| |

Received: 29 October 2018    Revised: 17 August 2019    Accepted: 22 August 2019

DOI: 10.1111/eth.12949

RESE ARCH PAPER

Non‐verbal mate retention behaviour in women and its relation

to couple's relationship adjustment and satisfaction

Jitka Lindová1,2  | Kateřina Klapilová1,2  | Devin Johnson1 | Adéla Vobořilová2 |

Barbora Chlápková2 | Jan Havlíček1,3

1
National Institute of Mental Health,
Klecany, Czech Republic Abstract
2
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of The function of mate retention strategies is to preserve the bond between romantic
Humanities, Charles University, Prague,
partners and to prevent desertion, which is also why such behaviours are often elic‐
Czech Republic
3
Department of Zoology, Faculty of
ited by the presence of a potential rival. Most existing studies on mate retention are
Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech based on self‐reports, which are prone to various biases. In this study, we observed
Republic
non‐verbal behaviour of 47 long‐term romantic heterosexual couples during their in‐
Correspondence terview with a female experimenter, whom the women in the couples may have per‐
Jitka Lindová, National Institute of Mental
Health, Topolová 748, 250 67, Klecany,
ceived as a potential rival. We measured non‐verbal displays of mate retention tactics
Czech Republic and Department of (direct guarding, intimacy inducement, appearance enhancement, and love and care
Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities,
Charles University, José Martího 31, 162 52,
display), as well as relationship maintenance strategies of openness and positivity. We
Prague, Czech Republic. expected that relationship quality as reported by both partners in the couple would
Email: jitka.lindova@seznam.cz
be positively associated with ‘benefit‐provisioning’ mate retention behaviours and
Funding information
negatively associated with a ‘cost‐inflicting’ mate retention tactic (direct guarding).
The study was supported by the Czech
Science Foundation, grant number Relationship quality was assessed by Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale using both
P407/17‐16622S. This publication was
the total score of dyadic adjustment and a Dyadic Satisfaction subscale. We found
further supported by project Nr. LO1611
with financial support from the Ministry a significant association between both partners' dyadic adjustment and satisfaction
of Education of the Czech Republic under
and woman's appearance enhancement behaviours (such as self‐touch, hair flip and
the NPU I programme; by the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports—Institutional primp) in the presence of her partner and a potential rival. We also found a nega‐
Support for Longterm Development of
tive association between partner's dyadic adjustment and woman's direct guarding
Research Organizations—Charles University,
Faculty of Humanities (Charles Univ, Fac of partner using short looks, and a positive association between woman's intimacy‐
Human 2017), and by Charles University
inducing behaviour using long gaze and her own dyadic satisfaction and her partner's
Research Centre programme, grant number
204056. dyadic adjustment. Our results highlight the specific role of female attractiveness in
later stages of romantic relationships within the context of mate retention and draw
Editor: C. Rutz
attention to the significance of the use of observational techniques in addition to
self‐reports.

KEYWORDS
appearance enhancement, dyadic satisfaction, glance, non‐verbal behaviour, relationship
maintenance, self‐touch

