WWI gar.

‘1:

ﬁg“. .3

3.
zmwa‘

V , innﬁ
Yin“
. “a .
..
1 E
fawn."

, an}... ukuhw ..

V.. a;

. 7‘ ”WWW
REV... ..
“2.»an- 1

 

 

N.
. 2 A
.. 1..
u A...

ﬁst‘ . V .,  
. i???

. or;
. 1.... x...)

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Now That You Know Why, the Question is How? The
Relationship Between Reasons and Methods in Romantic

Breakups.

presented by
Stacy L. Fitzpatrick

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Communication

7

 

, ‘

Major Professor’s Signature

AU:¢V¥ l7DZCLCL"

Date

 

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution

 

LIBRARY l

MiChlgan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

44-3“ at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIFlC/DateDuepesop. 1 5

NOW THAT YOU KNOW WHY, THE QUESTION IS HOW? THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN REASONS AND METHODS IN ROMANTIC BREAKUPS.

By

Stacy L. Fitzpatrick

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

2004

ABSTRACT

NOW THAT YOU KNOW WHY, THE QUESTION IS HOW? THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN REASONS AND METHODS IN ROMANTIC BREAKUPS.

By
Stacy L. Fitzpatrick
This paper investigates the extent to which the reason an individual decides to end
a romantic relationship inﬂuence the method s/he uses to accomplish the breakup. In
Study 1 (n2118), Duck’s (1982) reasons for breakups and Cody’s (1982) breakup
strategies were tested. With the addition of new categories, both typologies captured the
data reasonably well. In Study 2, hypothetical scenarios were developed to represent the
reasons for breakup from Study 1. Participants (n=245) were asked to rate how likely
they would be to use the breakups strategies from Study 1, given the reason in the
scenario. The results suggest that reason does not have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on choice
of breakup strategy. One exception was that participants were less likely to use an “it’s
not you it’s me” strategy when the breakup stemmed from partner violating a norm.

Results, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

DEDICATION

I want to dedicate this to my mom, Debra Marilyn Boutell Fitzpatrick, who answered my
middle of the night, stressed out phone calls with calm assurances that everything would
be ﬁne. Of course, she was right every time, and I wish she could have been here long

enough to see that I ﬁnished this, like she knew I would.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d like to thank the following people for the help, advice, and support they’ve
given me. First, thank you to my family, especially my mom and sister Amy, for their
constant support and encouragement. Thanks to Paul Skalski for his support and
encouragement, for patient explanations when I just “didn’t get it,” and 3a.m. pep talks
among other things. Also, thanks to my advisor Dr. Tim Levine for his awesome feedback
and explanations, even when I’m sure it drove him crazy. Finally, thanks to Dr. Kelly
Morrison, Dr. Lawrence Messé and Dr. Linda Lou Smith for all of their helpful

comments, advice, and feedback.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................ 20
Study 1 .......................................................................................... 20
Study 2 .......................................................................................... 27
APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 45
REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 63

LIST OF TABLES

REASONS FOR BREAKUP ........................................................................ 53
BREAKUP STRATEGIES USED .................................................................. 54
STUDY 1 MEDIUMS USED TO BREAKUP ................................................... 55

STUDY 1 NUMBER OF NIEDIUMS USEDTO BREAKUP 55

SEX DIFFERENCES IN REASONS FOR BREAKUP ......................................... 56
SEX DIFFERENCES IN BREAKUP STRATEGY .......................................................... 56
STUDY 2 STRATEGIES PAIRED T—TESTS ...................................................... 57

MEAN SCORES FOR STRATEGIES AS A FUNCTION OF
REASON ............................................................................................... 58

SEX DIFFERENCES INTHE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN
REASONSAND STRATEGIES 59

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND ROTATED
FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SURVEY ITEMS .................................................. 6O

CORRELAT IONS BY AGE AND SEX ............................................................ 61

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

STUDY 1 NUMBER OF MEDIUMS USED TO BREAKUP

vii

62

Now That You Know Why, the Question is How? The Relationship Between Reasons and
Methods in Romantic Breakups.

Empirical research exists on nearly every facet of the development of romantic
relationships. For example, initial attraction has been examined extensively, and large
literatures exist on the roles of physical attractiveness, similarity and proximity in close
relationships (Kahn & McGauhey, 1977, Klohnen & Luo, 2003,). Research has shown
how variables such as these inﬂuence the development of a relationship, from the type of
relationship sought (e. g., Sprecher & Regan, 2002; Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000)
to the strategies used to initiate both intimate and extramarital relationships (e. g., Clark,
Shaveer, & Abrahams, 1999; Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). Relational maintenance
studies have shown how both desired (Baxter, 1993; Dindia & Canary, 1993) and
undesired relationships (Hess, 2000) are maintained and have linked maintenance
strategies with relational disengagement (Guerrero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993). The
aftermath of relational termination and its effects upon the individual have also been
addressed (e. g., Davis, Shaver, & Vernon; Kellas & Manusov, 2003; Sprecher, Felmlee,
Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998).

One part of this process that has received relatively less attention is that of the
actual manner in which relational termination is instigated and negotiated. There is much
variance in how and why relationships are terminated, and it is reasonable to expect that
not every person approaches a romantic breakup in the same manner. There may literally
be more than “50 Ways to Leave Your Lover,” (Simon & Garfunkel, 1982).
Nevertheless, the research that does exist in the area of relational termination is both

dated and often has not been empirically validated or replicated.

The purpose of the current study is threefold. First, this research seeks empirical
evidence evaluating the dissolution reasons presented by Duck. To the author’s
knowledge, no empirical test of this model exists. Second, the relational termination
strategies found in prior research (Cody, 1982; Baxter, 1985; Wilmot, Carbaugh, &
Baxter, 1985; Banks, Altendorf, Greene & Cody, 1987) will be tested, given that existing
research in this area is dated and often lacks empirical validation or replication. These
ﬁrst two goals are primarily descriptive. Third, the relationship between the reason for

termination and the subsequent strategy employed is examined.

Process Approaches

Often the terms disengage, terminate, breakup, or dissolution are used when
discussing how people exit romantic relationships, and refer only to the single instance in
which one person, called the disengager, communicates to the other person that s/he
wants the relationship to end (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003; Felmlee, Sprecher, &
Bassin, 1990; Koenig, Kellas, & Manusov, 2003). Drawing distinctions between these
terms, however, is useful. Duck (1982) referred to the overall process of exiting romantic
relationships as “disengagement,” whereas “dissolution” and “termination,” used
interchangeably, refer more speciﬁcally to the actual point in time at which the
relationship ceased to exist. Dissolution and termination are also distinct from
“breakdown,” which addresses dissatisfaction in a relationship that could potentially lead
to termination or to a decline in intimacy, where the relationship is not actually
terminated (Duck, 1982).

Relational breakups are often viewed either as a solitary and static event or as a
precursor to the complexities that surround how people respond to the loss of a
relationship (Busboom, Collins, Givertz, & Levin, 2002; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, &

F ehr, 1998; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Stage models for relational termination address
these critiques to some degree, but sometimes fail to approach relational termination as a
unique process, instead likening it to other relational processes, such as initiation (Duck,
1982; Knapp, 1978).

