino et al., 2013, 2014). Therefore, we argue that people who
experience desire towards an attractive alternative feel more ambivalence towards their
current romantic partner and experience poorer personal and relationship outcomes. By
testing these hypotheses, we can begin to unravel the experiences that people encounter when
feelings of desire towards an alternative occur and their consequences for their own personal
and relational wellbeing.
Research Overview
Three studies (N = 1178) were conducted
1
to test the link between attraction to
attractive alternatives and subjective ambivalence.
2
The first study was an online experiment
in which we manipulated desire for an attractive alternative and assessed subjective
ambivalence. This provided an initial test of our hypothesis and a stepping stone for the next
two more ecologically valid studies. The second study was a 10-day daily diary with people
in a romantic relationship. In this study, we expected greater interest for attractive
alternatives to be linked with greater subjective ambivalence and that this, in turn, would be
linked with poor relational (i.e., relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, and
thoughts of breakup) and personal (i.e., life satisfaction and stress) outcomes on that same
day. In this study we also tested the ways in which alternatives may pose a greater threat to
1
Material for all studies can be found on the Open Science Framework page for the project:
https://osf.io/er49g/?view_only=3a6ae7ef2ffc4bdfb7a20ed4219dc0d.
2
In all studies, we used subjective ambivalence rather than another common measure of ambivalence known as
objective or potential ambivalence (i.e. experiencing both positive and negative emotions at the same time
without necessarily being aware of these mixed feelings or experiencing them as conflicting; Priester & Petty,
1996). Objective ambivalence is measured by asking people to rate the extent to which they experience positive
and negative feelings towards a target and using a formula to calculate an ambivalence score; subjective
ambivalence is measured by asking people to directly rate the extent of their mixed and conflicting feelings
towards a target. In our work we were primarily interested in the awareness of ambivalence (i.e. subjective
ambivalence) because it is subjective ambivalence, and not objective, that is theorized to become more salient
when there is a choice to be made and is also theorized to be particularly discomforting (e.g. van Harreveld et
al., 2009) with possible detrimental consequences for personal and relational well-being.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
12
the relationship by assessing whether participants experienced greater ambivalence
depending on the presence, the number, or the desire towards attractive alternatives in their
life. Finally, the third study consisted of two parts: a 14-day daily diary and a longitudinal
study with couples. We again tested whether interest for attractive alternatives was linked
with greater ambivalence for the partner and whether this, in turn, was linked with poor
relational (i.e., relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, and thoughts of
breakup) and personal (i.e., life satisfaction, anxiety, depression, stress, and general physical
health) outcomes on that same day as well as over time. To ensure that the effect of attraction
to attractive alternatives was specific to subjective ambivalence (i.e., the awareness of having
mixed feelings) rather than a general devaluation of their partner, we performed auxiliary
analyses controlling for this variable in all studies. The experimental study provides initial
evidence of the link between attractive alternatives and ambivalence and provides
experimental control, the daily diary studies offer high ecological validity given that the
relationship between attractive alternatives and ambivalence was measured by assessing
people’s everyday thoughts and feelings in their natural environment and close to their
occurrence and, finally, the longitudinal part of the third study, conducted over the span of
one year, offers a unique opportunity to test the long-term consequences of this phenomenon.
Study 1
Method
Participants
A total of 1021 individuals were recruited through the online platform Prolific and
through the online platform for students at a Dutch university, with 993 meeting the specified
requirement (i.e. be above 18 years old and in an exclusive romantic relationship of at least 4
months). Due to the nature of the manipulation, only those who indicated that they had an
attractive alternative in their life (68.8%, “Many people in relationships find other people

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
13
attractive besides their partner. Do you have a person in mind that you would like to date if
you were not already in a relationship? Or can you identify a person that you find attractive
besides your partner?” indicated as yes or no) and identified as heterosexual were included in
this study (this was due to the nature of the study and manipulation as described below; to not
exclude from possible compensation, participants who did not have an attractive alternative
in their life and those who did not identify as heterosexual were routed to another unrelated
study). Thus, the final sample size was of N = 658. The primary goal of the study was to test
the effect of manipulated desire for an alternative on ambivalence, and target sample size was
pre-determined accordingly through an a priori statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1
(Faul et al., 2009). Assuming a small effect size of d = 0.25, and with alpha = .05 and power
= .80, the needed sample size was N = 506 for the between groups comparison (two-tail
independent t-test).
3
Participants’ mean age was 31.9 (SD = 10.6; ranging from 18 years to 71
years), and were mostly women (60%). They reported being together with their partner for an
average of 7.9 years (SD = 8.5), and 68% were in a cohabitating relationship.
Procedure
Participants (all of whom had indicated in the screening questionnaire that they had an
attractive alternative in their life) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the
experimental group (N = 332) was instructed to think about the attractive alternative they had
previously indicated and the control group (N = 326) was instructed to think about a same-sex
friend
4
(all participants had identified as heterosexual in the screening questionnaire). The
experimental group was then asked to write about what they liked about this person, why
they found them attractive, and to imagine and write what they would do on a hypothetical
date together. This manipulation aimed at increasing the salience and desire for the attractive
3
A sensitivity power analysis further revealed that the study had 80% power to detect a small effect size of at
least d = 0.22.
4
Participants were instructed to think of a same-sex friends in order to exclude (as much as possible) the
possibility that they would experience desire towards them.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
14
alternative. The control group replied to the same questions regarding the same-sex friend
(i.e., wrote about what they liked about their friend and what would they do on an outing
together). Both groups then completed the same outcome measures. This study was approved
by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, (#2020-
005R1) and all participants provided consent before starting the experiment.
Measures
Participants indicated their subjective ambivalence toward their partner (3-items;
“At this moment, to what extent do you have mixed feelings toward your current romantic
partner?”, “At this moment, to what extent do you feel both positive and negative feelings
towards your current romantic partner?”, “At this moment, to what extent do you feel
conflicted emotions/thoughts towards your partner?”; α = .83) (Priester & Petty, 1996) and
their desire for the attractive alternative (3-items; “How much do you desire this person?”,
“How attractive is this person?”, “To what extent do you think this person would be an
appealing romantic partner?”; α = .69), both measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all)
to 7 (Extremely). Furthermore, participants reported their partner evaluation (5-items; e.g. “I
like my partner very much”, “I feel a lot of positive affect towards my partner”, “I esteem my
partner very much”, “I love my partner”, “My partner is a very valuable person”; α = .94),
both measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely).
Results
Analytical Strategy
Generalized linear models were conducted to compare the experimental and control
group on subjective ambivalence and desire for the alternative. Mediation analyses and the
sequential mediation analysis were conducted through the SPSS plugin PROCESS (Hayes,
2017), which conducts significance tests of the parameter estimates of each mediation
pathway and estimates indirect effects with 95% confidence intervals using a bootstrap

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
15
method with 20,000 samples. This combination of the joint-significance test with the
estimation of the magnitude and confidence intervals of the indirect effect is considered as
the most sophisticated approach for tests of mediation because it reduces Type I errors and
maximizes statistical power and precision (Taylor et al., 2008; Yzerbyt et al., 2018).
Findings
Contrary to expectation, no significant difference was found in ambivalence between
the experimental and control group (t (656) = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17], p = .659, d =
0.04). However, as expected, the two groups significantly differed on desire for the
alternative, with the experimental group experiencing greater desire (M = 4.79, SD = 1.18)
than the control group (M = 4.60, SD = 1.17), t (656) = 2.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.36], p = .042, d
= 0.16. Results remained significant when controlling for partner evaluation (t (652) = 2.35,
95% CI [0.04, 0.39], p = .019, d = 0.18), with the experimental group still experiencing
greater desire (M = 4.81, SD = 0.06) than the control group (M = 4.59, SD = 0.06).
To test whether our manipulation nevertheless affected ambivalence through desire,
we regressed ambivalence on condition (experimental group = 1, control group = 2) and
desire. Desire toward an attractive alternative was related to greater ambivalence (b = 0.25,
SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.15, 0.34], p < .001, ηp2 = 0.04) and the indirect effect of desire was
significant (b = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.09, - 0.002]). Thus, the experimental manipulation affected
ambivalence indirectly through desire. As compared to those in the control condition, people
in the experimental condition felt more desire toward their alternative, which in turn led them
to feel more ambivalence toward their partner. Results remained significant when controlling
for partner evaluation, with a main effect of desire on ambivalence (b = 0.13, SE = 0.04, 95%
CI [0.06, 0.21], p = .001, ηp2 = 0.02) and a significant indirect effect (b = -0.03, 95% CI [-
0.06, - 0.003]). These results indicate that, as compared to the control condition, people in the

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
16
experimental condition experienced greater desire toward their alternative, which in turn was
linked with greater ambivalence.
5
Figure 1
Mediation model of Study 1
Note. The mediation model of condition (experimental versus control) on ambivalence
through desire for the alternative, (indirect effect: b = -0.05, 95% CI [- 0.09, - 0.002]). All
reported values are unstandardized estimates (b values), with their SE reported between
parentheses. Within brackets in the total effect of condition on ambivalence. * p < .05, ** p <
.001, ns = non-significant
Discussion
Although our manipulation did not directly affect ambivalence, it was successful in
affecting the desire participants felt toward an attractive alternative present in their life. Such
desire, in turn, affected the participants’ ambivalence toward their partner (also above and
beyond their general partner evaluation). In other words, while all participants had indicated
that they had an attractive alternative in their life, it was those who experienced greater desire
towards the alternative that also experienced greater mixed feelings towards their current
partner. Study 1 thus provided initial (experimental) evidence for the link between attractive
alternatives and ambivalence. In Study 2, we sought to gain greater power and ecological
validity to test these findings by using a daily diary methodology, assessing the role of
5
We also explored whether the effects were moderated by gender, and found evidence of a significant
moderated mediation, such that desire was linked with greater ambivalence for men but not women. Given that
this was an exploratory analysis and that the sample may have been underpowered to detect a small interaction
effect (p = .021, ηp2 =.008), we report these exploratory analyses in the Supplemental Material.
0.25 (0.05) **
-0.09 (0.11) ns
[-0.05 (0.11)] ns
-0.19 (0.09)
*
Condition
Desire for
alternative
Ambivalence

