Beyond cold feet: Experiences of ending engagements and canceling weddings

Abstract

The engagement period is a critical window to understand stay–leave decisions because it marks a stage when individuals are moving toward lifelong commitment, but do not have the obligations of legal marriage that make dissolution more difficult. According to Inertia Theory, felt momentum can propel couples through relationship transitions without sufficient consideration of their dedication, which could constrain partners in poor quality relationships. Drawing from this perspective, we examined how individuals reduce relationship momentum and end a marital engagement. We conducted interviews with individuals who made the decision to end their engagements and cancel their weddings (N = 30). Experiences were analyzed using grounded theory techniques. The core concept we identified, visualizing, consisted of imagining a relational future (or alternative present) that became heightened during the engagement period. Rituals of wedding planning (e.g., trying on a dress and selecting a venue) appear to serve as a catalyst for this process. This cognitive shift prompted individuals to slow relational momentum (e.g., through trial separations and the returning of rings) and reconsider “red flags” and constraints to leaving the relationship. Once participants decided to leave, they described the process of breaking off the engagement and uncoupling from their partners. Family members and friends who assisted in managing the emotional fallout and logistics of ending the engagement (e.g., canceling with vendors and informing guests) were reported as particularly helpful supports. Visualizing married life beyond the wedding may be leveraged to help individuals navigate premarital doubts.

Keywords

Courtship decision-making dissolution family rituals qualitative research

The best divorce is the one you get before you get married.

— Hill et al. (1976, p. 165)

The stay–leave decision is critically important during the premarital engagement period because warning signs of marital distress and divorce are often present before couples say “I do” (Clements et al., 2004; Huston et al., 2001) as premarital doubts can endure and destabilize marriages (Lavner et al., 2012). In contrast to the impact of divorce (Amato, 2010), the effects of dissolution in non-marital unions are considered more fleeting or temporary (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1998). Additionally, non-marital unions typically have fewer structural and moral commitments that inhibit leaving compared to marriage (Johnson, 1999). Focusing on earlier prevention by helping individuals leave distressing relationships is an important way to prevent maladaptive patterns from continuing into a marriage (Vennum et al., 2017). Thus, it is vital to understand the processes of leaving unsatisfying relationships despite pressures engaged couples may feel to proceed toward marriage.

Theorizing about the transition to marriage

Drawing from research on commitment and relational decision-making, Inertia Theory suggests that as couples move through relationship transitions (e.g., moving in together and getting married), barriers to leaving a relationship increase, creating forward momentum that is difficult to disrupt (Stanley et al., 2006). Progressing in a relationship due to accumulating constraints rather than dedication to the partner (i.e., “sliding” rather than “deciding”) may leave couples feeling trapped and vulnerable to relational distress and instability at later stages of their romantic relationships. For example, engaged individuals might continue toward marriage despite doubts or evidence of incompatibility due to inertia from wedding planning, social pressures to wed, and feeling marriage is a natural “next step” (Rhoades et al., 2012). Thus, making deliberative decisions based on dedication is vital because it becomes increasingly difficult to dissolve dissatisfying relationships due to accrued constraints. Moreover, once married, enduring relational dynamics that existed prior to the wedding are likely to continue and may ultimately cause relationship distress or divorce (Huston et al., 2001). Although research supports this perspective in regard to how inertia develops (e.g., non-deliberate decision-making and accruing constraints) and its consequences (e.g., less dedication to the relationship; Owen et al., 2013), there is less insight into how individuals stop relationship momentum prior to making binding commitments (e.g., marriage) that make unions more challenging to leave. Understanding what prompts engaged individuals to exit unions despite growing momentum and constraints is vital for efforts to mitigate movement into poor quality marriages.

Premarital engagement: A critical period

The premarital engagement period provides a window to understand how individuals stop relationship momentum before additional constraints develop with legal marriage, which makes it an important context to advance Inertia Theory. Because weddings are reputational, identity laden rituals (Humble et al., 2008), many couples plan weddings that are expensive, family-involved events (Francis-Tan & Mialon, 2015). Anxiety associated with big, life-decisions and stressors associated with wedding planning in particular make this stage a crucible for relationships (Blakely, 2008). Relationship transitions like engagements are known to create the potential for irritability, reactivity, and upheaval due to mounting uncertainty and the potential need to renegotiate roles and expectations (Solomon et al., 2016). The engagement period is also especially vital given the relational future may become more salient at this stage by nature of approaching lifelong commitment (Clyde et al., 2019).

Despite the noted importance of premarital experiences across the transition to marriage (e.g., Huston et al., 2001; Lavner et al., 2012), there is a dearth of insight into relationship dissolution during engagement. Although broken engagements have been briefly noted in empirical studies (e.g., Kelly & Conley, 1987), court cases (e.g., Blecher, 2000), and popular press articles (e.g., Glantz, 2016; Miller, 2018), there is limited information about how commonly engagements end. Surveys from within the wedding industry suggest that between 13% and 20% of engagements do not transition to marriage (Wedding Report, 2013; WP Diamonds, 2017). It may be that constraints such as incurred costs of wedding planning, fear of judgment, and invested time in the relationship make terminating engagements more challenging and distressing than ending dating relationships. As a form of momentum, socio-cultural pressures to progress could promote sliding through the transition into marriage. On the other hand, ending non-marital relationships is assumed to be less distressing and less challenging compared to ending a marriage, given that they engender fewer moral, structural, and legal barriers to leaving (Johnson, 1999). As a result, the premarital engagement period is associated with considerable pressure to continue the relationship and may operate as a “last step” before legal marriage.