Perhaps the two most well known process approaches to relational dissolution are
Knapp’s (1978) stages and Duck’s (1982) phases. Knapp (1978) viewed relational

termination as a reverse process of initiation. His stage model consisted of ﬁve stages:

differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating. During the ﬁrst
stage, the differentiating stage, the individuals’ differences receive increasingly more
attention, contrary to initiation, in which couples would focus on what they have in

9’ 6‘

common. Collective pronouns, such as “we, us,” or “our” are more frequently replaced
with “,”I “you,” or “my.” The second stage, circumscribing, involves a marked decrease
in both the number of topics the couple feels are acceptable for discussion, and the depth
of those discussions. The third stage, stagnating, occurs when communication in a
relationship comes to a standstill. Often, internal dialogues are carried out, as each person
feels s/he already knows how the other person will respond. Avoidance, the next stage,
entails actual physical avoidance of the other person. In the stagnating stage, the
individuals may not be communicating, but usually still share the same physical space.
This situation is remedied in the avoidance stage. Additionally, couples in the avoidance
stage frame their communication with each other in such a way as to reduce the
frequency of direct interaction (i.e., face to face or voice to voice). When communication
does occur in the relationship, it is typically terse and inhospitable. If physical avoidance
is not possible, the individuals conduct themselves as though the other person weren’t
present. Termination is the ﬁnal stage in Knapp’s (1978) model. According to this model,
termination can occur at any point in a given relationship and in a number of ways.
Termination dialogue consists of three essential parts; a summary statement, which
indicates the reason for termination; physical behaviors that indicate the desire of one
individual to no longer be in a relationship; and ﬁnally, a message that deﬁnes if there

will be any future relationship, and if so, what type it will be.

Duck (1982) also presented a stage model of relational termination. His model

consists of four phases, and gives some consideration to how networks might inﬂuence
termination. The ﬁrst is called the intra-psychic phase. This phase begins at the point
when an individual ﬁrst views the relationship negatively. The intra—psychic phase
involves an internal evaluation of the relationship, an assessment of the partner’s
behaviors, and a consideration of one’s personal feelings in an attempt to determine if the
most desirable course of action is to leave the relationship. If an individual reaches a
point where exit from the relationship is the preferred option, s/he will enter the second
phase, the dyadic phase. At this point, the individual voices his/her dissatisfaction with
the relationship to the other person. The main focus of this stage is determining if the
relationship should be salvaged, redeﬁned, or terminated. A salvaged relationship would
involve resolution of the problem, without a change in the level of intimacy in the
relationship. Redeﬁnition involves changing the level of relational intimacy. For
example, the relationship might change from an exclusive one to one in which the
partners are free to “see other people.” Termination of the relationship would involve exit
from the relationship with no negotiation of a future relationship. If the couple chooses to
redeﬁne the relationship, they move back into the intra-psychic phase, and continue to
evaluate the relationship. If the couple cannot negotiate redeﬁnition, they would move
into the social phase, the third phase in Duck’s model. In this phase network involvement
is considered, and the social ramiﬁcations of the breakup of the couple are addressed.
Three major issues are of concern here. First, the couple needs to adjust to a change in
social status as a result of the breakup. For example, the ending of the relationship can be
seen as a type of social failure, which could result in a negative status change. Second,

the couple is left to negotiate what will happen with their mutual network (e. g, who will

side with whom.) Each partner must devise his or her account of the breakup which to
relay to their respective networks which both attempts to place the blame for the breakup
and to elicit public approval for the breakup. Finally, Duck proposes a fourth, often
overlooked step in his relational termination model, the grave-dressing phase. This phase
is less psychologically demanding than the other phases, and is primarily concerned with
reﬂection on the relationship, from its inception to its demise. Attributions are made
about why different events carried out the way they did and a more personal story of the
breakup is created in order to make sense of the experience.

The primary difference between Knapp’s (1978) stage model and Duck’s (1982)
phase model is the way in which individuals move through the stages or phases in the
model. Knapp (1978) proposes that couples move either forward or backward through
each stage in a quasi-linear fashion. The pace of movement varies; earlier stages and
those that the couple has already been through experience quicker movement, whereas
couples in which the partners have different desires for the direction of the relationship
are slower. Conversely, Duck’s (1982) model allows for more ﬂexibility in the
progression through each phase. Phases may occur in any order, may be skipped entirely,
or even not occur.

These stage models represent an advance in the understanding of breakups
because they allude to an underlying process in relational termination, rather than
pointing to a speciﬁc point of breakup as an isolated event. What are important are the
factors that precede termination and understanding of the underlying process. Despite the
intuitive appeal of a process approach however, neither Knapp’s (1978) nor Duck’s

(1982) models have been subject to a direct empirical test.

More general research exists consistent with a process theory perspective
(Battaglia, Richard, Datteri, & Lord, 1998; Baxter, 1984; Cody, 1982; Duck, 1982;
Gottman & Levenson, 1992). For example, Baxter (1984), in a study of the
communication between the two parties involved in relational breakups, found signiﬁcant
variation in the negotiation of termination. Six key points in the dissolution process were
highlighted; the onset of relational problems, the decision to exit, the development of
plans to initiate exit actions, attempts to repair relationship (assuming exit actions were
met with resistance), the negotiation of plans for exit actions with the other party, again
attempting to repair relationship (once again, assuming exit actions were unacceptable).
Baxter (1984) argued that the level of complexity of this portion of the breakup process
supports Duck’s (1982) view of relationships as a process. Similarly, in a study
examining marital dissolution, Gottman and Levenson (1992) found support for marital
dissolution as a process, and further argued that dissolution was not a unique event, but
that it was likely linked to other processes such as decline in (marital) satisfaction
(Gottman & Levenson, 1992).

Battaglia et al. (1998) developed a “script” for romantic breakups and outlined ten
cyclical “steps” individuals move through as they end a relationship, referred to here as
“the breakup process.” Here, the process of breaking up begins when at least one partner
feels dissatisﬁed with the relationship in general, or the other person in particular. From
that point, the script parallels Duck’s stage model of dissolution (Duck, 1982). Both Duck
(1982) and Battaglia et al., (1998) indicate that the initial stages of the breakup script
involve more introspective thoughts on the relationship that are not conveyed to the

partner. During the dyadic and social phases in Duck’s model, the disengager broaches

the topic of dissatisfaction in the relationship to the partner and possibly a third party.
Once again, the breakup script closely follows these phases, involving discussion of
relational dissatisfaction with partner and involving third parties to attempt to reconcile
the issues at hand. Finally, Duck’s grave-dressing phase involves getting over the
breakup and creating personal accounts of events. The ﬁnal steps in the “ordered script”
approach also concern the termination (actual breakup) of the relationship, though there
is little discussion of the events following termination. One signiﬁcant difference is that
in Battaglia et al.,’s script, individuals are highly aware of and focused on alternative
partners and relationships.
Deﬁnitions, Components, and Perspective

This paper takes the view that relational disengagement is a process involving
reasons for seeking disengagement, methods employed to achieve disengagement, and
outcomes, which include breakups. The reason for breakup in this research refers
speciﬁcally to what factors lead one individual in a relationship to decide that it is
necessary to terminate his/ her current relationship. This research approaches breakups
from the perspective of the partner who initiates the breakup rather than attempting to
provide a complete picture of relational termination using both participants’ views. This
does not exclude mutually agreed upon breakups. Instead, breakups are approached from
a one-sided perspective, focusing on a single individual’s reasons and methods of
termination.

