Investigating relationship dispositions as explanations for on-again/off-again relationships

Abstract

The current study explored whether individuals with certain relationship dispositions were more likely to be involved in on-again/off-again (on-off) relationships. A sample of 211 currently dating participants in either on-off or non-cyclical relationships completed an online survey about relationship dispositions (e.g., attachment, implicit beliefs) and positive and negative aspects of relational quality (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, disillusionment). Participants in on-off relationships did not differ from those in non-cyclical relationships with regard to relationship dispositions. Relationship type, however, moderated certain associations between relationship dispositions and relationship qualities showing that the dispositions played a weaker role in relational quality for on-off partners (e.g., the association between growth belief and disillusionment was strong and negative for non-cyclical partners but nonsignificant for on-off partners). Although it was theoretically and practically important to investigate individual differences, interaction dynamics within dyads could be a more prominent factor in explaining on-off relationships.

Keywords

Attachment orientations communal orientation implicit beliefs on-again/off-again relationships relationship cycling relationship quality

Over the past decade, research on on-again/off-again (on-off) relationships has explicated how relationships that break up and renew are different from those that do not (i.e., non-cyclical). For example, partners in on-off relationships consistently report lower relational quality (e.g., Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, 2010; Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009) and have greater conflict and physical aggression (Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2013; Monk, 2017). What is yet unknown is whether there are certain types of individuals who are more likely to experience multiple relational transitions (i.e., breakups and renewals) in their relationships.

This study assessed individual difference variables to understand how they might be related to being involved in an on-off relationship. Specifically, we focused on individual differences that pertain to how people approach relationships. We use relationship dispositions as a general label to avoid confusion with specific constructs that are typically referred to as orientations (e.g., attachment orientations, communal orientation). Thus, we use dispositions as an umbrella term for the various relationship orientations we assess. On the one side of the coin, these dispositions are likely learned from early and accumulated experiences with others. Hence, as compared to genetic influences, we formulate these orientations primarily based on our relationships with others. On the other side of the coin, these dispositions are carried forward into our relationships and shape our interpretations of events as well as our behaviors. For both theoretical and practical reasons, it is worthwhile to identify which relationship dispositions might facilitate the development of, or perpetuate, cycling in relationships.

To detect potential patterns across several dispositions, we assessed attachment, implicit beliefs, and a communal orientation. Our attachment orientations shape the way we approach and interact within relationships, particularly with regard to emotion regulation. The predominant conceptualization of adult attachment centers on the two dimensions of attachment anxiety (i.e., a fear of being abandoned by the partner) and avoidance (i.e., a fear of becoming too close with a partner; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). These dimensions reflect individuals’ working models of themselves and others as well as affect how individuals engage in conflict and manage relationship threats. Implicit beliefs also play a major role in how people approach romantic relationships. Knee (1998) delineated two types of implicit beliefs about relationships: destiny and growth. Destiny beliefs frame relationships as something that are either meant to be or not. Growth beliefs, however, hold that relationships need to be developed and cultivated over time. Existing research has demonstrated that these beliefs can influence numerous aspects of romantic relationships, including satisfaction, commitment, and conflict regulation (Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, & Neighbors, 2004). In addition, Mills and Clark (1994) delineated a communal orientation in which partners help each other whenever necessary without expecting to be repaid and do not make clear distinctions between each other’s needs. Research has shown that having a communal orientation toward one’s relationship is associated with greater satisfaction and commitment (Muise & Impett, 2015).

Our first goal was to establish whether on-off partners have different levels of these relationship dispositions as compared to partners in non-cyclical relationships (Research Question [RQ] 1). Certain individuals might be predisposed or inclined to reconcile with a former partner. For example, Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994) found that 28% of anxious ambivalent participants had renewed with a former partner. In addition, given that one of the reasons for renewal is feeling their partner was “the one” (Dailey, Jin, Pfiester, & Beck, 2011), on-off partners might be more likely to endorse destiny beliefs than non-cyclical partners. Further, given that on-off partners report less satisfaction and commitment and more negative interactions (e.g., Dailey et al., 2009; Monk, Vennum, Ogolsky, & Fincham, 2014) and that communal orientation is positively linked with these indicators of relational quality (Muise & Impett, 2015), on-off partners might feel less communally oriented toward their relationships.

