Content uploaded by Lindsey Rodriguez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lindsey Rodriguez on Jun 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Personal Relationships, (2016). Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright © 2016 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/pere.12133
Communication with former romantic partners
and current relationship outcomes among college
students
LINDSEY M. RODRIGUEZ,aCAMILLA S. ØVERUP,bROBERT E. WICKHAM,c
C. RAYMOND KNEE,dAND AMBER B. AMSPOKERe
aUniversity of New Hampshire; bFairleigh Dickinson University; cPalo Alto University;
dUniversity of Houston; and eBaylor College of Medicine
Abstract
This research investigates individual and contextual differences underlying postdissolution friendships by considering
communication with former romantic partners among individuals in new romantic relationships. Two studies
demonstrate the prevalence, determinants, and implications of former partner communication for the current
relationship. Study 1 showed that approximately 40% of individuals in relationships communicate with a former partner
and highlighted differences between those who communicate and those who do not. Study 2 factor analyzed reasons
why people communicate with former partners and examined how the reasons are differentially associated with current
relationship functioning. In general, results support the notion that under certain circumstances and for certain
individuals, communication with former partners can have deleterious inuences on one’s current relationship.
Research suggests that the formation and
maintenance of social bonds is essential for
optimal physical and psychological well-being
(e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995). However,
many social bonds that are voluntary even-
tually come to an end; approximately half of
all marriages end in divorce (Kreider & Ellis,
2011), and an even larger percentage of dating
relationships dissolve. When relationships
are terminated, some individuals success-
fully sever all connections with their former
romantic partners. However, many others con-
tinue to maintain communication with their
former partners (e.g., Graham, 1997; Kellas,
Lindsey M. Rodriguez, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of New Hampshire; Camilla S. Øverup, School
of Psychology, Fairleigh Dickinson University; Robert E.
Wickham, Department of Psychology, Palo Alto Univer-
sity; C. Raymond Knee, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Houston; Amber B. Amspoker, Baylor College
of Medicine, Houston.
Correspondence should be addressed to Lindsey M.
Rodriguez, University of New Hampshire, Department
of Psychology, Durham, NH 03824, e-mail: Lindsey.
Rodriguez@unh.edu.
2006; Kellas & Manusov, 2003; Weber, 1998).
Generally, it appears that while many people
remain friends with their former partners
(Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter, 1985), there
may be situational and individual differences
underlying these friendships.
Communication between former partners
may take on a different meaning when one or
both individuals become involved in a new
romantic relationship, and this is a vastly
understudied area of relationship science.
Moreover, such communication may have
important implications for current relation-
ships, particularly in light of the motivations
behind such communication. The current
research sought to better understand commu-
nication with former partners among those
currently in relationships. Specically, we
present two studies examining: (a) the preva-
lence of communicating with former partners,
(b) characteristics of the former relationship
that are associated with communication with
the former partner, (c) the motives underlying
1
2L. M. Rodriguez et al.
individuals’ communication with former
partners, and (d) the implications of these
communication motives for one’s current
relationship.
Prevalence of communication with former
partners
Stage models of relationship development
and dissolution imply that the last stage of
relationship dissolution is termination of
communication (e.g., Duck, 1982; Knapp,
1984). In these models, partners diverge to live
separate lives. However, many former partners
continue to maintain contact in the context
of a friendship or other platonic relationship.
Some researchers present anecdotal evidence
that friendships between former romantic
partners exist; however, relationship theorists
tend to neglect including such relationships as
a possibility in their models (Agnew, Arriaga,
& Wilson, 2008).
Although there is relatively little research on
postdissolution communication, some research
on marital dissolution has found that approx-
imately 50% of individuals maintain contact
with their ex-spouses between 2 and 10 years
after separating (Fischer, de Graaf, & Kalmijn,
2005), and between 40% and 67% report com-
munication with an ex-partner after a nonmari-
tal relationship dissolution (Kellas, Bean, Cun-
ningham, & Cheng, 2008; Schneider & Kenny,
2000). Similarly, other researchers have found
that approximately 50% of individuals said
they were still friends, close friends, or best
friends with a former romantic partner (Shee-
han & Dillman, 1998), and 14% of males and
13% of females reported that their closest cur-
rent friendship was with a previous romantic
partner (Kaplan & Keys, 1997). In the con-
text of understanding the complex interconnec-
tions between former and current partners, we
believe that an especially relevant determinant
is the motivation for the communication.
Motives for communication with former
partners
Previous research has examined factors
that increase the likelihood of postdissolu-
tion friendships. Among these factors are
friendship prior to the former relationship
(Metts, Cupach, & Bejlovec, 1989), a mutu-
ally initiated breakup (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau,
1976), a continuing mutual attraction to
one another (Banks, Altendorf, Greene, &
Cody, 1987), a satisfying former romantic
relationship (Bullock, Hackathorn, Clark, &
Mattingly, 2011), and support from family and
friends (Busboom, Collins, Givertz, & Levin,
2002). As can be seen, factors inuencing
whether postdissolution friendships emerge
are as widely varied as factors inuencing
relationship dissolution itself, and we expect
to nd different motives for maintaining the
relationship to be differentially predictive of
current relationship outcomes. These differ-
ences may be due to the intricate dynamic
between characteristics of the individuals
themselves, their former relationship, and their
current relationship. Becker (1988) proposed
a typology of postdissolution relationships,
ranging from “ctitious friendships,” in which
former partners pay lip service to their friend-
ship but rarely communicate with each other,
to “family” relationships, in which former
partners have invested in their relationship and
view each other as important parts of their
lives. Thus, in some cases, partners no longer
desire to be together romantically but have
developed a platonic relationship. For such
people, communication may occur simply
because they are friends. Another reason for
communication with former partners might be
because they share some common social net-
work (e.g., friends, job, children; Metts et al.,
1989). In this way, former partners communi-
cate to facilitate smooth interactions involving
friends, family, or work. For others, communi-
cation may occur because they are invested in
the person. Those who have invested heavily
in their former partner or relationship are more
inclined to maintain a connection and value
that friendship more strongly than those who
invested little (Busboom et al., 2002). This is
also supported by Rusbult’s investment model
(Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,
1998), which suggests that investment is an
important predictor of commitment. Invest-
ment in one’s former relationship may not
be enough to keep the relationship intact, but
greater investment may serve as an impetus
Communication with former partners 3
for continued communication with that former
partner. With regard to how these motives
might be associated with current relationship
quality, although this has yet to be explored,
motives for friendship, social network, or
investment do not seem to be particularly
detrimental to the current relationship and may
be unrelated to current relationship outcomes.
