First let me state to you, Alfred, and to you, Patricia, that of the 200 marriages that I have performed, all but seven have failed. So the odds are not good. We don’t like to admit it, especially at the wedding ceremony, but it’s in the back of all our minds, isn’t it? How long will it last?

—Reverend Dupas (played by Donald Sutherland), in the movie Little Murders (Brodsky et al., 1971)

Most estimates put the divorce rate in the United States at nearly 50%, meaning that almost half of all marriages don’t last “so long as you both shall live.” Depending on the source, this divorce rate is at, or at least near, the highest of most industrialized countries. Moreover, the estimate climbs to between 65% and 75% for second marriages and even higher for third marriages.

These figures are troubling, given that stable and fulfilling marriages are associated with better physical and mental health, better educational attainment, and economic achievement for both parents and children (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). This is also true of same-sex marriages (Ducharme & Kollar, 2012). Divorce, on the other hand, is linked to a number of negative outcomes, not the least of which is risk of early death. Divorced people are at a 23% greater risk for all causes of mortality (Sbarra et al., 2011), though it is important to note that these data do not permit a causal inference that divorce causes death. It may be that people who are likely to get divorced also have some characteristic that is likely to contribute to their dying earlier.

580

Given the benefits of a good long-term relationship, it would be useful to know how to identify when a marriage might find itself on the rocks and how to steer it back to safer waters. On the high seas of marriage, two parts of the journey seem to be most treacherous: the first seven years and midlife (around 14 to 16 years), typically when couples are dealing with the stress of teenage children. By observing conversations early in marriage, Gottman and Levenson (2000) have been able to forecast when these storms will hit. They observed the conversations of newlywed couples and then tracked them over years. During the initial interview, they videotaped the couples having conversations about different topics, from a mundane catch-up on the day’s events to a discussion about something good in the relationship to a discussion about a recurring issue or problem.

On the basis of observations of thousands of couples discussing sources of marital conflict, Gottman pinpointed a cascading process in which criticism (telling the partner his or her faults) by one partner leads to contempt (making sarcastic comments about the partner or rolling one’s eyes), which in turn leads to defensiveness (denying responsibility), which in turn leads to stonewalling (withdrawing or avoiding).

Gottman refers to these stages as the four horsemen of the (relational) apocalypse, because their appearance strongly foreshadows the dissolution of a relationship. Fortunately, as we will see, there are ways of overcoming this cycle of relational doom.

Gottman (1993) found that by looking at patterns of negative affect and contempt when discussing problems, he could predict which couples were likely to divorce in the first few years and which were more likely to divorce after about 14 years. A high level of negativity—those four horsemen—portends early divorce. In contrast, a lack of strong positive affect in couple conversations predicts divorce in the second decade of marriage. One way to account for these patterns is to think about the security and growth functions of relationships. The early divorces may be predicted by high negative affect, which disrupts the sense of security people seek from romantic relationships. A roller coaster of a relationship, one characterized by intense positivity but also intense negativity, is unlikely to provide much security, so it tends to fail in the first few years. In contrast, a lack of strong positive affect early on may lead to boredom over the long haul. Relationships lacking strong positive affect may provide little growth and stimulation after a decade of marriage.

Recall that the social exchange model takes an economic perspective on relationships and posits that rewards, costs, and comparison level determine relationship satisfaction. Caryl Rusbult’s (1983) interdependence theory expanded on the social exchange model to understand relationship commitment. This theory proposes that satisfaction is only one of three critical factors that determine commitment to a particular relationship. Check out FIGURE 15.14. In addition to the person’s satisfaction with the relationship (which is influenced by rewards, costs, and comparison levels), Rusbult argues that we also need to consider the person’s investments in the relationship and the alternatives that the person sees out there in the field.

