Chapter 13 : Dissolution and Loss (Unit 17) Flashcards
STAY/LEAVE DECISIONS
- Qualitative study examining participants
in dissolution consideration phase
(mostly dating couples, some
married/common-law) - What are are some reasons for wanting to
stay with/leave current partner? - Generated 27 distinct reasons for staying
& 23 for leaving
(see list slide 5-6) - Ambivalence is common
– 49% of Ps reported higher-than-midpoint stay and leave motivation
– Particularly pronounced among anxiously attached individuals
— Strong desire for relationships & reliance on partner for validation, but also
heightened sensitivity to negativity within relationship - Generally, relationship ambivalence associated with negative health
outcomes (e.g., coronary heart disease), greater physiological arousal, more
negative emotions
META-ANALYSIS OF
NON-MARITAL BREAKUPS
* What factors predict breakups?
* A meta-analysis of 137 longitudinal studies, conducted over 30 years, with a
total of over 37,700 participants
* Studies included if they:
– were longitudinal
– assessed one or more relevant predictors
– assessed relationship stability at a later time
* Individual-level factors such as attachment style & big 5
personality traits showed relatively small or null effects
* Relationship-level factors show stronger effects
PREDICTING RELATIONSHIP
DISSOLUTION and VULNERABILITY-STRESS-ADAPTATION
MODEL (VSA)
- Although people in relationships (and, often, researchers!) tend to focus on
individual & relational factors, relationships exist in broader context - Individual, relational, and external context factors likely interact in complex
ways to shape breakup risk - One model that takes these complex patterns into account is the
Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model of marriage
VULNERABILITY-STRESS-ADAPTATION
MODEL (VSA)
* Enduring Vulnerabilities
– E.g., adverse experiences in family of origin, insecure attachment,
neuroticism, impulsivity, low education levels
* Stressful Events
– E.g., unemployment, life transitions, illness, childbirth
* Adaptive Processes
– The ways in which couples deal with challenges & conflict
* E.g., communication, styles, stress management
(see slide 13 too)
STRESS & RELATIONSHIPS
- Stress = set of physiological, emotional, & cognitive changes in response to a
demanding challenge in the environment (a stressor) - Many of the stressors couples face are external to the relationship (e.g.,
financial strain, debt, high workloads) but these have the power to affect the
relationship (stress spillover) - Stress drives attentional shift to what is salient in the environment &
heightens sensitivity to threat (e.g., an insensitive remark made by spouse)
– Interferes with more complex forms of cognitive processing - Stress impedes accommodation—e.g., physiological arousal during marital
discussions is associated with increased negative reciprocity - Diary studies: negative marital interactions more likely to be reported on days
that had been stressful
– Also more likely on weekdays vs. weekends - Air traffic controller study
– Higher workload predicts greater withdrawal at home - Wives more likely to make blame attributions for negative partner behaviour
when under stress - Enduring vulnerabilities affect both propensity to experience stress (path C in
model) and ability to cope with stressors (path B)—e.g.:
– Parental discord & divorce associated with lower accomplishment (path C)
as well as poorer social skills as adults (path B)
– Individuals high in negative affectivity (e.g., neuroticism) more likely to
appraise situations as stressful and make more negative attributions for
partner behaviour - Couples who are more supportive & have stronger coping skills are not as
negatively impacted by stressful events, may even experience boosts to
relationship satisfaction - Disapproval from couple’s social network may place
addition strain on relationships
– Implications for couples in same-sex relationships - Having a supportive social network may be especially
important when facing other difficulties (e.g., financial
strain) - But, as we saw, determinants of marital quality and marital
stability are multifactorial
– Individual & relational factors influence adjustment
– Overall, no evidence that same-sex relationships less
satisfying despite external stressors
CHANGING TRENDS
IN DIVORCE
HISTORICAL TRENDS (US)
* Increased since mid-1930s
* Appears to be slowing down, but 50% of marriages (in U.S.) will end in
separation or divorce
* Why?
- CHANGES IN EXPECTATIONS
“Today, we turn to one person to provide what an
entire village once did: a sense of grounding, meaning,
and continuity. At the same time, we expect our
committed relationships to be romantic as well as
emotionally and sexually fulfilling. Is it any wonder that
so many relationships crumble under the weight of it
all?”
― Esther Perel, Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic
Percent of men and women who reported being very happy in their marriage from 1973-2010 has gone down
DISILLUSIONMENT MODEL
* One of the best predictor of divorce is disillusionment model
– Couples typically begin their marriages with rosy, romanticized views of
their relationship that are unrealistically positive, setting them up for
disappointment
– These relationships do not necessarily turn acrimonious—but the steep
declines in relationship satisfaction produce instability
- INCREASING INDIVIDUALISM
* Western culture is becoming more individualistic
– Less tied to communities and less likely to live near extended family
* This means less social support and companionship which has implications:
– Ask more of our spouse than we did in the past
– Less affected by community norms that might discourage from divorce - FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE OF
WOMEN
* Women have economic freedom to leave dissatisfying relationships
– Reduced barriers, higher quality of alternatives
* Spouses report more conflict between work and family, and the more hours a
wife works outside the home, the lower quality of marriage
– Higher costs
* Amount of time spouses spend together has declined - CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF
DIVORCE
* Divorce is less shameful and easier to obtain, shared
perceptions of divorce are a lot less negative
– Another example of reduced barriers
* Less likely to work hard to rescue a faltering
relationship when divorce seems like an easier
alternative - INCREASED EXPOSURE TO DIVORCE
* Increased exposure to divorce
* There are more children of divorce: children who experience the divorce of
their parents are more likely to divorce themselves when they become adults
* More of us have friends who are divorced: when others in our social network
divorce, we’re more likely to do so too
WHAT ABOUT CANADA?
