ArticlePDF Available

Wanting to Stay and Wanting to Go: Unpacking the Content and Structure of Relationship Stay/Leave Decision Processes

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The present research examined the subjective experience of deciding whether or not to end a romantic relationship. In Study 1, open-ended reasons for wanting to stay in a relationship versus leave were provided by three samples and categorized by trained coders, resulting in 27 distinct reasons for wanting to stay (e.g., emotional intimacy, investment) and 23 reasons for wanting to leave (e.g., conflict, breach of trust). In Study 2, we examined endorsement of specific stay/leave reasons among participants currently contemplating either a breakup or a divorce. Most stay and leave reasons mapped onto global ratings of satisfaction and commitment. Attachment anxiety was associated with stronger endorsement of many reasons for wanting to both stay and leave. Further, many participants were simultaneously motivated to both stay in their relationships and leave, suggesting that ambivalence is a common experience for those who are thinking about ending their relationships.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Wanting to Stay and Wanting to Go:
Unpacking the Content and Structure of
Relationship Stay/Leave Decision Processes
Samantha Joel
1
, Geoff MacDonald
2
, and Elizabeth Page-Gould
2
Abstract
The present research examined the subjective experience of deciding whether or not to end a romantic relationship. In Study 1,
open-ended reasons for wanting to stay in a relationship versus leave were provided by three samples and categorized by trained
coders, resulting in 27 distinct reasons for wanting to stay (e.g., emotional intimacy, investment) and 23 reasons for wanting to
leave (e.g., conflict, breach of trust). In Study 2, we examined endorsement of specific stay/leave reasons among participants
currently contemplating either a breakup or a divorce. Most stay and leave reasons mapped onto global ratings of satisfaction and
commitment. Attachment anxiety was associated with stronger endorsement of many reasons for wanting to both stay and leave.
Further, many participants were simultaneously motivated to both stay in their relationships and leave, suggesting that ambiva-
lence is a common experience for those who are thinking about ending their relationships.
Keywords
romantic relationships, judgment and decision-making, motivation/goals, breakups, divorce
Deciding whether to end a relationship can be an agonizing
experience. On the one hand, people have a strong drive to
maintain attachments to romantic partners (Fraley, Brumbaugh,
& Marks, 2005). People may wish to maintain their relationship
due to approach-based reasons such as feelings of love and clo-
seness with their partner (e.g., Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992;
Simpson, 1987), or due to avoidance-based reasons such as
lacking alternatives to their current partner (Rusbult, 1980,
1983). On the other hand, many couples face serious relation-
ship problems that can make even longstanding relationships
feel unsalvageable. Relationships often dissolve due to impor-
tant issues such as infidelity (e.g., Hall & Fincham, 2006),
alcohol abuse (e.g., Collins, Ellickson, & Klein, 2007), low
sexual satisfaction (e.g., Sprecher, 2002), and unmet emotional
needs (e.g., Connolly & McIsaac, 2009).
These specific considerations regarding maintaining or
ending a relationship have the potential to operate simultane-
ously within a relationship and may thus exert conflicting
pressures on relationship satisfaction, commitment, and
stay/leave decisions. For example, a relationship may involve
both a high degree of closeness and the occurrence of infide-
lity; high investment and low sexual satisfaction; or low qual-
ity of alternatives and the presence of alcohol abuse. Over and
above whether a person ultimately chooses to stay or leave,
the degree of ambivalence experienced regarding the choice
may have important psychological implications for the
decision-maker. Research from the fields of both judgment
and decision-making (JDM; e.g., van Harreveld, Rutjens,
Rotteveel, Nordgren, & van der Pligt, 2009) and close rela-
tionships (e.g., Uchino et al., 2012) shows that ambivalence
is a deeply unpleasant experience with negative consequences
for health and well-being. Conflicting feelings about relation-
ships are difficult to capture with global constructs (e.g., Joel,
MacDonald, & Shimotomai, 2011); however, examining the
concrete factors that play into people’s thought processes may
reveal the specific sources of decision conflict that can make
stay/leave decisions so challenging.
Specific Reasons for Wanting to Stay and Wanting
to Leave
People put considerable conscious thought into romantic rela-
tionship stay/leave decisions. Dissolution consideration—
active thinking about ending the relationship—is a crucial
mediating step between low commitment and breakups
(VanderDrift, Agnew, & Wilson, 2009). But what, exactly, are
people deliberating about? Some studies have explored peo-
ple’s specific reasons for ending their relationships; that is, the
1
Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Samantha Joel, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530
East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Email: samantha.joel@psych.utah.edu
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
1-14
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550617722834
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp
causes of the breakup (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009; Sprecher,
1994) or the divorce from the participant’s perspective (Cohen
& Finzi-Dottan, 2012; Hopper, 1993). However, these studies
rely on retrospective reports, meaning that the reasons provided
are likely to have been reconstructed post-hoc (Amato &
Previti, 2003; Hopper, 1993). Examining how people find
meaning in the wake of relationship dissolution is valuable in
its own right (e.g., Park, 2010); however, these narratives do
not necessarily reflect the deliberative processes that preceded
the breakup. The first goal of the present article was thus
descriptive: What is the content of people’s stay/leave decision
processes? In three of five samples, we addressed the limita-
tions of retrospective accounts by recruiting potential breakup
initiators prospectively—when they were still deciding
whether to stay or leave—and examined their specific reasons
both for wanting to stay and wanting to leave.
A second goal of the present research was to examine how
specific stay/leave reasons would map onto global, theoretically
driven representations of relationship quality. Work on stay/
leave decisions has been powerfully informed by the investment
model (Rusbult, 1983), which posits that people are dependent
on and thus committed to the relationship to the extent that rela-
tionship satisfaction is high, the quality of relationship alterna-
tives is low, and important relationship investments have been
made that would be lost if the relationship ended. The predictive
power of the investment model has been replicated extensively:
Commitment is one of the best psychological predictors of
whether a relationship remains intact long-term (Le & Agnew,
2003; Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). However,
beyond its predictive validity, the investment model offers intri-
guing insights about the stay/leave decision process, as people
are proposed to make careful trade-offs between rewards and
costs to arrive at overall evaluations of relationship quality. This
relative weighting of different features of the relationship sug-
gests a potential for decision conflict that is not necessarily cap-
tured by the global investment model constructs.
Stay/Leave Decision Conflict
Taking a fine-grained approach to stay/leave decisions allows
for an examination of decision conflict, experienced subjec-
tively as feelings of ambivalence about whether to stay or
leave. Ambivalence in the context of close relationships is
linked to a range of negative health outcomes (Holt-Lunstad,
Uchino, Smith, & Hicks, 2007; Uchino et al., 2012). For exam-
ple, one study showed that simultaneous feelings of positivity
and negativity toward a spouse are associated with higher risk
of coronary artery disease (Uchino, Smith, & Berg, 2014). In
the context of JDM research, ambivalence predicts physiologi-
cal arousal and negative emotions (van Harreveld et al., 2009),
more thorough, careful processing of information (Maio, Bell,
& Esses, 1996; Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt,
2006), and greater susceptibility to persuasion (Armitage &
Conner, 2000). Together, these literatures suggest that ambiva-
lence over stay/leave decisions is likely to be unpleasant, diffi-
cult, and detrimental to the self.
Anxiously attached individuals—those who are chronically
concerned about the availability of close others (Hazan & Sha-
ver, 1987)—may be particularly prone to ambivalence over
whether to remain with their romantic partners. Anxiously
attached individuals tend to hold conflicting attitudes toward
partners (MacDonald, Locke, Spielmann, & Joel, 2013;
Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010) and toward
commitment specifically (Joel et al., 2011). On one hand,
anxiously attached individuals strongly desire committed rela-
tionships (Feeney & Noller, 1990), and they tend to rely heav-
ily on their partners for validation (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990;
Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005); these factors may
motivate anxiously attached individuals to stay with their part-
ners. On the other hand, anxiously attached individuals are
prone to many sources of relationship negativity, such as con-
flict (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005), and
rejection concerns (e.g., Downey & Feldman, 1996), which
may simultaneously motivate anxiously attached individuals
to end their relationships.
We examined the prevalence of conflicting pressures on
stay/leave decisions in the present article. We predicted that
many participants—particularly anxiously attached individu-
als—would simultaneously possess many reasons for wanting
to both stay in their relationships and leave, indicative of
ambivalence, rather than possessing few reasons for wanting
to stay or leave, indicative of indifference. By examining the
specific concerns that are salient to decision-makers, we hoped
to identify competing relationship pressures that can make stay/
leave decisions especially challenging.
The Present Research
The present research integrates close relationships and JDM
approaches (Joel, MacDonald, & Plaks, 2013) to examine the
content and structure of people’s stay/leave decision processes.
In Study 1, we approached this research question qualitatively,
with minimal assumptions about which relationship issues
would be most salient to people. Three samples of participants
generated reasons to stay in a relationship versus leave, which
were categorized by trained coders. In Study 2, we converted
the stay/leave reasons identified in Study 1 into quantitative
scale items and administered them to two samples of people
currently questioning their relationships. We suspected that
relationship satisfaction and commitment would be associated
with many reasons to both stay and leave, demonstrating how
specific relationship features can exert conflicting pressures on
global relationship assessments. We predicted that attachment
anxiety would be associated with many reasons to both stay and
leave, indicative of ambivalence. Finally, we predicted that a
high percentage of participants would be simultaneously moti-
vated to both stay in their relationships and leave, demonstrat-
ing the prevalence of ambivalence more generally among
people who are thinking about ending their relationships. Mate-
rials for all studies can be viewed at https://osf.io/u9dfx/, and
additional demographic information can be viewed in the Sup-
plemental Materials.
2Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure
The initial study was conducted by sampling from three popu-
lations. Participants were told that the researchers wanted to
understand what motivates people to stay in relationships ver-
sus leave. Sample A participants generated stay reasons (“What
are some reasons someone might give for wanting to stay with
their romantic partner?”), followed by leave reasons. Partici-
pants in the other samples were given similar instructions,
worded to be about their own former (Sample B), or current
(Sample C) relationship experiences.
Sample A. Undergraduate students generated reasons why a per-
son might be motivated to stay in a relationship versus leave. A
total of 135 students (64 men) with an average age of 20 years
(SD ¼1.92) participated for course credit during the Winter
2010 semester; 65 participantsweresingleand70werein
romantic relationships (mean relationship length ¼17 months,
SD ¼20.86). Participants provided an average of 7.10 stay rea-
sons (SD ¼3.92), and 6.57 leave reasons (SD ¼3.78), with 132
participants (98%) providing at least one of each.
Sample B. We recruited 137 undergraduate students over the
course of two semesters (Fall 2010 and Winter 2011) who had
previously contemplated a breakup. One did not provide open-
ended responses, leaving 136 participants (46 men) with an aver-
age age of 19.5 years (SD = 8.81); 74 participants were single,
36 were still with the partners they contemplated leaving, and
26 were in new relationships. Of those in relationships, 59 were
dating, two were common-law, and one was married. Partici-
pants’ breakup contemplation experiences had occurred an aver-
age of 11 months prior to study participation (SD ¼13.52
months), at which point they had a mean relationship length of
16 months (SD ¼16.21 months). Participants provided an aver-
age of 3.31 stay reasons (SD ¼1.99), and leave reasons (SD ¼
1.83), with 134 participants (99%) providing at least one of each.
Sample C. The third sample consisted of American Mechanical
Turk workers who were currently contemplating a breakup.
Participants “currently questioning whether or not to stay in
their romantic relationships” were recruited over a 3-week
period in Summer 2011 and were compensated 35 cents for
participating. A total of 175 participant responses were read
and coded.
1
Of those participants, 4 provided meaningless
answers (e.g., one participant wrote “e” in response to each
question) and were discarded. The final sample was 171 parti-
cipants (63 men) with an average age of 31.7 years
(SD = 10.69). Participants had been in their relationship for
an average of 46 months (SD ¼58.36); 124 were dating, 13
were common-law, 30 were married, and 4 declined to answer.
Participants provided an average of 3.68 stay reasons
(SD = 2.06), and 3.54 leave reasons (SD ¼1.76), with 167 par-
ticipants (98%) providing at least one of each.
Coding Strategy
The first author and a research colleague read a random subset
of Sample A responses and created a coding scheme of stay
and leave reasons based on recurring themes. Inverse stay and
leave reasons were used wherever possible. For example,
“Partner Personality” was included as both a stay reason
(desirable traits) and as a leave reason (undesirable traits).
The resulting coding scheme included 25 different reasons for
wantingtostayand23reasonsforwantingtoleave,aswellas
an uncodable category for particularly idiosyncratic or ambig-
uous responses.
Two research assistants, blind to the hypotheses of the
study, coded the open-ended responses from each sample
using the coding scheme. Based on new recurring themes in
Samples B and C, the coders added two stay reasons—con-
cern for the partner (e.g., not wanting to hurt partner) and opti-
mism (e.g., hope that the partner will change)—and two new
leave reasons—concern for the partner (e.g., not wanting to
hold the partner back) and general frustration (e.g., feeling
irritated by the partner). We tested interrater agreement using
a two-way mixed, absolute agreement, single-measures
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), appropriate for count
data (McGraw & Wong, 1996). Interrater reliability ranged
from ICC ¼.92 to .99 across the three samples. Disagree-
ments were resolved by the first author.
Results and Discussion
Reasons to stay in a relationship versus leave are listed in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Across samples, the most common
reason for wanting to stay in a relationship was emotional inti-
macy (e.g., feeling close to the partner), mentioned by 66%of
Sample A, 50%of Sample B, and 53%of Sample C. Breach
of trust (e.g., partner being deceptive or unfaithful) was com-
monly mentioned across all three samples as a reason for leaving
the relationship (47%of Sample A, 21%of Sample B; 30%of
Sample C).
Many of the reasons mentioned by participants for wanting
to stay versus leave mirror constructs that psychologists have
studied in the context of relationship stability. Investment was
represented by stay categories such as “logistical barriers” and
“habituation,” whereas quality of alternatives was represented
by the leave category “pursuit of other opportunities” (Rusbult,
1983). Social network support (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006) was
represented both as a reason to stay (“social pressures”) and as
a reason to leave (“social consequences”). Responsiveness
(Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004) was represented by the stay
category “validation” and by the leave category “lack of
validation.” Self-expansion (Aron & Aron, 1986) was repre-
sented by the stay category “improvement of self” and by the
leave category “hindering of self-improvement.” Relationship
expectations (Lemay, 2016) were represented by the stay cate-
gory “optimism” and the leave category “problems with long-
term prospects.” These data therefore suggest that contempo-
rary theorizing on relationship maintenance reflects not just
Joel et al. 3
Table 1. Reasons for Wanting to Stay in Romantic Relationships.
Category Description (As Used by Coders)
Participants With at least One
Response Coded in the Category
Total responses coded in the
category
Sample A
(N¼135)
Sample B
(N¼136)
Sample C
(N¼171)
Sample A
(N¼970)
Sample B
(N¼450)
Sample C
(N¼630)
Emotional
Intimacy
For example, you love each other, you feel close,
you can share things with them, you have a great
connection, you share an attachment or bond,
friendship
89 (66%) 68 (50%) 90 (53%) 130 (13%) 84 (19%) 104 (20%)
Emotional
Investment
For example, not wanting to lose out on what
you’ve already put into the relationship,
nostalgia over the time you’ve already shared
together—here, the emphasis has to be on not
wanting to lose investments rather than on a
general avoidance of change
15 (11%) 34 (28%) 39 (23%) 18 (2%) 38 (8%) 47 (9%)
Family Duty Commitment or feelings of obligation to family,
have to stay for the marriage/kids/family,
marriage, divorce is wrong, anything with an
empathic or moral tone related to family
commitment
32 (24%) 0 (0%) 34 (20%) 39 (4%) 0 (0%) 39 (7%)
Partner’s
Personality
Listing desirable qualities that the partner has that
could draw you to stay. Please note that
personality traits are coded separately
15 (11%) 33 (24%) 30 (18%) 37 (4%) 57 (13%) 61 (12%)
Enjoyment You have a lot of fun together, you have great
conversation, you enjoy spending time together,
you’re drawn to each other, you look forward
to doing exciting new things together
28 (21%) 21 (15%) 27 (16%) 35 (3%) 24 (5%) 35 (7%)
Emotional
Security
Anything related to feeling safe and supported, for
example, to be cared for, to be taken care of,
they’re always there for you, you can rely on them
66 (49%) 21 (15%) 26 (15%) 86 (9%) 26 (6%) 32 (6%)
Physical Intimacy For example, sex, cuddling, physical closeness—
note that this covers mutual intimacy
47 (35%) 7 (5%) 22 (13%) 55 (6%) 7 (2%) 22 (4%)
Financial Benefits For example, money, material things, financial
prospects that are associated with staying in a
relationship
40 (30%) 0 (0%) 22 (13%) 41 (4%) 0 (0%) 23 (4%)
Compatibility For example, you have the same interests, same
hobbies, you get along well
22 (16%) 12 (9%) 21 (13%) 28 (3%) 16 (4%) 24 (5%)
Concern for
Partner
For example, guilt, not wanting to hurt partner,
partner needs you, committed to partner.
Anything with an empathic or moral tone
related to concern for partner
NA 20 (15%) 20 (12%) NA 21 (5%) 17 (3%)
Optimism Optimism in the relationship, hope that the
partner will change, hope that the relationship
will improve, belief that things will get better.
Future-oriented.
NA 22 (16%) 19 (11%) NA 23 (5%) 19 (4%)
Validation For example, they make you feel good about
yourself, they understand you, they respect you,
they “get” you. Anything related to “belonging”
33 (24%) 6 (4%) 18 (11%) 39 (4%) 6 (1%) 19 (4%)
Dependence For example, to avoid being alone, single, need for
a partner or a relationship, attachment,
neediness, dependence on the partner or
relationship. The emphasis is on the need to be
in a relationship or the fear of not being in a
relationship or being alone
50 (37%) 20 (15%) 17 (10%) 68 (7%) 23 (5%) 21 (4%)
Attraction They’re good-looking, you find them attractive,
you’re attracted to them, you feel a “spark.”
Covers physical aspects of the partner
29 (21%) 15 (11%) 14 (8%) 33 (3%) 15 (3%) 15 (3%)
General
satisfaction
Involves general satisfaction with the relationship
or the partner. Relationship makes me happy,
partner is “the one,” references to soul mates
34 (25%) 13 (10%) 14 (8%) 42 (4%) 14 (3%) 14 (3%)
(continued)
4Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Table 1. (continued)
Category Description (As Used by Coders)
Participants With at least One
Response Coded in the Category
Total responses coded in the
category
Sample A
(N¼135)
Sample B
(N¼136)
Sample C
(N¼171)
Sample A
(N¼970)
Sample B
(N¼450)
Sample C
(N¼630)
Comparison of
alternatives
Fear of not finding anyone else (e.g., there probably
isn’t anyone else better, at some point you have
to settle, this is as good as it gets)
24 (18%) 7 (5%) 13 (8%) 27 (3%) 7 (2%) 14 (3%)
Logistical barriers Involves shared assets. For example, breaking up
would involve mundane hassles like having to
move, having to split up your stuff, who’s going
to get the pet?, etc.
7 (5%) 2 (1%) 12 (7%) 8 (1%) 2 (.4%) 13 (2%)
Fear of
uncertainty
Need to avoid change due to fear of unknown. For
example, reference to a fear of the unknown,
fear of change. The focus is on the threat,
scariness of leaving because of not knowing
what will happen.