581

Part of what keeps people committed to a relationship is the investment of time and resources they have put into building a life together. In the short term, spending even a few weeks dating someone, getting to know him and his friends, giving up other activities to be with him, all contribute to a sense of having invested in the relationship. The greater the sense of investment, the harder it is to give up and walk away on what you have begun to build together. Once you have held an extravagant wedding ceremony, combined financial accounts, signed your names on a mortgage, raised children, and melded your social networks and sense of family, it’s not exactly easy to disentangle two individual lives from the partnership that has developed. Costs might need to really start outweighing not just current benefits but the sum total of what you’ve put in to the relationship. For example, among same-sex couples, those who had a civil union were less likely to end the relationship than those who did not go through this legal process, even though before doing so there was no difference in relationship satisfaction between the groups (Balsam et al., 2004). In fact, despite often reporting less heated debates and conflict in their relationships than do heterosexuals, same-sex couples who don’t go through the process of legalizing their union tend to break up more frequently (Kurdek, 2004). This is likely because without a legal commitment to the relationship, they face fewer barriers in ending that relationship when times get tough.

In addition to satisfaction and investment, the third factor that can contribute to your overall commitment is an assessment of the options available to you. When you apply the comparison level for alternatives, you are assessing whether you have other, better options than your current relationship. People may remain committed to or dependent on a dysfunctional or devolving relationship if they cannot imagine a better alternative. Current outcomes might seem bad, but perhaps being alone seems even worse. When your comparison level for alternatives is low, your commitment remains high. This relationship is consistent for both men and women (Bui et al., 1996; Le & Agnew, 2003). In light of the comparison level for alternatives, it’s not too surprising that over a third of marriages that end in divorce involve at least one partner having an extramarital affair (South & Lloyd, 1995). Many people don’t think about leaving their current relationship until they have a glimpse of what life could be like in another. Of course, once a partner has been unfaithful, the likelihood of divorce increases (Previti & Amato, 2004).

One of the interesting aspects of the interdependence theory of relationship commitment is that it highlights how an individual can be relatively satisfied in a relationship and invest a great deal in it but still decide to leave if he or she suspects there are better alternatives. For example, perhaps Brad Pitt was satisfied with Jennifer Aniston but left because he thought Angelina Jolie was that much more appealing. Conversely, some individuals might decide to stay in a relationship, not because they are especially satisfied, but because they don’t see any other better options out there. This helps to explain why people will sometimes stay in relationships that to any outside observer look rather bleak and may even involve abuse. Research has supported this explanation. For example, a study by Rusbult (1983) that followed couples over a seven-month period found that those who stayed together experienced increased costs (e.g., time, effort, loss of freedom) but increased rewards as well (e.g., satisfaction, pleasure). But for couples who broke up, the rewards did not increase as much as the costs did, the alternatives became more appealing, and so commitment declined.

582

The decision to stick with a relationship also is influenced by how well the relationship meets our psychological needs. As we discussed in chapter 6, self-determination theory argues that people need a basic sense not just of related-ness but also of autonomy and competence. A sense of competence makes us feel secure and valued; a sense of autonomy—feeling that we’re taking ownership of what we do—contributes to our growth. And when a relationship doesn’t provide a sense of competence and autonomy, and thus doesn’t meet these core psychological needs, it is less satisfying, and our commitment wanes (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992; La Guardia et al., 2000).

Sometimes the decision to break up, though obviously destructive to the relationship, is ultimately good for one or both of the individuals. We all know people—and maybe we’ve been those people ourselves—who stay in a relationship that is not really in their best interests. It’s not meeting our needs and is not especially satisfying, but we think we have no other options and so try to stick it out. Who is most likely to be in this situation? Those who are prone to anxious attachments (i.e., have high attachment anxiety) often think they are unworthy of being in a good relationship but are especially dependent on what relationships they do have and will try to maintain them at all costs (Davila & Bradbury, 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Research by Slotter and Finkel (2009) confirms this reasoning. They followed couples over six months and found that when people were low in attachment anxiety, they were more likely to break up when their needs were not being met. But people high in attachment anxiety were more likely to cling to a sinking ship, maintaining the relationship even when it did not meet their needs.

