The Power of Prejudice in Post-Marital Relationships

This article offers an understanding of prejudice from a social psychology perspective and critically examines its nature and dynamics in the state of the couple after the end of marriage. The methodological framework of the research considers the theoretical formulations of the concept of prejudice within its relevant contexts and in regards to its relational dynamics involving other concepts and expressions. It further explores the concept and its nature in the context of post-marital states through the perspective of myths impacting marital relationship framework in contemporary societies. The research methodology benefits from the empirical findings underpinning conscience therapy as the resolution for prejudice in the post-marital single and relational experiences.

The first part of the research establishes the understanding of prejudice from theoretical perspective with the review of relevant studies. The concept of prejudice is clarified in regards to its semantic connections to bias, stereotype, discrimination and stigma. The topics of ethnocentrism and social distancing when related to prejudice define one’s inclinations towards the belonging ingroup and over against the outgroup. The research considers some of the general causes of prejudice and its blatant and subtle forms of manifestation. Prejudice is explored in light of behavioural addiction to identify the closeness of both phenomena.

The second part of the article is dedicated for the consideration of myths which impact post-marital relationships. Couples in their post-marital state experience significant challenges due to the destructive myths imbedded in the fabric of the contemporary societies. Myth may be defined as a false and exaggerated representation of the truth presented in a desirable and attractive way (Zhekov, 2024). The continuous embodiment of the myths following the marital relationship is maintained by the formation of prejudice which enforces the dynamics of the myths and subjugate the mindset of the divorcee to their undetectable destructive powers. The prejudices undermine the perception of the following marital relationship between the spouses and create environment of mistrust, alienation and animosity. The myths lead to misuses of marital roles further undermining the relationship context as facilitating healthy expressions of sexuality and parenthood. The misconceptions of marriage influence the understanding of divorce and remarriage, which become channels for escape from marital responsibilities and commitments.

The solution for prejudice and its derivates is considered through the examination of conscience, its nature and functioning. Conscience related to the person’s moral framework is examined in light of its relationship to prejudice and its forms. Finally, conscience therapy is introduced to provide an answer for the solution of prejudice in post-marital relationships and its ongoing tensions in the life of the individual.

The methodological framework of conscience therapy is established with two studies related to the role of conscience in recovery from alcohol and drug addictions (Zhekov, 2013 & 2019). These are defined through narrative analysis which formulates the means for collection, examination and formulation of the results derived from the participants’ stories. A combined interview with unstructured and semi-structured parts provides the means for collecting the data from the twelve participants in the alcohol study (Zhekov, 2013) and the six participants in the drug study (Zhekov, 2019). The interviewees are a self-selected diverse demographic group with homogeneous characteristics defined according to their addiction, recovery, spirituality and context. Conscience formulated through its cognitive, emotive, conative and behavioural elements is evidenced as being suppressed during addiction but rejuvenates through personal spiritual transformation. The main characteristic of the transformative experience is the establishment of personal divine relationship based on love, acceptance and forgiveness. The empowered conscience leads to progressive recovery and personal wellbeing. The study finalises the result in formulating an innovative treatment for substance misuse, conscience therapy (Zhekov, 2022). The core of the latter is summarised as the transformation of conscience through enlightenment, empowerment and edification. These three elements establish the triple “E” framework of the approach to facilitate a process of recovery from substance misuse and its maintenance supporting personal wellbeing and fulfilment.

The main hypothesis of the article defines prejudice from social psychology perspective and explores its impact on the couple in post-marital states through the influences of widely spread myths linked with romantic relationships. The myths shape the dynamics of the latter through the addictive nature of prejudice which influences the perspectives of the divorcees and undermines their perception of relational resourcefulness. The article explores further the negative impact of this amalgamation between myths and prejudices on the relationships’ contexts, sexuality, parenthood, responsibilities, commitments and understanding of divorce and remarriage.

Understanding Bias, Stereotyping, Discrimination and Stigma

Bias is defined as the attitude towards an individual perceived through the perspective of the characteristics of an associated group (Fiske, 2004; Brown, 1995). People understand their social reality of belonging through the division of groups. Two categories are defined, namely, ingroups, i.e. the ones which become part of the individual belonging, and outgroups, i.e. other competitive groups. The interaction between them is known as intergroup relationship. The latter is shaped through a generic behaviour against the outgroup formed by a constant contact with antagonistic nature of intergroup categorisation. The discriminatory nature of this behaviour is characterised as groundless, purposeless and automatic (Tajfel, 2001).

