ArticlePDF Available

Making Sense and Moving On: The Potential for Individual and Interpersonal Growth Following Emerging Adult Breakups

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study assessed the key aspects of romantic relationship dissolution in emerging adulthood as predictors of future mental health and romantic qualities. It utilized a longitudinal, multiinformant, multimethod study of 160 participants with their romantic partners and close friends followed from ages 20–25, with a breakup assessed at age 22. Having control over initiating a breakup at age 22 predicted relative increases in peer-rated internalizing symptoms and autonomy-undermining interactions with a new partner at ages 23–25. Having a greater understanding of the reasons for a breakup predicted lower self-reported internalizing symptoms and relative decreases in partner-reported romantic conflict as well as relative increases in self-reported relationship satisfaction and peer-rated intimate relationship competence at ages 23–25. Predictions remained after accounting for numerous potential confounds including age 20–22 baseline relationship quality, social competence, internalizing symptoms, and gender. Implications for understanding links between breakup characteristics on emerging adult psychological and relationship functioning are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Making Sense and Moving On: The Potential for Individual and
Interpersonal Growth Following Emerging Adult Breakups
Jessica Kansky1 and Joseph P. Allen1
1Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Abstract
This study assessed the key aspects of romantic relationship dissolution in emerging adulthood as
predictors of future mental health and romantic qualities. It utilized a longitudinal, multiinformant,
multimethod study of 160 participants with their romantic partners and close friends followed
from ages 20–25, with a breakup assessed at age 22. Having control over initiating a breakup at
age 22 predicted relative increases in peer-rated internalizing symptoms and autonomy-
undermining interactions with a new partner at ages 23–25. Having a greater understanding of the
reasons for a breakup predicted lower self-reported internalizing symptoms and relative decreases
in partner-reported romantic conflict as well as relative increases in self-reported relationship
satisfaction and peer-rated intimate relationship competence at ages 23–25. Predictions remained
after accounting for numerous potential confounds including age 20–22 baseline relationship
quality, social competence, internalizing symptoms, and gender. Implications for understanding
links between breakup characteristics on emerging adult psychological and relationship
functioning are discussed.
Keywords
romantic relationships; dating; mental health; transition to adulthood; adjustment
One of the primary tasks of late adolescence and emerging adulthood is learning how to
manage the growing salience and intensity of romantic relationships. By the end of
adolescence, the majority of teenagers report having been in at least one exclusive
relationship and the prevalence and importance of romantic relationships increases during
the transition into emerging adulthood (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003; Furman & Shomaker,
2008; Giordano, Manning, Longmore, & Flanigan, 2009; Reis, Lin, Bennett, & Nezlek,
1993). The ability to develop and maintain intimacy within close relationships is widely
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Corresponding Author: Jessica Kansky, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Gilmer Hall, PO Box 400400,
Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. jk3gm@virginia.edu.
Authors’ Contribution
Jessica Kansky contributed to conception, design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafted the manuscript; gave final approval;
and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. Joseph P. Allen contributed to conception, design,
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critically revised the manuscript; gave final approval; and agreed to be accountable for all
aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Published in final edited form as:
Emerg Adulthood
. 2018 ; 6(3): 172–190. doi:10.1177/2167696817711766.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
recognized as a primary developmental task of early adulthood (Barry, Madsen, Nelson,
Carroll, & Badger, 2009; Clark & Beck, 2010; Erikson, 1982). Partners’ needs and goals
within these romantic relationships steadily change during the transition from adolescence
into adulthood (Furman & Wehner, 1997), highlighting the developmental nature of
engaging in such partnerships.
Recent societal changes have delayed the age at which emerging adults commit to marriage,
increasing the time spent, exploring romantic involvement, and experiencing breakups
(Arnett, 1998, 2000). Nearly 40% of emerging adults report one or more breakups over the
course of a 20-month period (Rhoades, Kamp Dush, Atkins, Stanley, & Markman, 2011).
Especially common in emerging adulthood (i.e., the period between late adolescence and
early adulthood) is the initiation and then dissolution of a series of relationships of varying
degrees of commitment and intimacy (Cohen, Kasen, Chen, Hartmark, & Gordon, 2003).
The romantic relationships and dissolutions of emerging adults may have significant
consequences for both concurrent functioning and later relationships. It is imperative to
assess the significance of such early relationships to highlight the greater role that their
development and dissolutions play in broader romantic and individual development. The
goal of this study was to examine whether the characteristics of an emerging adult’s most
recent breakup predicted future psychological health, romantic conflict management, and
romantic satisfaction and competence.
Distress Following Dissolution
During emerging adulthood, individuals are striving to blend their career, personal, and
romantic lives together resulting in a delayed entrance into long-term stable relationships
(Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Given the increasing importance adolescents and emerging
adults are placing on their romantic experiences as they age (Giordano et al., 2009; Seiffge-
Krenke, 2003), it is not surprising that many psychosocial and psychological outcomes are
linked to romantic functioning. Indeed, successfully navigating intimate relationships during
emerging adulthood has been more closely tied to well-being than other developmental goals
such as achieving financial independence or educational achievements, avoiding substance
use, or maintaining close friendships (Schulenberg, Bryant, & O’Malley, 2004). Yet, despite
the ubiquity of short-term relationships and breakups during this period, much research
points to significant negative ramifications of romantic dissolutions including depression,
posttraumatic stress, anxiety, substance abuse, poor self-esteem and self-confidence, low life
satisfaction, and poor physical health (Chung et al., 2002; Fine & Harvey, 2006; Fleming,
White, Oesterle, Haggerty, & Catalano, 2010; Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006;
Monroe, Rohde, Seeley, & Lewinsohn, 1999; Rhoades et al., 2011). Sbarra and Emery
(2005) found that emerging adults who recently experienced a romantic breakup reported
more anger and sadness than those in a committed stable relationship. Several characteristics
such as commitment, satisfaction, effort in initiating the relationship, relationship duration,
time before finding a new partner, and a fearful attachment style are all related to distress at
the time of the romantic dissolution (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003; Locker, McIntosh,
Hackney, Wilson, & Wiegand, 2010; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998;
Sweeney, 2002).
Kansky and Allen Page 2
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Growth Following Dissolution
Given the pervasiveness of dissolutions during this developmental stage, it is surprising that
much less research has considered whether there is the potential for growth, rather than
solely distress, following a breakup. A romantic breakup has been cited as one of the worst
events of traumatic experiences (Frazier & Hurliman, 2001); yet a growing field assessing
posttraumatic growth has emerged that has yet to be applied to romantic relationship
dissolutions. According to Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996), posttraumatic growth occurs when
individuals bounce back from a traumatic experience to a higher level of functioning than
pretrauma. Those who exhibit benefit finding, a strategy in response to a stressor associated
with posttraumatic growth, tend to have higher levels of well-being and lower levels of
depression (Helgeson, Reynolds, & Tomich, 2006).
Tashiro and Frazier (2003) were pioneers in applying the idea of stress-related growth to
romantic dissolution to assess both growth and distress as independent outcomes. They
found individuals can report positive changes following a breakup such as feeling more self-
confident, independent, stronger, and more emotionally stable. Participants most commonly
reported individual and relational positive changes they can make to improve well-being and
romantic relationships in the future. Lewandowski and Bizzoco (2007) found that positive
emotions and personal growth can follow romantic dissolution, especially in the context of
dissolution of poor relationships characterized by few opportunities for self-growth. In a
qualitative study of college student dissolution, Hebert and Popadiuk (2008) found that all
11 participants reported at least one positive change, that the most important change was
positive, and had overwhelmingly more positive than negative changes. These findings
suggest that exploring romantic experiences, including breakups, during emerging adulthood
may contribute to better conflict management and communication skills that may in turn
lead to greater romantic competence and satisfaction in future relationships. Researchers
have not directly tested the hypothesis that growth following dissolutions may benefit future
relationship functioning. Longitudinal studies with more robust sample sizes that assess
long-term positive outcomes of dissolutions are needed to augment these scarce findings.
Methodological Limitations of Prior Dissolution Research
Although there is growing evidence to suggest that emerging adults report both distress
and
perceived growth, the vast majority of research assesses past relationships only via self-
report—suggesting that reported growth may stem from positive illusions or biases (Frazier
& Kaler, 2006). Studies using only self-report data may also provide spurious results in that
individuals who are reporting positive current functioning post-dissolution may be biased
toward recalling the past breakup as less painful than it actually was at the time.
Alternatively, those who are depressed or anxious are likely biased toward recalling past
breakups as uncontrollable. In addition, studies on postdissolution growth tend to be cross-
sectional and retrospective—again being subject to biases and neglecting long-term changes
(Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Therefore, these few studies lend support to the idea that growth
is possible following breaking up, but the potential for positive adjustment following
dissolution has been left largely unexplored via multiple reporters and repeated assessments
Kansky and Allen Page 3
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
of individual and interpersonal functioning over time that may more accurately capture
adjustment postdissolution.
Attachment Theory: A Framework for Understanding Dissolution
Given that dissolutions are normal experiences during emerging adulthood, the specific
context of a breakup may dictate whether it leads to positive versus negative adjustment.
Prior researchers have framed romantic dissolution using Bowlby’s (1980) attachment
theory. An important extension of Bowlby’s attachment theory of parent–child relationships
is that adults develop similar patterns of attachment to romantic partners (Hazan & Shaver,
1994; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999). The attachment features of a secure base, proximity
seeking, and safe haven are transferred from parents to romantic partners such that the
partner becomes a primary attachment figure (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Prior findings point
to similar underlying interpretations and responses to separation from an attachment figure
whether it is a parent or partner. Specifically, separation results in protesting, seeking the
attachment figure, and symptoms of depression while evoking senses of abandonment and
betrayal (Johnson & Whiffen, 1999; Kobak, 1999). Thus, a breakup can be interpreted as a
loss or disrupture in attachment resulting in significant mental distress (Davis et al., 2003;
Hansen & Shireman, 1986; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001).
While Hazan and Shaver (1994) suggested a 2-year criterion after which partners become
attachment figures, more recent literature has suggested that this process often happens more
quickly (Heffernan, Fraley, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2012). Thus, emerging adults engaging in
even short-term relationships may perceive their partner as an attachment figure. Dissolution
of an attached romantic relationship may have greater consequences than casual dating
relationships, similar to the greater distress children experience when separated from a
primary attachment figure as compared to a casual connection (Bowlby, 1980).
Initiator Status and Dissolution Adjustment
Individuals who perceive greater sense of loss and little control over a divorce, for example,
tend to suffer more negative consequences. Thus, one of the commonly studied questions
surrounding romantic dissolutions is the question of whether initiators (i.e., those in control
of the breakup) versus noninitiators experience different degrees of distress. Prior research
has supported the idea that individuals who did not initiate a breakup tend to suffer more
than those who initiated the breakup, at least in the short term. For example, Perilloux and
Buss (2008) found that both men and women who did not initiate a recent breakup reported
more depression, rumination, and lower self-esteem. In contrast, individuals initiating a
breakup appear to suffer less in terms of psychological distress and negative emotions
(Sprecher, 1994; Sprecher et al., 1998). Although there is some evidence suggesting the
importance of certain breakup variables on concurrent mental health, there is a scarcity of
research on the trajectories of
change
in mental distress (i.e., depression and anxiety) over
time.
Other evidence suggests a more benign picture for those not initiating a breakup. Rhoades,
Kamp Dush, Atkins, Stanley, and Markman (2011) found no differences in psychological
Kansky and Allen Page 4
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
distress based on initiator status or desire to end the relationship. Several studies have found
no difference in distress between initiators and noninitiators following dissolution (Koenig
Kellas & Manusov, 2003; Locker et al., 2010; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). In addition, there is
some evidence that initiators may experience
more
negative reactions from others than
noninitiators. For example, Perilloux and Buss (2008) found that those who initiated a
breakup reported feeling perceived by others as cruel. Perhaps initiators are more likely to
feel guilty or experience negative backlash from friends following the decision to end a
relationship. These poor reactions from others may lead to significant distress. These
conflicting findings raise the possibility that initiating a breakup may in different ways be
both
beneficial and costly to the individual, although this possibility has not yet been
explored.