7 (5%) 5 (4%) 11 (6%) 7 (1%) 5 (1%) 11 (2%)
Social
connections
For example, relationships with partner’s family,
friends
8 (6%) 14 (10%) 11 (6%) 8 (1%) 15 (3%) 12 (2%)
Comfort Comfort undefined, without elaboration. Anything
related to comfort in a relationship, for
example, comfort, feeling comfortable, they are
comfortable
23 (17%) 11 (8%) 11 (6%) 24 (2%) 11 (2%) 11 (2%)
Habituation Reluctance to change, satisfaction with the way
things are. For example, you’re used to being
with the person, it’s easier than looking for
someone else—anything suggesting a lack of
motivation to change
25 (19%) 9 (7%) 9 (5%) 27 (3%) 9 (2%) 9 (2%)
Companionship For example, to have someone to do things with,
to have someone to share experiences with.
The emphasis is on wanting “someone” rather
than the qualities of the relationship with this
person specifically
23 (17%) 8 (6%) 7 (4%) 27 (3%) 9 (2%) 7 (1%)
Long-term
orientation
For example, you have dreams together, you’ve
talked about building a life together, you can see
a future with your partner specifically potential/
future investment into the notion of what could
be. Less pragmatic/more abstract than
prospects, more about the hopes that you’ve
built with the person
15 (11%) 5 (4%) 5 (3%) 16 (2%) 5 (1%) 5 (1%)
Long-term
prospects
How the relationship fits in with other life goals,
for example, they would make a good husband/
wife, you have the same long-term goals, you
both want children, they will be able to support
you financially. The emphasis is on the
compatibility in terms of long-term goals
8 (6%) 0 (0%) 5 (3%) 9 (1%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%)
Social pressure For example, your parents or friends would
disapprove of a breakup, it would make things
awkward with mutual friends, you feel like
everyone expects you to be in a relationship,
people expect you to stay
33 (24%) 10 (7%) 3 (2%) 41 (4%) 11 (2%) 3 (.6%)
Self-improvement For example, partner makes me want to be a
better person, is a good influence on me
10 (7%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) 11 (1%) 1 (.2%) 3 (.6%)
Social status For example, status from the relationship,
popularity, prestige, it makes you look good to
be with this person, how this relationship will
help you advance career-wise
18 (13%) 3 (2%) 1 (.6%) 20 (2%) 3 (.7%) 1 (.2%)
Uncodable It’s ambiguous what they mean, or none of the
categories fit
62 (46%) 16 (13%) 33 (19%) 94 (10%) 18 (4%) 43 (8%)
Note. Reasons are listed from most to least commonly mentioned among participants in Sample C (those currently contemplating a breakup).
Joel et al. 5
Table 2. Reasons for Wanting to Leave Romantic Relationships.
Category Description (As Used by Coders)
Participants With At Least One
Response Coded in the Category
Total responses coded in the
category
Sample A
(N¼135)
Sample B
(N¼136)
Sample C
(N¼171)
Sample A
(N¼887)
Sample B
(N¼451)
Sample C
(N¼605)
Partner’s
personality
Partner flaws that could make a person want to
leave. For example, this person is lazy, boring, too
flaky. Has to be about the partner him or herself
and not a product of the two individuals or the
relationship as a whole
29 (22%) 27 (20%) 51 (30%) 46 (5%) 39 (9%) 90 (15%)
Breach of trust The partner was deceptive, the partner cheated or
was suspected of cheating, couldn’t trust the
partner.
64 (47%) 28 (21%) 51 (30%) 79 (9%) 36 (8%) 67 (11%)
Partner
withdrawal
The partner is no longer supportive, no longer
committed, seems to be losing interest, isn’t
affectionate anymore. Different from loss of
attraction or emotional distance in that it is
clearly the partner who is withdrawing
16 (12%) 14 (10%) 30 (18%) 18 (2%) 15 (3%) 37 (6%)
External reason Environmental influences, for example, someone
had to move away. Anything that’s outside the
relationship or outside of both partners’ control
25 (19%) 53 (39%) 29 (17%) 28 (3%) 57 (12%) 30 (5%)
Physical distance Bad sex life, no sex life, not enough physical affection 29 (22%) 9 (7%) 28 (16%) 31 (3%) 9 (2%) 30 (5%)
Conflict Too much arguing, we aren’t getting along, fighting
all the time—different from incompatibility in that
the emphasis is on the frequency and
unpleasantness of the conflict as opposed to a
root “lack of fit” problem
40 (30%) 25 (18%) 27 (16%) 40 (5%) 27 (6%) 28 (5%)
Incompatibility You don’t see eye-to-eye, different lifestyles, you
have different values, diverging personalities, you
don’t get along
54 (40%) 17 (13%) 27 (16%) 72 (8%) 22 (5%) 32 (5%)
Emotional
distance
Feelings of distance, we never talk anymore, fell out
of love, we just grew apart, not enough closeness
55 (41%) 37 (27%) 24 (14%) 68 (8%) 41 (9%) 30 (5%)
Lack of
validation
For example, you don’t feel appreciated, respected,
understood, you don’t feel heard, you feel taken
for granted
13 (10%) 9 (7%) 22 (13%) 13 (1%) 9 (2%) 26 (4%)
Lack of financial
benefits
Lack of financial benefits or prospects (i.e., money,
material things) associated with being in a
relationship
12 (9%) 0 (0%) 19 (11%) 12 (1%) 0 (0%) 19 (4%)
Lack of
enjoyment
The relationship got stale, boring, you’re no longer
getting anything out of it, things aren’t fun
anymore
40 (30%) 11 (8%) 18 (11%) 46 (5%) 12 (3%) 22 (4%)
Problems with
long-term
prospects
One person wants kids and another doesn’t, long-
term goals diverge, they won’t make a good
parent, doesn’t fit with your other life plans
30 (22%) 12 (9%) 17 (10%) 33 (4%) 13 (3%) 17 (3%)
General
dissatisfaction
Involves general dissatisfaction with the relationship
or the partner. For example, relationship makes
me unhappy, unsatisfied with relationship,
references to partner not being “the one” or not
being soul mates
21 (16%) 11 (8%) 17 (10%) 22 (2%) 12 (3%) 17 (3%)
Inequity The relationship is one-sided or unbalanced, one
member of the relationship is under-benefitted,
there is unfairness
8 (6%) 9 (7%) 16 (9%) 8 (1%) 9 (2%) 18 (3%)
Social
consequences
Your parents disapprove, the relationship is harming
your friendships—social pressure to leave, not
getting along with partner’s friends or family
38 (28%) 13 (10%) 16 (9%) 46 (5%) 20 (4%) 22 (4%)
Dealbreaker Addiction, abuse, legal issues, psychological
problems, partner was controlling—the emphasis
should be on partner’s problems. With the
exception of cheating or lying, which goes under
trust
45 (33%) 13 (10%) 14 (8%) 55 (6%) 19 (4%) 16 (3%)
(continued)
6Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
underlying constructs that ultimately predict relationship
outcomes, but also specific aspects of relationships that
people consciously deliberate about in the context of
stay/leave decisions.
Many of the stay reasons identified did not have leave
counterparts (range across samples ¼44–46%), and many
of the leave reasons did not have stay counterparts (range
¼39–46%).Forexample,inSampleA,37%of participants
mentioned dependence on the relationship as a reason to
stay, but no one mentioned a lack of dependence as a reason
to leave. Across samples, many participants mentioned
breach of trust as a reason to leave (47%of Sample A;
21%of Sample B; 30%of Sample C). However, no one
listed sexual faithfulness as a reason to stay. The fact that
many reasons to stay were qualitatively distinct from rea-
sons to leave suggests that people may think about staying
and leaving as relatively separate options, each with their
own advantages and disadvantages.
Study 2
The stay/leave reasons identified in Study 1 were converted
into quantitative items and administered to people who were
trying to decide whether to end either their dating relationships
(Sample D) or their marriages (Sample E). We examined asso-
ciations between specific stay/leave reasons and global rela-
tionship constructs as well as attachment style. We expected
that relationship satisfaction and commitment would be associ-
ated with high endorsement of stay reasons and low endorse-
ment of leave reasons, suggesting that positive and negative
aspects of the relationship jointly contribute to these global
assessments of the relationship. We further hypothesized that
Table 2. (continued)
Category Description (As Used by Coders)
Participants With At Least One
Response Coded in the Category
Total responses coded in the
category
Sample A
(N¼135)
Sample B
(N¼136)
Sample C
(N¼171)
Sample A
(N¼887)
Sample B
(N¼451)
Sample C
(N¼605)
Loss of
attraction
The chemistry or the “spark” is gone, you aren’t
attracted to him or her anymore, you don’t
“click.” Covers physical attributes of the partner
28 (21%) 12 (9%) 13 (8%) 30 (3%) 12 (3%) 13 (2%)
General
frustration
For example, “partner gets on my nerves,”
“annoyed,” “partner irritates me,” “frustrated by
partner,” and so on. Refers to general frustration
rather than frustration related to specific
personality trait or behaviors of the partner
NA NA 10 (6%) NA NA 11 (2%)
Too demanding The relationship is emotionally taxing, demanding,
or exhausting. For example, the relationship is
taking too much time, they don’t have time for
the relationship, the partner needed a lot of
attention.