Present study

Understanding stay/leave experiences is important because they (a) provide insight into the process of leaving unstable relationships during narrow points of intervention, (b) offer practical implications for improving relationship well-being at critical stages, and (c) advance theorizing about relationship transitions. In the current study, we sought to understand how calling off an engagement and wedding unfolds as a social process. Answering this research question necessitates the perspective of those who made the decision and took steps to end their relationships (i.e., the “leavers”). Exploring narratives from this perspective provides insight into how individuals halt the momentum created by an engagement before leaving is complicated with the constraining ties of legal marriage (Johnson, 1999).

Method

Sample

The sample included 30 individuals who made the decision to call off their engagements, either unilaterally or mutually with their partners. The median duration since dissolution was approximately 2 years (range = 1 month to 17 years). The average length of the relationship prior to dissolution was 4.54 years (range = 9 months to 12 years). Individuals were 18–48 years old (M = 31.10, SD = 6.40), and predominately identified as female (83.3%). All participants reported dissolving different-sex relationships. The majority of individuals (90%) reported that their race/ethnicity was White, and the remaining three individuals identified as African American or Black, Asian, and multiracial (White, Hispanic/Latina), respectively. Approximately 43% of participants had a graduate or professional degree, 30% had a 4-year university degree, 23.3% had some college experience or partially completed college, and one individual reported high school as the highest degree earned. Median income was US$40,000–US$49,999.

Data collection and procedure

We used purposeful sampling to recruit participants who canceled their weddings. Participants were recruited through (a) advertisements posted in online forums (e.g., Reddit and https://weddingbee.com), (b) direct messages to individuals selling “unused” wedding dresses and engagement rings online (e.g., Facebook marketplace and Craigslist), and (c) emails to premarital counselors, wedding boutique owners, and a listserv at a large Midwestern university. Once individuals expressed interest in the study, they completed a brief eligibility survey. Individuals were eligible for the present study if they made the decision to call off their engagement (i.e., “leavers”) and currently lived in the United States. We chose this geographical restriction because societies tend to have different social scripts surrounding relationship initiation and dissolution (Coontz, 2004).

After informed consent was obtained, eligible participants completed a semi-structured interview by telephone that lasted 62 min on average. In addition to asking general questions about their prior relationship, we specifically asked about the wedding planning process and the reasons participants chose to end their engagements. Interviewers also probed for further explanation from participants in an effort to gain additional insight into participants’ thoughts, feelings, and considerations about the process of ending their engagements.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription company. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ anonymity. The research team held regular group coding sessions and weekly debriefings during data collection. We concluded data collection when new interviews failed to produce new insights, properties, and patterns and the goal of theory building was met through the development of categories and the delineation of relationships between concepts (Charmaz, 2014). For example, as we started to identify visualization as a core concept, we stopped discussing individual cases and began talking about a broader process across participants (Morse, 2015). Our final sample size also fit with other studies of relational phenomena, which prominent qualitative family researchers have suggested generally do not “require more than 20 to 30 sampling units” (see Sharp et al., 2014, p. 157).

Data analysis

We analyzed data following a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014) to identify a process for terminating engagements. The multi-step process involved constant comparative coding techniques, the creation and application of specific codes, and relating the different codes to one another to identify a process for ending engagements. To promote reflexivity throughout this process, coders discussed potential sensitizing concepts from existing theories that were especially salient (e.g., constraint commitment; inertia). By acknowledging these sensitizing concepts, we were able to remain mindful of researcher assumptions throughout our analysis, ensure that we were identifying processes described directly by participants rather than relying on pre-existing assumptions, and identify unique contributions to the existing literature (Charmaz, 2014).

During initial coding, we assigned preliminary gerunds (i.e., action-oriented labels) to each incident of data. For example, the excerpts, “He sent some really nasty text messages” and “I gave him the ring back” were assigned codes of “continuing interdependence” and “dealing with the aftermath,” respectively. We coded incident-to-incident in order to remain close to the data and strengthen rigor in the process (Charmaz, 2014). During initial coding, each member of the research team was assigned the same subsample of transcripts (over 10% of the data). The team then met to discuss the most salient and frequent codes generated from the transcripts. From these meetings, we identified categories and organized them into a codebook with descriptive labels, definitions, and example quotations for each category.

Next, we conducted focused coding by applying the codebook to un-coded transcripts and met to discuss any discrepancies or to refine codes. For example, codes initially labeled “accumulating issues” and “feeling constrained” were relabeled “reconsidering red flags” and “reconsidering constraints,” respectively. Although issues and constraints may have existed earlier in the relationship, when returning to the data to apply the codes, we noticed these processes became particularly salient as individuals visualized the future and slowed momentum in order to deliberate.

We also engaged in axial coding, where we outlined relationships between categories and constructed a preliminary process model from the data. The authors worked collaboratively to refine a model, which involved an iterative process of revisiting the data through constant comparison (Charmaz, 2014). We analyzed each category distinctly, which allowed coders to gain a nuanced comprehension of each concept (Charmaz, 2014). We accomplished this by collecting all excerpts assigned to a category into a single document per category and evaluating the collection of excerpts as a whole and in relation to other categories. By collapsing categories that appeared to reflect different dimensions of a shared concept, axial coding resulted in refining the findings into three higher-level concepts (i.e., visualizing, slowing, and breaking) with subcategories within slowing and breaking. For example, “continuing interdependence” and “dealing with the aftermath” were collapsed because having continued contact with the former partner and managing interaction in the aftermath were described as part of an “uncoupling” process. This change further distinguished dealing with the interpersonal aftermath from the managing of logistics (e.g., canceling the wedding venue) as subcategories associated with breaking off the engagement. During the later stages of data analysis, as we refined the emerging theory of connections among our categories and subcategories, we also systematically evaluated issues of context and process within interviews. Most notably, by attending to variability across interviews in terms of how different types of participants (e.g., women and men) experienced the process of deciding to end their engagements.