Once the decision to terminate the relationship is made, the partner who made that
decision, whom this paper refers to as the initiator, can either enter into negotiation of the

status of the relationship with his/her partner, or choose to avoid negotiation and

terminate the relationship. Similar to Duck’s (1982) dyadic phase, the negotiation portion
of the process can involve attempts to salvage or redeﬁne the relationship, or a decision
to move into the termination part of the disengagement process. The termination part of
the disengagement process includes the speciﬁc verbal and/or non-verbal methods of
communicating to a partner that a relationship is no longer desired. Cody (1982) and
Banks et al., (1987), referred to these as breakup strategies and used cluster analysis to
detail different types of breakup strategies.
Reasons for Termination

Duck (1982) proposed a four category model to explain the underlying reasons, or
reasons for dissolving a relationship. The categories, pre-existing doom, mechanical
failure, process loss, and sudden death each describe the circumstances that might cause
an individual to decide it was time to end a romantic relationship. This model, and much
of the ensuing literature in relational termination, incorporates theoretical observations
made about the initiation and growth of relationships and applies those observations to
both the termination of the relationship and the post-termination effects on individuals
(e.g., Duck, 1982; Baxter, 1985; Guerrero, Elvoy, & Wabnik, 1993; Sprecher, Felmlee,
Metts, F ehr, & Vanni, 1998; Schmitt & Schackelford, 2003). Speciﬁcally, Duck reasons
that if certain characteristics are necessary for a relationship to begin, then lack of these
characteristics would be reason to end the relationship.

Duck’s conceptualization of pre—existing doom focused on the intrinsic features
the individuals in a relationship, such as physical attractiveness, intelligence, introversion
or extroversion, and similarity in various personality traits. If people are more likely to

enter a relationship if they have similarities in such traits, then it should follow that those

lacking similarity along those dimensions should either fail to enter a relationship or
would seek to terminate such a relationship relatively quickly. This reason for dissolution
is not dependent on the interaction between the participants in the relationship. Rather,
the relationship was “doomed” from the beginning because the two individuals were
inherently incompatible. Statements such as “we were just too different” and “we had
nothing in common,” typify dissolutions due to pre-existing doom.

Mechanical failure is characterized by either incompatibility with each other or
poor conduct on the part of one or both of the partners. The incompatibility between the
partners is not apparent initially, but rather arises as the couple spends more time
together. In line with both Murstein’s Stimulus-Value-Role Theory (Murstein, 1970) and
Social Penetration Theory (Taylor, 1968), as a relationship progresses, increasingly more
intimate information is revealed (Baxter, 1983). With pre—existing doom, inherent
personal factors such as physical attractiveness or socioeconomic status are cited as
reason for the breakup. Conversely, with mechanical failure, the reason for breakup is
attributed to incompatibility on values rather than inherent personality traits. Shared
knowledge of individual values in a relationship emerges as the depth of information
shared increases, rather than initially, as would be the case for pre—existing doom. For
example, it is uncommon for couples to share information about religious beliefs or
political views during their initial interactions (i.e., ﬁrst dates). Statements such as “We
just weren’t compatible anymore,” or “The more I learned, the less we had in common,”
would signify this type of relational failure.

Process loss, as described by Duck, diverges from mechanical failure in that the

individuals are compatible, but do not make use of available resources, causing the

10

relationship to fall short of its maximum potential. The individuals are either not
cognizant of resources that would improve the relationship, or they may not divulge to
their partner that such resources are available. When the individuals are aware that there
is potential, but continually fall short of achieving that potential, they may become
dissatisﬁed with the relationship altogether and opt for termination. What differentiates
process loss from both pre—existing doom and mechanical failure is that it focuses
speciﬁcally on the interaction process between the individuals in the relationship. Such
losses are not a result of inherent incompatibility. Instead, process loss indicates that
compatibility existed, but was not obtained, either through lack of maintenance or
ignorance of resources. Statements that would typify a process loss would be “We don’t
work well together,” or “We’re at different points in our lives.”

The ﬁnal category, sudden death, is perhaps the most common conception of a
breakup scenario. In this instance, one partner receives negatively charged information
about the other partner of which s/he was previously unaware. This could be news of a
partner’s inﬁdelity or betrayal, a negative revelation about a partner’s character, or even
complaints made by the partner about the relationship. This information could come from
the “guilty” partner, a third party, or be discovered independently by the “offended”
partner. There are problems with sudden death, however, in that such events do not
always incite reason to terminate a relationship. In such instances, other factors such as
dyadic integration or network pressure may have greater inﬂuence upon the decision to
terminate a relationship than the newly acquired negative information. Network overlap
has been found to inﬂuence the manner in which a person chooses to terminate a

relationship, such that greater network overlap increases the likelihood to use positive

11

tone strategies, gradually decrease intimacy in the relationship, or give explanations for
the termination (Banks, Altendorf, Greene, & Cody, 1987). Therefore, it is likely that
high levels of network overlap could not only inﬂuence strategy choice, but also the
reason to terminate a relationship.

One primary purpose of this paper is to empirically test Duck’s (1982)
conceptualization of the motivating factors to break up with a partner. Speciﬁcally, this
study seeks to identify and categorize commonly cited reasons for breakups. These
reasons will be compared to Duck’s model to determine if it is a useful and exhaustive
account of reasons for relational termination. The following research questions will be
advanced.

RQla: What are the common types of reasons for breakups?

Rle: Do the common types of reasons for breakups correspond to Duck’s

(1982) reasons?

Breakup Strategies

An important distinction should be made about the difference between strategies
and tactics. Wheeless, Barraclough, and Stewart (1983) deﬁned tactics as “. . . speciﬁc
[verbal] acts used in support of an overarching strategy.” In romantic breakups, both
verbal and nonverbal acts may be used to convey desire to terminate the relationship;
subsequently, breakup tactics can be described as single instances of verbal or nonverbal
communication which assist in attaining the ultimate goal of ending a relationship.
Whereas strategies are commonly deﬁned as a group of techniques, Wheeless et al.,
(1983) note that strategies are more than merely groups of similar tactics or groups of

frequently employed tactics. Instead, a strategy . .is the principle (or policy) underlying

12

the use of tactics.” More simply stated, a strategy is a plan of how to achieve an intended
goal, and tactics are the steps required within that plan. For example, a strategy may be to
terminate a relationship on amicable terms with one’s former partner. This may be
accomplished by tactics such as direct communication about the reason termination of the
relationship is being sought, paired with giving one’s partner the actual reason
termination is being sought.