For others, however, communication may
remind the partners of their shared history
and reignite romantic or sexual feelings. In
this case, communication occurs because of
an attraction to the former partner and/or
upon experiencing uncertainty in the current
relationship trajectory. Either of these factors
might lead these individuals to secretly seek
to reignite the romantic relationship should
their current relationship end. Bell (1981)
found that 66% of women were either friends
with or attracted to an ex-partner. Consis-
tent ndings are echoed by Foley and Fraser
(1998) who found that 13% of ex-partners
were sexually involved, and 22% reported
that they wished to include sexual intercourse
as part of their postdating relationship with
their ex-partner. Other work has shown that
individuals experienced greater physiological
reactivity when asked to think of a former
partner who was still desired (Wegner & Gold,
1995). One particularly relevant study found
that longing for a previous partner increased as
current relationship satisfaction declined over
time (Spielmann, Joel, MacDonald, & Kogan,
2013). Thus, communication based on wishing
to reignite a relationship, or even simply to
have a backup in case the current relationship
fails, may be an indicator of dissatisfaction
in the current relationship. It is likely that
communication with a former partner, with an
eye on reinitiation of the relationship (either at
that time or in the future), may be associated
with poorer current relationship functioning.
Current research: Former partner
communication, motives, and implications
for current relationship outcomes
Although previous research has shown that
some individuals communicate with a former
partner, relatively little has examined the
reasons behind such communication, and, to
our knowledge, no research has examined the
implications of such communication for cur-
rent relationship outcomes. Across two studies,
we sought to examine the extent to which indi-
viduals communicate with former partners,
aspects of the former relationship that are
associated with communication, reasons for
such communication, and, nally, implications
of communicating for the current relationship.
Study 1
The objectives of Study 1 were to examine:
(a) prevalence rates of communication among
those currently in relationships, (b) the nature
of these friendships with former romantic part-
ners, and (c) differences in emotions toward the
former and current partner based on commu-
nication status. Communication with former
partners may have implications and outcomes
that extend into the current romantic relation-
ship. Thus, we sought to compare differences
between those who communicate and those
who do not on characteristics of the breakup,
romantic emotions toward the former partner,
and current relationship functioning utilizing
Rusbult’s investment model (i.e., commit-
ment, satisfaction, investment, and perceived
quality of alternative). Based on the lack of
evidence on characteristics of former rela-
tionships among those in new relationships,
specic hypotheses were not derived but rather
considered as empirical research questions.
Specically, our research questions were as
follows:
RQ1: Prevalence and frequency of commu-
nication with former partners.
RQ1a: Examine the prevalence of
communication with former partners
among individuals in relationships.
RQ1b: Examine frequency of commu-
nication with former partners.
RQ1c: Examine differences between
those who do communicate and those
who do not based on former and cur-
rent relationship status.
RQ2: Differences between those who com-
municate and those who do not in emotions
toward former partner.
4L. M. Rodriguez et al.
RQ2a: Examine differences in roman-
tic feelings for the former partner
based on communication status.
RQ2b: Examine differences in per-
ceived characteristics of the breakup
based on communication status.
RQ2c: Examine differences in post-
breakup adjustment (emotional dis-
ruption following the breakup and
current adjustment to the breakup)
based on communication status.
RQ3: Differences between those who com-
municate and those who do not in emotions
toward current partner.
RQ3: Examine differences in satisfac-
tion, investment, quality of alterna-
tives, and commitment to their cur-
rent partner based on communication
status.
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 260 undergraduate students
at a large Southwestern university who were
currently in a romantic relationship of at least
1 month and who had also been in a former
romantic relationship of at least 3 months.
The 3-month mark is an oft-used benchmark,
and research has found that relationships are
typically committed after 3 months (Ackerman
et al., 2011). The average age of participants
was 22.8 (SD =5.3) years, and most (89%)
were female. The sample was ethnically
diverse, with 35.4% Caucasian, 23.1% Asian
or Pacic Islander, 21.5% Hispanic or Latino,
14.2% African American, and 5.8% who
responded with “Other.” Level of current rela-
tionship involvement also varied in the sample,
with 8.9% casually dating, 47.9% exclusively
dating, 24.7% nearly engaged, 5.8% engaged,
and 12.7% married. Participants had been
in their current relationship an average of
2.98 (SD =4.08) years and had been out of
the relationship with their former partner for
an average of 3.42 (SD =2.97) years. Right
before termination of the former relationship,
23.6% of participants were casually dating,
55.0% were exclusively dating, 15.0% were
nearly engaged, 3.9% were engaged, and 2.3%
were married.
Participants were recruited via yers
placed around the psychology building. Inter-
ested participants logged in to the university
research participation website and completed
the online study on SurveyMonkey at the
time and location of their choice. The survey
included measures of one’s current relation-
ship and emotions around one’s most recent
former romantic partner. If they had multiple
previous partners, participants were asked
to refer to their most recent former partner
whom they dated for at least 3 months. By
referring to the most recent partner, we were
able to focus on one previous relationship and
minimize retrospective bias. Measures assess-
ing current and former relationship factors
were counterbalanced. All study procedures
were approved by the university Institutional
Review Board.
Measures
Communication with the former partner. Par-
ticipants were instructed, “We would now like
you to turn your thoughts to your last romantic
relationship that lasted 3+months before
your current relationship.” Communication
with the former partner was assessed with
a single item. Participants were asked, “Do
you communicate with your former partner?”
Options were “yes” and “no.” If participants
indicated that they communicated with their
former partner, time since the breakup and
frequency of communication were measured.