Ethology. 2019;00:1–15. © 2019 Blackwell Verlag GmbH |  1

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eth  
 |
2       LINDOVÁ et al.
1 |  I NTRO D U C TI O N
In all cultures, humans tend to form long‐term romantic relationships
(Benshoof & Thornhill, 1979). Within the context of evolutionary
psychology, the term ‘mate retention tactics’ refers to a variety of
behavioural strategies whose function is to maintain the bond be‐
tween romantic partners and to prevent partners from switching to
alternative mates (Buss, 1988a; Buss & Shackelford, 1997).
Since the goal of mate retention tactics is to prevent partner's
infidelity or desertion, such behaviours are more frequent when an
individual perceives an increased risk of partner's infidelity (Buss
& Shackelford, 1997). Mate retention tactics can take the form of
‘benefit‐provisioning’ mate retention, which strengthens a relation‐
ship, or ‘cost‐inflicting’ mate retention, which can be either intersex‐
ual, that is directed towards the romantic partner, or intra‐sexual,
that is directed towards potential competitors (Buss, 1988a; Buss &
Shackelford, 1997; Miner, Starratt, & Shackelford, 2009). The main
intersexual mate retention tactics are as follows: (a) direct guarding;
(b) negative inducements, such as threats of infidelity, mate's pun‐
ishment for the perceived threat of infidelity, emotional and com‐
mitment manipulation, or derogation of competitors; and (c) positive
inducements in the form of presents/dinners, sexual inducements,
emphasis on love and caring, enhancements of physical appear‐
ance, submission and debasement. Unlike the other tactics, positive
inducements are ‘benefit‐provisioning’ mate retention strategies.
Intrasexual mate retention manipulations include (a) public signals
of possession; (b) derogation of mate to rivals; (c) threats to rivals,
and even violence (Buss, 1988a). There is evidence that benefit‐pro‐
visioning mate retention tactics are positively associated with rela‐
tionship satisfaction, while cost‐inflicting mate retention tactics are
negatively associated with it (Salkicevic, Stanic, & Grabovac, 2014).
A similar concept, which originated in social psychology and was
later developed also by evolutionary scientists, is the notion of rela‐
tionship maintenance mechanisms (Maner, Rouby, & Gonzaga, 2008;
Stafford & Canary, 1991), that is behaviours or cognitive mechanisms
whose function is to preserve the well‐being of a long‐term couple
(Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). An influential typology of rela‐
tionship maintenance strategies was developed through factor analysis
by Stafford and Canary (1991), who identified the following relation‐
ship maintenance strategies: positivity, openness, assurances, networks
and responsibilities. These behaviours can be applied on an everyday
basis to maintain well‐being in relationships (Dindia & Baxter, 1987), but
they are also supposed to play a role when a relationship is threatened
(Maner et al., 2008) or a couple faces relationship problems (Dindia &
Baxter, 1987). The use of relationship maintenance behaviours cor‐
relates with relationship satisfaction and stability (Canary, Stafford, &
Semic, 2002; Rusbult et al., 2001; Weigel & Ballard‐Reisch, 1999, 2008).
Mate retention and relationship maintenance strategies have been
studied mainly on the level of long‐term behavioural patterns and
attitudes and identified based on verbal self‐reporting (Buss, 1988a;
Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Stafford, 2011; Stafford & Canary, 1991).
It is, however, known that self‐reporting methods are susceptible to
various biases including social desirability and self‐awareness (Van de
Mortel, 2008). More recently, experimental research on perception
had inspired the notion of adaptive cognitive relationship maintenance
mechanisms. The ultimate function of such mechanisms can be, for in‐
stance, to derogate the attractiveness of alternatives to current part‐
ners (Karremans, Dotsch, & Corneille, 2011; Koranyi & Rothermund,
2012; Lundström & Jones‐Gotman, 2009; Maner, Gailliot, & Miller,
2009; Maner et al., 2008; Miller, 1997). So far, however, little attention
has been paid to the expression or detection of mate retention tactics
on the microlevel of non‐verbal behaviour of the partners. As far as we
were able to find, the only pattern of non‐verbal behaviour that has
been studied in the context of mate retention is the display of love. In
evolutionary terms, love is viewed as an emotion that aids mate reten‐
tion by displaying fidelity, sexual access and commitment (Buss, 2006).
Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, and Smith (2001) stress the specific func‐
tion of love display in times of uncertainty, when it is supposed to reas‐
sure the partner about one's own commitment. These authors further
bring some evidence that head nods, Duchenne smiles, gesturing and
leaning towards a partner may constitute a display of love. They show
that the experience of love and non‐verbal displays of love during a
positive interaction with a partner are reliable predictors of not only
long‐term commitment and pro‐relationship behaviour (playful and
constructive communication, enhancement of trust), but also of part‐
ners' behaviour in contexts where the relationship is threatened (con‐
structive conflict resolution, teasing).
In our study, we tested whether non‐verbal displays of a number
of mate retention tactics and relationship maintenance strategies
can serve as indicators of relationship quality. Since mate retention
tactics are thought to be stimulated by a threat to the relationship
in the form of an alternative mate (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Maner
et al., 2008), couples participating in our study were exposed to an
attractive female experimenter. This experimenter first individually
interviewed the female and the male of the couple, and then con‐
ducted with both partners an interview during which the couple's
behaviour was recorded. We opted for a set‐up with a female ex‐
perimenter, whom we expected to be perceived as a potential threat
to the relationship by the woman, rather than a male experimenter,
because it has been found that during the initial phases of a rela‐
tionship, women's non‐verbal signals play a more important role
than men's non‐verbal signals. In particular, it has been shown that
women use subtle non‐verbal displays to show their interest in a
mate, whereas men tend to be more direct and verbal (Moore, 1995;
McCormick & Jones, 1983; Grammer, Honda, Juette, & Schmitt,
1999). Moreover, women are considered to be generally more non‐
verbally expressive than men (Hall, 1984; Fischer & LaFrance, 2015).
Accordingly, we hypothesised that women's mate retention strat‐
egies might be based on less overt non‐verbal signals than men's
mate retention strategies. We limited our analyses to microscopic
behaviours that could be observed in this kind of laboratory settings.
In particular, we measured the following displays of the mate reten‐
tion tactics: (a) appearance enhancement, (b) love and care displays,
(c) intimacy inducements, and (d) direct guarding. Additionally, we
also observed the display of two relationship maintenance strate‐
gies, namely (e) positivity and (f) openness. Our starting hypothesis
LINDOVÁ et al.
was that ‘benefit‐provisioning’ mate retention tactics (appearance
enhancement, love and care displays, and intimacy inducements), as
well as positivity and openness displayed by women will be associ‐
ated with higher levels of adjustment and satisfaction in a couple.
We further expected that a higher incidence of the ‘cost‐inflicting’
mate retention tactic (direct guarding) by women will correlate with
a lower level of dyadic adjustment and satisfaction. And finally, we
hypothesised that men belonging to better adjusted couples will en‐
gage in more displays of love directed at their partners as a strategy
to reassure a partner about their commitment.
2 | M E TH O DS
2.1 | Participants
The study included 47 childless heterosexual couples who had been
together for at least 3  years (M  =  5.3  years, SD  =  2  years) and co‐
habited for a minimum of 6 months (M = 2.9 years, SD = 1.7 years).
The age of individual partners ranged between 21 and 39  years
(x̄  = 26.4 years for women, SD = 3.4; x̄ = 27.3 years for men, SD = 3.8).
Couples were recruited through fliers at 25 gynaecologists' offices
in Prague to participate in a larger study, the Intimate Behavior in
Cohabiting Couples Project (for details, see Havlicek, Husarova,
Rezacova, & Klapilova, 2011). Participation was rewarded by 2000
CZK (88 USD). Participants signed an informed consent form, in
which they agreed to provide data on their relationship and sexual
life, including their behaviour, attitudes and appearance, for scien‐
tific use. A total of 48 couples were video recorded for the purpose
of this study, whereby one couple's data were later excluded after
the couple decided to withdraw from the study. Ethical aspects
of the study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of
Charles University, Faculty of Science (No. 2009/7). Sample size
used in this study was similar to earlier studies that used systematic
behavioural observation. Given our sample size of 47 couples, we
performed a series of power analyses with different levels of ex‐
pected effect size values to estimate power of respective effects
according to Ackerman and Kenny (2016). Power estimates for the
actor and partner effects of β = 0.3, 0.35 and 0.4 were 0.56, 0.74 and
0.90, respectively. Therefore, we set the smallest effect size of our
interest to lie between β = 0.35 and 0.4.
2.2 | Procedure
Data for this study were collected as part of a three‐ to four‐hour‐
long testing session, which was part of the above‐mentioned larger
study. During the whole testing procedure, each partner sepa‐
rately completed several questionnaires, including inventories on
sexual behaviour and extrapair behaviour (Hurlbert Index of Sexual
Compatibility: Hurlbert, White, Powell, & Apt, 1993; Extramarital
Behavioral Intentions Scale: Buunk, 1982; Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory: Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; and Extra‐Dyadic Behavior
Experience Inventory: Havlicek et al., 2011) and had an individual
interview with the experimenter, who was known to the participants
|
      3
from several phone calls leading up to the study. The experimenter
was an attractive female (rated at the 75th percentile in a previous
study by Lindová et al., 2016). She was close in age to the average
of female participants and wore no make‐up because it could influ‐
ence perception of her attractiveness (Batres et al., 2018). She in‐
terviewed participants on subjects connected to relationships and
sexuality. We analysed the behaviour of both partners during the
couples' interview with the experimenter, which was held after par‐
ticipant's individual interviews with the experimenter at the end of
the testing session. The couple's interview was conducted under
standardised conditions, always in the same experimental room, with
the couple seated next to each other on a sofa and the experimenter
in a chair opposite them and somewhat to the side (Figure 1). The
first two questions, chosen for relative emotional neutrality, were
‘What made you take part in the study?’ and ‘Could you describe
your usual day?’ This interview was recorded with a hidden camera.
After the interview, both partners were informed about the fact that
the couple's interview had been video recorded. We showed them
the camera and the recording, and they were debriefed. Unless they
expressed disagreement, they were asked to sign an informed con‐
sent form related to the use of this recording taken with a hidden
camera for the purpose of the study.
In case participants expressed disagreement with being re‐
corded, the recording was deleted in their presence.
The study procedure included a partial and temporary con‐
cealment of the focus of the study to participants, who were video
recorded by a hidden camera in order to observe their non‐verbal
response to a potential rival of the female partner. The design was
chosen to maintain spontaneity of participants' behaviour, and we
believe that such a minimum level of concealment of the aims of the
study was needed to obtain ecologically valid results.
2.3 | Measures
2.3.1 | Questionnaire
To measure partners' current relationship quality and satisfac‐
tion, we used Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier,
F I G U R E 1   Scheme of participants' seating during the interview.
E, experimenter; P, participant
 |
4       LINDOVÁ et al.
1976). This questionnaire consists of 32 items, and its total score
(whereby higher scores indicate higher adjustment) is deter‐
mined by four factors: Dyadic Consensus (13 items), Affectional
Expression (4 items), Dyadic Satisfaction (10 items) and Dyadic
Cohesion (5 items). The DAS questionnaire was completed by both
partners in each couple, and their individual scores were used in
subsequent analyses. In addition to using the DAS total score as
a reliable measure of relationship's overall quality, we also per‐
formed models with the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale. We focused
specifically on dyadic satisfaction so as to be better able to com‐
pare our results with previous studies which used various meas‐
ures of relationship satisfaction (e.g. Hooley & Hahlweg, 1989;
Salkicevic et al., 2014; Weigel & Ballard‐Reisch, 2008). The DAS
total score measuring dyadic adjustment is not suitable for such
comparison because it also includes assessment of agreement be‐
tween the partners, expressed intimacy and behaviour performed
together.
2.3.2 | Behavioural coding
We coded three minutes of each video recording, starting with the
moment the couple was asked the first question. A fixed 3‐min time
interval was used to standardise the length of observation while
using a maximum of time when all couples were still answering the
above‐mentioned questions. A catalogue of 20 states (postures) and
acts was developed to code the participants' non‐verbal behaviour
(see Appendix 1). These acts and postures represent microscopic
displays of mate retention or relationship maintenance tactics la‐
belled Appearance Enhancement, Love and Care, Intimacy Inducements
I and II, Direct Guarding, Positivity and Openness. This range of acts
and postures was chosen based on reviewed literature sources. A
pilot inspection of 15 randomly chosen videos was performed to
explore the variability of behaviours our subjects produced during
the interview. This resulted in an elimination of behaviours which
our subjects did not display and those that would be difficult to rec‐
ognise, and a further specification of definitions of the final set of
behaviours selected for coding.
To capture non‐verbal displays of Appearance Enhancement, we
measured self‐grooming, including self‐touch on thighs and upper
body except for face and hands, as well as primping and hair flip‐
ping. McCormick & Jones (1983); see also Lockard & Adams ( 1980)
describe grooming escalation in connection with appearance en‐
hancement and identify it with behaviours such as hair smoothing
and self‐touching. Moore (1985) observed primping and hair‐flipping
performed by women who are trying to attract the attention of po‐
tential mates in a social setting. Self‐touches such as face scratch‐
ing or hands rubbing, which are more typically used as adaptors and
perceived as cues to nervousness (Ekman & Friesen, 1972), were not
included.
Observation of Love and Care displays was based on Gonzaga et
al. (2001), with focus on head nods, smiles and gesticulation. Leaning
towards a partner was not included because partners sat on a sofa
next to one another.
The following two categories were formed so as to match the
content of Buss's (1988a) Sexual Inducement tactic. Since overt sex‐
ual behaviour could not be expected in a laboratory, we chose two
categories of behaviour which literature describes as being used to
increase intimacy in a couple. McCormick and Jones (1983) mention
gazing at a partner as a light intimacy escalation display. The stron‐
gest escalating effect is, in their view, achieved by various forms
of partner touching. We have therefore classified a long glance at
a partner as a subtle (I) and touching of a partner as an overt (II)
Intimacy Inducement.
Direct Guarding was assessed by the frequency of short glances
at a partner, because it has been found that visual monitoring of a
partner is one of the most frequent patterns of mate guarding (Buss,
1988a).
Openness was identified with an open upper body posture,
where arms are spread, close to the upper body, resting on a lap,
draped over the arm of a sofa, or resting on knees, including one arm
crossing the body (see Appendix 1). A previous study found that in
attractive opposite‐sex pairs, open body posture conveys receptiv‐
ity/trust (Burgoon, 1991).
Some of the measured behaviours may have other functions,
so that for instance a smile can be a display of love, of positivity,
or it can function as an intimacy inducement. To distinguish among
the various tactics such behaviours could belong to, particular be‐
havioural displays were associated with only one tactic, namely that
with the least equivocal function. Therefore, to measure Positivity (as
opposed to negativity), we included only laughter (positively loading
on this variable), looking around (negatively loading) and a negative
headshake (likewise negatively loading) (see Appendix 1 for an over‐
view of all behavioural measures).
We paid special attention to objectiveness and reliability of cod‐
ing. In the next step, we have therefore carefully defined all codes
(see Appendix 1 for all definitions). The codes were assigned to seg‐
ments of the analysed video recordings with a temporal resolution
of 33.33ms (one video frame). Coding was performed using Interact
9 software. We measured the frequency of all behavioural acts as
well as the duration and frequency of body positions and looks at a
partner. Each recording was coded separately for the male and the
female partner. The coding of one couple by one coder took approx‐
imately 2.5 hr.
All video recordings were coded in their entirety by the same
female coder (JL) who was blind to all questionnaire scores of
the couples including relationship satisfaction scores, and had no
other experience with the behaviour or appearance of the couple
aside from the 3‐min videos. She is experienced in coding and in
the use of observational software. About one third of recordings
was also coded by a second female coder trained to 80% agree‐
ment. Data provided by the second coder were used only to cal‐
culate interrater agreement. The coding procedure was similar to
other studies that used behavioural analysis (e.g. Bagner & Eyberg,
2007; McMahon, Barnett, Kowalenko, & Tennant, 2006). The sec‐
ond coder's average Cohen's Kappa with the principal coder was
0.76 (range 0.67–0.84). The main points of disagreement between
LINDOVÁ et al. |
      5

