“It’s complicated:” Explaining the Romeo and Juliet effect
Sining Wu & H. Colleen Sinclair
Mississippi State University, Psychology Department
INTRODUCTION
Background Research
The Romeo and Juliet effect (Driscoll et al, 1972)
alleges that increases in parental interference are
associated with the increased feelings of love between
romantic partners. This effect is popular in our culture,
blogs, and even textbooks (e.g. Fisher, 2004; Miller,
2011).
But examinations of this effect yielded conflicting
results. Most research has found the “Social Network
Effect:” that disapproval of the relationship from
one’s family or friends decreases romantic
relationship quality. (Felmlee, 2001; Allan, 2006;
Parks, 2007;Sinclair, et al., 2014).
However a few studies found some support of the
Romeo and Juliet effect. Studies imply that
opposition of social network pushes couple members
closer, only when they still have support from others
(Felmlee, 2001; Parks, et al., 1983; Sprecher, 2011).
Given the mixed founding, how to measure social
network effect is essential. It is clear that interference and
disapproval overlap. However, people may react
differently when they feel their parents or friends
interfere their relationships, compared to simply feeling
social network (dis)approval.
Therefore, to isolate the unique influence of social
network interference on a relationship, we wanted to
statistically account for effect of the (dis)approval from
social networks toward the relationship.
In order to explore the whole picture of Romeo and
Juliet effect, we re-analyzed a publicly-available
longitudinal Mturk data set (Sinclair, et al, 2014) that
included measures of both interference and disapproval.
HYPOTHESES
H1: Participants perceiving higher social network
approval for their romantic relationship will exhibit
better relationship outcomes four months later.
H2: When perceived social network disapproval is
controlled for, the unique variance remaining in
interference measures may support the Romeo & Juliet
effect.
METHOD
CONCLUSIONS
Participants:
Murk Participants (N=396) , Mean Age: 31.58 (SD: 9.78), Data Link: https://osf.io/6wxgf/
70.9 % Female, 76.3 % Caucasian, 5.1 %Asian/Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 4.5 % African-American
General Overview:
H1: Confirmed –Social Network Approval for
Predictor Variable:
people’s romantic relationship was positively
Social Network Interference: Six items assessed interference (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972) for each social network associated with relationship quality four months
source (own friends, own parents, partner’s parents, partner’s friends) in Time 1. Participants were asked ‘‘How often later.
has your romantic partner communicated to you that your parents are a bad influence?’’ Participants were asked the
H2:
Mostly
Confirmed
–
When
statistically
same questions about their communication with their partner. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 =
controlling
for
network
opinions,
the
interference
of
not at all and 5 = all the time. Scores for both sets of parents were combined to an overall index of parental interference
(α = .90). Both sets of questions about friends were combined (12 items, α = .91) as an overall index of friend friends linked positively to the reports of passionate
love and the interference of parents linked
interference.
positively to commitment for the relationship.
Control Variable:
Social Network Opinion Scale: Eight items were compiled from an array of studies examining social network opinions
Implications of Findings
in Time 1 (Sinclair, et al., 2014). Four items assessing approval and four reverse-scored items assessing disapproval
Controlling for overlap between active
were administered for each of the four sources (i.e., friends, parents, partner’s parents, partner’s friends) with the same
interference measures and general (dis)approval
5-point Likert response format with interference scale. Parents and partner’s parents items were combined (α = .91) as
scales suggests support for the Romeo and Juliet
were friends and partner’s friends items (α = .93).
effect. This implies that the interference drives
Dependent Variables:
Commitment: Lund’s (1985) Commitment Scale (10 items, α =.89) was administered at Time 2, such as “How likely is
it that your relationship would be permanent?”
Love :The 15-item Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) Passionate Love Scale (α = .92) was administered at Time 2.
RESULTS
Variable
Step1
T1Social Network Opinion Parents
T1Social Network Opinion Friends
Step2
T1Social Network Opinion Parents
T1Social Network Opinion Friends
T1 Interference Parents
T1 Interference Friends
Variable
Step1
T1Social Network Opinion Parents
T1Social Network Opinion Friends
Step2
T1Social Network Opinion Parents
T1Social Network Opinion Friends
T1 Interference Parents
T1 Interference Friends
B
SE(B)
β
.48
.63
.12
.13
.23***
.27***
(Δ)R2
.20***
.02**
.73
.61
.39
.03
.15
.16
.13
.17
.34***
.26***
.18**
.01
B
SE(B)
β
.24
.39
.12
.13
.12*
.18**
(Step1: F change= 48.416***, Step 2: F
change=5.35**)
(Δ)R2
.07***
.02*
.28
.62
.05
.43
.15
.16
.13
.17
.14
.29***
.03
.17*
Table 1
Hierarchical Regression with
Commitment at Time 2 as Dependent
Variable and with Social Network
Opinion for Parents and Friends and
Interference for Parents and Friends at
Time 1 as Predicting Variables.
partners together only when the positive effect of
general social network opinion is accounted for.
Interference needs to be investigated conjointly
with social network (dis)approval, not
presumed to be equivalent to disapproval.
The source of social network (family or friend)
opinion affects people’s relationship quality
differently. When the positive effect of general
approval on relationship quality is controlled,
interference from parents promotes commitment,
however, inference from friends promotes feelings
of passionate love.
The different effect of source of social network
implies that friend’s interference may influence
relationship affect, but parental interference
may influence relationship cognition and
decision-making.
For example, when people make decision about
whether to commit to a relationship or not,
parental opinion may be more likely to be
considered.
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression of the
Passionate Love at Time 2 as a
Dependent Variable and Social Network
Opinion for Parents and Friends and
Future research should explore why there may be
Interference for Parents and Friends at
a positive effect of social network interference on
Time 1 as Predicting Variables.
relationship quality (e.g., see Emotional Intensity
Theory; Miron et al., 2009).
(Step1: F change= 15.26***, Step 2: F
change=4.27*)
Note.*P<.05 **P<.01, ***P<.001, no collinearity problem between predicting variables.
However, social network interference is highly correlated with social network (dis)approval.
for friends: r = -.643**; for parents: r = -. 606**.
TAKE HOME POINT
The approval of friends and family seems to always
be a plus, but interference – beyond just simple
disapproval –may provide a little extra spark .