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
17
alternatives in everyday life. Furthermore, in order to assess in what way and through which
emotional processes alternatives pose a threat to the relationship and, based on and extending
the findings from Study 1, whether it is indeed desire that drives the effects on ambivalence,
we tested whether people who could identify the presence of an alternative, who felt greater
desire for the alternative, and who had a higher number of alternatives also experience
greater ambivalence towards their partner.
Study 2
Method
Participants
We gathered data from 174 young adults (mean age was 22.02, SD = 3.01, ranging
from 18 to 33 years old) primarily living in the Netherlands. Two participants stated their
data had been unreliable and were excluded from all analyses. Sample size was determined a
priori on the basis of the current best practice guidelines in relationship science (Finkel et al.,
2015), as well as financial and time constraints, and paired with a repeated measure design to
maximize power. Participants were mostly women (75%), and 80% identified as
heterosexual. Participants reported being together with their partner for an average of 2.4
years (SD = 1.9, ranging from 4 months to 13 years), with almost 40% reporting living
together. Sample size is in line with standards for testing mediations using multilevel designs
(Zhang et al., 2009). Participants were recruited through personal approach, social media, and
various websites, and were required to be in an exclusive romantic relationship of at least 4
months.
Sensitivity power analyses were conducted following Lane and Hennes’ (2018)
approach for estimating power for multilevel models. Specifically, we ran simulations to
estimate the smallest effect sizes that could be reliably detected with 80% power in a
replication study with the same sample size and parameters as those in the present study. The

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
18
results revealed that a replication study would provide 81% power to detect an
unstandardized association of at least b = .09 (SE = .03) between daily interest for an
attractive alternative and subjective ambivalence, and b = .15 (SE = .05) between daily
flirting and ambivalence towards the partner. See Supplemental Material for details.
Procedure
Participants first completed an online intake survey in which they signed informed
consent, responded to various baseline questionnaires,
6
and were given specific instructions
about the daily diary study, which commenced on the first Tuesday following their intake
survey. Every evening, for 10 consecutive days, participants received an email at 8.00 p.m.
with a link to complete the daily questionnaire, which was administered through Qualtrics.
Participants were instructed to complete the survey alone, before midnight, and in a quiet
environment, and were compensated either through academic credit or monetarily (up to €40
for completing the intake survey and at least 80% of the daily diaries). This study was
approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
(#2020-005R1) and all participants provided consent before starting the study.
Measures
Intake
During the intake sessions, participants indicated whether they could identify the
presence of an attractive alternative in their life (1-item; “Many people in relationships find
other people attractive besides their partner. Do you have a person in mind that you would
like to date if you were not already in a relationship? Or can you identify a person that you
find attractive besides your partner?”) measured dichotomously (Yes/No). Then they rated
6
This study was part of a larger study with people in a romantic relationship. Only variables relevant to the
current investigation are reported here. Other variables, not theoretically associated with the present study, were
not considered.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
19
their desire for the alternative (1 item; “How much do you desire this person?”).
7
Finally,
participants indicated how many alternatives they had, defined as the number of “people who
you know and might be interested in dating and who might be interested in dating you"
measured in 7 categorical ranges (0, 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51 or more).
Diary
During the diary phase, participants reported each day on their interest in an
attractive alternative (1-item; “Today, how often did you have thoughts of a (physically and
emotionally) attractive other person?”) and their behavioral interest in alternatives (i.e.
flirting, 1-item; “Today, I flirted with people I found attractive”), both measured on a 7-point
scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very often). They also reported their subjective ambivalence
towards their partner (3-items; e.g. “Today, to what extent did you have some mixed feelings
towards your partner?”; α = .93) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7
(Extremely) (Priester & Petty, 1996). For relational outcomes, participants rated their
relationship satisfaction (1-item; “I feel satisfied with my relationship with my partner”),
measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely satisfied), desire to change
partner (1-item; “I wanted my partner to change their behavior, preferences, or goals to
resolve some problems in our relationship”), measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all)
to 7 (Very much),and their thoughts of breakup (1-item; “I had thoughts about possibly
breaking up in the future”) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Many). For
personal well-being outcomes, participants reported their life satisfaction (1-item; “Today my
life was close to my ideal”) and stress (1-item; “Today, I feel stressed”), both measured on a
7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely). Finally, they also rated their daily partner
evaluation (2-items; “Today, I feel positive feelings towards my partner” and “Today, I felt
7
Desire for the alternative at Intake was initially assessed through a 3-item measure as in Study 1. However,
given its poor reliability score in this sample (α = .53), we utilized the item with greater face value for the main
analysis. To ensure that our results would not be influenced by this decision, we also ran the same analyses with
the 3-item measure of desire for alternative at Intake, and found the same pattern of result as with the 1-item
variable (see Footnote 8).

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
20
negative feelings towards my partner,” reversed; α = .82). See Table 1 for descriptive
statistics.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables of interest in Study 2
Note. All variables were assessed on a scale of 1-7, except for relationship explicit partner
evaluation. Correlations represent zero-order correlations across all measurement time points.
*p < .01
Results
Analytical Strategy
Given the nested nature of the data (multiple measurements within participants), two-
level multilevel analyses were performed (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013), in which daily
assessments (i.e. level 1) were nested within participants (i.e., level 2). Intercepts were treated
as random and slopes as fixed effects. Given that at Intake we had level-2 predictors, we
tested the between-person effects in models with level-1 outcomes (measured in the diary)
regressed on level-2 predictors (measured at Intake). Continuous level-2 predictor variables
were grand-mean centered. When considering the diary predictors, we used person-centering
in order to disentangle the between- and within-person effects (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013;
Zhang et al., 2009). That is, all level-1 predictors were centered around the person mean to
examine within-person variations across the 10 diary days (e.g., whether days for which
individuals reported higher (or lower) desire toward attractive alternatives as compared to
Variables of interest
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Desire for alternatives
2.01
1.53
1
2. Relational ambivalence
2.20
1.46
.37*
1
3. Relationship satisfaction
5.77
1.28
-.26*
-.69*
1
4. Desire for partner to change
2.47
1.71
.13*
.57*
-.51*
1
5. Thoughts of breakup
1.71
1.30
.36*
.61*
-.59*
.34*
1
6. Stress
3.63
1.77
.10*
.23*
-.22*
.21*
.19*
1
7. Life satisfaction
3.90
1.60
-.11*
-.26*
.35*
-.20*
-.21*
-.46*
1
8. Partner evaluation
5.79
1.17
-.24*
-.72*
.77*
-.60*
-.55*
-.25
.32*
1

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
21
their own average across the 10-day period were associated with higher (or lower)
ambivalence on that same day). In addition, we also included the actual person means (e.g.,
each individual’s average level of desire for an attractive alternative across all diary days) for
all our level-1 predictors in our models to examine and account for between-person variations
in the diary (e.g., whether individuals who reported higher (or lower) desire toward attractive
alternatives as compared to other participants on average across the 10-day period also
reported higher (or lower) ambivalence on average during the diary). As an illustration, by
including both person-centered scores and person mean scores, we are thus able to examine
the association between one’s desire toward attractive alternatives and ambivalence on a
given day (i.e., within-person effect) above and beyond one’s general desire tendencies
across all days (i.e., between-person effect) (Zhang et al., 2009).
As in Study 1, all the mediations were tested by first conducting significance tests of
the parameter estimates for each mediation pathway and then testing the indirect effects
(Yzerbyt et al., 2018), which was tested using the Monte Carlo method for assessing
mediation (MCMAM), a bootstrapping method which estimates indirect effects with 95%
confidence intervals using unstandardized estimates through 20,000 simulations (Selig &
Preacher, 2008). To ensure that effects of desire and ambivalence were not merely due to
people’s general evaluations of their partner, we also controlled for partner evaluation in all
models (both person-centered scores and person mean scores). Although the total effects
were not significant for all models, we proceeded to test the indirect effects because our
hypotheses were theoretically driven and the significance of the total effects is not considered
as a necessary condition to test mediation (Hayes, 2009; Shrout & Bolger, 2001).
Findings
Intake predictors. First, we regressed ambivalence during the 10-day diary on
presence of attractive alternative at Intake (1 = yes, - 1 = no alternative; 75.3% of the sample