the two coders were when either one coder coded a behaviour
which the other coder did not detect, or when one coder coded
some behaviour as a single act while the other coded it as two
separate acts.
2.4 | Data analysis
We calculated individual composite scores of Appearance
Enhancement, Love and Care, Intimacy Inducement I and II, Direct
Guarding, and Positivity by summing up the frequencies of all behav‐
iours belonging to the category in question (see Appendix 1 for a
Behavioural Catalogue). A composite score of Openness was calcu‐
lated by adding up the duration of all open upper body positions.
In the next step, we applied Actor‐Partner Interdependence
Models (APIMs) for dyadic data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006)
to identify the effect of actor and partner variables Appearance
Enhancement, Love and Care, Intimacy Inducement I and II, Direct
Guarding, Positivity and Openness, and the covariate length of relation‐
ship on both the DAS total score (APIM 1) and the Dyadic Satisfaction
(APIM 2). The APIM provides separate but simultaneous estimates
of actor and partner effects for members of a dyad (Ackerman,
Donnellan, & Kashy, 2011). Our model thus distinguished between
men and women within a dyad and estimated both the actor effects
of independent predictors (effects of men's predictors on men's de‐
pendent variable, and women's predictors on women's dependent
variable) and the partner effects of independent predictors (effects
of men's predictors on women's dependent variable, and women's
predictors on men's dependent variable). Independence of predic‐
tors was checked by a correlational analysis (see Appendix 2).
Gender differences between the DAS total scores were com‐
puted using a paired t test for two dependent samples. Spearman's
correlation was used to assess the association of DAS total scores
with age, education and between‐partner correlation in the DAS
total score.
3 | R E S U LT S
DAS total scores were significantly higher in women than in men
(x̄ for men  =  118.3 and women  =  121.7; t [46]  =  −2.18, p  =  .035,
Cohen's d = 0.34). We found no significant correlation between the
DAS total score and age or education level in either sex (men/age: ρ
[47] = 0.13, p = .40; men/education: ρ [45] = 0.14, p = .36; women/
age: ρ [47] = −0.07, p = .65; women/education: ρ [45] = 0.19, p = .21).