The distinction between tactics and strategies is important for a couple reasons.
First, the focus of this research is reason for termination and subsequent strategies
employed. The tactics employed could prove to be an important link between reason for
termination and breakup strategies. Second, in light of this distinction between tactics and
strategies, the tactics detailed by Cody (1982) and Banks et al. (1987) could be utilized in
conjunction with each other in order to achieve the ultimate goal of termination of the
relationship.

Multiple strategy taxonomies exist and conceptual deﬁnitions of strategies are
often inconsistent with labels found in other research. Different strategies are given the
same label, the same label is given to different strategies, and lists are typically neither
mutually exclusive nor exhaustive (Kellerman & Cole, 1994). The problems Kellerman
and Cole observed in categorizing compliance gaining strategies in general are also
apparent in taxonomies of breakup strategies. Further, Kellerman and Cole argue that this
conceptual overlap is problematic, causing common elements to exist across multiple
strategies in addition to any unique, differentiating elements. Clearly, care is needed in
deﬁning and categorizing tactics and strategies.

Several researchers have investigated how individuals break off relationships.

13

Cody (1982) examined breakup strategies used in romantic relationships. Five general
breakup strategies emerged: behavioral tie-escalation, ale-escalation, positive tone,
negative identity management and justiﬁcation. Behavioral de—escalation strategies are
typically avoidance and/or withdrawal from the other party. In such instances, the
disengager terminates the relationship by making himself or herself unavailable to the
other person, either in a gradual or sudden manner. De-escalation strategies often cite a
relationship fault, and may offer the offended party some hope of future reconciliation.
For instance, a disengager might say “We’re too young to for a relationship right now.
Maybe in the future, things could work out.” Positive tone strategies typically do not
place blame for relationship failure on the offended party. Instead, either the disengager
takes the responsibility or fate is the culprit. Care is taken with this strategy to address the
other party’s feelings. Negative identity management, on the other hand, places the blame
on the other party, and the disengager does not address that person’s feelings. Finally,
justiﬁcation involves offering explanation for why the disengager sought to end the
relationship.

Subsequent research on relational breakup strategies found that in general,
different conceptualizations of and labels for breakup strategies had similar
characteristics (Banks et al., 1987; Baxter, 1984; Baxter, 1985; Wilmot, Carbaugh, &
Baxter, 1985). Banks et al., (1987) data were consistent with Cody (1982) and extended
Cody’s work by establishing a link between breakup strategy selection and subsequent
outcomes of the disengagement. Speciﬁcally, 30% of the variance in depression and “felt
freedom” (in which disengagers felt less constrained by their former partners) could be

attributed to the breakup strategy used, as could 17% of the variance in “stayed friends,”

14

(Banks et al., 1987).

Breakup strategies can further be arrayed along more general dimensions, such as
the level of directness or indirectness of the message and the degree to which the breakup
message is self-focused or other focused (Baxter, 1984; Baxter, 1985; Wilmot, et al.,
1985). The directness-indirectness dimension refers to whether or not the initiator of a
breakup informs his/her partner of his/her desire to end the relationship (Baxter, 1985).
More speciﬁcally, direct strategies expressly state this goal, whereas indirect strategies do
not (Baxter, 1985). Self-other orientation refers to which party’s face is attended to; self-
oriented breakup strategies focus on the initiator’s face and other-oriented breakups
strategies focus on the other partner’s face. A ﬂow chart of the paths involved in breakup
communication constructed by Baxter (1984) highlighted two distinct characteristics in
breakup strategies; directness/indirectness and self/other orientation. Direct strategies
involve explicit confrontation with a partner about the disengager’s goal of ending the
relationship (Baxter, 1985). Indirect strategies attempt to accomplish a breakup without
directly expressing that ultimate goal to a partner, possibly through avoiding the partner
or becoming more aloof with him/her (Baxter, 1985; Wilmot et al., 1985). Self-oriented
breakup messages address the disengager’s feelings and result in achieving the end goal
(exit of relationship) relatively quickly (Baxter, 1985). Other-oriented messages on the
other hand, address the feelings of the other party in an effort to avoid upsetting him/her
(Baxter, 1985). Wilmot et al., (1985) found that directness/indirectness and self/other
orientation was important in breakup communication and advanced a three factor model
for breakup strategies, consisting of Verbal Directness (other party directly confronted

with exact reasons why exit from the relationship is desired), Verbal Indirectness (decline

15

in both interest about partner and information offered about self), and Nonverbal
Withdrawal (signiﬁcant decline in touch, eye contact, or complete avoidance).

A second goal of this research is to formulate a comprehensive and updated
enumeration of breakups strategies commonly used to negotiate exit from a romantic
relationship. The existing literature on breakup strategies is, on average, nearly two
decades old (Cody, 1982; Baxter, 1985; Banks, Altendorf, Greene & Cody, 1987).
Increasingly widespread use of advancements in technology, including e-mail, cellular
phones, instant and text messaging open a larger range of avenues to the negotiation of a
breakup. In light of those considerations, the following research questions are advanced:

RQ2a: What are the breakups strategies reported?

RQ2b: How do the reported breakup strategies compare with existing literature?

RQ2c: What medium or channels do people report using to accomplish breakups?

Given that the reasons for termination are diverse, it might be expected that each
of the different reasons would lead to different ways to accomplish the breakup goal. If
reasons and strategies are indeed linked together as parts of the breakup process, then the
part of the process that occurs ﬁrst, reasons, should inﬂuence subsequent parts of the
same process, namely choice of breakup strategy. Additionally, reasons for termination
may inﬂuence the speciﬁc steps that comprise the breakup strategy chosen. The
following research question is posed on this matter.

RQ3: Do the reasons for breakup inﬂuence the strategy chosen to terminate the

relationship?

A small body of research exists associating sex differences with breakups,

particularly in terms of emotions experienced during a breakup (e. g., Choo, Levine, &

err-1" fwd

Hatﬁeld, 1996; Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003). Some differences in coping behaviors
following a breakup are a result of sex differences, though not all these differences were
found to be statistically signiﬁcant (Choo et al, 1996). Choo et al. note that women were
more likely to place blame for the breakup on their partner.

Often, sex differences in romantic relationships are studied with respect to
relational maintenance and equity (e.g., Canary & Stafford, 1992, Prins, Buunk, &
Vaaneren, 1993, Ragsdale, 1996) or in light of inﬁdelity or extramarital relationships
(Glass & Wright, 1992, Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000, Wiederman & LaMar,
1998). However, often these sex differences are examined post hoc and are not discussed
in terms of a rationale for why the differences occur, only whether or not they exist. Little
can be gained from the knowledge that sex differences exist (or do not exist) if there is a
lack of understanding as to why that is the case.

Buss (2000) argues from an evolutionary perspective that universal sex
differences must exist due to differences in the investments required in raising offspring.
Women are the higher-investing sex, and therefore should be more selective in their
choice of mate. Men, the lower-investing sex, should experience more competition with
other men to gain access to women. However, this logic would be applicable only when
individuals are seeking a long-term relationship. Buss (2000) noted that men and women
have strategies from long-term mating as well as for short-term mating. Short-term
mating is used by each for different purposes. Men use short-term mating to attempt to
fertilize a number of women so as to produce as many offspring as possible. Buss
proposed that women, on the other hand, used short term mating strategies as a means of

assessing potential long term partners, clarifying their preferences for a long-term

l7

partner, or as an attempt to increase commitment of a desired partner to develop a long-
tenn relationship. Sex differences in what is sought from a relationship might lead to sex
differences in reasons to initiate a breakup, as what is desired at the time is not being
attained.

Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976) examined sex differences in the process of
breaking up from a functional perspective in a study on premarital breakups. Previous
research indicated that men tend to fall in love more quickly than women, while women
fell out of love more quickly (Rubin, 1973). If women fall out of love more quickly, it is
logical to assume that women would initiate a breakup more often than men. In
relationships in which they were the more invested partner, women were almost twice as
likely to terminate the relationship, compared to men who were more the more invested
partner (Hill et al., 1976), suggesting that women are more pragmatic in their approach to
relationships than men. Hill et al. (1976) present two possible interpretations of this
phenomenon. The ﬁrst is a more “economical” approach, appealing to an evolutionary
perspective. Women are frequently deﬁned by their associations with men, and have
more to lose is they do not choose an appropriate partner, for example, economical
support. The second interpretation is called “interpersonal sensitivity” (Hill et al., 1976).
Hill and colleagues note that in most cultures, women are socialized to be “social-
emotional experts,” meaning they are more attuned to the quality of their interpersonal
relationships. Subsequently, if the current or projected quality of a woman’s relationship
is low, she may be more inclined to terminate that relationship.

Perhaps differences in the amount of information disclosed by men and women

would inﬂuence which breakup strategy is chosen. In a study examining sex roles and the

18

ethic of openness, Rubin, Hill, Peplau, and Dunkel-Schetter (1980) found differences in
disclosure between men and women with regard to speciﬁc content. Men and women
were both highly likely to disclose information to their partner, provided that speciﬁc
topic was suited to traditional sex role beliefs. Men for example, were more likely to
disclose information about political views, or areas that emphasized their strengths, while
women were more likely to disclose information about their feelings or how their day
went. Additionally, Rubin et al. (1980) found that men were more likely than women to
share information about what they liked best about their partner.

At ﬁrst, this seems to contradict the idea that women share more intimate
information. However, this may support a functional perspective in that women are more
reserved about indicating exactly how they feel about their partner early in the
relationship, which is consistent with the belief that women are more cautious and
practical about mate selection. If women are more selective in choosing a mate, their
approach to breakups may be inﬂuenced as well. In light of this information, the
following research questions are advanced.

RQ4a: Are there sex differences in reason for relational termination?

RQ4b: Are there sex differences in strategy choice for relational termination?

RQ4c: Are there sex differences in the associations between reasons and

strategies?

19

Study 1

To the author’s knowledge, Duck’s (1982) model of reasons for dissolution and
Cody’s (1982) breakup strategy typology has not been replicated, nor has Duck’s model
been empirically tested. Study 1 was conducted to provide empirical evidence for or
against Duck’s (1982) model of reasons underlying relational dissolution and for Cody’s
(1982) breakup strategy typology. The goal of this study was to determine if both Duck’s
and Cody’s models are current, accurate, and reasonably exhaustive accounts of the
reasons and methods employed in the dissolution of romantic relationships.

Method

Participants.

Participants in Study 1 were 118 undergraduate students enrolled in an
introductory communication course at a large Midwestem university and received credit
in the course for their participation. Sixty-one were male, ﬁfty-ﬁve were female, and two
did not respond. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 (M = 19.34, SD = 1.15). Of
this number, 72.9% had initiated a breakup in at least one relationship and 27.1% had
never initiated a breakup.

Procedure.

The participants were each given an open-ended questionnaire which asked them
to recall the most recent relationship in which they initiated a breakup. Almost 73% of
the participants had initiated a breakup at least once, whereas 27% had never initiated a
breakup. Men initiated the breakup 52.3% of the time, and women 46.5% of the time.
The questionnaire then asked the reason(s) why they decided it was time to terminate a

relationship and the manner in which they communicated to their partner that they

20

Ham-‘11 1' i

wanted to terminate the relationship, including which mediums were used. Additionally,
each participant was asked how long they had been in that relationship prior to the
breakup and how much time had passed since the breakup. Participants who had never
initiated a breakup were asked, hypothetically speaking, if they were in a relationship that
they wanted to terminate, how they would communicate to their partner that they wanted
to terminate the relationship.

Coding.

All completed questionnaires were coded independently by the author and a
trained coder. Each item was compared to existing reasons for breakup and breakup
strategies, and coded as present or absent. Reasons or strategies which were evident in the
data but not mentioned in the literature were organized into additional reason or strategy
categories. After coding was complete, intercoder reliability was calculated for reasons
(Scott’s it = .74, Raw agreement = 92.49%), breakup strategies (Scott’s it = .52, Raw
agreement = 85.86%), status of current relationship (Scott’s it = .91, Raw agreement =
94%). All disagreements were discussed and resolved by the author and coder. Post
resolution data were used for the results section.

Results

Research question 1 asked (a) what typical reasons for breakups were and (b)
whether those reasons corresponded with the existing model of reasons for breakups.
These results were compared to Duck’s model of the types of, or reasons for, relational
failure (see Table 1). Whereas general support was found for each of Duck’s reasons,
two additional reasons emerged; loss of personal freedom and geographic distance. Loss

of personal freedom was characterized by comments such as “S/he was too controlling,”

21

or “We spent too much time together.” The second additional reason was geographic
distance between the individuals in the relationship. This referred both to existing
physical distance, as well as imminent distance, such as knowing that a partner would be
moving away for college soon.

Research question 2 concerned breakup strategies and (a) what breakup strategies
are used, (b) how these strategies compared with Cody’s (1982) typology, and (0) what
mediums or channels people report using to break up. Breakup strategies were compared
to Cody’s (1982) typology of breakup strategies (see Table 2). Cody’s typology consisted
of ﬁve types of breakup strategies, behavioral de-escalation, de—escalation, positive tone,
negative identity management, and justiﬁcation. Results showed evidence of the use of
behavioral de-escalation strategies in the form of avoidance of a partner. Therefore in this
research, this strategy is referred to simply as avoidance. De-escalation strategies were
also in evidence. These consisted of employing indirect methods, such as spending less
time with partner and disclosing less information about self to partner. In the current
study, such strategies are referred to as indirect strategies. The justiﬁcation breakup
strategy was found in the data, although in two distinct forms. The ﬁrst, justiﬁcation of
actual reasons entailed telling partner the real reason for the breakup. Justiﬁcation of false
reasons involved telling partner reasons other than those which actually prompted the
initiator to break up with his/her partner. Both justiﬁcation of actual reasons and
justiﬁcation of false reasons contained elements of Cody’s positive tone and negative
identity management strategies. The results found that the positive tone and negative
identity management strategies were not mutually exclusive and many of the breakup

messages constructed could be representative of either strategy type. For example, both a

22

positive tone message and a negative identity management message may contain message
elements which indicate the true motivation for the breakup as well as those which
convey a fabricated motivation for the breakup. Use of athird party was another breakup
strategy reported in Study 1. This strategy involves an initiator seeking another person
outside the relationship to inform the partner that the initiator wants to break up. The
deﬁning feature of this strategy is that since the initiator is using a third party to deliver
the message, s/he relinquishes control over how the breakup is communicated to the
partner. This differs from simple avoidance strategies in that there is no absence of
communication of desire to break up. Instead, this communication is accomplished by an
outsider to the relationship. Direct breakup strategies included those in which the initiator
sought communication with his/her partner for the express purpose of communicating
desire to break up, as opposed to breaking up with partner spontaneously, such as during
an argument. Such breakups should consist of at least a small measure of forethought as
to what was to be said or done in order to accomplish the breakup.