Specically, they were asked, “How much
time elapsed between the breakup and when
you began communicating with your former
partner again?” Response options provided
were: no time,a few days,a few weeks,afew
months,ora year or more. Participants who
communicated were also asked, “How often
do you communicate with your former partner
currently?” Participants responded on a 1–7
scale (1 =never,2=once every few years,
3=once a year,4=once every few months,
5=once a month,6=once a week,7=several
times per week). Furthermore, they were
asked “who initiates the contact,” to which
Communication with former partners 5
they responded on a 1–5 scale (1 =always
me,2=usually me,3=both of us equally,
4=usually him/her,5=always him/her).
Characteristics of the breakup. Participants
were asked how much they perceived that
specic adjectives described the breakup and
who terminated the breakup. Participants were
asked, “To what extent do each of the following
describe how your relationship with this former
partner ended?” Participants rated ve charac-
teristics (i.e., harsh, mean, nasty, heartless, and
understanding) on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1 =does not describe at all,5=describes
completely). An average of the four negative
characteristics was taken to represent neg-
ative perceptions of the breakup (α=.92).
Participants also indicated who they perceived
terminated the relationship (1 =completely
him/her,2=mostly him/her,3=completely
mutual,4=mostly me,5=completely me).
Romantic emotions toward the former partner.
Romantic feelings for one’s former partner
were measured with the Hot–Cold Flame scale
(HCF; Wegner & Gold, 1995), current close-
ness with the former partner (Inclusion of
Other in the Self scale [IOS]; Aron et al.,
1992), and the Post-Dissolution Adjustment
scale (PDA; Kellas et al., 2008).
The HCF instructed participants to indicate
their agreement with statements about feelings
toward their former partner. The HCF includes
items such as, “I am still in love with him/her,”
“If he/she could come back into my life, I
would immediately leave my other relation-
ship,” and “I have to try at times to not think of
him/her.” Participants rated their agreement on
a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 =strongly dis-
agree,7=strongly agree). An average of the
items was used to create the composite score
(α=.92). This reliability is consistent with
previous research (e.g., Spielmann et al., 2013;
Wegner & Gold, 1995). Closeness to former
partner was assessed using the single-item The
IOS, which consists of seven Venn diagrams
that overlap to varying degrees. Participants
were asked to choose the circle that best
reected their current relationship with their
former partner. The PDA is composed of
six items that form two subscales: current
adjustment and emotional disruption. Items
representing current adjustment to the breakup
asked, “Overall, how upset are you about the
breakup now?” “To what extent do you feel like
you have adjusted to the end of the relation-
ship?” (reverse scored), and “To what extent
do you feel you are ‘over’ the relationship?”
(reverse scored). Higher scores indicated
poorer current adjustment (α=.80). Items
representing the emotional disruption asked,
“How difcult has it been for you to make an
emotional adjustment to this breakup?” “Since
the breakup, how much has your typical every-
day functioning and routine been disrupted?”
and “How upset were you immediately after
the breakup?” Items were scored such that
higher scores indicated higher levels of dis-
tress following the breakup (α=.79). These
reliabilities are higher than those reported in
the original scale (Kellas et al., 2008).
Emotions toward the current partner. The
Investment Model scale (Rusbult et al., 1998)
was used to assess emotions toward the cur-
rent partner. It is composed of four subscales
measuring commitment (7 items; e.g., “I am
committed to maintaining my relationship
with my partner”; α=.91), satisfaction (5
items; e.g., “I feel satised with our relation-
ship”; α=.95), investment (5 items; e.g., “I
feel very involved in our relationship—like
I have to put a great deal into it”; α=.85),
and quality of alternatives (5 items; e.g., “If I
weren’t dating my partner, I would do ne—I
would nd another appealing person to date”;
α=.87). These reliabilities are consistent with
previous research utilizing the Investment
Model (e.g., Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult et al.,
1998). Participants responded to each item
on a 9-point scale (0 =do not agree at all to
8=agree completely).
Results
RQ1: Prevalence and frequency of
communication with former partners
Nearly half (n=105; 40.4%) of the partici-
pants indicated that they still communicated
with their most recent former romantic partner
(RQ1a). Of those who kept in touch, most
(93.3%) began communicating with their
6L. M. Rodriguez et al.
Table 1. Study 1: Former partner communication and perceptions of current and prior relation-
ship attributes
Target Variable
Do not
communicate
Do
communicate tobs pCohen’s D
Former Hot–cold ame 1.63 (0.86) 2.00 (0.91) 3.38 <.001 −0.418
partner Closeness 3.26 (1.89) 4.11 (1.94) −3.55 <.001 −0.444
Current adjustment 1.62 (1.11) 2.07 (1.29) 2.96 .003 −0.374
Emotional disruption 3.33 (1.63) 3.67 (1.63) 1.65 .099 −0.209
Breakup: negative 2.61 (1.34) 2.24 (1.25) 2.19 .029 0.276
Breakup: understanding 2.53 (1.34) 2.88 (1.33) 2.11 .036 0.262
Current Commitment 6.72 (1.75) 6.24 (1.74) 2.19 .030 0.275
partner Satisfaction 6.49 (1.83) 6.29 (1.79) 0.87 .385 0.110
Investment 5.42 (1.93) 5.16 (1.95) 1.05 .294 0.134
Quality of alternatives 2.77 (2.12) 3.11 (2.02) −1.31 .193 −0.164
Note. Higher current adjustment scores indicated poorer current adjustment to the breakup with the former partner.
former partner within a few months after
the breakup. Additionally, most participants
(90.4%) indicated that they communicated
with their former partner at least once every
couple of months, with 13.3% communicat-
ing several times per week (RQ1b). We also
evaluated whether individuals who commu-
nicated with former partners differed from
those who did not in their current relationship
status and in their relationship status with their
former partner prior to the breakup (RQ1c).
Results revealed signicant differences in cur-
rent relationship status and communication,
χ2(4) =10.53, p=.033, such that signicant
differences emerged among those who were
almost engaged to their current partner (67.2%
did not communicate and 32.8% did) and
those who were currently married (78.8%
did not communicate and 21.2% did). There
was no association between communication
and former relationship status, χ2(4) =6.839,
p=.145.