Results

We found that a prominent force in stopping inertia of an engagement involved visualizing the future with and/or without romantic partners and deciding to take action to change the course of the relationship. Specifically, as they planned weddings, participants described imagining the future and feeling distressed about continuing toward marriage. These feelings prompted them to slow down their plans or otherwise find time and mental space to deliberate about whether to continue the relationship by considering the issues (i.e., red flags) with staying and the barriers (i.e., constraints) to leaving the union. Following the communication of their plans to end the relationship, they had to find ways to deal with the aftermath both interpersonally and logistically. In the results that follow, we explored this process in detail by considering factors that contributed to our participants’ changed outlooks and how experiences of breaking an engagement may vary by factors like gender and timing of dissolution.

Visualizing

The engagement period may be a unique catalyst in prompting thoughts about the future because planning a wedding highlights the impending start of the legal marriage. The ability to picture a potential future (e.g., being married to their partners) as well as an alternative present (e.g., being single) was instrumental in the decision-making process to end an engagement. Participants had realizations during wedding planning that prompted them to contemplate whether their relationship experiences were aligning with their desires. For example, Sandra discussed visualization as a way to explore her future marriage, “I have a very good imagination […] I can really visualize how it would have been and I didn’t want that.” She explained, “I thought at one point when he was yelling at me, like is this what I wanted for the rest of my life?” Other participants also visualized the future with a different partner, and that helped them leave. For example, Ruth initially postponed her wedding before calling it off a month later saying, “Ultimately, the turning point for me was arriving at a belief that there really was going to be somebody better out there, even though that was hard to fathom.” Even though she did not visualize specific details of a different relationship at the time, imagining her life with a more compatible hypothetical partner helped Ruth decide not to marry her fiancé.

Moving toward the wedding itself prompted individuals to visualize walking down the aisle or standing at the altar. These mental images helped them realize something did not feel right and that marrying their partner may not be the best choice. The impact of wedding planning seemed particularly salient for women, as many of them had spent some time imagining their weddings prior to becoming engaged. As they moved through the most symbolically important aspects of wedding planning (e.g., selecting a dress), they sometimes realized that the wedding did not feel right because the partner did not feel right. Natalie explained, “I had found a wedding dress that I liked and I was trying it on, and I looked at myself in the mirror and I thought ‘I hope that [my ex-fiancé] and I are still friends after we get divorced.’”

As participants moved closer to the wedding date, the marriage became more real, which prompted their contemplation of the future. For example, Kelly, who called off her wedding after speaking with her friends at her bachelorette party, explained, “We were planning our ceremony and picking out the music, what to play when you walk down the aisle […], and I’m just thinking in my head like ‘I don’t think we should be getting married.’” She compared her feelings to what she thought other women experienced during wedding planning.

You know, girls always think about their wedding day and dream about it and can’t wait to have their wedding and pick out their wedding dress and be excited about all of it, and I feel like I didn’t have that. I remember being in that fitting room and just staring at myself in that dress and just thinking, like picturing [my ex-fiancé] at the end of the aisle and being like this doesn’t feel right.

Although our subsample of men was small, wedding planning did not seem to prompt the same degree of visualization for them, perhaps because their time for contemplating the future marriage was before they proposed. Because women are generally expected to respond to a proposal in the moment, the wedding planning process was an important time when they had space to consider the reality of entering a marriage with their fiancé. For example, Kelly said, “When we got engaged, I didn’t think about what being ‘married’ actually meant and the closer it got to the date I was just like ‘holy cow, this is forever.’” She went on to explain, “I don’t ever want to get a divorce and I feel like we are going to end up divorced.” Similarly, Cassie stated,

I realized that […] getting married means spending the rest of your life with this person and not that I couldn’t have made that judgment call when he asked [me to marry him]. I could have, but I didn’t. And at that point, it kind of clicked. This is a lifelong thing and I don’t think that I can do that.

These women indicated that the gravity of their decision to get married became more salient as their weddings approached.

In contrast, for men, emerging issues during the engagement period produced a renewed consideration of whether they wanted a future with their partners. Brett said, “I remember thinking, ‘If she’s not listening to me while we’re planning this wedding, this is one day of our lives, does that mean she’s not gonna take anything into consideration after we’re married?’” Thinking about the future and realizing that current relationship patterns are likely to continue helped Brett realize he should leave about 6 months before the wedding was set to take place. Similarly, 8 weeks before his wedding, Nick’s fiancée began to make, “very negative comments, about [my religion…], which was kind of surprising and alarming.” In the weeks that followed, his ex-fiancée also expressed that she may not want children, which was new information for Nick. In the end, it was not the differences in values that caused the greatest alarm, but, “the inability to communicate respectfully and amicably and productively” about those issues. He stated that things escalated to her “becoming physically violent” and the “pattern of anger continued to the wedding day.” Consequently, he decided to end his engagement on the day of the wedding.

The timeline between the engagement and the wedding was sometimes important for these emerging issues. Although things took a negative turn quickly for Nick, longer engagements sometimes revealed incompatibilities that otherwise may not have been identified before the wedding. For example, Dave explained, “I stopped doing a lot of things that I liked doing because I’m very into like video games and fantasy stuff […] and she was not that type.” When he started engaging in some of those old hobbies, his fiancée became “mean” and then, when he confronted her, withdrawn. These dynamics made him question the future and whether he could remain in a relationship with her.