Bias may be defined through the social motives of understanding, controlling, belonging and self-enhancing. The latter shape one’s positive attitude towards the ingroup and negative towards the outgroup. The nature of belonging is related to goal differentiation from the outgroup. Controlling refers to the ingroup threat management shaped by the stigmatised perception of danger from the outgroup. Understanding reflects a belief system linked with the categorisation defining one’s stereotypical predisposition to the outgroup (Fiske, 2004). The nature of bias might be clarified as being formed through one’s thoughts, feelings and actions. It is conceptualised in three different forms, namely, stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination (Fiske, 2004). Brown (1995) understands the nature of the concept as linguistically expressed through prejudice. Hogg and Vaughan (2008) agree making an additional emphasis on the distinction between one’s prejudiced intentions to act in a particular way and the actual discriminatory behaviour. This methodological format is preferred by the majority of scholars. Hence Fiske’s (2004) division is accepted as being in line with the dominant scholarly view. Prejudice is used as the unifying term, synonymous to bias and inclusive of its various aspects.

Stereotyping uses the schema of a group for the formation of a belief which defines the person according to the characteristics of the belonging group. When the belief is shared on a large scale it forms social stereotypes (Fiske, 2004). Stereotypes affect an individual through one’s association to the ingroup stereotypical features and as such diminish one’s performance (Fiske, 2004). Allport (1958) defines the nature of prejudice as generalisation which rejects different data. Stereotypical thinking uses predefined and simplified images based on one’s past experiences to interpret present complex realities. Striping the individual from his/her own unique qualities to fit into an established, simplified group’s image is defined as hostile and dangerous. Stereotypical thinking leads to abusive behaviour (Aronson, 2004).

Discrimination shapes actions and behaviour against an individual based on one’s conceptual perception and feelings about the related group. One may discriminate against somebody through the use of language, physical force or by avoidance (Fiske, 2004). Tokenism and reverse discrimination may be defined as behaviours of favouritism towards particular minority group which are intended to conceal prejudice and would eventually reverse into negative stand against the group. Lack of willingness to help is a discriminatory behaviour against particular group with the intention to sustain its disadvantageous position (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008).

Stigma may be defined as the social underestimation of an individual based on the characteristic of his/her ingroup (Fiske, 2004). The concept may be divided in three groups connected to one’s body, character and origin (Goffman, 1963). The nature of stigma may be further categorised according to its visibility and controllability (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). The former relates to race, gender or obesity and when indiscernible to sexual orientation, religious belief, ideological convictions and health problems. The latter is focused on homosexuality, addictive behaviours or obesity and when characterised as uncontrollable it embraces race, gender and particular illnesses. The intergroup relationships underline the use of stigma towards the outgroup for the self-enhancement of the individual from the ingroup and social benefits of the dominant group (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008).

Definition, Causes and Forms of Prejudice

Prejudice shapes the attitude towards an individual defined through feelings related to the associated group (Fiske, 2004). Allport (1958) uses its linguistic form interchangeably with bias. Prejudice is developed from a Latin derivative to represent an ungrounded judgement. Aronson (2004) defines the concept as an unfriendly approach to a particular group of people based on a partial knowledge with overstated applications. Prejudice is based on stereotypical thinking which shapes the inflexibility in regards to evidence conflicting with personal knowledge. Thus, new facts are manipulated to adapt to already established understanding (Aronson, 2004).

Five causes of prejudice are defined, namely, competitiveness, redirected hostility, positional self-preservation, predisposition and conformism. Competitiveness formulates the dominant group biased stand over against the minority group for socioeconomic benefits. Redirected hostility is defined as a violent behaviour of the ingroup over against the outgroup due to inability to deal with the actual source of frustration. Positional self-preservation articulates the ingroup’s justification of discrimination over against the outgroup as being deserved. Predisposition is characterised by conservatism, authoritarianism (Aronson, 2004), nationalism, dualistic realisation, irresponsibility, conflict unmanageability (Allport, 1958) and transference (Bethlehem, 1985). Conformism is an attitude of bigotry towards groups marked historically with social stereotypical forms of perception (Aronson, 2004).

Prejudice embodies blatant and subtle forms. The former is experienced within an ingroup context of involvement over against the perceived outgroup danger (Fiske, 2004). Aronson (2004) demonstrates that even when the blatant behaviour is disguised in the intergroup relationship stereotypical thinking subtly modifies one’s behaviour to act in discriminatory manner against members of the outgroup. Subtle prejudice is the automatic associative thought which brings to the surface an individual categorisation in light of the belonging group. The accompanying emotions together with the automatic cognition lead to less obvious behaviours. The main purpose of this bias is to enhance oneself in the context of intergroup relationship by undermining the outgroup over against the ingroup (Fiske, 2004).

Aronson (2004) associates subtle prejudice with stereotypical thinking especially related to the relationship between groups from different genders. The stereotypical thinking towards women may be observed in two expressions of subtle sexism. The radical expression places men as being superior to women in every aspect of life. The moderate expression classifies women as the weaker sex and associates their abilities with particular roles. Both forms of subtle sexism present stereotypical approach to women which may lead to discrimination. Stereotypical thinking being part of the subtle prejudice defines the bias experienced by all groups in regards to particular roles. Hence, in the intergroup relationship acceptance of deviations of behaviours from their associated roles appear to be a crucial factor for overcoming subtle prejudice (Aronson, 2004).