Gender Differences
Prior research on romantic relationship has suggested that relationship transitions may have
different implications for females versus males. Much of the literature focuses on gender
differences in response to marriage and divorce finding that males benefit more from
marriage and suffer more from divorce than women (Belle, 1987; Bloom, White, & Asher,
1979; Gove, 1973). Women also tend to report greater postdivorce growth than men
(Colburn, Lin, & Moore, 1992; Kitson, 1992) and greater stress-related growth than men in
general (Tedeschi & Clahoun, 1996). Taylor and colleagues (2000) proposed that females
experience less distress following stressful events as compared to men due to their coping
behaviors. Females are more likely to rely on social support and reach out to others to get
through tough times while males are quick to have an amped up fight-or-flight response
(Taylor et al., 2000). In general, females pay attention to close relationships more than males
and they tend to experience stronger benefits from these relationships for their overall well-
being as compared to men (Cross & Madsen, 1997; Saphire-Bernstein & Taylor, 2013). The
ability to seek support from others, which is a strategy more commonly used by and more
beneficial for women, may be a key mechanism of managing postdissolution stress
contributing to gender differences.
However, more recent findings suggest that there are few sex differences in the experience of
marriage and divorce than earlier results (Simon, 2002; Strohschein, McDonough, Monette,
& Shawo, 2005). For example, Williams (2003) found no gender differences in well-being
based on marital status, relationship transitions, or relationship qualities. In a meta-analysis,
Kiecolt-Glaser and Netwon (2001) generally found mixed results for gender differences in
the link between marriage and physical health perhaps reflecting societal changes of gender
dynamics where men and women contribute similarly to marriages. Less research has
considered gender differences in
nonmarital relationships and dissolutions
. Evidence
suggests that men suffer more than women following a non-marital breakup, especially
when men did not initiate the breakup (Helgeson, 1994; Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976),
although other research finds that females report greater breakup distress (Field, Diego,
Pelaez, Deeds, & Delgado, 2009). Despite unclear findings on gender differences in post-
dissolution distress, women report greater nonmarital postdissolution growth compared to
men (Sprecher, 1994; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Interestingly, Helgeson (1994) found no
gender differences for positive growth following dissolution for those initiating a breakup.
Kansky and Allen Page 5
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Thus, gender will be an important consideration in assessing the context of nonmarital
dissolution on future individual and interpersonal functioning.
Autonomy and Understanding in Dissolution Adjustment
Distress and adjustment following romantic dissolution have also been linked to the ability
to process and understand a breakup. In a college sample, individuals who reported being
certain of the reasons for a recent breakup experienced fewer problems adjusting after the
dissolution (Yildirim & Demir, 2015). Although individuals may report positive changes
following a dissolution, they are more likely to report problematic responses if they are
unable to identify the reasons for the breakup (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). If an individual is
unsure
why
a relationship ended, they may ruminate on the negative feelings following a
breakup and carry this distress into future relationships. Indeed, hypothetical thinking
regarding reasons for dissolution is related to poor adjustment (Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007).
Further, those lacking autonomy within their romantic relationships tend to have poor
conflict management skills and lower satisfaction (Knee, Lonsbary, Canevello, & Patrick,
2005). Perceiving a lack of knowledge or control over a breakup may be more common for
those in such relationship characterized by low levels of autonomy. Autonomy has been
identified as an important characteristic of well-being in different contexts including in the
workplace, residentially, financially, and in various types of social relationships (Allen,
Hauser, Bell, & O’Connor, 1994; Kins, Beyers, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2009; La
Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; O’Connor, Allen, Bell, & Hauser, 1996;
Thompson & Prottas, 2006). Autonomy and connection are important for understanding
close relationships, including reasons for dissolution (Baxter, 1988). One partner’s
autonomous support toward the other provides mental health and relational benefits,
suggesting the reciprocal nature of autonomy (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981;
Ryan & Connell, 1989).
In this article, we focus on the joint, dyadic autonomy that exists within couples. Prior
research points to mutual influence in romantic relationships generally (Kelley & Thibaut,
1978) and specifically within romantic relationships (Knee et al., 2005). In a qualitative
study of partner’s reports of autonomy within the relationship as potential roles in
dissolution, the authors proposed that assessing both sides of the autonomy–connection link
from both partners provides a deeper understanding than relying on one partner’s
autonomous behaviors or perceptions (Sahlstein & Dun, 2008). Prior research on peer
autonomy suggests dyadic autonomy (both giving and receiving support) is a robust
predictor of relationship outcomes (Deci, LaGuardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006).
Further, their results indicate that there is unique variance in relationship quality and well-
being due to autonomy at the relationship level (Deci et al., 2006). Similar to the idea of the
reciprocal nature of close friendships, considering giving and receiving autonomy support
within
romantic
relationships will be important to assess as a relational, dyadic characteristic
of emerging adult relationships. During emerging adulthood, intimate relationships become
central to one’s identity—a focus on dyadic autonomy versus individual autonomy seems
especially important at this stage. Perhaps the mutual influence in close relationships is
heightened in romantic relationships especially during emerging adulthood when
maintaining intimate relationships is considered an essential developmental task.
Kansky and Allen Page 6
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
If unsure why a relationship ended, it seems plausible that uncertainty, poor conflict
negotiation strategies, and poor abilities to give and receive autonomous support can carry
forward into future relationships. On the other hand, individuals who are able to gain closure
and make sense of a relationship ending may experience less mental distress following a
breakup. The ability to generate a coherent story regarding a recent breakup is positively
correlated with overall adjustment (Koenig Kellas & Manusov, 2003). Meaning-focused
coping strategies such as identifying positives and benefit finding following a stressful event
are linked to positive emotions and less distress in general traumatic event literature (Davis,
Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Park, 2010). Samios,
Henson, and Simpson (2014) found that benefit finding in the context of nonmarital
dissolution was related to better adjustment including positive affect, depression, and overall
satisfaction with life. Whether meaning-making, closure, or benefit finding then go on to
predict functioning in future romantic relationships has not, however, been explored thus far.
In sum, research to date raises the question of whether individuals differ in their long-term
outcomes following romantic dissolution depending upon whether or not they initiated the
breakup and how well they were able to understand the breakup. Limitations to this area of
research include a focus on divorce and on negative associations with breaking up and use of
retrospective self-report data. How dissolutions of emerging adult unmarried relationships
influence adjustment
prospectively
is less clear. In addition, no research to date has
examined the ways in which dissolutions may predict future
relationship functioning
in key
areas of relationship quality such as conflict, intimate self-confidence, or autonomy via
support. By addressing specific future relationship qualities using multiple reporters and
observational data, this study addresses previously neglected or biased findings.
Overview of the Research and Hypotheses
This study seeks to understand the context of emerging adult romantic breakups on later
psychological and relationship functioning while addressing each of these methodological
limitations in research to date. Specifically, we assess whether initiating a breakup or the
level of understanding of its cause can predict both mental health (i.e., anxiety and
depression) and future relationship functioning (i.e., conflict, satisfaction, autonomy, and
intimate competence) in future romantic relationships. Because engaging in short-term
relationships is relatively normative during emerging adulthood, we seek to assess the
conditions under which there is potential for growth following dissolution of these
relationships during this stage of romantic exploration.
We used self-reports, peer reports, partner reports, and observational data in a diverse
community sample to examine the implications of initiator status and understanding of the
reasons for a breakup during emerging adulthood using a diverse community sample
followed from the ages of 20–25, with a breakup assessed at age 22. We examined the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 Initiator status in a recent breakup will predict (a) relative changes in
mental health symptoms over time, (b) future abilities to handle
Kansky and Allen Page 7
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
conflict within a romantic relationship, and (c) relative changes in
romantic competence and satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 Confidence in understanding the reasons for a recent breakup will
predict (a) relative decreases in mental health symptoms over time, (b)
improved future abilities to handle conflict within a romantic
relationship, and (c) relative increases in romantic competence and
satisfaction.
Method
Participants
The data were drawn from a larger longitudinal study of adolescent development focusing
on social relationships with parents, peers, and romantic partners. Participants originally
included 184 seventh and eighth graders (86 male and 98 female) initially recruited from a
public middle school in the Southeastern United States with both urban and suburban
populations. Students were first recruited via an initial mailing to all parents of students in
the school and those interested in the study (presented to potential participants as the “Kids,
Lives, Families, and Friends” study) were contacted by telephone. The larger data set has
been used to address other topics in prior manuscripts, but none have addressed the goals of
the current study.1 Informed assent for the adolescents along with informed consent from the
parents was obtained before each interview session. Informed assent and consent for close
friends and romantic partners of the target participant were obtained as age appropriate as
well. Participants were mailed packets of questionnaires with return envelopes so that they
could complete the measures on their own time and then return them to the lab.
Follow-up data were obtained annually at ages 22–25 (
M
= 22.80, standard deviation [
SD
] =
0.96;
M
= 23.78,
SD
= 0.97;
M
= 24.65,
SD
= 0.96;
M
= 25.69,
SD
= 0.99). Demographics
are reported from the first wave of data collection. The sample was diverse in terms of race,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status: 58% identified as Caucasian, 29% as African American,
8% as mixed race/ethnicity, and 5% as other. Adolescents’ parents reported a median family
income around US$50,000. In addition, 63% of the teens’ mothers were married, 14.4%
divorced, 9.8% single, and 13.2% reported other (separated, widowed, or living with
partner). At age 22, 71% of the participants were employed and 80% of those working were
employed full time. In addition, 40% of participants were current students.
Participants were also asked annually to provide contact information (i.e., phone number)
for a close friend who knew them best. We approached the peers via phone calls to invite
them to participate in the study with the consent of the initial participant. The same informed
consent process was utilized for peers. At participant ages 22–25, participant’s close friends
participated annually. Friend age was not available at the first wave of data collection.
However, peers were on average aged 26 across each follow-up wave of data collection
when the participant was of age 23–25 (
M
= 25.70,
SD
= 4.95;
M
= 25.98,
SD
= 4.96;
M
=
26.47,
SD
= 5.06). In addition, participants reported knowing their close friend for an
1Please visit http://people.virginia.edu/~psykliff/Teenresearch/Publications.html for copies of publications using the larger data set.
Kansky and Allen Page 8
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
average of 9 months at age 22 (
M
= 8.69,
SD
= 5.95) to 11 months at age 25 (
M
= 10.58,
SD
= 6.90). Approximately half of our participants (50.41%) had the same close friend
participate across multiple waves of data collection. The majority of close friends were the
same gender as the target participant (93%). A total of 149 friends participated at Wave 1; a
total of 135, 148, and 128 friends participated at each annual follow-up. Peer reports at age
22 (Wave 1) provide the baseline level of our variables of interest.
If participants reported involvement in a significant heterosexual or homosexual romantic
relationship (i.e., 2 months or longer) at any point during ages 20–22 and again at ages 23–
25, the romantic partner was eligible to participate. Again, participants provided contact
information for their partner so that we contacted the romantic partners directly to obtain
consent. A similar duration criterion has been used in prior research (Collins, Welsh, &
Furman, 2009; Connolly & Johnson, 1996; Hand & Furman, 2009; Madsen & Collins,
2011). Therefore, participants and their romantic partner completed assessments only once
during ages 20–22 and 23–25. The data gathered during ages 20–22 provide the baseline
assessment of relationship quality. A total of 80 participants (1 homosexual and 79
heterosexual) endorsed being in a romantic relationship of at least 2 months in our original
sample, with 61 couples participating in Wave 1 and 73 couples participating in Wave 2.
Romantic partners were on average aged 22 and 25 (age:
M
= 22.37,
SD
= 3.63;
M
= 24.83,
SD
= 4.15) at Waves 1 and 2, respectively, and relationship duration was approximately 22
months (
M
= 21.85,
SD
= 19.89;
M
= 21.78,
SD
= 20.16). It is important to note that of the
160 participants, 146 reported experiencing a recent breakup and only 22 participants (16%)
had the same romantic partner at both waves of data collection and were included in the
analyses, which highlight the romantic exploration typical during emerging adulthood.
Attrition Analyses
Attrition analyses examined missing data for each type of data available at baseline. Results
indicate that those participants who did not complete all assessments across time points (i.e.,
participants at age 22 and at ages 23–25) were male (
N
= 8,
p
< .001). To best address any
potential biases due to attrition in longitudinal analyses or due to missing data within waves,
we use full information maximum likelihood (FIML) methods for all regression analyses,
including all variables that were linked to future missing data (i.e., where data were not
missing completely at random). This approach has been found to provide the least biased
estimates when all available data are used for longitudinal analyses (Arbuckle, 1996).
