In spite of everyone’s best intentions, relationships do not always survive the many changes that they experience over time. There are a number of trends, however, which have been noted by researchers.

Relationships offer comfortable predictability. Crisis occurs when this predictability is disrupted. This could be the result of having a child, moving to a new city, or “breaking the rules”. Relationships work based on rules or “agreements” between partners. These rules function to minimize the potential for conflict. Some rules that are typical in relationships are respecting your partner’s privacy, not talking to others about what has been self-disclosed, and being emotionally supportive. Deception is perhaps the most important rule that should not be broken.  When these rules are violated, relationships usually change in a negative way.

Some psychologists have taken a rather economic approach to relationships. Social exchange theory (Kelley and Thibaut 1959) argues that relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis. In other words, the costs of the relationship must not outweigh the benefits. The more one "invests" in a relationship, the more one expects “greater returns”. A relationship will endure only as long as it is profitable to both partners. Although a lack of balance in a relationship may be tolerated in the short term, the balance must be restored if the relationship is to survive.

This theory assumes that we are in a relationship only for the benefits and that if we experience too many "costs", we are out of the relationship. American psychologist Elaine Walster argues that social exchange theory is too simplistic an explanation and that there is no reliable way of measuring costs and benefits. She argues instead that the perception of equality (or equity) is what determines whether a relationship will be maintained.

Equity theory has been used to explain infidelity. For example, a woman feels that she is putting more into the relationship than her husband. Although she loves him, he is currently not making a good salary, he is not doing his share of the housework, and he has not been showing her enough affection. In cheating on her husband, she feels guilty and that she now “owes” him her loyalty, thus rebalancing the sense of equity. In a study of 2000 couples, Hatfield et al (1979) found that those who felt deprived or under-benefited had extramarital sex sooner after marriage and with more partners than those who felt either fairly treated or over-benefited. Those who felt that their relationship was perfectly equitable were more likely than others to think that they would still be together in one year and in five years. Those who felt greatly under-benefited and those who felt greatly over-benefited were least likely to think that their relationship would be intact in the future. What is most interesting is that the over-benefited were just as doubtful about future prospects as were the under-benefited.

In spite of the empirical support, exchange theories are criticized for being too “cold,” and for failing to take into account emotions that could override “profit motive.” The theory may also lack cross-cultural validity – with such behaviour being more likely in an individualistic culture than a collectivistic one. Finally, it is difficult to quantify costs and rewards in order to test the theory rigorously.

 Teacher only box

For each of the following statistics, do you think that they support the equity theory or the evolutionary theory?  If you don't think that a statistic supports either theory, propose an alternative theory as to why these statistics might be true.

• Infidelity is more common among people under 30. This is good support for the evolutionary theory.  As we get older, reproduction is less probable and not the priority.
• Men are more likely to cheat than women. But as women become more financially independent, they are beginning to act more like men with respect to infidelity. This could be support for either theory.  If the argument is that a woman needs her man for "protection" and to support her children, if the woman is able to do that on her own, she is less worried about losing her partner.  It could also be that there is less of a feeling of benefit in the relationship and that if the woman, for example, is playing the primary role in raising the children as well as being a high-wage earner, she may feel that there is an imbalance of equity in the relationship.
• The initial decision to be unfaithful is rarely if ever a rational choice; instead, infidelity is usually driven by circumstances and one’s emotions. This is clearly an evolutionary theory. Evolutionary arguments are based on biological motivations and drives - not on cognitive, rational thought.
• Women tend to leave their husbands if he falls in love with another woman; men are more likely to leave a relationship if their wife has sex with another man. Again, this is support for an evolutionary argument.  According to the theory, women need to man for resources; if he is in love with another woman, then he is likely to share those resources with her.  For men, it is important to know that the child that they are raising is theirs.  If his wife has sexual relations with someone else, there is a danger that he will end up raising a child that is not his.

Some theories are more explanatory than predictive. Felmlee (1995) proposed her Fatal Attraction Theory in which she argues that what attracted us to our partner in the first place may end up being the reason that the relationship ends.

Her sample was made up of 301 university students - both male and female - who were asked to think about their most recent romantic relationship that had ended.  They were asked to list the qualities that had attracted them to their former partner.  Then they were asked which qualities in their partner led to the breakup. She found that in 88/301 cases, what had been once seen as an attractive trait ended up being the reason for the split.  She found three common fatal attraction patterns:

1. Fun to foolish. This was the most common fatal attraction process. In this case, the partner was initially seen to have an amazing sense of humour and fun to be with. He made you forget all of your cares and worries.  But then over time, if this remains a predominant part of their behaviour, it can be seen that the person lacks maturity or "can't take anything seriously."   It may also be seen that humour is used to avoid solving problems in the relationship or, in the worst case, is used as a way to humiliate one's partner.