Exploring the Addictive Nature of Prejudice ; and Its Post-Marital Role

Addiction is a complex and multidiscipline phenomenon. It may be broadly defined as substance addiction and behavioural addiction (Potenza, 2015). Substance addiction comes closer to its behavioural counterpart in view of certain similarities identified in both of these conditions. They involve craving, perpetual behaviour engagement in spite of negative consequence, and lack of control over it (Potenza, 2015). Furthermore, they lead to accentuated positive mood, developing tolerance, increase of the addictive behaviour, withdrawals, negative impact on finances and relationships as well as problems with the law (Sadoff, Drogin and Gurmu, 2015). Behavioural addictions in particular are characterised with interpersonal and intrapersonal negative consequences of the individual engaged in them. They may be broadly defined as perpetual actions aiming at pleasures experienced in spite of the negative consequences (Sadoff, Drogin and Gurmu, 2015).

One underlining force behind both, substance and behavioural, addictions is the automaticity of the engagement with the behaviour. The role of automaticity in human behaviour is formulated by Bargh (1997). The idea is that the individual cognitive, emotive and behavioural responses are primed and driven by the contextual stimuli (Bargh and Chartrand, 2000). Consciousness, choice and morality appear to be subordinate to the automatic behaviour (Bargh, 2005). Closely related phenomenon is attentional bias which in substance addiction refers to actions defined by cognitive schemata prompted through contextual stimuli (Albery, Sharma, Niazi and Moss, 2006). Addiction is defined through environmentally triggered selective attention followed by cognitive automatic response (Cox, Fadardi and Pothos, 2006). Considering the definition of prejudice, it is possible to identified it together with its derivatives as resembling these dynamics of the behavioural addiction.

Subtle bias, a form of prejudice, may be related to automaticity, and as such may be defined as a non-deliberate response to the appearance of a contextual element leading to changes of one’s behaviour (Fiske, 2004). Stereotyping is another form of prejudice which can be linked with automaticity and as such with the nature of behavioural addiction. The perpetual simplified approach to define a human being not by its unique characteristics, but by the imposed features related to a group may inform this process as reflecting addictive automaticity. The nature of prejudice as an addiction may inform the state of the couple after the end of their marital relationship.

Prejudice in post-marital relationships is considered as being shaped by the assimilation and embodiment of the related to this area myths by the ex-partners. The end of the marital relationship impacts significantly the couple predisposing the former spouses to false and misguided representations of truths. The latter shape the perspectives, define one’s attitude and behaviours, influence thoughts and emotions leading to the pursue of biased relationships defined by intergroup division. The partner perceives their ex-spouse as belonging to the outgroup and interprets one’s experiences shaped through that internal discourse. This automated manifestation of prejudice impacts every area of the perceived past relationship. The latter becomes guided by the dynamics and forces derived from the myths.

The research related to the myths of romantic relationships and marriage reveals various perspectives which undermine the perception of the past relationship and establish biased anticipations of future relationships (Zhekov, 2024). Certain dynamics highlight that marriage is misunderstood as a mutually fulfilling and supportive framework for the spouses and is established as grounds for achieving different selfish goals and desires. These extend into undermining marriage as a safe framework with the fulfilment of its responsibilities by both spouses leading to manipulations and abuse. The lack of a balanced understanding of romantic relationships and marriages contributes to further entrenchment of prejudices which shape the attitudes, behaviours and approaches in this area of life leading to the mismanagement of one’s personal life and goals (Zhekov, 2024). Several fundamental myths which shape these prejudices will be considered.

Having a Child Has Destroyed My Marriage

The present myth is linked with the perception of the couple related to the negative impact of the child to their relationship. There is some level of truth in regards to such a negative influence and its dynamics of undermining the stability and maintenance of healthy marital relationships. The overall perspective is that the relationship satisfaction of the couple after arrival of the baby is decreasing significantly. A study undertaken with parents has identified the common theme of the significant overwhelming effect on marriage by the arrival of a child. It establishes the link between the preexisting relationship challenges and their intensification after having a baby. The desire for a child is associated with the anticipation of a positive input towards the relationship which creates further tensions between expectations and reality. The misunderstanding may also be linked with the salvific power of the new member of the family towards the marital relationship (Sena, 2024). Hence these expectations are not fulfilled, but on the contrary the relationship is significantly strained and challenged by the new responsibilities of the spouses as parents.

Another study has discovered that every fifth marriage suffers a breakdown within the first year of the arrival of a child. The figure is overwhelming in regards to the challenges faced by the newly become parents. The struggles may be linked with various areas of the relationship such as communication, expectations, lack of support and sexual dissatisfaction. The latter is very prominent especially in regards to men. It has been concluded that 18 percent of newly become fathers were planning to be unfaithful to their partners. The space of intimacy after the new member of the family has arrived seems to have shrunk or completely disappeared (Watkins and McIntyre, 2024). The challenge to maintain that space between the spouses may be considered attitudinal.