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
22
indicated they had an alternative) and found a significant association between having an
attractive alternative in one’s life and ambivalence towards the partner (b = 0.44, SE = 0.17,
95% CI [0.10, 0.78], p = .011). However, this association became only marginally significant
when controlling for partner evaluation during the diary (b = 0.21, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [-
0.004, 0.41], p = .054). We then tested whether desire toward the alternative at Intake would
be linked with greater ambivalence over the diary and found a significant association with
ambivalence (b = 0.24, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.13, 0.35], p < .001). These association remained
significant when controlling for partner evaluation (b = 0.14, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.07, 0.21],
p < .001).
8
Then, we tested whether the number of alternatives at Intake was associated with
ambivalence during the diary (21.7% indicated they had 0 alternatives, 14.5% indicated 1,
44.5% indicated 2-3, 13.6% indicated 4-5, and 5.7% indicated 6 or more), but found no
significant association (b = 0.06, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.18], p = .398).
9
Diary predictors. We then conducted the analyses within the diary to test the within-
person effects of daily interest of attractive alternatives. As expected, daily interest for an
attractive alternative was associated with greater same-day subjective ambivalence (b = 0.13,
SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.08, 0.19], p < .001). This association remained significant when
controlling for daily partner evaluation (b = 0.12, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.07, 0.16], p < .001).
Next, to investigate whether daily ambivalence mediated the effect of desire for the
alternative on relational and personal outcomes, we conducted a series of mediations. All
results are displayed in Table 2. In separate models, mediation analyses revealed a significant
main effect of daily ambivalence on relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner,
8
The same pattern of results was found when using the full item measure of desire toward the alternative (b =
0.35, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [.18, .52], p < .001), also when controlling for partner evaluation (b = 0.20, SE = 0.05,
95% CI [.09, .31], p < .001).
9
The main purpose of the Intake measurements was to test their association with ambivalence over the course of
the diary. While the primary mediation analyses were conducted with the daily diary measures, we also
exploratorily conducted 2-1-1 mediation analyses with the Intake variables as predictors. The results parallel
those of diary mediations, and have been reported in the Supplemental Material for transparency.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
23
thoughts of breakup, life satisfaction, and stress, controlling for daily desire for the
alternative (all ps < .001). Second, in all models, the indirect effects did not contain zero,
indicating that ambivalence was a significant (partial) mediator between desire for
alternatives and all outcome variables. Importantly, as also seen in Table 2, main effects as
well as indirect effects remained significant in each model when controlling for partner
evaluation on that same day, except for life satisfaction, for which the main effect of
ambivalence was not significant.
10
Table 2
Results of the daily diary multilevel mediation analysis of desire for alternatives in Study 2
10
Given that the main focus in the diary analyses was on the daily within-person fluctuations in desire and
ambivalence (while controlling for the person means), we report the within-person centered associations in the
manuscript. The between-person associations (controlling for the within-person centered scores) also suggest
that people who experienced greater desire on average, also experienced greater ambivalence, and lower
relational and personal wellbeing. For full results of the between-person associations, see the Supplemental
Material.
Predictor and effect
Main model
Model controlling for partner evaluation
b
SE
95% CI
p
b
SE
95% CI
p
Relational outcome: relationship satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.53
0.02
[-0.57, -0.49]
<.001
-0.21
0.02
[-0.25, -0.16]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
-0.03
0.03
[-0.08, 0.02]
.214
-0.02
0.02
[-0.05, 0.02]
.392
Direct effect
0.04
0.02
[-0.003, 0.08]
.071
0.01
0.02
[-0.03, 0.04]
.661
Indirect effect
-0.07
[-0.10, -0.04]
-0.02
[-0.04, -0.01]
Relational outcome: desire to change partner
Subjective ambivalence
0.63
0.03
[0.60, 0.69]
<.001
0.36
0.04
[0.29, 0.44]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.01
0.04
[-0.06, 0.08]
.760
-0.01
0.03
[-0.07, 0.06]
.857
Direct effect
-0.07
0.03
[-0.14, 0.01]
.02
-0.05
0.03
[-0.11, 0.01]
.123
Indirect effect
0.08
[0.05, 0.12]
0.04
[0.02, 0.07]
Relational outcome: thoughts of break-up
Subjective ambivalence
0.40
0.02
[0.36, 0.44]
<.001
0.26
0.03
[0.21, 0.31]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.15
0.02
[0.10, 0.20]
<.001
0.14
0.02
[0.10, 0.18]
<.001
Direct effect
0.10
0.02
[0.06, 0.14]
<.001
0.11
0.02
[0.07, 0.15]
<.001
Indirect effect
0.05
[0.03, 0.08]
0.03
[0.01, 0.05]

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
24
Note. This table reports the within-person effect of desire for an attractive alternative on
personal and relational outcomes through subjective ambivalence, with and without
controlling for daily partner evaluation. All models include person mean scores of the
predictors. Subjective ambivalence coefficients are path b in the mediation models, and were
estimated controlling for path a of attractive alternatives.
The same mediation models were conducted with flirting with the attractive
alternative as the independent variable. All results are displayed in Table 3. As expected,
daily flirting was associated with greater same-day ambivalence towards the partner (b =
0.21, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [.11, .31], p < .001), and remained significant when controlling for
partner evaluation (b = 0.15, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [.08, .23], p < .001). Next, in separate
models, mediation analyses revealed a significant main effect of daily ambivalence on
relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, thoughts of breakup, life satisfaction,
and stress, controlling for daily flirting. Second, in all models the indirect effects did not
contain zero, indicating that ambivalence was a significant (partial) mediator between flirting
with an alternative and relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, thoughts of
breakup, life satisfaction, and stress. In all models, main effects as well as indirect effects
remained significant when controlling for partner evaluation on that same day.
Relational outcome: life satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.29
0.03
[-0.36, -0.23]
<.001
-0.08
0.04
[-0.17, -0.01]
.062
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
-0.02
0.04
[-0.09, 0.05]
.506
-0.01
0.03
[-0.08, 0.05]
.683
Direct effect
0.02
0.04
[-0.05, 0.08]
.659
-0.01
0.03
[-0.07, 0.06]
.897
Indirect effect
-0.04
[-0.06, -0.02]
-0.01
[-0.01, -0.001]
Personal outcome: stress
Subjective ambivalence
0.30
0.04
[0.23, 0.37]
<.001
0.16
0.04
[0.07, 0.25]
.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.06
0.04
[-0.02, 0.13]
.127
0.05
0.04
[-0.02, 0.12]
.178
Direct effect
0.02
0.04
[-0.06, 0.09]
.631
0.03
0.04
[-0.04, 0.10]
.408
Indirect effect
0.04
[0.02, 0.06]
0.02
[0.01, 0.03]

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
25
These results indicate that interest in an alternative was indirectly associated with
poorer relationship and personal outcomes through the mediating role of ambivalence, and
that these results are independent of daily partner evaluations. Specifically, on days in which
people reported higher desire for alternatives (either by having more desirous thoughts or
flirting more with attractive others) they also reported feeling greater ambivalence towards
their partner
11
, which in turn was associated with poorer relational (lower relationship
satisfaction, greater desire to change the partner, and thoughts of breakup) and personal
(lower life satisfaction and greater stress) indices on that same day.
12
Table 3
Results of the daily diary multilevel mediation analysis of flirting with the alternatives in
Study 2
Predictor and effect
Main model
Model controlling for partner evaluation
b
SE
95% CI
p
b
SE
95% CI
p
Relational outcome: relationship satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.52
0.02
[-0.56, -0.49]
<.001
-0.21
0.02
[-0.25, -0.16]
<.001
Flirting with alternative
Total effect
-0.07
0.04
[-0.15, 0.02]
.138
-0.01
0.03
[-0.07, 0.05]
.737
Direct effect
0.04
0.04
[-0.02, 0.11]
.211
0.02
0.03
[-0.04, 0.08]
.671
Indirect effect
-0.11
[-0.16, -0.06]
-0.03
[- 0.05, - 0.02]
Relational outcome: desire to change partner
Subjective ambivalence
0.63
0.03
[0.57, 0.69]
<.001
0.36
0.04
[0.28, 0.43]
<.001
Flirting with alternative
Total effect
0.06
0.06
[-0.07, 0.18]
.359
0.001
0.05
[-0.10, 0.11]
.990
Direct effect
-0.07
0.05
[-0.18, 0.03]
.175
-0.05
0.05
[-0.16, 0.05]
.305
Indirect effect
0.13
[0.07, 0.19]
0.05
[0.03, 0.08]
Relational outcome: thoughts of break-up
Subjective ambivalence
0.40
0.02
[0.36, 0.44]
<.001
0.27
0.03
[0.22, 0.32]
<.001
Flirting with alternative
Total effect
0.23
0.04
[0.15, 0.31]
<.001
0.20
0.04
[0.13, 0.27]
<.001
11
We also conducted additional analyses to explore potential daily lagged effects and found that greater daily
desire for an alternative predicted greater ambivalence the following day, controlling for previous day’s
ambivalence (and partner evaluation), but this was not the case for flirting with the alternative, where the
relationship with next day ambivalence was non-significant. Results are reported in the Supplemental Material.
12
We also explored whether the association between alternatives and ambivalence (both those with the intake
and diary as predictors) were moderated by gender. Contrary to what was found in Study 1, we did not find a
significant interaction by gender in Study 2 (ps > .70). See Supplemental Material for the full analyses.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
26
Direct effect
0.15
0.04
[0.08, 0.22]
<.001
0.16
0.03
[0.09, 0.22]
<.001
Indirect effect
0.08
[0.04, 0.12]
0.04
[0.02, 0.06]
Relational outcome: life satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.30
0.03
[-0.36, -0.23]
<.001
-0.09
0.04
[-0.17, -0.01]
.038
Flirting with alternative
Total effect
0.05
0.06
[-0.07, 0.17]
.403
0.08
0.06
[-0.03, 0.20]
.146
Direct effect
0.11
0.06
[-0.003, 0.23]
.056
0.10
0.06
[-0.07, 0.21]
.093
Indirect effect
-0.06
[-0.10, -0.03]
-0.01
[-0.03, -0.001]
Personal outcome: stress
Subjective ambivalence
0.30
0.04
[0.23, 0.37]
<.001
0.17
0.05
[0.08, 0.26]
<.001
Flirting with alternative
Total effect
0.04
0.06
[-0.08, 0.17]
.495
0.02
0.06
[-0.11, 0.14]
.795
Direct effect
-0.02
0.06
[-0.14, 0.10]
.757
-0.01
0.06
[-0.013, 0.11]
.880
Indirect effect
0.06
[0.03, 0.10]
0.03
[0.01, 0.05]
Note. This table reports the within-person effect of behavioral interest (i.e. flirting) towards
an attractive alternative on personal and relational outcomes through subjective ambivalence,
with and without controlling for daily partner evaluation. All models include person mean
scores of the predictors. Subjective ambivalence coefficients are path b in the mediation
models, and were estimated controlling for path a of attractive alternatives.
Discussion
Compared to those who did not, people who had an attractive alternative in their life
(i.e. the majority of participants), as well as people who experienced greater desire for an
alternative, experienced greater ambivalence towards their current romantic partner.
However, the association between the presence of an attractive alternative and subjective
ambivalence became marginally significant when controlling for partner evaluation. Desire
for the alternative, on the other hand, seemed to be more strongly associated with subjective
ambivalence, also above and beyond partner evaluation. Interestingly, the number of
alternatives present in one’s life was not linked with greater ambivalence, showing that the
effects are not driven by the quantity of alternatives but more by how desirable the alternative
is. This suggests that, while the majority of people seem to be able to identify an appealing
alternative in their life, it is especially the desire for the alternative that is related to