18 (13%) 12 (9%) 8 (5%) 20 (2%) 13 (3%) 8 (1%)
Alternative
partner
Someone fell in love with someone else, someone is
leaving the current relationship for someone else,
you believe you can get someone better
51 (38%) 11 (8%) 8 (5%) 60 (7%) 11 (2%) 8 (1%)
Pursuit of other
opportunities
For example, you want more excitement or
personal growth, want the freedom of
singlehood—just not alternative partners which
goes above
19 (14%) 9 (7%) 8 (5%) 20 (2%) 14 (3%) 9 (2%)
Discomfort with
commitment
You feel it is moving too fast, feel smothered or
trapped, need space, it is getting too serious, need
to be alone, want to be single—the emphasis is on
the self, instead of the partner
22 (16%) 7 (5%) 7 (4%) 29 (3%) 8 (2%) 9 (2%)
Hindering self-
improvement
For example, partner is a bad influence, I dislike
myself when I’m around my partner
4 (3%) 9 (7%) 4 (2%) 4 (.5%) 10 (2%) 4 (.7%)
Violation of
expectations
This person is not who you thought you were,
things have changed, the partner has changed, this
relationship isn’t what you thought it was going to
be. General “this isn’t what I signed up for”
comparisons that don’t fit in the other, more
specific categories
24 (18%) 7 (5%) 1 (.6%) 29 (3%) 8 (2%) 1 (.2%)
Concern for
partner
For example, I don’t want to hold him/her back NA 2 (1%) 0 (0%) NA 2 (.4%) 0 (0%)
Uncodable It’s ambiguous what they mean, or none of the
categories fit
50 (37%) 29 (21%) 37 (22%) 78 (9%) 33 (7%) 41 (7%)
Joel et al. 7
anxiously attached individuals, who are particularly prone to
relationship ambivalence (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2010),
would more strongly endorse numerous specific reasons to
both stay and reasons to leave. Finally, we expected that many
participants would report simultaneous motivation to both
stay and leave, indicative of conflicting pressures on their
stay/leave decisions.
Method
Participants
Both samples were U.S. residents recruited online and compen-
sated 40 cents through Mechanical Turk in Winter 2012. We
chose a target Nof 150 participants per sample so as to recruit
them within a semester.
Sample D: Dating individuals considering breakups. Participants
were told, “to be eligible to participate, you must currently
be trying to decide whether or not to stay in your current dating
relationship.” We recruited 153 participants over a 7-week
period, of whom 32 were excluded because they admitted that
they responded carelessly (3), were not contemplating a
breakup (23), or were married rather than dating (6). The final
sample consisted of 121 participants (43 male) with a mean age
of 28 (SD ¼8.81) and a mean relationship length of 22 months
(SD ¼19.46). This sample size can detect a correlation of .25
with 79%power.
Sample E: Married individuals considering separation/divorce. Parti-
cipants were told, “To be eligible to participate, you must cur-
rently be trying to decide whether or not to stay in your
marriage.” We recruited 146 participants over a 10-week
period, of whom 40 were excluded because they admitted that
they responded carelessly (4), were not contemplating divorce
(14), or were dating rather than married (22). The final sample
consisted of 106 participants (29 male) with a mean age of
28 (SD ¼11.38) and a mean relationship length of 9 years
(SD ¼115.77 months). This sample size can detect a correla-
tion of .25 with 74%power.
Materials
Attachment style. Participants completed an 18-item measure of
attachment anxiety (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000, e.g., “I
worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as
I care about them,” as¼.90, .91), and an 18-item measure
of attachment avoidance (e.g., “I am nervous when partners get
too close to me,” as¼.90), on a 7-point scale (1 = completely
disagree to 7 ¼completely agree).
Investment model. Participants completed 5-item measures of
satisfaction (e.g., “Our relationship makes me very happy,”
as¼.90, .92), investment (e.g., “I have put a great deal into our
relationship that I would lose if the relationship were to end,”
as¼.84), and quality of alternatives (e.g., “If I weren’t with
my dating partner, I would do fine—I’d find another appealing
person to date,” as¼.83, .91), and a 7-item commitment mea-
sure (e.g., “I want our relationship to last forever,” as¼.81,
.90; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
Dissolution consideration. Participants completed a 5-item disso-
lution consideration scale (Vanderdrift et al., 2009; e.g., “I have
been thinking about ending our romantic relationship,”
as = .85, .83).
Stay/leave reasons. Participants were asked to consider their
reasons for wanting to stay in their relationships, followed by
reasons for wanting to leave. Each of the 27 stay categories and
23 leave categories created in Study 1 was presented to partici-
pants in the form of a term followed by a definition (e.g., “Loss
of attraction: the chemistry or the “spark is gone, you aren’t
attracted to your partner anymore”). Instructions were tailored
for each sample (see Verbatim Materials). Items were rated on
a 7-point scale (1 ¼not at all a factor to 7 ¼Is a major con-
tributing factor).
Results and Discussion
Endorsement of Stay/Leave Reasons
Stay and leave reason means and correlations with relevant
relationship constructs are provided in Tables 3 and 4. Strongly
endorsed reasons for wanting to end the relationship were
largely the same across the two samples: emotional distance,
inequity, partner’s personality, and violation of expectations
were all in the top five most endorsed reasons for both samples.
However, stay reasons differed considerably across samples.
Participants contemplating a breakup were most strongly moti-
vated to stay in their relationships for approach-based reasons,
such as positive aspects of the partner’s personality, emotional
intimacy, and enjoyment. In contrast, the participants contem-
plating a divorce were most strongly motivated to stay for
avoidance-based reasons, such as investment, family responsi-
bilities, fear of uncertainty, and logistical barriers. Consider-
able research has examined the dissolution barriers faced by
married individuals (see Frye, McNulty, & Karney, 2008, for
discussion); the present data suggest that these barriers are sali-
ent to people questioning their marriages.
As predicted, satisfaction and commitment were associated
with stronger endorsement of most stay reasons and weaker
endorsement of most leave reasons across samples. These find-
ings suggest that the presence of reasons to both stay and
leave—for example, family responsibilities combined with
emotional distance, or emotional intimacy combined with con-
cerns about inequity—exerts conflicting pressures on relation-
ship quality and stability.
Anxiously attached individuals contemplating a breakup
were more likely to endorse six specific reasons for staying
(e.g., companionship, habituation), and 12 specific reasons for
leaving (e.g., emotional distance, lack of validation), compared
to less anxious individuals. Anxiously attached individuals
contemplating a divorce were more likely to endorse four
8Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Table 3. Associations Between Specific Reasons to Stay in a Relationship and Relevant Relationship Constructs in Study 2.
Stay Reason Sample Mean
Attachment
Anxiety
Attachment
Avoidance Satisfaction Investment
Quality of
Alternatives Commitment
Dissolution
Consideration
Partner’s personality D 5.17*** .11 –.16 .24** .15 –.10 .23* .06
E 4.35 .27** –.33*** .39*** .45*** –.16 .48*** –.26**
Emotional intimacy D 4.96*** .07 –.50*** .42*** .32*** –.12 .45*** –.05
E 3.89 .04 –.17þ.33** .27** –.02 .38*** –.19*
Comfort D 4.88** .04 –.38*** .43*** .27*** –.06 .33*** –.18þ
E 4.21 .08 –.39*** .36*** .34*** –.02 .50*** –.16
Companionship D 4.87 .22* –.31*** .28** .39*** –.22* .39*** –.001
E 4.69 .23* –.42*** .33** .47*** .004 .47*** –.11
Enjoyment D 4.84** .10 –.29** .32*** .17þ–.18þ.31*** –.05
E4.13 .17þ–.27** .36*** .32** –.09 .44*** –.22*
Investments D 4.79 .11 –.30*** .10 .45*** –.11 .20* .10
E 5.23 .08 –.21* .15 .53*** –.11 .33** .23*
Physical intimacy D 4.72*** .14 –.25** .24** .13 .06 .30*** –.04
E 3.39 .12 –.10 .43*** .14 –.06 .25** –.11
Attraction D 4.67*** .02 –.32*** .27** .15 –.16þ.31** –.03
E3.71 .17þ–.16 .34*** .21* –.002 .34*** –.16
Compatibility D 4.67*** –.06 –.30** .32*** .19* –.11 .18þ–.14
E 3.81 .26** –.19þ.27** .34*** –.12 .41*** –.18þ
Emotional security D 4.60** .04 –.42*** .36*** .27*** –.08 .35*** –.003
E 3.89 .16 –.20* .27** .33** –.13 .36*** –.21*
Habituation D 4.52 .30*** –.06 .000 .27** .08 .14 .04
E 4.89 .07 –.31** .14 .40*** –.08 .37*** .17
Validation D 4.49** –.05 –.33*** .39*** .17þ–.15 .27*** –.11
E 3.74 .15 –.12 .33** .25* –.04 .34*** –.24*
Long-term orientation D 4.49 .11 –.40*** .23* .31*** –.11 .39*** .00
E 4.30 .10 –.36*** .39*** .53*** –.18þ.60*** –.26**
Fear of uncertainty D 4.47þ.24** –.22* .02 .50*** –.10 .25*** .12
E 5.02 .15 –.10 .09 .34*** .09 .24* .17þ
Concern for partner D 4.45 .19* –.14 .15 .37*** .19* .16þ.09
E 4.62 –.02 –.14 .30** .31** .05 .23* –.007
Optimism D 4.37 .06 –.34*** .35*** .27** –.07 .28** –.01
E 4.29 .11 –.28*** .38*** .37*** –.18þ.46*** –.20*
General satisfaction D 4.31** .13 –.37*** .49*** .34*** –.31** .53*** –.27**
E3.73 .19þ–.29** .43*** .42*** –.16 .59*** –.27**
Improvement of self D 4.12*** –.003 –.25** .44*** .15 –.19* .22* –.09
E3.31 .19þ–.13 .41*** .22* .02 .28** –.25*
Long-term prospects D 4.11 .04 –.29*** .31*** .21* .03 .25** –.05
E 4.06 .11 –.37*** .34*** .43*** –.19þ.60*** –.17þ
Dependence D 4.03 .43*** –.16þ.03 .30** –.09 .34*** .08
E 4.15 .23* –.34*** .31** .33** .20 .43*** –.11
Logistical barriers D 3.88** .11 –.08 –.01 .40*** .18þ.04 .04
E 4.92 .11 –.32** .13 .32** .16 .18þ.21*
Comparison to
alternatives
D 3.77 .07 –.06 .24** .16þ.13 .09 –.02
E 4.22 .04 –.24* –.02 .14 –.09 .19 .03
Social connections D 3.51 .01 –.15 .40*** .33*** .07 .20* –.10
E 3.51 .04 –.28* .27** .26** .12 .24* –.09
Finances D 3.46*** .05 –.02 .01 .17þ.27** –.07 .14
E 4.61 .15 –.11 –.07 .23* .19þ.14 .03
Social status D 3.35 .26** .06 .13 .05 .10 .08 –.01
E3.12 .19þ–.13 .41*** .22* .02 .28** –.25*
Social pressures D 3.23** .11 –.08 .35*** .33*** .08 .11 –.13
E 4.06 –.01 –.16 .12 .15 .11 .004 .07
Family responsibilities D 3.15*** .09 –.06 .14 .29** .26** .07 .07
E 5.10 –.12 –.18þ.10 .34*** .03 .15 .30**
Note. Asterisks in the “Mean” column represent independent-samples ttests comparing mean endorsement between Samples D and E.