John Gottman’s study of the newlywed couples concludes that 67 percent of them have experienced a decrease of marital satisfaction after they have become parents (Gottman and Silver, 2015). The reasons related to the dissatisfaction in regards to the wife may be linked with “lack of sleep, feeling overwhelmed and unappreciated, the profound responsibility of caring for such a helpless little creature, and juggling mothering with a job” (Gottman and Silver, 2015, p.211). The reasons for the husband’s dissatisfaction are linked with disconnecting from the wife in her transformative process of becoming a parent. The men who experience the transformation with their spouses do not experience the downturn in marital happiness (Gottman and Silver, 2015). Gottman argues that the 33 percent of the couples who didn’t experience that decline have achieved a good understanding of each other in their marital relationship. The spouses have kept detailed love maps which have been up to date about each other’s spaces in the relationship and individual worlds of cognitive and emotional experiences (Gottman and Silver, 2015).

Psychological studies of marital relationships have identified relevant protective factors which play significant role in the healthy maintenance of the relationship (Ruggeri, 2024). These may be associated with communication, intimacy, closeness and attentiveness to each other’s needs. When the new arrival joins the family, these factors are impacted significantly to the extent that their functionality is reduced to minimum and the relationship is experienced as very challenging and dysfunctional. Another layer of responsibilities which occur after the arrival of the baby is linked with physical tiredness, sleep disturbance and financial demands. These create further significant stress on the relationship and decline the satisfaction of its parties. A third layer of the strained relationship is connected with the mental health of the parents. A study shows that one in four mothers and one in ten fathers are affected by the symptoms of postnatal depression. The way forward with securing the marital relationship during the early stages of parenting is to focus on the maintenance of the protective factors. The latter may include constructive changes in communication ensuring that there is understanding, encouragement and validation. The time together is vital for the communication and addressing of the spouses’ needs. Finally, modifying the expectations from each other during this time is very important. Empathising with the partner is vital for providing the space for comfort and recovery (Ruggeri, 2024).

Sexual Gratification Without Marriage

This misconception is found in the desire to satisfy one’s sexual needs outside of marriage. The attitude against marriage may be traced historically to the sexual revolution. The latter, whose massive impact on culture and society may be seen since the mid-1960s, undermines marriage as an institution and its normative context for sexual relationships between male and female. The new expression of sexuality has demanded freedom in all its dimensions. The main moto of this approach may be expressed as, no restriction should be applied to one’s personal desire except the mutual consent of the sexual partner (Zhekov, 2009).

The establishment of new norms of sexual conduct has been overtaken by the media at large and promoted through various means, including that of pornography, and its main and most easily accessed source, the internet. Thus, marriage has lost its role of defining human sexual behaviour, establishing its borders of proper expression, and rectifying its failures. Marriage plays no importance in the satisfaction of individual sexual needs and has no relevance in formalising one’s sexual partner. Free sexual relationships have become the norm and their various expressions provide individuals on all social levels with ways to satisfy their needs and accomplish their goals without any consequences (Gottman and Silver, 2015). The perspective on the marital challenges in the post-marital state has led to the formation of prejudice removing marriage as the safe framework for the satisfaction of sexual needs. This has become further connected with the development of noncommittal attitudes towards relationships. One of these expressions of such a relationship may be considered that of cohabitation.

Cohabitating Rather Than Marriage

The development of new attitudes towards sex leading to prejudiced perspective of satisfying one’s sexual desires without the marital framework results in the other myth or misconception against marriage, that of cohabitation (Robertson, 1989). The mutual decision by male and female to live together without providing the legal framework of their relationship according to the existing social system, with marriage as a social institution, has found many expressions related to its duration and nature (Zhekov, 2009; Gushee, 2004).

The main intentions of the couple entering into this relationship might be defined as an attempt to facilitate marital life without the legal framework of marriage. Both sides engage in family roles to some extent, enjoying sexual relationship and mutual provisions, but without the official recognition of their union. The latter excludes the expected obligations and responsibilities defined under the institution of marriage (Zhekov, 2009). Thus, cohabitation might be understood as an attempt of the two partners to share their lives with all the benefiting outcomes, but to avoid the expectations of mutual responsibilities coming with the formalisation of the union through the marriage institution. However, this free style relationship may not bring the expected results. It may not benefit the couple to reach the level of sharing their lives as married partners and may not prepare them for an eventual marriage (Gushee, 2004).

It becomes clear that such a relationship lacks formalisation. It avoids the public recognition of the spouses’ consent. The latter undermines the fulfilment of their marital duties. The lack of a legalised marital framework through the proper social institutions predisposes the relationship to absence of emotional or material devotion of the spouses to each other and to the union (Wilson, 2002). Thus, in spite of high expectations, such unions suffer much violence, exploitation, and negligence, with a high rate of sexual and physical abuse including even the death of children from previous relationships (Zhekov, 2009).

