Relationship Dissolution and Disengagement Flashcards

1
Q

Romantic dissolution in Canada (from StatsCan)

A
  • In 2011, 2 million Canadians reported a break-up
  • Half ended a marriage (time together: 14.3 years)
  • Half ended a common law relationships (time together: 4.3 years)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Le at al meta-analysis: reasons for non-marital dissolution

A
  • Looked at predictors of non-marital romantic relationship dissolution
    • Strongest predictors:
  • – Commitment
  • – Love
  • – Inclusion of other in the self (how close you feel to them)
  • – Dependence
    • Modest predictors:
  • – Satisfaction
  • – Perception of alternatives
  • – Social network support (how much people in your life support your relationship)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Huston et al’s Process of Adaptation in Intimate Relationships (PAIR) study (relates to reasons for marital dissolution)

A
  • 30-year study focusing on how couples adapted to their lives together
  • Notable findings:
    • After 13 years of marriage:
  • – 35% had divorced
  • – 20% were not happy, but still together
  • – 45% happily married, but less satisfied compared to the day they married
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study

A
  • enduring dynamics model
  • emergent distress model
  • disillusionment model
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: enduring dynamics model

A
  • Spouses enter the marriage less in love and more at odds with each other
  • Bring problems, incompatibilities, and vulnerabilities that occured when dating
  • Aware of these frustrations and marry regardless → weakens relationship and can lead to divorce
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: emergent distress model

A
  • Problematic behaviour that destroys the relationship; begins after they marry
  • Fall into a pattern of increasing conflict and negativity that did not exist when the marriage began; challenges develop over time
  • No issues prior to the marriage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

3 models that can be used to explain the findings of Huston et al’s PAIR study: disillusionment model

A
  • Begin marriage with romanticized view of the relationship that is unrealistically positive
  • Then romance fades → stop trying to be adorable and charming; some of this is normal in relationships
  • Disappointment gradually sets in; see each other as less wonderful than they originally seemed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Joel et al study: why delay romantic dissolution?

A
  • Looked at participants who were contemplating a break-up over a 2-month period to see how they decided to stay or leave a relationship
  • Results:
    • If the individual perceived that their partner was more dependent on the relationship, less likely to break up with them → altruistic motives
    • This finding was also consistent for people who weren’t really committed or less satisfied
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Boelen et al study: effects of romantic dissolution –> basics

A
  • Explored the relationship between negative cognitions (ie. your thoughts about yourself) and emotional problems following a relationship break-up (participants either initiated it, were broken up with, or broke up mutually)
  • Measures: complicated grief, grief recognition, depression, anxiety, attachment, neuroticism, level of commitment, and time since break-up
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Boelen et al study: effects of romantic dissolution –> results

A
  • The stronger the commitment in the relationship, the higher your complicated grief
    • Sudden break-ups had highest complicated grief scores followed by non-initiators and then initiators
  • More negative beliefs about yourself (ie. self-blame) associated with anxiety, depression, and grief when compared to a control group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what to consider when breaking up with dignity?

A
  • Think over what you want to say and why (be honest, not brutal)
  • Think about what you’ll say and how the other person might react (put yourself in their position - thoughts, feelings, choices)
  • Have good intentions
  • Say it in person (don’t avoid them or the conversation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

how to manage a break-up

A
  • Acknowledge and let your feelings out
  • Do something everyday
  • Take your time - “time heals all wounds”
  • Find emotional support (from friends, family, or a professional)
  • Establish boundaries with your ex-partner (do you want to have contact with them? Or do you want some distance?)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sbarra et al: adjustment to dissolution study

A
  • Daily reports of young adults in the month after they ended a meaningful romantic relationship (carried beepers to randomly prompt them to record their feelings)
  • Results:
    • Initially: angry, sad, reduced feelings of relief, courage, and strength
    • 2 weeks later: reduced anger and sadness, but relief still low
    • Another 2 weeks later: not sad anymore, increased relief
    • 1 month: less in love and increases in courage and strength
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