Our second goal was to establish whether relationship type moderates the associations between relationship dispositions and relational quality (RQ2). Regardless of whether on-off and non-cyclical partners report different levels of relationship dispositions, the manner in which the dispositions are associated with indicators of relational quality might vary. Among samples of emerging adults, some theoretical models have shown few or no differences in strength of associations between cyclical and non-cyclical partners (e.g., Monk et al., 2014), yet others have yielded moderating effects of relationship type. For example, the association between relational uncertainty and commitment was mediated by different relational maintenance behaviors depending on relationship type; specifically, network inclusion enhanced commitment for non-cyclical partners, but openness enhanced commitment for on-off partners (Dailey et al., 2010). In addition, dedication (i.e., a type of commitment) has been linked with later avoidance of relationship talk for non-cyclical partners but not for on-off partners (Clifford, Vennum, Busk, & Fincham, 2017). To address this RQ, we assessed the relational quality indicators of satisfaction, perceived quality of alternatives, commitment, commitment uncertainty, and relational disillusionment. Previous research has shown these indicators are linked with the relationship dispositions examined here, and the combination of them captures facets of both relational quality and relational instability.

This study offers several contributions to the extant research. First, identifying whether on-off partners vary in their endorsement of relationship dispositions helps predict who might experience repeated breakups and renewals, a pattern that makes individuals more susceptible to lower relational quality, greater aggression, and separation after marriage (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013; Monk, 2017; Vennum & Johnson, 2014). Second, understanding how the dispositions are associated with relational quality offers insights into developing more specific recommendations on combatting the negative outcomes associated with cycling. For example, if on-off partners have a stronger link between relational anxiety and commitment uncertainty, more tailored recommendations can be created to help partners manage the anxiety associated with uncertainty. Thus, identifying whether relationship dispositions differ by relationship type as well as how the dispositions might operate differently in cyclical relationships informs our theoretical understanding of these relationships and refines practical applications for those navigating these relationships.

Methods

Participants

As a part of a larger study, we recruited 211 individuals through Mechanical Turk. We offered a modest incentive (US$0.50) for participation. Roughly half of the sample was female (n = 102, 48.3%). The age of participants ranged from 19 to 66 (M = 32.63, standard deviation (SD) = 9.53). The majority of participants were White or Caucasian (n = 141, 66.8%) and Black or African-American (n = 24, 11.4%). The length of the participants’ relationship ranged from under 1 month to 444 months (M = 53.90, SD = 62.31). Participants indicated that they were casually dating (n = 33, 15.6%), seriously dating (n = 83, 39.3%), engaged (n = 11, 5.2%), in a long-term committed relationship (n = 48, 22.7%), in a domestic partnership (n = 12, 5.7%), or married (n = 24, 11.4%). A little less than half of the participants indicated they were in an on-off romantic relationship (defined to participants as a relationship that had broken up and renewed at least once; n = 90, 42.7%). The number of renewals for on-off participants ranged from 1 to 20; excluding the two outliers of 15 and 20, the average number of renewals was 2.66 (SD = 1.99).

Measures

All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Means and SDs of the variables are provided in Table 1. Correlations among the variables are provided in Table 2. We used the Experience of Close Relationships-12 (Lafontaine et al., 2016) to assess participants’ anxiety (α = .83) and avoidance attachment (α = .90). We employed Knee, Patrick, and Lonsbary’s (2003) implicit theories scale to assess destiny beliefs (α = .90) and growth beliefs (α = .86). Communal orientation was measured by the communal orientation scale developed by Mills and Clark (1994) (α = .81). We used the investment model scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) to measure three different variables: satisfaction (α = .91), quality of alternatives (α = .88), and commitment (α = .86). Commitment uncertainty was assessed by Quirk et al.’s (2016) short 4-item measure (α = .90), and relationship disillusionment was measured by the revised measure from Niehuis and Bartell (2013) (α = .97)

Table 1.

Mean and SDs of the variables.