Studies have shown that cohabitation does not usually lead to marriage, and its temporary nature does not prove beneficial to the couple in any respect. What it offers are grounds for more frequent sexual practices outside of marriage, which lead to more unexpected and undesired pregnancies, more children exposed to abuse and lack of a supportive environment. Furthermore, cohabitation leads to possibility of financial, moral and physical mistreatment, and more frustration and disappointment of the involved parties (Gushee, 2004; Wilson, 2002).

The problem of cohabitation extends beyond its actual practice to the whole attitude of those involved towards marriage and divorce. Couples who cohabit with the purpose of evaluating a partner and the environment created by him/her for establishing an eventual marital relationship understand marriage as a temporary solution until they find a better partner, and accept divorce easily (Wilson, 2002). This prejudiced perspective defines the couple’s approach to potential marriage. Hence, the nature of this relationship suffers due to the lack of officially defined marital framework. Research shows that the divorce rate is higher among those who have cohabited before marriage than those who have married without cohabitation. The statistics show that in Sweden the divorce rate is 80 present higher among those who have cohabited before marriage than those who have begun with marriage on the first place (Wilson, 2002).

The formation of this prejudice in the cohabiting couples is also shown through the temporary nature of the cohabiting itself, no more than two years (Wilson, 2002). However, in spite of these negative results the contemporary western societies have discarded marriage and embraced cohabitation. In Sweden one-third of all couples of marriage age cohabit instead of marrying. In the Western world in general and in courtiers such as England, France, and the United States, half or more of all marriages have been preceded by cohabitation (Wilson, 2002).

Consumerist Attitude to Marriage

The present myth is linked with the consumer’s attitude towards marriage created within contemporary social and family structures. This misconception is constructed on the basis of the psychological principles of group dynamics. These group forces shape some of the norms in the society as a whole and of the family in particular. There is a power which influences people’s attitude towards marriage in a format of an instant gratification. People are predisposed to think about marital relationships from the perspective of reaching a particular goal of gratification and maintaining it without commitment to the marital framework. This relationship purpose has become entirely individualistic and egocentric in its achievement and maintenance. It has also minimised the needs and the satisfaction of the other. The marriage has become a required step for one’s personal indulgence. The attitudinal force behind the latter may be defined with selfishness and egocentrism (Zhekov, 2009).

Marriage values and norms are blurred through the widely-spread and well-established consumer attitude in the culture and the society at large. Consumer’s thinking is grounded on the individual drive for psychological and therapeutic fulfilment and stability. From the historical point of view this attitude has been formed through a combination of the human potential movement (1970s) and the formation of thinking based on market values (1980s and 1990s). The latter have propagated the striving for one’s best satisfaction in spite of failures and losses (Doherty, 2001). The former’s main goal has been individual personal growth

The relationship between traders and customers is established through advertisements which intend to capture the thoughts and emotions of the viewers. The product must be sold and at the same time to provide a place for the next one. The buyer is to be compelled to strive for the best. The goal of the process is the satisfaction of the consumer’s needs. However, the latter being highlighted as always present and never completely satisfied have shaped the constant pursue of personal wishes. Hence these individual needs have become the goal of the advertisement captains as the source for continuous reiteration of their existence and satisfaction (Doherty, 2001).

The constant chase of the most satisfying product disregards loyalty and promotes quality and value. Thus, the society and culture with their values and norms are filtrated through this consumer perspective. The latter is further strengthened by the dynamic of prejudice in regards to the competitive attitude in intergroup relationships. On the one hand, the sense of belonging to the ingroup shapes one’s approach of maintaining the group standards of life by comparing oneself to the other group members. On the other hand, the hostile approach against the outgroup defines one’s strive for exceeding the social standards of its members. Marriage relationships become evaluated through the prism of such perspectives of the past marriage partners. The prejudice about the previous marital relationship and one’s ex-partner shapes the view on upcoming relationships linked with personal satisfaction and achievements (Zhekov, 2024). The thinking is that of a business, formed in the evaluation of the amount of one’s investments and their results. Faithfulness is not anymore, a highly valued virtue of the potential relationship because of the possibility and openness for a better partner. If one’s personal satisfaction is not fulfilled, relationship ties can be destroyed and a new partner with a promising better prospect can be found. The two most important characteristics of a potential relationship which are pursued emphasise personal needs and openness for a consecutive relationship with a better partner (Doherty, 2001).