Whether visualization was prompted by the symbolic aspects of planning a wedding or by emerging issues during the engagement, imagining the future was a powerful impetus for reconsidering the impending marriage. Visualization provided opportunities for participants to ask themselves important questions about what they wanted (e.g., feeling giddy and excited) or what they wanted to avoid (e.g., not feeling heard and volatile exchanges during conflict).

Slowing the momentum for deliberation

Once participants acknowledged their doubts about the future, they described taking steps that would allow them to deliberate about ending the relationship. The deliberation itself seemed to follow two steps, one in which participants reconsidered problems and incompatibilities in the relationship and then another in which they considered the barriers that existed to leaving the relationship and whether they could overcome them.

Before actively deliberating about the future of the relationship, many participants took symbolic or tangible steps to distance themselves from their partners so they could think about what they wanted. For example, taking off the engagement ring or asking for it back was a symbolic way of pausing the engagement to consider the future of the relationship. Ruth explained, “I gave him the ring back and I said ‘I don’t think I should have this right now. I think we need to figure some things out before […] continuing on with the wedding planning.’” She went on to talk about the meaning of returning the ring, “I didn’t know if it was like ‘break it off, don’t marry him,’ or if it was just a timing thing. [I] was like maybe we just need to wait a little longer, cause we did get engaged really quickly.”

In addition to symbolic acts like taking off the ring, spending physical time apart was a common way to create mental space for deliberation. For example, Alex initiated a separation after doubts about their plans to get married surfaced for both partners. He explained,

I was coming over to ask for the ring back, and basically said “Hey, an engagement ring should mean we have plans to get married and if we’re not planning on getting married then we shouldn’t have a ring right now.” I basically said “Hey, I need some time away. Let’s talk after I finish finals.”

After a 6-week separation, Alex realized he did not want to marry his partner. By taking a step back from the wedding plans and separating for some time, Alex was able to gain clarity about his future with his partner. Similarly, Dave used an upcoming couple’s trip to create some separation, “So we came to the agreement that maybe we should [take a break], she should just go on the vacation by herself.” During their time apart, Dave discovered evidence of infidelity (i.e., sexual messages online between his fiancée and other individuals), which “brought a swift end to the relationship.” Velma initiated an extended separation to make sure they were in a good place to move forward with the wedding. She said, “So I felt like there was a lot of personal growth that needed to be had, not just for me but especially for him cause he seemed to be really going through some stuff he didn’t want to talk about.” Ruth felt she needed a break simply to sort out her feelings. “I wanted space to think about why I was having such a bad feeling about it, and I felt like being with him was making it really difficult to follow through with a really hard decision because I loved him.” Having additional time to create a separation and deliberate, however, was a luxury not all participants had. Tyler said, “We had issues like any couple and I was optimistic that we would eventually work them out […] our timeline ran out and I needed to either suck it up and decide that I’m gonna do this or call it off.”

Taking a break or initiating a trial separation sometimes resulted in relationship cycling—or partners breaking up temporarily, only to reconcile later. Relationship cycling highlights that the process of deliberation and breaking the engagement was not linear. Indeed, half of the participants reported separating and reconciling at least once at some point with their former partners, illustrating some ambiguity within the leaving process. For example, Kelly stated that she got back together with her former partner after dissolving the relationship due to his infidelity saying, “I tried to fall back in love with him […] I think I just made myself comfortable, but I couldn’t get over the fact that he cheated, and I did not trust him.” As Kelly noted, getting back together provided some realization that the “damage was done” and that some issues would endure over time. For Katrina, lingering issues after getting back together helped provide some reassurance that she had made the right decision originally, saying she was “distressed about having to have the same conversation again.” Although Katrina felt obligated to reconcile with her partner after a breakup in the past, she had a revelation that the issues were still present and a second time apart presented the opportunity to deliberate: “I felt pretty content with the decision to end the engagement […after] I had a little bit of space to process my emotions.” In the process of stopping rapid momentum toward a wedding, an important step was often to slow down. Delaying the wedding, initiating a temporary separation, and/or taking off an engagement ring provided participants with the pause they needed to consider their future relationships and be deliberate about the decision to end the relationship.

Reconsidering red flags

Participants emphasized the value of physical or emotional separation because these actions seemed to provide mental space to reconsider the strengths and weaknesses of their relationships. Some problems and issues were present throughout their relationships, but red flags (i.e., infidelity, abuse or violence, general conflict, dissatisfaction, and growing apart) became more salient as lifelong commitment approached and participants began to visualize their futures. For example, Jackie said,

[He] called me names, didn’t like the relationship that I had with my mother […] I found out he had been married, but not just once before, but two times […] he cheated on his wife, not once but several times […] and so those red flags just continued to go up. And then as days, then weeks, then months went on, I formed a concrete wall.

Similarly, Ellie noted that she started to feel more resentful of her former partner when she began to pay more attention to the inequalities in their relationship:

I was realizing that he wasn’t helping me with the bills, buying the groceries, paying for the cable bill. He wasn’t [doing] anything. And when I would come home from work, he’d be playing video games and that pissed me off. The more often that happened the less that I liked him being in my house, the less I liked him.

As noted in these two quotes, red flags accumulated and were connected to partners’ drifting apart or feelings of conflict. Although visualizing and slowing momentum helped bring issues to conscious awareness, participants reported a distancing or dissatisfaction that happened over time. For example, Adriana said “I had completely detached myself from him, like over the whole like arguments I just kept getting more and more distant, like subconsciously I just drifted away. […] I loved him, not in the same way.” Participants also indicated that their friends and family raised concerns that they finally heard as they were deliberating about the future of the relationship. Kelly’s friends were subtle, “None of my friends were really that excited we were getting married.” However, Laura’s friends were direct about their desire to see her leave, “They told me a little bit off and on throughout the years. Any time he was mean to me and they knew about it they would tell me ‘You should just leave. You can do better’”.

