This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shackelford, T. K. Articles by Buss, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Shackelford, T. K. Articles by Buss, D. M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Betrayal in Mateships, Friendships, and Coalitions

University of Texas at Austin shackelford{at}psy.utexas.edu

David M. Buss

University of Texas at Austin

Over evolutionary history, different benefits have been gained and lost from long-term mateships, friendships, and coalitions. Humans have evolved psychological mechanisms that are sensitive to cues to possible diversion of benefits to people outside the relationship. Mateships, friendships, and coalitions are predicted to share some of the same benefits but also to differ in some of the resources conferred. Accordingly, the psychological mechanisms sensitive to betrayal are predicted to operate in the same manner in those domains in which benefits are common across relationships and to operate differently in those domains in which benefits are unique to relationship type. Three interpersonal domains are investigated with regard to perceived betrayal: extra relationship intimate involvement, intrarelationship reciprocity, and relationship commitment. Eight hypotheses are tested across the three relationship domains via perceived betrayal judgments. Results support a model of betrayal entailing some degree of domain specificity but also some generality across domains.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. De Stefano and M. Oala Extramarital Affairs: Basic Considerations and Essential Tasks in Clinical Work The Family Journal, January 1, 2008; 16(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. C. Haden and M. Hojjat Aggressive responses to betrayal: Type of relationship, victim's sex, and nature of aggression Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, February 1, 2006; 23(1): 101 - 116. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. L. Sheets and R. Lugar Sources of Conflict Between Friends in Russia and the United States Cross-Cultural Research, November 1, 2005; 39(4): 380 - 398. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. G. Haselton, D. M. Buss, V. Oubaid, and A. Angleitner Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2005; 31(1): 3 - 23. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Fehr, M. Baldwin, L. Collins, S. Patterson, and R. Benditt Anger in Close Relationships: An Interpersonal Script Analysis Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 1999; 25(3): 299 - 312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. JOHNSON and M. E. ROLOFF Serial Arguing and Relational Quality: Determinants and Consequences of Perceived Resolvability Communication Research, June 1, 1998; 25(3): 327 - 343. [Abstract]