The result of the consumerist perspective on marriage is the unnecessary divorce and the establishment of serial monogamy phenomenon (Zhekov, 2024). The reasons for divorce are not formulated on the basis of lack of fulfilment of the spouse’s responsibilities, but are grounded on the prejudiced approach to one’s goals in romantic relationships. These reasons are framed through the myth of a constant pursue of the perfect partner as the desirable object reflecting one’s unfulfilled needs in this area (Doherty, 2001). Hence the vital characteristics of a sustainable marital relationship such as trust and commitment are not possible to develop. The latter is linked with the addictive automated nature of the prejudice which becomes entrenched in one’s approach to romantic relationships (Zhekov, 2022).

The biased approach shapes marital happiness as defined on the basis of a fluid and flexible scheme based on one’s feelings and formed through a consumer value system. The relationship appears to function only through the evaluation of the spouse’s performance, without consideration for one’s personal involvement. Hence, divorce has turned from being the last choice for a solution to being the first opportunity to escape, instead of looking for possibilities for improving the relationship. Small and insignificant problems in the marriage have become deep and significant failures of conduct and abuse due to the reluctance of the spouses to engage in facilitating a possibility for change and to feeding one’s striving for a better companion. Thus, the very reasons which have established the grounds for divorce have become a constant approval of one’s desire to leave the relationship and look for a new one, indifferent to the constant marital failures (Doherty, 2001). This vicious cycle of serial monogamy being reinforced through prejudice, automaticity and addiction has become very difficult to break which leads to the consideration of a very important conceptual relationship.

Conscience and Prejudice

Conscience is the individual’s moral self-regulatory capacity shaped through the motivational system in a dual moral format, namely, prescriptive initiation and proscriptive restraint of action based on positive or negative consequences and involving emotions, cognition and behaviour (Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Prescriptive conscience is defined by character strengths and virtues. Proscriptive conscience is shaped through self-control, refraining from inflicting harm to others and violating group standards (Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Affective conscience is prescriptively linked with guilt and prospectively defined by shame (Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Conscience involves reflexivity, an engagement of self-assessment leading to consideration of the personal normative moral framework and its implications to self and the context (Holtam, 2012).

Conscience formulates personal moral framework through its cognitive, emotive and conative nature and functioning (Koops, Brugman, and Ferguson, 2010). Cognitively conscience engages moral reasoning using one’s belief system and reflecting divine attributes to define personal and social responsibilities (McCosh, 1887). Emotively conscience guides affective experiences related to ethical decisions (Koops, Brugman and Ferguson, 2010). It is especially liked with the occurrence of guilt and shame in light of negative outcome from personal self-assessment defined as troubled conscience (Glasberg, Eriksson, Dahlqvist, Lindahl, Strandberg, Soderberg, Sørlie and Norberg, 2006). Conatively conscience characterises personal attitude and strive to reduce moral failures and achieve morally sound behaviour (Koops, Brugman and Ferguson, 2010). Conscience conative strives are closely related to spiritual striving. The latter is grounded on personal divine relationship shaping one’s personality, motivation and goals (Emmons, 2003). Furthermore, personal morality defined through biblical spirituality and divine relationship maintains the idea of personal righteousness (Wall, 1996). Well-functioning conscience is closely related to spirituality and edifying religiousness based on personal relationship with God and leading to undertaking healthy personal and social responsibilities (Xavier, 2010).

Prejudice and conscience stay in conflict of their very natures. Conscience, on the one hand, is guided by the principle of a selfless attitude towards others shaped through one’s perception of self in the place of others and openness to their opinions. The personal moral framework is informed by this principle to respect the needs of others and to search for its universally justifiable applications. Furthermore, one’s desires are shaped in regards to this moral outlook in relation to the moral behaviours of others (Langston, 2001). Morality may be understood as a holistic dimension of one’s life which forms an attitude of responsibility for one’s behaviour towards oneself and others (Klass, 1978). Hence healthy conscience defines social moral values and responses towards others and specifically towards minority groups.

Prejudice, on the other hand, is defined by its hostile approach to a group of people based on exaggerated information (Aronson, 2004). This affects negatively ethnic minorities (Bethlehem, 1985) and leads to harmful social effects (Brown, 1995). Stigma shapes the intergroup relationships as against the outgroup for the self-enhancement of the individual from the ingroup and social benefits of the dominant group (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008). Discrimination is identified against the vulnerable such as those with physical and mental disabilities in the forms of unwillingness to help, tokenism and reverse discrimination (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008). Stereotyping may lead to abuse when it shapes one’s thinking towards the others (Aronson, 2004). Finally, bias reflects a discriminatory behaviour which is groundless, purposeless and automatic defined by an attitude against the outgroup formed through constant contact with the antagonistic nature of intergroup categorisation of groupness (Tajfel, 2001).