The longitudinal aspect of this study is powerful because it reveals how, in this case, attachment anxiety and need satisfaction influence behavior over time. However, all study designs have their weaknesses, and here the weakness is that we can’t be sure that attachment anxiety was really the important factor. This is because it was just measured, not manipulated. Some other variable associated with attachment anxiety might be influencing relationship commitment.

To address this issue, in a second study, Slotter and Finkel (2009) took advantage of the strengths of the experimental method, reasoning that anyone can feel more or less secure in their relationships at various times. Think about those times when you’ve eagerly monitored your partner for signs, such as smiling or holding your hand, that he or she is in fact really into the relationship, but at other times you wonder if perhaps he or she has tired of you. Because most people have a mix of good and bad memories, the researchers manipulated whether participants brought to mind ideas related to relational security or insecurity. They first measured how much participants regarded the relationship as meeting psychological needs, and then randomly assigned participants to unscramble various words to form a sentence. The list contained either words such as was, reliable, the, mother or words such as was, unreliable, the, mother. Thus, participants were making sentences that got them thinking about either relational security (e.g., the mother was reliable) or insecurity (e.g., the mother was unreliable). The results were similar to those in Study 1. When participants did not see the relationship as meeting their psychological needs and were primed with insecurity, they expressed greater levels of commitment to the relationship. But when primed with security, they expressed less commitment to the relationship when it was not meeting their needs.

583

In short, more securely attached people are more likely to bolt from a relationship that they do not see as sufficiently fulfilling their psychological needs. Without a strong sense of commitment, such individuals are unlikely to engage in behaviors that help to maintain the relationship, such as making sacrifices for the relationship and responding to betrayals or problems with forgiveness (Finkel et al., 2002).

585

As if day-to-day stressors and irritations are not enough, all intimate relationships will also face a certain amount of actual conflict. The noted marital researcher John Gottman (1993) points out that it’s not conflict that is bad for a relationship. How the couple manages that conflict will determine their enduring satisfaction and likelihood of staying together (see also Canary et al., 1995). Gottman’s research identifies different types of couples. For example, volatile couples have a short fuse and seem to argue about everything. Conflict-avoiding couples have almost no fuse and seem to avoid all disagreements. One type is not necessarily better than the other. Both can have stable relationships as long as the partners’ styles match.

All couples, however, will need to confront conflict at least some of the time. Indeed, it is healthy for the relationship for this to happen (Cahn, 1992; Cloven & Roloff, 1991; Rusbult, 1987). Disagreements will happen: There is no perfect partner who will agree with you about everything. Your expectations have to be realistic. Your partner may prefer different types of movies to see or music to listen to. You may disagree about who should take out the garbage, cook, do the laundry. Partners may have different preferences in terms of sexual activity. They may have different ideas about where to vacation or how to spend disposable income. Issues may arise regarding whether to have children and when, and if so, how to raise them. Resolving such disagreements involves communication and compromise. So what separates happy from distressed couples in how they with deal with such problems?

Let’s take a closer look at some of the strategies people apply when conflicts come up. We can divide them along two dimensions (Rusbult et al., 1982). Along one dimension are responses ranging from active (e.g., barraging your partner with a list of reasons that what she did was wrong) to passive (e.g., sitting quietly and seething). Along the other dimension are responses ranging from constructive (e.g., sticking by your partner and hoping things will get better) to destructive (e.g., smashing the headlights out of your partner’s new car). When we cross these two dimensions with one another (see FIGURE 15.16), we see four different types of responses.

An exit response is active but destructive to the relationship. It involves separating or threatening to leave. An example of an exit response is “I told him I couldn’t take it anymore and it was over.” A voice response is similarly active but more constructive to the relationship. It involves discussing problems, seeking solutions and help, and attempting to change. For example, with a voice response, one might say, “We talked things over and worked things out.”

