Relationship Dissolution and Disengagement Flashcards
Romantic dissolution in Canada (from StatsCan)
- In 2011, 2 million Canadians reported a break-up
- Half ended a marriage (time together: 14.3 years)
- Half ended a common law relationships (time together: 4.3 years)
Le at al meta-analysis: reasons for non-marital dissolution
- Looked at predictors of non-marital romantic relationship dissolution
- Strongest predictors:
- – Commitment
- – Love
- – Inclusion of other in the self (how close you feel to them)
- – Dependence
- Modest predictors:
- – Satisfaction
- – Perception of alternatives
- – Social network support (how much people in your life support your relationship)
Huston et al’s Process of Adaptation in Intimate Relationships (PAIR) study (relates to reasons for marital dissolution)
- 30-year study focusing on how couples adapted to their lives together
- Notable findings:
- After 13 years of marriage:
- – 35% had divorced
- – 20% were not happy, but still together
- – 45% happily married, but less satisfied compared to the day they married
3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study
- enduring dynamics model
- emergent distress model
- disillusionment model
3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: enduring dynamics model
- Spouses enter the marriage less in love and more at odds with each other
- Bring problems, incompatibilities, and vulnerabilities that occured when dating
- Aware of these frustrations and marry regardless → weakens relationship and can lead to divorce
3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: emergent distress model
- Problematic behaviour that destroys the relationship; begins after they marry
- Fall into a pattern of increasing conflict and negativity that did not exist when the marriage began; challenges develop over time
- No issues prior to the marriage
3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: disillusionment model
- Begin marriage with romanticized view of the relationship that is unrealistically positive
- Then romance fades → stop trying to be adorable and charming; some of this is normal in relationships
- Disappointment gradually sets in; see each other as less wonderful than they originally seemed
Joel et al study: why delay romantic dissolution?
- Looked at participants who were contemplating a break-up over a 2-month period to see how they decided to stay or leave a relationship
- Results:
- If the individual perceived that their partner was more dependent on the relationship, less likely to break up with them → altruistic motives
- This finding was also consistent for people who weren’t really committed or less satisfied
Boelen et al study: effects of romantic dissolution –> basics
- Explored the relationship between negative cognitions (ie. your thoughts about yourself) and emotional problems following a relationship break-up (participants either initiated it, were broken up with, or broke up mutually)
- Measures: complicated grief, grief recognition, depression, anxiety, attachment, neuroticism, level of commitment, and time since break-up
Boelen et al study: effects of romantic dissolution –> results
- The stronger the commitment in the relationship, the higher your complicated grief
- Sudden break-ups had highest complicated grief scores followed by non-initiators and then initiators
- More negative beliefs about yourself (ie. self-blame) associated with anxiety, depression, and grief when compared to a control group
what to consider when breaking up with dignity?
- Think over what you want to say and why (be honest, not brutal)
- Think about what you’ll say and how the other person might react (put yourself in their position - thoughts, feelings, choices)
- Have good intentions
- Say it in person (don’t avoid them or the conversation)
how to manage a break-up
- Acknowledge and let your feelings out
- Do something everyday
- Take your time - “time heals all wounds”
- Find emotional support (from friends, family, or a professional)
- Establish boundaries with your ex-partner (do you want to have contact with them? Or do you want some distance?)
Sbarra et al: adjustment to dissolution study
- Daily reports of young adults in the month after they ended a meaningful romantic relationship (carried beepers to randomly prompt them to record their feelings)
- Results:
- Initially: angry, sad, reduced feelings of relief, courage, and strength
- 2 weeks later: reduced anger and sadness, but relief still low
- Another 2 weeks later: not sad anymore, increased relief
- 1 month: less in love and increases in courage and strength
On-again/off-again relationships
- Churning: break-up, reconcile, and then get back together
- More common during adolescence, but ⅓ of cohabiting and ¼ of married couples have also experienced it
- Problems: associated with stress, uncertainty, lower satisfaction even when relationship continues
5 models of dissolution
- intrapsychic processes
- dyadic processes
- social processes
- grave-dressing processes
- resurrection processes
5 models of dissolution: intrapsychic processes
- Individual experiences feelings of resentment and a feeling of being under-benefited (ie. frustrated, disgruntled, dissatisfied)
- Social withdrawal: isolation from people they usually communicate with
5 models of dissolution: dyadic processes
- The couple is talking with one another about problems that one person sees with the relationship
- Process of confrontation, negotiation, or accommodation
- Common feelings = shock, anger, hurt, relief
- Opportunity for reconciliation
- Withdrawal from friends and acquaintances to talk about relationship with partner
5 models of dissolution: social processes
- Distress in relationship goes public
- Share their side of the story with their family and friends
- Seeking advice, support, or understanding
- Unfairly criticize the other partner
- Scapegoat (blame the other partner and explore explanations for break-up)
5 models of dissolution: grave-dressing processes
- Relationship has ended
- End relationship in a way that leaves a person still desirable as a future relationship partner
- Tidying up memories/reconceptualizing the relationship from beginning to end → maintain our sense of self as valuable as a future partner for someone else
5 models of dissolution: resurrection processes
- Preparing for the future
- Ex-partners re-enter social life as singles
- Reframing of those aspects of the past relational life
- Present self as a person who has learned to deal effectively with future relationships (ie. experience changed them, smarter and wiser now; may also find others to support our own view of the break-up)
friendship dissolution
- Literature on relationship dissolution doesn’t equally address different types of relationships (we know a lot more about dissolution of romantic relationships than those of friends and family)
- Drifting apart: Normal and non-conflictual way to dissolve a friendship; described as a gradual process
Bidart et al study: friendship dissolution
Losing friends is a common experience during adulthood because of life transitions (ie. leaving postsecondary education, changing jobs, changing one’s geographical location)