	Non-Cyclical (n = 120)	On-off (n = 90)	F
Relationship dispositions
Attachment avoidance	2.80 (1.13)	3.08 (1.20)	2.36
Attachment anxiety	3.91 (1.62)	4.17 (1.56)	0.76
Growth belief	4.96 (.91)	4.96 (1.03)	0.70
Destiny belief	4.12 (1.08)	4.15 (1.25)	0.49
Communal orientation	4.67 (.97)	4.64 (.83)	0.23
Relational quality
Satisfaction	5.21 (1.45)	4.73 (1.26)	4.28*
Quality of alternatives	3.64 (1.60)	4.13 (1.63)	3.38
Commitment	5.26 (1.34)	4.94 (1.26)	1.91
Commitment uncertainty	2.93 (1.76)	3.99 (1.73)	11.60**
Disillusionment	2.45 (1.54)	3.36 (1.65)	13.47**

Note. SD = standard deviation; MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance; On-off: on-again/off-again. A MANCOVA for relational quality controlling for sex, age, and relationship length showed overall relational quality varied by relationship type, λ = .89, F(5, 182) = 4.41, p = .001, η² = .11.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Correlations among the variables by relationship type.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Participant sex	—	−.13	−.11	.05	−.16	−.19	.09	−.35**	.05	.11	−.09	.04	.09
2. Participant age	−.03	—	.13	.09	−.03	.11	.03	.00	−.12	.16	−.12	.11	.10
3. Relationship length	−.08	.27**	—	−.09	.26*	.14	−.12	.14	−.01	−.21*	.17	−.06	.10
4. Avoidance	.07	−.24*	.04	—	.03	−.39**	−.08	−.48**	−.44**	.16	−.43**	.34**	.33**
5. Anxiety	−.13	−.31**	−.11	.16	—	.40**	.30**	−.08	.02	.18	−.02	.27*	.41**
6. Growth belief	−.11	.08	.01	−.49**	.09	—	.29**	.29**	.25*	.15	.23*	.12	.02
7. Destiny belief	.00	−.14	−.08	.13	.07	.02	—	−.17	.18	.49**	−.17	.40**	.33**
8. Communal orientation	−.24*	.18	−.02	−.60**	.06	.36**	−.24**	—	.17	−.24*	.46**	−.43**	−.41**
9. Satisfaction	−.14	−.04	−.22*	−.45**	−.10	.35**	.18*	.24**	—	−.04	.70**	−.19	−.34**
10. Quality of alternatives	.25*	−.02	−.09	.43**	−.09	−.16	.35**	−.56**	−.08	—	−.47**	.72**	.51**
11. Commitment	−.20*	−.01	−.04	−.57**	.02	.45**	−.02	.48**	.80**	−.48**	—	−.54**	−.52**
12. Commitment uncertainty	.24*	−.13	.02	.46**	.21*	−.21*	−.22*	−.45**	−.42**	.54**	−.60**	—	.62**
13. Disillusionment	.29**	−.06	.09	.49**	.20*	−.32**	.20*	−.47**	−.53**	.50**	−.69**	.81**	—

Note. Correlations above the diagonal in italics are for cyclical partners (n = 90); correlations below the diagonal are for non-cyclical partners (n = 120). For participant sex: 0 = female and 1 = male.

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Results

To answer RQ1, we conducted a multivariate analysis of covariance controlling for participant age, sex, and relationship length. Results indicated that on-off partners were not different from non-cyclical partners in these relationship dispositions in general, λ = .98, F(5, 181) = 0.69, p = .632, or individually, univariate Fs < 2.36, ps > .126 (see Table 1).

To answer RQ2, we ran hierarchical linear regressions for the different associations between the relationship dispositions and the relational qualities (i.e., satisfaction, quality of alternatives, commitment, commitment uncertainty, and relationship disillusionment). We again controlled for participant sex, age, and relationship length on the first step. The relationship disposition and relationship type were added on the second step, and their interaction term was added in the third step. In general, relationship type was not a predominant moderator of the associations between the relationship dispositions and the relational quality indicators. We detail the few significant interactions below. Table 3 presents the regression results.

Table 3.

Regression results: Main effects and interactions (N = 211).