TA B L E 1   Descriptive statistics of variables entered in APIM 1 and 2

Men Women
% behaviours of re‐
Variable x̄ SD x̄ SD spective variable

DAS total score 118.35 10.349 121.72 9.54  

Dyadic satisfaction 43.51 3.544 43.56 4.40  
Love and carea 19.55 10.16 21.28 9.61  
Smilea 7.53 3.8 8.38 3.93 39
Head noddinga 4.66 3.23 6.34 4.3 27
a
Illustrator 7.36 7.17 6.55 6.28 34
Appearance enhancement a 1.19 1.55 3.13    
a
Self‐touch 0.85 1.3 1.23 1.4 48
Hair flipa 0.04 0.29 0.66 0.94 16
a
Primp 0.30 0.81 1.23 1.86 36
Intimacy inducement Ia 3.60 3.228 4.979 3.48  
a
Intimacy inducement II 1.21 3.413 0.979 2.07  
Direct guardinga 10.30 6.178 8.596 4.34  
Positivitya −0.06 3.15 4.79    
Laughtera 2.72 1.94 7.13 4.17 66
Look arounda 1.55 1.91 1.45 1.82 20
Head shakea 1.23 1.75 0.89 1.24 14
b
Openness: Upper body 139.88 70.69 123.65 70.42  

  x̄ SD couple      
c
Length of relationship 63.0 24.2      
a
Number of behavioural acts.
b
Time in seconds.
c
Time in months.
 |
6       LINDOVÁ et al.
DAS scores of partners within couples were significantly correlated
(ρ [47] = 0.431, p = .002).
The means and standard deviations for all variables entered into
the APIM 1 and 2, as well as means and standard deviations for indi‐
vidual behaviours included in these composite behavioural variables
are listed in Table 1.
The R2 of the full APIM 1 was .188 for men, with men's DAS total
score as a dependent variable, men's behaviours as the actor vari‐
ables and women's behaviours as the partner variables. For women,
2
the R of the full APIM 1 was .082, with women's DAS total score as
a dependent variable, women's behaviours as the actor variables and
men's behaviours as the partner variables.
Interaction between gender and the actor and partner effects,
2
respectively, was statistically significant in APIM 1 (χ [7]  =  15.8,
p = .027; χ 2 [7] = 17.6, p = .014; a combined test of interactions be‐
tween gender and both the actor and partner effect: χ 2 [14] = 32.8,
p < .003). This indicates that men and women should be distinguished
F I G U R E 2   Relationship between women's Appearance Enhancement behaviours and their own and their partner's Dyadic Adjustment
score and Dyadic Satisfaction score
within a dyad because the association between both their and their
partner's behaviour and their DAS total score is statistically different.
Appearance Enhancement displayed by women had a positive
effect on their own as well as their partner's Dyadic Adjustment
(p  =  .012 and .004, respectively; Figure 2a,b). We also found that
Intimacy Inducement I as displayed by women had a positive effect
on their own Dyadic Adjustment (p = .019; Figure 3a). The effect of
women's Intimacy Inducement I on their partner's Dyadic Adjustment
did not reach the level of statistical significance (p = .057). The ef‐
fect of women's Openness on their own and their partner's Dyadic
Adjustment was not statistically significant (p  =  .098 and .072, re‐
spectively). Similarly, the predicted negative effect of women's
Direct Guarding on couple's Dyadic Adjustment did not reach the
level of statistical significance (actor effect: p = .095, partner effect:
p = .090). Women's displays of Love and Care, Intimacy Inducement II
and Positivity did not have a significant effect on either their part‐
ner's or their own Dyadic Adjustment, and no behavioural displays
LINDOVÁ et al.
F I G U R E 3   Relationship between women's Sexual Inducement I and their Dyadic Adjustment score and their partner's Dyadic Satisfaction
score and relationship between women's Direct Guarding behaviours and their partner's Dyadic Satisfaction score
observed in men had a statistically significant effect on either their
own or their partner's Dyadic Adjustment (Table 2).
The R2 of the full APIM 2 was .235 for men (with men's Dyadic
Satisfaction as a dependent variable and men's behaviour as an actor
and women's behaviour as a partner variable) and .129 for women
(with women's Dyadic Satisfaction as a dependent variable and
women's behaviour as an actor and men's behaviour as a partner
variable).
In APIM 2, interaction between gender and actor effects was
not statistically significant (χ 2 [7]  =  11.1, p  =  .133), but interaction
between gender and partner effects did reach the level of statistical
2
significance (χ [7] = 17.6, p = .014), and the same holds of the in‐
teraction between gender and both the actor and partner effect (χ 2
[14] = 26.6, p = .022).
This analysis has also shown a statistically significant effect
of Appearance Enhancement displayed by women on their own
and their partner's Dyadic Satisfaction (p  =  .045 and .007, respec‐
tively; Figure 2c,d). Likewise, Intimacy Inducement I as displayed by
|
      7
women had a significant effect on their partner's Dyadic Satisfaction
(p = .006; Figure 3b). Finally, we found a significant negative effect
of women's Direct Guarding on their partner's Dyadic Satisfaction
(p  =  .043; Figure 3c). Women's displays of Love and Care, Intimacy
Inducement II, Positivity and Openness did not have a significant ef‐
fect on their partner's or their own Dyadic Satisfaction. Similarly as
in APIM 1, behavioural displays observed in men had no effect on
their partner's or their own Dyadic Satisfaction (Table 3).
An overview of standardised effects of actor and partner vari‐
ables and the covariate on Dyadic Satisfaction in men and women is
given in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
4 | D I S CU S S I O N
The main aim of the current study was to investigate possible as‐
sociations between non‐verbal displays of mate retention per‐
formed by women when a couple was interviewed by an attractive
 |
8       LINDOVÁ et al.

TA B L E 2   Results of Actor–Partner Interdependence Model 1 establishing the effect of observational actor and partner variables and
covariates on a Dyadic Adjustment Scale

Full model
DAS total
prediction Men Women  
2
R 0.188 0.082 Combined sample    

d (actor d (partner
Partner ef‐ Partner effect effects effects
Actor effect fect (W–M) Actor effect (M to W) Actor effect Partner effect M–W) M–W)

  Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Z Z

a ** *
Appear. Enh 0.373 1.885   1.597   −0.082 0.985 0.901 1.096 −1.799† 
Love & Carea 0.217 −0.083 0.063 0.180 0.140 0.048d −0.692 1.191
Intimacy Ind. Ia −0.862 0.922†  1.123*  0.043 0.131 0.482 2.678**  −1.213
a
Intimacy Ind. II −0.033 −0.562 −0.069 −0.087 −0.051 −0.324 −0.038 0.497
Direct Guard. a 0.062 −0.715†  −0.686†  0.309 −0.312 −0.203 −1.405 1.897† 
Positivitya −0.317 −0.189 −0.129 0.203 −0.223 0.007 0.290 0.610
Opennessb −0.025 0.048†  −0.043†  −0.021 −0.034 0.014 −0.536 −1.909† 
Length of Rel.c −0.003 −0.121†  −0.062 −1.702† 