RQ2: Differences between those who
communicate and those who do not
in emotions toward former partner
A series of independent samples ttests were
conducted to examine differences in partici-
pants’ feelings about their former partner as
a function of communication status. Means,
standard deviations, and t-test results are
provided in Table 1. Results revealed that
relative to those who did not communicate,
individuals who communicated with their
former partners reported feeling closer to their
former partner (p<.001) as well as a “hotter
ame” (i.e., more romantic feelings) for their
former partner (p<.001; RQ2a). When asked
to characterize the termination of the prior
relationship, participants who still communi-
cated with a former partner reported that the
breakup was signicantly more understanding
(p=.036) and less negative (p=.029; RQ2b).
With regard to the PDA, individuals who
communicated exhibited signicantly poorer
current adjustment to the breakup (p=.003)
and marginally higher emotional disruption
following the breakup (p=.099; RQ2c).
RQ3: Differences between those who
communicate and those who do not
in emotions toward current partner
We also evaluated differences in participants’
feelings about their current romantic partner
as a function of communication status. Results
from analyses are also provided in Table 1.
Relative to those who did not communicate,
individuals who communicated with former
partners reported lower levels of commitment
to their current partner (p=.030). Participants
did not signicantly differ in satisfaction,
investment, or quality of alternatives based on
communication status (RQ3).
Communication with former partners 7
Discussion
Study 1 results showed that many individuals
(40%) continue to communicate with former
partners after the dissolution of the relation-
ship and upon entering into a new relationship.
Prevalence rates in our sample were similar
to those in other studies, many of which did
not require participants to be in a current
relationship. Moreover, in general, commu-
nication occurred relatively infrequently (i.e.,
at least once every couple of months), but a
proportion of people reported communicating
very frequently (i.e., several times per week).
Individuals in more committed types of cur-
rent relationships (i.e., almost engaged and
married) were less likely to communicate with
a former partner. Results showed a consis-
tent pattern with regard to romantic feelings
toward the former partner: Those who still
communicated with former partners reported
higher levels of romantic feelings for their
former partner and experienced poorer adjust-
ment to the breakup. However, those who still
communicated also perceived the breakup
more positively (i.e., more understanding,
less negative). Importantly, these individuals
reported lower commitment to their current
partner. Our ndings are consistent with
recent research reporting that individuals
who continue to communicate with partners
postbreakup continue to have romantic feel-
ings for their ex-partner longer and experience
greater sadness than those who terminate
contact (Lee & Sbarra, 2013).
This pattern of results suggests system-
atic differences among those who choose
to communicate with former partners and
those who do not. It is possible that these
differences may be related to why people
choose to maintain postdissolution friend-
ships. Additionally, given that communication
does occur between former partners, a natural
next step is to examine the implications of
communication—and related motives—for
one’s current relationship. It is possible that
under certain circumstances or for certain indi-
viduals, communicating with former partners
may be associated with worse current relation-
ship outcomes. The objective of Study 2 was
to understand how frequency of, and motives
for, communication with former partners is
associated with current relationship commit-
ment, satisfaction, investment, and perceived
quality of alternatives.
Study 2
The frequency of and motives for communi-
cation with former partners when one is in a
new romantic relationship has not been exam-
ined and deserves special attention. It may
be that more frequent communication may be
more detrimental to the new relationship than
communication that is rather infrequent. More-
over, there may be many reasons for com-
municating with a former partner, including
desire for a friendship, sharing and/or divid-
ing property or custody of children, or cir-
cumstantial communication at work, school,
and among members of a mutual social net-
work (Kellas et al., 2008). We believe the rea-
sons underlying communication with former
romantic partners may be more important than
the mere presence or absence of communi-
cation. For example, communicating with the
desire to reignite a romantic or sexual rela-
tionship may have vastly different implications
for the current relationship than communicat-
ing as a function of a shared social network.
Thus, Study 2 examined reasons for commu-
nicating with their former romantic partner(s)
and implications of those reasons for current
relationship outcomes.
Study 2 research questions were as follows:
RQ1: Identify motives for communication.
RQ1: Identify different motives for
communication with former romantic
partners among those in current rela-
tionships.
RQ2: Examine associations between fre-
quency of communication and current rela-
tionship outcomes.
H2: Based on results from Study 1, we
hypothesized that frequency of com-
munication will be negatively associ-
ated with current relationship com-
mitment, satisfaction, and investment
and positively associated with per-
ceived quality of alternatives.
8L. M. Rodriguez et al.
RQ3: Examine associations between
motives for communication and current
relationship outcomes.
H3: We hypothesized that commu-
nicating for investment or social
network motives will either be
positively associated with current
relationship outcomes or will show
no association at all, but commu-
nicating with a desire to become
romantically involved with the former
partner in the future will be negatively
associated with current relationship
outcomes.
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants included 169 undergraduates at a
large Southwestern university who completed
a web-based survey at a time and location of
their choice in exchange for course credit. In
order to participate, individuals must have been
in a current committed relationship for at least
1 month. Individuals must also have had a com-
mitted former relationship of at least 3 months
and still communicate with that former part-
ner at least once every few months. If they had
multiple previous partners, participants were
asked to refer to their most recent former part-
ner whom they dated for at least 3 months.
The average age of participants was 21.9
(SD =4.8) years, and most (81.0%) were
female. The sample was ethnically diverse,
with 28.6% Asian or Pacic Islander, 22.6%
Hispanic/Latino, 21.4% Caucasian, 19.6%
African American, and 7.7% Other. Level of
relationship involvement also varied in the
sample, with 18.3% casually dating, 56.8%
exclusively dating, 14.8% nearly engaged,
4.1% engaged, and 5.9% married. Participants
had been in their current relationship an aver-
age of 2.4 (SD =4.0) years and had been out
of the relationship with their former partner
for an average of 2.8 (SD =2.5) years.
