“It’s complicated”

Vennum, Amber; Lindstrom, Rachel; Monk, J. Kale; Adams, Rebekah D.

doi:10.1177/0265407513501987

Cited by 59 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the individualization of marriage may not be as prevalent as some believe (see Yodanis & Lauer, 2014), change in the societal meaning of marriage creates opportunities for new types of unions. Likewise, researchers have only recently begun to understand cohabiting unions (Guzzo, 2014), remarriages (Afifi, 2003;Sweeney, 2010), long-distance relationships (Maguire, 2007), friends with benefits (Guerrero & Mongeau, 2008), hookups (Owen & Fincham, 2011;Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010), living-apart-together relationships (Cherlin, 2010), and on-again, off-again relationship cycling (Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009;Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, & Adams, 2014)-all examples of relationship forms that can be rife with uncertainty. Cherlin (1978) argued that remarriages, for example, face challenges because they may be considered "incomplete institutions" due to society's conception of marriage as a means of social control of reproduction and child rearing.…”

Section: Future Research: Application To Other Contemporary Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Relational Uncertainty Model: Understanding Ambiguity in a Changing Sociopolitical Context of Marriage

Monk

Ogolsky

2019

J of Family Theo & Revie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainty about the future of a close relationship is important to consider given the association between relational uncertainty and well‐being. These concerns and questions are likely compounded by accelerated rates of societal change that are rife with ambiguity, which could erode relational confidence, especially for those in marginalized unions. Despite the importance of the sociopolitical environment, there is limited insight into how this context might shape various forms of uncertainty. Thus, we propose an integrative framework, the contextual relational uncertainty model, to understand the intersection of contextual ambiguity and relational uncertainty during times of change for individuals in marginalized relationships. As an exemplar of sociopolitical transitions, we describe the changes related to same‐sex marriage in the 21st century to illustrate the utility and initial explication of the model. We describe suggestions for future research and clinical implications of exploring sociopolitical uncertainty, as well as its antecedents and consequences.

show abstract

Section: Future Research: Application To Other Contemporary Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Relational Uncertainty Model: Understanding Ambiguity in a Changing Sociopolitical Context of Marriage

Monk

Ogolsky

2019

J of Family Theo & Revie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the relational difficulties reported by cyclical versus non-cyclical couples (e.g. Dailey, Middleton, & Green, 2012;Dailey, Pfiester et al, 2009;Halpern-Meekin et al, 2013;Vennum et al, in press), we conceptualize premarital cycling as a relationship dynamic with the potential to shape dyadic functioning across the transition to marriage.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Premarital Cycling on Early Marriage

Vennum

Johnson

2014

Family Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a sample of 564 newlywed couples and the enduring dynamics model of marriage, the study examined the impact of premarital cycling (breaking up and renewing) on the entrance into marriage and relationship dynamics over the first 5 years. Consistent with the enduring dynamics model, results demonstrated cyclical couples (compared to noncyclical couples) exhibited worse adjustment on a variety of relationship indicators at the entrance to marriage and were more likely to experience a trial separation over the first 5 years. Dyadic parallel process growth curve analysis further revealed that premarital cycling predicted lower initial relationship satisfaction that was sustained over the first 5 years of marriage. Implications for theory, research, and intervention with premarital couples are discussed. These results provide evidence that courtships characterized by breakups and renewals represent a relational vulnerability with negative implications extending years into the future.

show abstract

“…Similarly, one quarter of married young adults reported reconciling after a separation (Binstock & Thorton, 2003). These rates of marital cycling tend to be lower in more age-representative samples (see Vennum et al, 2014), but about 12% of marital disruptions reported in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, for example, were reconciled 3 years after separation (Tumin, Han, & Qian, 2015).…”

Section: On-again/off-again Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although research is emerging about on-off relationships for different-sex couples (e.g., Dailey et al, 2009;Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, & Adams, 2014), there is virtually no insight about this phenomenon in same-sex relationships.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coming Out and Getting Back In: Relationship Cycling and Distress in Same‐ and Different‐Sex Relationships

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine the role of on–off relationship cycling in psychological distress for individuals in same‐ and different‐sex relationships. Background Relationship processes have a robust effect on individual well‐being, and dissolution is associated with psychological distress that is normative and typically short‐lived. A prolonged history of terminating a relationship and then reconciling (i.e., on–off cycling), however, may facilitate more pervasive symptomology. Moreover, researchers have indicated that instability is similar for individuals in same‐ and different‐sex relationships, but cycling in same‐sex relationships has yet to be studied despite existing disparities for sexual minorities. Method Data from 545 individuals in same‐sex (n = 279) and different‐sex (n = 266) relationships were used to assess the association between on–off cycling and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Results The occurrence of cycling was similar across relationship types, but a greater frequency emerged in male–male relationships compared with female–female and different‐sex relationships. Regardless of relationship type, we found a positive association between relationship cycling and distress while controlling for known correlates of mental health. Conclusion Patterns of breakup and renewal were linked to increased symptoms of psychological distress, indicating the accumulation of relationship transitions can create added turmoil for individuals. Implications Due to the potential distress associated with this relational pattern, practitioners should assess for on–off instability. We also provide suggestions for encouraging individuals in distressed on–off relationships to make informed decisions about stabilizing or safely terminating their partnerships.

show abstract

“It’s complicated”

Cited by 59 publications

References 32 publications

Contextual Relational Uncertainty Model: Understanding Ambiguity in a Changing Sociopolitical Context of Marriage

Contextual Relational Uncertainty Model: Understanding Ambiguity in a Changing Sociopolitical Context of Marriage

The Impact of Premarital Cycling on Early Marriage

Coming Out and Getting Back In: Relationship Cycling and Distress in Same‐ and Different‐Sex Relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About