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
27
ambivalence. Additionally, Study 2 provides greater ecologically valid evidence for the link
between attractive alternatives and ambivalence, showcasing the daily consequences of
ambivalence for personal and relational outcomes and the unique role that ambivalence plays
in romantic relationships (above and beyond negative evaluations of the partner).
Furthermore, by controlling for people’s average levels of desire and ambivalence in the
daily diary analyses, this study also disentangles the within-person from the between-person
associations, highlighting the nefarious associations between daily increases in desire and
ambivalence above and beyond people’s general tendencies to desire others and experience
mixed feelings towards the partner. To further test the link between attractive alternatives and
ambivalence, and to particularly focus on the influence of desire for the alternative in daily
life as well as over longer periods of time, we conducted another study with couples in which
we tested our hypothesis in a daily diary as well as longitudinally over the course of one year.
Study 3
Method
Participants
Participants were 174 heterosexual couples (N = 348 individuals) living in the
Netherlands. As in Study 2, sample size was determined a priori on the basis of the current
best practice guidelines in relationship science (Finkel et al., 2015), as well as financial and
time constraints, and was paired with a repeated measure and longitudinal design to
maximize power. Participants’ mean age was 24.7 years (SD = 6.4; ranging from 18 years to
69 years). At the time of intake, participants reported being together for 3.8 years on average
(SD = 4.5; ranging from 4 months to 42.6 years) and 50% lived together. All participants
were recruited in the Netherlands through personal approach, social media, and various
websites, and were required to speak Dutch and be in an exclusive romantic relationship of at
least 4 months. Sensitivity power analyses were conducted as in Study 2 and showed 80%

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
28
power to detect an unstandardized association of at least b = .053 (SE = .02) between daily
desire for alternatives and ambivalence, and 81% power to detect an unstandardized
association of b = .11 (SE = .04) between quality of attractive alternatives at an earlier time
point and ambivalence at a later time point in a replication study. See Supplemental Material
for details.
Procedure
Couples first came to the lab for an intake session. After signing informed consent,
partners were separated and each participant completed demographics and various baseline
questionnaires.
13
At the end of the intake session, couples were given instructions and
information about the diary phase of the study, which started the following day. Every
evening, for 14 consecutive days, participants received an email at 8.00 p.m. with a link to
complete the daily questionnaire, which was administered through Qualtrics. Participants
were instructed to complete the survey before midnight, in a quiet environment, and without
communicating with their partner. Participants were then contacted every 4 months for 3
follow-up waves. In these assessments, participants completed the same measurements as
during the intake, but 4 months, 8, and 12 months after the completion of the diary.
Participants were compensated up to €50 if they participated in the intake and completed at
least 80% of the diary signals and at least two of the follow-ups. Participants were also
entered into a raffle for a chance to win an iPad. This study was approved by the Scientific
and Ethical Review Board of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (#2016-134) and all
participants provided consent before starting the study.
13
This study was part of a larger study with people in a romantic relationship. Only variables relevant to the
current investigation are reported here. Other variables, not theoretically associated with the present study, were
not considered.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
29
Measures
Intake
During the laboratory intake session, participants completed measures of quality of
attractive alternatives in their life (5 items; e.g. “The people other than my partner with
whom I might become involved are very appealing”; α = .74) measured on a 7-point scale
from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely) (Rusbult, Martz, Agnew, 1998), and of subjective
ambivalence (3 items; e.g. “When thinking about your partner, how mixed are your feelings
toward him/her?”; α = .87) measured on a 9-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 9 (Extremely)
(Priester & Petty, 1996).
For relational outcome measures, participants rated their relationship satisfaction (5
items; e.g. “I feel satisfied with our relationship”; α = .84) measured on a 7-point scale form 1
(Not at all) to 7 (Completely) (Rusbult et al., 1998), and thoughts of breakup (3 items; e.g.
“Have you ever discussed the possibility of breaking up with your partner while talking to a
close friend?”; α = .84) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Every day) (adapted
from the Marital Instability Index, Booth et al., 1983; Impett et al., 2010).
For personal well-being outcomes, participants rated their satisfaction with life (3-
item; e.g. “I am satisfied with my life”; α = .88) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 7 (Strongly disagree) (Diener et al., 1985), anxiety (3 items; e.g. “Worrying
thoughts go through my mind”; α = .75), depression (3 items; e.g. “I can laugh and see the
funny side of things”; α = .53) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Very often),
and general physical health (1 item; “How would you evaluate your current physical
health?”), measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Very unhealthy) to 7 (Very healthy).
Finally, partner evaluation was included as a control variable (5 items; e.g. “I like my
partner very much”: α = .88) measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7
(Completely).

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
30
Diary
During the daily diary phase, participants reported each day on their desire for
alternatives (1-item; “I felt physically attracted to or had a fantasy about someone else than
my partner”) and subjective ambivalence (1-item; “Today, I had mixed feelings toward my
partner”). In terms of relational outcomes, participants rated their relationship satisfaction (1-
item; “I feel satisfied with my relationship with my partner”), attempt to change partner (1-
item; “Today I tried to change my partner into the person I would like him/her to be”). For
personal well-being outcomes, participants reported their life-satisfaction (1-item; “Right
now, my life is close to my ideal”), and stress (1-item; “Right now, I feel stressed”). All
items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely). Finally, they also
rated their partner evaluation (1-item; “Right now, how would you evaluate your partner?”)
on a 9-point scale from 1 (Completely negatively) to 9 (Extremely positively).
Table 4
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables of interest in the diary data of
Study 3
Note. All variables were assessed on a scale of 1-7, except for relationship explicit partner
evaluation, which were assessed on a scale of 1-9. Correlations represent zero-order
correlations across all measurement time points. * p < .01
Variables of interest
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Desire for alternatives
1.74
1.46
1
2. Relational ambivalence
1.64
1.63
.16*
1
3. Relationship satisfaction
6.26
.95
-.11*
-.59*
1
4. Desire to change the partner
1.74
1.23
.12*
.36*
-.29*
1
5. Life satisfaction
5.09
1.24
-.06*
-.27*
.39*
-.16*
1
6. Stress
2.85
1.67
.07*
.21*
-.21*
.12*
-.47*
1
7. Explicit partner evaluation
7.67
1.29
-.10*
-.50*
.69*
-.24*
.36*
-.18*
1