On-again/off-again relationships

A
  • Churning: break-up, reconcile, and then get back together
  • More common during adolescence, but ⅓ of cohabiting and ¼ of married couples have also experienced it
  • Problems: associated with stress, uncertainty, lower satisfaction even when relationship continues
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

5 models of dissolution

A
  • intrapsychic processes
  • dyadic processes
  • social processes
  • grave-dressing processes
  • resurrection processes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

5 models of dissolution: intrapsychic processes

A
  • Individual experiences feelings of resentment and a feeling of being under-benefited (ie. frustrated, disgruntled, dissatisfied)
  • Social withdrawal: isolation from people they usually communicate with
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

5 models of dissolution: dyadic processes

A
  • The couple is talking with one another about problems that one person sees with the relationship
  • Process of confrontation, negotiation, or accommodation
    • Common feelings = shock, anger, hurt, relief
    • Opportunity for reconciliation
  • Withdrawal from friends and acquaintances to talk about relationship with partner
18
Q

5 models of dissolution: social processes

A
  • Distress in relationship goes public
  • Share their side of the story with their family and friends
    • Seeking advice, support, or understanding
    • Unfairly criticize the other partner
    • Scapegoat (blame the other partner and explore explanations for break-up)
19
Q

5 models of dissolution: grave-dressing processes

A
  • Relationship has ended
  • End relationship in a way that leaves a person still desirable as a future relationship partner
  • Tidying up memories/reconceptualizing the relationship from beginning to end → maintain our sense of self as valuable as a future partner for someone else
20
Q

5 models of dissolution: resurrection processes

A
  • Preparing for the future
  • Ex-partners re-enter social life as singles
  • Reframing of those aspects of the past relational life
  • Present self as a person who has learned to deal effectively with future relationships (ie. experience changed them, smarter and wiser now; may also find others to support our own view of the break-up)
21
Q

friendship dissolution

A
  • Literature on relationship dissolution doesn’t equally address different types of relationships (we know a lot more about dissolution of romantic relationships than those of friends and family)
  • Drifting apart: Normal and non-conflictual way to dissolve a friendship; described as a gradual process
22
Q

Bidart et al study: friendship dissolution

A

Losing friends is a common experience during adulthood because of life transitions (ie. leaving postsecondary education, changing jobs, changing one’s geographical location)

23
Q

Argyle et al study: why do we end friendships? (friendship rules)

A
  • Explored whether breaking friendship rules would be the reason to end a friendship
  • Rules associated with the breakdown of a friendship:
    • Jealousy or criticism
    • Lack of tolerance for third-party relationships
    • Nagging or criticizing the other person publicly
    • Not trusting or confiding in one another
    • Not showing positive regard or providing emotional support
24
Q

Rose at al study: why do we end friendships? (different types of friendships)

A
  • Looked at factors involved in the ending of best, close, and casual friendships
    • Lack of physical contact/being in same physical space (more likely for casual friends)
    • Less affection
    • Less interaction and interference from a dating or marriage relationship (more likely for close and best friends)
25
Q

Moremen et al study: why do we end friendships? (older women)

A
  • Explored sources of strain in older women’s friendships - violating friendship expectations:
    • Sharing similar interests/social status
    • Trustworthiness
    • Live close by
    • Not be overly dependent
    • Not be “whiney” or “demanding” when ill
    • Maintain balance and reciprocity in friendships
    • Tease only in fun
26
Q

Jalma et al study: how do we end friendships? (adults)

A
  • Looked at adult women’s intentional strategies of ending friendships
    • Indirect attempt: not returning unwanted friend’s phone calls
    • Direct attempts: face-to-face conversations, by telephone, by email
27
Q

Bowker et al study: how do we end friendships? (adolescents)

A
  • Adolescents were more likely to contribute to the relationship dissolution process indirectly
    • Downgrading: changing the status of the friendship (ie. from best friend to friend)
    • Change in friendship status reduces the function of the relationship, rather than directly terminating the friendship
28
Q

family disengagement

A
  • Not all relationships are beneficial
  • Limited view on close relationships when only look at the relationships we want to maintain → need to explore relational distancing (gaining distance from non-voluntary relationships; distance severs or creates boundaries)
    • Especially for relationships where individuals believe they have no choice but to maintain them (ie. family relationships)
29
Q

creating distance with family

A
  • Voluntary and intentional
  • Challenges beliefs about families bound by blood with no possibility of ending these relationships
  • 3 ways to create distance with family members: family member marginalization, parent-child alienation, parent-child estrangement
30
Q