Although issues typically accumulated over time, participants also discussed experiencing a final straw or moment when they hit a tipping point that prompted them to leave. Kelly, who had a child with her ex-fiancé said, “[He] pissed me off and that was just the icing on the cake for me […] this is not how I want to spend the rest of my life.” In the context of visualizing and deliberation, Kelly was able to think about the example she would be setting for her daughter. She concluded that her daughter, “was gonna see more anger and fighting than she would see love” and she wanted “her to grow up and see me happy with whoever I’m with.” Charlotte described an ongoing trend of explosive behavior and several distressing episodes with her former partner before reaching her breaking point. “We got into this stupid argument […] and he got super mad and just trashed our bedroom, just like ripped everything off the walls.” She explained feeling confused by her reaction after so many other incidents, “I don’t specifically know what the catalyst was for me getting in the car that day and being like, ‘This is the last straw, I’m done.’” Although these factors were similar in men and women, women in the sample were more likely to highlight inequality in wedding planning and domestic labor (i.e., imbalance in cleaning and bill paying) as central concerns in their relationships. Men also noted imbalances, but primarily focused on personality or temperament concerns. For example, when discussing the week leading up to the wedding and disclosing his premarital concerns to his partner, Nick said, “The response was just anger […] the anger and the vitriol combined with this kind of coercion. Like she would say things like ‘You’re [messed] up in the head, can’t you see this is just anxiety?’” Discrediting his concerns made Nick nervous about their ability to handle future conflicts and problems as a couple. Regardless of gender, during the course of visualizing and deliberating about whether to get married, old patterns of behavior were evaluated in a new light and emerging behaviors took on greater significance.

Reconsidering constraints

As part of their deliberation about whether to marry their partners, participants also had to confront the constraints they perceived to leaving the relationship. This included, but was not limited to, concerns about canceling a wedding, shared history, relational investments (e.g., living together), and feeling comfortable. For example, Laura explained, “[the relationship] was my comfort zone, even though I was miserable it was what I was used to […] I feel like it’s hard for some people to get out of that routine.”

When participants became engaged, they often began planning for a long-term future together by purchasing a vehicle or a home or combining their finances. Kylie explained her sense of investment in the relationship as an important barrier to leaving, “Just the time I invested and also, you know, the house we have cause we have everything that I thought we were going to establish our lives.” Within this example are multiple considerations, including the time and tangible resources that have been invested (i.e., buying a home), and also the feeling that the future they had planned for was no longer viable. Overcoming the constraints to breakup required participants to let go of the future and reimagine what the rest of their lives would look like without their partners.

A particularly salient constraint for women was the cultural expectation to wed. Cassie, for example, who was engaged for 5 months before breaking it off stated, “…it’s kind of an expectation of the culture to get married and have a family […] I think in the beginning I was under the influence of the societal expectations and then later on I was more concerned about my own happiness.” Natalie explained how the wedding manifested some of this pressure, “I think that little girls were kind of trained, and still are to some degree, that their wedding is, is kind of the pinnacle moment in their life.” Focusing on the wedding made it more difficult to appraise and, ultimately, to leave the relationship. Although it was emphasized to a lesser extent, men also felt pressure to move their relationships forward by getting married. Alex explained, “There’s so much culture tied up into this, but I proposed to her. […] I would say looking back I was pretty naïve about it.” For participants, the expectation that marriage and forming a family was the next step in their lives created a sense of pressure that had to be overcome in order to leave their relationships.

The wedding itself presented constraints in the form of investments and logistics already planned that would need to be canceled or changed (e.g., a booked wedding venue and wedding invitations sent out). Jasmine, whose engagement ended approximately 1-month prior to the wedding said, “We had already planned the wedding and I felt bad like my parents had made deposits on a bunch of stuff and I felt bad for them losing that money and so I hesitated to break it off just because of that.” Similarly, Alex, who ended his engagement 4 weeks before the wedding said, “I think the fact that we were that far along in planning, […] made it difficult in the sense of we didn’t want to waste people’s time and money, you know, you’ve made deposits on the venue.” As the date of the wedding drew closer, participants felt an increasing sense of obligation and responsibility to follow through.

Despite these constraints, participants were keenly aware of not being married yet. Legal marriage was one important constraint that they did not have to overcome during the engagement, but they would if they went through with the wedding. This factor seemed to help some participants make the final decision to leave. Adriana said, “I looked at it as if we were dating and I was done with it. I was not legally bound to him […] If you’re gonna break up with him, you should do it now.” Ellie noted the increased difficulty of getting divorced, “I would be more worried about getting a divorce and how much more effort and how much more pain it would be to do in 10 years than it would be to do it right now.” When discussing her decision, Kelly said, “so many people would have just went through with the wedding and then it’s an even bigger mess to go through a divorce.” Even though constraints during the engagement were high, the impending increase in constraints prompted action because participants wanted to avoid divorce.

Breaking the engagement

Ending the engagement itself typically began between members of the couple, but once the decision was made and communicated, there was a need to address the logistics of canceling the wedding. Then, couples could disentangle the life they had begun to build together (i.e., uncoupling).

As the findings about pausing for deliberation demonstrated, participants engaged in a complex internal process before making a final decision to break up. Katrina explained how this process unfolded for her, emphasizing the element of timing in her situation.

I kind of knew ‘I think this is coming to an end’. I wanted to wait [until he had taken his professional exam], and then he decided to move his exam by six months […] so we sat down and had a serious conversation and I said ‘I don’t think this relationship should continue for these reasons.’ […] So that initial conversation took place in August, and then after being separated for about two months we decided to get back together and try again and reestablish the engagement. And then the same conversation took place in March and [we] ultimately ended up breaking off the engagement.

