Breaking‐up is hard to study: A review of two decades of dissolution research

Abstract

The dissolution of romantic relationships can be conceptualized in many ways, from a distressing event or a consequential life decision to a metric of a relationship's success. In the current review, we assess how relationship science has approached dissolution research over roughly the past 20 years. We identified 207 studies (from 195 papers) published between 2002–2020 that captured relationship dissolution events and coded the papers for relevant features. The most common methodological approach to studying breakups was a self‐report study (92%) in which relationships were tracked over time (72%) and breakups were treated as an outcome variable (79%). These results suggest that most research on dissolution has focused on predictors of it, rather than processes required to uncouple and circumstances surrounding the breakup itself. Coding revealed heterogeneous theoretical approaches, with the most common perspective across papers—social exchange/interdependence theory—informing only 15% of the papers coded. A majority (61%) of samples were representative of the nations, regions, or localities in which the studies were conducted. Yet, samples still tended to be disproportionately comprised of young, white individuals from Western countries. We conclude by discussing potential avenues for moving our understanding of relationship dissolution forward.

When one's partner wants out: Awareness, attachment anxiety and accuracy

“…Moreover, from a developmental perspective, adolescents and young adults engage in a number of romantic relationships to better understand the type of partner that they need, as well as skills to initiate and maintain relationships, all of which entail multiple break‐ups (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Thus, in certain situations, dissolution need not always be avoided and might even be encouraged (Machia et al., 2023).…”

Explicating a comprehensive model of post-dissolution distress

“…Although various reviews have summarized the research (e.g., Hunt & Chung, 2012; Lee & Sbarra, 2013; Sprecher et al, 1998; see also Fine & Harvey, 2006), no explicit, comprehensive model or theory combining all the dimensions of PDD currently exists. In their review of the past two decades of research on relationship dissolution, Machia et al (2022) advocated for a comprehensive model of the dissolution process to consolidate the various perspectives utilized, and we argue there is a similar need for a comprehensive model regarding the experiences after dissolution.…”

“…In the same way that interdependence theory explains how factors such as costs and rewards and perceptions of alternatives lead people to be dependent and committed to a relationship, similar factors can be used to understand PDD. Indeed, because social exchange theories such as interdependence and the investment model are often used to predict dissolution (Le et al, 2010; Machia et al, 2022), tenets of interdependence should also be helpful in explaining why dissolution is distressing. If people maintain relationships considered to be more rewarding than alternatives, it is distressing when the relationship is lost and lower quality outcomes are experienced.…”

“…For example, Holland and Lannutti (2023) highlight some factors related to dissolution in LGBTQ relationships that might have implications for PDD (e.g., structural characteristics, minority stress, perceived alternatives). In sum, as Machia et al (2022) have argued, although samples in dissolution research have increased in diversity, there is room for improvement in terms of being more inclusive and viewing dissolution experiences from non-WEIRD lenses (Henrich et al, 2010).…”

Open Peer Commentary and Author Response Regarding ‘Life Events and Personality Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’

“…For example, a divorce is linked to different changes in life satisfaction depending on many factors including the relationship quality before the event, who initiated the divorce, attachment styles, etc. (Machia et al, 2023). Thus, what we need in our theories is not just which life events change people, but when and why life events change some people but not others.…”