* Divorce rates lower in Canada relative to the US & are also on the decline
* Why?
– Not as many people getting married
–Selecting for especially strong unions?
–– Enduring dynamics model also predictive of divorce (marriages that
start with higher levels of problems & ambiguity are less satisfying &
stable)
– Getting married later, tend to have more education (protective factors)
– But rates of divorce in older populations are increasing
HOW DO COUPLES BREAK UP?
BREAKUP TACTICS
* Avoidance/withdrawal
* Positive tone/self-blame
* Open confrontation
* Cost escalation
* Manipulation
* Distant/mediated communication
* De-escalation
CONSEQUENCES
* Indirect strategies (e.g., avoidance/withdrawal) reflect less compassion for the recipient, associated with greater distress post breakup
* Direct strategies perceived more positively
* Use of positive tone (e.g., taking responsibility for breakup) has inconsistent effects
– Seen as compassionate
– But associated with negative outcomes for the recipient (e.g., depression)
– May be used by disengagers to decrease current level of intimacy while leaving door
open for increased intimacy later
– Associated with likelihood of re-entering relationship
—- Churning is associated with greater uncertainty, stress, less satisfaction
– More likely to be used if disengager feels the target won’t be able to cope
PREDICTORS
* Direct strategies more likely when intimacy, closeness, & social network overlap
are high; indirect strategies more likely when intimacy & closeness are low
* Attachment avoidance:
– More indirect strategies (e.g., avoidance/withdrawal)
– Fewer strategies that leave door open to reconnection (e.g., positive tone)
* Attachment anxiety
– Strategies that allow for later reconnection and postpone the breakup (e.g.,
positive tone/self-blame and de-escalation
* Consistent with research on stay/leave decision conflicts, association between
attachment anxiety & tendency to have on-again/off-again relationships
GHOSTING
* Breaking up by avoiding online & offline contact
– Lack of explicit breakup declaration or explanation for breakup
* Recall discussion on negative effects of ostracism
– But, surprisingly, research so far has not found ghosting to be worse than more
direct strategies
* Seen as more acceptable in short-term relationship
– But in one study of ghosting, relationships in which ghosting occurred lasted 6
mos on average and commitment ratings were above 4 on 1-7 scale
* Ghosting disengagers motivated by feelings of disinterest
* Those with stronger destiny beliefs more likely to ghost
AFTER RELATIONSHIP
DISSOLUTION
POST-DISSOLUTION REACTIONS
* Marital dissolution & death of spouse ranked as two most stressful life events
* Breakups associated with host of negative effects: e.g., sadness, anxiety,
anger, low self-esteem, loss of appetite, trouble sleeping
* Romantic breakups in young adulthood increase risk for negative mental
health outcomes, including first onset of major depressive disorder
REACTIONS
* Individuals who initiated breakup, as well as individuals in mutually dissolved
relationships, generally experience less distress relative to individuals who
were broken up with
– Uncontrollable events tend to be more distressing
* But some mixed evidence for effect of breakup role
– Recall earlier research on ambivalence around stay/go decisions
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Attachment theory & self-expansion theory may be two particularly useful
frameworks for understanding strength of negative reactions
ATTACHMENT THEORY
* In adulthood, romantic partner/spouse often serves as primary attachment
figure
– Termination of relationship represents loss of safe haven and secure base;
necessitates re-organization of attachment hierarchy
* Potential damage to models of self and other
* Social pain theory: social attachment system built on top of physical pain
systems
– One potential reason that breakups may hurt so much is because they
engage some of the same brain mechanisms involved in physical pain
SELF-EXPANSION THEORY
* Breakups generate distress by leading to contraction & destabilization of self-concept
– Size of self-concept & self-concept clarity (extent to which feel certain
about aspects of the self and perceive them to be internally consistent &
temporally stable)
– Particularly true for those who experienced more self-expansion in
relationship
– Rediscovering sense of self is associated with better breakup recovery and
breakup-related growth
GETTING OVER A BREAKUP
* Adjustment takes time, but distress does fade
* Don’t stalk their social media
* Don’t ruminate, but do reflect
* Seek support
* Remind yourself of alternatives (especially if you’re higher in
attachment anxiety)
* Pursue self-expanding activities and rediscover your sense
of self
* Remember that you are a worthwhile human being