Katrina’s story illustrates how engagements can end slowly over time as the couple comes to terms with their doubts about the future. Sometimes ending the engagement resulted from a series of conversations. However, other times participants had to break the difficult news to their partners that they had decided not to proceed with the marriage. With volatile partners, remaining calm was especially important, particularly for women. Sandra explained, “I called him back and I tried to be very calm because he can blow up at the drop of a hat and this was not something that was gonna make him happy.”

Nick’s experience was intense because he broke up with his fiancé on the day of the wedding, but he seemed less concerned about his partner’s reaction:

I was really under a lot of duress and feeling very despondent and overwhelmed, and I just looked at my brother and my friend and I said “This doesn’t feel right,” so I immediately called [her] and said “This, this can’t happen like this.”

Taking action to break off an engagement involved several layers of disclosure. Participants generally disclosed the news to their closest friends and family members first, before making a public declaration to more distal individuals (e.g., alerting guests and notifying vendors of the cancellation). For example, Kiara said, “A lot of my friends had been in on what was going on. So telling them that it was officially over wasn’t as worrisome as when I had to tell my extended family.”

Managing logistics

After the decision to break the engagement, participants had to manage the logistical details to canceling the wedding, which required varying degrees of effort depending on how much wedding planning had been completed. For example, Kelly reflected on her experience:

I was just really worried about everyone’s thoughts and how to cancel a wedding…like to call all the vendors and all of that stuff was just very overwhelming. And are we gonna get our deposits back? And my parents had paid for a lot of stuff for the wedding and trying to explain to them why I did what I did and that I’ll pay them all back for everything. And so that was the most difficult part probably. I feel like cancelling the wedding and having to tell everyone was more hard for me than actually breaking it off.

Participants sometimes described outsourcing responsibility of informing others about the canceled wedding to a family member or close friend (often a parent, sibling, or intended maid of honor/best man). Having social network members who could perform this responsibility helped decrease their stress. For example, Jasmine said, “I was real grateful for it, like my mom took care of telling all the people and letting everyone know.” The practical concerns of canceling the wedding were also intermingled with pain about the breakup itself. Cassie explained that calling everyone to cancel the wedding was like “reliving the breakup over and over again every time you talk to someone, every time you call a vendor, call a family member, call a friend. Anything. […] So it made it 10 times worse than just breaking up with someone.” Until the loose ends associated with the event were managed (e.g., logistics were managed and families were notified), participants had trouble moving on and coping with the loss of the future they had anticipated with their partners.

Uncoupling

After breaking up with their partners, participants also had to disentangle their lives from their partners. For example, most individuals described having some degree of continued interaction or interdependence with their former partners as they tied-up loose ends. Makayla said:

I had sent back the engagement rings by mail. […] I needed him to get off of my phone bill. He tried to get me to send some stuff, like gifts that he got me, like a camera and stuff […] then he was threatening to hold some of my books hostage […] I sent him back all the jewelry he got me.

The degree of interaction ranged from exchanging text messages and sending property through the mail to continuing to cohabit or co-parent due to sharing a lease or having a child together. In addition to the stress associated with continued interdependence, participants also reported experiencing distress from the breakup itself and what it symbolized for their futures. Although many reported feeling relief after the decision to leave, they also had general grief about the loss of the relationship. Cassie said, “I felt physical pain and nausea for months,” Kristen said she felt “very intense grief,” and Ruth said, “my anxiety was through the roof.” The mix of relief and discomfort seemed to fluctuate for Nick who said, “Initially there was a sense of relief, but then in the subsequent days I felt absolutely dreadful, could hardly get out of bed.”

The level of distress as a result of uncoupling seemed to vary by the proximity of the termination to the wedding date. For example, Nick described canceling the wedding on the wedding date as “traumatizing” with uncertainty coming “in waves.” In the aftermath of the breakup, he was faced with providing for his ex-fiancée financially because she did not have an income, offering to pay for her wedding guests’ flights, and negotiating what to do with a co-owned vehicle. In contrast, Kiara reported that she was not worried about many aspects of her wedding cancellation because, “nobody had gotten a save-the-date card, nobody knew that we were in the steps of planning the wedding.” Thus, an approaching wedding day could increase the stakes and make uncoupling more complicated.

Discussion

According to Inertia Theory (Stanley et al., 2006), as individuals move through relationship transitions like a premarital engagement, they accrue constraints that make it harder to leave a union should it become unsatisfying. Relationship momentum resulting from interpersonal or cultural pressures can lead couples to “slide” through transitions and further advance their relationships without careful deliberation. Our findings extend Inertia Theory by highlighting how individuals stop this momentum and end their engagements despite considerable constraints to breaking up. Based on our analysis, visualizing the future and finding ways to slow the momentum to marriage in order to deliberate were important factors in helping participants leave their engagements before accruing the constraints of legal marriage. Participants discussed visualizing alternative paths they could have taken (e.g., being in a different relationship and being single) and their potential futures with and without their fiancés. This finding aligns with research illustrating that (a) perceptions of alternatives to a relationship are relevant in stay–leave decision-making and (b) inertia in relationships may reduce perceived options and alternatives (Rhoades et al., 2010). An important contribution of our investigation is insight about how approaching an advanced stage of social commitment might lead individuals to more seriously visualize potential futures with their romantic partners.

