Perceived relational stability in on-again/off-again relationships

Abstract

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.

A Dimensional Approach to Characterizing On-Again/Off-Again Romantic Relationships

“…For example, as the number of renewals increased in on-off relationships, network support decreased , and social network support has been associated with greater certainty about the relationship (Dailey, LeFebvre, Crook, & Brody, 2012). We purport that certain on-off dimensions will be positively associated with network support such as capitalized-on-transitions, whereas others will be negatively associated such as the habitual and controlling dimensions.…”

“…These partners may have more positive dynamics entering transitions as well as an enduring attachment to the partner which may facilitate positive change in the relationship. These are likely the couples who set terms and conditions during their renewals and/or report positive change during the transition process (see Dailey, Rossetto, et al, 2012), and as such, may be more likely to achieve relative stability (see also, Dailey, Middleton, et al, 2012). Conversely, those with less change and decreasing interest may be on the path towards permanent dissolution with their lower relational quality, avoidance of discussions about the transitions, and greater relational uncertainty.…”

“…Further, these partners may have more difficulties in contracting their identities or redefining their self-concepts when separating from their partners (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006;Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010), which draws them back to the relationship. These couples may be those who continue cycling as opposed to achieving permanent stability or dissolution (Dailey, Middleton, et al, 2012). These partners may see their relationship as sufficient but not fully meeting their standards.…”

“…They also reported their alternatives as more attractive. Hence, as discussed within a social exchange framework by previous on-off research (Dailey, Middleton, et al, 2012;Dailey, Rossetto, et al, 2009), the current alternatives may not be so attractive as to warrant terminating the relationship, and partners may be waiting for a more attractive partner to materialize to fully dissolve the on-off relationship. Previous research suggests they may accomplish this by circumventing an explicit or permanent transition with strategies such as leaving the door open after breakups and viewing renewals as temporary or a trial (see Dailey, Rossetto, et al, 2012).…”

“…Some partners may wish to pursue their alternatives while maintaining their on-off relationship in some form. Yet, partners in on-off relationships have varying views of alternatives depending on their perceived stability (Dailey, Middleton, & Green, 2012). Thus, certain on-off dimensions may have positive associations with the quality of alternatives (e.g., gradual separation), whereas others may have negative associations (e.g., capitalized-on-transitions).…”