RELATIONAL DISENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CONSEQUENCES

by

DEBORAH LEIGH PERRY, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

SPEECH COMMUNICATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Accepted

'^í-' • 2 f

h\^. :";^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Dr. Michael J. Cody for his

assistance and guidance in the direction of this thesis and

to other members of my committee, Dr. Margaret L.

McLaughlin-Cody and Dr. William J. Jordan. I would like to

give special thanks to my parents, John and Charlotte Perry

for their continued love and support throughout this

project.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii *

LIST OF TABLES v

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of Purpose 1

Review of Literature 2

Social Exchange Theory 2

Determinants of Disengagement 6

Disengagement Strategies 9

Typology of Strategies 9

Strategy Selection 12

Trust 16

Dyadic Adjustment 18

Consequences of Relational

Disengagement 19

Hypotheses 24

11. METHODOLOGY 2 6

Subjects 26

Materials 26

III. RESULTS 2 9

Factor Analysis of Strategies 29

Interrelationships Among Variables 31

Hypotheses 38

Multiple Regression Analyses 43

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd

IV. DISCUSSION 45

Strategy Selection 45

Consequences of Disengagement 48

Conclusion 51

REFERENCES 5 5

APPENDIX 58

IV

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Factor Analysis Solution 30

2. Correlations Between All Variables 32

3. Factor Analysis Solution for Intimacy, Constrained, Unwillingness to Compromise and Trust 35

4. Correlations Between Relational Variables, Strategies and Consequences of Disengagement ... 39

V

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpose

While the initiation and development of pair relation-

ships has long been a topic of interest in interpersonal

communication, much less attention has been given to the

dissolution of pair relationships. It has been argued that

disengagements should be studied in order to understand the •

complete life cycle of relationships (Baxter, 1979) . A

considerable body of research exists concerning marital

separation and divorce, but, as Hill, Rubin and Peplau

(1976) point out, "for every recorded instance of the ending

of a marriage, there are many instances of the ending of a

pre-marital relationship" (p. 148).

Despite the pervasiveness of pre-marital breakups,

exploration into the disengagement of friendship dyads and

dating couples has only recently begun to emerge. To date,

the research has examined various factors associated with

the precipitating causes of a breakup, the communication

strategies used in the process of breaking up and the

effects of the breakup on the individuals involved. Also,

some speculative comparisons have been made relating

pre-marital breakups with marital breakups.

1

The purpose of the present paper is to extend the work

of previous research in an effort to understand more fully

the disengagement of relationships. Utilizing a social

exchange perspective, a review of literature will be

presented which focuses on factors associated with which

partner disengages and how disengagement is achieved. In

an attempt to build upon the research base, additional

variables which have remained unexplored will be discussed

and hypotheses will then be proposed.

Review of Literature

Social Exchange Theory

Within social exchange theory, human interaction is

viewed as a voluntary exchange of mutually rewarding

objects or activities. Levinger (1979a) notes that although

critics claim this approach is too materialistic to apply

to close interpersonal relationships, social exchange

theory is indeed useful in examining phenomena that occur

in close relationships because exchanges can be interpreted

in either concrete or symbolic terms. Therefore, abstract

concepts such as love and affection are not discounted,

but reinterpreted within an exchange orientation. Five

perspectives of social exchange theory are reviewed in

Roloff (1981): Homans• operant psychology approach (1974);

Blau's economic approach (1964); Thibaut and Kelley's

theory of interdependence (1978); Foa and Foa's resource

theory (1974); and Walster, Berscheid and Walster's equity

theory (1978). Though each perspective approaches social

exchange in a slightly different manner, there is agreement

concerning the major constructs.

The basic constructs of social exchange theory are

rewards, costs, comparison level, comparison level for

alternatives, distributive justice and reciprocity. The

first important concept is that of resources (rewards and

costs) which constitute what is exchanged. Foa and Foa

(1974) posit six types of resources: love, status, services,

goods, information and money. Love involves the expression

of affection and warmth and is considered a particularistic

resource as the value attached to love is largely dependent

upon the particular person who provides it. Status is the

communication of regard or esteem. Services and goods are

more concrete resources since they usually deal with

observable exchanges such as fixing someone's car or

delivering a newspaper. Information takes the form of

advice, opinions or instructions. Money is coin or

currency assigned a standard value within a social system.

Since it is unaffected by the person who provides it, money

is considered a universal resource (Roloff, 1981).

Resources are not equally valued: some people desire

certain resources over others. Preferred resources may be

thought of as rewards or "the pleasures, satisfactions

and gratifications a person enjoys" (Thibaut and Kelley,

1959, p. 12). Also, the value a person attributes to a

resource may vary. For example, if an individual has

accumulated a great deal of one resource, it will become

less valued (Roloff, 1981). Blau (1964) posits that some

rewards may emerge spontaneously such as personal

attraction, social approval and respect, while others are

open to negotiation such as acceptance into a group,

instrumental services and compliance. These types of

social rewards may be distinguished by whether they are

intrinsic or external to the relationship. Extrinsic

rewards (personal attraction, social approval and instru-

mental services), though conveyed within the relationships

exist independent of the relationship. Respect and

compliance are internal, unilateral rewards in that when

one complies with another, it is implicit that superiority

is granted to one at the expense of the other's power.

When an individual loses or is denied a preferred

resource, it is considered a cost. A cost may be incurred

as a function of foregoing rewards available elsewhere, or

as the result of receiving an aversive stimulation (Roloff

1981) . Supposedly, a rewarding relationship will continue

A costly relationship will eventually be terminated.

The comparison level refers to one's subjective

standard of satisfaction or to the attraction that the

relationship holds for a member in terms of the rewards

and costs a person feels should be received. Attraction to

the relationship is determined by comparing outcomes of the

current relationship with the comparison level which may

represent a level of relational rewards received in

previous associations. Comparison level for alternatives

represents the current outcomes compared to outcomes

expected from an available alternative. The comparison

level for alternatives indicates a stability component

within the relationship (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Levinger.

1979a; Roloff, 1981).

By utilizing the constructs of comparison level and

comparison level for alternatives, an idea as to how stable

and attractive a relationship is can be obtained.

According to Levinger (1979a), when a relationship's level

of outcomes is below the comparison level of one member and

below outcomes available elsewhere (comparison level for

alternatives), the relationship is in a state of

unattractive instability. The relationship is therefore

perceived as a costly one and will probably be terminated.

Distributive justice and reciprocity are both norms

which serve to equalize outcomes and ensure fair exchange.

It is assumed that participants within a relationship

attempt to achieve equity or balance. If one member

violates the norm of fair exchange, social disapproval may

be expected. Within the social exchange perspective, the

declining attraction of the present relationship, the rising

attraction of alternative relationships and the erosion

of normative restraints which serve to contain the

relationship are viewed as probable determinants of pair

dissolution.

Determinants of Disengagement

Simpson (1981a) synthesized social exchange theory with

symbolic interactionism to create a framework for examining

the development and/or decay of intimate relationships.

Symbolic interactionism focuses on the analysis of shared

meaning and the role of social interactions in the

development of self (Kimmel, 1979; Simpson, 1981a). The

integration of social exchange theory and symbolic

interactionism—symbolic exchange—has as a central concern

the exchange of symbolic meaning in the development of a

"relationship world view." The relationship world view

consists of a couple's common assumptions of life and

perceptions of the degree of importance these assumptions

hold for the couple. The extent to which a couple has

constructed a shared view of the world is the level of

symbolic interdependence. The relationship world view is

especially applicable to highly intimate couples and

married partners who have supposedly spent a great deal of

time developing shared assumptions and values. Simpson

7

(1981a) found a couple's level of symbolic interdependence

to be correlated positively with the degree of commitment

and the level of satisfaction.

In a study of pre-marital breakups, Simpson (1981a)

used the concept of symbolic interdependence as a predictor

of relational disengagement. His findings supported the

prediction that couples with high levels of symbolic

interdependence would be less likely to break up. However,

the correlation was only -.13, and further analyses

revealed that the portion of variance accounted for by

symbolic interdependence was also accounted for by other

predictors such as relational commitment and satisfaction.

Many of the subjects had only dated for a short time (one

week), which may explain the low correlation. Inherent in

the concept of relationship world view is the fact that it

takes time to develop.

Numerous studies examining marital disruption have

considered the level of relationship satisfaction and/or

commitment as determinants of pair progress or dissolution

(Fitzpatrick and Winke, 1979; Levinger, 1979b; Snyder, 1979).

However, the major emphasis has been on how certain

variables affect satisfaction under the assumption that

satisfaction is the primary predictor of relational change.

Particular concern has been given to the effects of children

and child-rearing practices on satisfaction (Miller, 19^6;

8

Ryder, 1973; Thornton, 1977). These attempts to determine

the underlying dimensions of marital satisfaction are

problematic because global measures of marital satisfaction

seem to lack reliability, appropriateness and validity

(Snyder, 1979). Despite the methodological problems,

researchers agree that the role of satisfaction in the

progress and/or decay of relationships is extremely

important.

Hill, Rubin and Peplau (1976) conducted a longitudinal

investigation of breakups before marriage. This study

represents a first attempt in examining relational disen-

gagement of dating couples rather than married couples. The

authors argue that an understanding of pre-marital breakups

would greatly facilitate the understanding of divorce.