Argyle et al study: why do we end friendships? (friendship rules)
- Explored whether breaking friendship rules would be the reason to end a friendship
- Rules associated with the breakdown of a friendship:
- Jealousy or criticism
- Lack of tolerance for third-party relationships
- Nagging or criticizing the other person publicly
- Not trusting or confiding in one another
- Not showing positive regard or providing emotional support
Rose at al study: why do we end friendships? (different types of friendships)
- Looked at factors involved in the ending of best, close, and casual friendships
- Lack of physical contact/being in same physical space (more likely for casual friends)
- Less affection
- Less interaction and interference from a dating or marriage relationship (more likely for close and best friends)
Moremen et al study: why do we end friendships? (older women)
- Explored sources of strain in older women’s friendships - violating friendship expectations:
- Sharing similar interests/social status
- Trustworthiness
- Live close by
- Not be overly dependent
- Not be “whiney” or “demanding” when ill
- Maintain balance and reciprocity in friendships
- Tease only in fun
Jalma et al study: how do we end friendships? (adults)
- Looked at adult women’s intentional strategies of ending friendships
- Indirect attempt: not returning unwanted friend’s phone calls
- Direct attempts: face-to-face conversations, by telephone, by email
Bowker et al study: how do we end friendships? (adolescents)
- Adolescents were more likely to contribute to the relationship dissolution process indirectly
- Downgrading: changing the status of the friendship (ie. from best friend to friend)
- Change in friendship status reduces the function of the relationship, rather than directly terminating the friendship
family disengagement
- Not all relationships are beneficial
- Limited view on close relationships when only look at the relationships we want to maintain → need to explore relational distancing (gaining distance from non-voluntary relationships; distance severs or creates boundaries)
- Especially for relationships where individuals believe they have no choice but to maintain them (ie. family relationships)
creating distance with family
- Voluntary and intentional
- Challenges beliefs about families bound by blood with no possibility of ending these relationships
- 3 ways to create distance with family members: family member marginalization, parent-child alienation, parent-child estrangement
3 ways to create distance with family members: family member marginalization
- Considered “black sheep” of family (not approved of, liked, or included as much as the other members)
- Differentiation (feeling different from the rest of the family)
- Distancing (perceived they are excluded and/or treated differently by their family)
- Despite feeling of hurt and a desire to leave, most don’t completely sever ties, but will distance themselves
- Barriers make it difficult to leave: play important role as stereotype of what the group is not (ie. scapegoat); uncertainty about creating new group ties with others
3 ways to create distance with family members: parent-child alienation
- Intentional and unintentional ways parents persuade children to distance themselves from or reject the other parent
- Limited research about this, and experts argue if it even exists
- More common in custody and access issues
3 ways to create distance with family members: parent-child estrangement
- At least 1 family member (parent and/or child) no longer wants to have a relationship and/or seeks to limit interactions with another family member because of a negative relationship
- Limited area of research: tends to focus more on attributions - physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, gross neglect, and drug/alcohol abuse
Individuals are stigmatized and disenfranchised - Adult child may keep their estrangement experiences private/secret (cyclical/on-again-off-again experience filled with uncertainty)
– Reasons they give for estrangement: neglect and abuse
– When they share their experiences, they give voice to ideas that resist cultural beliefs that suggest families are non-voluntary
reasons for disclosure about familial estrangement
- When others witnessed conflict (ie. last straw event)
- When others asked
- Disclosure was indirect (ie. sharing an email/text from the parent with a 3rd party)
- Perceived it would benefit others (want to help others)
network reactions about estrangement
- Supportive network members:
- Individual felt supported
- Network members were surprised by the estrangement
- Unsupportive network members:
- Majority experienced this
- – Family members have difficulty understanding why the adult wouldn’t “forgive and forget”
- – Try to guilt them back into a relationship or don’t support their decision
Fitness study: how common is estrangement, and why does it happen?
- Out of 70 Australian university students, 80% reported having a marginalized family member
- Why?
- Look different, have different personality, having different interests or talents, not fitting in
- Common reasons for men: trouble-making (ie. crime, drugs)
- Common reasons for women: being different, ceasing contact, moving, marrying an undesirable partner
Scharp et al study: how is estrangement managed?
- 52 adult children, 20-66 years of age, asked how they manage it
- Strategies:
- Contrasting themselves with their parents
- Making it difficult for parents to find them
- limiting their close relationships
- sharing their story with others
- managing their social network
- making external attributions
Scharp estrangement study strategies: contrasting themselves with their parents
- Considering how they’re different from their parents to manage their identity
- Felt guilty for not being a “good” son or daughter
- Saw themselves as good parents compared to their parents
- Provided evidence of decisions/behaviours that supported their reasons for distance
Scharp estrangement study strategies: making it difficult for parents to find them
Withhold or change telephone number and location, limit or reduce social media presence, rules with social network (tell them not to share your personal info)
Scharp estrangement study strategies: limiting their close relationships
Refraining from having children or engaging in romantic relationships; limited or minimized opportunities to perpetuate cycle of abuse
Scharp estrangement study strategies: sharing their story with others
Reduces their own uncertainty; talking or writing about experiences reminds them why the distance was important → a way to make sense of actions rather than a form of disclosure
Scharp estrangement study strategies: manage their social network
Communicate their preferences by asking network not to talk to estranged parent, meeting with network members separately to maintain certain family relationships, waiting for a time when it’s safe
Scharp estrangement study strategies: external attributions
- Maintained uncertainty about whether their parent loved them by making external attributions for the parents’ behaviour
- Way to reduce the possibility that parents did not love them (due to mental illness, substance use or misuse, etc.)
