Contents
Why do we now and then find ourselves “on the hook” – and, most importantly, we ourselves are not averse to putting on the hook someone who is not indifferent to us? Perhaps the point is in new ways of communication: it facilitates constant contact with “fallbacks”.
In the fifth season of the most popular comedy series How I Met Your Mother, there is an episode with the characteristic title “On the Hook”. Throughout the series, the characters share stories about how, being in love with someone, they remained only fallback options for the subjects of their sighs. They were not told a firm “no”: in every way, the same universal phrase was repeated in every way: “I can’t be with you … at the moment.”
Pass the tests
- What might tempt you to cheat?
Bench spare
The series, of course, is hilariously funny, but many people have come across such stories, albeit not in such an exaggerated form. And they will certainly confirm that in general there is nothing fun in being a “fallback option”. Recently, this phenomenon has attracted more and more attention from psychologists and has even received a special term “backburning” (from the English put on the back burner – to put off for later, to keep in reserve).
Why can we be in a romantic relationship at all and at the same time, from time to time, gently reassure some other fans or fans, even if we have no complaints about the relationship? Psychologists point to evolution, which requires all homo sapiens to be in a constant (and not always conscious) search for the best partner – in order to pass on to the next generations a set of the most wonderful genes.
Read more:
- A new form of fidelity
But, on the other hand, the same evolution tells – and women in the first place – to take care of maintaining existing relationships: so that the partner provides and protects the offspring, to whom the precious genes have already been transferred. Against “backburning” is evidenced by the now popular “investment model” of relationships, which was developed in many articles by social psychologist Caryl Rusbult (Caryl Rusbult)1. Its essence is that the energy, time, and finances invested by us in relationships are also considered as investments. And the more serious they are, the less likely we are to put relationships at risk and look for fallback options.
“Backburners” – who are they?
However, the first serious study of “backburning”, undertaken by psychologists Jayson Dibble and Michelle Drouin, showed that the investment model does not work. Well, in any case, in modern relations, which are developed and maintained largely with the help of the Internet. About 400 volunteers took part in the experiments, both those who were in a permanent relationship and those who were “free” at that time.2. And this should not be surprising: having an option in reserve is not at all the prerogative of only those who spend most of their time with another “option”. Psychologists approached the issue seriously and first of all determined what “backburning” is.
Read more:
- To flirt
So, first of all, “fallbacks” are those with whom you currently do not have a romantic connection. That is, we are not talking about an affair on the side. At the same time, if you sometimes see your former classmate or old friend’s sweet cousin in dreams, but the matter is limited to dreams, then you can’t talk about any fallback either. A substitute is someone who is languishing with feelings, losing hope and ready to give up everything, but at exactly this moment he suddenly receives the message “Hi, how are you?”. Everything, this is enough to continue to stay on the hook. The key factor in backburning is communication. Innocent enough, but still present. Actually, Jason Dibble and Michelle Drouin tried to study it in the first place.
Profitable investment
It is not difficult to guess that communication turned out to be almost entirely electronic. 45% of participants who admitted to having “spare” communicated with them mainly via SMS. 37% used social media. About 13% descended to “old-fashioned” telephone communication, and another 5 preferred email, as well as communication via Skype or Twitter. But it was not this that surprised the researchers, but the fact that no difference was found at all between the participants who were in a relationship and those who declared themselves free. Both of them were equally inclined to keep their “reserves”.
Read more:
- Can true love be found on the internet?
Does this mean that the investment model is wrong? No, psychologists say. Rather, it means that it does not apply to such relationships maintained through the Internet and text messages. Imagine what it cost the noble ladies of yore to keep their fallbacks on the hook. Send scented letters about nothing through a duenna, at least occasionally meet with an admirer for meaningless, but encouraging conversations … What can I say, even 15 years ago it was required to at least periodically make phone calls, and sometimes meet for a cup of coffee in a cafe.
Today, the issue is resolved by adding a “like” under the status of one’s “spare” on Facebook and a couple of text messages. If you describe backburning in terms of the investment model itself, the investment in it is extremely small. And they are in no way comparable with the value of a potential romantic partner, into which one day a “spare” can turn.
Read more:
- “It’s a shame to save a marriage when you can get a divorce”
Therefore, there is every reason to believe that “backburning” will only gain momentum. Both Jason Dibble and Michel Drouin are preparing a new study. This time, they aim to find out what phrases in the messages are most effective in stoking the hopes of the “substitutes” and keeping them on the hook. Is it really true “I can’t be with you… at the moment”?
1 C. Rusbult et al. «Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model». Social Psychology Quarterly, 1988, 49.
2 J. Dibble, M. Drouin «Using modern technology to keep in touch with back burners: An investment model analysis». Computers in Human Behavior, 2014, № 34.