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
31
Follow-up
Four, eight, and twelve months after completing the diary phase, participants
completed the same measures as in the intake phase in three follow-up questionnaires, which
included quality of attractive alternatives (from α = .81 to α = .85) and subjective
ambivalence (from α =. 86 to α = .90), relational outcome measures (relationship
satisfaction, all follow-ups α = .91, and thoughts of breakup, from α = .78 to α = .86), and
personal wellbeing outcomes (satisfaction with life, from α = .90 to α = .91, anxiety, from α =
.79 to α = .80, depression, from α = .72 to α = .76 and general physical health) and partner
evaluation (from α = .92 to α = .94). In addition, participants also completed another
relational outcome measure, attempts to change the partner (1-item; “In the last 4 months, I
tried to change my partner into the person I would like him/her to be”) measured on a 7-point
scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very often).
Results
Analytical Strategy
Due to the non-independence and nested nature of the data (multiple measurements
within participants and participants within the couple), multilevel analyses were performed
(Kenny et al., 2006), with a crossed two-level model in which participants were nested within
couple and crossed with time points. Intercepts were treated as random effects, and slopes as
fixed effects. With the daily diary assessments, we used the same analytical strategy adopted
in Study 2. That is, we person-centered all predictor variables and included also the person
mean in all models to examine within-person variations across the 14-days while controlling
for people’s general tendencies across all diary days (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Zhang et
al., 2009). As in Study 2, this approach allows to disentangle the within- and between-person
differences, thereby estimating the within person fluctuations from day to day while ensuring
that the effects are not driven by between person variances.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
32
With the follow-up assessments, time lagged multilevel analyses were performed to
test whether our predictors would be related to changes in the outcome variables at later time
points. Given that the same measures were used at intake and the three follow-ups (with the
exception of “attempts to change the partner”, which was added in all follow-ups but not at
intake), four total time points were considered for this analysis. That is, we tested whether
earlier alternatives predicted change in later ambivalence (controlling for earlier
ambivalence) and then whether later ambivalence was associated with later relational and
personal well-being (controlling for earlier alternatives, ambivalence, and indices of well-
being). By considering ambivalence at later time points as the mediator in all models and
controlling for earlier ambivalence, it is possible to determine whether it is indeed the change
in ambivalence rather than initial ambivalence at baseline that drives and mediates the effect
of alternatives on personal and relational well-being. Finally, for both diary and the follow-up
assessments, mediations were conducted using the same methodology as in Study 1 and 2,
first through the joint-significant test of the mediation pathways and then the estimation of
the fixed effects using MCMAM (Selig & Preacher, 2008; Yzerbyt et al., 2018).
Diary
As expected, we found a significant and positive association between daily desire for
alternatives and ambivalence (b = 0.05, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.08], p < .001).
14
This
association remained significant when controlling for daily partner evaluation (b = 0.04, SE =
0.01, 95% CI [0.02, 0.06], p = .001).
15
Next, to investigate whether ambivalence mediated the
14
As in the other studies, we also explored whether this association was moderated by gender, and found a
significant interaction of gender and desire on ambivalence (p = .027). Given that this was an exploratory
analysis, and that we did not find consistent evidence for this interaction across all studies, we report the
moderation analyses in the Supplementary Material.
15
As tested in Study 2, we also explored whether greater daily desire for an alternative predicted greater
ambivalence the following day, controlling for the previous day’s ambivalence, but found no significant
relationship. Results are reported in the Supplemental Material. One reason why we found inconsistent evidence
for daily lagged effects across our studies may be because it would require much higher levels of daily desire to
influence ambivalence the next day above and beyond the levels of ambivalence already experienced on the
same day. Such strong changes in ambivalence may not always occur on a daily basis, but rather over longer
periods of time (e.g., Collins & Graham 2002), as the main lagged analyses in Study 3 suggests.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
33
effect of alternatives on relational (i.e., relationship satisfaction and desire to change partner)
and personal (i.e., life satisfaction and stress) outcomes, we performed a series of mediations
analyses, testing the indirect effect with the MCMAM. All within-person results (while
controlling for the person means) are displayed in Table 5. For the between-person
associations, see the Supplemental Material.
16
In separate models, results revealed a significant main effect of ambivalence on
relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, life satisfaction, and stress, controlling
for desire for alternatives that same day. Second, in all models, the indirect effects did not
contain zero, indicating that ambivalence was a significant mediator between desire for
alternatives and relationship satisfaction, desire to change the partner, life satisfaction, and
stress. Importantly, as also seen in Table 5, main effects as well as indirect effects remained
significant in each model when controlling for partner evaluation on that same day.
These results indicate that desire for others was indirectly associated with poorer
relationship and personal outcomes through the mediating role of ambivalence, and that these
results are independent of daily partner evaluations. Specifically, on days in which people
reported higher desire for alternatives, they also reported feeling higher ambivalence towards
their partner, which in turn was associated with poorer relational (lower relationship
satisfaction and greater desire to change the partner) and personal (lower life satisfaction and
greater stress) indices on that same day, above and beyond their general tendency to
experience desire for an alternative and mixed feelings towards their partner.
16
Given that the main focus in the diary analyses was on the daily within-person fluctuations in desire and
ambivalence (while controlling for the person means), we report the within-person centered associations in the
manuscript. The between-person associations (controlling for the within-person centered associations) also
suggest that people who experienced greater desire on average also experienced greater ambivalence. Overall,
both the daily fluctuations of desire and ambivalence as well as greater chronic levels of desire and ambivalence
seem to be detrimental for people’s personal and relational wellbeing.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
34
Table 5
Results of the daily diary multilevel mediation analysis of Study 3
Note. This table reports the within-person effect of desire for an attractive alternative on
personal and relational outcomes through subjective ambivalence, with and without
controlling for daily partner evaluation. All models include person mean predictors.
Subjective ambivalence coefficients are path b in the mediation models, and were estimated
controlling for path a of attractive alternative.
Main model
Model controlling for partner evaluation
Predictor and effect
b
SE
95% CI
p
b
SE
95% CI
p
Relational outcome: relationship satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.29
0.01
[-0.31, -0.28]
<.001
-0.18
0.01
[-0.20, -0.16]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
-0.01
0.001
[-0.03, 0.003]
0.117
0.0003
0.01
[-0.01, 0.01]
.971
Direct effect
0.002
0.01
[-0.01, 0.02]
0.830
0.01
0.01
[-0.01, 0.02]
.298
Indirect effect
-0.02
[-0.02, -0.01]
-0.01
[-0.01,-0.003]
Relational outcome: desire to change partner
Subjective ambivalence
0.27
0.02
[0.24, 0.30]
<.001
0.24
0.02
[0.20, 0.27]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.02
0.01
[-0.004, 0.05]
.106
0.01
0.01
[-0.01, 0.04]
.262
Direct effect
0.003
0.01
[-0.02, 0.02]
.789
0.002
0.01
[-0.02, 0.03]
.878
Indirect effect
0.01
[0.01, 0.02]
0.01
[0.004, 0.01]
Relational outcome: life satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.17
0.01
[-0.19, -0.14]
<.001
-0.09
0.02
[-0.12, -0.07]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
-0.01
0.01
[-0.03, 0.01]
.458
0.001
0.01
[-0.02, 0.02]
.930
Direct effect
-0.001
0.01
[-0.02, 0.02]
.952
0.003
0.01
[-0.02, 0.02]
.770
Indirect effect
-0.01
[-0.01, -0.01]
-0.01
[-0.01, -0.001]
Personal outcome: stress
Subjective ambivalence
0.21
0.02
[0.17, 0.25]
<.001
0.14
0.02
[0.10, 0.19]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.02
0.02
[-0.01, 0.05]
.189
0.01
0.02
[-0.02, 0.04]
.415
Direct effect
0.01
0.02
[-0.02, 0.04]
.512
0.01
0.02
[-0.02, 0.04]
.634
Indirect effect
0.01
[0.01, 0.02]
0.01
[0.002, 0.01]

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
35
Follow ups
Next, four-wave time-lagged regression analyses were conducted to test the
hypotheses over time (every four months, for a period of one year). First, the association
between attractive alternatives and ambivalence was tested with a model in which later
ambivalence was regressed on quality of attractive alternatives at an earlier time point
controlling for ambivalence at an earlier time point. As predicted, quality of attractive
alternatives at an earlier time point was significantly associated with greater ambivalence at a
later time point (b = 0.18, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.09, 0.27], p < .001).
17
Importantly, these
results remain significant when controlling for earlier partner evaluation (b = 0.13, SE = 0.05,
95% CI [-0.64, -0.21], p = .009). Interestingly, ambivalence at an earlier time point was not
associated with greater attraction to alternatives at a later time point (b = 0.03, SE = 0.03,
95% CI [-0.03, 0.09], p = .377), providing support for the tested direction of the hypothesis.
Next, to investigate whether ambivalence mediated the effect of alternatives on
relational and personal outcomes, we performed a series of mediations analyses, and again
tested the indirect effect with the MCMAM. All results are displayed in Table 6. In separate
models, results revealed a significant main effect of later ambivalence on later relationship
satisfaction, later thoughts of breakup, later attempts to change partner, later life satisfaction,
later anxiety, later depression and later general physical health, controlling for ambivalence,
alternatives, and the outcome variable at an earlier time point. Second, in all models, the
indirect effects did not contain zero, indicating that ambivalence was a significant mediator
between desire for alternatives and relational and personal well-being (see Table 6).
Furthermore, as shown in Table 6, all main effects of subjective ambivalence as well as
17
As in all other studies, we also explored whether this interaction was moderated by gender, and found no
significant interaction (p = .463). Again, given the exploratory nature of this moderation analysis as well as the
inconsistent pattern of results across studies, we report these results in the Supplementary Materials. In
summary, gender was a significant moderator between desire and ambivalence in Study 1 and in the daily
associations in Study 3, with greater desire linked with greater ambivalence for men but not for women, but it
was not a significant moderator in Study 2 nor in the longitudinal associations in Study 3.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
36
indirect effects remained significant when controlling for partner evaluation. These results
indicate that, when people reported higher desire for alternatives, they experienced greater
ambivalence towards their partner later on, and in turn experienced poorer relational (lower
relationship satisfaction, greater thoughts of breakup, greater desire to change the partner)
and personal (poorer life satisfaction, greater stress, and poorer physical health) outcomes.
Table 6
Results from the time lagged multilevel mediation analyses in Study 3
Main lagged model
Model controlling for partner evaluation
Predictor and effect
b
SE
95% CI
p
b
SE
95% CI
p
Relational outcome: relationship satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.36
.02
[-0.39, -0.32]
<.001
-0.36
0.02
[-0.39, -0.32]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
-0.05
0.03
[-0.11, -0.001]
.046
-0.04
0.03
[-0.10, 0.01]
.138
Direct effect
-0.01
0.03
[-0.06, 0.04]
.708
-0.002
0.03
[-0.05, 0.05]
.952
Indirect effect
-.05
[-0.08, -0.01]
-0.04
[-0.08, -0.01]
Relational outcome: thoughts of breakup
Subjective ambivalence
0.3
0.02
[0.26, 0.35]
<.001
0.31
0.02
[0.26, 0.35]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.06
0.03
[0.001, 0.12]
.046
0.04
0.03
[-0.02, 0.11]
.188
Direct effect
-0.001
0.03
[-0.06, 0.05]
.980
0.01
0.03
[-0.05, 0.07]
.811
Indirect effect
0.04
[0.02, 0.08]
0.04
[0.01, 0.07]
Relational outcome: attempts to change partner
Subjective ambivalence
0.21
0.05
[0.11, 0.31]
<.001
0.21
0.05
[0.11, 0.31]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.14
0.05
[0.04, 0.24]
.007
0.09
0.06
[-0.02, 0.20]
.10
Direct effect
0.07
0.05
[-0.03, 0.18]
.164
0.07
0.06
[-0.04, 0.18]
.225
Indirect effect
0.03
[0.01, 0.06]
0.02
[0.0002, 0.05]
Personal outcome: life satisfaction
Subjective ambivalence
-0.19
0.03
[-0.24, -0.13]
<.001
-0.19
0.03
[-0.25, -0.13]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
Direct effect
Indirect effect
0.01
0.04
[-0.05, 0.08]
.678
0.03
0.04
[-0.05, 0.10]
.448
0.04
0.04
[-0.3, 0.11]
.215
0.04
0.04
[-0.04, 0.11]
.321
-0.03
[-0.06, -0.02]
-0.05
[-0.05, -0.01]
Personal outcome: anxiety
Subjective ambivalence
0.14
0.04
[0.07, 0.21]
<.001
0.14
0.04
[0.07, 0.21]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.01
0.04
[-0.07, 0.09]
.762
-0.001
0.05
[-0.09, 0.09]
.984
Direct effect
-0.002
0.04
[-0.09, 0.08]
.956
0.001
0.05
[-0.09, 0.09]
.982
Indirect effect
0.03
[0.01, 0.05]
0.02
[.0003, 0.04]
Personal outcome: depression

