Transitions in marriage

Abstract

This study examines transitions in marriage by merging the frameworks of the relational turbulence model and the experiencing life transitions model. An online survey presented 208 married individuals with open-ended questions and closed-ended scales that gathered information about a particularly important transition in the respondent’s marriage, the quality of their relationship during the transition, and the strategies used to navigate the transition. Analyses, which focused on 157 participants who reported experiencing a transition in their marriage, revealed 10 categories of transitions, the most frequent of which were sparked by health issues or the death of a loved one. Type of transition demonstrated unique associations with relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, relational turbulence, and transition processing activity. Several significant associations between qualities of relational turbulence, engagement in transition processing activity, and transition valence emerged.

Keywords

Marriage relational turbulence relational uncertainty transitions transition processing

The relational turbulence model is a perspective on romantic relationships that highlights how changes in relationship circumstances contribute to heightened relational uncertainty and goal interference from a partner, which in turn lead to turbulence in the relationship (Solomon & Knobloch, 2001, 2004). Research on specific transitions in marriage has demonstrated the applicability of the relational turbulence model to marital relationships (e.g., Knobloch & Theiss, 2012; Steuber & Solomon, 2008; Theiss, Estlein, & Weber, 2013); however, the emphasis to date on predefined relationship challenges (e.g., military deployment, infertility, parenthood) has neglected the broader landscape of transitions people experience in marriage. Within marriages, a host of transitions, such as changes in health status, career changes or job loss, and changes in family composition, occur over the life span of the relationship. Thus, to complement research that has examined specific transitional moments in marriage, a first goal of this investigation is to document the variety of experiences that constitute marital transitions.

A second goal is to shed light on the activities that help people navigate transitions in marriage. An extensive literature considers interventions, particularly those implemented by counselors, that can help married couples cope with relationship difficulties (see Epstein & Baucom, 2002); however, this work does not specifically address how couples work through transitions in their marriage. In this article, we use insights from the experiencing life transitions model (Meleis, 2010; Meleis, Sawyer, Im, Messias, & Schumacher, 2000) to examine how couples address marital transitions. In total, then, this article examines the range of experiences that constitute transitions and provides formative research on communication activities that may help couples navigate transitions.

The integration of the relational turbulence model and the experiencing life transitions model is valuable for three reasons. First, while the relational turbulence model illuminates the experience of specific transitions, we know considerably less about the narratives people construct that situate those transitions within the course of their marriage. Because the sense that people make of previous relationship experiences shapes how they handle future events (Slotter & Ward, 2015), understanding these perceptions can inform research on how spouses navigate significant life changes. Second, extending the experiencing life transitions model to marital transitions draws upon an intervention developed in health-care settings to understand how people cope with nonmedical issues. In doing so, this article illustrates the broader utility of looking across disciplinary boundaries to find ways to promote relationship well-being. Finally, transitions that occur within marriages mark critical turning points that can foster resilience or create distance within a relationship. Understanding the events that comprise significant transitions and the activities that may help couples navigate them can inform both theoretical and practical efforts to understand the life course of marriage.

Relationship transitions in marriage

Across the life span, people move between periods of stability and flux as they experience new events and situations that change their identities, expectations, behaviors, and roles (Bauer & McAdams, 2004; Manzi, Vignoles, & Regalia, 2010). Life transitions, whether they stem from events internal or external to the relationship or from the experiences of one or both partners, can have significant effects on relationship functioning (e.g., Hanisch, 1999; Kirchoff, Yi, Wright, & Smith, 2012). Our focus is on individual and relational events that constitute relational transitions.

According to the relational turbulence model, transitions within a relationship change partners’ assumptions and expectations and also the nature of interdependence between partners (Solomon & Theiss, 2011); the result is relational turbulence. Within the theoretical framework, relational uncertainty captures the questions people have about a relationship, which interrupt an individual’s capacity to make choices concerning their own behavior (self uncertainty), understand their partner’s actions (partner uncertainty), and predict relational outcomes (relationship uncertainty; Solomon & Knobloch, 2001, 2004). Interference from a partner is the perception of how much the partner disrupts one’s every day goals and routines (Solomon & Knobloch, 2001, 2004). Relational turbulence is a quality of relationships characterized by feelings of chaos and a state of increased cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactivity to relationship-relevant information (Knobloch, Miller, & Carpenter, 2007). The theory specifies that transitions correspond with heightened relational uncertainty and increases in experiences of interference from a partner, and these conditions contribute to turbulence in the relationship (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, in press). Consistent with this reasoning, previous research on specific transitions has linked relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence to polarized cognitions, emotions, and communication within married relationships (e.g., Knobloch & Theiss, 2011a; Theiss et al., 2013; Theiss & Knobloch, 2014).

As noted previously, research concerning experiences of turbulence is limited by a focus on specific marital transitions selected a priori by researchers. As a result, this literature overlooks the broader variety of transitions that confront married couples and have the potential to cause relational turbulence. To guide an inductive analysis of transitions experienced in marriage, the following research question is proposed:

RQ1: What types of events do people report when describing transitions in their marriage?

The relational turbulence model implies that perceptions of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence are higher during periods of transition than during times of stability. Previous research has shown consistently low scores on these measures in studies involving the general population of married couples (e.g., Theiss & Nagy, 2010). Interestingly, studies focused on people experiencing momentous transitions document similarly low levels of relational uncertainty and interference from a partner (e.g., Steuber & Solomon, 2012; Theiss & Knobloch, 2014). To test the relationship between the presence of a transition and the experience of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence associated with a recalled marital transition are higher than current reports of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence.

To this point, we have treated a marital transition as a discrete and monolithic event. Of course, life transitions can be minor (e.g., moving across town) to momentous (e.g., moving abroad), and the same transition can be subjectively experienced as large or small and positive or negative. Theoretically, the amount of turbulence within a relationship transition is likely to be intertwined with perceptions of the transition as substantial and negative. In particular, transitions that evoke high levels of relational uncertainty, spark frequent interference from a partner, and promote a great deal of chaos are likely to be remembered as more momentous and unpleasant, and transitions experienced as major and difficult life changes are likely to coincide with more noxious recollections of the relationship. Importantly, however, no studies have investigated this possibility. Within research on interpersonal conflict, the magnitude of a disagreement is frequently indexed by its perceived severity and resolvability, and the outcomes of conflicts range from satisfying to dissatisfying or positive to negative (e.g., Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Thus, to test the assumption that relational qualities associated with transitions are associated with recollections of transition magnitude and valence, we evaluate the following hypothesis:

H2: Relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence associated with a recalled marital transition are positively associated with the perceived magnitude of the transition and negatively associated with the perceived positive valence of the experience and outcome of the transition.