Note: Entries to individual predictors are estimates obtained by generalised least squares analysis with correlated errors and restricted maximum
likelihood estimation.
Abbreviations: M, men; W, women.
a
Number of behavioural acts.
b
Time in seconds.
c
Time in months.
†
< 0.1.
*< 0.05.
**< 0.01.

opposite‐sex experimenter and the couple's adjustment and satis‐
faction. In accordance with our predictions, we found an association
between non‐verbal displays of appearance enhancement in women
(including self‐touch, hair flip and primping) and both their own and
their male partners' satisfaction and adjustment in their romantic
relationship. We also found an association between women's inti‐
macy inducements (in the form of a long glance at a partner) and
their dyadic satisfaction, as well as their partners' dyadic adjust‐
ment. Furthermore, we confirmed a negative association between
women's direct guarding by visual monitoring and their partners'
dyadic satisfaction. And finally, we detected a predicted but statisti‐
cally non‐significant association between women's postural open‐
ness and their partners' relationship satisfaction.
Contrary to our prediction, we found no significant relation be‐
tween the frequency of displays of love and care (loaded by head
nods, smiles and gesticulation) by either partner and the couple's
dyadic adjustment or satisfaction. Similarly, neither non‐verbal be‐
haviours of positivity or negativity (such as laughter, looking around
or negative head shaking), nor advanced intimacy inducements
(partner touching) correlated with the dyadic adjustment or satis‐
faction of the partners. Overall, women's behaviour was markedly
more strongly associated with both their own and their partners'
dyadic adjustment and satisfaction than men's behaviour, which
corresponds to predictions made on the basis of our study's design,
which aimed at creating a potential relationship‐threatening situa‐
tion for the female partner.
We confirmed a higher frequency of appearance enhancement
in the presence of a potential female rival in those women who be‐
longed to better adjusted and more satisfied couples. Several au‐
thors found that appearance enhancement is relatively frequently
and effectively used by women, both in the context of mate selec‐
tion and intrasexual competition (Buss, 1988b; Fisher & Cox, 2010),
and in connection with mate retention (Buss, 1988a). Such results
are in accordance with findings to the effect that physical attrac‐
tiveness is among the main characteristics that men value in women
(Buss, 1987; Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002). For
high‐quality couples, direct confrontation with a potential female
rival may specifically trigger in women the use of appearance‐en‐
hancing behaviours in the sense of a mate retention tactic. Based on
our results, however, we cannot exclude an alternative explanation,
namely that appearance enhancement is used by women non‐spe‐
cifically to benefit the relationship across various contexts. Although
Miner et al. (2009) include appearance enhancement among the
benefit‐provisioning tactics which reduce a risk of partner infi‐
delity by increasing partner's dyadic satisfaction, but they do not
bring any empirical evidence for associating this tactic with dyadic
LINDOVÁ et al. |
      9

TA B L E 3   Results of the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model 2 establishing the effect of observational actor and partner variables and
covariates on a Dyadic Satisfaction subscale
Full Model
Dyad. Satisf.
prediction Men Women  
2
R 0.126 0.293 Combined sample  

d (actor d (partner
Partner effect Partner effect effects effects
Actor effect (W–M) Actor effect (M–W) Actor effect Partner effect M–W) M–W)

  Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Z Z

a ** *
Appear. Enh. 0.011 0.581   0.569   −0.074 0.290 0.253 1.347 −1.414
a
Love & care 0.088 −0.067 0.023 −0.167 0.056 −0.008 −0.750 1.313
Intimacy Ind. Ia −0.172 0.451**  0.287 −0.105 0.057 0.173 1.611 −1.945
Intimacy Ind. 0.078 −0.344 0.034 −0.044 0.056 −0.194 −0.111 0.867
IIa
Direct guard. a 0.063 −0.286*  −0.264 0.018 −0.100 −0.134 −1.511 1.501
a
Positivity −0.169 0.132 0.084 0.279 −0.043 0.205 1.063 0.554
Opennessb −0.003 0.012 −0.006 −0.010 −0.004 0.001 −0.217 −1.524
Length of Rel.c −0.015   −0.090**    −0.052*    −2.473*   

Note: The entries to individual predictors are estimates obtained by the generalised least squares analysis with correlated errors and restricted maxi‐
mum likelihood estimation.
Abbreviations: Dyad Sat., Dyadic Satisfaction score; M, men; W, women.
a
Number of behavioural acts.
b
Time in seconds.
c
Time in months.
†
<0.1.
*<0.05.
**<0.01.