Despite the different social contexts in which the two

events occur, the psychological bonds of attachment created

in intimate dating couples resemble the bonds of attachment

within married dyads and "thus, the requirements and diffi-

culties of 'uncoupling' in the two cases may show simi-

larities" (Hill et a_l. , 1976, p. 148). The results of HiU

et aj,. (1976) revealed several factors associated with

breakups before marriage. Included were unequal involvement

in the relationship, geographic vicinity, pressure from

parents, boredom and the desire for independence. Other

variables correlated with breaking up were differences in

intelligence, backgrounds and interests, conflicting ideas

about marriage and sex, and age discrepancy. These factors

can be considered costs within social exchange theory. For

example, if one's relational partner lives sixty miles

away, the cost of driving the distance to see the partner

may outweigh the pleasure derived from the partner's

company. If a comparable alternative is available without

the cost of distance, the relationship is likely to be

terminated.

Disengagement Strategies

Recently, there has em.erged an interest in studying the

actual process of disengagement. The communication

strategies and variables that affect the use of these

strategies have been the focus of investigations. Further,

while Hill et a_l. (1976) reported some findings concerning

the consequences of thé parties of the breakup (e.g., who

stayed friends), it is clear that how people break up

influences subsequent feelings and orientations.

Typology of strategies. Baxter (1979b) developed a

typology of disengagement strategies in a study involving

responses indicating the likelihood that subjects would use

35 strategies. Four primary clusters emerged: withdraw/

avoidance (strategy of indirectness), Machiavellian

(intentional manipulation of the other), positive tone

(concern for the other's feelings) and openness (concern

with honesty and openness of communication).

10

In another study, Baxter and Philpott (1980) examined

disengagement as a process rather than an event which occurs

at a single point in time. Subjects were asked to complete

a hypothetical story concerning the ending of a relationship

by providing step-by-step dynamics of what occurred between

the interactants. Results suggest a pattern of tactics

which oscillate between approach/avoidance extremes. For

example, a disengager might express verbally his/her desire

to end the relationship, but the other party is unwilling to

let go making further encounters necessary to complete the

disengagement. In this case, Baxter and Philpott (1980)

reported a tendency for the disengager to avoid further

interactions. Likewise, when the disengager initially

withdrew, the other party's reactions of hurt, anger or

confusion usually forced the disengager to confront the

other party. Baxter (1979a) also examined the verbal

strategy of self-disclosure as a potential disengagement

strategy. The findings showed an avoidance of discussion

of the state of the relationship and an avoidance of direct

confrontation. Furthermore, as hypothesized, an effort tc

disengage was accompanied by less willingness to disclose

on the part of the disengager.

Another typology of disengagement strategies was

developed by Cody (1981). Whereas Baxter (1979b) focused on

the disengagement of friendship dyads, Cody (1981) developei

a typology generalizable to more intimate dyads, reasoning

11

that withdraw/avoidance and Machiavellian tactics were less

likely to be used in achieving disengagement from romantic

partnerships. In such a case, "the disengager must at least

recognize that the partner has the right to request an

accounting of changes in the disengager's behavior and that

she/he is obligated to give some type of account" (Cody,

1981, p. 2). The development of emotional attachments, the

disclosing of intimate information, the propensity to make

long term plans and the willingness to sacrifice personal

goals for the good of the relationship are all likely to

increase as intimacy between two people increases.

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that "disengagers will

feel obligated to report verbally their disengagement

intentions" (Cody, 1981, p. 11).

The five strategies reported by Cody (1981) were:

(1) behavioral de-escalation (withdraw/avoidance); (2)

de-escalation (possible reconciliation, relationship fault);

(3) positive tone (expressed caring, grief about disen-

gagement and desire to be fair); (4) negative identity

management (failure to attend to the partner's needs of

rejection) and (5) justification (provided reasons and

implied consequences). In conjunction with Baxter (1979b),

these five strategies are generalizable from less intimate

to very intimate relationships.

12

Strategy selection. In an effort to determine what

variables might affect the choice of certain disengagement

strategies, Baxter (1979b) investigated the role of

relationship closeness (friendship/very close friendship)

and relational intention (partial versus total disengagement).

The findings showed that very close friends were less likely

to choose withdraw/avoidance and Machiavellian strategies

of disengagement than friends, and the results suggest a

tendency for very close friends to be more concerned with

the other, presumably because people in more intimate

relationships are more likely to feel an obligation to

explain their actions to intimates. The effect of relational

intention was not significant.

Communicator age and sex role orientation also affect

the choice of strategy (Baxter, 1981). Fifth graders and

adults prefer strategies of confrontation (explicit

declaration of the intent to disengage) as opposed to

avoidance tactics (reduced interaction). The basis for this

result is that children "have a relative lack of social

perspective-taking skills" (Baxter, 1981, p. 5) and are not

likely to anticipate the reaction of the other; thus,

children are less motivated to avoid confrontation. Adults

select confrontation tactics because of their broader social

experience and their capability of "realizing the delayed

and hidden costs afforded by an initial avoidance tactic"

(Baxter, 1981, p. 6). A social desirability factor may also

13

explain these results. It is more socially acceptable to

show concern to others; therefore, people may prefer to

indicate on questionnaires the use of more direct tactics of

disengagement. Furthermore, subjects were imagining a

disengagement situation, rather than recalling an actual

event, which might not reflect actual strategy choice.

Confrontation can be viewed as a masculine tactic

because initiative taking and assertiveness are stereo-

typically masculine traits. However, confrontation is also

characterized by concern for the other and attentiveness to

the needs of the other which are stereotypically feminine

traits. Therefore, androgynous persons, who are equally

comfortable with masculine or feminine behaviors, demon-

strate more preference for confrontation strategies than

either masculine sex-typed or feminine sex-typed persons

(Baxter, 1981).

Cody (1981) explored the relationship between intimacy,

reactions to inequity and factors of relational problems

with the selection of disengagement strategies. Intimacy

correlated positively with the use of justification,

de-escalation and positive tone tactics, and negatively with

the use of behavioral de-escalation, indicating that the

use of behavioral de-escalation is not often employed

between intimates. High levels of intimacy imply that

emotional bonds have formed. Therefore, the use of

14

behavioral de-escalation would not be acceptable. Again,

the disengager probably feels obligated to give a verbal

account of intent.

The perceptions of inequity in a relationship deal with

disparities in investments between partners. The "under-

benefited" partner receives fewer gains from the relationshlp

and is more likely to feel angry when realizing that the

partner does not reciprocate at the same level of intensity.

The emotional reaction of anger to perceived inequity

predicted the selection of justification and behavioral

de-escalation strategies, but the results concerning guilt

reactions were not significant. A partial explanation might

be that disengagers wish to feel as if they had done the

right thing and will rationalize away any guilty feelings.

Although the relational problems examined by Cody (1981)

do not represent a comprehensive model of relational

problems, each of the three factors examined (disengager

felt constrained, personal faults of target and target's

failure to compromise) influenced the choice of disengagement

strategies. These types of costs within social exchange

theory may cause the outcomes received in the current

relationship to fall below the comparison level. The factor

labeled "Contrained" dealt with the perception that the

disengager felt "constrained," a "lack of freedom,"

"suffocated" by a partner making "too many contributions"

and by a partner who was "too possessive." Such a factor

15

would appear to deal with a major discrepancy in expec-

tations for the relationship, with the partner perceived as

desiring a more serious or more intense commitment than was

desired by the disengager. In such a relationship (where

the disengager is being pursued), behavioral de-escalation

strategies are not necessarily an effective means by which

to disengage, and disengagers were thus likely to employ

either positive tone, de-escalation, justification or

negative identity management strategies. The "Faults"

factor included such perceptions as: the disengager felt

the partner publicly embarrassed him/her, was "too demanding,"

had "personality problems" and possessed a personality which

was incompatible with the disengager's. Disengagers are not

likely to desire to continue future interactions with

partners who introduce such costs into the relationship.

Thus, disengagers avoided using positive tone and used

justification strategies. The "Failure to Compromise"

factor included perceptions that the partner was "unwilling

to make enough contributions," took the disengager "for

granted" and "no longer behaved romantically toward the

disengager," and the partner was "unwilling to compromise

for the good of the relationship." This orientation

provided the opposite theoretical orientation to that of the

Constrained factor because disengagers who rated their

partners higher on this factor are probably the more inves-

16

partner. Since these disengagers desired a serious

relationship that was not fulfilled, it is unlikely that

they would use negative identity management strategies to

disengage. Disengagers in this situation were more likely

to use de-escalation and justification strategies. To date,

the research does not represent a comprehensive view of the

variables that influence strategy selection; therefore,

further investigations are necessary.

Trust

Interpersonal trust, though an integral feature of

close relationships, has been virtually ignored in research

(Larzelere and Huston, 1980) . Trust increases relational

security, reduces inhibitions and defensiveness, and allows

people the freedom to share feelings (Stinnett and Walters,

1977). The reciprocity of trust occurs more frequently

between partners than either the reciprocity of love or the

depth of self-disclosure (Larzelere and Huston, 1980). The

conceptualization of trust is obviously a pertinent aspect

of human relationships.

According to Larzelere and Huston (1980), trust is

composed of perceptions of benevolence and honesty.

Benevolence is an attribution of motivation: is a partner

genuinely interested in the welfare of the other, or is the

partner motivated to seek individual gains? Honesty is

concerned with sincerity and truthfulness: to what extent

17

can a partner be believed in his/her promises? If a partner

is perceived as benevolent and honest, then the partner is

worthy of trust.

Dyadic trust, or trust referring specifically to the

benevolence and honesty of a significant other, may be a

prerequisite for the development of intimacy. Increased

intimacy may cause feelings of vulnerability which can be

counterbalanced if the partner is trusted. However, the

feelings of vulnerability may inhibit the growth of trust if

it is not previously established.