Although the original sample in our study was 184, a total of 160 participants (71 males and
89 females) and 147 close friends (64 males, 83 females) provided baseline data at age 22. A
total of 158 participants (69 males and 89 females), 146 close friends (63 males and 83
females), and 87 couples participated at follow-up assessments. Therefore, the entire original
sample of 160 participants was used in all subsequent analyses.
Procedure
At ages 20–22, the target participant came into the lab with their romantic partner if the
participant reported being in a relationship lasting 2 months or longer. The target participant
and their romantic partner each filled out a series of questionnaires about their relationship.
The data collected at ages 20–22 serve as the baseline assessment for relationship qualities,
Kansky and Allen Page 9
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
which we include as covariates in all analyses. Including baseline relationship functioning as
a covariate allows for the analysis of relative change over time. At age 22, the target
participant completed additional questionnaires and nominated an individual as their closest
peer. The closest peer also completed questionnaires at this time. The peer data collected at
age 22 serve as the baseline assessment for relationship qualities and are included as a
covariate in all analyses.
Finally, at ages 23–25, target participants and their closest friend completed questionnaires
annually. In addition, the romantic partner and participant came into the lab to complete
questionnaires about their relationship and participate in an observed behavioral task once
during this 3-year period. All interviews took place in private offices in a university
academic building (see Table 1 for detailed timeline of the data collection procedure
including measures, total number of respondents, and descriptive statistics).
Measures
Characteristics of a Breakup
Initiating a breakup (age 22): We assessed who initiated the most recent breakup prior to
age 22 by asking a single item as follows: “Who decided to end the relationship?” with 1 =
my boy/girlfriend did
, 2 =
both of us
, and 3 =
I did
, such that higher scores indicate
increasing reported control over initiating a breakup. Participants completed this item at
Wave 1.
Understanding a breakup (age 22): In addition, we assessed the reasons for the
termination of their most recently ended romantic relationship prior to the age 22 assessment
via a single item as follows: “How confident are you that you really know the reasons for
your breakup?” where 1 =
I don’t know at all
, 2 =
I know a little bit
, 3 =
I know quite a lot
,
and 4 =
I know exactly why
. Higher scores indicate more confidence in understanding the
reasons for the breakup.
Mental Health—Internalizing Symptoms
Self-Report: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (ages 22 and 23–25): Internalizing symptoms
were assessed annually using self-report of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Speilberger,
Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970) at ages 22–25. The 20-item trait subscale of the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory assesses overall stable individual differences in anxiety. Items are scored
on a 4-point Likert-type scale where 1 =
almost never
, 2 =
sometimes
, 3 =
often
, and 4 =
almost always
. The overall anxiety score at age 22 provides the baseline level of anxiety.
Cronbach’s αs are provided for each measure used for this study (except for our
observational data) as a measurement of reliability for the proposed construct (Tavakol &
Dennick, 2011). The internal consistency for the baseline anxiety measure has a Cronbach’s
α of .91 and for ages 23, 24, and 25 have Cronbach’s αs of .92, .92, and.92, respectively.
Peer report: Adult Behavior Checklist (Ages 22 and 23–25): Close friends of each
participant completed the Adult Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) annually
at participant age 22 (baseline) and again at ages 23–25. The Adult Behavior Checklist is a
122-item measure with internalizing, externalizing, substance use, attention problems,
Kansky and Allen Page 10
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
thought problems, and other problems subscales. Items were scored on a 3-point Likert-type
scale where 0 =
not true
, 1 =
somewhat or sometimes true
, and 2 =
very true or often true
.
The Internalizing subscale score on the Adult Behavior Checklist is composed of 32 items
assessing anxiety, depression, withdrawal, and somatic complaints. Higher scores indicate
greater internalizing symptoms. The Internalizing subscale score at age 22 provides the
baseline level of mental distress and with internal consistency of a Cronbach’s α of .83. The
Internalizing sub-scale scores collected annually at ages 23–25 will be used in the growth
analyses to assess overall level and trajectories of change by age 25. The internal
consistencies for ages 23, 24, and 25 have Cronbach’s αs of .89, .90, and .89, respectively.
Romantic Conflict Management
Romantic partner report: Conflict Tactics Scale (ages 22 and 23–25): Conflict within the
romantic relationship was assessed via romantic partner report using an adapted version of
the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). The Conflict Tactics Scale is an 80-item measure
assessing severity and frequency of conflict and conflict management techniques. We used
the Psychological Aggression subscale, which includes 6 items assessing the extent to which
the target participant is verbally abusive via conflict behaviors of insulting, shouting,
stomping out of the room, or doing something to spite the partner. If participants were in a
romantic relationship longer than 2 months at ages 20–22 or 23–25, the partner completed
the Conflict Tactics Scale about the current romantic relationship. At ages 20–22, the
psychological aggression internal consistency has a Cronbach’s α of .86 and serves as the
baseline level of romantic conflict. At ages 23–25, the Psychological Aggression subscale
has a Cronbach’s α of .88 and provides the outcome measure of romantic conflict.
Autonomy-Undermining behavior (ages 23–25): Behaviors that undermine autonomy
were assessed using an 8-min recorded observational behavior task in which couples were
asked to discuss a relationship issue on which they had reported disagreement. Two trained
coders used the Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System (Allen et al., 2000) to code the
recorded interactions. At ages 23–25, each couple participated in the behavior task once. The
Autonomy-Undermining Behavior Scale includes behaviors such as avoiding discussing the
disagreement by giving into their partner or by distracting the partner away from the topic,
overpersonalizing the disagreement by using personal examples as reasons, placing blame or
guilt on the partner, calling upon the opinion of an outside party, or falsely characterizing the
partner’s behavior in an exaggerated way, and pressuring the partner to agree by using
sarcasm, condescension, frustrated or impatient body language, or repeating themselves. We
took the average of both the individual and his or her partner’s negative autonomy scores to
create a dyadic sum score. Interrater reliability for negative autonomy for both participant
and partner has an intraclass coefficient of .85 and .81, respectively. Higher scores for
overall dyadic negative autonomy indicate more behaviors that undermine autonomy within
the relationship.
Romantic Relationship Functioning
Romantic relationship satisfaction (ages 20–22 and 23–25): Between ages 20 and 22,
participants in a relationship completed the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick,
Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998), which is a 7-item scale assessing overall relationship satisfaction
Kansky and Allen Page 11
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
including fulfilling expectations and needs within the relationship. All items are scored on a
5-point Likert-type scale where higher scores indicate greater levels of overall satisfaction.
Example items include “How well does your partner meet your needs?” “In general, how
satisfied are you with your relationship?” and “How good is your relationship compared to
most?” The Relationship Assessment Scale total sum score serves as the baseline
relationship satisfaction score. Internal consistency of the romantic satisfaction sum score
has a Cronbach’s α of .84.
Between ages 23 and 25, romantic relationship satisfaction was assessed via self-report on a
5-item scale assessing overall romantic relationship satisfaction that was created for this
study. Compared to those reporting using the baseline measure, all participants regardless of
their relationship status completed this 5-item measure. Our team created this measure to
capture satisfaction about general romantic life, not specifically tied to a current partner, and
found all 5 items to have an acceptable internal consistency for determining current romantic
life satisfaction. Items include “I am very satisfied with my current romantic life,” “I spend a
lot of time worrying about my current romantic life,” “I would like to make significant
changes to the current circumstances of my romantic life,” “I am content with the state of
my romantic life,” and “The current state of my romantic life causes me a great deal of
stress.” All items are scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale where 1 =
strongly disagree
, 2 =
disagree
, 3 =
agree
, and 4 =
strongly agree
, and Items 2, 3, and 5 are reverse coded. Higher
scores indicate more satisfaction. Internal consistency of the outcome measure for romantic
satisfaction score has a Cronbach’s α of .72.
Peer report: Intimate relationship competence (ages 23–25): At ages 23–25, intimate
relationship competence was assessed using close friend report of the 4-item Intimate
Relationship subscale of the adult self-perception profile about the target participant (Harter,
1995). Items include assessing the ability to develop and establish intimate relationships and
to openly communicate with others. Example items include “Some people do not find it easy
to develop intimate relationships BUT other people have the ability to develop intimate
relationships” and “Some people find it hard to establish intimate relationships BUT other
people do not have difficulty establishing intimate relationships.” Higher scores indicate
greater abilities to form and maintain close, meaningful relationships with a romantic
partner. Close friends completed the Harter annually when the target participant was aged
between 23 and 25 years. Each of these three waves of data collection will be included in
our growth analyses. Internal consistency for ages 23, 24, and 25 has Cronbach’s αs of .77, .
71, and .76, respectively.
Peer report: Close friendship competence (age 22): Close friendship competence was
assessed using the friend report of the 4-item Close Friendship subscale of the adult self-
perception for adolescents about the target participant (Harter, 1988) at age 22. Higher
scores reflect better developed abilities to form and maintain close and fulfilling
relationships with friends including high levels of communication skills. Items include
assessing the degree to which their friend has a difficult time making close friends, their
knowledge of how to find a close friend, and use of trust and self-disclosure in making
friends. Example items include “Some people do not know what it takes to develop a close
Kansky and Allen Page 12
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
friendship with a peer BUT other people do know what to do to form a close friendship with
a peer” and “Some people find it hard to make friends they can really trust BUT other people
are able to make close friends they can really trust.” Internal consistency of the Close
Friendship subscale has a Cronbach’s α of .75.
Analytic Plan—Analyses were conducted to examine the associations between initiator
status and confidence in understanding the reasons for a breakup with internalizing
symptoms, romantic conflict management, and romantic satisfaction and competence.
Growth analyses: For those measures that were collected annually from the ages of 22–25
(i.e., self-report anxiety, close friend-report anxiety, and close friend-report intimate
competence), we used an Multilevel Modeling (MLM) approach to linear growth modeling
using MPLUS (Version 6; Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Thus, for those repeated measures, we
examined whether initiating a breakup or understanding the reasons for a breakup predicted
either intercepts or trajectories of internalizing symptoms (Hypotheses 1a and 2a) or
intimate competence (romantic competence in Hypotheses 1c and 2c).
Regression analyses: For those measures that were collected at two time points (i.e.,
romantic partner-report conflict, observed autonomy task, and romantic life satisfaction), we
used a regression model. All regression analyses were completed in SAS Version 9.4 using
an FIML approach to handle any missing data.
The analytic approach of predicting the future level of a variable, such as romantic conflict,
while accounting for predictions from initial levels of that variable, yields one marker of
residualized change in that variable (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Further, considering baseline
levels of future behavior as a covariate eliminates the spurious effect whereby observed
predictions are simply a result of cross-sectional associations among variables that are stable
over time. Regression analyses were used to explore Hypotheses 1b and 2b and romantic
satisfaction in Hypotheses 1c and 2c.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Means and
SD
s for all variables of interest examined in the study are presented in Table 1.
The number of responses and percentages in all of the response categories for the predictor
variables are also provided in Table 1. Table 2 presents the simple univariate correlations
among all variables of interest in the study. These correlations suggest many relationships
between breakup characteristics and later reports of mental distress and relationship qualities
that will be explored more fully in regression and growth curve analyses below. The
t
tests
were conducted to examine potential gender differences in all variables of interest. Results
indicate that partners of female participants report greater conflict in emerging adult
romantic relationships,
t
(116) = 2.14,
p
= .03, Cohen’s
d
= .40, and peers of female
participants report greater internalizing symptoms in emerging adulthood,
t
(145) = 2.19,
p
= .03, Cohen’s
d
= .36. Thus, gender was also included as a covariate in all analyses below.
Potential moderating effects of gender were assessed by creating interaction terms between
gender and each predictor variable. Each interaction term was included along with the
Kansky and Allen Page 13
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
predictors of interest in a separate regression analysis predicting the outcomes of interest.
None of the interaction terms were significantly related to any of the outcomes assessed
below at levels greater than would be expected by chance.
In addition, family income was included as a covariate in all analyses below. Socioeconomic
status has been linked to romantic functioning in prior research (Conger, Cui, Bryant, &
Elder, 2001). We considered potential moderating effects of family income by creating
interaction terms between income and each predictor variable. Using an identical process as
with gender interactions, none of the interaction terms were significantly related to any of
the outcomes assessed.