***p< .001. **p< .01. *p< .05. þp< .10.
Joel et al. 9
reasons for staying (e.g., companionship, partner’s personal-
ity), and three reasons for leaving (partner withdrawal,
breach of trust, dealbreaker). Attachment anxiety was not
negatively associated with any of the reasons to stay or
leave in either sample. These findings support the hypoth-
esis that anxiously attached individuals are prone to stay/
leave decision conflict.
We did not have any specific hypotheses regarding attach-
ment avoidance. However, avoidance was negatively associ-
ated with most reasons for staying in the relationship in each
sample (e.g., optimism, emotional intimacy, comfort, compa-
nionship) and was not positively associated with any stay rea-
sons in either sample. Avoidant attachment was also positively
associated with several leave reasons in each sample (e.g., lack
of enjoyment and loss of attraction in the breakup contempla-
tion sample; hindering of self-improvement and too much
commitment in the divorce contemplation sample). These
findings are consistent with the notion that avoidant individ-
uals are pessimistic about their relationships (Birnie,
McClure, Lydon, & Holmberg, 2009) and tend to defensively
Table 4. Associations Between Specific Reasons to Leave a Relationship and Relevant Relationship Constructs in Study 2.
Leave Reason Sample Mean
Attachment
Anxiety
Attachment
Avoidance Satisfaction Investment
Quality of
Alternatives Commitment
Dissolution
Consideration
Emotional distance D 4.73þ.29** .01 –.38*** .02 .09 –.13 .52***
E 5.19 .11 .11 –.39*** –.02 .09 –.16 .44***
Partner’s personality D 4.67 .18þ.03 –.38*** –.03 .31*** –.24** .48***
E 5.00 .06 –.07 –.13 –.02 .03 .04 .27**
Inequity D 4.63 .24** .11 –.43*** .02 .13 –.18* .43***
E 5.05 .08 .09 –.29** .00 .19 –.12 .37***
Violation of expectations D 4.55 .24** .11 –.24** –.03 .10 –.08 .41***
E4.84.19þ.02 –.32** –.07 .17 –.30** .37**
Too demanding D 4.52 .27** .11 –.27** .04 .22* –.07 .45***
E 4.59 .13 .11 –.13 –.17þ.05 –.10 .28**
Lack of validation D 4.50þ.39*** .03 –.40*** –.01 .26** –.17þ.45***
E 5.01 .13 –.007 –.31** .06 .09 –.02 .37***
Incompatibility D 4.47 .27** .05 –.25** .03 .15 –.10 .39***
E 4.72 –.08 .06 –.20* –.11 .28** –.24* .40***
Conflict D 4.41 .16þ–.02 –.33*** .19* .02 –.03 .45***
E 4.55 .08 .12 –.29** –.16 .10 –.17þ.19þ
Problems with long-term
prospects
D 4.39 .06 .18þ–.08 –.15 .05 –.18* .26**
E 4.35 .09 .18 –.28** –.24* –.02 –.28** .12
Pursuit of other
opportunities
D 4.37 .08 .22* –.23* –.16þ.32*** –.32*** .37***
E 4.40 –.02 .25** –.23* –.28** .35*** –.35*** .23*
General dissatisfaction D 4.31þ.14 .05 –.27** –.04 .27** –.29** .49***
E 4.76 .12 .16 –.42*** –.19* .45*** .51*** .27**
Lack of enjoyment D 4.24þ.18* .19* –.44*** –.13 .34*** –.32*** .49***
E 4.66 .02 .06 –.23* –.26** .32** –.36*** .24*
Breach of trust D 4.21 .35*** .03 –.15þ–.01 .01 –.11 .36***
E 3.92 .44*** .16 –.25** –.17þ–.07 –.04 .19þ
Partner withdrawal D 4.13þ.44*** .04 –.18 .05 .13 .01 .29**
E 4.64 .32** .18* –.37*** –.28** .02 –.30** .12
Dealbreaker D 4.10 .18þ.16þ–.32*** –.12 .21* –.30** .41***
E 3.78 .34** .28** –.32** –.32** –.04 –.21* .14
Finances D 4.01 .14 .17þ–.37*** –.08 .29** –.30** .38***
E 4.47 .01 .27** –.16þ–.14 .22* –.17þ.25*
Romantic alternatives D 4.00 .13 .21* –.20* –.16þ.38*** –.37*** .42***
E 4.24 .08 .17 –.23* –.28** .57*** –.42*** .21*
Hindering of self-
improvement
D3.93 .18þ.15þ–.30** .07 .31** –.25** .43***
E 4.34 .08 .23* –.38*** –.19* .18 –.21* .25*
Physical distance D 3.75** .21* .10 –.13 –.01 .11 –.12 .22*
E 4.49 .12 .04 –.27** –.09 .27** –.22* .18þ
Loss of attraction D 3.74* .02 .19* –.17þ–.17þ.36*** –.44*** .30***
E 4.48 .09 –.01 –.30** –.15 .30** –.41*** .28**
Too much commitment D 3.57* .03 .18þ–.10 –.13 .28*** –.30*** .28***
E 2.94 .10 .33** –.04 –.40** .23* –.34*** .18þ
External reason D 3.49 .21* .14 –.03 –.09 .14 –.26** .19*
E 3.04 .11 .25* .008 –.25* .01 –.25* .13
Social consequences D 3.45 .24** .10 –.16þ–.07 .08 –.20* .17þ
E 3.08 –.01 .28** –.16þ–.26** .01 –.29** .18þ
10 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
guard themselves against intimacy (Spielmann, Maxwell,
MacDonald, & Baratta, 2013).
Structure of Stay/Leave Reasons
We conducted exploratory factor analyses with varimax rota-
tion to examine how the 27 stay reasons and 23 leave reasons
collapse into fewer dimensions. Samples were combined for
better statistical power. An initial scree plot suggested that
three factors were appropriate for the data. The three factors
each had eigenvalues larger than 3 and explained 20%,15%,
and 7%of the variance, respectively. See Supplemental Table
S1 for the rotated three-factor solution including all loadings
and cross-loadings higher than .40. Highly loading items were
averaged into their three components: approach-based motiva-
tion to stay (14 items, a¼.92, M¼4.25, SD ¼1.23),
avoidance-based motivation to stay (11 items, a¼.83,
M=4.32,SD ¼1.18), and motivation to leave (23 items,
a=.90,M¼4.26, SD ¼1.07). See Table 5 for associations
between the resulting stay/leave dimensions and relationship
constructs. Motivation to leave was negatively correlated with
approach-based stay motivation (r¼–.23, p< .001), and
positively correlated with avoidance-based stay motivation
(r= .13, p¼.05). Approach- and avoidance-based stay motiva-
tion were positively correlated (r¼.35, p< .001). Independent-
samples ttests revealed that the breakup contemplation sample
endorsed approach-based stay motivation more strongly than
the divorce contemplation sample, t(247) ¼4.44, p< .001,
MD ¼.67, 95%confidence interval [.37, .96], whereas the
divorce contemplation sample endorsed avoidance-based stay
motivation more strongly than the breakup contemplation sam-
ple, t(247) ¼–3.59, p< .001, MD = –.52, 95%CI [–.81, –.24].
There was no difference between samples in endorsement of
leave motivation, t(247) = –1.11, p¼.27, MD ¼–.15, 95%
CI [–.42, .12]. No gender differences emerged in endorsement
of any of the three stay/leave dimensions, ts(245) < |.50|, ps>
.60.
Finally, we examined the prevalence of ambivalence across
samples. Ambivalence was defined as simultaneous endorse-
ment of the leave dimension and at least one of the two stay
dimensions (approach or avoidance) with means above the
scale midpoint; 121 participants (47%in Sample D, 52%in
Sample E) met this definition of ambivalence. We further clas-
sified 18 participants with below-midpoint endorsement on all
three stay/leave dimensions as indifferent (8%in Sample D,
6%in Sample E). The remaining 110 participants (47%of
Sample D, 41%of Sample E) were neither ambivalent nor
indifferent. We used a multivariate analysis of variance to
examine whether the two attachment dimensions differed
among participants classified as ambivalent, indifferent, or nei-
ther, which was significant, Wilks’ Lambda ¼.87, F(4, 490) ¼
8.65, p< .001. Multiple comparisons with Tukey’s HSD
revealed that ambivalent participants were more anxiously
attached compared to indifferent participants, MD ¼.1.04,
95%CI [.37, 1.70], p= .001, and compared to those who were
neither ambivalent nor indifferent, MD ¼.61, 95%CI [.27,
.96], p< .001. Further, indifferent participants were more
avoidantly attached compared to ambivalent participants,
MD ¼.70, 95%CI [.07, 1.34], p¼.02, and compared to those
who were neither, MD ¼.78, 95%CI [.15, 1.42], p¼.01. No
other group differences emerged.