But not all responses take this active approach. Partners also can respond constructively but in a more passive way. Loyalty entails hoping for improvement, supporting a partner, sticking with it, and continuing to wear relationship symbols (such as rings): “I just waited to see if things would get better.” Although loyalty is generally considered a constructive response, it can be relatively ineffective, because it may be difficult for the other partner to notice and pick up on it (Drigotas et al., 1995). And if it does go unnoticed, it is not likely to help the relationship. Finally, a person may respond both passively and destructively with neglect, letting things fall apart, and ignoring a partner or drifting away from him or her: “Mostly my response was silence to anything he said.”

586

In asking people to recall a time when they had conflicts with their partner, Rusbult’s work finds that people in satisfied and committed relationships are more likely to use constructive responses such as voice and loyalty and less likely to turn to exit and neglect responses. So it’s not that good relationships don’t involve conflict but that they deal with it more positively, primarily with voice. People in good relationships are also more likely to accommodate a partner’s initially destructive response and respond constructively to it. So what do you do when your partner comes home from a long day, you’re excitedly telling him about your day, and he responds, “Just be quiet for a moment”? Whereas some people’s first response might be a similarly caustic and disparaging comment—which of course would only further escalate negativity in the relationship—those for whom the relationship is more important will try to inhibit that tit-for-tat strategy and respond constructively (Rusbult et al., 1991). Securely attached people are most likely to rise above and respond well to less-than-constructive remarks from a partner (Collins & Feeney, 2004).

Another characteristic that facilitates more productive accommodation is taking the partner’s perspective. The more we can put ourselves in our partner’s shoes and see that perhaps a frustrating day at work led her to act that way, the better off our relationship is. Indeed, among both dating and married couples, preexisting tendencies for perspective taking and being induced to take the other’s perspective led to more positive emotional reactions and relationship-enhancing attributions (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998).

Given that voice is the best response to serious or recurring relationship problems, it may be worth considering two primary reasons that it isn’t always how people respond. The first reason is that people often avoid conflict. They are afraid to bring up issues because they don’t “want to get into it” or have it “blow up.” So instead, they often complain to friends or relatives about what’s bothering them. This approach doesn’t give the other person a chance to step up and help make things better.

The second reason is that people often approach communicating about problems in the wrong way. Canary and colleagues (Canary & Cupach, 1988; Canary & Spitzberg, 1987) proposed that there are three strategies for conflict management: integrative strategies, distributive strategies, and avoidant strategies. As we noted earlier, avoidance can be best when the problem is relatively minor and we can mentally or behaviorally adjust to it. But if it’s a problem that must be addressed through some kind of compromise, then it’s a matter of how you do it.

An integrative strategy works best. You present the problem as a challenge to shared relational goals, as our problem, something we have to solve together. You raise your concern while seeking areas of agreement, express trust and positive regard, and negotiate alternative solutions through frank and positive discussions (Masuda & Duck, 2002). Recently Eli Finkel and colleagues (2013) showed that having couples take about 20 minutes to learn to think about resolving their disagreements in an integrative way improved marital satisfaction over a two-year period.

In contrast, a distributive strategy is competitive, emphasizes individual goals, assigns blame, and often devolves into insults and hostility (Masuda & Duck, 2002): “I have a problem with your behavior. You need to change. My needs are not being met.” If you are defensive or insecure, or if you’ve “bitten your lip” for a long time and so are very frustrated, you are more likely to express your concerns in this distributive, accusatory fashion—and your partner is more likely to respond defensively in kind. Try to think about and express problems integratively, as “ours,” not distributively as “yours.” And don’t apply an avoidance strategy by ignoring a problem until you have brooded so long about it that you have lost your sense of positive regard for your partner (Masuda & Duck, 2002).

587

Managing conflicts and dealing productively with day-to-day hassles can make the relationship more secure, which is critical for the growth of the individual. When one partner provides a secure base (e.g., is available when needed), this enables the other partner to explore, grow, and discover new things about himself (Feeney, 2007). Individuals who view their relationship partner as providing a more secure base spend more time and show greater interest in novel and enriching challenges (Feeney & Thrush, 2010).