Primary Analyses
Hypothesis 1: Initiator status in a recent breakup will predict
(a) Relative changes in mental health symptoms over time: We examined how
initiating a breakup was related to initial levels and growth trajectories over time
of internalizing symptoms from ages 22 to 25. Standardized predictor variables
were used in these analyses to maximize ease of comparison of effects of
predictors and interpretability of the model (Biesanz, Deeb-Sossa, Papadakis,
Bollen, & Curran, 2004).
In models assessing self-reported internalizing symptoms, results indicated that initiator
status was not significantly related to the overall level (intercept) of anxiety or to trajectories
of change (slope) in anxiety. In conditional models assessing peer-reported internalizing
symptoms, results revealed that initiator status was not significantly related to the overall
level but was related to trajectories of change of peer-reported internalizing behaviors from
ages 22 to 25 (β = .61,
p
= .03). The results shown in Table 3 indicated that the perception
of having initiated a recent breakup predicted smaller decreases in the initiator’s
internalizing symptoms as compared to those who did not initiate, as reported by their close
peer; all participants internalizing symptoms decreased over time although not at a
significant trend. This means that emerging adults who initiated a breakup at age 22 were
perceived by close friends as experiencing smaller decreases in internalizing symptoms by
age 25 as compared to those who did not initiate a breakup, but did not report any significant
changes in their own perception of their internalizing symptoms.
(b) Future abilities to handle conflict within a romantic relationship: We examined
whether initiating a breakup predicted relative change in partner reports of
participant’s conflict within future romantic relationships over time. Results
suggest that initiating a breakup was not significantly related to the partner’s
report of the emerging adult’s aggression within the relationship. We also
examined the association between initiator status and future dyadic romantic
relationship behaviors that undermine autonomy. Results, as shown in Table 4,
suggest that control over initiating a breakup at age 22 was related to an increase
in behaviors that undermine autonomy within the romantic relationship at ages
23–25 (β = .29, p = .004). This means that emerging adults who initiated a
breakup were later involved in romantic relationships in which both members of
the dyad engaged in behaviors that undermined autonomous functioning.
Kansky and Allen Page 14
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
(c) Relative changes in romantic competence and satisfaction: We examined
whether initiating a breakup predicted relative change in self-reports of
relationship satisfaction and in peer reports of intimate relationship competence
over time. Because intimate relationship competence was not assessed in earlier
waves, we used the friend report of the Close Friendship subscale of the Adult
Self-Perception for Adolescents measure (Messer & Harter, 1986) at age 22 for
the baseline measure of intimate competence. Regression analyses results
suggest that initiating a breakup did not significantly predict any changes in self-
reported satisfaction over time. Results from the conditional growth curve
analysis for peer-reported intimate competence indicated that initiator status was
not significantly related to the individual’s intimate competence at age 22 or to
trajectories of change in intimate competence from ages 22 to 25.
Hypothesis 2: Confidence in understanding the reasons for a recent breakup
will predict
(a) Relative decreases in mental health symptoms over time: We next examined how
confidence in understanding the reasons for a breakup was related to growth
trajectories of internalizing symptoms from ages 22 to 25. In conditional growth
models for self-reported internalizing symptoms, results, as shown in Table 5,
indicated that understanding the reasons for a breakup at age 22 was
significantly related to the overall level (intercept) of internalizing symptoms (β
= −2.60, p = .001) but not to trajectories of change in internalizing symptoms
from ages 22 to 25. For conditional models of peer-reported internalizing
symptoms, results revealed that understanding the reasons for a breakup was not
related to overall level or trajectories of change in peer reports of internalizing
symptoms from ages 22 to 25. This means that emerging adults who reported
greater understanding of the reasons for a recent breakup were experiencing less
anxiety at age 22 compared to those who were less confident in understanding
why a breakup occurred.
(b) Improved future abilities to handle conflict within a romantic relationship: We
examined whether understanding a breakup predicted relative change in partner
reports of participant’s conflict within future romantic relationships over time.
Results, as shown in Table 6, suggest that confidence in understanding the
reasons for a breakup predicted relative decreases in aggression over time based
on partner reports (β = −.30, p = .003). This suggests that the ability to make
sense of a breakup by reporting confidence in understanding the reasons for the
dissolution is related to less conflict in later romantic relationships with a new
partner.
We also examined whether confidence in understanding the reasons for a breakup at age 22
was associated with dyadic romantic relationship behaviors that undermine autonomy at
ages 23–25. Results, as shown in Table 6, suggest that understanding the reasons for a
breakup was not related to later behaviors that undermine autonomy within new
relationships.
Kansky and Allen Page 15
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
(c) Relative increases in romantic competence and satisfaction: We examined
whether confidence in understanding the reasons for a breakup predicted relative
change in self-reports of relationship satisfaction and peer reports of intimate
competence at ages 23–25. Regression analyses results are shown in Table 6 and
suggest that confidence in understanding the reasons for a breakup predicted
relative increases in relationship satisfaction over time (β = .28, p < .001). This
means that emerging adults who were able to make sense of the reasoning for a
romantic dissolution experienced an increase in relationship satisfaction in later
relationships. In addition, results from the conditional growth curve analysis for
peer-reported intimate competence indicated that confidence in understanding
the reasons for a breakup was not significantly related to the overall level of
intimate competence but was related to the trajectories of change in intimate
competence from age 22 to 25 (β = .24, p = .04), as shown in Table 5. This
suggests that friends of those initiating a breakup at age 22 perceived a boost in
romantic competence over time.
Discussion
This study examined the extent to which an emerging adult’s future levels of psychological
health, romantic conflict management, and romantic satisfaction and competence could be
predicted from the characteristics of their most recent breakup as of age 22. Findings
indicate that being in control of initiating a breakup predicted trajectories of relative
increases in peer-reported internalizing symptoms in comparison to the sample as a whole,
which displayed a slight average decrease in internalizing symptoms overtime. In addition,
being in control of initiating a breakup predicted relative increases in formation of future
romantic relationships in which both parties behave so as to undermine one another’s
autonomy. In contrast, understanding the reasons for a breakup was related to a lower overall
level of self-reported internalizing symptoms and to trajectories of relative increase in peer-
reported intimate relationship competence as compared to the rest of the sample. Those who
understood the reasons for a breakup had friends who perceived their intimate competence
as improving more overtime as compared to those who did not understand dissolution
reasons. Greater confidence in understanding the reasons for dissolution also predicted
relative increases in relationship satisfaction and decreases in future romantic partner-
reported conflict by ages 23–25.
Emerging adulthood is an important exploratory period for romantic experiences in which
the end goal is to foster an intimate long-term relationship. Dissolution appears to be a
normative experience during this developmental stage, yet prior findings have typically
considered breaking up as a negative, problematic event. Because romantic partners become
attachment figures in many relationships, how individuals cope and adjust to disruption in
attachment (i.e., dissolution) may determine whether distress or growth results. Our study
assessed the qualities of a romantic relationship dissolution (i.e., initiator status and
understanding the reasons for the dissolution) using multi-informant reports, observational
data, and longitudinal data adding to the burgeoning field of growth following romantic
dissolution in unmarried emerging adult couples.
Kansky and Allen Page 16
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
It is possible that emerging adults who are able to come to terms with romantic dissolution
by understanding why and
how
a breakup occurred are learning more than those individuals
who are left in the dark as to where the relationship went awry. Similar to the arguments
made by Tashiro and Frazier (2003) in their analyses of postdissolution growth and stress,
our findings suggest that individuals who struggle to identify what contributed to a breakup
suffer more negative consequences. Our findings go beyond their findings of general growth
and add to their argument by providing specific romantic relationship qualities that may
benefit from understanding a breakup.
Cutting ties with a romantic attachment figure can be a positive or negative experience
depending on the context. Prior research has indicated that attachment transference from
parents to romantic partners increases as relationship length increases (Fraley & Davis,
1997; Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).
Others have replicated the findings of attachment transference to partners but found that this
happens earlier in relationships than the previous 2-year criterion with attachment features
present in both casual dating relationships and appearing within the first year of dating
(Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Heffernan et al., 2012). In our study, nearly 50% of the
participants reported being in a relationship with their ex-partner for longer than 1 year (16%
dated for 7–12 months, 19% for 4–6 months, and 19% for 3 months or less). Thus, it is
likely that many participants had formed attachment relationships with their partner leading
to increased likelihood of perceiving the dissolution as an attachment loss and experiencing
greater levels of distress.
Perceiving a lack of control or understanding has been linked to more negative consequences
following a fracture in a romantic attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1994; Sprecher,
1994). Therefore, certain aspects of romantic dissolution may ultimately help promote
healthy adjustment despite the immediate negative impacts a split has on well-being. During
a time where romantic exploration is normative, being able to make sense of the dissolutions
and romantic transitions may help emerging adults learn and grow in their romantic life,
fostering improved romantic experiences in the future. Our findings suggest that emerging
adults who were able to make sense of and understand a breakup experienced less conflict
with their future romantic partner and more satisfaction within romantic relationships in
emerging adulthood. In addition, their close friends perceived an increase in intimate
competence for those who were able to understand the reasons for a recent breakup. This
suggests that perhaps their peers saw our participants as growing in their relationship
knowledge as they explore different relationships. Although negative consequences of
dissolutions have been identified in prior research, our findings shed light on the potential to
grow in future relationship competence and skills if emerging adults can make sense of their
breakups. There has been little empirical attention and unclear findings regarding gender
differences in nonmarital postdissolution distress and growth. Our findings suggest that in
emerging adult breakups, men and women tend to experience similar levels of distress and
growth. We found little or no support for gender differences based on breakup characteristics
on future reports of internalizing symptoms, conflict management, romantic satisfaction, and
competence. Perhaps it is societally normal to experience a cycle of relationships and
dissolutions during emerging adulthood as compared to in adulthood—therefore, gender
differences emerge later when the importance of a stable, committed relationship is more
Kansky and Allen Page 17
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
strongly linked to health and well-being. The link between high-quality romantic
relationships and healthy adjustment and mental health becomes stronger with age (Segrin,
Powell, Givertz, & Brackin, 2003; Simon & Barrett, 2010). Breaking up in adulthood may
be a more severe traumatic event as compared to in emerging adulthood, leading to a wider
range of reactions across genders.
Not only did we expect the context of dissolutions to impact future relationships, but we also
believed confidence in understanding the reasons for a romantic dissolution would improve
mental health. Psychological health has been strongly tied to social relationships (Cutrona &
Russell, 1987; Diener & Seligman, 2002; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Taylor, Doane, &
Eisenberg, 2013). In adulthood, cohabitation and ultimately marriage are associated with
higher levels of subjective well-being as compared to individuals who are only dating
casually or rarely (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005). Specifically, relationship qualities such as
conflict, companionship, emotional security, and overall satisfaction have emerged as
predictors of overall well-being (Demir, 2008, 2010). Given the importance of the
developmental task of forming long-term intimate relationships in emerging adulthood, we
believe the effects of romantic experiences on mental health may be potentially stronger at
this stage as compared to earlier in adolescence or in later adulthood. Prior research has
pointed to an increase in mental distress immediately following a breakup (e.g., increases in
depression, anxiety, loneliness, and substance abuse; Fine & Harvey, 2006; Fleming et al.,
2010; Monroe et al., 1999; Rhoades et al., 2011). However, it is important to distinguish
between short-term distress (i.e., at the end of a relationship, people may already be
unhappy, depressed, or in conflict with their partner) and long-term implications of breakups
to partially eliminate the short-term confounding effects of cooccurring dissolution and
distress. Our longitudinal analyses take into consideration how anxiety levels change over a
4-year period. Individuals who reported understanding the breakup also report decreasing
levels of anxiety symptoms over time.
Because dissolutions are normative during this stage, perhaps being able to make sense of
them leads to greater closure, less rumination, and improved mental health over time.
Understanding a breakup may lead individuals to find benefits of dissolution such as
learning what they can change in future relationships or what qualities they desire in a new
partner. Similar to the benefit finding research by Helgeson, Reynolds, and Tomich (2006),
understanding why a breakup happened may lead to better well-being and less mental
distress as individuals search for the positives in gaining relationship closure. Our findings
add to those of Samios and colleagues (2014) in that searching for meaning, benefits, or
positives of dissolution may be linked to better adjustment. Distress is considered necessary
to fuel a search for meaning (Park, 2010; Samios, Henson, & Simpson, 2014). Perhaps those
who were not distressed at the time of dissolution are less likely to search for meaning to
more fully understand the reasons for a breakup. Importantly, our analyses included the
baseline level of distress to account for this potential confound.