Applying the experiencing life transitions model to marital transitions

Applying theory and research concerning individual life transitions from the field of nursing provides a framework for conceptualizing how spouses navigate relationship transitions. In particular, the experiencing life transitions model identifies four process indicators of a successful transition: interacting, feeling connected, feeling situated, and developing confidence/coping strategies (Meleis, 2010; Meleis et al., 2000). These patterns of response have been identified through multiple studies (e.g., Im, Meleis, & Lee, 1999; Messias, 1997; Sawyer, 1996) and can be used to form assessments and interventions for individual transitions. When considering the relational transitions experienced by married couples, these categories of responses may serve as indicators of successful transitions within dyadic relationships.

The first indicator of an individual’s successful transition, according to Meleis, Sawyer, Im, Messias, and Schumacher (2000), is interacting. Interacting with a network of family, friends, and health-care providers allows individuals to attain important information and maintain physical and emotional well-being. According to Meleis et al. (2000, p. 25), “through interaction, the meanings and the behaviors developed in response to the transition are uncovered, clarified, and acknowledged.” During marital transitions, interacting provides couples with information that allows them to draw inferences and make predictions about their relationships. Interacting also allows individuals to establish and negotiate relational norms and schema (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011b). Although communication may be more difficult under conditions of relational turbulence, interacting may ultimately help couples transcend periods of change.

For Meleis et al., feeling connected with social network members signals a constructive transition experience. By discussing their transition with family, friends, and health-care providers, individuals gain information, support, and other resources for navigating the change (Meleis et al., 2000). Whereas interacting focuses on spending time with network members, feeling connected places an emphasis on self-disclosure and discussion of the transition itself. Feeling connected may also serve as an indicator of successful relationship transitions. Knobloch and Theiss (2011b) found that when relational partners engaged in more relationship talk one week, they reported less uncertainty the following week. Similarly, studies have also shown that communicating openly about jealousy (Theiss & Solomon, 2006a), sexual intimacy (Theiss & Nagy, 2010), and relational uncertainty (Theiss & Solomon, 2008) increases partners’ subsequent feelings of intimacy and satisfaction. In sum, married couples experiencing transitions may be able to reduce relational uncertainty and interference from a partner when they maintain a positive connection emotionally or behaviorally through increased self-disclosure and relationship talk.

Feeling situated is another indicator of a successful transition process. When individuals make comparisons between their life before and after the change, they situate themselves in terms of “time, space, and relationships” (Meleis et al., 2000, p. 25). Recognizing changes in the relationship due to a marital transition may also allow individuals to situate themselves within their new routines and their new relationship. Research on narratives indicates that individuals who reframe negative transitions to recognize positive outcomes experience enhanced well-being and emotional resiliency (Pals, 2006), as well as less emotional distress (Slotter & Ward, 2015). To the extent that these narratives help married partners make sense of relational changes in a positive light, feeling situated may reduce qualities of relational turbulence.

Finally, the nursing literature identifies developing confidence and coping strategies as part of navigating life transitions. Increasing confidence manifests as the individual’s comprehension of the process involved in the life event, the resources available to help with the event, and the strategies necessary to manage the event. As spouses move through relational transitions, they establish or reestablish routines and behavioral schema, which in turn reduces relational uncertainty and interference from a partner (Solomon & Theiss, 2011). In particular, research shows that indicators of commitment (e.g., providing affection, verbally expressing commitment, and providing support) are positively associated with relational satisfaction and relational commitment and negatively associated with relational uncertainty (Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 2002; Weigel, Brown, & O’Riordan, 2011). Thus, increasing confidence may help couples transcend the changes introduced by marital transitions.

Our application of research in the field of nursing to the experience of marital transitions leads to the following hypotheses:

H3: The extent to which people report staying connected, interacting, feeling situated, and increasing confidence during a recalled marital transition is negatively correlated with the relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence associated with the transition.

H4: The extent to which people report staying connected, interacting, feeling situated, and increasing confidence during a recalled marital transition is negatively correlated with evaluations of transition magnitude and positively correlated with the valence of the transition experience and outcome.

Method

We tested our research question and hypotheses using self-report data from individuals who had been married for at least 10 years. An online survey included open- and closed-ended items pertaining to the participants’ relationship currently and a recalled transition they had experienced in their marriage.

Participants

Participants were 208 individuals (104 males and 104 females) drawn from a Qualtrics nationwide sample. Qualtrics recruits participants from across the U.S. based on criteria set forth by the researcher. Respondents are incentivized using cash payment, gift cards, or online vouchers. We sampled people who had been married for at least 10 years (M = 25.83, SD = 11.06, range: 10–58 years) to increase the likelihood that the partnership had experienced a consequential transition. Respondents were an average age of 55.12 years (SD = 10.14, range: 35–82). Most participants (163, 78%) were European American/White (4% Latino/a, 4% native American, 3% Asian, and 5% African American).

Procedures

Participants completed questionnaires using online survey software. After providing informed consent, participants responded to scales concerning their marriage, including current relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence. Ample research suggests that people’s satisfaction with their marriage infuses their evaluations of other aspects of their relationship through a process called sentiment override (Weiss, 1980). Thus, current relational satisfaction was assessed as a potential covariate. Participants were then asked to recall the most important transition that he or she has experienced within the marriage. The instructions read as follows:

A relational transition is a period of instability and change that occurs as a result of a life event marked by shifts in how individuals define their relationship and behave toward each other. These transitions can occur as a result of circumstances involving a single partner, such as breast cancer, death of a parent, or job loss, or both partners, such as the birth of a new child, coping with infertility, or moving to a new location. In the boxes below, please identify and describe the transition that you consider to be the most important to your relationship.

Using open-ended questions, the participants were encouraged to explain the event in detail and describe their marriage during the transition. Then, they identified communicative behaviors and thought processes that were used (by the participant and by the partner) to help ease the transition and maintain the relationship through the experience. Participants also described the effect of the event on the marriage.

Finally, respondents completed closed-ended measures of transition magnitude, valence of the transition experience, valence of the transition outcome; perceptions of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence during the transition; and the enactment of transition process activities.

Measures

Our measures relied upon content analysis and coding, as well as quantitative scale analysis.