According to the enduring dynamics model, issues that ultimately lead to marital dissatisfaction and divorce are often present early in courtship and continue over time (Huston et al., 2001). This reinforces the need for an overt focus on relationship concerns and premarital doubts during relationship transitions because they have been shown to predict subsequent divorce (Lavner et al., 2012). Because relationship issues may be ignored or downplayed during transitions, visualizing might be especially important to consider in the stay–leave deliberation process. Visualizing might prompt individuals to think about these alternative options and potential futures. Although there is strong support for enduring dynamics in marital research over time (Huston et al., 2001), disillusionment might also be salient during the engagement period as idealization may wane and individuals more realistically contemplate their futures. Investigating if couples prone to disillusionment self-select out of relationships before marriage could be a fruitful question for future research.

Participants also noted ways that momentum could be slowed down by postponing the wedding and having time apart. For example, half the participants reported breaking-up and getting back together as they cycled off-and-on with their former partners. On–off relationships are common and can be associated with distress for individuals if they feel obligated to return to these unstable relationships without being dedicated to improving them (see Monk et al., 2018; Vennum et al., 2014). Slowing down relationship momentum in the context of engagements gave participants the time to deliberate and think more seriously about red flags or concerns they saw and to contemplate potential constraints or barriers to leaving the relationship. Because we sampled those who left their relationships, this deliberation always led to the end of the relationship. In line with Inertia Theory (Stanley et al., 2006), there is potential that stalling the momentum could also result in a more deliberate decision to continue the relationship.

Although individuals indicated that issues had accumulated throughout their relationships, new issues emerged and existing red flags became more salient during the engagement as the wedding approached. Common red flags included infidelity and lying, abuse and conflict, dissatisfaction and growing apart. Participants also discussed feeling constrained to stay or return to their prior relationships for reasons that included having shared resources with the ex-fiancé, feeling pressured by cultural expectations to wed as a “next step,” thinking about the stressors of canceling the wedding, and feeling comfortable in the union. Inertia Theory emphasizes the importance of making relationship transition decisions based on dedication and not sliding through relationship transitions because it seems easier than overcoming constraints to break up (Stanley et al., 2006). Thus, collecting information about a partner and considering the merits of the relationship before making constraint-enhancing decisions is vital. However, because engaged couples already had accrued significant constraints to breaking up, the contribution of this study is understanding how couples overcome constraints and momentum once they already exist.

Following a decision to leave a relationship, individuals discussed breaking their engagements with their partners themselves and disclosing the end of the relationship to close others, followed by more extended or public displays of termination. In line with work by Rollie and Duck (2006), the uncoupling process may start internally for the initiator as an intrapsychic experience, but gradually becomes more public as partners may need to navigate differentiating and dismantling their couple identity (going from “we” to “I”) through dyadic and social phases, which emphasizes the role of communication in the process (see also Knapp, 1978). In addition to logistics like canceling the venue and notifying guests, participants discussed having to deal with continued interaction with former partners (e.g., returning the ring or other property) and distressing feelings as individuals worked to untangle their lives in the uncoupling process.

There was dimensionality in these processes that is important to reiterate. Although the process was largely similar for women and men, the visualizing of marital life (beyond a wedding) generally occurred more forcefully for women during the engagement period. Conversely, men may have additional opportunities to carefully contemplate their marital future before proposing by virtue of the fact that they often instigated the engagements. Visualizing was still salient for men, however, because emerging tension prompted them to contemplate the future and re-evaluate past concerns in a new light. Compared to men, women also spent more time discussing (a) frustrations about inequities in wedding planning and household labor, (b) their consideration of their former partner’s feelings when breaking up, and (c) the cultural pressure of weddings. Although men also noted these themes, the experiences seemed to weigh more heavily on women given they often experience an unequal burden with regard to relational work (e.g., Humble et al., 2008). Nevertheless, it is important to consider the imbalance between men and women in our sample when interpreting these compelling results. Given our preliminary findings, the experience of breaking an engagement is likely to be shaped by gender, though additional research is needed to confirm and expand on these findings.

Considerations and future directions

When investigating intricate dynamics in specific groups, a small homogenous sample is often appropriate (Roy et al., 2015); however, the limited diversity in our sample warrants future research. Our participants were mostly White, and all were in different-sex relationships. Future research should explore the process of relationship dissolution at this stage in different cultures. Similarly, due to cultural pressures and potential ambivalence about the institution of marriage (Monk & Ogolsky, 2019), sexual minorities may feel pressured to move forward with weddings even when they experience premarital instability. This may be especially salient considering that weddings are often public, heteronormative rituals (Oswald & Sutter, 2004). Our sample was also predominantly women, which parallels demographic findings that show women are more likely to dissolve a committed union (e.g., Brinig & Allen, 2000). The process may also vary by socioeconomic status; however, those who plan weddings may be a privileged sample given it requires money to wed and financial security is a factor in who feels able to marry (e.g., Cohen, 2019).

Our primary goal was to understand how the process of breaking up during the engagement and wedding planning period unfolds, which necessitates the perspective of those who made the decision and took the steps to end the relationship (i.e., the “leavers”). However, those who went through with the wedding despite strong reservations would also provide valuable insight. Investigating experiences of those who annulled their marriages or divorced in the first few years of marriage would be a promising starting point because these individuals likely noticed warning signs in the premarital period but may have proceeded with the marriage anyway (Huston et al., 2001). Similarly, individuals whose partners called off the wedding (i.e., the “left”) also have valuable insight to provide, especially given the fact that they may experience more distress than the initiator (Sprecher et al., 1998). Investigating the experiences of those “left at the altar” could lend valuable insight into coping with the end of a relationship and the potential for violated expectations.

Although we cannot fully discern whether or not some of the terminations were due to (a) concerns with the particular partner individuals were marrying or (b) reservations about marriage in general, participants focused on issues with their particular relationships (vs. doubts about commitment and intimacy globally). Additionally, 70% of participants were in subsequent intimate relationships at the time of the interviews, including 23% who were married, indicating many had moved forward with other partners.