These results highlight the important role of creating a coherent narrative following a
romantic breakup. The ability to make sense of a difficult situation (i.e., breakdown in
attachment) can increase the potential to learn and grow from prior relationship experiences,
leading to more satisfied, stable, and fulfilling romantic relationships in the future. If
Kansky and Allen Page 18
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
individuals are unsure what went wrong in a relationship, they likely will not recognize their
own problematic behaviors or remain blind to what needs and desires they want in future
relationships. Understanding the reasons for a breakup, gaining a sense of closure, and
creating a coherent story may help individuals better adjust to dissolution with less mental
distress and interpersonal conflicts and more intimate competence. Our findings highlight
the adaptive nature of experiencing the normative cycle of breakups during emerging
adulthood. Nonmarital dissolutions provide emerging adults with time to reflect on
successes and failures in past relationships, leading to self-growth, optimism, and adjustment
in approaching future relationships (Weber, 1998). When emerging adults are romantically
exploring their options, it appears that understanding why a relationship ended can help
bolster future relationship functioning.
These findings add to the growing literature on initiator status on postdissolution adjustment.
Initiator status was not associated with any changes in relationship satisfaction, romantic
conflict, or intimate competence. However, our results indicate that individuals who initiated
a breakup may experience
greater
levels of peer-rated psychological distress and observed
difficulties in future romantic relationships. Friends of initiators reported an increase in
initiators’ internalizing symptoms by age 25. However, the initiators were not
themselves
reporting more internalizing symptoms. This is consistent with prior findings that initiators
may experience greater social difficulties or poorer perceptions by others following
dissolution as compared to noninitiators (Perilloux & Buss, 2008). The inclusion of
multireporters allowed us to more fully explore the impact of dissolution on the individual’s
future functioning, finding interesting discrepancies in self versus other report that may not
have been detectable in prior studies.
Being in control of initiating a breakup was also associated with observed difficulties in
future romantic relationships. Individuals who had more control in initiating a breakup were
more likely to be in future relationships characterized by higher levels of dyadic behaviors
that undermine autonomy. We chose to focus on
dyadic,
rather than individual, autonomy
because we consider balancing autonomy is a dance between both partners where each party
plays an essential role that builds off the other. Being able to identify joint autonomy may be
most useful in capturing this construct of a supportive relationship, as we consider autonomy
to be a characteristic of the relationship, not the individual. Prior findings point to the
mutuality of romantic relationships and begin highlighting the role of relationship-level
autonomy rather than individual-level autonomy in relationship satisfaction and well-being
(Deci et al., 2006; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Knee et al., 2005; Sahlstein & Dun, 2008). One
possibility for why initiators experience poor autonomy is that those individuals initiating
breakups experience guilt or remorse over their decisions and carry this negativity into their
next relationship. It is also possible that initiators were prone to leave a relationship rather
than work with their partner on resolving problems and difficulties or even that they were
simply very poor at conflict negotiation and this continued to be reflected in future
relationships. Without learning how to navigate conflict and develop healthy communication
with a partner, the individual may learn maladaptive strategies such as pressuring their
partner to agree, giving into their partner without discussion, becoming defensive, or using
sarcasm or condescension during disagreements. Future research should explore other
relationship characteristics of individuals initiating breakups to determine the extent to
Kansky and Allen Page 19
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
which initiator status is associated with future patterns of conflict and communication
strategies.
There are several limitations to these findings that also warrant discussion. First, this study
assessed whether romantic dissolution characteristics predicted relative changes in
psychological health and important romantic relationship qualities over time during
emerging adulthood. It is important to note that we assessed how the dissolution
characteristics predicted relative change (i.e., shift in rank order) on romantic functioning in
future relationships, not mean-level change. Given the normative nature of dissolutions in
emerging adulthood, it will be enlightening to assess overall mean-level change for our
sample over time, as we continue data collection across multiple waves in the future.
Fortunately, for the mental distress and peer-reported variables, we assessed overall level and
trajectories of change allowing a fuller exploration of how the breakup characteristics
influence change over time. Even with our ability to assess trajectories of change in several
of our variables of interest, longitudinal research using repeated measurement of key
constructs is not sufficient to support causal claims. This study helps identify the potential
role of control over and understanding of a breakup as playing a significant part of the
development of mental health and relationship functioning; however, it cannot evaluate
causal hypotheses or completely assess mean-level change (yet), given our data collection
discrepancies across measures. Nonetheless, we build on existing literature assessing growth
and distress following breakups in important methodological ways. Our study addressed
limitations in prior research in that we utilized behavioral measures, multireporters, and
longitudinal data as compared to cross-sectional, retrospective, self-report data (Tashiro &
Frazier, 2003).
With few exceptions, research on qualities of emerging adults’ romantic relationships and in
particular the consequences of romantic dissolution has been based on small sample sizes,
and the current study is limited in this manner as well. We only included those adolescents
who reported a breakup within the past year, and we only included their current romantic
partner if they were willing to participate and were dating for more than 2 months. Because
our analyses utilized observational data for emerging adult couples as well as partner and
peer reports, we believe the rich data gathered at least partially offset the potential limits of
the sample size. Another limitation is risk of potential volunteer bias. A study on close
relationships may attract more females than males or may attract participants who have
fairly positive relationships overall (Demir, Haynes, Orthel-Clark, & Ozen, 2016).
Another limitation of romantic relationship literature is the quickly changing definitions of a
relationship and relationship status especially during this developmental stage. Furman and
Collins (2007) point out the difficulty in operationalizing a romantic relationship and
propose a 2- to 4-month duration criteria. Although we use the 2-month rule based on prior
similar research and attempts to ensure that this was a somewhat significant relationship, we
may not have accurately captured all definitions of romantic relationships. Because our
participants may define their relationship using different words than what we presented, it is
possible for multiple interpretations of our measures. Specifically, we asked participants to
what extent they felt they understood the reasons for their most recent breakup. Emerging
adults may endorse lack of confidence for many reasons: uncertainty why they left a partner,
Kansky and Allen Page 20
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
confusion over why a partner left them, inability to make sense of a dissolution, and so on.
Differences in understanding the question may impact responses, and future research may
ask more specific questions regarding the context for a breakup including reasons, motives,
and so on.
Finally, a methodological limitation exists for our relationship satisfaction measures. At
baseline, participants completed a measure focused on their specific current romantic
relationship. However, we are more interested in romantic life in general, as we recognize
that during emerging adulthood, one’s attitude about romantic life might be different than
that toward your specific partner. We recognize that our two measures of romantic
satisfaction are different, but we hope to capture a more global aspect of intimate satisfaction
in emerging adulthood, given the measures we have in our longitudinal study.
Despite these potential limitations, these findings highlight important associations between
perceived control and understanding of a romantic dissolution and later psychological and
romantic functioning. They add to a limited but growing body of literature indicating the
potential for positive growth following romantic dissolutions and, more importantly, suggest
the conditions under which such growth is most likely to occur. At a time when emerging
adults are increasingly devoting more time to exploring romantic interests prior to marriage
(Arnett, 2000) and an emphasis on developing intimate relationships takes hold (Cohen et
al., 2003; Shulman & Connolly, 2013), it is important to understand how certain aspects of
dissolution can lead to healthier adjustment and recovery from what is typically considered a
negative event. We suggest that there are certain characteristics of a breakup that can
contribute to improved mental health and relationship functioning in future relationships,
suggesting the normative developmental task of romantic exploration allows emerging adults
to ultimately meet the goal of a long-term committed relationship successfully.
Future research should explore the role of gaining closure in a romantic relationship for
future relationship functioning. Perhaps it is not only understanding the reasons for a
breakup but the actual nature of that understanding that makes a difference in how one
processes the dissolution. Especially, during emerging adulthood where the task of forming a
long-term intimate relationship becomes salient, a deeper understanding of how individuals
can grow from dissolutions may change our approach to empirical assessment of romantic
experiences. Although there is a wealth of research regarding marital status and divorce,
research on nonmarital relationships, especially the positives of dissolution, is relatively
scarce. Our findings point to several specific qualities of nonmarital dissolution that may
have beneficial outcomes on mental and interpersonal health.
Relatedly, there are few relationship education programs for nonmarital couples as compared
to marriage counseling. By understanding more specifically which romantic qualities within
emerging adulthood are important predictors of future relationship quality, we can begin to
inform relationship-focused interventions unique to this population. An emphasis on
dissolution, coping, and romantic exploration may be warranted within a program for
nonmarital relationships in a way that it is not for marital relationship interventions. Most
relationship education programs focus on improving likelihood of maintaining relationship
stability for married couples (i.e., Prevention and Relationship Education Programs;
Kansky and Allen Page 21
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2010; or Within Our Reach; Stanley et al., 2006) and
nonmarried couples (Davila et al., 2017). One exception is Relationship U, an adapted
version of Within Our Reach for college students, which is designed for all individuals
regardless of relationship status (Fincham, Stanley, & Rhoades, 2010). Yet, except for one
session on helping students “learn how to break up effectively,” this program neglects post-
dissolution adjustment or growth. Another exception is the Romantic Competence program,
which includes discussions of postdissolution emotion regulation and learning (Davila et al.,
2017). Given that romantic exploration is typical for emerging adults, relationship education
may benefit from including material that aids individuals in making sense of a breakup,
identifies the positives, and normalizes the process of dissolutions. By empowering
individuals in this way, they may be more likely to reap the benefits associated with
successfully navigating breakups (Weber, 1998). The focus of nonmarital relationship
education as compared to marital programs may shift from maintenance and growth with a
partner, to recovery and growth outside of a relationship.
It will be important to more closely identify the dynamic and individual processes occurring
during a breakup and its recovery that lead to different relationship and psychological
trajectories. Given growing evidence linking qualities of dissolutions to future relationships,
it is critical to consider the complete range of romantic experiences, including breakups, in
evaluating the long-term links of romantic relationship qualities and future interpersonal and
psychological functioning.
Acknowledgments
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: This manuscript is supported by the following grants: NIH/NICHD R01-HD058305 and NIH/NICHD
R01-MH58066.
References
Achenbach TM, , Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA adult forms & profiles Burlington: University
of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; 2003
Allen JP, , Hauser ST, , Bell KL, , McElhaney KB, , Tate DC, , Insabella GM, , Schlatter A. The
autonomy and relatedness coding system University of Virginia; Charlottesville, VA: 2000
Unpublished manuscript
Allen JP, Hauser ST, Bell KL, O’Connor TG. Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in
adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child
Development. 1994; 65:179–194. [PubMed: 8131646]
Arbuckle JL. Full information estimation in the presence of missing data. In: Marcoulides GA, ,
Schumaker RE, editorsAdvanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996 243277
Arnett JJ. Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and
historical context. Human Development. 1998; 41:295–315.
Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.
American Psychologist. 2000; 55:469–480. [PubMed: 10842426]
Barry CM, Madsen SD, Nelson LJ, Carroll JS, Badger S. Friendship and romantic relationship
qualities in emerging adulthood: Differential associations with identity development and achieved
adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult Development. 2009; 16:209–222.
Kansky and Allen Page 22
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Baxter LA. A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In:
Duck S, editorHandbook of personal relationships New York, NY: Wiley; 1988 257273
Belle D. Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In: Barnett RC, Beiner L, , Baruch GK,
editorsGender and stress New York, NY: Free Press; 1987 257277
Biesanz JC, Deeb-Sossa N, Papadakis AA, Bollen KA, Curran PJ. The role of coding time in
estimating and interpreting growth curve models. Psychological Methods. 2004; 9:30–52. DOI:
10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.30 [PubMed: 15053718]
Bloom BL, , White SW, , Asher SJ. Marital disruption as a stressful life event. In: Levinger G, , Moles
OC, editorsDivorce and separation New York, NY: Basic Books; 1979 184200
Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression Vol. 3. New York, NY: Basic Books;
1980
Carver K, , Joyner K, , Udry JR. National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In: Florsheim
P, editorAdolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical
implications New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2003 291329
Chung MC, Farmer S, Grant K, Newton R, Payne S, Perry M, … Stone N. Self-esteem, personality
and post traumatic stress symptoms following the dissolution of a dating relationship. Stress and
Health. 2002; 18:83–90.
Clark MS, , Beck LA. Initiating and evaluating close relationships: A task central to emerging adults.