We also used above-midpoint endorsement on all three stay/
leave dimensions as an alternative, more stringent definition of
ambivalence. A total of 72 participants (27%in Sample D, 30%
in Sample E) met this definition of ambivalence; above results
were unchanged when this definition was used.
General Discussion
This research examined the subjective experience of deciding
whether to end a relationship. We coded qualitative responses
from three samples of participants in Study 1, revealing 27 dif-
ferent reasons for wanting to stay in a relationship (e.g., emo-
tional intimacy, investment), and 23 reasons for wanting to
leave (e.g., infidelity, conflict). In Study 2, we converted these
stay/leave reasons into quantitative scales and presented them
to participants currently contemplating either a breakup or a
divorce. Many specific stay reasons and leave reasons jointly
contributed to global ratings of relationship satisfaction and
commitment, suggesting that people weigh out these poten-
tially competing relationship factors to arrive at an overall
assessment of the relationship (e.g., Rusbult, 1983; Thibaut
& Kelly, 1959). Attachment anxiety was simultaneously, posi-
tively associated with several specific reasons for wanting to
stay (e.g., companionship, dependence), and leave (e.g.,
Breach of trust, partner withdrawal). Furthermore, 49%of
participants reported higher-than-midpoint motivation to both
stay and leave, demonstrating the prevalence of stay/leave
decision conflict.
Table 5. Associations between Stay/Leave Dimensions and Relevant Relationship Constructs in Each Sample.
Dimension Mean Sample
Attachment
Anxiety
Attachment
Avoidance Satisfaction Investment
Quality of
Alternatives Commitment
Dissolution
Consideration
Approach-based
motivation to stay
4.60*** D .08 –.49*** .51*** .33*** –.16þ.47*** –.10
3.92 E .21* –.34*** .49*** .46*** –.12 .59*** –.27**
Avoidance-based
motivation to stay
4.05*** D .30*** –.23* .20* .58*** .12 .27** .09
4.57 E .12 –.35*** .25** .49*** .09 .35*** .14
Motivation to leave 4.18 D .23* .29** –.48*** –.35*** .32** –.46*** .49***
4.33 E .33*** .18* –.40*** –.07 .33*** –.33*** .61***
Joel et al. 11
Examining both stay and leave motivation separately allows
the researcher to distinguish between indifference (i.e., weak
motivation to stay and leave) and ambivalence (i.e., strong
motivation to stay and leave). Our results suggest that ambiva-
lence is common among people questioning their relationships,
particularly for anxiously attached individuals. Future work
should examine the consequences of stay/leave ambivalence,
which are likely to be negative: Ambivalence is associated with
anxiety and discomfort (van Harrefeld et al., 2009) as well as
negative health outcomes in the context of close relationships
(e.g., Uchino et al., 2014). For people who experience stay/
leave ambivalence and ultimately choose to leave, lingering
feelings of doubt regarding their decision may hinder their
breakup recovery process. Indeed, this possibility may shed
some light on the counterintuitive finding that breakups are
as difficult for initiators as they are for noninitiators (e.g., East-
wick, Finkel, Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008; Sbarra,
2006). Alternatively, for people who experience ambivalence
and ultimately choose to stay in the relationship, lingering
doubts about the relationship could continue to negatively
impact their relationship.
The prevalence of ambivalence in the context of stay/
leave decisions may also inform research on on-again/
off-again relationships: the common phenomenon of rela-
tionships cycling through multiple breakups and reconcilia-
tions (Dailey, Middleton, & Green, 2012; Dailey, Rosetto,
Pfiester, & Surra, 1999). Ambivalent individuals are keenly
motivated to resolve their ambivalence (see van Harrefeld
et al., 2009, for review), such that they are more likely to
alter their attitudes in response to new information (e.g.,
Armitage & Conner, 2000; Bell & Esses, 2002). If ambiva-
lenceiscommoninthecontextof stay/leave decisions, this
mayhelptoexplainwhysomanyindividualsbreakupwith
their partners only to later reconcile, sometimes repeatedly
(see Dailey et al., 2012, for a related discussion). Further,
the associations between stay/leave ambivalence and attach-
ment anxiety may help to explain why anxiously attached
individuals are particularly prone to on-off relationships
(Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994), and why they prefer breakup
strategies that leave the door open for later reconciliation
(Collins & Gillath, 2012).
Study 2 results showed that reasons to stay in a relationship
could be meaningfully grouped into approach- versus
avoidance-based reasons. This finding aligns with research
on the rewards versus constraints that compel people to main-
tain their relationships (e.g., Frank & Brandstatter, 2002; Frye
et al., 2008; Levinger, 1976; Strachman & Gable, 2006). In
future work, it may be worth distinguishing between people
who are ambivalent about staying in their relationship for
approach reasons (staying and leaving are both highly appeal-
ing), versus avoidance reasons (staying and leaving are both
highly unappealing). Broadly, avoidance–avoidance conflicts
are more difficult to resolve than approach–approach conflicts
(Houston & Sherman, 1995; Houston, Sherman, & Baker,
1991; Miller, 1944), and relationship choices have worse out-
comes when made for avoidance reasons rather than approach
reasons (e.g., Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005). These findings
suggest that stay/leave decision conflict involving mostly
avoidance-based factors may be more detrimental than deci-
sion conflict involving approach-based factors.
In sum, this research provides an in-depth examination of
stay/leave relationship decisions and the potential for stay/
leave decision conflict. Study 1 produced a comprehensive list
of relationship factors that people consciously consider when
deciding whether to end their relationship. Study 2 supported
the intuitive notion that stay/leave decisions are difficult to
make, with many participants simultaneously endorsing many
reasons to both stay and leave. Future research should examine
how people ultimately resolve these conflicting pressures, as
well as the consequences that they may have for health and
well-being.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Krystal Kan and Lauren O’Driscoll for coding
Study 1, and Chang Chen for providing her expertise in constructing
the coding scheme.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
The supplemental material is available in the online version of the
article.
Note
1. We initially planned to conduct a follow-up with Sample 3 partici-
pants. Because of the time-intensive nature of the coding, we only
coded responses from participants willing to complete the follow-
up (N¼176). Unfortunately, follow-up attrition was high (49%),
and the resulting Nwas too small to be reliable (e.g., commitment
did not predict breakups). Thus, follow-up data are not included in
the manuscript.
References
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing:
Gender, class, the life course, and adjustment. Family Studies,
24, 602–626.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test
of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,26, 1421–1432.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self:
Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY:
Hemisphere Publishing.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the
self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,63, 596–612.
12 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (2002). Ambivalence and response ampli-
fication: A motivational perspective. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin,28, 1143–1152.
Birnie, C., McClure, M. J., Lydon, J. E., & Holmberg, D. (2009).
Attachment avoidance and commitment aversion: A script for rela-
tionship failure. Personal Relationships,16, 79–97.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Per-
ceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role
of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,88, 510–531.
Cohen, O., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2012). Reasons for divorce and mental
health following the breakup. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,
53, 581–601.
Collins, R. L., Ellickson, P. L., & Klein, D. J. (2007). The role of sub-
stance use in young adult divorce. Addiction,102, 786–794.
Collins, T. J., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment, breakup strategies,
and associated outcomes: The effects of security enhancement on
the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Person-
ality,46, 210–222.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working
models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,58, 644–663.
Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for
romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of
Adolescence,32, 1209–1223.
Dailey, R. M., Middleton, A. V., & Green, E. W. (2012). Perceived
relational stability in on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships,29, 52–76.
Dailey, R. M., Rosetto, K. R., Pfiester, A., & Surra, C. A. (1999). A
qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships:
“It’s up and down, all around”. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,26, 443–466.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensi-
tivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,70, 1327–1343.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G.
(2008). Mispredicting distress following romantic breakup:
Revealing the time course of the affective forecasting error. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 800–807.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,58, 281–291.
Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution
and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89,
731–746.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item
response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 350–365.
Frank, E., & Brandsa¨ttter, V. (2002). Approach versus avoidance: Dif-
ferent types of commitment in intimate relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,82, 208–221.
Frye, N. E., McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2008). How do con-
straints on leaving a marriage affect behavior within the marriage?
Journal of Family Psychology,22, 153–161.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution follow-
ing infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology,25, 508–522.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,52, 511–524.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., & Hicks, A. (2007). On
the importance of relationship quality: The impact of ambivalence
in friendships on cardiovascular functioning. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine,33, 278–290.
Hopper, J. (1993). The rhetoric of motives in divorce. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family,55, 801–813.
Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The
role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,31, 357–378.
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature match-
ing, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Pre-
decision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,27, 411–430.
Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and
giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89, 327–344.
Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Plaks, J. E. (2013). Romantic relationships
conceptualized as a judgment and decision-making domain. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science,22, 461–465.
Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Shimotomai, A. (2011). Conflicting pres-
sures on romantic commitment for anxiously attached individuals.
Journal of Personality,79, 51–74.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close
relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relation-
ships,1, 123–142.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized deter-
minants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Rela-
tionships,10, 37–57.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A.
(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution:
A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships,17, 377–390.
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships:
The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commit-
ment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 40–51.
Lemay, E. P. (2016). The forecasting model of relationship commit-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,111, 34–52.
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital
dissolution. Journal of Social Issues,32, 21–47.
MacDonald, G., Locke, K., Spielmann, S. S., & Joel, S. (2013). Inse-
cure attachment predicts ambivalent social threat and reward per-
ceptions in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,30, 647–661.
Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and
persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,32, 513–536.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods,3, 30–46.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The
pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities
Joel et al. 13
and relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,98, 450–468.
Miller, N. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In J. McV. Hunt
(Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 431–465). New
York, NY: Ronald Press.
Nordgren,L.F.,VanHarreveld,F.,&vanderPligt,J.(2006).
Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,42, 252–258.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An inte-
grative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment
to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin,136, 257–301.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner
responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy
and closeness. In D. J. Mashek (Ed.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic asso-
ciations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology,16, 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model:
The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commit-
ment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,45, 101–117.
