Dedication and Sliding in Emerging Adult Cyclical and Non‐Cyclical Romantic Relationships

Abstract

This study investigates the association between dedication commitment and sliding (moving through relationship transitions without considering the consequences) over 14 weeks for emerging adults in cyclical (partners who have broken up and renewed) and non-cyclical relationships. An autoregressive cross-lagged panel and bivariate latent growth curve analysis were conducted using three waves of data from 220 emerging adults in exclusive dating relationships. Results indicated that dedication and sliding may be relatively stable constructs with a negative bidirectional association although their rates of change may not be related. Further, number of cycles experienced in the current relationship was negatively related to dedication, positively related to sliding, and negatively related to the rate of change in dedication, such that the rate of change in dedication over the course of the semester became increasingly negative the more relationship cycles a participant had experienced. The implications for relationship education are outlined. About 30% to 50% of emerging adults (roughly ages 18-29; Arnett, 2000) have experienced School of Family Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University, 212 Campus Creek Complex, Manhattan, KS 66506-1403 (avennum@ksu.edu).

Parenting in On/Off Relationships: The Link Between Relationship Churning and Father Involvement

“…Research has found that young adults in churning relationships, compared with those in stably together or stably broken-up relationships, report more frequent conflict, lower levels of validation, lower levels of commitment, and higher levels of physical violence and verbal abuse (Halpern-Meekin et al 2013a, b). Other research has found that young adult churners report lower relationship satisfaction, feel less certain about the relationship’s future, and are less dedicated to their partners than their counterparts (Vennum and Johnson 2014; Vennum et al 2014, 2015). Qualitative research has also suggested that on/off relationships are frequently troubled, beset by issues such as conflict and infidelity (Cross-Barnett et al 2011).…”

Fluctuation in on‐again/off‐again romantic relationships: Foreboding or functional?

“…Further, fluctuation in perceived partner commitment was related to less uncertainty and turbulence as well; hence, on–off partners are not viewing the fluctuations as making their relationship turbulent and unpredictable but rather as more steady and viable. It is worth noting too that the differences between noncyclical and on–off partners is more pronounced at low levels of fluctuations (see Figures and ), and these differences reflect the consistent finding that on–off partners generally report lower relational quality (Dailey et al, ; Dailey, Pfiester, et al, 2009; Halpern‐Meekin et al, , ; Vennum, ; Vennum et al, ). As such, greater fluctuation in perceived partner commitment appears to raise on–off partners' views of their relational stability to be commensurate with noncyclical partners who experience lower fluctuation.…”

“…We also did not collect data on whether participants were in a long‐distance relationship, which might be associated with being in an on–off relationship. The proportion of on–off relationships was also relatively low compared to previous research (e.g., Dailey et al, 2010; Dailey, Pfiester, et al, ; Halpern‐Meekin et al, ; Vennum, ), which limited the power of the analyses. Further, as indicated in footnote 1, some participants developed an on–off relationship during the course of their participation, A longitudinal design that followed participants from the beginning of their relationships and for a longer period of time would allow a more sophisticated classification of on–off status.…”

“…About two thirds of young adults experience at least one cyclical relationship, each averaging about two and a half renewals (Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, ; Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, ), and approximately one third of individuals' current relationships are cyclical in nature (Halpern‐Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, ; Vennum, ; Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, & Adams, ). Although research consistently finds that on–off partners report lower relational quality (Dailey et al, ; Dailey, Pfiester, et al, 2009; Halpern‐Meekin et al, ; Halpern‐Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, ; Vennum, ; Vennum et al, ), and their lower level of satisfaction is carried forward into marriage (Vennum & Johnson, ), other research suggests fluctuations in relational qualities might not be distressing to these partners (Dailey, Brody, LeFebvre, & Crook, ; Dailey, LeFebvre, Crook, & Brody, ). Thus, assessing fluctuations in on–off relationships as compared to relationships that do not have a history of breakups and renewals (i.e., noncyclical relationships) might reveal whether variations in relational properties contribute to on–off partners' lower relational quality or reflect a functional pattern for these relationships.…”

Testing the impact of sliding versus deciding in cyclical and noncyclical relationships

“…According to Stanley and Rhoades (), the process of consciously deciding whether to be in a relationship over other alternatives also helps partners clarify and build their dedication to one another. Although one study found that relationship deciding was not related to dedication 14 weeks later (Vennum & Fincham, ), more recent research using a cross‐lagged model found a bidirectional negative association between emerging adults' sliding and relationship dedication 7 weeks later (Vennum, Hardy, Sibley, & Fincham, ). This bidirectional effect is not surprising; couples who are more dedicated are more likely to want to improve their relationship and make their relationship a priority (Stanley & Markman, ), increasing the likelihood that they would be more involved in thoughtful decision making about the relationship (Vennum et al, ).…”