Dyadic trust is associated with characteristics of

relational intimacy such as love, self-disclosure and

commitment (Larzelere and Huston, 1980). Altman and Taylor

(1973) suggest that trust is necessary for self-disclosure

because reciprocity of disclosure must be based on

reciprocity of trust. Trust may be a prerequisite for

commitment: higher levels of trust are necessary for higher

levels of commitment. However, it has been noted that it

"takes time to develop high levels of trust prior to an

initial commitment" (Larzelere and Huston, 1980, p. 602).

When considering the role trust plays in the selection

of disengagement strategies, it is important to note the

process of breaking up involves a deterioration of dyadic

trust (Larzelere and Huston, 1980). It is not known whether

the decaying of trust takes place before or after the

breakup, but it diminishes regardless of the prior level of

18

intimacy. This deterioration may be explained by the

assumption that the development of trust is accompanied by

self-disclosure. Therefore, subsequent to breaking up, the

ex-partner still has the information that was disclosed in

the relationship. Uncertainty as to if or how the ex-partner

may use that knowledge may cause deterioration of trust.

It seems fair to assume that relationships characterized

by high levels of trust are probably characterized by high

levels of self-disclosure, commitment and intimacy as well.

In such cases, the partner who wishes to disengage will

likely feel obligated to account for this desire as was

previously reported for intimate couples. If a partner is

viewed as sincere and honest, it would precipitate a concern

for the other's feelings. Therefore, it seems reasonable

to expect that highly trusting couples would not utilize

disengagement strategies that were indirect or manipulative.

Dyadic Adjustment

Dyadic adjustment is a prominent concept in the study of

marital relationships but has only recently been generalized

to unmarried couples (Spanier, 1976). The concept is

utilized in an effort to obtain an evaluation of the

characteristics and interactions of a relationship. Dyadic

adjustment is comprised of four empirically verified

components: dyadic satisfaction, dyadic consensus (the

extent to which a couple agrees on matters important to

19

dyadic functioning), dyadic cohesion (the extent a couple

engages together in various activities) and affection (the

verbal or physical expression of caring).

Evaluating the quality of a relationship may be useful

in predicting relational growth or decay. Dyadic adjustment

measures should also be predictive of how a couple will

disengage. The components of dyadic adjustment are related

to intimacy and commitment in relationships. Although it

may be argued that the components are redundant, Spanier

(1976) justified the use of the separate components in

obtaining a total dyadic adjustment score. Dyadic

adjustment may also be related in some aspects to the

"relationship world view" (Simpson, 1981a) because couples

who are more cohesive may have more opportunity to develop

shared assumptions and values.

It seems reasonable to expect that the more adjusted a

couple is, the more likely a partner wishing to disengage

would use strategies which show concern for the other and

avoid the use of manipulative strategies. The concept of

adjustment implies that time is required to adjust.

Therefore, increases in trust, self-disclosure and commitment

are also likely to occur.

Consequences of Relational Disengagement

As with the antecedents of disruption, the study of ^he

effects of disengagement has focused on the effects of

20

marital breakup. It is well documented that divorce is a

stressful event. Individuals must readjust to a different

lifestyle (Newman and Langer, 1981; Spanier and Lachman,

1980) . Some research suggests that ex-partners often find

the readjustment period too difficult and consequently seek

or require mental health care (Bloom, Asher and White, 1978).

Disruption has been shown to affect sleeping, health, work

efficiency, memory and loneliness (Nye and Berardo, 1973).

Also, conflict concerning child custody and financial

matters can lead to greater dissatisfaction with the breakup

as well as continued hostility between ex-partners (Levinger,

1979b) .

It is difficult to assess the similarities that might

exist between breakups before and after marriage due to the

fundamental differences in the social contexts. However,

in order to determine intrinsic features that may charac-

terize the ending of close relationships in general, it is

necessary to study breakups before marriage and the effects

on the members of the relationship.

Hill et al. (1976) suggested that pre-marital breakups

are generally less stressful than marital disruption, but

Simpson (1982) reported major impacts in the areas of

psychological effects and the effect on self-opinion.

Another area affected by pre-marital breakups was social

life. Often, partners establish mutual friendships and

construct their social lives around a common network of

21

friends. Following a disruption, one or both of the

members may experience stress when facing the task of

restructuring their social lives, which often entails

forming new friendships. Hill et aj.. (1976) reported that

feelings of depression, loneliness and freedom are experi-

enced following a breakup. Furthermore, some sex differences

were noted. For example, when the man precipitated the

disengagement, the couple was more likely to remain friends

than when the woman initiated the breakup. Also, men

reported more feelings of depression and rejection than

did women (Hill et. a2.. , 1976) .

The available literature concerning the consequences of

breaking up indicate that similarities do exist between

pre-marital and marital disruption. Hill et aj . (1976)

reported several similarities between pre-marital breakups

and divorce. Although there are exceptions, breaking up

is characterized by two-sidedness. "It is very rare for

any sort of breakup to be entirely mutual" (Hill et al.,

1976, p. 165). Consequently, one will rarely find two

people who have the same perceptions of their breakup.

There is also the possibility that sex differences in

orientations to breakups are similar before and after

marriage. Women cite more reasons for ending dating

relationships and are more likely to initiate the disen-

gagement of dating relationships, just as women cite more

marital complaints when divorcing and seem to be more likely

22

to first suggest getting a divorce (Hill et aj . , 1976).

The feelings of failure, guilt and anxiety that often follow

marital disruption may also occur in pre-marital breakups

(Weiss, 1975) where men often find it more difficult to "let

go" and are usually unwilling to withdraw from the relation-

ship (Hilletal., 1976).

However, the effects of the disengagement strategies

on the feelings following a breakup have not been examined.

Guilt and depression are often experienced following a

breakup (Simpson, 1982) . Guilt may result when one uses an

avoidance strategy when the target deserved an account.

Of course, the relational problems precipitating the breakup

are important. For example, if an "underbenefited" partner

grows angry and uses strategies such as behavioral de-

escalation or negative identity management, depression may

occur because the partner may still desire rewards from the

relationship. The use of negative identity management may

be an attempt to regain "face." If the cause of the

relational problem was the disengager's feelings of con-

strainment, less positive strategies may be used in an effort

to dissolve the bonds. However, if the "overbenefited"

partner feels guilty, positive tone may be employed to lessen

the guilt.- In any case, feelings of freedom are likely to

be experienced because the disengager is no longer con-

strained.

23

The distress experienced when restructuring one's

social life may be lessened if strategies which increase

the likelihood of future contact are employed. If the ex-

partners remain friends, it would be more probable that the

mutual friendships formed during the relationship could be

maintained. Showing concern for the other should facilitate

the relationships ending on a positive note and should be

conducive to the partners' remaining friends.

The effect of variables on strategy selection and the

effect of strategies on the consequences of disengagement

warrant further attention. Based on this review of research,

it is apparent that breaking up affects feelings of

depression, guilt and freedom, but the effects of relational

problems (i.e., constrained) and strategy selection on these

variables remain undetermined. Also, whether or not the

couple maintains contact (remains friends) should be

affected by the manner in which the couple disengages. These

four consequences (depression, guilt, freedom, staying

friends) will be examined in the present study.

In sum, it seems fair to assume that the use of positive

tone and de-escalation strategies wiU facilitate the likeli-

hood of future contact and lead to reductions in feelings of

guilt, whereas the use of behavioral de-escalation, negative

identity management and justification strategies will reduce

the likelihood of future interaction and lead to increases

24

in guilt feelings. In cases where the relationship is

characterized by greater trust and adjustment, one would

expect a disengager to select positive tone, justification

and de-escalation strategies because the disengager might

feel obligated to account for the disengagement. Also, the

more the partner is perceived as unwilling to compromise,

the more likely the disengager will feel depressed, whereas

the more the disengager feels constrained, the more likely

the disengager will feel free.

Hypotheses

Replicating Cody (1981), the following hypotheses are

advanced:

H,: As intimacy increases, the selection of justification,

positive tone, de-escalation and negative identity

management strategies will increase, while the selection

of behavioral de-escalation strategies will decrease.

H^: The more the partner is perceived as unwilling to

compromise, the more likely the disengager will be to

select behavioral de-escalation, justification and

negative identity management strategies.

H^: The more the disengager feels that the partner was

personally responsible for the disengagement by

introducing personality problems (i.e., Faults) into

the relationship, the more likely the disengager will

select justification and de-escalation strategies.

25

H^: The more the disengager feels constrained by the

partner, the more likely the disengager will be to

select behavioral de-escalation, positive tone and

de-escalation strategies.

In expandinq the work of Baxter (1979a,b; 1980; 1981) and

Cody (1981), the foUowing hypotheses are offered based on

the review of literature:

H^: As trust and dyadic adjustment increase, the selection

of justification, positive tone and de-escalation

strategies will increase and the selection of negative

identity management and behavioral de-escalation

strategies will decrease.

H^: The use of positive tone and de-escalation strategies

will lead to "increases in the likelihood of future

contact and will be negatively associated with guilt.

H-,: The use of behavioral de-escalation, negative identity

management and justification strategies will lead to

decreases in the likelihood of future contact and

increases in the feelings of guilt.

HQ: The more the partner is perceived as unwilling to o

compromise, the more likely the disengager will feel

depressed.

Hp.: The more the disengager feels constrained, the more 9

likely the disengager will feel "free."

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Subjects were 333 undergraduates enrolled in freshman,

sophomore and junior level Speech Communication courses

at Texas Tech University. One hundred forty-five males

and 188 females received extra credit for voluntary

participation. The average length of reported relationships

was 62.10 weeks, ranging from one week to 312 weeks.