Measures
Motives for communicating with one’s former
partner. Two independent informal groups
composed of undergraduate research assistants
(ns=6 and 8) were utilized to generate motives
for communication with former partners. As
a group, research assistants were asked to
discuss and derive different reasons for why
individuals might communicate with former
partners. Twenty-ve motives were identied
during the discussions. Study participants then
indicated the extent to which they agreed with
each of the reasons for communication with the
former partner using a Likert-type scale (1 =do
not agree at all,5=completely agree).
Communication frequency. Participants were
asked, “How often do you communicate with
your former partner?” Participants responded
with one of the following options on a 1– 4
scale (1 =once every few months,2=once a
month,3=once a week,4=several times per
week). The frequency variable was transformed
to be interpreted as an actual frequency by
rescoring it to represent the number of times
communication had occurred in the past year
(once every few months =6 times per year,
once a month =12 times per year,once a
week =52 times per year,several times per
week =156 times per year).
Current relationship outcomes. Current rela-
tionship outcomes were assessed with the
same subscales of the Investment Model scale
(Rusbult et al., 1998) used in Study 1. Reli-
abilities were satisfactory (αcommitment =.92;
αsatisfaction =.95; αinvestment =.91; αalternatives =
.88).
Results and discussion
RQ1: Motives for communicating
with one’s former partner: Factor analysis
To identify the number of constructs and the
underlying factor structure of why people com-
municate with former partners, exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) using MPlus version
7 with maximum likelihood estimation was
performed on the 25 original items assessing
motives for communicating with one’s former
partner. Additionally, because it could not be
assumed that factors would be uncorrelated,
promax rotation (an oblique rotation method)
was used. We rst examined the scree plot
Communication with former partners 9
Table 2. Study 2: Motives for communicating with former partner and factor loadings
Item M(SD)
Factor 1
(Friendship)
Factor 2
(Backup)
Factor 3
(Social network)
Factor 4
(Investment)
I really enjoy our friendship. 3.487 (1.228) 0.820
We are still friends. 3.610 (1.181) 0.787
He/she is a great person; we just
had bad timing.
3.302 (1.416) 0.804
I value our friendship. 3.585 (1.338) 0.922
We have a strong bond. 3.200 (1.391) 0.912
We understand each other. 3.361 (1.333) 0.897
He/she makes me feel good. 2.943 (1.422) 0.871
I am not sure how my current
relationship will work out.
1.938 (1.187) 0.786
I want a backup for my current
relationship.
1.523 (0.916) 0.750
I depend on him/her. 1.990 (1.193) 0.705
I can’t let him or her go. 2.206 (1.342) 0.780
We have similar social networks. 2.682 (1.418) 0.953
We have similar networks of
friends.
2.867 (1.490) 0.867
We invested a lot in our
relationship.
2.862 (1.487) 0.890
I invested a lot in our relationship. 3.082 (1.490) 0.937
We went through a lot together. 3.497 (1.405) 0.790
of the eigenvalues, which suggested four fac-
tors. We then performed a parallel analysis,
which conrmed the retention of four factors
(Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004). Two cri-
teria were used for determining item loadings:
(a) factor loadings were examined against an
a priori established cut score of .70, and (b)
in order to exclude potentially cross-loading
items, factor loadings had to be .3 higher on
the retained factor than on any other factor.
Sixteen items belonged to factors that
shared conceptual meaning (see Table 2).
The four factors reected (a) communicating
for friendship reasons (eigenvalue =11.117,
factor determinacy =0.983), (b) commu-
nicating to keep the former partner as a
“backup” in case the current relationship did
not work (eigenvalue =3.520, factor deter-
minacy =0.966), (c) communicating due to
a shared social network (eigenvalue =1.585,
factor determinacy =0.966), and (d) com-
municating due to investment in the former
relationship (eigenvalue =1.567, factor deter-
minacy =0.972). Each of the four motives for
communicating displayed adequate reliability
(αfriendship =.92; αbackup =.73, αnetwork =.87,
and αinvestment =.89).
RQ2: Associations between frequency
of communication and current relationship
outcomes
Descriptive statistics. Table 3 presents
zero-order correlations among frequency of
communication; motives for communicating
with one’s former partner; current relationship
satisfaction, commitment, investment, and
alternatives; current relationship length; and
time since the former relationship ended as
well as means and standard deviations for
all variables. Results showed that commu-
nication frequency was positively associated
with communicating for friendship motives
and negatively associated with relationship
satisfaction.
Multiple regression analyses. Prior to evalu-
ating the inuence of motives, we were inter-
ested in how frequency of communication was
associated with current relationship outcomes.
Frequency of communication was included
10 L. M. Rodriguez et al.
Table 3. Study 2: Correlations and descriptive statistics
1234567891011
1. Frequency of
communication
—
2. Friendship motive 0.258*** —
3. Backup motive 0.091 0.305*** —
4. Network motive 0.031 0.267*** 0.166* —
5. Investment motive 0.045 0.493*** 0.437*** 0.167* —
6. Commitment −0.129†−0.095 −0.354*** 0.070 −0.199** —
7. Satisfaction −0.166* −0.117 −0.374*** 0.079 −0.186* 0.721*** —
8. Investment −0.049 −0.135†−0.129†0.108 −0.042 0.535*** 0.402*** —
9. Alternatives 0.080 0.235** 0.244** 0.033 0.282*** −0.497*** −0.417*** −0.282*** —
10. Relationship length −0.044 −0.087 0.009 0.034 −0.053 −0.074 −0.156* 0.150†−0.027 —
11. Time since breakup −0.163†−0.029 −0.073 −0.060 −0.080 0.097 −0.011 0.149†−0.117 0.284*** —
M37.183 3.562 1.979 2.876 3.272 5.692 5.599 4.473 3.607 29.266 33.049
SD 49.546 1.015 0.882 1.368 1.275 1.900 1.898 2.173 1.999 47.502 30.197
Note. Relationship length and time since breakup are in months.