The Resolution of Prejudice in Post-Marital Relationships

A simple approach to resolve prejudice may be defined as exposing various groups to information contrary to their stereotypical thinking about the outgroups. However, this may not resolve the bias deeply rooted into people’s worldview and lifestyles. People succumbed to their own ways of life will simply avoid or reject this type of information (Aronson, 2004). Bias is manageable and its effects are minimised when there is an intergroup contact within a particular context. The latter is defined by four characteristics, namely, equality, mutual purpose, collaboration and authority approval. When people approach each other from the same position, have a mutually defined goal and their interactions receive the approval of the authorities they make the necessary effort to cooperate (Fiske, 2004). The context may not tolerate contradictory elements (Bethlehem, 1985) and dominance (Aronson, 2004) by either of the groups and is further benefited by reinforcement of desegregation which diminishes stereotypical thinking and highlights positive image (Aronson, 2004). The nature of the contact between the groups should be characterised by the need of their members to cooperate relying on each other to achieve a mutually defined goal. People from different groups placed in a situation which is defined through mutually desired goal tend to assess each other building an individual image of the other person. Thus, their stereotypical understanding of the other person based on the information of his/her related group is challenged and modified through the personal knowledge acquired in the process of partnership (Fiske, 2004). Fiske (2004) defines the contact as partnership and friendship. These characteristics may be considered in romantic and marital relationships. The latter require an attitude of equality, shared interest, mutual tolerance, emotional management, acknowledging each other’s uniqueness and an atmosphere of security.

The crucial role of conscience in health care is supported by various studies (Ladd, 2007; Cook, 2007; Dahlqvist et al., 2007). The importance of spirituality for life and its contribution to healthy functioning conscience is also maintained by researchers (Emmons, 2003; Zhekov, 2022). Hence, conscience therapy becomes the legitimate answer for therapeutic support in time of crisis. This innovative modality may contribute to the resolution of the prejudiced perspective towards romantic and marital relationships. Conscience therapy provides the framework for dealing with conscience, spirituality and recovery. The framework may be summarised as the triple “E” process of conscientious transformation, i.e. enlightenment, empowerment and edification (see Figure 1). Enlightenment is related to the understanding of conscience, its past experiences and current state as well as its need for revival. The empowerment is linked to the consideration of healthy spirituality as the source for rejuvenating conscience. The edification resources the maintaining of well-functioning conscience for progressive recovery and wellbeing (Zhekov, 2022).

The triple “E” framework will provide effective and supportive context for dealing with relationship prejudices and help the process of personal conscientious transformation (see Figure 2). Conscience enlightenment offers the tools for exploring the current state of the individual value and moral systems dealing with the existing biases and their roots in the personal narrative. The process endeavours to facilitate clear and precise understanding of one’s ingroup and outgroup cognitions, emotions, attitudes, motivations and behaviours. These will lead to reformulation of the current state of conscience and formulation of one’s healthy attitude towards romantic and marital relationships (Zhekov, 2022; Zhekov, 2024).

Conscience empowerment considers the significance of personal spirituality and its dynamics for the positive transformation of the state of conscience. The nature of spirituality and spiritual disciplines are considered from personal perspective and choice. Healthy spirituality is formulated through the individual’s strivings and its input is explored towards holistic, functional and effective conscientious value and moral framework. The new state of conscience is considered effective to deal with personal biases and reshape prejudice regarding the post-marital relationship phase in life. The empowered conscience establishes new state of personal value and worth independent of one’s intergroup relational biases (Zhekov, 2022).

Conscience edification progresses the work from the second stage to maintain the state and functionality of conscience within the input of practicing healthy spirituality and towards monitoring and redefying personal prejudices. Conscience has become a supportive friend dealing with choices and decisions based on well-established and defined moral and value framework. Cognitions, emotions and behaviours are shaped through conscientious dynamics to provide peace, joy and satisfaction in daily experiences and romantic relationships. Motivations and attitudes are channelled through the revived moral and value perspective to facilitate constructive and beneficial approaches to self and the potential spouse. The three-dimensional framework of conscientious recovery from prejudiced relationships may benefit both personal self-help work and professional therapeutic work (Zhekov, 2022).

Figure 1

Figure 2

References

Albery, I. P., Sharma, D., Niazi, A. & Moss, A. C. (2006). Theoretical perspectives and approaches. In M. R. Munafo & I. P. Albery (Eds.), Cognition and addiction (pp. 1-29). Oxford University Press.

Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Doubleday Anchor Books.

Aronson, E. (2004). The social animal (9th ed.). Worth Publishers.

Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.). Advances in social cognition, Vol.10 (pp. 1-61). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bargh, J. A. (2005). Bypassing the will: Toward demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious. (pp. 37-58). Oxford University Press.

Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). Cambridge University Press.

Bethlehem, D. W. (1985). A social psychology of prejudice. Croom Helm.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Blackwell Publishing.

Cook, D. E. (2007). Always let your conscience be your guide. The American journal of bioethics 7, 16–18. Doi?

Cox, W. M., Fadardi, J. S., &Pothos, E. M. (2006). The addiction-Stroop test: Theoretical considerations and procedural recommendations. Psychological Bulletin 132/3, 443-476. Doi?