Materials

A copy of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix.

The questionnaire consisted of four parts: perceptions of

the relationship, causes precipitating the breakup, how the

breakup was executed and consequences of the breakup.

Part I (perceptions of the relationship) included

questions concerning intimacy, trust and dyadic adjustment.

Items 1-5 were used to measure perceived intimacy. These

items were previously used in Cody (1981). Items 17-22

were used to measure perceived trust. These items

constitute six of the eight items developed by Larzelere

and Huston (1980). Subjects were asked to indicate the

extent to which each item applied to the relationship they 26

27

recalled using a 7-point scale ranging from Strongly Agree

to Strongly Disagree. Dyadic adjustment consisted of four

components: consensus (items 23-34), satisfaction (items

35-41), cohesion (items 42-46) and affection (items 47-50).

The items measuring consensus, satisfaction and cohesion

were developed by Spanier (1976). The items dealing with

affection were developed by the author to index the

expression of affection. Consensus was measured on a 7-

point scale ranging from Always Disagreed to Always Agreed.

The remaining components were scored using a 7-point scale

ranging from All the Time to Never.

Part II (causes precipitating the breakup) included

items concerning the relational problems investigated by

Cody (1981): faults, unwilling to compromise and constrained.

The faults factor was measured by items 1,5,9,13 and 17.

The unwilling to compromise factor was measured by items

2,6,10,14 and 18. The constrained factor was measured by

items 3,7,11,15 and 19. Subjects were asked to respond to

the items according to how important each item was in the

decision to break up.

Part III (how the breakup was executed) included

statements concerning verbal strategies or actions that

could be used when breaking off a relationship. Subjects

were asked to rate the degree to which they used these

strategies on a 7-point scale ranging from "I never did/saití

this" to "I definitely did/said this." Items 1-15

28

represent the statements concerning disengagement strategies.

These items were previously used in Cody (1981).

Part IV (consequences of the breakup) included

statements developed by the author to index subsequent

feelings of guilt, depression, freedom and the amount of

future contact. Items 1,6 and 11 measured guilt; items

2,7 and 12 measured depression; items 4,9 and 14 measured

freedom; items 5,10 and 15 measured the amount of future

contact. (Refer to the Appendix for detailed items).

Correlations were computed to test the hypotheses.

Multiple regression analyses were also performed.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of analyses

conducted to confirm the existence of the five proposed

methods of disengaging and to assess the internal consis-

tency and interrelationships among the independent and

dependent variables. Since the preliminary analyses

indicated fairly high correlations between the independent

variables (i.e., the Faults factor correlated with all other

independent variables except Intimacy), a series of factor

analyses was conducted in order to identify items that were

pure loading items so that more independent indices could

be constructed. The solutions of the factor analyses are

presented. The results of analyses conducted to test the

nine hypotheses are then presented.

Factor Analysis of Strategies

Table 1 presents the results of a Principle Components

(with Varimax rotation) factor analysis of the 15 items

employed to measure the five methods of disengaging. Factor

one (withdraw/avoidance) was defined by"didn't say anything,"

"avoided future meetings" and "discouraged seeing each

other." This factor accounted for 29.9% of the variance.

29

TABLE 1

FACTOR ANALYSIS SOLUTION

30

ITEMS FACTOR

1 FACTOR

2 FACTOR

3 FACTOR

4 FACTOR

5 Didn't Say Anything

Avoided Future Meetings

Discouraged Seeing Each Other

Going to Date Others

Life is too short

Wanted to be happy

Fully Explained

Both should be happy

Changing inside

May get back together

Break off for awhile

Call quits for now

Very Sorry

Regretted Very Much

Cared Very Much

Eigen values

% of variance

Alphas

.74

.71

.75

-.22

.11

-.06

-.27

-.17

-.03

-.12

-.05

-.07

-.24

-.16

-.33

4.48

29.9

.81

-.08

.02

-.09

.63

.56

.80

.09

.12

.27

.06

.20

.28

.12

.07

-.05

2.09

13.9

.73

-.15

-.13

-.19

.05

.14

.24

.70

.72

.58

.21

.15

.03

.10

.01

.06

1.56

10.4

.75

-.13

-.05

-.06

.15

.12

.19

.10

.11

.18

.62

.70

.63

.11

.16

.30

1.22

8.1

.74

-.21

-.11

-.18

.13

.06

-.03

.06

.07

.01

. 12

.16

.08

.66

.87

.36

1.03

6.8

.7'

31

The alpha was .81. Factor two (negative identity

management) accounted for 13.9% of the variance and was

defined by "going to date others," "life is too short" and

"want to be happy." The alpha was .73. Factor three

(justification) accounted for 10.4% of the variance and

was defined by "fully explained," "both should be happy"

and "changing inside." The alpha was .75. Factor four

(de-escalation) was defined by "may get back together

"break off for awhile" and "call quits for now." This

factor accounted for 8.1% of the variance. The alpha was

.74. Factor five (positive tone) was defined by "very

sorry,""regretted very much" and "cared very much." This

factor accounted for 6.8% of the variance. The alpha was

.79.

Interrelationships Among Variables

Table 2 presents the correlations among all variables

included in this study. The alpha coefficients are also

presented. Several problems can be noted. First, the

items written to measure the Faults construct correlated

with all other variables except the Intimacy construct

(r; = .05). Second, the Dyadic Adjustment measure correlated

with all other variables except the Unwillingness to

Compromise variable (r = -.16). Third, the Trust measure

correlated very highly with both the Unwillingness to

Compromise construct (r = .56) and with the Faults construct

03 < 6H

w Pcj h ^

03 < M

cc: < >

^

<

2 U CLI IS e-i

CQ

cn 2 O l-H

&H

< t^

oi o u

f ^

5 • H (0 co

a <D Q

4J —( •H 3

> (0

4J C/3

tu 0)

-o • H 0 > < c 0

• H JJ

1 m 0) - H

Q (Q U 0}

c 1 0

• H - H -U Í ;

03 «

3 U 1-5 - H

vu

> • H JJ (0 0« (U z

0 > •H a) •i-' c • H 0 cn H 0

•iJ co 3

H

•0 IT3 > i

Q

Cfl

ng

Fa

ult

1 •H c -< 3 -^

• H

:s "0 (U

1 c C - H 0 (0

U U .u co

1 • H > , / 4J 0 / C 03 / « e /

1 >< u HJ

1 E

1 '-' 1 c 1 p^

•

1 t

/ 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

i n

(NI

1

' 5 c -

C 2 -* j

Cfl

/

1

1 1

1 1

•9

—" 1

fNI !N

1

r r

z. 1 -^

•H

3 ;

1 1

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

• /

/ /

/ O 0

/ /

/ cs a> r-/ í^ - 1 c

/ / m i n ^ r^

I I I I

I f ) VO VÛ ^ (•" m — t n — o

I I I I

r^ "* ^ (N m í^ ^ O O <N

1

-n -^ co vo (vj o l T i o — o

.

/ /

/ /

/

/ 1

j

/

/ /

/ /

/ /

i

1 1

1

1

/ /

/ /

/ / /

/ / -/ r

/ / - V£>

/ CN . 1

' l ' l ' ' '

/ / eo i ^ « <

O - < <D • • •

1 1 ' 1

rn -H r^ iT) rM - H (N (N

• • • .

í^ i n l 00 r* ^

m m( - . o o i •

1 • j • • .

1 1

k 1

1 1

' 00

•

rM TT ^ i n

• .

n u^

0\ CTV r-l r«-

1

O co • • 1

1 1 1

{ rvj •,,]

" '"".1 1

rvj j ^ O r -• •

1

tn a o Q o m r N u ^ in ^ r

-< 0 M -

1 1 •

^ C 5 O

1

t r ) -

1

, i n rvj

VC

1 "* 1

—• Í N

< s

! ! I I !

(U 1 ' c ^. > , > 1 0

_. - i — — — - T j c n - : : ; ' ^ - - ' - -3 X 3 • - î:. - i - J : ^ i^ > u ~ ^ 3 . -

- :2 H — á " *

• 1 1

^ O 0 1 m "

• • 1

> m ví t — C

• • 1

inl c < —. r\

1

rsi o\ o —<

1

1 r^ i n

1 o o 1

^ l o

i 1 1

-£>| -n — 1 .-N

1

c .X « T -^

1 l^ c - v: > :2 :; <

-. (<n « o O r-• • • • • , 1

3 o vo in V p-i -1 - . . ^ (N

• • • • 1

' V ( n vo f* ' O rsi (N c

• . • . 1

00 —. rsi f (N rsi —. (>

1

O vO (N ' j -rsi rsi - ^ C

1 1 1

"^ ^ l inl o O —< —>j -n

1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1

1 j 1

"OÍ ^ iP ^ ^ l O O -sl

I 1 t 1

1 ' ' 1 ' 1 r^-l rMi —.1 LO

1 w ' i í *

c >. — - r 1 •: • - £_ ;

'— •X. •'z ^ •j'.

-• r • •

i n 5 00 • .

1 <3\ i QC

1 r^ 1 r '

1

1 rvi

1 1 1

' ^t 1

1 X I

1

i ssl xl

<

-<

32

33

(r = -.45). Subjects felt that partners who had faults and

who would not reciprocate investments could not be trusted.

Fourth, the assessment of internal consistency for the Guilt

items was low (.54) indicating that these items poorly

measured the construct. For the purpose of this study,

however, the Gui-lt variable was retained in order to test

hypotheses six and seven. It is conceded that better items

should be employed to measure Guilt.