Content analysis

We reviewed the data to identify participants who did not report on a marital transition (i.e., participants who reported transitions that occurred before they were married, claimed to have experienced no transitions, or identified qualities of their marriage instead of a transition). Two independent coders individually reviewed the open-ended responses. The coders evaluated 40% of the cases in common (n = 83) to provide a subsample for computing the reliability of the coding task (per Neuendorf, 2002, p. 158). The remaining 60% of responses (n = 125) were divided randomly between the two coders. Intercoder agreement was good (κ = .91), and disagreements were adjudicated by the first author. We eliminated participants who did not describe a marital transition, which left 157 respondents. To evaluate differences between participants who did and did not report a marital transition, we conducted χ² analyses and t-tests. Results showed that male participants (n = 67) were less likely to report a transition than female participants (n = 90), χ² (2, N = 208) = 13.74, p < .01; however, age, years married, and ethnicity were not associated with reporting a transition. Time since the transition occurred ranged from 2 months to 53 years (M = 8.35 years, SD = 9.89).

Content analysis was used to identify types of transitions. First, the first author examined the open-ended responses and developed a coding scheme distinguishing nine substantive categories and a miscellaneous code (see Table 1). Two independent coders read the open-ended descriptions of the transitions to place them into one of the categories; if more than one transition was mentioned, coders focused on the most prominent transition described. Intercoder agreement was acceptable (κ = .86), and disagreements were adjudicated by the first author.

Table 1.

Content analysis of marital transitions.

Code	Transition	Description	Example	Frequency
1	Health issues	Transitions resulting from a spouse’s health diagnoses, treatment of illness, changes in physical ability, etc.	“I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s and my wife is having a hard time coping.”	37
2	Death of a loved one	Transitions resulting from the death of a family member: parent, sibling, child, etc.	“My spouse’s mother died this past year, if anything it drew us closer together.”	24
3	Birth of a child	Transition resulting from the birth of a child/children.	“When we became parents I think we realized that this was the real deal and that we had to be a team or our children would suffer.”	19
4	Relocation	Transitions resulting from moving to a new geographic region or home.	“Sold our home we had lived in for 20 years and bought a smaller home.”	13
5	Job loss/change	Transitions resulting from one or both spouses losing or changing jobs.	“When I went back to school and changed jobs.”	13
6	Crises involving children	Transitions resulting from the couple’s involvement with a crisis with their children (e.g., health, finances, relationship status).	“Our daughter’s divorce 2 years ago has been a struggle to work with.”	10
7	Empty nest	Transitions resulting from the couple’s children moving out of the house.	“Last child moved out of the house and it is now just us.”	7
8	Caring for elderly parents	Transitions resulting from one or both spouses having to care for an elderly, sick, or grieving parent.	“We cared for my elderly mom in our home for 10 years.”	7
9	Retirement	Transitions resulting from one or both spouses retiring.	“When I retired we had to learn how to communicate better.”	6
10	Other	Transitions resulting from changes not described by other categories: infidelity, infertility, addiction, prison, separation, financial trouble, etc.	“My husband had to spend time in a State Prison for a crime that was committed before I met him.”	21

Measurement analysis

Measures of self, partner, and relationship uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence were assessed with regard to the relationship at the time of the survey and at the time of the transition. Relationship satisfaction was also measured at the time of the survey. All other variables measured perceptions of the recalled transition. For all quantitative measures, we computed composite scores as the average of the items that formed unidimensional scales, and we used mean imputation to address missing data for items within composite scales.

We used Solomon and Brisini’s (2016) operationalization of relational uncertainty, which was adapted from Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999) original measure. The measure presents one of three stems: “I sometimes wonder,” “I sometimes question,” or “I sometimes am unsure,” followed by statements that capture different sources of relational uncertainty, and participants report their agreement or disagreement with each statement (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Solomon and Brisini reported that this measure correlates strongly with the original scale but exhibits a more normal distribution. Six items measured self uncertainty (e.g., “…how strongly I am committed to my spouse,” “…if I am sexually or romantically attracted to my spouse”), 6 items measured partner uncertainty (e.g., “…how strongly my spouse is committed to me,” “…if my spouse is sexually or romantically attracted to me”), and 6 items measured relationship uncertainty (e.g., “…whether or not my spouse and I will stay together,” “…how I should or should not behave around my spouse”).

Other relationship qualities were operationalized using scales employed in prior research. Five items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) measured interference from a partner (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). Items indexed the respondent’s perceptions of whether or not their partner hindered their daily goals (e.g., “My spouse interferes with the plans that I make”). Relational turbulence was measured using four 6-point semantic differential scales ranging from calm to turbulent, chaotic to stable (reverse coded), tumultuous to running smoothly (reverse coded), and peaceful to stressful (McLaren, Solomon, & Priem, 2012). Finally, six items from the Marital Quality Index (Norton, 1983) measured relational satisfaction at the time of the survey. Items designed to index perceptions of the overall goodness of the relationship ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree; e.g., “Our relationship is strong,” “My relationship with my partner makes me happy”). The scale is a widely used measure of relational satisfaction and has demonstrated high inter-item reliability in previous research (α = .96, Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; α = .96, Funk & Rogge, 2007).

Four items ranging from 1 (not very much) to 6 (quite a lot) measured the respondent’s engagement in each of the four forms of transition process activity during the transition; parallel items measured perceptions of their spouse’s process activity. Scale items, which are presented in Table 2, were revised from Meleis et al.’s (2000) measure of indicators of individual life transitions to reflect transitions in marriage. Increased interaction indexed married partners’ attempts to spend more time together during the transition. Feelings of connection assessed partners’ efforts to maintain an emotional bond through open conversation and relationship talk. Feeling situated evaluated partners’ attempts to understand their circumstances now in comparison to how things were before the transition. Increasing confidence measured partners’ efforts to enact commitment indicators during the transition.

Table 2.

Items measuring transition processing activities.

Increasing interaction

During the transition, I tried to spend extra time with my spouse.

During the transition, I tried to arrange for the two of us to spend quality time together.^b

During the transition, I made time in my schedule to be alone with my spouse.^a

During the transition, I made it a point to do fun things with my spouse.

Feeling connected

During the transition, I tried to share my feelings with my spouse.

During the transition, I tried to be open with my spouse about how I felt.^a,b

During the transition, I made it a point to focus on our bond as a couple.

During the transition, I put forth effort to maintain my emotional bond with my spouse.^b

Feeling situated

During the transition, I tried to communicate about how things are different now in our relationship.