Love as Flow

Security is wonderful, and the longer one is with a partner, the more familiar and comfortable a relationship is likely to feel. But a big issue in long-term relationships is how to keep the excitement, fun, stimulation, and passion alive. Csiksentmihalyi (1980) provided some useful insight into this problem by applying his flow analysis (introduced in chapter 6) to love relationships. Love relationships are best when people are in flow, when the challenges of a relationship partner are commensurate with one’s relationship-related abilities. Early in a relationship, the other person is new, and so there are many challenges that keep things interesting.

If the challenges of satisfying your partner are more than you can handle and it is too difficult to keep your partner satisfied, you experience stress, and the relationship is likely to flame out early. However, if you’re in a relationship for a long time, you learn a lot about your partner. It becomes easier to know his or her likes and dislikes, to predict his or her actions, and so forth. The challenge tends to diminish over time even as your skills increase. But if the challenges become insufficient, flow is impeded, and boredom is likely to set in. This suggests that the prospects for long-term bliss are rather dim. Luckily, Csiksentmihalyi (1980) offered a solution. A partner will become boring if he or she doesn’t change. A stagnant partner means a stagnant relationship. So the trick to keeping a long-term relationship alive is for both partners to continue to grow and change so they remain stimulating to each other. One way to accomplish this is for the partners to continue to support each other’s growth. Encourage each other to do new things and take on new challenges, both together and separately. Then you are always with someone who is challenging and vibrant. These kinds of efforts can also help remove some of the pressure that occurs when being with the partner is the only way in which the other gets his or her growth needs met (Finkel et al., 2014).

The prospect of change can be scary, though: The same old same old is comfortable and easy. And it’s a hassle to support your partner’s personal growth; it’s easier to maintain the status quo. Thus people are often tempted to squelch their partner’s efforts to grow and change. For example, some years back, one of your author’s wives, who had been working part time ever since they got married and had children, raised the idea of going back to school to get a PhD. He instantly realized this would mean loss of income and years of stress for her (and him); pushing through the challenges of advanced education, such as writer’s block; and so on. But his wife was bored with her work and needed this growth experience to meet her professional goals, and so he supported it. By supporting her growth, he gained a more stimulating, fulfilled partner, which served both his wife and their relationship well. Research supports this example. One partner’s helping the other achieve his or her own self-improvement goals is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (e.g., Drigotas et al., 1999; Overall et al., 2010).

588

Emotional Support

Being a responsive partner is not limited to supporting big-time self-improvement goals such as career changes. It also involves interjecting positivity and support into the little things. When a partner shares positive news about his or her day, for example, an active, encouraging, and enthusiastic response is associated with better relationship quality over time (Gable et al., 2004). Even the seemingly mundane things that elicit gratitude, such as taking on more routine household chores during a partner’s stressful period, enhance relationship quality (Algoe et al., 2010). Overall, mutually responsive partners who offer emotional support and active interest will enhance the relationship for each other (Iida et al., 2008; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Reis et al., 2004).

Keeping the Home Fires Burning

Of course, a big part of nourishing a relationship is keeping passion alive. This can be tough. One of the chief complaints about long-term relationships is a decline in sexual desire (Sprecher & Cate, 2004). What can one do to keep fanning the flames? Research suggests a few strategies that can help. Adopting approach goals can help keep partners turned on. Although there can be a variety of motives involved in having sex (Cooper et al., 1998), seeking pleasure is one of the most powerful. Because we’re generally motivated to approach pleasure, those who adopt more general approach relationship goals may better stimulate sexual desire and avoid declines in their libido. In support of this point, Impett and colleagues (2008) found that people who endorsed more approach than avoidant relationship goals, such as trying to deepen their relationship with their partner as opposed to avoiding disagreements, reported greater sexual desire. Such goals also buffered against declines in sexual desire six months into the relationship.