†p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Communication with former partners 11
Table 4. Study 2: Former partner communication motives predicting current relationship
outcomes
Outcome Step Predictor bSE(b)βtp
Satisfaction 1 Intercept 6.036 .202 — 29.94 <.001
Relationship length −0.007 .003 −.163 −2.16 .032
Communication frequency −0.007 .003 −.173 −2.29 .023
2 Friendship motive 0.004 .161 .003 0.03 .979
Backup motive −0.777 .167 −.361 −4.59 <.001
Investment motive −0.087 .128 −.058 −0.68 .500
Social network motive 0.219 .101 .158 2.16 .032
Commitment 1 Intercept 5.975 .205 — 29.14 <.001
Relationship length −0.003 .003 −.080 −1.04 .298
Communication frequency −0.005 .003 −.133 −1.73 .085
2 Friendship motive 0.074 .165 .040 0.45 .655
Backup motive −0.725 .174 −.337 −4.17 <.001
Investment motive −0.139 .132 −.094 −1.06 .292
Social network motive 0.191 .104 .137 1.83 .069
Investment 1 Intercept 4.345 .234 — 18.54 <.001
Relationship length 0.007 .004 .148 1.93 .056
Communication frequency −0.002 .003 −.043 −0.56 .579
2 Friendship motive −0.347 .199 −.162 −1.74 .083
Backup motive −0.349 .210 −.142 −1.67 .097
Investment motive 0.137 .159 .080 0.86 .390
Social network motive 0.250 .125 .157 1.99 .048
Quality of
alternatives
1 Intercept 3.518 .218 — 16.17 <.001
Relationship length −0.001 .003 −.024 −0.31 .760
Communication frequency 0.003 .003 .079 1.02 .310
2 Friendship motive 0.221 .180 .112 1.23 .220
Backup motive 0.318 .189 .141 1.68 .094
Investment motive 0.270 .143 .172 1.88 .062
Social network motive −0.073 .113 −.050 −0.64 .522
in a multiple regression equation predicting
current relationship satisfaction, commitment,
investment, and quality of alternatives. Current
relationship length was included as a covariate.
Results are presented in Table 4 as the rst step
in the hierarchical regression model (second
step results are presented below). Results
revealed that communication frequency was
negatively associated with current relation-
ship satisfaction and marginally negatively
associated with relationship commitment.
Communication frequency was not associated
with investment or quality of alternatives.
RQ3: Associations between communication
motives and current relationship outcomes
Correlations. As can be seen in Table 3, com-
munication for backup and investment motives
were signicantly and negatively associated
with relationship satisfaction and commit-
ment, and positively associated with quality
of alternatives. Communication for friendship
motives was also positively associated with
quality of alternatives. Communication for
social network reasons was not associated
with any relationship outcome.
Multiple regression analyses. Next, we eval-
uated how motives were associated with
current relationship outcomes beyond com-
munication frequency and current relationship
duration. These results are presented as
12 L. M. Rodriguez et al.
Step 2 in the hierarchical regression results
in Table 4. The most consistent pattern of
results held for backup and social network
motives— as expected—in opposite direc-
tions. Backup motives were signicantly
negatively associated with relationship sat-
isfaction and commitment. Backup motives
were also marginally negatively associated
with investment and positively associated with
perceived quality of alternatives. Conversely,
social network motives were signicantly pos-
itively associated with relationship satisfaction
and investment and marginally positively
associated with commitment. Friendship
motives were marginally negatively associ-
ated with investment, and investment motives
were marginally positively associated with
perceived quality of alternatives.1
General Discussion
Scholars are in agreement that understanding
inuential factors of the postbreakup relation-
ship is essential to relationship research (e.g.,
Graham, 1997; Kellas et al., 2008; Lannutti &
Cameron, 2002; Masheter, 1991, 1997; Metts
et al., 1989). The literature examining friend-
ships with former partners is limited at best,
and the current research provides an insightful
glimpse into this rather unexplored area. The
current research is among the rst to exam-
ine the prevalence and implications of com-
munication with former partners for individ-
uals who are in new romantic relationships.
We found that communication with former
partners is common among young adults in
new relationships, that this communication has
implications for both the current relationship
and the relationship with the former partner,
and that different motives for communication
are differentially predictive of current relation-
ship outcomes. Study 1 provided preliminary
results showing that people in new relation-
ships do indeed communicate with former part-
ners and that those who communicate differ
from those who do not in emotions toward both
1. As a supplemental analysis, we also examined interac-
tions between frequency of and motives for commu-
nication with former partners on current relationship
outcomes. No signicant interactions emerged.
the current and former partner. Specically,
those who communicated reported lower levels
of commitment to their current partner, poorer
adjustment to the breakup, and higher levels of
romantic emotions toward their former partner.
Findings from Study 2 revealed that for-
mer partner communication frequency was
negatively associated with current relationship
satisfaction and (marginally) commitment.
Results also revealed that people communicate
with former partners for different reasons
and with varying implications. The results
particularly indicated that communication
for backup motives were consistently delete-
riously associated with current relationship
outcomes (i.e., lower satisfaction and com-
mitment, marginally lower investment, and
marginally higher quality of alternatives).
Communicating for social network reasons,
conversely, was largely positively associated
with current relationship functioning (i.e.,
higher satisfaction, marginally higher com-
mitment and investment), whereas friendship
and investment motives were largely unrelated
to current relationship functioning. In sum,
these two studies suggest a relatively common
phenomenon with real implications for those
in relationships.
The nding that communication for backup
reasons is detrimental to current welfare can
be viewed in light of the investment model
of commitment processes in relationships.
According to this model, relationship commit-
ment (and persistence) varies as a function of
satisfaction with and investment in the relation-
ship as well as the perception of high-quality
alternatives to the relationship. If individuals
perceive that they are heavily invested in the
relationship and that there are few desirable
alternatives to the relationship, they are likely
to be more committed and satised. However,
when other desirable alternatives to the current
relationship are available, commitment may
decrease, particularly given romantic (i.e.,
backup) motivations with the former romantic
partner. Unless clearly communicated other-
wise, communicating with a previous partner
may indicate to new partners that individuals
still perceive the former partner as a potential
alternative. This may be problematic given that
many resume communication relatively soon
Communication with former partners 13
after the end of the former relationship. That
is, if individuals enter into a new relationship
already seeking other partners (via backup
motives), they may be less likely to invest
effort into the new relationship, which then
predicts lower satisfaction and commitment.