In: Fincham FD, , Cui M, editorsRomantic relationships in emerging adulthood Florida:
Cambridge; 2010 190212
Cohen J, , Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1983
Cohen P, Kasen S, Chen H, Hartmark C, Gordon K. Variations in patterns of developmental transitions
in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental Psychology. 2003; 39:657–669. [PubMed:
12859120]
Colburn K, Lin PL, Moore MC. Gender and divorce experience. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage.
1992; 17:87–108.
Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology.
2009; 60:631–652.
Conger RD, Cui M, Bryant CM, Elder GH. Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A
developmental perspective on family influences. Prevention & Treatment. 2001; 4 Article ID 11a.
doi: 10.1037/1522-3736.4.1.411a
Connolly JA, Johnson AM. Adolescents’ romantic relationships and the structure and quality of their
close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships. 1996; 3:185–195.
Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin. 1997;
122:5–37. [PubMed: 9204777]
Cutrona CE, , Russell DW. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In: Jones
WH, , Perlman D, editorsAdvances in personal relationships Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press;
1987 3767
Davila J, Mattanaha J, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Feinstein BA, Eaton NR, … Zhou J. Romantic
competence, healthy relationship functioning, and well-being in emerging adults. Personal
Relationships. 2017; doi: 10.1111/pere.12175
Davis CG, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Larson J. Making sense of loss and benefiting from the experience:
Two construals of meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 75:561–574.
[PubMed: 9731325]
Davis D, Shaver PR, Vernon ML. Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The
role of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 2003; 29:871–884. [PubMed: 15018675]
Deci EL, LaGuardia JG, Moller AC, Scheiner MJ, Ryan RM. On the benefits of giving as well as
receiving support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
2006; 33:313–327.
Deci EL, Schwartz AJ, Sheinman L, Ryan RM. An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward
control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived
competence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1981; 73:642–650.
Kansky and Allen Page 23
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Demir M. Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as
predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2008; 9:257–277.
Demir M. Close relationships and happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies.
2010; 11:293–313.
Demir M, Haynes A, Orthel-Clark H, Ozen A. Volunteer bias in research on friendship among
emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood. 2016; 5:53–68.
Diener E, Seligman MEP. Very happy people. Psychological Science. 2002; 13:81–84. [PubMed:
11894851]
Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ. Attachment in fledgling relationships: An activating role for attachment
anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 95:628–647. [PubMed: 18729699]
Erikson EH. The life cycle completed: A review New York, NY: W. W. Norton; 1982
Field T, Diego M, Pelaez M, Deeds O, Delgado J. Breakup distress in university students.
Adolescence. 2009; 44:705–727. [PubMed: 20432597]
Fincham FD, , Stanley SM, , Rhoades GK. Relationship education in emerging adulthood: Problems
and prospects. In: Fincham FD, , Cui M, editorsRomantic relationships in emerging adulthood
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2010
Fine MA, , Harvey JH. Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis Group; 2006
Fleming CB, White HR, Oesterle A, Haggerty KP, Catalano RF. Romantic relationships status changes
and substance use among 18- to 20-year-olds. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010;
71:847–856. [PubMed: 20946741]
Folkman S, Moskowtiz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist. 2000;
55:647–654. [PubMed: 10892207]
Fraley RC, Davis KE. Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and
romantic relationships. Personal Relationships. 1997; 4:131–144.
Frazier PA, , Hurliman L. Unpublished manuscript University of Minnesota; Minneapolis, USA: 2001
Post-traumatic stress disorder following low and high magnitude events.
Frazier P, Kaler M. Assessing the validity of self-reported stress-related growth. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74:859–869. [PubMed: 17032090]
Furman W, , Collins WA. Adolescent romantic relationships and experiences. In: Rubin KH, Bukowski
W, , Laursen B, editorsPeer interactions, relationships, and groups New York: Guilford Press; 2007
Furman W, Shomaker L. Patterns of interaction in adolescent romantic relationships: Distinct features
and associations with other close relationships. Journal of Adolescence. 2008; 31:771–778.
[PubMed: 18093642]
Furman W, , Wehner EA. Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In:
Shulman S, , Collins WA, editorsNew directions for child development: No. 78. Romantic
relationships in adolescence: Developmental perspectives San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997
2136
Gove WR. Sex, marital status, and mortality. American Journal of Sociology. 1973; 79:45–67.
Giordano PC, , Manning WD, , Longmore MA, , Flanigan CM. Developmental shifts in the character
of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood 2009 (Working Paper
No. 09–10). Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-
sciences/NCFMR/documents/WP/WP-09-10.pdf
Hand LS, Furman W. Rewards and costs in adolescent other-sex friendships: Comparisons to same-sex
friendships and romantic relationships. Social Development. 2009; 18:270–287.
Hansen LB, Shireman JF. The process of emotional divorce: Examination of theory. Social Casework.
1986; 67:323–331.
Harter S. Unpublished manuscript University of Denver; Denver, CO: 1988 Manual for the self-
perception profile for adolescents.
Harter S. Unpublished manuscript University of Denver; Denver, CO: 1995 Manual for the self-
perception profile for adults.
Hazan C, Shaver P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1987; 52:511–524. [PubMed: 3572722]
Kansky and Allen Page 24
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Hazan C, Shaver PR. Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships.
Psychological Inquiry. 1994; 5:1–22.
Hazan C, , Zeifman D. Attachment processes in adulthood. In: Bartholomew K, , Perlman D,
editorsAdvances in personal relationships Vol. 5. London, England: Jessica Kingsley; 1994 151178
Hazan C, , Zeifman D. Pairbonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. In: Cassidy J, , Shaver PR,
editorsHandbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications New York, NY:
Guilford Press; 1999 336354
Hebert S, Popadiuk N. University students’ experiences of nonmarital breakups: A grounded theory.
Journal of College Student Development. 2008; 49:1–14.
Heffernan ME, Fraley C, Vicary AM, Brumbaugh CC. Attachment features and functions in adult
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2012; 29:671–693.
Helgeson VS. Long-distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjustment and breakup.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994; 20:254–265.
Helgeson VS, Reynolds KA, Tomich PL. A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74:797–816. [PubMed: 17032085]
Hendrick SS, Dicke A, Hendrick C. The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships. 1998; 15:137–142.
Hill CT, Rubin Z, Peplau LA. Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social
Issues. 1976; 32:147–168.
Johnson SM, Makinen JA, Millikin JW. Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective
on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2001; 27:145–155.
[PubMed: 11314548]
Johnson SM, Whiffen VE. Made to measure: Adapting emotionally focused couple therapy to
partners’ attachment styles. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 1999; 6:366–381.
Kamp Dush CM, Amato PR. Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2005; 5:607–627.
Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine. 2001; 78:458–467. [PubMed: 11564849]
Kelley HH, , Thibaut JW. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence New York, NY: Wiley;
1978
Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Newton TL. Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;
127:472–503. [PubMed: 11439708]
Kins E, Beyers W, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M. Patterns of home leaving and subjective well-being in
emerging adulthood: The role of motivational processes and parental autonomy support.
Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45:1416–1429. [PubMed: 19702402]
Kitson GC. Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown New York, NY: Guilford; 1992
Knee C, Lonsbary C, Canevello A, Patrick H. Self-determination and conflict in romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89:997–1009. [PubMed:
16393030]
Kobak R. The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships. In: Cassidy J, , Shaver
PR, editorsHandbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications New York, NY:
Guilford; 1999 2143
Koenig Kellas J, Manusov V. What’s in a story? The relationship between narrative completeness and
adjustment to relationship dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2003;
20:285–307.
La Guardia JG, Ryan RM, Couchman CE, Deci EL. Within-person variation in security of attachment:
A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79:367–384. [PubMed: 10981840]
Lewandowski G, Aron A, Bassis S, Kunak J. Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the
self-concept. Personal Relationships. 2006; 13:317–331.
Lewandowski G, Bizzoco N. Addition through subtraction: Growth following the dissolution of a low
quality relationship. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007; 2:40–54.
Kansky and Allen Page 25
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Locker L, McIntosh WD, Hackney AA, Wilson JH, Wiegand KE. The breakup of romantic
relationships: Situational predictors of perception of recovery. North American Journal of
Psychology. 2010; 23:565–578.
Madsen SD, Collins WA. The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for romantic relationship
qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2011; 21:789–801.
Markman HJ, , Stanley SM, , Blumberg SL. Fighting for your marriage San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass; 2010
Messer B, , Harter S. Unpublished manuscript Department of Psychology, University of Denver;
Denver, CO, USA: 1986 Manual for the adult self-perception profile.
Monroe S, Rohde P, Seeley J, Lewinsohn P. Life events and depression in adolescence: Relationship
loss as a prospective risk factor for first onset of major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 1999; 108:606–614. [PubMed: 10609425]
Muthén BO, , Muthén LK. Mplus (Version 6.00) [Computer Software] Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén; 2010
O’Connor TG, Allen JP, Bell KL, Hauser ST. Adolescent-parent relationships and leaving home in
young adulthood. New Directions in Child Development. 1996; 71:39–52.
Park CL. Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its
effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin. 2010; 136:257–301.
[PubMed: 20192563]
Perilloux C, Buss DM. Breaking up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and coping strategies
deployed. Evolutionary Psychology. 2008; 6:164–181.
Reis HT, Lin Y, Bennett ME, Nezlek JB. Change and consistency in social participation during early
adulthood. Developmental Psychology. 1993; 29:633–645.
Rhoades GK, Kamp Dush CM, Atkins DC, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Breaking up is hard to do: The
impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of
Family Psychology. 2011; 25:366–374. [PubMed: 21517174]
Ryan RM, Connell JP. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting
in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989; 57:749–761. [PubMed:
2810024]
Saffrey C, Ehrenberg M. When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and postrelationship
adjustment. Personal Relationships. 2007; 14:351–368.
Sahlstein E, Dun T. “I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time”: Constructing
breakups as managing autonomy-connection. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication.
2008; 9:37–45.
Samios C, Henson DF, Simpson HJ. Benefit finding and psychological adjustment following a non-
marital relationship breakup. Journal of Relationships Research. 2014; 5:1–8.
Saphire-Bernstein S, , Taylor SE. Close relationships and happiness. In: Boniwell I, David SA, ,
Conley Ayers A, editorsOxford handbook of happiness 2013 Online publication
Sbarra DA, Emery RE. The emotional sequelae of non-marital relationship dissolution: Analysis of
change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships. 2005; 12:213–232.
Schulenberg JE, Bryant AL, O’Malley PM. Taking hold of some kind of life: How developmental tasks
relate to trajectories of well-being during the transition to adulthood. Developmental
Psychopathology. 2004; 16:1119–1140.
Segrin C, Powell HL, Givertz M, Brackin A. Symptoms of depression, relational quality, and
loneliness in dating relationships. Personal Relationships. 2003; 10:25–36.
Seiffge-Krenke I. Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood:
Evidence of a developmental sequence. Internal Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003;
27:519–531.
Shulman S, Connolly J. The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood:
Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood. 2013; 1:27–39.
Simon RW. Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. American
Journal of Sociology. 2002; 107:1065–1096.
Kansky and Allen Page 26
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Simon RW, Barrett AE. Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in early adulthood: Does
the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51:168–
182. [PubMed: 20617757]
Speilberger CD, , Gorsuch RL, , Lushene RE. STAI Manual for the STATE-TRAIT anxiety inventory
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970
Sprecher S. Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships. Personal Relationships. 1994; 1:199–222.
Sprecher S, Felmlee D, Metts S, Fehr B, Vanni D. Factors associated with distress following the
breakup of a close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998; 15:791–809.
Stanley SM, , Markman HJ, , Jenkins N, , Rhoades GK, , Noll L, , Ramos L. Within our reach leader
manual Denver, CO: PREP Inc; 2006
Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 1979; 41:75–85.
Strohschein L, McDonough P, Monette G, Shao Q. Marital transitions and mental health: Are there
gender differences in the short-term effects of marital status change? Social Science and
Medicine. 2005; 61:2293–2303. [PubMed: 16099576]
Sweeney MM. Remarriage and the nature of divorce: Does it matter which spouse chose to leave?
Journal of Family Issues. 2002; 23:410–440.
Tashiro T, Frazier P. “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following
romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships. 2003; 10:113–128.
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical
Education. 2011; 2:53–55. [PubMed: 28029643]
Taylor ZE, Doane LD, Eisenberg N. Transitioning from high school to college: Relations of social
support, ego-resiliency, and maladjustment during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood.
2013; 2:105–115.
Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RAR, Updegraff JA. Biobehavioral
responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review.
2000; 107:411–429. [PubMed: 10941275]
Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1996; 9:455–471. [PubMed: 8827649]
Trinke SJ, Bartholomew K. Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships. 1997; 14:603–625.
Thompson CA, Prottas DJ. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy,
perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006;
11:100–118. [PubMed: 16551178]
Weber AL. Losing, leaving and letting go: Coping with non-marital breakups. In: Spitzberg BH,
editorThe dark side of relationships Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998 267306
Williams K. Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and
psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2003; 44:470–487. [PubMed:
15038144]
Yildirim FB, Demir A. Breakup adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Counseling and
Development. 2015; 93:38–44.
Biographies
Jessica Kansky is a third-year doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of
Virginia and received her bachelor of arts from the University of Pennsylvania. Her research
focuses on predictors and outcomes of romantic experiences from adolescence into
adulthood. Specifically, she is interested in the role of romantic relationships in optimal
interpersonal and individual development and overall well-being.
Joseph P. Allen is the Hugh P. Kelley professor of psychology and education at the
University of Virginia. His research focuses on the predictors and long-term outcomes of
Kansky and Allen Page 27
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
social development processes from adolescence into adulthood. He also develops and
examines socially focused interventions for adolescents designed to improve long-term
academic and mental health outcomes.
Kansky and Allen Page 28
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 29
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Participation Rates for All Variables of Interest.
Wave 1 (Age 22) Wave 2 (Age 23–25)
Measure Type Measure NMean SD Measure NMean SD
Predictor measures Initiator status 147 2.17 0.80
36 (24%) “My partner”
50 (34%) “Both of us”
61 (42%) “I did”
Understanding a breakup 145 3.28 0.93
9 (6%) Don’t know
20 (14%) Little bit
37 (26%) Quite a lot
79 (54%) Exactly
Outcome measures (self-report) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 158 36.45 9.45 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
a
157 36.95 9.56
158 36.62 10.11
158 35.81 9.89
Romantic satisfaction 128 29.98 4.22 Romantic satisfaction 173 15.06 3.05
Outcome measures (peer report) Adult Behavior Checklist 147 5.19 5.60 Adult Behavior Checklist
a
135 5.79 6.31
146 6.03 6.92
128 5.99 6.36
Close friendship competence 137 12.03 2.64 Intimate relationship competence
a
125 12.93 2.68
138 12.53 2.58
124 12.57 2.74
Outcome measures (romantic partner report) Conflict Tactics Scale 118 6.13 6.81 Conflict Tactics Scale Autonomy 101 6.44 7.36
87 0.60 0.51
Note. SD
= standard deviation.
a
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Adult Behavior Checklist, and intimate relationship competence measures were assessed annually at ages 23, 24, and 25. Therefore, we provided the descriptive statistics
for each time point for these measures.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 30
Table 2
Univariate Statistics and Intercorrelations Among All Variables.
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Initiate breakup
(age 22) .12 −.05 −.03 .01 −.17 −.04 .03 −.07 .08 .11 .10 .22
*
.14 −.09 −.01 .05 −.05 .31
**
2. Understand
reasons of breakup
(age 22)
—.23
**
.04 .04 .17 .08 −.23
**
−.31
***
−.19
*
.12 .04 −.25
**
−.25
*
.29
***
.21
*
.12 .25
**
.03
3. Internalizing (self-
report; age 22) .16 −.07 .04 −.17 .69
***
.67
***
.60
***
.20
*
.17
*
.26
**
.10 −.26
**
−.09 −.17
*
−.28
**
−.03
4. Internalizing (peer
report; age 22) .14 .16 −.38
***
.00 −.02 −.04 .41
***
.34
***
.09 −.09 .06 −.16 −.11 −.03 −.02
5. Conflict (partner
report; age 20–22) .13 .06 −.09 −.10 −.03 .37
***
.16 .00 .27
*
.14 −.19 .01 .11 .26
*
6. Satisfaction (self-
report; age 20–22) .13 −.04 .05 .01 .06 −.06 −.01 −.03 .17 .07 .00 .20 −.03
7. Social competence
(peer report; age 22) −.08 −.09 .00 −.25
*
−.12 −.05 −.12 .18
*
.40
***
.25
**
.30
**
.01
8. Internalizing (self-
report; age 23) .79
***
.65
***
.05 .13 .21
*
.23
*
−.50
***
.00 −.15 −.19
*
.00
9. Internalizing (self-
report; age 24) .74
***
.01 .17
*
.27
**
.24
*
−.52
***
−.03 −.18
*
−.21
*
.02
10. Internalizing
(self-report; age 25) .00 .18
*
.24
**
.20 −.41
***
.06 −.10 −.13 .09
11. Internalizing
(peer report; age 23) .35
***
.17 .13 −.04 −.33
***
−.14 −.06 .23
12. Internalizing
(peer report; age 24) .42
***
.18 −.14 −.17 −.37
***
−.26
**
.10
13. Internalizing
(peer report; age 25) .12 −.25
**
−.25
*
−.37
***
−.39
***
−.01
14. Conflict (partner
report; age 23–25) −.29
**
.00 −.17 −.14 .33
**
15. Satisfaction (self-
report; age 23–25) .20
*
.15 .25
**
−.08
16. Intimate
competence (peer
report; age 23)
.31
**
.53
***
−.04
17. Intimate
competence (peer
report; age 24)
.62
***
−.14
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 31
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18. Intimate
competence (peer
report; age 25)
−.05
19. Negative
autonomy (age 23–
25)
*p
≤ .05.
** p
< .01.
*** p
< .001.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 32
Table 3
Initiator Status of a Breakup Predicting Intercept and Linear Growth in Internalizing Symptoms and Intimate Competence.
Internalizing Symptoms (Self-Report) Internalizing Symptoms (Peer Report) Intimate Competence (Peer Report)
Level of Model Coefficient SE T Coefficient SE T Coefficient SE T
Intercept 36.64
***
4.25 8.62
***
1.75 2.58 .68 13.11
***
1.26 10.38
***
Linear growth rate −0.85 1.36 −0.62 −0.84 1.20 −0.70 −0.42 0.61 −0.69
Internalizing symptoms (self-report) Intimate competence (peer report) Intimate competence (peer report)
Intercept
Family income 0.14 0.41 0.34 0.01 0.25 0.03 0.20 0.13 1.61
Gender 0.47 1.55 0.31 2.43
*
0.95 2.56
*
0.34 0.46 0.75
Initiator status −0.46 0.96 −0.48 −0.16 0.59 0.79 0.12 0.28 0.42
Linear change
Family income −0.13 0.13 −1.01 0.07 0.12 0.64 −0.07 0.06 −1.16
Gender 0.40 0.50 0.80 −0.40 0.45 −0.90 0.03 0.22 0.12
Initiator status 0.37 0.31 1.18 0.61
*
0.28 2.21
*
−0.09 0.14 −0.62
*p
< .05.
*** p
< .001.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 33
Table 4
Regression Analysis Predicting Adult Romantic Conflict, Negative Autonomy, and Relationship Satisfaction From Emerging Adult Initiator Status.
Conflict (Partner; Age 23–25) Undermining Autonomy (Observed; Age 23–25) Relationship Satisfaction (Self; Age 23–25)
Outcome βΔR2Total R2βΔR2Total R2βΔR2Total R2
Step 1
Gender .02 .01 .09 .01 −.01 .01
Step 2
Baseline functioning (age 22) .28
**
.07
**
.08
*
.17
*
.02
*
.03
*
Step 3
Initiator status (age 22) .12 .00 .08 .29
**
.08
**
.09
*
−.07 .07 .03
Note.
All βs reported are the final β’s for the analysis.
*p
≤ .05.
** p
< .01.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 34
Table 5
Understanding Reasons for a Breakup Predicting Intercept and Linear Growth in Internalizing Symptoms and Intimate Competence.
Internalizing Symptoms (Self-Report) Internalizing Symptoms (Peer Report) Intimate Competence (Peer Report)
Level of Model Coefficient SE T Coefficient SE T Coefficient SE T
Intercept 41.97
***
4.47 9.38
***
0.06 2.74 0.02 13.02
***
1.34 9.69
***
Linear growth rate 0.38 1.51 0.25 1.34 1.40 0.96 −0.99 0.63 −1.56
Internalizing symptoms (self-report) Intimate competence (peer report) Intimate competence (peer report)
Intercept
Family income 0.36 0.41 0.90 0.03 0.25 0.11 0.26
*
0.13 2.07
*
Gender 1.03 1.54 0.67 2.39
*
0.96 2.51
*
0.33 0.46 0.71
Understanding reasons −2.60
***
0.81 −3.20
***
0.34 0.50 0.68 0.01 0.24 0.01
Linear change
Family income −0.12 0.13 −0.88 0.07 0.13 0.56 −0.12
*
0.06 −2.05
*
Gender 0.31 0.51 0.61 0.03 0.50 0.07 −0.03 0.23 −0.15
Understanding reasons −0.11 0.27 −0.40 −0.44 0.26 −1.73 0.24
*
0.11 2.10
*
*p
< .05.
*** p
< .001.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Kansky and Allen Page 35
Table 6
Regression Analysis Predicting Adult Romantic Conflict, Negative Autonomy, and Relationship Satisfaction from Emerging Adult Understanding
Reasons for a Breakup.
Outcome
Conflict (Partner; Age 23–25) Undermining Autonomy (Observed; Age 23–25) Relationship Satisfaction (Self; Age 23–25)
βΔR2Total R2βΔR2Total R2βΔR2Total R2
Step 1
Gender .02 .01 .09 .01 −.01 .01
Step 2
Baseline functioning (Age 22) .28
**
.07
**
.08
*
.17
*
.02
*
.03
Step 3
Understand reasons for breakup (Age 22) −.30
**
.11
**
.19
**
.03 .00 .01 .28
***
.07
*
.10
**
Note.
All βs reported are the final βs for the analysis.
*p
≤ .05.
** p
< .01.
*** p
< .001.
Emerg Adulthood
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 18.
... Cutting ties with a romantic figure might lead not only to an increase in distress, but might also hamper the capacity to trust romantic figures. This can explain individuals' difficulties in forming and trusting new relationships following a breakup, and these difficulties might be carried forward into the future (Kansky & Allen, 2018). In sum, experiencing a breakup might affect a person in two ways. ...
... The present study An extensive body of research has documented distress reactions following a romantic breakup. However, earlier research explored the impact of a romantic breakup on subsequent relationships (Kansky & Allen, 2018) less. It is particularly important to understand how earlier romantic experiences (such as a romantic breakup) are associated with future romantic competence among emerging adults, because their earlier romantic experiences might be carried forward into future relationships (Furman & Collibee, 2014). ...
... The decrease in negative feelings can facilitate a less biased examination of an earlier dissolved relationship. An individual might be able to better understand what happened in the relationship, and draw lessons for the future (Kansky & Allen, 2018). Furthermore, Furman et al. (2019) suggest that with age there are significant changes in which romantic relationships are understood. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Existing research on romantic breakups focused on the predictors of breakup, or on its emotional and behavioral sequelae. The current study examines the longitudinal correlates of a breakup experience over a period of eight years, and questions whether breakup experiences may also have negative and positive outcomes. Methods: Data were collected from 124 Israeli emerging adults (mean age 20.22 years; 79 females). Participants were approached again at ages 23, 25, and 28. Breakup distress was assessed at each wave. At age 28, participants’ well-being, as well as their romantic capacities, were evaluated. Results: The intensity of breakup distress at age 20 was not found to be associated with future well-being. However, increased accumulating distress explained a greater number of depressive and anxiety symptoms, and reports of feeling insecure about a partner’s availability and responsiveness, at age 28. In-depth interviews with participants about their romantic relationships at age 28 showed that breakup distress at age 20 was associated with greater romantic competence at age 28, explaining better capacity to learn from past romantic experiences and draw lessons for future behavior. In addition, earlier breakup distress was associated with more coherent accounts of romantic relationships at age 28. Conclusions: Findings suggest that young adults are likely to experience a number of breakup events during their twenties, and the accumulating breakup experiences can affect future well-being. The experience of a breakup might not necessarily associate with negative future outcomes, while an earlier breakup experience could also serve as a positive learning arena for future relationships. Social policy: Perception of romantic dissolution in a comprehensive manner could be helpful for understanding that breakups are probably part of the normative development of romantic relationships among young adults, and should not be perceived only from a deficit perspective.