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
37
Note. This table reports the effect of desire for attractive alternatives on personal and
relational outcomes through change in subjective ambivalence assessed every four months
over the course of one year, with and without controlling for baseline partner evaluation.
Discussion
Consistent with the hypotheses and replicating findings from Study 2, in the diary
study, people who experienced greater desire for attractive alternatives on that day, also
experienced greater mixed feelings towards the partner, above and beyond the way they
esteemed their partner that day. Ambivalence, in turn, was connected with poorer relationship
and personal well-being outcomes. These within person associations held when controlling
for between-person differences (i.e. people’s average levels of desire and ambivalence),
showcasing the deleterious within-person effects of the daily increases in desire and
ambivalence above and beyond people’s general desire for alternatives and mixed and
conflicting feelings towards the partner. This pattern of results was replicated and extended in
the longitudinal data set, in which the effects were tested in a longitudinal fashion every four
months for a period of one year. Findings suggest that changes in ambivalence over time
(above and beyond the initial level of ambivalence) drive and mediate the effect of
alternatives on (poorer) personal and relational wellbeing over time (above and beyond
baseline indices of well-being and partner evaluation). Notably, we did not find support for
the other direction (i.e. ambivalence leading to greater desire for alternatives over time).
Subjective ambivalence
0.20
0.03
[0.14, 0.25]
<.001
0.20
0.03
[0.14, 0.26]
<.001
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
0.02
0.04
[-0.05, 0.08]
.675
-0.02
0.04
[-0.09, 0.06]
.628
Direct effect
-0.03
0.04
[-0.10, 0.04]
.373
-0.03
0.04
[-0.10, 0.04]
.443
Indirect effect
0.03
[0.01, 0.05]
0.02
[0.01, 0.04]
Personal outcome: physical health
Subjective ambivalence
-0.09
0.03
[-0.16, -0.03]
.004
-0.09
0.03
[-0.16, -0.03]
.005
Attractive Alternatives
Total effect
Direct effect
Indirect effect
0.01
0.03
[-0.05, 0.08]
.718
0.02
0.04
[-0.05, 0.09]
.580
0.03
0.04
[-0.04, 0.10]
.438
0.03
0.04
[-0.04, 0.11]
.403
-0.02
[-0.03, -0.004]
-0.01
[-0.03, -0.002]

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
38
General Discussion
The world is full of possibilities beyond the current reality. When it comes to
relationships, although people generally are motivated to stay with their current romantic
partner, the allure of attractive alternatives is often felt, and can be destabilizing if not fatal to
the current romantic relationship (e.g. Finkel et al., 2002). While there is consensus in the
literature that attractive alternatives are threatening to relationships (e.g. Tran et al., 2019), at
least in the context of monogamy, much less is known about why they are so detrimental, and
even less about the processes that take place within the partner that experiences the extra-
dyadic desire. In the present investigation, using experimental, daily diary, and longitudinal
approaches, we found that when people experience desire for attractive alternatives, they also
reported feeling more ambivalent (i.e. conflicted) about their current romantic partner and
their relationship (Study 1, 2, and 3). Furthermore, when people experienced greater
ambivalence toward their partner they also experienced poorer personal and relational
outcomes, such as lower relationship and life satisfaction and greater thoughts of break-up
and stress, on a daily basis (Study 2 and 3) as well as over longer periods of time (Study 3).
All results held when controlling for partner evaluation, excluding the possibility that
negative evaluations of the partner were the driver of the link between attractive alternatives
and poor personal and relational outcomes. This is in line with theoretical and empirical work
that distinguishes ambivalence from simple negativity (e.g. Uchino et al., 2014), and
highlights the unique role that ambivalence plays in interpersonal contexts.
The current work contributes to the body of literature on the implications of attractive
alternatives on relationships (e.g. Finkel et al., 2002) and extends our understanding of the
ways in which alternatives can be harmful in everyday life situations. Relationship science
has traditionally emphasized the role that motivation plays in maintaining commitment in the
face of attractive alternatives (Rusbult, 1983; Tran et al., 2019) but there is not much work

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
39
explaining the role that desire for alternatives plays in daily life and over time for those who
do come to experience it. Our work is the first to examine the evaluative process that occurs
when extra-dyadic interest is sparked, showing that the pull towards the desired other brings
saliency to the conflicting feelings people hold in their relationship, thereby threatening the
well-being of the partnership. Thus, this work adds to the classic literatures in relationship
science (e.g. interdependence theory and the investment model of relationships; Rusbult,
1980; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) that have long identified the threat that alternatives pose, the
costs and benefits that people weigh when evaluating their relationships compared to
potential other options, but have not examined the affective mechanism through which the
threat and the subsequent evaluative processes occur. Furthermore, our work highlights for
the first time how experiencing desire for attractive alternatives – even outside of the context
of sexual infidelity – is also distressing and challenging for the desirer themselves,
undermining their own well-being. Thus, by examining the emotional experience of those
who come to feel extra-dyadic interest, the present work offers a significant contribution to
the literature as it extends the ways in which we understand attractive alternatives to be
threatening.
An interesting finding that transpired from our research is that, while the vast majority
of people seem to be able to identify an attractive alternative in their life (68.8%, Study 1 and
75.3% in Study 2), simply having one may not be sufficient to put relationships in jeopardy.
Indeed, in Study 1, while only participants who indicated that they had an attractive
alternative were included in the experimental study, it was especially the desire for the
attractive alternative that increased ambivalence. In Study 2, desire for the alternative was
more strongly linked with ambivalence than the simple presence of an alternative in one’s
life. Furthermore, the quantity of alternatives did not matter for feelings of ambivalence. This
is interesting as the literature on attractive alternatives has highlighted the role that the quality

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
40
of alternatives plays in undermining relationship longevity (Rusbult, 1983; Tran et al., 2019),
but has paid little attention to whether the quantity of alternatives matters. Our work suggests
that while attractive alternatives seem to be greatly destabilizing to relationships, it is the
desire towards the alternative that is more strongly linked with greater internal conflict and
poorer personal and relational outcomes. Interestingly, many studies assessing people’s
evaluations of their relationship in light of attractive alternatives have often relied on ratings
of others that were not personally known to the participants (e.g. picture ratings of attractive
strangers, McNulty et al., 2018; Ritter et al., 2010). By asking participants whether they had
an attractive alternative in their life (in Study 1 and 2) and the degree to which they desired
them, we were able to better capture the potential threat of real-life alternatives and maximize
ecological validity by assessing how people evaluate and manage their feelings of
ambivalence when a known alternative is part of the picture, and not simply when they
experience interest towards attractive strangers in pictures.
The present research also contributes to the wider ambivalence literature – that has
largely focused on abstract ideas (e.g. a labor law; Van Harreveld et al., 2009) or objects (e.g.
sweets, Schneider et al., 2020) – and applies it to another important domain, that of romantic
relationships. This domain is an especially valuable context in which to examine how mixed
and conflicting feelings play out in daily life, as ambivalence towards a partner is, arguably,
particularly unsettling given the powerful motivation people have to view their partner in an
overly positive way (Miller et al., 2006; Murray, 1999). Our work is in line with the ABC
Model of Ambivalence whereby ambivalence shapes people’s affective, behavioral, and
cognitive responses (van Harreveld et al., 2015), builds off of the literature on subjective
ambivalence as a function of decision making (e.g. Reich & Wheeler, 2016), and applies
these literatures to a relational context in which decisions are highly-personal and
consequential. In romantic relationships, decisions that may affect the continuity of the

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
41
relationship are often difficult, and people experience great conflict as they weigh the various
factors in order to make a choice. For example, when people are engaging in stay-or-leave
decisions, they are able to indicate several reasons for wanting to stay in the relationship (e.g.
companionship) as well as several reasons for wanting to leave (e.g. lack of enjoyment), and
tend to feel strongly about both sides (Joel et al., 2018). In a similar way, our research
indicates that attractive alternatives trigger a similar evaluative process, in which people must
compare their current relationship partner with the alternatives (Le & Agnew, 2003), and
assess the rewards and costs associated with each (Rusbult, 1980). Indeed, people in the daily
diary and longitudinal studies thought about breaking up with their partner but also desired
their partner to change, a possible indication of the conflict between the desire to maintain
their current relationship and the desire for another appealing potential. By testing this, our
work provides rich insight into the emotional processes of ambivalence that have been
highlighted in other relevant literatures (e.g. social cognition; van Harreveld et al., 2015) and
goes beyond one-time lab assessments and investigating the daily and longitudinal
consequences of ambivalence for people’s personal and relational wellbeing. Furthermore,
while previous work has highlighted the negative personal consequences of ambivalence (e.g.
negative health outcomes; Birmingham et al., 2019), it has rarely examined its antecedents.
Given that ambivalence is consequential, and that it can be functional to be attuned to both
positive and negative aspects of a relationship (McNulty, 2016), understanding when it
becomes salient is an important avenue of research.
One could argue for the opposite direction of the effect, such that people who are
already ambivalent about their partner may be more prone to experience desire towards
alternatives. For instance, given its unpleasantness (van Harreveld et al., 2009), people who
experience ambivalence toward their partner may desire to reduce or eliminate their
ambivalence, making them more open to information that may sway them in one direction or