F I G U R E 4   Effects of one's own (actor) behaviour, partner's behaviour and covariates on the Dyadic Satisfaction of men.
Note: Entries to the individual variables are betas obtained in the APIM 2 using standard deviation for men only. W, women; M, men.
Statistically significant results are shown in bold
 |
10       LINDOVÁ et al.
F I G U R E 5   Effects of one's own (actor) behaviour, partner's behaviour and covariates on the Dyadic Satisfaction of women.
Note: Entries to the individual variables are betas obtained in the APIM 2 using standard deviation for women only. W, women; M, men.
Statistically significant results are shown in bold
satisfaction. De Miguel and Buss (2011), on the other hand, recently
concluded in their self‐report based study that appearance enhance‐
ment is related to a higher relationship commitment. Our results in‐
dicate that there exists not only an association between women's
appearance enhancement and their partners' dyadic satisfaction and
adjustment, but also a similarly strong association between such be‐
haviour and women's own dyadic satisfaction and adjustment.
The mate retention tactic of Appearance Enhancement was fol‐
lowed on a microlevel of non‐verbal behaviour as the frequency of
self‐touching of specific body parts, such as the torso and the thighs,
including manipulation with hair and clothing. In earlier studies, this
behaviour was usually studied in the context of mate choice and
mate attraction rather than mate retention. For instance, Moore
(1985) includes various types of touching one's own body, hair and
clothing among non‐verbal courtship signals used by women. One
of the two main functions of courtship displays performed during
relationship formation is to draw attention to one's own attractive
characteristics (Givens, 1978), that is to promote or enhance one's
appearance. It seems that a similar pattern of behaviour is a rela‐
tively frequent and efficient tactic to secure a preferred mate.
Among other mate retention behaviours, we found some evi‐
dence of a positive association between women's intimacy induce‐
ment (by long looks at a partner) and dyadic adjustment in women
themselves, as well as between women's intimacy inducement and
dyadic satisfaction of their male partners. Nevertheless, these re‐
sults are somewhat specific for the scale used, because correlations
between women's Intimacy Inducement I and either their own dyadic
satisfaction or their male partners' dyadic adjustment were non‐sig‐
nificant. Women's guarding (monitoring) of a partner via short looks,
on the other hand, was negatively related to their partner's satis‐
faction, and the same trend, although only approaching the level of
statistical significance, was observed for partner's dyadic adjust‐
ment. This corresponds to a categorisation proposed by Miner et al.
(2009), where intimacy inducement is classified as a benefit‐provi‐
sioning (i.e. relationship satisfaction increasing) tactic, while direct
guarding is listed among cost‐inflicting mate retention strategies. A
contrast between a positive association of dyadic satisfaction with
benefit‐provisioning mate retention tactics (positive inducements
and public signals of possession) and a negative association of dyadic
satisfaction with cost‐inflicting mate retention tactics has also been
reported by other authors (such as Salkicevic et al., 2014). Although
we are not aware of any study focused specifically on the opposite
effect of short versus long look in terms of mate retention effective‐
ness, studies from other areas of psychology do provide evidence
about the different effects of short and long looks in interpersonal
contexts (Argyle, Lefebvre, & Cook, 1974; Bente, Eschenburg, &
Krämer, 2007). While a long gaze is associated with liking and ro‐
mantic interest from the perspective of both the actor and the per‐
ceiver (Exline, 1963; Grammer, Kruck, Juette, & Fink, 2000; Kleinke,
Bustos, Meeker, & Staneski, 1973; Kleinke, Meeker, & Fong, 1974;
Renninger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004; Russo, 1975; but see Noller,
1980), a short gaze is perceived as less friendly and more assertive
(Bente et al., 2007). It functions as an instrument of visual monitoring
that is likely to increase vigilance and may even be stressful for the
actor himself or herself (Warm, Parasuraman, & Matthews, 2008).
Contrary to our expectations, we found no significant association
between advanced intimacy inducement by touching a partner and
the level of dyadic adjustment and satisfaction. Such an association
LINDOVÁ et al.
was expected, because Buss and Shackelford (1997) reported that
to retain their mate, both husbands and wives report that they often
touch their mate when a competitor is in close proximity, and several
other studies found a positive association between relationship sat‐
isfaction and a positive physical touch (Margolin & Wampold, 1981;
Revenstorf, Hahlweg, Schindler, & Vogel, 1984). Absence of such an
association among our findings may be due to the laboratory set‐
tings: partners may have refrained from touching one another be‐
cause they viewed such behaviour as neither quite appropriate and
nor as pleasant as in more private settings. In our experiment, the
incidence of women touching their male partners was relatively low
(less than 1 touch per female partner) and the variability of data was
therefore likewise low.
In contrast to our prediction, we also found no statistically sig‐
nificant association between men's displays of love by head nods,
gestures, and smiles and dyadic satisfaction or adjustment in either
partner. This association was expected based on Gonzaga et al.
(2001) who suggest that an important function of love displays is
to reassure a partner about one's commitment in situations where
the partner may feel insecure. On the other hand, because the men
in our study were interacting with another female within the frame‐
work of our experimental design, it is possible they felt no need to
reassure their partners of their commitment or were even unaware
that their partner might perceive the situation as a threat to their
relationship.
Furthermore, we were not able to confirm the frequently re‐
ported association between positive/negative non‐verbal be‐
haviours and relationship quality (Birchler, Clopton, & Adams, 1984;
Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977; Hooley & Hahlweg, 1989;
Schaap & Jansen‐Nawas, 1989). It may be that relationship mainte‐
nance strategies in general, or positivity and openness in particu‐
lar, function better in a preventive and long‐term context and are
not employed in the specific situation of the presence of a potential
rival. Alternatively, one might hypothesise that these strategies can
be identified only on a verbal level, as was the case in earlier studies
(Canary & Stafford, 1992), or that we did not choose suitable non‐
verbal displays.
The main limitations of our design lie in the likely variability
of participants' subjective perception and the emotions they ex‐
perienced during the study. Our intention was to create a situa‐
tion which the female participants would perceive as a moderate
infidelity threat, process it largely implicitly and correspondingly
respond on the level of non‐verbal, rather than verbal, behaviour.
It was, however, likely that the perception of threat would to
some extent vary, which may also be why a response in terms of
increased mate retention behaviours was not observed in all fe‐
male participants. Besides variations in female participants' mate
value and their partners' level of commitment, another possible
source of variance may have been linked to the experimenter's
non‐standardised clothing (Lennon, 1990). She tried to maintain a
certain style but had to adjust her attire depending on the changes
in outside and inside temperatures during the year. Another pos‐
sible limitation of our study is that our study sample—although
|
      11
similar in size to samples used in similar studies that worked with
microanalysis of behaviour (Farley, 2014; Gonzaga et al., 2001;
Hall & Xing, 2015; Renninger et al., 2004; Vacharkulksemsuk et
al., 2016; Van der Meij, Almela, Buunk, Almela, Buunk, Fawcett, &
Salvador, 2011)—was still relatively small and may have failed to
confirm the statistical significance of effects, which are of merely
a moderate strength. Aside from that, the use of one single experi‐
menter who conducted all the interviews with all test couples may
have led to some experimenter‐specific effects. We focused on
the behavioural interaction between the partners and not on the
behaviour of participants towards the experimenter who was sup‐
posed to serve as standard stimulus who elicits in the participants
a specific interpretation of the situation. It is, however, possible
that the experimenter was more likely to trigger certain specific
behavioural patterns in the participating dyads than another ex‐
perimenter would have done, and that with multiple experiment‐
ers, the couple's behaviours would have been more varied. The
generalisation potential of our results may thus be somewhat lim‐
ited in this respect. Future studies should employ several inter‐
viewers of varying attractiveness.
Moreover, our study focused specifically on women's behaviour.
A similar study aimed at eliciting a mild perception of infidelity treat
in men would highlight the gender specifics of mate retention be‐
haviours. Our design had also prevented us from drawing any con‐
clusions about causal relationships. In particular, while it is possible
that some behavioural mate retention tactics do influence dyadic
adjustment and satisfaction, it may also be the case that dyadic ad‐
justment and satisfaction manifests itself through specific mate re‐
tention behaviours. To address this issue, a longitudinal study would
have to be performed that would allow for an observation of the
effects of mate retention tactics employed in the initial phases and
then throughout the relationship on the long‐term progress of the
relationship.
To conclude, this study yielded some evidence that non‐ver‐
bal displays of several mate retention behaviours by women in
situations where both their partner and a potential female rival
are present are related to dyadic adjustment and satisfaction of
romantic couples. Our results highlight the role of non‐verbal
behaviour in mate retention, whereby two main patterns were
observed. First of all, our results point to the importance of attrac‐
tion and attractiveness in established relationships, that is under
circumstances where—in contrast to mate‐choice contexts, where
this is treated as being of key importance—the role of appearance
seems to be somewhat overlooked. Secondly, our study confirmed
a hypothesis that looking at a partner can serve contrasting func‐
tions depending on the length of the action, most likely spanning
from visual monitoring to intimacy inducement. In particular, we
have shown that in the presence of a potential rival, women give
their partners different kinds of looks depending on whether the
couple is well‐functioning or distressed.
Our results add to a growing body of knowledge on adaptive be‐
havioural mechanisms known as mate retention tactics. These mech‐
anisms, such as appearance enhancement, intimacy inducement or