During the transition, I tried to make sense of how the event affected my relationship with my spouse.

During the transition, I explained to other people how things had changed.

During the transition, I tried to foster discussion about our relationship in light of the changes that had occurred.

Increasing confidence

During the transition, I reminded my spouse that our relationship was strong.

During the transition, I showed my spouse that our relationship was strong through affection.

During the transition, I showed my spouse that our relationship was strong by offering them support.

During the transition, I reassured my spouse that I wasn’t going anywhere.

^aItems that were removed from the self version of the scale.

^bItems that were removed from the partner version of the scale.

Three scales indexed participants’ appraisals of the transition. Respondents evaluated the magnitude of the transition they recalled using four items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree; e.g., “This event was an important one”). Two 6-point semantic differential scales measured the respondent’s perceptions of the valence of the transition experience (negative/positive; unpleasant/pleasant). Two 6-point semantic differentials measured the respondent’s perceptions of the valence of the outcomes of the transition (negative/positive; destructive/constructive).

To assess measurement properties of our composite variables, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses. We constructed separate measurement models for scales focused on the relationship at the time of the survey and those focused on the relationship during the time of transition. We used the following criteria to define adequate model fit: χ²/df < 3.00, CFI > .90, RMSEA < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Each item was assigned to its respective latent construct and latent constructs were allowed to covary. Error terms for reverse-coded items within the relational turbulence scale were also allowed to covary (per Solomon & Brisini, 2016). To address model fit, we consulted the modification indices and removed problematic scale items.

The model assessing scales focused on the time of the survey fell short of our criteria for adequate fit (χ²/df = 2.36, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .09). Based on the modification indices, we removed one item from the self uncertainty scale, two items from the partner uncertainty scale, and one item from the relationship uncertainty scale.¹ The resulting model fit the data, χ²/df = 2.03, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .08.

In the second model, we examined self, partner, and relationship uncertainty, as well as interference from a partner and relational turbulence at the time of the transition. This model also included respondents’ assessments of their own and their partner’s engagement in transition process activities (i.e., increasing interaction, feeling connected, feeling situated, and increasing confidence), transition magnitude, valence of the transition experience, and valence of the transition outcomes. The original model did not meet our criteria for adequate fit, χ²/df = 2.42, CFI = .78, RMSEA = .10. We removed the same items from the relational uncertainty scales that were dropped from the measure of current relational uncertainty; based on the modification indices, we also removed one item each from the increased interaction (self), increased interaction (partner), feeling connected (self), and transition magnitude scales and two items from the feeling connected (partner) scales.² The resulting model fit the data, χ²/df = 1.71, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07. Descriptive statistics for the quantitative measures are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for scales.

	Time of survey			Time of transition
	M	SD	α	M	SD	α
Self uncertainty	1.98	1.32	.95	2.22	1.56	.95
Partner uncertainty	1.89	1.31	.95	2.35	1.70	.98
Relationship uncertainty	2.20	1.23	.89	2.40	1.51	.93
Interference from partner	2.11	1.19	.91	2.11	1.32	.92
Relational turbulence	2.05	1.18	.94	3.22	1.62	.95
Relational satisfaction	5.14	1.14	.97
Increasing interaction (s)				4.65	1.33	.89
Feeling connected (s)				4.84	1.16	.85
Feeling situated (s)				4.24	1.16	.77
Increasing confidence (s)				4.78	1.21	.92
Increasing interaction (p)				4.39	1.55	.92
Feeling connected (p)				4.45	1.57	.87
Feeling situated (p)				3.75	1.44	.82
Increasing confidence (p)				4.56	1.52	.94

Note. N = 157 participants who reported experiencing a transition. (s): self; (p): partner.

Results

To analyze our data, we first conducted preliminary analyses to assess potential covariates and confounds within the data set. These results informed the tests of the research question and hypotheses. To evaluate and compare the types of transitions experienced by married partners (RQ1), we employed χ² tests and analyses of variance. Next, we used independent samples t-tests to compare mean scores for qualities of turbulence at the time of the survey and at the time of the transition (H1). Finally, H2, H3, and H4 were each tested using partial correlations. Doing so allowed us to examine associations between our variables of interest while controlling for relational satisfaction.

Preliminary analysis

First, we examined the association between participant’s sex, age, years married, ethnicity, and time since transition and the closed-ended measures. Independent sample t-tests indicated no significant differences between males and females for any of the measures of current relationship qualities, relationship qualities during the transition, transition processing activities, or perceptions of the transition. Age was negatively correlated with partner uncertainty at the time of transition, r = −.17, p < .05. Time since transition was positively correlated with transition magnitude, r = .21, p < .05, and relational turbulence at the time of transition, r = .20, p < .05. Ethnicity and years married were not significantly related to any of the variables in the hypotheses. Overall, the variance associated with demographic variables was limited in our data set.

We also examined correlations between the variables in the hypotheses and relational satisfaction. Relational satisfaction was negatively correlated with self, partner, and relationship uncertainty; interference from a partner; and relational turbulence at the time of transition (rs ranged from −.43 to −.61). Satisfaction was not associated with transition magnitude, but positively correlated with each of the transition process variables (with the exception of feeling situated), the valence of the transition experience, and the valence of the transition outcome (rs ranged from .36 to .61).

Next, we examined the correlations within the sets of closed-ended measures assessing relationship qualities, transition process indicators, and evaluations of transitions. We observed that self, partner, and relationship uncertainty; interference from a partner; and relational turbulence at the time of the survey all shared strong and positive correlations (rs ranged from .52 to .89; see also Theiss et al., 2013). Measures of relational qualities at the time of the survey also shared strong and positive correlations with measures of relational qualities at the time of transition (rs ranged from .24 to .67). Correlations among the process variables were all positive and significant (rs ranged from .25 to .89). Valence of the transition experience and valence of the transition outcome were also positively correlated, r = .69, p < .001; however, neither was significantly correlated with transition magnitude.

Types of transitions in marriage

The analysis of the open-ended responses provides an answer to our research question addressing the types of marital transitions. As reported in Table 1, one or both of the partners facing health crises was the most frequently reported marital transition, followed by death of a loved one, birth/adoption of a child, job loss/change, and geographic relocation. The least frequent marital transitions were crises involving children, caring for elderly parents, empty nest, and retirement. The miscellaneous category included 13% of responses.