589

One of the aspects of approach goals that may facilitate desire is that they lead people to more arousing and exciting activities. Such activities can help to restore the stimulation and novelty of a relationship that typically wanes over time (Aron et al., 2000). There are a number of reasons why novel and arousing activities might help to do this. As Aron and colleagues point out, such activities are often intrinsically enjoyable. When they are shared, this enjoyment becomes associated with the relationship. Such activities can also generally increase positive mood, which in turn, can be a booster shot making life, and perhaps the relationship, seem more meaningful (King et al., 2006).

590

Furthermore, as the two factor theory of love and related research demonstrates, arousal from exciting activities also can be transferred to feelings of lust and love for the partner. A similar process even seems to hold for nonhuman animals, who exhibit what has come to be known as the Coolidge effect. There is a tendency, first observed in rats but subsequently in all mammals studied, for animals initially to have repeated intercourse with an available mate. The animals will lose interest over time, but then have repeated intercourse again when introduced to new sexual partners (Beach & Jordan, 1956; Dewsbury, 1981). This phenomenon is named after former American President Calvin Coolidge. Apparently when Mrs. Coolidge was touring a farm, she was impressed with the vigorous sexual activity of a particular rooster. When she asked the attendant how often it happened and was told “Dozens of times each day,” Mrs. Coolidge suggested, “Tell that to the president when he comes by.” On hearing this, the president asked, “Same hen every time?” The reply was, “Oh, no, Mr. President, a different hen every time,” to which the president responded, “Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge.”

Now, we are by no means advocating the introduction of sexual promiscuity if a long-term, satisfying, monogamous relationship is the goal. But one of the more interesting demonstrations related to the Coolidge effect was that, though even a bull’s sexual appetite might wane after repeated copulation with the same receptive cow, when the pair was taken to a new enclosure and given a change of scenery, the formerly tired bull’s interest was reengaged, and the vigorous sexual activity resumed (Dewsbury, 1981). The lesson here is that interjecting novelty, excitement, and change into a relationship, perhaps by taking a trip and experiencing new settings, can bring new life to a relationship.

Doing novel, fun, exciting things together in new places sounds like a no-lose proposition: Who wouldn’t want to do that? However, over the long haul, couples often lose sight of this aspect of their relationship. In early courtship, having fun together is a central focus—restaurants, dancing, concerts, movies, travel. But when you move in together, take on more and more career responsibilities, and then add pets, kids, financial pressures, and the health issues that come with aging, the partners increasingly focus on just getting through each day. So the trick is to continue to make time to spend alone together doing enjoyable, stimulating things.

To explore the potential benefits of such self-expanding novel engagement, Aron and colleagues (2000) first conducted some survey studies and found that the more couples reported doing arousing and novel activities together, the more relationship satisfaction they reported. But does navigating through novelty causally increase relational satisfaction? To find out, Aron and colleagues (Aron et al., 2000; Lewandowski & Aron, 2004) conducted a series of experiments in which couples were brought into a lab and engaged either in challenging, novel tasks, which should be self-expanding, or in mundane ones. In these studies, when couples first arrived at the lab, they completed measures assessing relationship quality and satisfaction. Then each couple was asked to do either novel physical tasks or more mundane tasks. In one set of studies, the novel, self-expanding task involved the couple’s being Velcroed together at the wrists and ankles. They had a limited amount of time to seek a prize by successfully crawling 12 meters over a barrier and pushing a foam cylinder with their heads. In a number of such studies, the couples who combined forces to do challenging and nutty things later reported greater relationship satisfaction than those who did the mundane tasks. These effects were not limited to what the couples reported. Coders who rated videotapes of their interactions for signs of hostility and support observed these benefits as well.

591

Maintaining passion and enhancing relational satisfaction takes effort, but it is effort that we can all put in if we’re motivated to do so and keep some basic ideas in mind. Approaching the relationship positively and not just seeking to keep it afloat, mutually supporting growth goals, preserving quality time alone together, and interjecting arousal and novelty are all strategies that pay off. We hope they do for those of you seeking an enriching long-term relationship, now or in the future.

CONNECT ONLINE:

Check out our videos and additional resources located at: www.macmillanhighered.com/launchpad/greenberg1e