... A lack of knowledge about coping mechanisms and grief can prevent people from enjoying life (Gongora & Vásquez-Velázquez, 2018). Due to the limited research on the effects of breakups on growth (Kansky & Allen, 2018), the main purpose of this study was to accumulate testimony while identifying the types of effective coping methods that contribute to experiencing post-traumatic growth. ...
... Emerging adults who effectively navigate breakups may experience posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This positive change encompasses a renewed appreciation for life and reevaluation of priorities, deeper connections with others, increased selfefficacy and resilience, exploration of existential questions and spirituality, and pursuit of new interests and life paths, fostering a renewed sense of purpose (Crowder et al., 2022;Kansky & Allen, 2018;Tiron & Ursu, 2023). According to Ramos and Leal (2013), first, the appreciation of life and altered sense of priorities stem from a newfound acceptance of uncontrollable and unpredictable life events. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper explains the breakup experiences of romantic relationships, coping strategies, and post-traumatic growth (PTG) among vicenarian adults. It employed a qualitative-based research design using a phenomenological method. Snowball and purposive sampling methods were used to select seven participants with a background of romantic relationship breakup experience within two years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect participant data, and data were analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure. This study found that romantic relationships included understanding of love, utmost happiness in love, and need in love. In contrast, breakups indicated decision-making, emotional impact, and self-blame. Besides, the result also reported that the coping methods involved emotional engagement and acceptance state (duration taken to overcome the emotions). After a romantic relationship breakup, self-growth was found more in personal strength, close relationships, new possibilities, spiritual development, and greater appreciation of life as PTG implications. The findings concluded that breakup-experienced participants coped through the grief process and enhanced their self-growth. This study helped to create awareness among society to view their grief as a growth-oriented process.
... Importantly, there is a surge in its occurrence during and post-COVID (Bishop, 2022) with a 34% increase just in the United States (Ellyatt, 2022). Despite the recent outpour of these experiences and their unique implications on an individual's cognition and perceptual understandings (Bishop, 2022;Kansky & Allen, 2018), it is surprising to see that positive outcomes and growth after the dissolution of a romantic relationship are rarely assessed (Kansky & Allen, 2018). Romantic breakups based on their severity uniquely affect more than just one's emotions (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007;Tran et al., 2023). ...
... Importantly, there is a surge in its occurrence during and post-COVID (Bishop, 2022) with a 34% increase just in the United States (Ellyatt, 2022). Despite the recent outpour of these experiences and their unique implications on an individual's cognition and perceptual understandings (Bishop, 2022;Kansky & Allen, 2018), it is surprising to see that positive outcomes and growth after the dissolution of a romantic relationship are rarely assessed (Kansky & Allen, 2018). Romantic breakups based on their severity uniquely affect more than just one's emotions (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007;Tran et al., 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
When do consumers indulge in self‐gifting? While extant research predominantly explores self‐gifting as a coping mechanism in postchallenging phases, this research suggests an additional dimension: self‐gifting as a form of self‐reward. Drawing from the idea of stress‐related growth, this paper focuses on consumer behavior following a romantic breakup, investigating self‐gifting as a reward mechanism. Results from five studies consistently demonstrate that the severity of a breakup significant influences consumers' self‐gifting propensity in both intrinsic‐ and extrinsic‐rewarding consumption, driven by their heightened perceived deservingness. These effects are attenuated when individuals engage in ruminative thoughts about their tumultuous (vs. harmonious) breakups. These findings explain the nuances of self‐gifting behavior following a romantic breakup by establishing a theoretical link between personal failures (e.g., romantic breakups) and a sense of deservingness, which influences consumer's self‐gifting propensity as a self‐reward.
... Emerging Transitions to a Child with Multiple ACE. As individuals transition into late puberty and adulthood, managing close relationships becomes crucial due to evolving needs and goals (Kansky & Allen, 2017). Finally, the review highlights the impact of ACEs on children's behavior and life, with high levels of ACE resulting in increased pressure, more complicated memories of adulthood, and increased risks of injuries like sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and chronic diseases (Thomas, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
The study aims to challenge stigmas surrounding the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) on marital relationship satisfaction. It recognizes the significant influence of upbringing on individuals' capacity for healthy relationships, especially in Filipino culture, where parental involvement in romantic relationships is common. The stigma suggests individuals with ACEs lack the ability to heal and engage in nurturing relationships. Thus, the study evaluates the correlation between ACEs and marital satisfaction to address this perception. The researchers collected 194 responses from Metro Manila using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire and the Relationship Assessment Questionnaire to understand the relationship between ACEs and marital satisfaction. The coefficient of determination of 0.0217 of ACE accounts for 2.17% of the variability in Relationship Satisfaction scores and the p-value of 0.041 presented significance at p<0.05. Although the study revealed a significant relationship between ACEs and marital satisfaction, the explained variance was relatively low. This suggests that other factors beyond ACEs may contribute to relationship outcomes. Future research could explore these aspects to develop more comprehensive interventions for individuals with ACEs. Additionally, qualitative studies could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between ACEs and marital satisfaction, aiding in the development of targeted interventions and stigma reduction efforts.
... THE SOULMATE TRAP One recent study found that young adults who can make sense of and understand a breakup experience less distress and were able to move on in helpful ways. 27 The researchers highlighted that their findings shed light on the potential for breakups to prompt personal growth and improved relationship skills, if young adults can make sense of and come to terms with their breakups. Their findings highlight the importance of creating a coherent narrative following a romantic breakup and that the ability to make sense of a difficult situation can increase single adults' potential to learn and grow from the experience. ...
... In stressful events, meaning-making means answering this question: Why did this happen to me? Making sense of a stressful event through narrative meaning-making is associated with better mental health. For example, people (e.g., after losing a meaningful romantic relationship) show lower internalized symptoms in the long term (Kansky & Allen, 2017), and narrative meaning-making is associated with sudden gains in psychotherapy, emotional maturity and even wisdom (Webster et al., 2018). When people are unable to integrate stressful events into the self-story through meaning-making, they live a corrupted self-story in which the stressful event represents a negative turning point that is difficult to narrate (Llewellyn-Beardsley et al., 2019), likely leading to splitting the life story into before and after the SLE (Palgi et al., 2018) and low life satisfaction, in the long term (Alvarez-Calle & Chaves, 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present paper aims to introduce a constructivist narrative intervention for Narrative Identity Reconstruction (NIR) in working with clients with a history of stressful life events (SLE). This intervention is based on a proposed conceptual framework explaining how SLE affects narrative identity. First, we provide a conceptual model to show the theoretical links between SLE and narrative identity through the three functions of making meaning, unity, and purpose. The present conceptualization proposes that concepts of meaning-making, self-concept clarity, and agency should improve for narrative identity reconstruction. For designing therapy steps, we were inspired by the procedure of the Life Design process for reconstructing narrative identity. We defined the following steps: (a) construct self-story through small stories, (b) deconstruct these stories, (c) reconstruct them into an identity narrative or life portrait, and (d) co-construct intentions that lead to the next action episode in the real world. We hope NIR can help clients construct a robust self-narrative in which the SLE is not a confusing and distressing experience leading to a broken narrative; instead, it can make sense and integrate into the bigger picture of self-narrative. It is suggested that future research empirically examine the NIR to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention in mental health settings.
... Another important variable that has an influence on personal growth and wellbeing following a breakup is knowing the reasons that leaded to the break-up. For example, when people are aware of the reasons responsible for the break-up they report lower levels of self-reported internalizing symptoms (Kansky & Allen, 2018). Additionally they can learn from the mistakes that they have made and got them to the break-up. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the present study is twofold: (a) to assess the links between personal growth, psychological wellbeing and social support reported following a romantic relationship break-up among emerging adults; and (b) to investigate whether there are differences related to the level of personal growth and psychological wellbeing depending on personal variables such as status, reasons of the break-up, level of social support and prospect of a new romantic partner. Ninety-eight emerging adults (M = 25.4; SD = 3.57) filled out online the scales. The results showed negative significant correlations between depression, anxiety and personal growth reported following a romantic break-up. Additionally, the results also showed positive significant correlation between social support and personal growth following a romantic break-up. Related to differences, the results showed differences in terms of stress between the participants who did not know the reasons of their break-up and the ones who did know the reasons of break-up and between the participants who reported having a possible partner and the participants who reported having no prospective partner. Furthermore, we found significant differences in terms of depression, anxiety, stress and personal growth based on participants' status related to the ending of the relationship.
... Beyond merely predicting PDD, this model could also be used to assess how PDD affects other outcomes such as well-being or growth after dissolution (Kansky & Allen, 2018), how it affects or co-varies with the pursuing reconciliation or the development of post-dissolution relationships (Griffith et al., 2017;Mogilski & Welling, 2017), and how it affects the initiation and stability of future romantic relationships (Shulman et al., 2017). For example, Millings et al. (2020) modeled how emotional adaptation to dissolution was related to co-parenting support and conflict. ...
Article
Full-text available
Building on the extant research, the current work outlines a comprehensive model of post-dissolution distress (CMPDD). The model integrates the previous research and includes both distal (static; e.g., controllability of breakup, relational anxiety) and proximal (dynamic; e.g., desiring reconciliation, coping, quality of alternatives) factors in predicting both initial distress and change in distress over time. Potential mediating mechanisms are also proposed. We conclude with a discussion of several ways the model could be potentially refined with empirical research to generate a more specific and parsimonious theory of PDD. Ultimately, testing and refining the model will provide insights on identifying those who will be more distressed following a breakup and highlight the factors that could be altered (e.g., contact with the partners, coping strategies) to best alleviate distress.
Article
Full-text available
Cuando una relación termina, es fundamental identificar estrategias que ayuden a las personas a afrontar la ruptura, ya que eso condicionará su bienestar futuro. El objetivo de este trabajo fue explorar la relación entre el duelo por ruptura amorosa y el florecimiento, contemplando la autocompasión como variable mediadora. Participaron 506 estudiantes de diferentes niveles educativos (secundario y superior) y edades (15 a más de 23 años), a los que se administró un cuestionario para obtener información sobre las variables de estudio. Se realizaron análisis correlacionales e inferenciales. Los resultados indicaron que la pérdida de intimidad fue el motivo principal de ruptura. Además, existieron diferencias significativas en el duelo según la duración de la relación rota, el estatus de iniciador de la ruptura y de relación actual. Finalmente, se encontró un efecto indirecto significativo del duelo sobre el florecimiento a través de la autocompasión.
Article
Full-text available
Although stressful life events have consistently been linked to the onset of major depressive disorder (MDD), most research has not distinguished 1st episodes from recurrences. In a large epidemiologic sample of older adolescents (N = 1,470) assessed at 2 time points, the risk conferred by a recent romantic break-up was examined as a predictor of 1st onset versus recurrence of MDD. Results indicated a heightened likelihood of 1st onset of MDD during adolescence if a recent break-up had been reported; in contrast, a recent break-up did not predict recurrence of depression. These results held for both genders and remained significant after controlling for gender. Additional analyses to determine the discriminant validity and specificity of these findings strongly supported the recent break-up as a significant risk factor for a 1st episode of MDD during adolescence. Implications of these findings and subsequent research directions are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The authors first describe individual differences in the structure of the self. In the independent self-construal, representations of others are separate from the self. In the interdependent self-construal, others are considered part of the self (H. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991). In general, men in the United States are thought to construct and maintain an independent self-construal, whereas women are thought to construct and maintain an interdependent self-construal. The authors review the psychological literature to demonstrate that many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion, and social behavior may be explained in terms of men’s and women’s different self-construals. Recognition of the interdependent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the self may stimulate new investigations into the ways the self influences a person’s thinking, feeling, and behaving.
Article
Full-text available
A skills-based model of healthy relationship functioning—romantic competence (RC)—is described. Its association with relationship and individual well-being was examined in three studies of emerging adults using the Romantic Competence Interview for Emerging Adults (RCI–EA), which measures competence as the interplay of three skill domains. Across studies (women [n = 102], women and men [n = 187], romantic couples [n = 89]), RC was associated with greater security, healthier decision making, greater satisfaction, and fewer internalizing symptoms. The RCI–EA skill domains formed a latent factor and were associated with self-reports reflective of RC, supporting the construct's validity. The RC construct may thus provide a theory-driven, overarching way to characterize healthy romantic functioning that can reduce negative outcomes.