Dahlqvist, V., Eriksson, S. Glasberg, A-L., Lindahl, E., Lutzen, K., Strandberg, G., Soderberg, A., Sørlie, V., &Norberg, A. (2007). Development of the perceptions of conscience questionnaire. Nursing Ethics 14, 181-193. Doi?

Doherty, W. J. (2001). Take back your marriage: Sticking together in a world that pulls us apart. The Guilford Press, 2001.

Emmons, R. A. (2003). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. Guilford Press.

Fiske, S. (2004). Social beings: A core motivational approach to social psychology.Wiley.

Glasberg, A. L. Eriksson, S., Dahlqvist, V., Lindahl, E., Strandberg, G., Soderberg, A., Sørlie, V., & Norberg, A. (2006). Development and initial validation of the stress of conscience questionnaire. Nursing ethics 13, 633-648. Doi?

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin Books.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work. Crown Publishers.

Gushee, D. P. (2004). Getting marriage right: Realistic counsel for saving & strengthening relationships. Baker Books.

Hogg, A. M., Vaughan, G. M. (2008). Social psychology (5th ed.).Pearson Education.

Holtam, B. W. (2012). Let’s call it what it is: A matter of conscience: A new vocabulary for moral education. Sense Publishers.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010, April 26-29). Conscience: The do’s and don’ts of moral regulation. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Symposium,(pp. 1-25). Paper presented at the Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, IDC campus, Herzliya, Israel, Retrieved from http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/Symposium/HSPSP/2010/Pages/participants10.aspx

Klass, E. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 756-771.

Koops, W., Brugman, D., & Ferguson, T. J. (2010). The development of conscience: Concepts and theoretical and empirical approaches. An introduction. In A. F. Sanders, W. Koops, D. Brugman & T. J. Ferguson (Eds.). The development and structure of conscience (pp. 1-22). Psychology Press.

Ladd, R. E. (2007). Some reflections on conscience. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 32-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160701710147

Langston, D. C. (2001). Conscience and other virtues: From Bonaventure to Macintyre. The Pennsylvania State University.

McCosh, J. (1887). Psychology. The motive powers: Emotions, conscience, will. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Potenza, M. N. (2015). Helping people behave themselves: Identifying and treating behavioral addictions. In M. S. Ascher & P. Levounis (Eds.). The behavioral addictions (1st ed., pp. 3-8).American Psychiatric Association. Doi?

Robertson, I. (1989). Society: A brief introduction. Worth Publishers, Inc.

Ruggeri, A(2024). Having a baby can rock a marriage – And life post-children can be a challenge,” BBC. [online]. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20230628-why-couples-fight-after-having-a-baby

Sadoff, R. L., Drogin, E. Y., &Gurmu, S. (2015). Forensic implications of behavioral addictions. In M. S. Ascher & P. Levounis (Eds.). The behavioral addictions (1st ed., pp. 9-28). American Psychiatric Association. Doi?

Sena, J. L. (2024). “Kids ruin your relationship, says Gwyneth Paltrow. What do parents think? Having young kids can crowd out the needs of an adult couple. For some, this can make things extra hard.” Galvanized Media. [online]. Retrieved from https://hellogiggles.com/kids-ruin-your-relationship/

Sheikh, S.,&Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). The “shoulds” and “should nots” of moral emotions: A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 213-224. Retrieved from http://psp.sagepub.com

Tajfel, H. (2001). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 178-187).Psychology Press.

Wall, R. W. (1996). Conscience. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.),The anchor Bible dictionary (Vol. 1, pp. 1128–1130). Doubleday.

Watkins, N., & McIntyre, A. (2024). Post-baby blip. We were happy before we became parents – Having babies ruined our relationship, and now we’re single mums. The Sun. [online]. Retrieved from https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/25353632/parents-babies-ruined-relationship/?utm_campaign=native_share&utm_source=sharebar_native&utm_medium=sharebar_native

Wilson, J. Q. (2002). The marriage problem: How our culture has weakened families. HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Xavier, N. S. (2010). Fulfillment using real conscience: Practical guide for psychological and spiritual wellness.Author House.

Zhekov, Y. K. (2009). Defining the New Testament logia on divorce and remarriage in a pluralistic context.Pickwick Publications.

Zhekov, Y. K. (2013). Conscience in recovery from alcohol addiction: Exploring the role of spirituality in conscientious transformation. Resource Publications.

Zhekov, Y. K. (2019). Conscience in recovery from drug addiction: A theoretical and empirical study of spiritual conscientious transformation for the formulation of conscience therapy. Kindle Direct Publishing.

Zhekov, Y. K. (2022). Conscience therapy: Unveiling the power of spirituality in conscientious transformation. Kindle Direct Publishing.

Zhekov, Y. K. (2024). Divorced or remarried and Christian: Serial monogamy and the quest for holiness. Kindle Direct Publishing.