To explore patterns in the occurrence of these marital transitions, we examined the associations between transition type and participant sex, age, years married, ethnicity, and time since transition. χ² tests indicate no significant differences in the transition reported associated with participant sex or ethnicity. ANOVAs tested the relationship between the type of transition reported and participant age, years married, and time since transition. Results indicated significant differences associated with age, F(9,141) = 3.77, p < .001, and years married, F(9,141) = 2.72, p < .01, for retirement, empty nest, caring for elderly parents, and crises involving children; these transitions corresponded with older participants and longer marriages. Time since transition was also associated with the type of transition, F(9,135) = 3.97, p < .001, such that participants reported longer times since transitions involving the birth of a child, caring for elderly parents, and crises involving children.

We also examined whether type of transition was related to the closed-ended variables indexing evaluations of the relationship during the transition, reports of transition process activities, and perceptions of transitions (see Table 4). Analysis of covariances, controlling for relational satisfaction, indicated a significant association between type of transition and self uncertainty, relationship uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence. Geographic relocation, retirement, and miscellaneous transitions were associated with the highest levels of these relational qualities, whereas empty nesting, health issues, death of a loved one, and job loss/change were associated with the lowest levels. The type of transition was also associated with significant or marginally significant differences in measures of all of the transition process activities, except for a spouse’s attempts at feeling situated. Participants who experienced empty nest, health issues, job loss/change, and miscellaneous transitions reported the highest levels of the transition process activities. Transitions involving retirement, geographic relocation, caring for elderly parents, and crises involving children were associated with the lowest levels of transition process activities. Finally, the type of transition was significantly associated with differences in the experience of the transition. Birth of a child was the transition with the highest mean for transition magnitude, followed by crises involving children and caring for elderly parents. The empty nest transition received the lowest scores for transition magnitude, followed by retirement and job loss/change. The empty nest transition also received the most positive ratings of transition experience and transition outcomes, followed by birth of a child and health issues. Crises involving children received the most negative ratings in terms of transition experience and outcomes.

Table 4.

Relationship qualities, transition process activities, and evaluations of transitions by type of marital transition.

	1 (37)	2 (24)	3 (19)	4 (13)	5 (13)	6 (10)	7 (7)	8 (7)	9 (6)	10 (21)	F(9,147)
Self uncertainty	1.69 (1.18)	2.14 (1.52)	2.24 (1.47)	3.00 (2.13)	1.92 (.97)	2.40 (1.91)	1.22 (.60)	2.51 (1.75)	2.73 (1.98)	2.91 (1.77)	1.87ŧ
Partner uncertainty	1.89 (1.47)	2.30 (1.67)	2.51 (1.75)	2.82 (1.99)	2.02 (1.42)	2.40 (1.79)	1.18 (.37)	2.40 (2.30)	2.79 (1.68)	3.19 (1.90)	1.52
Relationship uncertainty	2.01 (1.32)	2.23 (1.40)	2.36 (1.55)	2.90 (1.91)	1.91 (1.05)	2.58 (1.46)	1.45 (.72)	2.71 (2.13)	2.70 (1.13)	3.49 (1.77)	2.01*
Interference from partner	1.77 (1.22)	1.78 (1.10)	1.78 (.90)	2.55 (1.78)	2.06 (1.03)	2.56 (1.62)	1.60 (.65)	2.46 (1.65)	2.10 (1.02)	3.02 (1.49)	2.32*
Relational turbulence	2.78 (1.53)	2.81 (1.79)	3.47 (1.39)	3.79 (1.63)	3.19 (1.33)	3.40 (1.58)	1.54 (.77)	4.07 (1.76)	3.13 (1.16)	4.14 (1.66)	2.78**
Increasing interaction (s)	5.04 (1.05)	4.53 (1.30)	4.33 (1.55)	4.01 (1.66)	5.12 (1.07)	4.32 (1.36)	5.03 (1.14)	4.18 (1.95)	3.58 (1.01)	5.00 (1.16)	1.91ŧ
Feeling connected (s)	5.33 (1.00)	4.82 (1.00)	4.42 (1.49)	4.33 (1.14)	4.85 (1.06)	4.67 (1.44)	4.76 (1.08)	4.52 (1.03)	3.61 (.95)	5.22 (.94)	2.58**
Feeling situated (s)	4.43 (1.14)	3.92 (1.03)	3.70 (1.30)	4.04 (1.05)	4.67 (1.15)	4.20 (1.18)	4.00 (1.13)	3.64 (1.64)	4.00 (.94)	4.96 (.83)	2.35*
Increasing confidence (s)	5.28 (1.03)	4.84 (.96)	4.49 (1.48)	4.19 (1.11)	5.10 (.87)	4.63 (1.48)	4.50 (1.20)	4.21 (1.63)	3.65 (1.09)	4.95 (1.18)	2.27*
Increasing interaction (p)	4.95 (1.29)	4.33 (1.51)	4.51 (1.45)	3.71 (1.80)	4.96 (1.05)	3.53 (1.78)	4.79 (1.50)	4.07 (2.05)	3.54 (1.28)	4.07 (1.74)	1.83ŧ
Feeling connected (p)	5.16 (1.16)	4.31 (1.69)	4.53 (1.52)	3.88 (1.65)	4.65 (1.63)	3.95 (1.72)	4.64 (1.03)	3.79 (2.06)	3.00 (1.38)	4.33 (1.65)	2.04*
Feeling situated (p)	4.09 (1.46)	3.54 (1.63)	3.79 (1.33)	3.56 (1.47)	4.33 (.93)	3.35 (1.42)	3.36 (1.03)	3.04 (1.94)	3.17 (1.22)	3.86 (1.52)	.99
Increasing confidence (p)	5.28 (1.09)	4.47 (1.59)	4.43 (1.59)	4.04 (1.49)	4.96 (1.27)	3.88 (1.81)	4.64 (1.20)	4.29 (1.94)	3.25 (1.24)	4.31 (1.67)	2.19*
Transition magnitude	5.26 (1.12)	5.35 (1.06)	5.63 (.63)	5.49 (.63)	4.90 (1.22)	5.57 (.47)	4.33 (1.43)	5.43 (.74)	4.94 (1.10)	5.30 (1.14)	1.40
Transition experience	4.39 (1.70)	3.90 (1.93)	5.03 (1.54)	3.46 (1.75)	4.08 (1.61)	3.25 (1.59)	5.29 (1.35)	3.29 (1.89)	3.75 (1.94)	3.36 (1.53)	2.29*
Transition outcomes	5.28 (1.16)	4.94 (1.53)	5.34 (1.34)	4.85 (1.64)	5.15 (1.57)	3.85 (1.76)	5.71 (.49)	4.36 (1.31)	4.33 (1.40)	4.83 (1.67)	1.56

Note. Values in italics in the column heading are the number of participants who reported each type of transition; cell entries are category means; SDs are in parentheses. 1 = health crises, 2 = death of a loved one, 3 = birth/adoption of a child, 4 = relocation, 5 = job loss/change, 6 = crises involving children, 7 = empty nest, 8 = caring for elderly parents, 9 = retirement, 10 = miscellaneous. (s): self; (p): partner.