3 ways to create distance with family members: family member marginalization

A
  • Considered “black sheep” of family (not approved of, liked, or included as much as the other members)
  • Differentiation (feeling different from the rest of the family)
  • Distancing (perceived they are excluded and/or treated differently by their family)
  • Despite feeling of hurt and a desire to leave, most don’t completely sever ties, but will distance themselves
    • Barriers make it difficult to leave: play important role as stereotype of what the group is not (ie. scapegoat); uncertainty about creating new group ties with others
31
Q

3 ways to create distance with family members: parent-child alienation

A
  • Intentional and unintentional ways parents persuade children to distance themselves from or reject the other parent
  • Limited research about this, and experts argue if it even exists
  • More common in custody and access issues
32
Q

3 ways to create distance with family members: parent-child estrangement

A
  • At least 1 family member (parent and/or child) no longer wants to have a relationship and/or seeks to limit interactions with another family member because of a negative relationship
  • Limited area of research: tends to focus more on attributions - physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, gross neglect, and drug/alcohol abuse
    Individuals are stigmatized and disenfranchised
  • Adult child may keep their estrangement experiences private/secret (cyclical/on-again-off-again experience filled with uncertainty)
    – Reasons they give for estrangement: neglect and abuse
    – When they share their experiences, they give voice to ideas that resist cultural beliefs that suggest families are non-voluntary
33
Q

reasons for disclosure about familial estrangement

A
  • When others witnessed conflict (ie. last straw event)
  • When others asked
  • Disclosure was indirect (ie. sharing an email/text from the parent with a 3rd party)
  • Perceived it would benefit others (want to help others)
34
Q

network reactions about estrangement

A
  • Supportive network members:
    • Individual felt supported
    • Network members were surprised by the estrangement
  • Unsupportive network members:
    • Majority experienced this
  • – Family members have difficulty understanding why the adult wouldn’t “forgive and forget”
  • – Try to guilt them back into a relationship or don’t support their decision
35
Q

Fitness study: how common is estrangement, and why does it happen?

A
  • Out of 70 Australian university students, 80% reported having a marginalized family member
  • Why?
    • Look different, have different personality, having different interests or talents, not fitting in
    • Common reasons for men: trouble-making (ie. crime, drugs)
    • Common reasons for women: being different, ceasing contact, moving, marrying an undesirable partner
36
Q

Scharp et al study: how is estrangement managed?

A
  • 52 adult children, 20-66 years of age, asked how they manage it
  • Strategies:
    • Contrasting themselves with their parents
    • Making it difficult for parents to find them
    • limiting their close relationships
    • sharing their story with others
    • managing their social network
    • making external attributions
37
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: contrasting themselves with their parents

A
  • Considering how they’re different from their parents to manage their identity
    • Felt guilty for not being a “good” son or daughter
    • Saw themselves as good parents compared to their parents
    • Provided evidence of decisions/behaviours that supported their reasons for distance
38
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: making it difficult for parents to find them

A

Withhold or change telephone number and location, limit or reduce social media presence, rules with social network (tell them not to share your personal info)

39
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: limiting their close relationships

A

Refraining from having children or engaging in romantic relationships; limited or minimized opportunities to perpetuate cycle of abuse

40
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: sharing their story with others

A

Reduces their own uncertainty; talking or writing about experiences reminds them why the distance was important → a way to make sense of actions rather than a form of disclosure

41
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: manage their social network

A

Communicate their preferences by asking network not to talk to estranged parent, meeting with network members separately to maintain certain family relationships, waiting for a time when it’s safe

42
Q

Scharp estrangement study strategies: external attributions

A
  • Maintained uncertainty about whether their parent loved them by making external attributions for the parents’ behaviour
  • Way to reduce the possibility that parents did not love them (due to mental illness, substance use or misuse, etc.)