Chi-square analysis was used to determine the impact of direct experience on the
preference for direct breakup strategies. Participants who had never initiated a breakup
were signiﬁcantly more likely to indicate a preference for direct breakup strategies, )6 (1)
= 4.12, p < .05. Those who had initiated a breakup were not more likely to prefer direct
strategies to convey the actual reason for breakup, x2 (1) = 1.94, n.s., a false reason for
the breakup, x2 (1) = 1.94, n.s., or to give no reason for the breakup, x2 (l) = 1.65, n.s.

The mediums used in communicating the desire to break up with one’s partner
were also examined (see Table 3a). Participants were instructed to indicate all mediums

that they used to communicate their desire to break up with their partner and were

23

provided with a list of different mediums, which included face to face conversation
(n=67), e-mail (n=l3), written letter (n=3), instant messenger (n=16), a third party (rr=3),
telephone call (n=50), and leaving a voicemail or answering machine message (n=5).
They were also provided a place to indicate an “other” (n=1) medium (moved away) that
was not listed above. Two participants did not respond to this question.

Of the participants who provided this information, 37% used two mediums to
communicate their desire to breakup, approximately 15.6% used some combination of
three mediums, and nearly 6% used a combination of four or more mediums to
communicate their desire to breakup (see Table 3b). This strengthens the position that
breakups are not a solitary event, but a process that involves the use multiple instances of
communicating this desire to a partner.

Research question 4a concerned sex differences in reasons for breakups (see
Table 4a). Of the male participants who had initiated a breakup (n=45), 14.8% gave
sudden death as a reason, 3.3% cited mechanical failure, 8.2% said pre-existing doom,
27.9% said process loss, 14.8% cited loss of personal freedom, 11.5% cited distance or
moving, and 18% cited other reasons. Female participants who had initiated a breakup
(n=40) gave sudden death as a reason 12.7% of the time, mechanical failure 7.3%, pre-
existing doom 5.5%, process loss 30.9% of the time, loss of personal freedom 18.2% of
the time, long distance or moving 23.6% of the time, and other 20% of the time. Chi-
square was used to determine if there was a difference between males and females in
reason for breakup. No signiﬁcant differences in reason for breakup were found for
sudden death, x2 (1) = 0.87, n.s., (p = -0.03, mechanical failure, )8 (l) = 1.00, n.s., to =

0.11, pre-existing doom, )8 (1) = 0.32, n.s., to = 0.06, process loss, x2 (1) = 0.20, n.s., p =

24

0.05, loss of personal freedom, )8 (1) = 0.25, n.5, (p = 0.05, distance or moving, )8 (1) =
3.18, n.s., (p = 0.20, and other motivation, )8 (1): 0.24, n.s., go = 0.05.

Research question 4b concerned sex differences in breakup strategies (see Table
4b). Male participants (n=45) directly told their partners they wanted to break up 65.6%
of the time, 3.3% of the time they avoided their partner, 4.9% of the time they had a third
party inform their partner that they wanted to break up, they indirectly informed their
partner 16.4% of the time, gave the actual reason they wanted to break up 44.3% of the
time, and gave a false reason for breakup 8.2% of the time. Female participants directly
told their partners 61.8% of the time, avoided their partners 3.6% of the time, had a third
party inform their partner 1.8% of the time, indirectly informed their partner 12.7% of the
time, gave the actual reason for breakup 47.3% of the time, and gave a false reason for
breakup 16.4% of the time.

Chi-square was used to determine if there was a difference between males and
females in breakup strategies used. No signiﬁcant differences in reason for breakup were
found for directly telling a partner, )8 (1) = 0.06, n.s., go = -0.03, avoidance, x2 (1) = 0.03,
n.s., q) = 0.02, third party, )8 (1) = 0.78, n.s., o = -0. 10, indirect, x2 (l) = 0.24, n.s., (0 = -
0.05, and gave a reason (actual or false), )8 (2) = 5.03, n.s', (p = .24.

Some important conclusions can be drawn from these results. Whereas the data
seem to reﬂect each of the reasons in Duck’s (1982) model for reasons for relational
dissolution, it is not an exhaustive account of the reasons behind seeking relational
dissolution. Second, the data offer general support for some of the breakup methods
proposed by Cody (1982), but the labels proposed by Cody have been changed to provide

a more clear distinction between strategies. Again, the data suggest that Cody’s breakup

25

strategy typology is not an exhaustive account of breakup strategies. Third, multiple
mediums are often used to accomplish a breakup. Fourth, the data indicate that direct
experience may inﬂuence strategy choice, as participants who had never initiated a
breakup selected direct strategies more frequently than those who had initiated a breakup
at least once. Finally, men and women do not signiﬁcantly differ in their reason for
breaking up. This suggests that contrary to existing research, women may not be more
pragmatic in their approach to breakups.

The reasons for a breakup logically precede the use of breakup strategies. Now
that a list of reasons have has been obtained, a reasonable way to test the association
between reasons and strategies is to systematically vary the reasons and have participants
report the likelihood of using various strategies given different reasons. This research

strategy was used in Study 2 to answer RQ 3.

26

Study 2
Method

Participants. Participants were 245 undergraduate students enrolled in
communication classes at a large Midwestern university. All participants were given
credit in the course for their participation. One hundred and thirty ﬁve of them (55.1%)
were female and 109 (44.5%) were male, and one did not respond to the sex question.
The participants ranged in age from 17 to 29 (M = 21.42, SD = 1.83). Of this sample,
64.9% were Caucasian, 15.1% were Asian, 12.7% African American, 3.7% were
Hispanic, and 2.9% indicated “other.” Nearly 80% of participants indicated that they had
initiated a breakup at least once in a past relationship. The number of times that
participants had initiated breakups ranged from 1 to 13 (M = 2.44, SD = 1.88) and the
time that had passed since the last breakup ranged from just a couple weeks to eight years
(M= 23.51 in months, SD = 20.41).

Design. This study uses a one-way, six independent groups experimental design.
Breakup reason was the independent variable and ratings of breakup strategies were the
dependent variables. Six hypothetical scenarios (see Appendix B) were constructed on
the basis of participant responses in Study 1 and Duck’s research (1982). Forty-two
participants completed the sudden death scenario, 40 completed the process loss scenario,
40 completed the mechanical failure, 41 completed the pre-existing doom scenario, 41
completed the loss of personal freedom scenario, and 41 completed the distance or
moving scenario.