ŧ p < .10; *p < .05; **p <. 01.

Tests of hypotheses

H1 anticipated that relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence would be more pronounced when people reflected on a marital transition, compared to their current assessment of their relationship (see Table 3). As predicted by H1, paired sample t-tests showed that self, t(156) = −2.43, p < .05, partner, t(156) = −4.63, p < .001, and relationship uncertainty, t(156) = −2.38, p < .05, and relational turbulence, t(157) = −9.79, p < .001 were significantly higher during the time of transition than during the time of the survey. These results are consistent with H1. Conversely, interference from a partner was not significantly different between the two time periods.

Our second hypothesis reflected the assumption that transitions that are more disruptive, as indexed by relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence, are evaluated as greater in magnitude and less positively valenced. We tested H2 by computing partial correlations between evaluations of relationship qualities and measures of transition magnitude, experience, and outcomes, controlling for relational satisfaction (see Table 5). Transition magnitude was positively correlated with partner uncertainty, relationship uncertainty, and relational turbulence. Valence of transition experience and outcomes were negatively correlated with partner uncertainty, relationship uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence, such that more positive reports of transition experience and outcomes were associated with lower levels of relational uncertainty, interference, and turbulence. Self uncertainty was negatively correlated with the valence of the transition experience but was not significantly related to transition outcomes after controlling for relational satisfaction. These results are generally consistent with H2; however, the pattern is less robust for self uncertainty.

Table 5.

Correlations between relationship evaluations associated with recalled transitions and perceptions of transitions and transition process activities.

	Self uncertainty	Partner uncertainty	Relationship uncertainty	Interference from a partner	Relational turbulence
Transition magnitude	.09	.18*	.15ŧ	.05	.26**
Transition experience	–.22**	–.32***	–.27**	–.17*	–.47***
Transition outcomes	.02	–.15ŧ	–.19*	–.17*	–.22**
Increased interaction (s)	–.17*	–.16*	–.13ŧ	–.04	–.22**
Feeling connected (s)	–.17*	–.16*	–.10	–.09	–.19**
Feeling situated (s)	.01	–.03	.00	.07	.02
Increased confidence (s)	–.25**	–.24**	–.17*	–.11	–.16*
Increased interaction (p)	–.23**	–.29**	–.26**	–.19**	–.31***
Feeling connected (p)	–.22**	–.29***	–.24**	–.21**	–.27**
Feeling situated (p)	–.07	–.09	–.04	–.01	.00
Increased confidence (p)	–.29***	–.35***	–.23**	–.25**	–.29***

Note. N = 157. Correlations were computed controlling for relational satisfaction. (s): self; (p): partner.

ŧ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .01.

H3 highlighted the notion that transition processing activities enacted by the individual and the partner may correlate negatively with relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence. Again, we computed partial correlations, controlling for relational satisfaction, to test our thinking (see Table 5). Self, partner, and relationship uncertainty, and relational turbulence at the time of transition were each negatively correlated with respondents’ reported attempts at increased interaction and increased confidence, as well as their partners attempts at increased interaction, feeling connected, and increased confidence. Self uncertainty, partner uncertainty, and relational turbulence were also negatively correlated with the participant’s attempts to feel connected. Interference from a partner was negatively correlated with measures of the spouse’s attempts to increase interaction, feel connected, and increase confidence. Our prediction was generally supported for three of the transition process variables (i.e., increasing interaction, feeling connected, and increasing confidence); however, results associated with feeling situated were not consistent with H3.

In advancing H4, we reasoned that enacting transition processing activities would correspond positively with the positive valence of a relational transition and negatively with its perceived magnitude; again, partial correlations tested this prediction. Transition magnitude was not associated with any of the process variables. Positivity of the transition experience was positively correlated with the participant’s attempts at increased interaction, r = .21, p < .01, feeling connected, r = .14, p < .05, and increased confidence, r = .15, p < .05, as well as reports of the spouse’s use of increased interaction, r = .29, p < .001, feeling connected, r = .21, p < .01, feeling situated, r = .13, p < .05, and increased confidence, r = .21, p < .01. Positivity of the transition outcome was also positively associated with respondent’s use of increased interaction, r = .17, p < .05, and feeling situated, r = .17, p < .05, as well as reports of the spouse’s attempts at increased interaction, r = .20, p < .01, feeling connected, r = .13, p < .05, and feeling situated, r = .21, p < .05. Although correlations were small, H4 was generally supported for the valence of the transition experience and outcome; however, results associated with transition magnitude were not consistent with H4.

Discussion

The twin goals of this article were to document the landscape of transitions recalled by married persons and to consider the activities that individuals might enact as part of navigating those transitions. We identified 10 categories of transitions, and we found that most of our measures of relationship qualities during the transition, engagement in transition process activities, and the transition experience differed significantly as a function of transition type. In addition, we observed significant associations among people’s perceptions of their relationship during the transition, transition process activities, and the magnitude and valence of transitions.

Implications

We opened this article noting that applications of the relational turbulence model to marriages have typically focused on significant transitions identified a priori by the researcher. To complement this work, we used open-ended questions to solicit people’s recollections about an important transition they had experienced in their marriage of at least 10 years. Notably, about 25% of our original 208 participants did not describe experiencing a transition. Thus, the phenomenological experience of marital transitions, while common, is not universal. Although we consider it likely that this subset of respondents encountered at least some of the life changes reported by other participants, these experiences do not necessarily comprise episodes that people subjectively recall as transitions. This finding raises an interesting question for future research: Do the effects of major life events on relational uncertainty, qualities of interdependence, and relational turbulence depend on whether people subjectively experience those events as a transition? More generally, our results underscore the value of examining marital transitions from the individual’s point of view.