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
42
another in order to resolve their ambivalence and, thus, more vulnerable to feelings of extra-
dyadic attraction. However, the experimental and longitudinal data provide experimental and
temporal evidence for the hypothesized direction, that is that desire leads to greater
ambivalence, and not that ambivalence leads to greater desire. Indeed, in the time-lagged
analysis of the longitudinal data of Study 3, when testing exploratorily whether ambivalence
at an earlier time point may also be linked to greater interest in an alternative later on, we
found no significant association.
It is important to note that, while the present investigation highlights the ways in
which alternative and ambivalence have detrimental consequences for personal and
relationship well-being, findings that are aligned with most theoretical and empirical work on
ambivalence (e.g. van Harreveld et al., 2015), there may be instances in which feelings of
attraction and inner conflict about the relationship may also be functional, even if unpleasant.
Indeed, functional (Fischer & Manstead, 2008; Larsen et al., 2003) and a social-functionals
view of emotions (Van Kleef, 2009) emphasize the adaptive aspect of emotions and the
important role they play in people’s interpersonal lives. Related research in the mixed
emotions literature has also shown that conflicting feelings can be useful in certain contexts
(e.g. to enhance creativity; Fong, 2006), albeit this research is scarcer when it comes to
romantic relationships. For example, while ambivalence has generally been found to be
maladaptive, such as by increasing cognitive inflexibility (van Harreveld et al., 2009), when
people are able to identify the origin of their ambivalence, such as their romantic partner,
they are better at processing relevant information necessary for decision making (e.g.
Guerana & Hernandes, 2016). Indeed, people who experience ambivalence can be more
motivated to make positive changes in their relationship in order to alleviate problems (Faure
et al., 2021; Thompson & Holmes, 1996) and are more attuned to the daily positive and
negative relational experiences (Joel et al., 2021), which, albeit turbulent and unpleasant, may

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
43
be helpful when evaluating the costs and benefits of the relationship and stay-or-leave
decisions. In sum, while the literature on ambivalence has generally focused on its negative
effects, future research could investigate ways in which it may actually be functional in the
context of close relationships.
It is also relevant to note that the present work examined only one form of
ambivalence: subjective ambivalence, which is an explicit rating of the extent one is
experiencing mixed and conflicting feelings (Priester & Petty, 1996). However, other
possible emotional profiles are possible (Oceja & Carrera, 2009); to take the context of
attractive alternatives as an example, people may experience a mix of guilt and desire, fear
and longing, which may be different than experience positive and negative feelings towards
the partner, and activate different responses, such as approach or avoidance behaviors (Pratt
& Pradies, 2011). A systematic review or an empirical comparison of the different types of
ambivalence and the possible different emotional profiles that it captures within the context
of romantic relationships would be an excellent avenue for future research.
The findings and theoretical implications from the present work also offer potentially
interesting insight for practitioners working with couples. For example, while attractive
alternatives can be a threat to relationships, they may not be a cause of concern in and of
themselves, but rather should trigger alarm bells particularly when they elicit strong feelings
of desire. This is an important distinction and could inform where the focus of potential
interventions should lie.
18
Furthermore, given the strong link between the automatic attention
towards alternatives and subsequent sexual infidelity and break-up (McNulty et al., 2018), it
is important for relationship longevity that these feelings of desire be addressed, as doing so
18
While the present work can offer insight that could be of great interest to practitioners and intervention
researchers, we do not yet advise a direct application of this work to a real-life setting. Rather, in line with
recent calls for caution around implications and applications of theoretical contribution (e.g. Lewis & Wai,
2021), we encourage future research to build upon the findings presented here to determine ulterior contextual
aspects that should be considered when applying findings from relationship science (e.g. Ross et al., 2019), such
as those we address in the discussion of the limitations of the current work.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
44
may offer an opportunity to prevent cheating before it potentially occurs. Fortuitously, people
may be particularly motivated to address their feelings – and thus interventions potentially
particularly effective – given that people who experience ambivalence are also highly driven
to resolve it as such conflict is generally unpleasant to experience (van Harreveld et al.,
2009). Whether that resolution results in a re-evaluation of the current partner, relationship
dissolution, or other, will be up to each individual to determine.
It is important to address the limitations of the current work. First, the present
investigation is couched within a monogamy framework, in which people are expected (and
expect themselves) to only be romantically involved with one person at a time (Conley et al.,
2013). However, for people in open or consensual non-monogamous relationships, where
expectations are different in terms of romantic and intimate involvement (Conley et al.,
2013), experiencing interest in attractive alternatives may not trigger or increase ambivalence
at all, given that they do not have to necessarily choose between the current partner and
another. Thus, attractive alternatives may not represent a threat to the relationship in the way
that they do for people in monogamous relationships. Second, while the samples from the
studies were heterogeneous in terms of age and relationship length, which provides
generalizability of the findings across the personal and relational lifespan, the same cannot be
said about the generalizability across cultures. Indeed, the majority of participants were
Westerners, which is a limitation because the negative effects of ambivalence may be
influenced by culture: for example, people from Eastern backgrounds tend to be greater
dialectical thinkers than Westerners, which is the tendency and ability to accept contradiction
more easily and see it as an inevitable aspect of life (for a review, see Spencer-Rogers et al.,
2010). As such, experiencing ambivalence towards a partner may not be as alarming and
detrimental for people who tend to accept and better tolerate contradiction in their life.
However, while the effect of ambivalence on personal and relational outcomes may be

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
45
influenced by the cultural context, there is reason to believe that the link between attractive
alternatives and ambivalence may instead generalize broadly across cultures, given the
widespread norm of monogamy around the world and the harsh judgement of norm
deviations (Conley et al., 2013). That being said, future work would benefit from examining
these processes cross-culturally.
Despite these boundaries, the present work has several important strengths. In
addition to the high power of the studies, the use of a combination of research designs that
provide, first, experimental evidence for the effect of alternatives on ambivalence, second,
ecologically valid evidence of this effect as well as its implications for personal and relational
well-being on a daily basis and, third, longitudinal evidence over the course of one-year,
highlight both the immediate and lasting influence of alternatives on relationships through
ambivalence and offer greater confidence in the robustness of the effects. Furthermore, the
use of within-person centering in the daily diary studies, while controlling for between-
person differences, offers a fine-grained assessment of the effects in daily life, showcasing
how daily fluctuations in desire can result in corresponding shifts in ambivalence, above and
beyond how much people generally desired an alternative or how much they generally
experienced mixed and conflicting feelings towards their partner. Finally, in the time-lagged
analysis, by controlling for ambivalence at earlier time points and testing later ambivalence
as the mediator, we could determine that change in ambivalence rather than initial
ambivalence was the driver of the mediation effect of alternatives on personal and relational
outcomes. These methodological and statistical approaches allowed us to test both the causal
and temporal role that alternatives play in relationships and assess how the wanderer’s
evaluations of their partner – in light of desire for an alternative – influence personal and
relational outcomes on a daily basis and overtime.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
46
Together, our work indicates that ambivalence plays a key role in how attractive
alternatives exert influence on relationships, and provides unique evidence for both its short-
and long-term effects on the relationship and wellbeing of those who come to experience
extra-dyadic interest. Given that most people seem to be able to identify an attractive
alternative in their life and that desire for the alternative can be fatal for people in
monogamous relationships, not only is understanding how they play out in relationships is
important for understanding why attractive alternatives can be so detrimental, but also for
paving the way for interventions that can best help individuals and couples manage these
common situations.
Conclusion
Attractive alternatives pose one of the most serious threats to the longevity of
romantic relationships. Our work shows that attractive alternatives are so detrimental in part
because they elicit or exasperate feelings of ambivalence towards the current romantic
partner. In situations in which desire for an alternative is felt, the desirer is more likely to
doubt and question the relationship, with detrimental consequences for their own and
relational well-being. Thus, as alluring as an attractive alternative may be, desirers
themselves suffer when experiencing desire for someone other than their current romantic
partner.

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
47
References
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high-and low-distress
marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 621-638.
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00396.x
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People's reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the
life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 602-626.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03024005002
Armitage, C. J., & Arden, M. A. (2007). Felt and potential ambivalence across the stages of
change. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 149-158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105307071749
Barelds, D. P., Dijkstra, P., Koudenburg, N., & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive
illusions of the physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 28(5), 706-719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510385492
Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2018). Silver linings in the face of temptations: how
mixed emotions promote self-control efforts in response to goal conflict. Motivation
and Emotion, 42(6), 909-919. 10.1007/s11031-018-9707-1
Birmingham, W. C., Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., Light, K. C., & Butner, J. (2015). It's
complicated: Marital ambivalence on ambulatory blood pressure and daily
interpersonal functioning. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(5), 743-753.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9709-0
Birmingham, W. C., Wadsworth, L. L., Hung, M., Li, W., & Herr, R. M. (2019).
Ambivalence in the Early Years of Marriage: Impact on Ambulatory Blood Pressure
and Relationship Processes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(12), 1069-1080.
10.1093/abm/kaz017
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
48
diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical
examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124-141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467087
Collins, L. M., & Graham, J. W. (2002). The effect of the timing and spacing of observations
in longitudinal studies of tobacco and other drug use: Temporal design
considerations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 85-96. 10.1016/S0376-
8716(02)00217-X
DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Deckman, T., & Rouby, D. A. (2011). Forbidden fruit:
Inattention to attractive alternatives provokes implicit relationship reactance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 621. 10.1037/a0021749
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for
subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607-627.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438
Emmers-Sommer, T.M., Warber, K. & Halford, J. (2010). Reasons for (non)engagement in
infidelity. Marriage & Family Review, 46:6-7, 420-
444, 10.1080/01494929.2010.528707
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Faure, R., McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., & Righetti, F. (2021). Implicit ambivalence: A
driving force to improve relationship problems. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 19485506211034277. 10.1177/19485506211034277
Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
49
positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489.
10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 13, 70-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Reis, H. T. (2015). Best research practices in psychology:
Illustrating epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship
science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 275.
10.1037/pspi0000007
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal
in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956. 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.956
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close
relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68,383–411.
10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038
Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (2008). Social functions of emotion. Handbook of
emotions, 3, 456-468.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(5), 1016-1030. 10.5465/amj.2006.22798182
Foster, J. D., & Misra, T. A. (2013). It did not mean anything (about me) Cognitive
dissonance theory and the cognitive and affective consequences of romantic
infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(7), 835-857.
10.1177/0265407512472324
Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult
attachment: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89(5), 731. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.751