Moreover, communication with a former
partner may serve the function of maintain-
ing parts of the identity that may be lost with
relationship dissolution (Lewandowski & Sah-
ner, 2005). Maintaining social networks and a
friendship with a former partner may be partic-
ularly adaptive if both partners share a network
of friends or colleagues; in such situations,
the loss of a romantic relationship may mean
the loss of other friendships as well. Thus,
maintaining platonic friendships with former
partners may allow for continuation of a val-
ued friendship without the obstacles that were
encountered in the romantic relationship. How-
ever, some individuals may continue to feel
drawn to the partner or seek sexual or roman-
tic contact despite distressing aspects of the
former relationship (Mason, Sbarra, Bryan, &
Lee, 2012). For these individuals who remain
attached, although communication may offer
temporary relief by providing a degree of felt
security, it may also encourage psychologi-
cal pain or rumination regarding the relation-
ship loss, which, in turn, may prolong dis-
tress. Further, comparisons— and subsequent
dissonance—likely emerge as a function of
maintaining romantic connections with two
individuals. All of these factors undermine cur-
rent relationship satisfaction and commitment.
Thus, in these cases, communication with for-
mer partners can negatively impact the individ-
ual’s own well-being as well as the welfare of
the current relationship (Lee & Sbarra, 2013).
Implications, limitations, and future directions
There are several implications of these nd-
ings, many of which elicit questions for future
research. This research generally shows that
communicating with one’s former partner can
have extensive implications for well-being in
the current relationship. However, whether
communication is hurtful depends on the
underlying motives. Given that we found
that individuals communicate for different
reasons, future research would benet from
further examining whether individual differ-
ences (e.g., attachment insecurity, neuroticism,
impulsivity, approach/avoidance, motivational
orientations) predict a propensity to com-
municate for certain reasons. For example,
attachment anxiety has been associated with
greater dysfunctional coping following a
breakup, greater preoccupation with a former
partner, increased feelings of being cheated by
end of the relationship, idealization of a former
partner, and more frequent postdissolution
communication (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon,
2003; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003;
Pistole, 1995; Sbarra & Emery, 2005), which
suggests dramatic differences in how individu-
als handle transitions from one relationship to
the next as a function of individual differences.
Coupled with our results, it appears that these
differences carry over into affecting the health
of the new relationship. Future research may
wish to explore whether specic motives for
communication (e.g., backup) might elicit an
on-again/off-again relationship (Lee & Sbarra,
2013). These relationships tend to be charac-
terized by more uncertainty and lower levels
of positivity, love, and satisfaction compared
to stable relationships (Dailey, Middleton, &
Green, 2012; Dailey, Pester, Jin, Beck, &
Clark, 2009). Considering how deleterious
these tumultuous relationships can be, future
research may also wish to examine factors that
lead to the eventual dismissal of these rela-
tionships in favor of stable ones (i.e., factors
involved in emotional distancing).
This work should also be considered in
light of its limitations. First, these studies
only included perceptions about the current
and former relationships from the individ-
ual’s perspective. Future studies may wish
to collect data from both partners (or even
both current partners and the former partner)
to determine exactly when and for whom
communication with former partners is bene-
cial (vs. detrimental) for each person in the
current relationship. Utilizing data from the
individual and former partner would allow for
tests of concordance in motives and whether
this concordance might predict either person’s
current relationship outcomes. For example, if
both partners are communicating for backup
14 L. M. Rodriguez et al.
reasons, perhaps the former partners will be
more likely to leave their current relationships
and begin another attempt. These questions
cannot be answered without procuring data
from both individuals. Second, this research
was aimed primarily at the dating population
in order to establish a paradigm that focused
not on marriage and divorce but on dating
and breakups. Although there are consider-
able similarities between both populations,
the underlying motivations and cognitive
processes may be systematically different.
Research investigating the similarities and dif-
ferences would strengthen our understanding
of how they relate to and what factors regulate
communication with former romantic partners,
both from a dating and a marital perspective.
Similarly, communication with former part-
ners may be different among college students
as compared to communication in the general
population.2More specically, students at resi-
dential campuses—particularly at smaller uni-
versities or colleges— may be more likely to
maintain contact with former partners given
the inevitability of seeing each other on cam-
pus, the likelihood of frequent contact with
a shared friend group, and the prevalence of
social media among this population. Thus,
future research should seek to compare com-
munication with former partners among more
traditional college students with that of the gen-
eral population or with nontraditional students.
The campus at which the current data were
collected consists primarily of commuter stu-
dents, the majority of which would be deemed
nontraditional (i.e., older, full-time employees,
do not live on campus). Thus, whether stu-
dents at traditional campuses are more likely
to communicate with former partners is still
an open question. Moreover, the conditions
surrounding dating relationships during col-
lege are quite different from the conditions in
which people enact their dating relationships
after college but prior to marriage. Research
should seek to examine communication with
former partners from the viewpoint of emerg-
ing adulthood, in which many issues con-
cerning identity and interpersonal relationships
2. We thank a reviewer for bringing this issue to mind.
arise (Arnett, 2014). Additionally, our samples
were primarily composed of females. Finally,
the current manuscript presented a preliminary
investigation into the factor structure underly-
ing motives for communication. However, a
full psychometric evaluation of such a measure
is warranted.
Conclusion
The current research is among the rst to exam-
ine motivations underlying communication
with former partners and implications of com-
munication for one’s current relationship. This
work highlights the complexity of postdissolu-
tion communication by discerning associations
between characteristics of individuals, former
relationships, and current relationships and
communication with one’s former partner as
well as implications of that communication for
the current relationship. We hope that this may
serve as a basis from which future research can
continue examining this interesting topic that
has considerable implications for relationships
from the past, present, and future.
References
Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2011). Let’s
get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology,100, 1079– 1094. doi:10.1037/a0022412
Agnew, C. R., Arriaga, X. B., & Wilson, J. E. (2008). Com-
mitted to what? Using the bases of relational commit-
ment model to understand continuity and changes in
social relationships. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.),
Social relationships: Cognitive, affective and motiva-
tional processes (pp. 147– 164). New York, NY: Psy-
chology Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding
road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of
Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,63, 596–612.