By focusing on the broader landscape of marital transitions, we were positioned to examine differences between types of transitions. In particular, the results of this study suggest that job relocation may have a particularly pronounced impact on relationships. This finding aligns with evidence that a geographical move disrupts aspects of family life, while also separating people from social networks that are sources of support (Starker, 1990). In contrast, the transition to an empty nest corresponded with the lowest scores across the relationship variables. The empty nest transition can be a positive experience for married partners (White & Edwards, 1990), with spouses experiencing increased intimacy and satisfaction as a result of new found freedom (Schmidt, Murphy, Haq, Rubinow, & Danaceau, 2004). Interestingly, transitions involving health crises, the death of a loved one, and job loss or change also corresponded with relatively low levels of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence. Although speculative, we wonder if the threat to well-being or salience of mortality in these experiences increases feelings of solidarity within the marriage. This notion is consistent with terror management theory, which suggests that human beings are inherently afraid of death and, as a result, reminders of impermanence increase people’s need for affiliation (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991).

Transitions coded as miscellaneous were also associated with high levels of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence. This finding leads us to wonder if atypical transitions are inherently more disruptive, perhaps because people and their support systems lack familiarity with how to handle these experiences. Upon review, we noted that transitions coded as miscellaneous also tended to be stigmatized experiences, such as an extra-marital affair, coping with infertility, drug addiction or recovery, incarceration, and financial trouble. The stigma surrounding these transitions might limit people’s options for coping, as revealed by the strategies reported by a woman coping with infertility (“keep on going like nothing happen[ed]”), a man confronted with infidelity (“ignore it and move on”), and the person in the marriage overcoming addiction (“just have each other’s back”). These observations point to the value of understanding how atypical and/or stigmatized life transitions might pose especially strong threats to relationship functioning.

This study also supported the assumption that periods of transition involve heightened levels of relational uncertainty and relational turbulence, relative to more stable periods within relationships (H1). Notably, studies using general population married persons (e.g., Knobloch et al., 2007, Theiss & Nagy, 2010) and those focused on people experiencing particular and stressful transitions (e.g., Theiss et al., 2013; Theiss & Knobloch, 2014) have documented similarly low levels of relational uncertainty and interference from a partner in both groups. By comparing reports from people describing two different periods in their relationship, we have more direct evidence that periods of transition correspond with elevated levels of relational uncertainty and relational turbulence.

In examining the association between relationship qualities during the transition and perceptions of transition magnitude (H2), we observed that partner uncertainty, relationship uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence corresponded with perceptions of greater transition magnitude and more negative transition experiences and outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the only study that has tested the assumption that variation in transition experiences is linked to disrupted relationship knowledge, interdependence, and functioning. Notably, however, we did not find significant associations involving our measure of self uncertainty. This result is consistent with previous research in which the effects of self uncertainty have diverged from those of partner and relationship uncertainty (Knobloch et al., 2007; Priem & Solomon, 2011; Theiss & Solomon, 2006a). Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, and McLaren (2016) suggested that partner and relationship uncertainty may be more likely than self uncertainty to impede partners’ ability to understand and predict each other’s actions. More generally, these findings point to the need to continue to examine the unique properties of self uncertainty and its effects within romantic relationships (see Owen et al., 2014).

One goal of this study was to gain insight into the activities people engage in to navigate marital transitions. Our results suggest that spouses’ explicit attempts to increase interaction, feel connected to each other, feel situated within their new context, and increase confidence in their relationship are negatively associated with perceptions of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence (H3). As further evidence in support of H3, we also observed that the types of transitions associated with the highest levels of relational uncertainty, interference from a partner, and relational turbulence (i.e., geographic relocation and retirement) were also associated with the lowest reports of the transition processing activities. In contrast, empty nest, health issues, and job loss were associated with the lowest levels of relationship qualities and the highest reports of transition process activities. Though correlations were somewhat small, H4 was also generally supported. In particular, engagement in transition processing activities was also associated with more positively valenced experiences of the transition and more positively valenced outcomes. Clarifying the extent to which transition process activities have a causal impact on relationship qualities and transition experiences requires a longitudinal research design; nonetheless, these patterns suggest the utility of further research applying the experiencing transitions model to marital transitions.

As a final point, we note the practical implications of these findings for helping marriages throughout the life span. This study documents the landscape of transitions experienced by married couples and examines specific behaviors used to navigate those transitions. Although exploratory in nature, the results have the potential to inform the decisions and behaviors of counselors and married partners during relationship transitions. First, transitions are not all experienced equally. Marital counselors and interventionists should pay particular attention to the potential negative impacts of transitions involving job relocation, crises involving children, and those transitions experienced less frequently that share an increased likelihood of stigmatization. Second, although the findings were correlational in nature, results from the study suggest that married partners may benefit from direct attempts to (a) spend time together (increasing interaction), (b) engage in relationship talk (feeling connected), (c) frame changes in their lives in a positive way (feeling situated), and (d) provide verbal and nonverbal indicators of relational commitment (increasing confidence). This study highlights the utility of further research to assess the applicability of the experiencing transitions models to marital transitions.

Strengths and limitations

The retrospective research design used in this study and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data were important to achieving our goals. Most studies applying the framework of the relational turbulence model to marriages have examined married individuals or couples, in general, or those facing a transition that was chosen by the researchers a priori. By asking people to tell us the story of a salient transition that occurred at any point during their marriage, we gained a more rich understanding of how people perceive life changes as they look back on their marriage. Through the inclusion of quantitative measures, we gained further insight into how people remember their relationship during these transitions, how they recall responding to the transition, and their evaluation of the magnitude, experience, and outcome of the transition. Of course, these design characteristics also impart limitations to this investigation.

A first limitation concerns bias introduced by our sample of people who were currently married to their partner of at least 10 years. We deemed it beneficial to focus on longer marriages, to increase the likelihood that participants had experienced a major transition, and our sample shed light on the transition process activities employed by people who remained married. At the same time, our study excludes people who divorced, perhaps because they did not successfully navigate a marital transition. We also excluded people in the earlier years of marriage, during which transitions may be particularly frequent as partners embark on careers and start a family.

Second, we note that our description of a transition in the instructions to participants may have influenced the results of this study. We sought to provide a broad and inclusive definition of a transition in our survey. Nonetheless, 51 participants (25%) reported that they had not experienced a transition in their marriage of at least 10 years. Given the multitude of transitions faced by married partners throughout the course of their marriage, we find it unlikely that such a large number of participants did not experience any significant life changes. Another possibility is that sociological or psychological characteristics that we did not assess shape people’s proclivity to recognize or report experiences of marital transitions. Future research should carefully evaluate the definition and examples used to explain transitions to participants, and also seek to understand the qualities of people who report an absence of marital transitions.