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
50
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A quasi-signal detection
analysis of daily interactions between close relationship partners. Psychological
Science, 14(2), 100-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01426
Guarana, C. L., & Hernandez, M. (2016). Identified ambivalence: When cognitive conflicts
can help individuals overcome cognitive traps. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(7), 1013. 10.1037/apl0000105
Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the
communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles
inventory. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 365-393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.524874
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of
dating infidelity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 143-159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327189
Herr, R. M., Van Harreveld, F., Uchino, B. N., Birmingham, W. C., Loerbroks, A., Fischer, J.
E., & Bosch, J. A. (2019). Associations of ambivalent leadership with distress and
cortisol secretion. Journal of behavioral medicine, 42(2), 265-275.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-9982-z
Hall, J.L., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J.M. (2010). Individual
Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting
Styles Inventory, Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 365-393,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.524874
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
Hershfield, H. E., Scheibe, S., Sims, T. L., & Carstensen, L. L. (2013). When feeling bad can

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
51
be good: Mixed emotions benefit physical health across adulthood. Social
psychological and personality science, 4(1), 54-61. 10.1177/1948550612444616
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk:
a meta-analytic review. PLoS med, 7(7), e1000316. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Holt-Lunstad, J., & Uchino, B. N. (2019). Social Ambivalence and Disease (SAD): A
Theoretical Model Aimed at Understanding the Health Implications of Ambivalent
Relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 941-966.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861392
Hsieh, N., & Hawkley, L. (2018). Loneliness in the older adult marriage: Associations with
dyadic aversion, indifference, and ambivalence. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 35(10), 1319-1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712480
Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Page-Gould, E. (2018). Wanting to stay and wanting to go:
Unpacking the content and structure of relationship stay/leave decision
processes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 631-644.
10.1177/1948550617722834
Joel, S., Stanton, S. C., Page-Gould, E., & MacDonald, G. (2021). One Foot Out the Door:
Stay/Leave Ambivalence Predicts Day-to-Day Fluctuations in Commitment and
Intentions to End the Relationship. European Journal of Social Psychology.
10.1002/EJSP.2739
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative
partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of
personality and social Psychology, 57(6), 967. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967
Karremans, J. C., Dotsch, R., & Corneille, O. (2011). Romantic relationship status biases

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
52
memory of faces of attractive opposite-sex others: Evidence from a reverse-
correlation paradigm. Cognition, 121(3), 422-426.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.008
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Lane, S. P., & Hennes, E. P. (2018). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel
relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 7–31.
10.1177/0265407517710342
Larsen, J. T., Hemenover, S. H., Norris, C. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Turning adversity to
advantage: On the virtues of the coactivation of positive and negative emotions.
10.1037/10566-015
Lavner, J. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2012). Incremental change or initial
differences? Testing two models of marital deterioration. Journal of Family
Psychology, 26(4), 606–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029052
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–
analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37-57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035
Levinger, G. (1979). Marital cohesiveness at the brink: The fate of applications for divorce.
In G. Levinger and O. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation (pp. 137–150). New
York: Basic Books.
Linardatos, L., & Lydon, J. E. (2011). Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous
relationship maintenance processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(4), 737. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023647
Losada, A., Márquez-González, M., Vara-García, C., Gallego-Alberto, L., Romero-Moreno,

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
53
R., & Pillemer, K. (2018). Ambivalence and guilt feelings: Two relevant variables for
understanding caregivers' depressive symptomatology. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 25(1), 59-64. 10.1002/cpp.2116
Lydon, J., & Karremans, J. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: A
motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive
alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76-80. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.011
Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The
commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive
alternatives?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 152-161.
10.1177/0146167299025002002
MacDonald, G., Park, Y., Hayes, A., Vanasse Grosdidier, I., & Park, S. W. (2021). Quality of
alternatives positively associated with interest in opening up a relationship. Personal
Relationships. 10.1111/pere.12377
Machia, L. V., & Ogolsky, B. G. (2021). The reasons people think about staying and leaving
their romantic relationships: A mixed-method analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 47(8), 1279-1293. 10.1177/0146167220966903
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship
maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(1), 174-179. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.002
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement:
Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1),
28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.006
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples:

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
54
Demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic
sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 971-982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
011-9771-z
McNulty, J. K. (2016). Highlighting the contextual nature of interpersonal relationships.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 247-315). Academic
Press.
McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Attentional and
evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 76–95.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000127
Miller, P. J., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A
13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1579-
1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292691
Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic
relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 23-34. 10.1207/s15327965pli1001_3
Moss, S. A., & Wilson, S. G. (2015). The positive emotions that facilitate the fulfillment of
needs may not be positive emotions at all: The role of ambivalence. Explore, 11(1),
40-50. 10.1016/j.explore.2014.10.006
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions:
Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.70.1.79
Nohlen, H. U., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., Lelieveld, G. J., & Crone, E. A. (2014).

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
55
Evaluating ambivalence: social-cognitive and affective brain regions associated with
ambivalent decision-making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(7), 924-
931. 10.1093/scan/nst074
Lewis Jr, N., & Wai, J. (2021). Communicating what we know, and what isn’t so: Science
communication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
10.1177/1745691620964062.
Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. Just a Good Place to Visit?. In The Oxford Handbook of Positive
Organizational Scholarship.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating
the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 71(3), 431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.71.3.431
Oceja, L., & Carrera, P. (2009). Beyond a single pattern of mixed emotional experience:
Sequential, prevalence, inverse, and simultaneous. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 58-67. 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.58
Reich, T., & Wheeler, S. C. (2016). The good and bad of ambivalence: Desiring ambivalence
under outcome uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4),
493. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000047
Righetti, F., Schneider, I., Ferrier, D., Spiridonova, T., Xiang, R., & Impett, E. A. (2020).
The bittersweet taste of sacrifice: Consequences for ambivalence and mixed
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000750
Ritter, S. M., Karremans, J. C., & van Schie, H. T. (2010). The role of self-regulation in
derogating attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4),
631-637. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.010

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
56
Ross, J. M., Karney, B. R., Nguyen, T. P., & Bradbury, T. N. (2019). Communication that is
maladaptive for middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically
disadvantaged couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 582.
Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature
of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33-72.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of experimental social psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101.
Schneider, I. K., & Schwarz, N. (2017). Mixed feelings: The case of ambivalence. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 15, 39-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.012
Schneider, I. K., Stapels, J., Koole, S. L., & Schwarz, N. (2020). Too close to call: Spatial
distance between options influences choice difficulty. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 87, 103939. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103939
Schneider, I. K., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., Topolinski, S., van der Pligt, J., Schwarz,
N., & Koole, S. L. (2015). The path of ambivalence: tracing the pull of opposing
evaluations using mouse trajectories. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 996.
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00996
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
57
new procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7(4), 422.
10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations
of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 296-312.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310362982
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated
effect. Organizational research methods, 11(2), 241-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300344
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Thompson, M. M., & Holmes, J. G. (1996). Ambivalence in close relationships: Conflicted
cognitions as a catalyst for change. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 497–
530). Guilford Press.
Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta-
analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158-180.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268
Uchino, B. N., Bosch, J. A., Smith, T. W., Carlisle, M., Birmingham, W., Bowen, K. S.,
Light, K., Heaney, J., & O’ Hartaigh, B. (2013). Relationships and cardiovascular
risk: Perceived spousal ambivalence in specific relationship contexts and its links to
inflammation. Health Psychology, 32(10), 1067-1075.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033515
Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., & Berg, C. A. (2014). Spousal relationship quality and
cardiovascular risk: Dyadic perceptions of relationship ambivalence are associated

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
58
with coronary-artery calcification. Psychological science, 25(4), 1037-1042.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613520015
Van Harreveld, F., Rutjens, B. T., Rotteveel, M., Nordgren, L. F., & Van Der Pligt, J. (2009).
Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling
tense before jumping off the fence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1),
167-173. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.015
van Harreveld, F., Nohlen, H. U., & Schneider, I. K. (2015). The ABC of ambivalence:
Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 285-324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social
information (EASI) model. Current directions in psychological science, 18(3), 184-
188. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x
Visserman, M. L., & Karremans, J. C. (2014). Romantic relationship status biases the
processing of an attractive alternative's behavior. Personal Relationships, 21(2), 324-
334. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12035
Watkins, S. J., & Boon, S. D. (2016). Expectations regarding partner fidelity in dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(2), 237-256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515574463
Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., & Whisman, M. A. (2014). Fluctuation in relationship
quality over time and individual well-being: Main, mediated, and moderated
effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 858-871.
10.1177/0146167214528988
Yuan, S., & Weiser, D. A. (2019). Relationship dissolution following marital infidelity:

ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES AND AMBIVALENCE
59
comparing European Americans and Asian Americans. Marriage & Family
Review, 55(7), 631-650. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2019.1589614
Yzerbyt, V., Muller, D., Batailler, C., & Judd, C. M. (2018). New recommendations for
testing indirect effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component
paths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 929.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000132
Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y. (2015). Love you? Hate you? Maybe it’s both: evidence that
significant others trigger bivalent-priming. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 6(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614541297
Zayas, V., Surenkok, G., & Pandey, G. (2017). Implicit ambivalence of significant others:
Significant others trigger positive and negative evaluations. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 11(11), e12360. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12360
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using
hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research
Methods, 12(4), 695-719. 10.1177/1094428108327450