	Satisfaction	Alternatives	Commitment	Commitment uncertainty	Disillusionment
Attachment
Avoidance	−.60***	.65***	−.74***	.70***	.69***
Relationship type	−.29	.34	−.13	.75**	.73***
Avoidance × Relationship Type	.12	−.46*	.29*	−.22	−.27
	R ² = .25	R ² = .22	R ² = .32	R ² = .25	R ² = .28
Anxiety	−.09	−.04	−.01	.19	.21*
Relationship type	−.43*	.37	−.26	.80**	.76***
Anxiety × Relationship Type	.12	.31*	−.03	.17	.26
	R ² = .05	R ² = .13	R ² = .05	R ² = .15	R ² = .22
Implicit beliefs
Growth	.62***	.28	.72***	−.45*	−.59***
Relationship type	−.40*	.42	−.25	.87***	.84***
Growth × Relationship Type	−.26	.56*	−.43*	.69**	.67**
	R ² = .17	R ² = .12	R ² = .20	R ² = .13	R ² = .18
Destiny	.21	.52***	−.03	.39*	.36*
Relationship type	.44*	.37	−.26	.83***	.81***
Destiny × Relationship Type	.03	.10	−.12	.15	.04
	R ² = .07	R ² = .26	R ² = .06	R ² = .18	R ² = .18
Communal orientation
Communal	.41**	−.91***	.74***	−.88***	−.84***
Relationship type	−.40*	−1.96	−.23	.83***	.81***
Communal × Relationship Type	−.08	.51*	−.00	−.07	.03
	R ² = .10	R ² = .25	R ² = .26	R ² = .27	R ² = .29

Note. All analyses controlled for sex, age, and relationship length. R ² values represent overall variance explained for full model with control variables.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

With regard to attachment, relationship type significantly moderated the associations between avoidance and commitment (B = .29, β = .17, t = 2.02, p = .045, ΔR ² = .02) as well as avoidance and quality of alternatives (B = −.46, β = −.23, t = −2.47, p = .014, ΔR ² = .03). The negative association between avoidance and commitment was stronger for non-cyclical partners (b = −.74, p < .001) than for on-off partners (b = −.45, p < .001). Specifically, non-cyclical partners with less avoidance were more committed than were on-off partners at low levels of avoidance but similar in commitment at high levels of avoidance. Likewise, the positive relationship between avoidance and quality of alternatives was significant for non-cyclical partners (b = .65, p < .001) but not for on-off partners (b = .19, p = .159). The association between attachment anxiety and quality of alternatives was significantly moderated by relationship type (B = .31, β = .20, t = 2.08, p = .039, ΔR ² = .02). Specifically, for on-off partners, anxiety was positively associated with higher quality perceptions of alternatives (b = .27, p = .017), whereas anxiety was not associated with quality of alternatives for non-cyclical partners (b = −.04, p = .673).

Although relationship type did not moderate any of the associations between destiny beliefs and the relational quality indicators, it significantly moderated the associations between growth beliefs and commitment (B = −.43, β = −.22, t = −2.36, p = .019, ΔR ² = .02), quality of alternatives (B = .56, β = .24, t = 2.38, p = .018, ΔR ² = .03), disillusionment (B = .67, β = .28, t = 2.91, p = .004, ΔR ² = .04), and commitment uncertainty (B = .69, β = .26, t = 2.68, p = .008, ΔR ² = .03). Across these analyses, non-cyclical partners exhibited what might be expected: with a greater growth orientation, non-cyclical partners reported greater commitment (b = .72, p < .001), less disillusionment (b = −.59, p < .001), less commitment uncertainty (b = −.45, p = .015), and lower alternatives (b = −.28, p = .095) although the latter association only approached significance. In contrast, on-off partners’ growth orientation exhibited a weaker association with commitment (b = .29, p = .029), a greater association with alternatives that approached significance (b = .28, p = .097), and nonsignificant simple slopes for disillusionment (b = .08, p = .627) and commitment uncertainty (b = .24, p = .194).