 |
12       LINDOVÁ et al.
guarding of partner, though most likely not fully consciously per‐
formed, seem to be consistently associated with relationship quality.
It is, however, also worth noting that our results show a somewhat
counterintuitive lack of significance of positive, loving and negative
behaviours for assessing relationship quality. These negative results,
as well as the whole pattern of findings, could be of special interest
to counsellors and clinicians who seek ways to identify relationship
dysfunction based on directly observable behavioural data. While
on the one hand, we show that micro‐observation of behaviour
confirms the existence of some phenomena known from self‐report
studies, this level of analysis also hints at a substantially different
picture of mate retention behaviour than verbal reporting on its own
tends to yield.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
We would like to thank all the study participants. We are also in‐
debted to Barbara Husárová, Jana Pelechová, Kristyna Polášková,
Jana Šelová, Monika Ubryová and Jan Vávra for their help with data
collection. Our special thanks go to Lenka Martinec Nováková for
her statistical advice, Anna Pilátová for language editing, and to the
reviewers for their advice.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Jitka Lindová  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-4552
Kateřina Klapilová  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2972-0111
Jan Havlíček  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2374-7337
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). Working with
dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: Specific recommen‐
dations, general advice, and practical tips. In F. D. Fincham, & M. Cui
(Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 67–97). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ackerman, R. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2016). APIMPower: An interactive tool for
Actor‐Partner Interdependence Model power analysis [Computer software].
Available from https​://robert-a-acker​man.shiny​apps.io/apimp​ower/
Argyle, M., Lefebvre, L., & Cook, M. (1974). The meaning of five patterns
of gaze. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4(2), 125–136. https​://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.24200​4 0202​
Bagner, D. M., & Eyberg, S. M. (2007). Parent–child interaction therapy for
disruptive behavior in children with mental retardation: A randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3),
418–429. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15374​41070​1448448
Batres, C., Russell, R., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., Hansen, A. M., &
Cronk, L. (2018). Evidence that makeup is a false signal of sociosexu‐
ality. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 148–154. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.023
Benshoof, L., & Thornhill, R. (1979). The evolution of monogamy and con‐
cealed ovulation in humans. Journal of Social and Biological Structures,
2(2), 95–106. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(79)90001-0
Bente, G., Eschenburg, F., & Krämer, N. C. (2007). Virtual gaze. A pilot
study on the effects of computer simulated gaze in avatar‐based con‐
versations. In R. Shumaker (Ed.), Virtual Reality ICVR 2007. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 4563. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73335-5_21
Birchler, G. R., Clopton, P. L., & Adams, N. L. (1984). Marital conflict
resolution: Factors influencing concordance between partners and
trained coders. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 12(2), 15–28.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/01926​18840​8250166
Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, con‐
versational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
15(4), 233–259. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF009​86924​
Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria:
An evolutionary perspective. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs
(Eds.), Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications
(pp. 335–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, D. M. (1988a). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate re‐
tention. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 291–317. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/0162-3095(88)90010-6
Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition:
Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(4), 616–628. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis
(Eds.), The New Psychology of Love (pp. 65–85). New Haven, UK: Yale
University Press.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate reten‐
tion tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72(2), 346–361. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.346
Buunk, B. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship to selfes‐
teem, dependency, and reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 8, 310–316. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​67282​0 82019
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age
and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various in‐
volvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 271–278. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/1475-6811.00018​
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies
and equity in marriage. Communications Monographs, 59(3), 243–267.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/03637​75920​9376268
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the
associations between maintenance strategies and relational charac‐
teristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 395–406. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x
de Miguel, A., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Mate retention tactics in Spain: Personality,
sex differences, and relationship status. Journal of Personality, 79(3),
563–586. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00698.x
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing
marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(2),
143–158. https​://doi.org/10.1177/02654​07587​0 42003
Ekman,P.,&Friesen,W.V.(1972).Handmovements.TheJournalofCommunication,
22(4), 353–374. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb001​63.x
Exline, R. V. (1963). Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual
interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation1. Journal
of Personality, 31(1), 1–20. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.
tb018​36.x
Farley, S. D. (2014). Nonverbal reactions to an attractive stranger: The role of
mimicry in communicating preferred social distance. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 38(2), 195–208. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0174-4
Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2010). Four strategies used during intrasexual com‐
petition for mates. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 20–38. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x
LINDOVÁ et al.
Fischer, A., & LaFrance, M. (2015). What drives the smile and the tear:
Why women are more emotionally expressive than men. Emotion
Review, 7(1), 22–29. https​://doi.org/10.1177/17540​73914​544406
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary his‐
tory of female socio‐sexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58,
69–96. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb009​0 8.x
Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation,
courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41, 346–359. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00332​747.1978.11023994
Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, M. D. (2001). Love
and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friend‐
ship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 247–262.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.247
Gottman, J. M., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). Topography of
marital conflict– Sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal be‐
havior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461–477. https​://doi.
org/10.2307/350902
Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A.. (1999). Fuzziness of
nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy de‐
tection. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(3), 487. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.487
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non‐verbal behav‐
ior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting
partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(6), 371–390. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and
expressive style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A., & Xing, C. (2015). The verbal and nonverbal correlates of the
five flirting styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1), 41–68. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8
Havlicek, J., Husarova, B., Rezacova, V., & Klapilova, K. (2011). Correlates
of extra‐dyadic sex in Czech heterosexual couples: Does sexual be‐
havior of parents matter? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1153–1163.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9869-3
Hooley, J. M., & Hahlweg, K. (1989). Marital satisfaction and marital com‐
munication in German and English couples. Behavioral Assessment,
11, 119–133.
Hurlbert, D. F., White, L. C., Powell, R. D., & Apt, C. (1993). Orgasm
consistency training in the treatment of women reporting hy‐
poactive sexual desire: An outcome comparison of women‐
only groups and couples‐only groups. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 24(1), 3–13. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/0005-7916(93)90003-F
Karremans, J. C., Dotsch, R., & Corneille, O. (2011). Romantic relation‐
ship status biases memory of faces of attractive opposite‐sex oth‐
ers: Evidence from a reverse‐correlation paradigm. Cognition, 121(3),
422–426. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogni​tion.2011.07.008
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., Cook, W. L., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Dyadic
data analysis (Methodology in the social sciences). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Kleinke, C. L., Bustos, A. A., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1973). Effects of
self‐attributed and other‐attributed gaze on interpersonal evaluations
between males and females. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
9(2), 154–163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90007-3
Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & La Fong, C. (1974). Effects of gaze, touch, and use of
name on evaluation of “engaged” couples. Journal of Research in Personality,
7(4), 368–373. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90058-0
Koranyi, N., & Rothermund, K. (2012). When the grass on the other
side of the fence doesn't matter: Reciprocal romantic interest neu‐
tralizes attentional bias towards attractive alternatives. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 186–191. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.012