Since many of these independent variables were inter-

correlated, there was a problem of multicolinearity.

Factor analyses were conducted to explore whether deleting

some items and/or combining some factors would result in

the construction of more orthogonal indices for subsequent

analyses. These analyses revealed that each of the five

items written to measure the Faults construct correlated

with the items of other variables. Thus, it was not

possible to select fewer items as pure loading items

measuring Faults. In fact, a multiple regression analysis

revealed that 40% of the variance in Faults was accounted

for by Dyadic Adjustment, Trust, Constrained and Unwilling

to Compromise. Thus, the Faults variable was eliminated

from subsequent analyses. It should be noted, however,

that Faults did correlate .25 with the use of justification

strategies, but only -.02 with the use of de-escalation

strategies, thus providing qualified support for hypothesis

three. Faults also correlated -.24 with the use of positive

34

tone strategies and .19 with the use of avoidance tactics

indicating that when the faults of the partner were

perceived as the cause of the breakup, disengagers used

justification and avoidance tactics and avoided using

positive tone strategies.

Further factor analyses revealed that only two Trust

items ("My partner was perfectly honest and truthful with

me" and "I felt that I could trust my partner completely")

were identified as pure loading items, distinct from the

Intimacy and Unwilling to Compromise variables. However,

even when these two items were averaged together to form a

new Trust variable, this Trust variable correlated -.41 with

the Unwilling to Compromise variable. Subsequently, a

scree line test was employed in a factor analysis of the

Intimacy, Unwilling to Compromise, Constramed and Trust

items. (Dyadic Adjustment was not included because the

Dyadic Adjustment measure is itself multi-dimensional,

See Spanier, 1976) The purpose of the analysis was to

provide a means for purifying the Intimacy, Unwilling to

Compromise, Constrained and Trust items.

The three factor solution is presented in Table 3.

The analysis revealed that the following items were pure

loading items measuring both Trust and UnwiUing to

Compromise: "My partner was perfectly honest and truthful

with me," "I felt that I could trust my partner completely,"

TABLE 3

FACTOR ANALYSIS SOLUTLON, FOR IJSITIMACY/ CONSTRMNED, _UNWILLJNGNESS TO COMPROMISE AND TRUST

ITEMS

Honest and Truthful

Could be Trusted

Truly Sincere

FACTOR 1

.64

.63

.74

FACTOR 2

.02

.13

.10

FACTOR 3

.05

-.02

.04

Fair and Just

Unwilling to Contribute

Took Me for granted

I made more investments

Do not show consideration

Very Intimate

Disclosed intimate information

Exclusive Dating

Emotionally Attached

Suffocated

Too Demanding

Too Possessive

Wanted More

Eigen Value % of variance

.75

.70

.68

.61

.60

-.03

-.02

-.07

-.10

.22

-.18

-.05

.21

.01

-.13

-.10

.23

.10

.86

.84

.71

.86

-.13

-.03

-.04

.24

-.02

.10

-.03

-.22

-.07

-.07

-.09

-.19

-.16

.65

.68

.76

.65

5.59 29.4

3.45 18.1

2. 18 11.5

3 6

"My partner was truly sincere in his/her promises," "I felt

that my partner did not show me enough consideration,"

"My partner treated me fairly and justly/' "I realized he/

she was unwilling to make enough contributions into the

relationship," "l felt that he/she took me for granted," and

"I made many more investments to the relationship than my

partner." This factor accounted for 29.4% of the variance

in the solution. The alpha was .86. The factor will be

referred to as Trust for the remainder of the study. Since

the original Trust and Unwilling to Compromise constructs

were inversely related, the Unwilling to Compromise items

were recoded so that the new Trust construct measured

perceived trust and willingness to compromise. The second

factor in the solution contained four of the original

Intimacy items and accounted for 18.1% of the variance.

The alpha was .89. The third factor accounted for 11.5% of

the variance and included four of the Constrained items. The

alpha was .73. The pure loading items identified above were

averaged together to form the indices of Trust, Intimacy

and Constrained.

Finally, the preliminary analyses revealed that the

four affection items written for this study as part of the

Dyadic Adjustment measure correlated highly with the

Intimacy items, as did the following three items: consensus

agreement on "aims, goals and things beleived important,"

consensus agreement on "making major decisions" and the

cohesion item which dealt with "engaging in outside

interests together." Eliminating these items reduced

the interrelationship between Intimacy and Dyadic

Adjustment (r_ = .25). The Dyadic Adjustment measure

correlated .36 with the new Trust construct. The alpha

for Dyadic Adjustment was .87.

The descriptive statistics for the four independent

variables measuring aspects of the relationships were as

follows: Intimacy, mean = 2.31, median = 1.756, standard

deviation = 1.52; Constrained, mean = 4.10, median = 4.00,

standard deviation = 1.66; Trust, mean = 3.42, median =

3.185, standard deviation = 1.570; Dyadic Adjustment,

mean = 3.351, median = 3.327, standard deviation = .843.

The descriptive statistics for the five disengagement

strategies were as follows: Positive Tone, mean = 4.035,

median = 3.898, standard deviation = 2.043; Justification,

mean = 3.914, median = 3.675, standard deviation = 1.759;

Negative Identity Management, mean = 4.499, median = 2.946,

standard deviation = 1.716; Avoidance, mean = 5.027,

median = 5.474, standard deviation = 1.900; De-escalation,

mean = 4.225, median = 1.785, standard deviation = 4.053.

38

Hypotheses

Table 4 presents the correlations between the

relational variables and strategies (hypotheses 1-5),

between strategies and the consequences of disengagement

(hypotheses 6 and 7) and between relational variables and

the consequences of disengagement (hypotheses 8 and 9).

Hypothesis one predicted that as Intimacy increased,

disengagers would be more likely to employ positive tone,

justification, de-escalation and negative identity

management strategies and less likely to employ avoidance

tactics. Although the correlations were smaller than

anticipated, significant support was obtained for the

first hypothesis with the exception of the correlation

between intimacy and negative identity management (£ = .02).

Intimacy was negatively associated with avoidance (r = -.24,

p < .001) and positively associated with positive tone

{r = .16, p < .01), de-escalation (r = .17, p < .01) and

justification (£ = .19, p < .001).

Hypothesis two predicted that the more a partner was

perceived as unwilling to compromise, the more likely the

the disengager would be to select avoidance, justification

and negative identity management strategies. As noted

earlier the original Unwilling to Compromise and Trust

variables were subjected to factor analysis in order to

distinguish pure loading items. The resulting construct

(Trust) measured perceived trust and willingness to

< EH

^ 03 W J 03 < 1—t

CC < >

J < 2 O M EH

ELA

0:í

2 W W s &H

TIONS BE

<

W os o: o u

EH 2 w s w o <

o 2 w cn M Q

W

o æ

NCE

w

O w CO 2 O

ES AND C

M

o w E-t < Oí EH

C/3 W

u 2 W 13

o w C/3 2 O u

[ABLES

VAR]

RELATIONAL

cn

co w M

o W < Oí E-t cn

C O

•H cn w 0)

cu Q

- p C/3

CU

c • H 03 U •P co c 0 u

•r3

H Q

H U (Tî E

•H -U C

CN (N O o o

CN CN

o

I

O

un

(N (N

<£>

CN

(N

(N

o o o

æ

o

m m

CN

æ o

LD (N

39

O U3

O (N

CTl LD

I

CN

I

O O

(T> CN O (N

Q; c 0 EH

0) >

•H -l-í •H cn 0 Oi

C 0

•H

(tJ r—(

03

u w o; 1 <D Q

C 0

•H -U (T3 U

•H 4H •H -M æ r - í

^

0) >

• r H

4-) (T3 CP

cu 2

T! -H 0 > <

(N CX3 CN

(N

(-n CN O CN

CN

o

CN

o "^

> 1

(T3 -P 03

0) Q; M CL,

4-J (—H

•H 3 O

C 0

•H cn æ o; ui

a o; Q

40

compromise and was used to test the second hypothesis. The

new construct correlated -.21 with the use of justification

strategies. That is, trust and willingness to compromise

were negatively related to justification. This result

provides indirect support for the prediction that

Unwillingness to Compromise and justification would be

positively associated. The correlations with negative

identity management and avoidance were not significant

(r = .06, -.05, respectively).

Hypothesis three dealt with the Faults variable which

was not included in the final analysis because the variable

was not independent of other predictor variables.

Hypothesis four predicted that the more the disengager felt

constrained by the partner, the more likely the disengager

would be to select avoidance, positive tone and

de-escalation strategies. The Constrained variable

correlated positively with de-escalation [r = .12, p < .05).

The correlations with positive tone and avoidance were not

significant (r = -.03, .01, respectively). Significant

correlations were obtained between Constrained and

justification [r = .15) and between Constrained and negative

identity management (£ = .26).

Hypothesis five predicted that as Trust and Dyadic

Adjustment increased, the disengager would be more likely to

employ justification, positive tone and de-escalation

strategies and less likely to employ negative identity

41

management and avoidance tactics. As Trust increased,

disengagers were more likely to select positive tone (x =

.22, p < .001) and de-escalation (r = .12, p < .05). A

negative correlation was obtained between Trust and

justification (r = -.21). The correlations with negative

identity management and avoidance were not significant

(X = .06, -.05, respectively). As Dyadic Adjustment

increased, disengagers were more likely to select positive

tone (r; = .15, p < .01). Significant negative associations

were obtained between Dyadic Adjustment and justification

(£ = -,19), negative identity management (r = -.11) and

avoidance {r = -.15). The correlation with de-escalation

was not significant (jr = .10), though in the predicted

direction.