Implications and conclusion

Given the ideal to intervene before maladaptive patterns solidify and constraints accrue (Vennum et al., 2017), a focus on early dating relationships is vital for professionals who work with premarital couples. However, individuals in dating relationships may be less likely to seek out premarital counseling resources and to seriously contemplate their futures together like engaged couples, whose approaching wedding dates make these considerations more salient (see Clyde et al., 2019). Premarital counselors and couple therapists should help engaged individuals with “cold feet” develop effective communication strategies to create boundaries with a partner to “slow their momentum” and explore relational concerns, as well as potential benefits of marriage. This may raise awareness about constraints and accumulating issues experienced by clients who can also explore if they have cold feet because they are uncomfortable with the prospect of marriage in general or if their concerns with commitment are connected to their specific partner.

The process of “visualizing” may serve as a potential way for practitioners (or concerned friends and family members) to slow or halt inertia of potentially maladaptive or low-quality relationships. Indeed, visualization could help individuals consider their desires, needs, and expectations about their futures. Practitioners might consider leading clients through guided imagery exercises that encourage individuals to picture the wedding and the married life that follows. When considering relationship dissolution, clients may need assistance thinking through the potential aftermath of the decision to leave in order to develop a plan of action that makes the process of leaving less daunting.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

An early draft of this manuscript was presented at the 2018 meeting of the National Council on Family Relations in San Diego, California.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

J. Kale Monk

Jeremy B. Kanter

Tyler B. Jamison

Luke T. Russell

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in this study are available by contacting Dr. Kale Monk (monkj@missouri.edu).

References

Amato

P. R.

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Blakely

(2008). Busy brides and the business of family life: The wedding-planning industry and the commodity frontier. Journal of Family Issues, 29(5), 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07309453

Blecher

B. A.

(2000). Broken engagements: Who is entitled to the engagement ring? Family Law Quarterly, 34(3), 579–588.

Brinig

M. F.

Allen

D. W.

(2000). “These boots are made for walking”: Why most divorce filers are women. American Law and Economics Review, 2(1), 126–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/2.1.126

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Clements

M. L.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2004). Before they said “I do”: Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00041.x

Clyde

T. L.

Hawkins

A. J.

Willoughby

B. J.

(2019). Revising premarital relationship interventions for the next generation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12378

Cohen

P. N.

(2019). The coming divorce decline. Socius, 5, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119873497

Coontz

(2004). The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 974–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00067.x

10.

Francis-Tan

Mialon

H. M.

(2015). “A diamond is forever” and other fairy tales: The relationship between wedding expenses and marriage duration. Economic Inquiry, 53(4), 1919–1930. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12206

11.

Glantz

(2016, July 20). 13 women share how their lives changed after they called off their weddings. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/relationships/g19998474/what-happened-when-women-called-off-their-wedding/

12.

Hill

C. T.

Rubin

Peplau

L. A.

(1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02485.x

13.

Humble

Á. M.

Zvonkovic

A. M.

Walker

A. J.

(2008). “The royal we” gender ideology, display, and assessment in wedding work. Journal of Family Issues, 29(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07305900

14.

Huston

T. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

Houts

R. M.

Smith

S. E.

George

L. J.

(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.237

15.

Johnson

M. P.

(1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships. In Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 73–87). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

16.

Kelly

E. L.

Conley

J. J.

(1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27

17.

Knapp

M. L.

(1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.

18.

Lavner

J. A.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2012). Do cold feet warn of trouble ahead? Premarital uncertainty and four-year marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 1012–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029912

19.

Miller

(2018, April 8). So you might want to call off your wedding—Now what? https://www.vogue.com/article/calling-off-a-wedding-what-to-consider

20.

Monk

J. K.

Ogolsky

B. G.

(2019). Contextual relational uncertainty model: Understanding ambiguity in a changing sociopolitical context of marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12325

21.

Monk

J. K.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Oswald

R. F.

(2018). Coming out and getting back in: Relationship cycling and distress in same-and different-sex relationships. Family Relations, 67(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12336

22.

Morse

J. M.

(2015). Data were saturated…. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 587–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576699

23.

Oswald

R. F.

Suter

E. A.

(2004). Heterosexist inclusion and exclusion during ritual: A “straight versus gay” comparison. Journal of Family Issues, 25(7), 881–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04267278

24.

Owen

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

(2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097

25.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021008

26.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028316

27.

Rollie

Duck

(2006). Divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships: Stage models and their limitations. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships (pp. 223–240). Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Roy

Zvonkovic

Goldberg

Sharp

LaRossa

(2015). Sampling richness and qualitative integrity: Challenges for research with families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12147

29.

Sharp

Zvonkovic

Humble

A. M.

Radina

M. E.

(2014). Cultivating the family studies terrain: A synthesis of qualitative conceptual articles. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12037

30.

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(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091

31.

Sprecher

Felmlee

Metts

Fehr

Vanni

(1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156005

32.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x

33.

Vennum

Lindstrom

Monk

J. K.

Adams

(2014). “It’s complicated” the continuity and correlates of cycling in cohabiting and marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(3), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513501987

34.

Vennum

Monk

J. K.

Pasley

B. K.

Fincham

F. D.

(2017). Emerging adult relationship transitions as opportune times for tailored interventions. Emerging Adulthood, 5(4), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817705020

35.

Wedding Report. (2013). Trend talk. https://www.theweddingreport.com/index.cfm/action/home/view/custom_research/#contact

36.

WP Diamonds. (2017). Executive survey. https://www.wpdiamonds.com/articles/