In each scenario, participants were asked to imagine that they have been in an

exclusive relationship with their partner for one year. Next, each scenario described one

27

of the reasons for breakup found in Study 1 (sudden death, process loss, mechanical
failure, pre-existing doom, loss of personal freedom, and distance or moving).
Participants were then asked, based upon that reason, to rate how likely they would be
employ various methods to end the relationship (see Appendix C). Each breakup strategy
was represented by multiple items in the questionnaire. Participants were then asked if
they had ever been the partner to initiate a breakup with a romantic partner. This question
addresses the differences found in Study 1 between participants who had initiated a
breakup and those who had never initiated a breakup.

Measures. Three items were included to represent each type of breakup strategy.
Each item was evaluated by participants on 5 point Likert scales (1 being very unlikely
and 5 being very likely) reﬂecting how likely they would be to employ that method in
breaking up with their partner. Avoidance was indicated with the items “I would just stop
calling him/her,” “I would change my daily schedule around so I didn’t have to see
him/her,” and “I would change my phone number and block his/her e-mail address.”
Third party was indicated by the items “I would tell a friend and hopes/he tells him/her,”
“I would have someone else tell him/her,” and “I would tell his/her family and ask them
to explain it to him/her.” The items “I would be too busy to spend much time with
him/her,” “I would tell my partner less information about me,” and “I would spend less
time with my partner,” were used to indicate indirect breakup strategies. Justiﬁcation of
actual reasons was indicated by the items “I would tell him/her honestly why my reasons
for wanting to break up,” “I would make sure I don’t lie or mislead him/her, and tell
him/her exactly why I wanted to break up,” and “I would list the real reasons I wanted to

break up for him/her.” Justiﬁcation of false reasons was indicated by the items “I would

28

r‘~‘*"’ " f

,3 ‘6

make up an excuse for why I wanted to break up, I would say whatever is necessary to
make him/her understand why I want to break up,” and “I would blame myself even if
that wasn’t why I wanted to break up so that I wouldn’t hurt his/her feelings.” Direct
strategies seeking communication with the partner for the purpose of breaking up were
indicated by the following items: “I would tell him/her that we needed to talk about

”

breaking up, “I would sit down and try to make him/her understand exactly why we
needed to break up,” and “I would take him/her out and have a long talk about exactly
why I am unhappy.” Strategies which involved getting the partner to break up were
indicated by the items “I would make sure s/he found out I was unhappy,” “I would cheat
on him/her and make sure s/he found out about it,” and “I would annoy him/her so s/he
gets really mad at me.”

Results

Reliabilities were calculated for each of the breakup strategy items on the
questionnaire (director = .75, indirect or = .72, justiﬁcation of actual reason a = .51,
justiﬁcation of false reasons or = .23, get partner to break up or = .11, have a third party
tell them a = .60, avoidance or = .64). These reliabilities were unacceptable, suggesting
that the intended measurement did not work as intended.

Therefore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done to determine if a better set
of scales could be obtained. Principle axis factoring with an oblique rotation was used.
The criteria used included all primary loadings greater than .40, and all secondary factor
loadings less than half the primary (see Table 9). Five eigenvalues were greater than 1.0,

but a scree plot suggested four factors. The ﬁrst four factors of the four and ﬁve factor

solutions were identical, but the ﬁve factor solution was rejected as the ﬁfth factor only

29

Ital-“l" “I

contained one item.

The four factors that resulted were interpreted as consisting of open
communication, indirect strategies, avoidance, and it’s not you, it’s me strategies (see
Table 1). First, open communication, involves an initiator directly addressing his/her
partner about the desire to break up. Open communication strategies are marked by
communication with a partner in some way, either via a discussion or simply just telling a
partner that the initiator wants to break up. The second factor comprises a more indirect
approach to breakups. Indirect breakup strategies consist of two styles. The ﬁrst is the
actions that an individual does to sabotage, or deliberately harm the relationship and the
second, the involvement of a third party to inform a partner of the initiator’s desire to
break up. An example of relational sabotage might be cheating on one’s partner, so s/he
initiates the breakup. An example of the second style might be asking a mutual friend to
express the initiator’s desire to break up. In both instances, the initiator is not directly
communicating to his/her partner the desire to break up. The third factor involves both
physical and/or emotional avoidance of the partner as a means of breaking up. For
example, the initiator might change his or her daily schedule around so s/he is always
“too busy” to spend time with his/her partner. Or, s/he may withhold increasing amounts
of personal information that one would normally disclose to his/her partner, such as plans
for the future. The fourth factor is characterized by the initiator taking responsibility for
the cause of the breakup, even if s/he believes his/her partner to be the reason for the,
breakup. This is called the “it’s not you, it’s me” strategy. Initiators using this strategy
appear to have a high level of concern for their partner, and communicate the breakup

message in such a way as to avoid hurting their partner’s feelings. This may include

30

Her-“9‘1!

making up fatalistic excuses, such as “We were never meant to be” or taking all
responsibility for the breakup, which often heard as the ‘it’s not you, it’s me” line.

The distributions for each of the four strategies were examined to ﬁnd out how
likely each of the strategies were to be utilized. The open communication strategy had a
slightly negatively skewed distribution. Indirect breakup strategies had a signiﬁcantly
positively skewed distribution. Both the avoidance and it’s not you it’s me strategy had
relatively ﬂat distributions.

Univariate analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a difference in
the overall frequency with which the four strategies were used. Overall, the preferred
method reported to break up with a partner was open communication (M=3.85, SD=.71),
followed by avoidance (M=2.64, SD=1.05), and then it’s not you, it’s me (M=2.33,
SD=1.03). Indirect strategies were the least frequently selected (M=1.34, SD=.59). Paired
sample t-tests were performed to determine if each of the strategies was signiﬁcantly
different from the others (see Table 5). Each of the strategies was found to be
signiﬁcantly different from the other three.

Open communication strategies were negatively correlated with all other
strategies, indicating that people who selected open communication strategies were not
likely to select indirect, avoidance, or it’s not you it’s me strategies. Indirect strategies
were positively correlated with both avoidance strategies and it’s not you, it’s me
strategies. This could indicate that those who selected these types of strategies may select
more than one type of strategy to accomplish a breakup.

Research question 3 concerned whether the reasons for breakup inﬂuenced the

strategies chosen. A one-way analysis of variance with Tukey B for each strategy was

31

done to determine if the reason for breakup had a signiﬁcant effect on strategy choice
(see Table 6). Participants were signiﬁcantly less likely to select an it’s not you it’s me
strategy when sudden death was the reason for the breakup (M=1 .56, SD=0.71) than
when the reason was loss of personal freedom (M=2.32, SD=1.07), distance or moving
(M=2.35, SD=.98), pre-existing doom (M=2.89, SD=.89), mechanical failure (M=2.60,
SD=.93, or process loss (M=2.28, SD=1.09), F (5, 239) = 8.90, p < .01, 112 = .16. When
the reason for breakup was distance or moving, participants were signiﬁcantly less likely
to select avoidance as a strategy to breakup (M=2.28, SD=1.02) than when the breakup
stemmed from loss of personal freedom (M=2.54, SD=.99), sudden death (M=2.94,
SD=1.18), pre-existing doom (M=2.97, SD=.92), mechanical failure (M=2.48, SD=1.07),
or process loss (M=2.63, SD=.95), F (5, 128) = 2.64, p < .05, n2 = .09. This may be a
result of the fact that there is already physical distance between the couple, so seeking
additional distance might not be necessary.