Rusbult,C.E.,Martz,J.M.,&Agnew,C.(1998).Theinvestment
model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, qual-
ity of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5,
357–391.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment
style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and
depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31,
343–359.
Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Fac-
tors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,53, 683–692.
Spielmann, S. S., Maxwell, J. A., MacDonald, G., & Baratta, P. L.
(2013). Don’t get your hopes up: Avoidantly attached individuals
perceive lower social reward when there is potential for intimacy.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,39, 91–107.
Sprecher, S. (1994). Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships.
Personal Relationships,1, 199–222.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships:
Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability.
The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196.
Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance rela-
tionship commitment. Motivation and Emotion,30, 117–126.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of
groups. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Uchino, B. N., Cawthon, R. M., Smith, T. W., Light, K. C., McKenzie,
J., Carlisle, M., ...Bowen, K. (2012). Social relationships and
health: Is feeling positive, negative, or both (ambivalent) about
your social ties related to telomeres? Health Psychology,31,
789–796.
Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., & Berg, C. A. (2014). Spousal relation-
ship quality and cardiovascular risk: Dyadic perceptions of rela-
tionship ambivalence are associated with coronary-artery
calcification. Psychological Science,25, 1037–1042.
Vanderdrift, L. E., Agnew, C. R., & Wilson, J. E. (2009). Nonmarital
romantic relationship commitment and leave behavior: The med-
iating role of dissolution consideration. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,35, 1220–1232.
van Harreveld, F., Rutiens, B. T., Rotteveel, M., Nordgren, L. F., &
van der Pligt, J. (2009). Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a
cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping
off the fence. Journal of Empirical Social Psychology,45,
167–170.
Author Biographies
Samantha Joel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psy-
chology at the University of Utah. Her research examines how people
make decisions about romantic relationships.
Geoff MacDonald is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at
the University of Toronto. His research focuses on adult attachment,
intimacy, and social pain.
Elizabeth Page-Gould is the Canada Research Chair of Social
Psychophysiology and an Associate Professor at the University of
Toronto. Her research examines the nature and outcomes of social
interactions between friends and strangers, particularly when those
social interactions occur between members of different social groups.
Elizabeth takes a multimethod approach to her research, frequently
combining behavioral, self-report, and physiological measures to
capture a rich picture of social situations.
Handling Editor: Simine Vazire
14 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
... We used this item as a measure of dissolution consideration. Similar items have been used to assess dissolution consideration (e.g., Joel et al., 2018;Mattingly et al., 2019;McIntyre et al., 2015;VanderDrift et al., 2009). ...
... Thinking about ending a marriage may be more detrimental to health than thinking about ending a cohabiting romantic relationship. Perhaps this is because people tend to invest more into marriages (e.g., Impett et al., 2001;Joel et al., 2013;Joel et al., 2018;Rhoades et al., 2010) than romantic relationships, and thus, it is more stressful, and detrimental to health, to think about ending a marriage. ...
... Further, significant mediation effects suggest that disillusionment may lead to relationship dissolution for unmarried cohabiting couples, but not for married cohabiting couples. People are less likely to leave a bad relationship if they have invested a lot into it (Edwards et al., 2011;Impett et al., 2001;Joel et al., 2018;Rhoades et al., 2010), and marriage is an investment that may detract the likelihood of breakup. ...
Article
Full-text available
Given inconsistencies in the literature, we examined the role of relationship quality, past relationship experiences (i.e., prior marital experiences and unmarried cohabitation experiences), and demographic characteristics (i.e., gender and age) in the association between relationship status and health. We analyzed data from the 2010 Married and Cohabiting Couples Study, a cross-sectional survey study conducted in the United States. Data were collected from married and unmarried individuals in cohabiting mixed-gender relationships (N = 2,150). Participants completed self-report measures online. We conducted t-tests, multiple regressions, path analyses, and an ANOVA to test hypotheses. Key findings were that (a) relationship quality had a stronger association with health than relationship status, (b) prior marital experiences and unmarried cohabitation experiences were negatively associated with health, (c) married women significantly reported better health than unmarried women, and (d) married men and unmarried men did not significantly differ in reported health. Descriptive statistics showed that younger adults may perceive their health more positively than older adults regardless of relationship status. Future research should consider historical context, recruitment of diverse participant samples, and more precise operational definitions of health.
... Some of these predictors are also suggested by the investment model (Rusbult, 1980(Rusbult, , 1983Rusbult et al., 1986). According to the investment model, not only does relationship satisfaction predict commitment, but it is necessary to consider an individual's investments (Edwards et al., 2011;Impett et al., 2001;Joel et al., 2013;Joel et al., 2017;Rhoades et al., 2010). Investments include anything an individual would lose if they were to leave their relationship. ...
... Investments, as demonstrated in prior research, are strongly correlated with relationship commitment because the more an individual has invested, the more they will have to lose if they were to choose to terminate their relationship. Number of investments has consistently predicted relationship commitment (Joel et al., 2013;Joel et al., 2017;Rhoades et al., 2010), and this association has been demonstrated even longitudinally (Impett et al., 2001). ...
Chapter
Human beings have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995), and thus we value social connections, including romantic relationships. Although most of the time we desire to stay with our romantic partner ‘forever’, the dissolution of romantic relationships still occurs for several reasons. Romantic relationships remain stable when romantic couple members are relationally satisfied and committed, but there are many instances in which that is not the case or does not become the case throughout time. As a result, it is important to understand predictors of relationship satisfaction and commitment and how romantic couples could maintain high levels of satisfaction and commitment. We discuss predictors such as approach motivation (Gable and Gosnell, 2013; Impett et al., 2005), communal motivation (Clark and Mills, 1979, 2011; Muise et al., 2012), and investment size (Rusbult et al., 1986). Next, we discuss individual differences that may serve as enduring vulnerabilities (Karney and Bradbury, 1995) in relationships, including personality traits (Altgelt et al., 2018), sociosexuality (French et al., 2019), and romantic attachment insecurity (Fraley et al., 2000). Afterwards, we discuss relationship maintenance strategies, as the absence of these strategies has been demonstrated to be detrimental to relationships. Examples of relationship maintenance strategies include endorsing specific relationship and sexuality beliefs (Knee et al., 2003; Maxwell et al., 2017) and engaging in self-expanding activities (Aron et al., 1995). We not only discuss predictors of relationship dissolution, but we additionally aim to examine how individuals can prevent the dissolution of their relationships in the future.
... In recent years, the focus of understanding this dynamic has shifted from blaming women for being in an abusive relationship to examining why they stay or leave. Multiple explanations have been theorized and supported empirically (Joel et al., 2018). However, there is limited empirical study of the decision to leave process for low-income African American women. ...
Article
Full-text available
Little is known about mechanisms through which intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with African American women’s barriers to leaving an abusive relationship. In a sample of low-income African American women with a recent suicide attempt and IPV exposure (n = 213), this study examined interrelations among IPV, self-esteem, and barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and tested if self-esteem mediated the IPV (physical, nonphysical)—decision to leave link. Findings revealed a positive correlation between nonphysical but not physical IPV and barriers to leaving an abusive relationship, negative correlation between both physical and nonphysical IPV and self-esteem, and negative correlation between self-esteem and barriers to leaving. Bootstrapping mediation analyses showed that nonphysical IPV was associated with low self-esteem, which in turn was related to more barriers to leaving the relationship, suggesting a mediation through self-esteem. Culturally-responsive interventions that bolster abused women’s self-esteem can empower them to leave abusive partners.
... This basic need covers people's lives to maintain their relationship to fulfil their belongingness needs which are described in the Needs Theory by Maslow. People's basis for lacking to remain in a relationship is clear from their causes for wish to disconnect (Machia & Ogolsky, 2021), and people who are presently opinion about finishing their relationships have been put off to jointly grip a lot of causes for lacking to both remain and quite (Joel, et al., 2018). Social support theory states that social support plays a significant role as a buffering role in the association between stress and mental health (Cohen & Wills (1985). ...
... Although there is an extensive literature on relationship quality variables (Blumenstock et al., 2020;Joel et al., 2020;Quinn-Nilas, 2020;Vowels & Mark, 2020), relationship dissolution (Joel et al., 2018;Le et al., 2010;Park et al., 2021), and infidelity (Mark et al., 2011;Vowels et al., 2021), the literature exploring how attraction toward an alternative may be associated with these key relationship maintenance outcomes is in its early stages. Essential to advancing science in this area is to explore how these attractions may compromise primary relationship quality and stability, if at all. ...
Article
Over the course of an intimate relationship, individuals will frequently encounter potential alternative partners and may in fact develop romantic or sexual attraction to them. It is unclear when a more distal attraction to a potential alternative (a "crush") is associated with impaired relationship quality to one's primary relationship. A growing body of work indicates that crushes are common among those in established, ostensibly monogamous relationships. Yet such attractions likely constitute a starting point for establishing new relationships, including through infidelity. This study was designed to help clarify whether and how extradyadic attraction is linked to compromised relationship quality for a primary relationship, infidelity, and breakup. Participants were 542 adults (22-35 years) in exclusive intimate relationships of at least three months' duration who reported an attraction toward a potential alternative. They were recruited online from crowdsourcing websites and social media to complete two surveys, four months apart. Path analyses indicated that greater attraction intensity was linked to lower relationship quality in one's primary relationship. Overall, few participants became romantically or sexually involved with their crush over the course of the study. However, lower relationship quality was linked to desire to engage in infidelity and primary relationship breakup four months later. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for other researchers examining maintenance of intimate relationships, educators who teach about attraction processes, as well as counselors supporting couples in distress.