Hypothesis six predicted that the use of positive tone

and de-escalation strategies would increase the likelihood

that partners would remain friends. A negative association

between positive tone and de-escalation and guilt was also

predicted. Significant support was obtained for the first

part of the hypothesis six. Positive tone correlated

positively with "staying friends" {_r = .16, p <• .01);

de-escalation correlated positively with "staying frier.ds"

(r = .27, p < .001). The second part of hypothesis six

was not supported. Positive tone and de-escala^ion both

correlated .25 with guilt.

42

Hypothesis seven predicted that the selection of

avoidance, negative identity management and justification

strategies would lead to decreases in the likelihood of

partners remaining friends and increases in feelings of

guilt. Partial support was obtained for the first part of

hypothesis seven. Avoidance was negatively associated with

"staying friends" {r_ = -.17, p < .01). Justification

correlated -.07 with "staying friends". Negative identity

management was positively associated with "staying friends"

{r_ = .12). The second part of hypothesis seven was not

supported though the correlations between negative identity

management and guilt and between avoidance and guilt were

in the predicted direction (£ = .05, .004, respectively).

Justification correlated -.04 with guilt.

Hypothesis eight predicted that the more the partner

was perceived as unwilling to compromise, the more likely

the disengager would be to feel depressed. The new Trust

construct (perceptions of willingness to compromise)

correlated -.07 with depression. Willingness to compromise

correlated more strongly with subsequent feelings of guilt

(£ = .26, p < .001) and "staying friends" (r = .23,p<.001).

Hypothesis nine predicted that the more the disengager

felt constrained by the partner, the more likely the

disengager would be to feel free. Strong support was found

for this hypothesis. The Constrained factor correlated .46

with "feeling free" (p<.001). Also, disengagers who felt

43

constrained by their partners were less likely to experience

subsequent feelings of depression (r = -.27).

Multiple Reqression Analyses

Multiple regression analyses were performed to test

the predictive power of the independent variables to the

dependent variables. Regression onto the strategies of

disengagement revealed that 14% of the variance in the

selection of justification strategies was accounted for on

the basis of the combination of four variables: Trust,

Constrained, Intimacy and Dyadic Adjustment. Intimacy and

Constrained accounted for six percent of the variance in

the selection of de-escalation strategies and eight percent

of the variance in the selection of negative identity

management strategies. Trust and Intimacy accounted for

eight percent of the variance in the selection of positive

tone strategies, whereas Intimacy, Dyadic Adjustment and

Constrained accounted for seven percent of the variance in

the selection of avoidance strategies. Although the

portions of variance accounted for in the regression

analysis were small, they were significant at the .05 level.

Regression onto the consequences of disengagement

revealed that 23% of the variance in subsequent feelings of

depression was accounted for by Intimacy and Constrained.

Twenty one percent of the variances in feelings of freedom

was accounted for by Constrained and Dyadic Adjustment.

44

Trust and Dyadic Adjustment accounted for eight percent

of the variance in "staying friends." Trust and Intimacy

accounted for eight percent of the variance in feelings

of guilt. Again, these were significant at the .05 level.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Strateqy Selection

The results of the present study provided support for

several of the hypotheses concerning variables which affect

the choice of disengagement strategies. Replicating the

findings of Cody (1981), intimacy correlated positively

with the use of justification, de-escalation and positive

tone and negatively with the use of avoidance strategies.

When intimate bonds have been formed, disengagers probably

feel obligated to account for the disengagement.

Furthermore, trust correlated positively with the use of

positive tone and de-escalation tactics as predicted. Trust

is associated with characteristics of intimacy; therefore,

when higher levels of trust were present, disengagers

selected strategies which showed concern for the partners'

feelings. The results concerning dyadic adjustment were

also consistent with expectations. Dyadic adjustment

correlated positively with the use of positive tone tactics

and negatively with the use of avoidance and negative

identity management strategies. Again, when a couple is

more adjusted, it is more probable that trust and mtimacy

have developed; therefore, disengagers selected strategies

which showed concern for their partners.

45

46

The factors of relational problems (constrained and

unwilling to compromise) influenced strategy selection.

When the disengager felt that the partner did not contribute

to the relationship (unwilling to compromise), justification

strategies were employed. In such a case, the disengager is

the more invested partner and it would be difficult to

merely withdraw from the relationship. The use of justi-

fication strategies provided reasons for the termination.

When disengagers felt constrained, de-escalation strategies

were employed. Disengagers who feel constrained usually

receive more benefits from partners who desire a more

serious relationship. The disengager may wish to continue

to receive rewards without feeling as if he/she were taking

advantage of the partner. Therefore, de-escalation tactics,

which show concern for the partner while lessening the

amount of present contact were employed.

Some of the expectations were not confirmed. For

example, intimacy was not correlated with the use of

negative identity management. It was originally expected

that an individual would not manipulate his/her partner's

image were they not intimate with one another (Cody, 1981),

However, when terminating an intimate relationship, the

disengager may feel obligated to show concern for the target

or to at least account verbally for the disengagement without

managing a negative image of the partner. Contrary to

expectations, justification correlated negatively with trust

47

and dyadic adjustment (r = -.21, -.19, respectively).

When higher levels of trust and dyadic adjustment are

present, it is probable that the disengager feels that

target deserves more than a mere explanation. Whereas

justification strategies often assign blame for the

disengagement (disengager or partner) and request a full

termination, positive tone and de-escalation strategies

show concern for the other and enhance the probability of

remaining friends. (Though the correlation between dyadic

adjustment and de-escalation was smaller than anticipated,

r = .10, it approached significance in the predicted

direction.) Consequently, disengagers would avoid the use

of justification strategies which might indicate an

unwillingness to discuss the partner's perceptions and

reactions. The trust construct, derived to measure trust

and willingness to compromise, did not correlate signif-

icantly with negative identity management or avoidance

tactics. Dyadic adjustment was more strongly correlated

with both strategies.

Contrary to expectations, disengagers who felt

constrained selected negative identity management and

justification strategies. It was expected that when

disengagers felt constrained, they would be motivated to

justify their intentions in a positive manner because they

were receiving more benefits without contributing to the

relationship and would be likely to feel guilty.

48

However, it is probable that overbenefited individuals who

felt bored and suffocated attempted to lessen the intense

feelings of the other by using less positive strategies.

The desire to terminate the relationship, and therefore

eliminate continued guilt feelings, may be greater than

the desire to continue to receive rewards from the partner.

In this case, the benefits are no longer perceived as

rewards since guilt feelings accompany them because the

disengager cannot reciprocate at the same level of intensity.

Therefore, less attention is given to the needs of the

partner.

Consequences of Disengagement

Several of the expectations concerning the consequences

of disengagement were confirmed. When disengagers used

positive tone and de-escalation strategies, the couple was

more likely to remain friends. Positive tone and

de-escalation strategies express caring for the partner

and express possibilities for future reconciliation. The

likelihood of maintaining a friendship is enhanced. When

disengagers used avoidance and justification strategies,

the couple was less likely to remain friends. Avoidance

tactics leave the partner with no reason or explanation for

the disengagment and are likely to cause confusion, hurt

and anger. Justification provides an explanation, but does

not express concern for the rejection needs of the partner.

49

Thus, avoidance and justification tactics do not ensure the

continuation of friendship.

The expectation that disengagers who felt constrained

would experience subsequent feelings of freedom was strongly

confirmed. Disengagers who felt suffocated and tied down

in the relationship felt freer after the disengagement than

disengagers who did not feel constrained in the relationship.

It is interesting to note that disengagers who felt

constrained were less likely to experience subsequent

depression (r = -.27). it seems probable that the cost of

remaining in a relationship which is constraining is greater

than the cost of foregoing the relationship, especially if

the disengager has an available alternative.

The results concerning guilt were unexpected. It was

predicted that the use of positive tone and the

de-escalation strategies would be negatively associated

with guilt because the disengager would feel as if he/she

had attended to the needs of the partner. However, the use

of positive tone and de-escalation tactics correlated

positively with guilt indicating that when these strategies

were used, greater feelings of guilt were experienced

subsequent to the breakup. It is probable that some

positive tone and de-escalation strategies are used because

they are prosocial in nature: "I really care for you, but..

../' "maybe we'll get back together..." The disengager may

not have sincere intentions of maintaining a friendship in

50

which case he/she may experience guilt due to the lack of

honesty. However, it is also probable that the disengager

has sincere concern for the partner but feels guilty

because he/she is responsible for terminating the relation-

ship and thereby hurting the other because the desire to

disengage is discrepant with the partner's desire to

continue the relationship. The subsequent feelings of

guilt may partially explain why the use of positive tone

and de-escalation strategies is correlated positively with

staying friends. The disengager may be motivated initially

by guilt to maintain the friendship, regardless of the

sincerity of the disengagement attempt.

The trust construct correlated positively with staying

friends and guilt, indicating that when a partner was

perceived as trustworthy and willing to compromise for the

good of the relationship the couple was more likely to stay

friends and the disengager was more likely to feel guilty.

When the partner is perceived as willing to invest in the

relationship, the disengager may feel guilty because he/she

did not desire to contribute further to the relationship.

However, the trust variable did not correlate significantly

with depression. Feelings of depression may be more

dependent upon levels of intimacy and the degree of love in

the relationship than upon perceptions of a partner's

willingness to compromise.