Additionally, relationship type interacted with communal orientation for only one relational quality indicator (i.e., quality of alternatives), B = .51, β = .17, t = 2.03, p = .044, ΔR ² = .02, such that non-cyclical partners exhibited a stronger, negative association between a communal orientation and quality of alternatives (b = −.91, p < .001) than did on-off partners (b = −.41, p = .045). More specifically, with a low level of communal orientation, both relationship types reported high quality of alternatives; in contrast, with a high level of communal orientation, non-cyclical partners perceived much lower quality of alternatives.

Discussion

The current study assessed the role of relationship dispositions in on-off relationships. First, consistent with the extant research regarding on-off relationships (e.g., Dailey et al., 2010; Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013; Vennum & Johnson, 2014), our findings showed on-off partners reported lower relational quality than did non-cyclical partners, particularly for satisfaction, commitment uncertainty, and disillusionment. However, perhaps surprisingly, on-off partners did not differ from non-cyclical partners on any of the relationship dispositions. Additionally, despite research showing on-off partners’ lower relational quality, and relational quality being positively associated with attachment security as well as growth and communal orientations (Knee et al., 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012; Muise & Impett, 2015), on-off partners in the current study did not report more or less attachment orientations, implicit beliefs, or communal orientation than those in non-cyclical relationships.

Additionally, the relationship dispositions were predominantly linked with the relational quality indicators in similar ways for both relationship types as relationship type only moderated 8 of the 25 associations assessed. The nature of the interactions showed that non-cyclical partners exhibited what would be expected from previous research. For example, for non-cyclical partners, greater attachment avoidance was associated with less commitment and perceiving better quality of alternative partners. Additionally, believing relationships can improve with work (i.e., growth belief) was positively associated with commitment and negatively associated with perceived alternatives, commitment uncertainty, and disillusionment.

In contrast, these associations were not found, or were much weaker, for on-off relationships. For example, on-off partners’ commitment uncertainty and disillusionment remained relatively constant across their growth beliefs, and they reported a weaker positive association between growth beliefs and commitment. This was also true for attachment avoidance; on-off partners’ perceived quality of alternatives remained constant across their avoidance, and they showed a weaker association between avoidance and commitment than did non-cyclical partners. Overall, the findings suggest on-off partners’ evaluations of their relationships were relatively unaffected by their level of avoidance and growth beliefs.

An exception to this general trend were the associations between attachment anxiety and growth orientations for perceived quality of alternatives. Specifically, on-off partners who had higher anxiety or a greater belief that relationships can be improved appeared to believe there were better alternatives outside the current relationship. Perhaps due to their lower relational quality, individuals in on-off relationships perceived their partners as yielding relatively few rewards and high costs and were thus paying more attention to alternative partners than those in non-cyclical relationships. Hence, in contrast to a growth belief typically being beneficial to current relationships, this disposition in the context of lower quality relationships might result in partners believing they could cultivate a better relationship with a different partner. In addition, an anxious attachment in combination with lower satisfaction might also lead individuals to consider alternative options in hopes of reaping greater rewards or security elsewhere; the experience of multiple breakups and renewals might exacerbate an anxiously attached relational fears of being abandoned.

Collectively, however, relationship dispositions did not appear to be playing a large role in on-off partners’ evaluations of their relationships, and the interactions that did emerge explained little variance (e.g., 2–4%). Although it makes theoretical sense to test relationship dispositions with regard to on-off relationships, this research suggests other dimensions of relationships might provide more explanatory power. On-off partners’ lower relational quality might derive more from their interaction patterns and relationship dynamics rather than stable traits such as how people generally approach relationships. Research has shown that on-off partners have more conflict and are less able to manage it (e.g., Dailey et al., 2009; Vennum & Johnson, 2014). Perhaps more concerning is that on-off partners also report more verbal and physical aggression (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). Thus, the major contribution of this research is showing that a variety of relationship dispositions are likely not perpetuating cyclical patterns; rather, interaction dynamics and conflict management might be more viable areas of future research to explain the development and perpetuation of cyclical relationships. Additional research focusing on communication and conflict should provide more theoretical insights and practical applications.

Our results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. For example, the current study only collected participants’ self-reports which may subject to social desirability and recall biases. The data are also correlational in nature, and causality cannot be assumed. Although these relationship dispositions are described as traits, they are not static and can be influenced by dynamics within relationships. In addition, to gain a broad understanding of relationship dispositions in on-off relationships, numerous analyses were conducted relative to the sample size; thus, power is limited and Type I error is increased. Although the collective of results paints a cohesive picture that relationship dispositions are playing a weak role at best with regard to cyclical relationships, the findings should be substantiated with additional research.