... Again, asking about the level of certainty one feels about their relationship -the expectation that marriage will happen for them -perhaps is more telling of the quality of a relationship than other variables assessing desire or goals. The more certain someone is of the relationship, the better they feel about the relationship (see also Joel, MacDonald, & Page-Gould, 2017;Simpson, 1987). We were unsure of how skin tone would moderate the relationship between martial attitudes and relationship quality, but two interesting interactions were found. ...
Chapter
Research has shown that for young adults, marital attitudes (e.g., desire, importance, and expectation) are associated with relationship quality. However, how this association plays out for young adults of color is less known. Additionally, the influence of skin tone perception on the relationship between marital attitudes and relationship quality remains understudied. To explore these associations, the authors examined African American and Latinx young adults (N = 57, Mage = 20.71 years, SD = 1.28; 75.4% female) attending a Midwestern university. Exploratory results indicated that marital expectations were positively associated with relationship quality in that young adults who expected to marry one day, reported greater relationship satisfaction, commitment, and intimacy in their current relationships. Additionally, skin tone perception moderated the association between marital attitudes and relationship quality in two ways (i.e., between expectations and satisfaction and between importance and intimacy). Collectively, findings suggest that differing levels of marital attitudes and skin tone perception contributes to young adults’ perceptions of relationship quality. Considering these psychological factors of attitudes, skin tone perception, and relationship quality, together with systemic racial/ethnic discrimination, the authors discuss future research and practice considerations.
Chapter
Why do people fall in love? Does passion fade with time? What makes for a happy, healthy relationship? This introduction to relationship science follows the lifecycle of a relationship – from attraction and initiation, to the hard work of relationship maintenance, to dissolution and ways to strengthen a relationship. Designed for advanced undergraduates studying psychology, communication or family studies, this textbook presents a fresh, diversity-infused approach to relationship science. It includes real-world examples and critical-thinking questions, callout boxes that challenge students to make connections, and researcher interviews that showcase the many career paths of relationship scientists. Article Spotlights reveal cutting-edge methods, while Diversity and Inclusion boxes celebrate the variety found in human love and connection. Throughout the book, students see the application of theory and come to recognize universal themes in relationships as well as the nuances of many findings. Instructors can access lecture slides, an instructor manual, and test banks.
Article
When individuals face difficult decisions, they may turn to random decision‐making aids, such as coin flips, for support. Here, we show that flipping a coin before making a decision impacts the number of reasons that individuals consider when making consumer choices (Study 1), policy decisions (Study 2), personal decisions (Study 3) and breakup decisions (Studies 4a, 4b, 4c). In Studies 1 to 3, flipping a coin resulted in fewer reasons or a reduced increase in the number of reasons that were deemed important. In contrast, when looking at qualitatively different decisions such as breakup decisions (4a to 4c), where using a coin flip may be perceived as unacceptable, flipping a coin resulted in more reasons being taken into account. Across studies, we show that flipping a coin impacts decision‐making processes. Taking breakup decisions aside, a coin flip may ease decision‐making by decreasing the number of reasons taken into account.
Article
Non-offending partners of individuals who have committed sexual offenses often choose to end their relationship given the many negative consequences they face as a result of their partner’s offending behavior. Despite a focus on relationships in rehabilitation frameworks and the importance of the relationship for the individual who has offended and their partner, research has thus far failed to examine the process underlying why non-offending partners decide to stay in or leave their relationship following an offense. In this study we developed the first descriptive model of relationship decision-making in non-offending partners. Twenty-three individuals whose current or previous partners were accused of sexual offending were interviewed about affective, behavioral, cognitive, and contextual factors contributing to their decision to stay with or leave their partner. Participants’ narrative accounts were analyzed using Grounded Theory. Our resulting model consists of four main periods: (1) background factors, (2) relationship factors, (3) finding out, and (4) relationship decision-making. Clinical implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Four studies tested the forecast model of relationship commitment, which posits that forecasts of future relationship satisfaction determine relationship commitment and prorelationship behavior in romantic relationships independently of other known predictors and partially explain the effects of these other predictors. This model was supported in 2 cross-sectional studies, a daily report study, and a study using behavioral observation, informant, and longitudinal methods. Across these studies, forecasts of future relationship satisfaction predicted relationship commitment and prorelationship behavior during relationship conflict and partially explained the effects of relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. These results suggest that representations of the future have a prominent role in interpersonal processes.
Article
Full-text available
This article explores the possibility that romantic love is an attachment process--a biosocial process by which affectional bonds are formed between adult lovers, just as affectional bonds are formed earlier in life between human infants and their parents. Key components of attachment theory, developed by Bowlby, Ainsworth, and others to explain the development of affectional bonds in infancy, were translated into terms appropriate to adult romantic love. The translation centered on the three major styles of attachment in infancy--secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent--and on the notion that continuity of relationship style is due in part to mental models (Bowlby's "inner working models") of self and social life. These models, and hence a person's attachment style, are seen as determined in part by childhood relationships with parents. Two questionnaire studies indicated that relative prevalence of the three attachment styles is roughly the same in adulthood as in infancy, the three kinds of adults differ predictably in the way they experience romantic love, and attachment style is related in theoretically meaningful ways to mental models of self and social relationships and to relationship experiences with parents. Implications for theories of romantic love are discussed, as are measurement problems and other issues related to future tests of the attachment perspective.
Article
Full-text available
Used a longitudinal study of heterosexual dating relationships to test investment model predictions regarding the process by which satisfaction and commitment develop (or deteriorate) over time. Initially, 17 male and 17 female undergraduates, each of whom was involved in a heterosexual relationship of 0-8 wks duration, participated. Four Ss dropped out, and 10 Ss' relationships ended. Questionnaires were completed by Ss every 17 days. Increases over time in rewards led to corresponding increases in satisfaction, whereas variations in costs did not significantly affect satisfaction. Commitment increased because of increases in satisfaction, declines in the quality of available alternatives, and increases in investment size. Greater rewards also promoted increases in commitment to maintain relationships, whereas changes in costs generally had no impact on commitment. For stayers, rewards increased, costs rose slightly, satisfaction grew, alternative quality declined, investment size increased, and commitment grew; for leavers the reverse occurred. Ss whose partners ended their relationships evidenced entrapment: They showed relatively low increases in satisfaction, but their alternatives declined in quality and they continued to invest heavily in their relationships. (39 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
This study pursued two questions: Why do people in Israel divorce, and what factors contribute to their mental health afterward? To answer these questions, we gave out a questionnaire assessing reasons for divorce to 56 Jewish Israeli couples 2 years after their breakup. The questionnaire yielded three clusters of explanations for divorce: an extramarital affair, problems inherent in the couple's relationship, and factors external to the couple's relationship. The assessment of factors contributing to mental health included reasons for the divorce, divorcées' emotional resources, factors within the divorce process, and demographic factors. Findings showed that mental health was poorer among individuals who were older, less educated, had an avoidant or anxious attachment style, feared intimacy, or perceived new relationships as threats.
Article
Full-text available
The quality of spousal relationships has been related to physical-health outcomes. However, most studies have focused on relationship positivity or negativity in isolation, despite the fact that many close relationships are characterized by both positive and negative aspects (i.e., ambivalence). In addition, most work has not accounted for the reciprocal nature of close-relationship processes that can have an impact on health. Using a sample of 136 older married couples, we tested whether actor-partner models of relationships that were either primarily positive or ambivalent (i.e., perceived as having both helpful and upsetting aspects) predicted measures of coronary-artery calcification. Results revealed an Actor × Partner interaction whereby coronary-artery calcification scores were highest for individuals who both viewed and were viewed by their spouse as ambivalent. These data are discussed in light of the importance of considering both positive and negative aspects of relationship quality and modeling the interdependence of close relationships.
Article
Full-text available
Although theoretical perspectives on adult attachment forward relational ambivalence as a defining characteristic of at least some forms of insecurity, work demonstrating an ambivalent structure to the relational attitudes of insecure individuals has been rare. The current research examines the similarity and intensity of perceptions of social threat (i.e., concerns over rejection) and social reward (i.e., opportunities for intimacy) in romantic relationships. Using a sample of 1004 participants, evidence for relational ambivalence was found for both anxious and avoidant attachment. Individuals high in anxious attachment reported relatively similar and intense threat and reward perceptions, whereas individuals high in avoidant attachment showed evidence of similar, but not intense, threat and reward perceptions. Thus, the weighing of prospects for rejection and intimacy in romantic relationships arguably leads to what researchers traditionally think of as ambivalence for those high in attachment anxiety, but something more akin to indifference for those high in attachment avoidance. More broadly, this work provides a set of tools and methods for carefully examining ambivalence in close relationships.
Article
Kenneth Burke and C. Wright Mills urged sociologists to see motives as rhetorical constructs that impose meaning onto social interaction. Motives are not inner springs of action, they claimed, but normative vocabularies by which actors define situations. This article gives evidence to their claim by examining vocabularies of motives in divorce. First it documents the indeterminacy and complexity of marital situations from which divorces arose; then it documents a distinct vocabulary of motives used by divorce initiators and an opposing vocabulary of motives used by noninitiators. The two vocabularies do not match up with the complexities of the preceding marital situations, suggesting that they were indeed rhetorical devices constructed after divorces began. The evidence further suggests that sequential models of divorce in which one stage of dissolution leads to the next are simply artifacts of the motives-asrhetoric phenomenon.
Article
This study assessed characteristics associated with on-again/off-again (on–off) partners’ perceived relational stability. We employed a three-category conceptualization of stability in which participants were classified as believing the relationship was relatively stable, permanently dissolved, or continuing to cycle between breakups and renewals. Investment theory was first used to distinguish the three stability groups with satisfaction and alternatives mostly strongly associated with perceived stability. We also assessed specific characteristics salient to on–off relationships. Most were associated with perceived stability, but relational uncertainty, relational stress, positive feelings about the relationship, and number of renewals emerged as the best discriminators. Overall, the cycling group reported moderate levels of most characteristics along with greater uncertainty, suggesting they have a more ambivalent view of their relationship.