51

Contrary to expectations, the use of negative identity

management strategies correlated positively with staying

friends. It was originally expected that attempts to

negatively altercast the partner would hinder any possi-

bilities of continuing the relationship on a friendship

level. However, as noted earlier, disengagers who felt

constrained were more likely to use negative identity

management strategies. It seems probable that the sense

of freedom following the disengagement from a constraining

relationship would allow the disengager to maintain the

relationship at a lesser level of intensity provided the

partner is also willing.

Conclusion

The present study provides support for the claim that

relational variables influence disengagement strategy

selection. Although some of the correlations were smaller

than anticipated, the majority were in the predicted

directions. Generally, when a relationship is characterized

by higher levels of intimacy, trust and dyadic adjustment,

disengagers will select strategies which show concern for

the partner, offer possible reconciliation and provide

reasons for the disengagement. When the partner was

perceived as unwilling to compromise, disengagers selecfed

justification strategies, whereas when disengagers felt

constrained by the partner, they selected de-escalation,

52

justification and negative identity management strategies.

Relational variables also affect subsequent feelings.

Disengagers who felt constrained experienced greater

feelings of freedom and were less likely to experience

depression. When partners were perceived as willing to

compromise, the couple was more likely to remain friends

and the disengager was more likely to feel guilty.

The results also supported the claim that the choice

of disengagement strategy influenced subsequent feelings.

Positive tone and de-escalation strategies were positively

associated with staying friends and feelings of guilt.

Negative identity management correlated positively with

staying friends whereas justification correlated negatively

with staying friends.

The multiple regression analyses revealed that signi-

ficant portions of the variance in strategy selection were

accounted for by various combinations of trust, intimacy,

dyadic adjustment and the constrained construct. Also,

significant portions of the variance in the consequences of

disengagement were accounted for by the same relational

variables. The multiple regression analyses were performed

to determine if one or more linear combinations of the

independent variables significantly predicted the variance

in the dependent variables. However, the portions of

variance accounted for were small indicating that

53

other variables need to be investigated in order to

increase predictive abilities.

The measures of trust, unwillingness to compromise and

guilt used in the present study were problematic. It was

difficult to assess the effects of trust and unwillingness

to compromise because the variables were not independent

of each other. Furthermore, the items used to measure the'

consequences of disengagement may actually have measured

what the subjects felt during the disengagement process

rather than after the disengagement was complete (with the

exception of the amount of future contact). This may

account for the low correlations with depression which is

likely to be a long lasting effect.

We must concede that this study was based on recalled

instances of disengaging. Recall of how the breakup

occurred may be painted in ways which make the disengager

look better than he/she actually is by overestimating the

use of positive tone strategies. Ideally, future research

with sufficient time and resources may wish to employ a

longitudinal design that studies the growth, deterioration

and disengagement as a communication process. (See Hill,

Rubin and Peplau, 1976 and Simpson, 1982.)

Future research should investigate personality

variables which might affect strategy usage and subsequent

consequences. For example, a person with high self-esteem

might not use manipulative strategies because it woulc be

54

inconsistent with his/her self-image. Further, variables

such as locus of control, Machiavellianism and cognitive

complexity have been shown to influence communication

strategies (Cody, 1981) . Also, this study did not address

issues such as physical attraction and dominance within the

relationship. Although theoretically sound constructs from

social exchange were utilized, the constructs of comparison

level and comparison level for alternatives were not

assessed. It would also be interesting to determine how

the integrated social networks (mutual friendships) of

relational partners might affect strategy selection and

consequences.

Future consideration might be given to cultural

differences, as well as socio-economic and educational

differences. For example, an individual from a high socio-

economic background might be expected to select more

prosocial strategies than an individual from a low socio-

economic 'background who may not place as high a priority

on appearing socially adept. Finally, it would be more

conducive to accurate research if the perceptions of both

partners could be obtained. Because relational breakups

are characterized by two-sidedness, it would be interesting

to compare the reactions of the disengager with those of

the partner.

REFERENCES

Altman, I. and Taylor, D. A. Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Baxter, L. A. Self-disclosure as a relationship disengagement strategy: an exploratory investigation. Human Communication Research, 1979, 5, 215-222.

Baxter, L. A. Relationship closeness, relational intention and disengagement strategies. Paper presented to S.C.A., San Antonio, Texas, November, 19 79.

Baxter, L. A. and Philpott, J. Relational disengagement: a process view. Paper presented to S.C.A., San Antonio, Texas, November, 1980.

Baxter, L. A. and Philpott, J. Communicator age and sex role orientation differences is preferred relationship termination strategies. Paper presented to S.C.A., Anaheim, California, November, 1981.

Blau, P. Exchanqe and power in social life. New York: John Wiley, 1964.

Bloom, B., Asher, S., and White, S. Marital disruption stressor: a review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 8_5, 867-894.

Cody, M. A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role intimacy, reactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection. Paper presented to S.C.A., Ãnaheim, California, November, 1981.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. and Winke, J. You always hurt the one you love: strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 1979, 3-11.

Foa, E. and Foa, V. Resource theory of social exchange, in M.E. Roloff, Interpersonal communiation: the social exchange approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981, pp. 52-56.

Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z. and Peplau, L. A. Breakups before marriage: the end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 3^, 147-168.

55

56

Homans, G. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974.

Kelley, H. and Thibaut, J. Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley, 1978.

Kimmel, D. Relationship initiation and development: a life span developmental approach, in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (Eds.) Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 351-377.

Larzelere, R. E. and Huston, T. L. The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, 595-605.

Levinger, G. A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships, in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (Eds.) Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 169-191.

Levinger, G. Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1980, 16, 510-544.

Miller, B. C. A multivariate developmental model of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 643-657.

Newman, H. M. and Langer, J. Post-divorce adaptationsand the attribution of responsibility. Sex Roles, 1981, 1_, 223-232.

Roloff, M. E. Interpersonal communication: the social exchange approach. Eeverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981.

Ryder, R. G. Longitudinal data relating marriage satisfaction and having a child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1973, 604-606.

Simpson, T. A symbolic exchange framework for the develop-ment of intimate relationships. Paper presented to S.C.A., Anaheim, California, November, 1981.

Simpson, T. Premarital breakups and post-breakup adjustment: a longitudinal study. Unpublished manuscript, University of West Virginia, 1982.

57

Snyder, D. Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1979, 813-823.

Spanier, G. B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 15-28.

Spanier G. and Lachman, M. Factors associated with adjustment to marital separation. Sociological Focus, 1980, n_, 369-381.

Stinnett, N. and Walters, J. Relationships in marriage and family. New York: MacMillan, 1977.

Thornton, A. Children and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1977, 531-540.

Walster, E., Walster, G., and Berscheid, E. Eguity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

Weiss, R. Marital separation, New York: Basic Books, 1975, cited in T. Simpson, Pre-marital break-ups and post-break-up adjustment: a longitudinal study. Unpublished manuscript, University of West Virginia, 1982.

APPENDIX

DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

Dear Participant: This questionnaire deals with how people "break

off" their dating relationships. Occasionally, due to incompatibilities, conflicts, different desires or interests or due to the fact that people move great distances from each other, people will desire to break off the relationships they have with person(s) they date. We would like you to help us come to understand how people break off relationships by telling us how you perceived the relationship, why you decided to break off the relationship, how you went about breaking off the relationship, and how you felt after breaking off the relationship.

To help us do this, please recall a relationship that you were in where you decided to break off the relationship. You can think of a relationship that lasted any length of time, from one or several dates to one that lasted several years.

With this relationship in mind, please answer the following 4 parts of this questionnaire. All answers are strictly confidential. Please read the instructions for each part carefully and MAKE SURE THAT YOU ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. Even if the relationship you recall and report on only lasted one date, please answer every guestion.

Part I. Perceptions of the relationship.

In this part, we will ask a number of quesrions dealing with how you perceived the relationship. Please write the appropriate answer in the blank space to the left of the statement. Use the following numbers to indicate the extent to which each statement was true for the relationship you recalled:

If you Stronqly Agree, write 1 in the space provided, If you Somewhat Agree, write 2 in the space provided, If you Sliqhtly Aqree, write 3 in the space provided, If you are Neutral, write 4 in the space provided, If you Sliqhtly Disaqree, write 5 in the space provided, If you Somewhat Disagree, write 6 in the space provided,

or If you Stronqly Disagree, write 7 in the space providei.

58

59

Again, make sure that you answer every item. Your honesty _and coop era_tioj\_ are very much appreciated.

1- The relationship was a very intimate one.

_2. I disclosed very intimate information about myself to this partner.

_3. I yielded to the wishes of the partner and compromised for the good of the relationship.

4. I expressed an interest in exclusively dating the partner.

_5. I was emotionally attached to this partner.

_6. I made nearly all the decisions concerning the relationship.

_7. My partner was extremely attractive.

_8. This partner and I shared many of the same friends.

_9. My partner was extremely popular.

_10. In this relationship, I had nearly all the power.