Lennon, S. J. (1990). Effects of clothing attractiveness on perceptions.
Home Economics Research Journal, 18(4), 303–310. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10777​27X90​01800403
|
      13
Lindová, J., Little, A., Havlicek, J., Roberts, S. C., Rubešová, A., & Flegr, J.
(2016). Effect of partnership status on preferences for facial self‐re‐
semblance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 869. https​://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.00869​
Lockard, J. S., & Adams, R. M. (1980). Courtship behaviors in public:
Different age/sex roles. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(3), 245–253.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(80)90011-4
Lundström, J. N., & Jones‐Gotman, M. (2009). Romantic love modulates
women's identification of men's body odors. Hormones and Behavior,
55(2), 280–284. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.11.009
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. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.002
Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inatten‐
tion to attractive alternatives: The evolved psychology of relation‐
ship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 343–349.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolh​umbeh​av.2008.04.003
Margolin, G., & Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential‐analysis of conflict
and accord in distressed and non‐distressed marital partners. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(4), 554–567. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006x.49.4.554
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1983). Gender differences in nonverbal
flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15(4), 271–282. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/01614​576.1989.11074969
McMahon, C. A., Barnett, B., Kowalenko, N. M., & Tennant, C. C.
(2006). Maternal attachment state of mind moderates the im‐
pact of postnatal depression on infant attachment. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(7), 660–669. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01547.x
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment
and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(4), 758–766. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It's not all
about her: Men's mate value and mate retention. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47(3), 214–218. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2009.03.002
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context
and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 237–247. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90016-0
Moore, M. M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: Girls just
wanna have fun? Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 319–328. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00224​49950​9551805
Noller, P. (1980). Gaze in married couples. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
5(2), 115–129. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF009​86514​
Renninger, L. A., Wade, T. J., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female
glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in
courtship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 416–431.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolh​umbeh​av.2004.08.006
Revenstorf, D., Hahlweg, K., Schindler, L., & Vogel, B. (1984). Interaction
analysis of marital conflict. In K. Hahlweg, & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.),
Marital interaction: Analysis and modification (pp. 121–183). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment
and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. H. Harvey, & A.
Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhance‐
ment (pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russo, N. F. (1975). Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilib‐
rium theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 497–
502. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0076476
Salkicevic, S., Stanic, A. L., & Grabovac, M. T. (2014). Good mates re‐
tain us right: Investigating the relationship between mate retention
strategies, mate value, and relationship satisfaction. Evolutionary
Psychology, 12(5), 147470491401200. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14747​
04914​01200512
 |
14       LINDOVÁ et al.
Schaap, C., & Jansen‐Nawas, C. (1989). Marital interaction, affect and
conflict resolution. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 2(1), 35–51. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/02674​65870​8 407736
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for as‐
sessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 38, 15–28. https​://doi.org/10.2307/350547
Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors:
Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance
behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(2),
278–303. https​://doi.org/10.1177/02654​07510​378125
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and roman‐
tic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 217–242. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/02654​07591​0 82004
Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Reit, E., Khambatta, P., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E.
J., & Carney, D. R. (2016). Dominant, open nonverbal displays are at‐
tractive at zero‐acquaintance. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 113(15), 4009–4014. https​://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15089​
32113​
Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias
in self‐report research. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing,
25(4), 40.
Van der Meij, L., Almela, M., Buunk, A. P., Fawcett, T. W., & Salvador,
A. (2011). Men with elevated testosterone levels show more affili‐
ative behaviours during interactions with women. Proceedings of the
APPENDIX 1
Behavioural catalogue
Love and Care was calculated as the sum of the following behaviours:
Illustrator: Illustrating hand movement while speaking. Only behav‐
iour acts. Smile: A contraction of Musculus zygomaticus major. (We
included all smiles because it was impossible to clearly identify ei‐
ther the target of smile, partner or experimenter or the type of smile,
that is Duchenne or non‐Duchenne. A new smile was coded for each
new peak in smiling.) Head nodding: Nodding to express assent to
partner. Head moves slightly up and down.
Appearance Enhancement was calculated as the sum of the fol‐
lowing behaviours: Self‐Touch: Scratch, caress or touch to the torso,
shoulders, arms, thighs, neck, hair or facial hair. Hair flip: Typically a
head toss, where one hand is used to throw hair away from the face
or to return hair to original position. Other forms of touching own
hair were also included. Primp: Activities such as ordering, smooth‐
ing or rubbing of one's own clothing.
Direct Guarding. Short Glance: Look at partner shorter than 2 s.
Intimacy Inducement I. Long Glance: Look at partner of 2  s and
longer.
Intimacy Inducement II was calculated as the sum of the following
Touching behaviour: Hand on Partner, Holding Hand/Arm, Patting
Partner, Stroke, Hugging/Embracing, Kiss, Arm around shoulders/on
the back of the sofa, Intentional touch of a partners body part with
legs hips or shoulders
Positivity. The count of Laughter (same as smile, but with open
mouth and producing sound) added positively to this category,
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1726), 202–208. https​://doi.
org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0764
Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires
hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors: the Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 433–441. https​://doi.
org/10.1518/00187​2008X​312152
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard‐Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain mar‐
riages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of
maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations, 48(3), 263–
269, https​://doi.org/10.2307/585635
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard‐Reisch, D. S. (2008). Relational maintenance,
satisfaction, and commitment in marriages: An actor‐partner anal‐
ysis. Journal of Family Communication, 8(3), 212–229. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15267​43080​2182522
How to cite this article: Lindová J, Klapilová K, Johnson D,
Vobořilová A, Chlápková B, Havlíček J. Non‐verbal mate
retention behaviour in women and its relation to couple's
relationship adjustment and satisfaction. Ethology.
2019;00:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12949​
while the sum of behaviours Look around (unconcentrated, sweep‐
ing, room‐directed look, lack of interest) and Head Shake (negative
or dismissive shaking of the head) added negatively to this category.
Openness was calculated as the sum of durations of the following
postures: Sitting up straight, arms by the body: Erect torso with arms
close to the upper body or resting on knees. Upper body faces the
experimenter or the partner. Leaning back, arms by the body: Body
leans back towards the backrest of the sofa, while the arms rest on
the lap. Only one arm can cross the body or one arm or hand can
touch the partner. Upper body can face the partner and the back is
not exposed to the partner. Body leans over the arm of the sofa: Body
leans to the side with elbow on the arm of the sofa with shoulder
distance from the partner at least 50cm. The respective hand can be
used to support the head. Leaning back, arms stretched: Body leans
back to the backrest of the sofa with the arms spread. One arm can
rest on partners shoulder and the upper body can face the partner.
Leaning forward: Elbows are on the knees while the hands are ei‐
ther be crossed or one hand supports the head. Sitting straight, arms
stretched: A straight posture with the arms spread.
Upper Body Closed included the following body postures: Leaning
back, crossed arms: The body leans back towards the backrest of the
sofa, while one arm is draped over the other, one arm crosses the
body, hands are held close to the face, or one hand holds the other
arm's wrist. Upper body is oriented towards the experimenter. Sitting
up, arms crossed: Erect torso with one arm crossing the other. The
upper body faces either the experimenter or the partner.
LINDOVÁ et al. |
      15

APPENDIX 2
Correlational analysis of predictors

Appearance Intimacy induce‐ Intimacy in‐ Direct Openness:

N = 94 Love and care enhancement ment I ducement II guarding Positivity Upper body

Love and care

Tau   −.065 .007 .083 .149* .067 .140
p   .393 .921 .306 .041 .360 .077
Appearance enhancement
Tau     −.017 .044 −.012 .151 −.005
p     .827 .614 .880 .051 .955
Intimacy inducement I
Tau       −.001 .043 .096 −.112
p       .994 .564 .199 .168
Intimacy inducement II
Tau         .049 .110 −.068
p         .557 .182 .448
Direct guarding
Tau           −.070 .092
p           .347 .251
Positivity
Tau             −.009
p             .910
Openness: Upper body
Tau              
p