Despite having equal numbers of males and females and the diversity of age, ethnicity, and geographic location in the U.S., the current sample was not a representative sample. Thus, the findings might not generalize to the broader population of romantic relationships. Finally, although this study suggested relationship dispositions play only a small role in on-off relationships, it could be that it is the combination of both partners’ dispositions that matters (e.g., a partner high in attachment avoidance paired with a partner high in anxiety).

To rectify these limitations and further investigate the differences between on-off and non-cyclical partners, future research could utilize a longitudinal design with dyadic data to assess relationship dispositions and relational quality over time. Exploring variances within on-off relationships should be informative as well. For example, on-off partners who have renewed once might have different experiences than those who have renewed multiple times. Experiences might also vary by other characteristics such as time since the last breakup and amounts of time in between breakups and renewals. Finally, although the relationship dispositions assessed in the current study were only weakly related to experiences in on-off relationships, other individual differences that are associated with increased aggression or conflict (e.g., dark triad) might show stronger links.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

A version of this article was presented at the 2018 International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

René M. Dailey

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available for those who obtain IRB approval. The data can be obtained by emailing: rdailey@austin.utexas.edu.

References

Clifford

C. E.

Vennum

Busk

Fincham

F. D.

(2017). Testing the impact of sliding versus deciding in cyclical and non-cyclical relationships. Personal Relationships, 24, 223–238.

Dailey

R. M.

Hampel

A. D.

Roberts

(2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and relational quality vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. doi:10.1080/03637750903514292

Dailey

R. M.

Jin

Pfiester

R. A.

Beck

(2011). On-again/off-again relationships: What keeps partners coming back? Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 417–440. doi:10.1080/00224545.2010.503249

Dailey

R. M.

Pfiester

Jin

Beck

Clark

(2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships, 16, 23–47. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x

Halpern-Meekin

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

Longmore

(2013). Relationship churning, physical violence, and verbal abuse in young adult relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 2–12. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01029.x

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Hazan

(1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142.

Knee

C. R.

(1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360–370. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360

Knee

C. R.

Nanayakkara

Vietor

N. A.

Neighbors

Patrick

(2001). Implicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808–819. doi:10.1177/0146167201277004

Knee

C. R.

Patrick

Lonsbary

. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3

10.

Knee

C. R.

Patrick

Vietor

N. A.

Neighbors

(2004). Implicit theories of relationships: Moderators of the link between conflict and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 617–628. doi:10.1177/0146167203262853

11.

Lafontaine

M-F.

Brassard

Lussier

Valois

Shaver

P. R.

Johnson

S. M.

(2016). Selecting the best items for a short-form of the experiences in close relationships Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 140–154. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000243

12.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship processes. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4, 259–274.

13.

Mills

Clark

M. S.

(1994). Communal and exchange relationships: New research and old controversies. In Gilmour

Erber

(Eds.), Theoretical approaches to personal relationships (pp. 29–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Monk

J. K.

(2017). Boomerang couple: The role of differentiation, violence, commitment, and deciding in on-off relationship instability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

15.

Monk

J. K.

Vennum

A. V.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Fincham

F. D.

(2014). Commitment and sacrifice in emerging adult romantic relationships. Marriage and Family Review, 50, 416–434.

16.

Muise

Impett

E. A.

(2015). Good, giving, and game: The relationship benefits of communal sexual motivation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 164–172.

17.

Niehuis

Bartell

. (2013). The marital disillusionment scale. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie

18.

Quirk

Owen

Shuck

Fincham

F. D.

Knopp

Rhoades

(2016). Breaking bad: Commitment uncertainty, alternative monitoring, and relationship termination in young adults. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 15, 61–74. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.975306

19.

Rusbult

C. E.

Matrz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 57–91.

20.

Vennum

Johnson

M. D.

(2014). The impact of premarital cycling on early marriage. Family Relations, 63, 439–452. doi:10.1111/fare.12082