11. Most of my closest friends knew this partner.

12. I controlled much of the behavior of my partner.

13. My partner was extremely desireable.

14. In this relationship, I found it easy to dominate my partner.

15. My partner had many positive qualities.

16. This partner and I shared the same set of acquaintances.

17. There were times when my partner could not be trusted.

18. My partner was perfectly honest and truthful with me.

19. I felt that I could trust my partner completely.

60

20. My partner was truly sincere in his/her promises

21. I felt that my partner did not show me enough consideration.

22. My partner treated me fairly and justly.

Indicate the extent to which you and your partner agreed or disagreed on:

23. Money matters Always Always Disagreed IJJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

24. Matters of Always Always recreation Disagreed IJJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

25. Religious Always Always matters Disagreed IJJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

26 . D e m o n s t r a t i o n s of Always Always A f f e c t i o n Disagreed /JJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

27. Friends Always Always Disagreed IJ J JJ JJ J Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

28. Sex relations Always Always Disagreed IJJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

29. Conventionality Always , , , , , , , , ^ " ^ ^ (correct or proper Disagreed /JJJJJJJ Agreed behavior) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

30. Philosophy of life Always , , , , , , , . ^ "" ^ (mine or his/hers) Disagreed /JJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Alwavs Always WaVS o r u t í c i J .x i iy rtxwci_/o , , , , , , , ^ j „ i t h p a r e n t s Di sag reed I I I J J l • I Agreed

7 D b 4 J z i

31. Ways of dealing

32. Aims: goals: things Always . . . , . , / / ^^^^^^ believed important Disagreed / / / /J /J ' Agree.

7 6 5 4 J 2 ...

61

33. Amount of time spent together

34. Making major decisions

Always Always Disagreed /JJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Always Always Disagreed /JJJJJJJ Agreed

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY ITEM. THANK YOU.

Use the following scale for the next 16 questions:

Write 7 if your answer to the question is ALL THE TIME. Write 6 if your answer to the question is VERY FREQUENTLY. Write 5 if your answer to the question is FREQUENTLY. Write 4 if your answer to the question is MUCH OF THE TIME. Write 3 if your answer to the question is OCCASIONALLY. Write 2 if your answer to the question is RARELY. Write 1 if your answer to the question is NEVER.

35. How often did you consider separation or

terminating the relationship?

36. How often did you or your partner fight?

37. In general, how often did you think things between

you and your partner were going well?

38. Did you confide in your partner?

39. Did you ever regret that you dated?

40. How often did you and your partner quarrel?

41. How often did you and your partner "get on each other's nerves"?

42. Did you and your partner engage in outside interests together?

43. Did you and your partner have a stimulating exchange of ideas?

44. Did you and your partner laugh together?

45. Did you and your partner calmly discuss thmgs?

62

46. Did you and your partner work together on projects?

47. Did you and your partner kiss each other?

48. Did you express how much you cared for each other'

_49. Did you show how much you liked each other?

50. Did you show affection for each other?

Part II. Causes precipitating the break up.

How important were each of the following reasons in deciding to break off this relationship? Use the following to report your answers:

If you Strongly Agree, write 1 in the space provided, If you Somewhat Agree, write 2 in the space provided, If you Slighlty Agree, write 3 in the space provided, If you are Neutral, write 4 in the space provided, If you Slightly Disagree, write 5 in the space provided, If you Somewhat Disagree, write 6 in the space provided, If you Strongly Disagree, write 7 in the space provided.

1. I realized that he/she had too many faults (personality and/or otherwise).

2. I realized he/she was unwilling to make enough contributions into the relationship.

3. I simply felt that the relationship was beginning to constrain me and I felt a lack of freedom.

4. I wanted to date another (others) who had more to offer.

5. I felt his/her personality was incompatible with mine.

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

6. I felt that he/she no longer behaved towards me as romantically as he/she once did.

7. The partner made too many contributions and I started to feel suffocated.

63

,8. I knew I could never fall "in love" with him/her, so I wanted to date another (others).

10

I felt that he/she was too demanding.

I felt that he/she took me for granted.

11* I felt that he/she was becoming too possesive of me.

12. I wanted to start seeing another (others) who was (were) more desireable.

13. The partner behaved in ways that embarrassed me.

14. I felt that he/she wasn't ready to maké the necessary commitments to a serious relationship.

15. I felt the partner wanted more out of the relationship than I wanted to give.

16. I wanted to start seeing another (others) who was (were) more attractive.

17. The partner's behaviors and/or personality was more to blame for the break up than anything else

18. I made many more investments to the relationship than my partner.

19. My partner wanted a more serious relationship than I did.

20. I wanted to start seeing another (others) who was (were) more popular.

We have tried to provide a number of reasons that may have led up to the break up. If you felt there were reasons for why you broke up that we didn't list, please take the opportunity to state these reasons in the space provided for below. Thank you. (Use the back of this page if you want more space.)

64

Part III. How the break up was executed.

People use a number of ways to break off the relationships they have. Some people break off relationships by never seeing the partner again, never returning phone calls, avoiding the person, etc. Others tell their partners of their desires to break up or to see less of each other. Some examples are:

"I'm going to date others and I think you should also," OR

"I'm really changing inside and I don't feel good about our relationship anymore. I think we'd better stop seeing so much of each other," OR

"It is unfair on my part and would be unfair to you to continue this relationship if one of us had to fake it. I care a great deal about you but I don't feel as strongly as I used to. I think it would be wise if we stopped seeing quite so much of each other."

Instructions for this part of the questionnaire continue to the next page. Thank you!

On occasion, people may use several tactics over a period of time. For example, you may have decided to break off the relationship at (say) midterm—at which time you tried to avoid seeing the partner or reduced contact with the partner without having said anything to him/her. Later, you may have said something like:

"Don't you think we are too young for a serious relation-ship? I think what would be best for me is that we see other people and date around and then see if we wanted to be together."

Still later the partner may not have dated others and continued to call you frequently. Then, as a third tactic you may have said something like:

"Look, I don't want you to bother me anymore. You annoy me. We made a decision...."

WE WOULD BE VERY APPRECIATIVE IF YOU REPORTED EACH STEP YOU USED TO BREAK OFF THE RELATIONSHIP (IF YOU USED MORE THAN ONE STEP).

65

In the space provided for below, please write, as best as you can remember, the process you went through to break off this relationship. TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE AS YOU CAN WHEN REPORTING WHAT YOU DID AND/OR SAID. (NOTE: If you said nothing to the partner when you broke off the relationship, simply write that you avoided the partner, or report how you went about trying to discourage future interactions. We appreciate your effortl)

Another way to analyze messages people use is to have them rate the degree to which they used certain message elements or tactics in the messages they employed. The following set of questions represent statements that you could have made when you requested to break off the relationship with the partner (or used to discourage future interactions with the partner). For each statement, think about whether you had made a statement similar to the one in the question' and mark an X in the appropriate category for the 7-point scale.

1. I told him/her that I was very, very sorry about breaking off the relationship.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

2. I told him/her that I was going to date other people and that I though he/she should date others also.

I never did/said 1 definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / ^^^^ ^^^^ ^° ^^

partner

3. I fully explained why I felt dissatisfied with the relationship, that it hasn't been growing and that I believe we will both be happier if we didn't date anymore.

I never did/said ^ ^ 1 '^fl^^"''l^ ^^^^ this / / / _ / _ / _ / _ / — / ^^^^ -^^^ ^° "^

partner

4. I told him/her that there should be mutual love and understanding in a relationship and that at the moment I didn't feel as close as I should. I then said that I

66

think we should lay off awhile and see if we wanted to get back together. If we wanted to get back together, we wi11.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

5. I didn't say anything to the partner, I avoided contact with him/her as much as possible.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

6. I told him/her that I regretted very much having to break off the relationship.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

7. I told him/her that life was too short and that we should date other people in order to enjoy life.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

8. Without explaining my intentions to break off the relationship, I avoided scheduling future meetings with him/her.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

9. I told him/her that I cared very, very much for him/her.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner 10. I fully explained how I felt and that I wanted to break

things off. I explained that a relationship was no good unless it makes both people happy and that I wasn't happy and that I didn't want to date anymore.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY ITEM. THANK YOU.

67

11. I said that I was really changing inside and I didn't quite feel good about our relationship anymore. I said that we'd better stop seeing each other.

I never did/said I definitely did/ ^^^^ I—lU_/_/_/U_/ said this to my

partner

12. I told him/her that I needed to be honest with him/her and suggested that we break it off for awhile and see what happens.

I never did/said I definitely did/ ^^^2 / — / _ / _ / _ / _ _ / _ / _ / said this to my

partner

13. I never verbally said anything to the partner, but I discouraged our seeing each other again.

I never did/said I definitelv did/ this / /_/ / _ / _ / _ / _ / said this tô my

partner

14. I told him/her that I wanted to be happy and that we should date other people.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

15. I told him/her that while I was happy most of the time I sometimes feltthat I can't do all the things I wanted to. I then said that we should call it quits for now and if we still wanted to get back together we wi11.

I never did/said I definitely did/ this / / / / / / / / said this to my

partner

Part IV. Consequences of the break up.

How did you feel about the break up during the time immediately after the breakup? For the following 15 questions,

Write 1 in the space provided if you Strongly Agree with the statement, Write 2 if you Somewhat Agree, Write 3 if you Slightly Agree, Write 4 if you are Neutral or are Undecided,

58

Write 5 if you Slightly Disagree, Write 6 if you Somewhat Disagree, OR Write 7 if you Stronqly Disagree.

_1. I felt extremely guilty.

_2. I felt extremely lonely.

_3. I felt extremely angry.

_4. I felt extremely free.

5. My partner and I continued to see each other frequently.

6. 1 felt very much as if I had done the wrong thing.

7. I felt extremely depressed.

8. I felt verv mad.

9. I felt I could do all the things I want to do, but couldn't do while dating this partner.

10. My partner and I remained close after the breakup.

11. I felt as if I should have been more honest and open with the partner.

12. I felt extremely unhappy.

13. I felt very revengeful (wanted revenge).

14. I felt I was no longer tied down or constrained.

15. My partner and I still spent some time together.

Are you a Male or Female (Circle one)

How long did you and this partner date? (Try to answer in numbers of weeks. If one date, answer "1".)