Banks, S. P., Altendorf, D. M., Greene, J. O., & Cody, M.
J. (1987). An examination of relational disengagement:
Perceptions, breakup strategies, and outcomes. Wes t-
ern Journal of Speech Communication,51, 19– 41.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to
belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fun-
damental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
117, 497 –529.
Becker, C. S. (1988). Unbroken ties: Lesbian ex-lovers.
Boston, MA: Alyson.
Communication with former partners 15
Bell, R. R. (1981). Friendships of men and women. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly,5, 402– 417.
Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., Clark, E. M., & Mattingly, B.
A. (2011). Can we be (and stay) friends? Remaining
friends after dissolution of a romantic relationship.
Journal of Social Psychology,151, 662– 666.
Busboom, A. L., Collins, D. M., Givertz, M. D., & Levin,
L. A. (2002). Can we still be friends? Resources and
barriers to friendship quality after romantic relation-
ship dissolution. Personal Relationships,9, 215–223.
Dailey, R. M., Middleton, A., & Green, E. W.
(2012). Predicting perceived relational stability in
on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships,29, 52–76. doi:10.1177/
0265407511420192
Dailey, R. M., Pester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark,
G. (2009). On-again/off-again dating relation-
ships: How are they different from other dating
relationships? Personal Relationships,16, 23–47.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical,
emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up:
The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and
attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,29, 871– 884.
Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relational disengage-
ment and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal rela-
tionships 4: Dissolving participant relationships.New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Fischer, T. F. C., De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2005).
Friendly and antagonistic contact between former
spouses after divorce: Patterns and determinants.
Journal of Family Issues,26, 1131 –1163.
Foley, L., & Fraser, J. (1998). A research note on
post-dating relationships: The social embedded-
ness of redening romantic couplings. Sociological
Perspectives,41, 209–219.
Graham, E. E. (1997). Turning points and commitment
in postdivorce relationships. Communication Mono-
graphs,64, 350– 368.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor
retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A
tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research
Methods,7, 191– 205.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups
before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of
Social Issues,32, 147– 168.
Kaplan, D. L., & Keys, C. B. (1997). Sex and relation-
ship variables as predictors of sexual attraction in
cross-sex platonic friendships between young hetero-
sexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,14, 191– 206.
Kellas, J. (2006). “The worst part is, we don’t even
talk anymore”: Post-dissolutional communication in
break-up stories. In K. Galvin & P. Cooper (Eds.), Mak-
ing connections: Readings in relational communica-
tion (pp. 281– 290). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Kellas, J., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y.
(2008). The ex-les: Trajectories, turning points and
adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,25, 23– 50. doi:10.1177/0265407507086804
Kellas, J., & Manusov, V. (2003). What’s in a story?
The relationship between narrative completeness and
tellers’ adjustment to relationship dissolution. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships,20, 285–307.
Knapp, M. (1984). Interpersonal communication and
human relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Living arrangements
of children: 2009. In Current population reports (pp.
70– 126). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lannutti, P. J., & Cameron, K. A. (2002). Beyond
the breakup: Heterosexual and homosexual post-
dissolutional relationships. Communication Quarterly,
50, 153– 170.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theo-
rized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment
model. Personal Relationships,10, 37–57.
Lee, L. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2013). The predictors and con-
sequences of relationship dissolution: Breaking down
silos. In C. Hazan, M. I. Campa, C. Hazan, & M. I.
Campa (Eds.), Human bonding: The science of affec-
tional ties (pp. 308– 342). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Sahner, D. F. (2005). The inu-
ence of past relationships on subsequent relationships:
Theroleoftheself.Individual Differences Research,
3, 269– 275.
Masheter, C. (1991). Postdivorce relationships between
ex-spouses: The roles of attachment and interpersonal
conict. Journal of Marriage and the Family,53,
103– 110.
Masheter, C. (1997). Healthy and unhealthy friendship and
hostility between ex-spouses. Journal of Marriage and
the Family,59, 463–475. doi:10.2307/353483
Mason, A. E., Sbarra, D. A., Bryan, A. E. B., & Lee, L.
A. (2012). Staying connected when coming apart: The
psychological correlates of contact and sex with an
ex-partner. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
31, 488– 507. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.488
Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Bejlovec, R. A. (1989). “I
love you too much to ever start liking you”: Redening
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,6, 259– 274.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003).
Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynam-
ics, development, and cognitive consequences
of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and
Emotion,27, 77 –102.
Pistole, M. C. (1995). College students’ ended love rela-
tionships: Attachment style and emotion. Journal of
College Student Development,36, 53– 60.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction
in romantic associations: A test of the investment
model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
16, 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The
investment model scale: Measuring commitment, sat-
isfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment
size. Personal Relationships,5, 351–391.
16 L. M. Rodriguez et al.
Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional
sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution:
Analysis of change and intraindividual variability
over time. Personal Relationships,12, 213– 232.
doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00112.x
Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends
who were once romantic partners: Are they platonic
friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,17, 451 –466.
Sheehan, M. A., & Dillman, L. (1998). Whycan’twebe
friends? The development of cross-sex friendship fol-
lowing romantic dissolution. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Connecticut.
Spielmann, S. S., Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Kogan, A.
(2013). Ex appeal: Current relationship quality and
emotional attachment to ex-partners. Social Psycho-
logical and Personality Science,4, 175–180.
Weber, A. L. (1998). Losing, leaving and letting go: Cop-
ing with nonmarital breakups. In B. H. Spitzberg & W.
R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships
(pp. 267– 306). Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wegner, D. M., & Gold, D. B. (1995). Fanning old
ames: Emotional and cognitive effects of suppressing
thoughts of a past relationship. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,68, 782– 792.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.782
Wilmot, W. W., Carbaugh, D. A., & Baxter, L. A. (1985).
Communicative strategies used to terminate romantic
relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communica-
tion,49, 204– 216. doi:10.1080/10570318509374195