Finally, this study is subject to the limits imposed by a small sample size, a relative lack of diversity in the sample (participants were 78% European American), and retrospective accounts. By asking participants to reflect on their marriages, we gained insight into salient past experiences, and those recollections are a valid part of people’s subjective construction of their marriage. Nonetheless, representations of past relationship events are inevitably colored by current circumstances and details are lost with the passage of time. We sought to control for some of these effects by covarying relational satisfaction in our substantive analyses, and time since the transition was significantly associated with only two other variables in the study. Although we sought to assess and control for retrospective biases, they remain an important qualification to the conclusions of this study.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Kellie St.Cyr Brisini is a PhD student at the Pennsylvania State University, where Denise Haunani Solomon and Jon Nussbaum are professors.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Bauer

J. J.

McAdams

D. P.

(2004). Personal growth in adults’ stories of life transitions. Journal of Personality, 72, 573–602. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00273.x

Epstein

N. B.

Baucom

D. H.

(2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fincham

F. D.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00002

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

Hanisch

K. A.

(1999). Job loss and unemployment research from 1994 to 1998: A review and recommendations for research and intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 188–220. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1722

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

E. O.

Meleis

A. I.

Lee

K. A

(1999). Symptom experience during menopausal transition: Low income Korean immigrant women. Women & Health, 29, 53–67. doi:10.1300/j013v29n02_04.

Johnson

K. L.

Roloff

M. E.

(1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–343. doi:10.1177/009365098025003004

Kirchhoff

A. C.

Wright

Warner

E. L.

Smith

K. R.

(2012). Marriage and divorce among young adult cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 6, 441–450. doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0238-6

10.

Knobloch

L. K.

Miller

L. E.

Carpenter

K. E.

(2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14, 91–112. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00143.x

11.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278. doi:10.1080/10510979909388499

12.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011a). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 470–478. doi:10.1037/a0024063

13.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011b). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78, 3–26. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.542471

14.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the post-deployment transition: Applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 423–450. doi:10.1177/0265407511431186

15.

Manzi

Vignoles

V. L.

Regalia

(2010). Accommodating a new identity: Possible selves, identity change and well-being across two life-transitions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 970–984. doi:10.1002/ejsp.669

16.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2012). The effect of relationship characteristics and relational communication on experiences of hurt from romantic partners. Journal of Communication, 62, 950–971. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01678.x

17.

Meleis

A. I.

(2010). Transitions theory: Middle-range and situation-specific theories in nursing research and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Meleis

A. I.

Sawyer

L. M.

E. O.

Messias

D. K. H.

Schumacher

(2000). Experiencing transitions: An emerging middle-range theory. Advances in Nursing Science, 23, 12–28. doi:10.1097/00012272-200009000-00006

19.

Messias

D. K. H.

(1997). Narratives of transnational migration, work, and health: The live experiences of Brazilian women in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

20.

Neuendorf

K. A.

(2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. doi:10.2307/351302

22.

Owen

Rhoades

Shuck

Fincham

F. D.

Stanley

Markman

Knopp

(2014). Commitment uncertainty: A theoretical overview. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 207–219. doi:10.1037/cfp0000028

23.

Pals

J. L.

(2006). Narrative identity processing of difficult life experiences: Pathways of personality development and positive self-transformation in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 74, 1079–1110.

24.

Priem

J. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2011). Relational uncertainty and cortisol responses to hurtful and supportive messages from a dating partner. Personal Relationships, 18, 198–223. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01353.x

25.

Sawyer

L.M.

(1996). Engaged mothering within a racist environment: The transition to motherhood for a group of African American women. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California San Fransisco, San Francisco, CA.

26.

Schmidt

P. J.

Murphy

J. H.

Haq

Rubinow

D. R.

Danaceau

M. A.

(2004). Stressful life events, personal losses, and perimenopause-related depression. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 7, 19–26. doi:10.1007/s00737-003-0036-2

27.

Slotter

E. B.

Ward

D. E.

(2015). Finding the silver lining: The relative roles of redemptive narratives and cognitive reappraisal in individuals’ emotional distress after the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 737–756. doi:1177/0265407514546978

28.

Solomon

D. H.

Brisini

K. S.

(2016). Measuring relational turbulence in marriage: A validation study. Manuscript in preparation.

29.

Solomon

Greenberg

Pyszczynski

(1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 95–150). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

30.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 804–820. doi:10.1177/0265407501186004

31.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795–816. doi:10.1177/0265407504047838

32.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42, 507–532. doi:10.1111/hcre.12091

33.

Solomon

D. H.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Relational turbulence: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. In Cupach

W. H.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 196–216). New York, NY: Routledge.

34.

Starker

J. E.

(1990). Psychosocial aspects of geographic relocation: The development of a new social network. American Journal of Health Promotion, 5, 52–57. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-5.1.52

35.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and infertility: A qualitative study of discourse within online forums. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 831–855. doi:10.1177/0265407508096698

36.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2012). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and privacy boundary turbulence: Explaining spousal discrepancies in infertility disclosures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 3–27. doi:10.1177/0265407511406896

37.

Theiss

J. A.

Estlein

Weber

K. M.

(2013). A longitudinal assessment of relationship characteristics that predict new parents’ relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 216–235. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01406.x

38.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2014). Relational turbulence and the post-deployment transition: Self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence. Communication Research, 41, 27–51. doi:10.1177/0093650211429285

39.

Theiss

J. A.

Nagy

M. E.

(2010). Actor-partner effects in the associations between relationship characteristics and reactions to marital sexual intimacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 1089–1109. doi:10.1177/0265407510381254

40.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2006a). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 32, 469–503. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x

41.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2008). Parsing the mechanisms that increase relational intimacy: The effects of uncertainty amount, open communication about uncertainty, and the reduction of uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 34, 625–654. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00335.x

42.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard-Reisch

D. S.

(2002). Investigating the behavioral indicators of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 403–423. doi:10.1177/0265407502193006

43.

Weigel

D. J.

Brown

O’Riordan

C. K.

(2011). Everyday expressions of commitment and relational uncertainty as predictors of relationship quality and stability over time. Communication Reports, 24, 38–50. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511400

44.

Weiss

R. L.

(1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In Vincent

J. P.

(Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

45.

White

Edwards

J. N.

(1990). Emptying the nest and parental well-being: An analysis of national panel data. American Sociological Review, 55, 235–242. doi:10.10.2307/2095629