2. Strong to domineering. In this case, people are drawn to partners who show self-confidence and have strong opinions about life. They are seen as leaders and people who "know what they want in life." Later, however, the partner may be seen as uncompromising and authoritarian. In the worst cases, the partner may be abusive.

3. Spontaneous to unpredictable. This is when we are attracted to someone who lives in the moment.  They are not bound by lots of plans and are able to go with the flow.  There is excitement in their spontaneity and lack of predictability.  Over time, this may be seen as a lack of seriousness.  There may also be frustration as a result of a lack of planning. In the worst-case scenario, this leads to cheating on the spouse and a lack of commitment.

Why relationships end: communication

As we saw in the previous section, communication plays a key role in relationships; therefore, it should be no surprise that a negative communication style would lead to the break-up of a relationship.

Psychologist John Gottman has proposed that there are four communication styles that threaten a relationship: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. He calls these four communication styles the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – a reference to the Biblical story about the end of the world.

Gottman’s (1994) research has been carried out primarily by observing and interviewing couples in his laboratory. He observed couples having a low-conflict conversation and then a high-conflict conversation. He measured physiological factors like their heart rate, blood pressure, and skin galvanization. He argues that he can predict the likelihood that a marriage will survive by watching communication patterns between two people. He has studied both heterosexual and same-sex couples. According to Gottman, part of communication is our use of micro-expressions. For example, when we feel contempt or disgust for someone, our face shows it. However, according to his research, it is primarily our state of arousal that occurs during conflict – when our heartbeat exceeds 100 beats per minute – and our oral communication which is predictive of a failing relationship.

Although Gottman’s research is very popular, there are some concerns about his work.  First, his claim that he can predict the likelihood of divorce is rather problematic.  Although it may appear that his work has high predictive validity, the sampling is not random. Instead, the sample is made up of couples who are coming to him in order to save their marriage in other words, all of the relationships are already in danger of ending, and usually, the problems in the marriage have been long-term.  According to Gottman, the average time that a couple waits to receive counseling is six years.  However, the documentation of patterns that lead to the end of a relationship is significant and there needs to be more research to determine its true predictive validity.

Methodological considerations

There are several methodological considerations when we study human relationships.  One of the most basic issues in the research is that it is very difficult – and often unethical – to carry out experimental research on couples.  Therefore, the majority of research carried out in this chapter is correlational in nature – not establishing a cause-and-effect relationship.  In cases where experiments are actually done, many use “hypothetical” situations.  Although the presence of consistent results is promising, the predictive validity of the research has to be questioned – is this really what would happen in a real, rather than a hypothetical, situation?

Another concern is sampling bias.  The majority of the studies come from three populations.  First, a large number of studies use university students as their sample.  This makes it difficult to generalize the findings to other age groups.  Secondly, as noted above, the majority of the research has been carried out in individualistic cultures.  This means that many of the studies may lack cross-cultural validity.  Finally, a significant number of studies look at couples who have sought out therapy to save a failing marriage.  This also will bias the sample, not looking at couples who struggle in marriage but do not seek counseling.

Although some of the studies are prospective in nature – that is, the couples are evaluated at the beginning of their relationship and then observed over time – the vast majority of the studies are retrospective in nature. In this case, couples are asked to talk about their relationship or marriage.  There are some limitations to this approach.  First, it is often impossible to verify that what the participants say is accurate. Secondly, whenever we are asked to remember something, there is the possibility of memory distortion. In particular, in cases where the relationship is in danger, the peak-end rule may influence perception – that is, the participants will tend to remember examples of very bad events in their relationship (peak) and the most recent behaviour (end), which tends to be negative. Finally, since the data is self-reported, there is the problem of demand characteristics such as the social desirability effect. Participants may say what they feel is “correct” or that makes them look good in front of the researcher.

Ethical considerations

When studying relationships, there are also several ethical considerations that must be addressed.

Informed consent is essential in all research. When couples come in for therapy, if the therapist wishes to use their data in a study, then consent must be given.  It is also important that both members of the relationship give their consent.  The couple should know how the data will be used and that their identities will remain confidential. As part of the consent, the couple should be reminded that they may withdraw their data at any time in the study. Finally, it is important that while carrying out research, the researcher should not pressure participants to answer embarrassing or painful questions.  The participant always has the right to refuse to answer a question.

Checking for understanding

Group dynamics