Research question 4c pertained to sex differences in the association between
reasons for breakup and strategies used. Independent samples t-tests were used to
determine what effects, if any, sex had on the association between reasons for breakup
and strategies selected. Men (M=1 .72, SD=.76) were signiﬁcantly more likely than
women (M=1 .34, SD=.37) to prefer indirect strategies when sudden death was the reason
for the breakup, t (40) = 2.17, p = .036. None of the other reasons were signiﬁcantly
associated with breakup strategy choice nor were other sex differences observed (see
Table 7).

Additionally, the correlation between age and sex and strategy preference within

each scenario was tested (see Table 9). For men, the correlation between indirect breakup

32

strategies and sudden death reasons for breakup was signiﬁcant, r (15) = .48, p = .053. A
preference for indirect breakup strategies was positively correlated with the sudden death
scenario. Also for men, there was a positive correlation between avoidance breakup
strategies and distance or moving reasons for breakup, r (13) = .55, p = .034. A
preference for avoidance breakup strategies was positively correlated with the distance or
moving scenario. No other signiﬁcant correlations were found. These results should be
interpreted with caution, as they may be due to sampling error. In addition, the narrow
age range of the sample limits the generalizability of these ﬁndings.

Discussion

This research focused on the process of breakups in romantic relationships. There
were three main purposes for this study; ﬁrst, to empirically test Duck’s (1982) model of
reasons for breakups, second, to compare currently reported breakup strategies to those in
Cody’s (1982) typology, and third, to determine the inﬂuence of reasons for breakup on
the subsequent strategy chosen to break up.

Two separate studies were performed. The ﬁrst was an open-ended design survey,
which asked participants to recall a past breakup and explain why they decided to break
up and how they accomplished that breakup. This survey tested research questions 1a,
and lb concerning reasons for breakup, 2a and 2b, concerning strategies used to break up,
and 2c, which concerned the mediums used to break up. Additionally, the breakup stories
provided in Study 1 were used to develop hypothetical breakup scenarios used in Study 2.
In Study 2, participants were presented with one of six hypothetical breakup scenarios
and were asked to rate how likely they would be to use a particular breakup strategy.

Each breakup strategy was represented by three items on the survey and ﬁnally, an open-

33

ended question asked if there was anything else they would do in that situation.

Research questions 1a and 1b concerned the reasons why people wanted to break
up in romantic relationships and how these reasons compared to Duck’s model of reasons
for breakups. Study 1 found that Duck’s model was accurate, but not complete. In
addition to sudden death, process loss, mechanical failure, and pre-existing doom,
participants also indicated that a loss of personal freedom (their partner was demanding
too much of their time) and distance or moving (their partner had moved away or would
be moving away soon) were reasons they decided to break up with their partners.

The four reasons in Duck’s model focus on the interaction between the two
individuals, and how different disruptions to this interaction (i.e. a violation of norms,
faulty process, incompatible values, or inherent incompatibility) may incite one partner to
end the relationship. Distance or moving and loss of personal freedom are unique in that
the inﬂuences of factors outside the interaction are what prompt the breakup. For
example, when one individual moves away, the quality of interaction between the
partners is changed. The geographical distance may limit the amount of physical
interaction the couple engages in, which can result in less satisfaction in the relationship.
When an individual demands too much of a partner’s time, such as with loss of personal
freedom, it can infringe upon other social activities, time with friends, or even time alone.
The quality of interaction may be satisfactory, but the amount of interaction may leave
little time for activities outside the relationship, causing discontent with the relationship.
The addition of these reasons to Duck’s model broadens the focus of the model from
primarily a couple-centered perspective to one that allows personal and external factors to

impact the relationship.

34

Similarly, data relevant to research questions 2a and 2b showed that Cody’s
typology of breakup strategies was supported, though not complete. Other strategies
people used to break up included asking a third party to tell partner and attempting to get
one’s partner to initiate the breakup. As previously mentioned, Cody’s typology consists
of ﬁve general breakups strategies; behavioral de-escalation, de-escalation, positive tone,
negative identity management, and justiﬁcation. The data from Study 1 suggested an
additional strategy not included in Cody’s typology; getting the partner to initiate the
breakup. Participants indicated that they would behave in ways they thought would cause
their partner to be so dissatisﬁed that s/he would initiate the breakup instead. This
strategy differs from those in Cody’s typology because the initiator manipulates the cause
of the breakup to make his/her partner initiate the breakup instead. Breakup strategies are
not necessarily an action begun by the partner who desires the breakup, but can result
from manipulation of one’s partner. The addition of strategies in which the initiator tries
to get his/her partner to break up to Cody’s typology provides a more comprehensive
typology of strategies.

In Study 2, the measures of Cody’s strategies, plus the addition of getting one’s
partner to break up did not work as intended, leading to further analysis of these breakup
strategies. Exploratory factor analysis yielded four strategies, each signiﬁcantly different
from the others in terms of likelihood of use rating. These included open communication,
indirect strategies (consisting of both relational sabotage and third party inclusion),
avoidance, and it’s not you it’s me strategies. The differences in these strategies are
similar to dimensions presented by Baxter (1985). Baxter noted that regardless of how the

breakup is accomplished or how it is labeled, the data “point consistently to a basic set of

35

disengagement strategies which appear to vary on two underlying dimensions: directness
and other-orientation,” (Baxter, 1985, p. 247). Those who prefer direct strategies clearly
convey to their partner the desire to end the relationship. However, this research showed
that direct and indirect strategies were signiﬁcantly different from each other, not
opposites, as Baxter found. This would indicate that directness and indirectness lie on
separate continuums, each varying in the degree to which it is direct or indirect,
independent of the other. Additionally strategies can vary in their level of other-
orientation, or amount of facework performed. Open communication and indirect
strategies may be very low in other-orientation, performing very little if any facework, or
they may be very highly other-oriented. Avoidance strategies may contain very little
other-orientation, as when no face concerns of one’s partner are addressed, or they may
be indicative of a high level of other orientation, as when contact is avoided in an effort
to avoid inadvertently delivering a face damaging message. It’s not you it’s me strategies
may vary in their level of directness or indirectness, and are primarily highly other-
oriented. The dimensions of breakup messages detailed by Baxter (1985) provide a useful
framework for understanding the characteristics of types of breakup strategies.

Research question 2c inquired what mediums were used in communicating
breakup strategies. More mediums are available for communication, including e-mail,
text messaging, and instant messenger. Research in other areas of communication has
found that when more channels are available, people tend to use newer mediums in
conjunction with prior mediums, instead of in place of them (Kraemer, 1982, Rice &
Case, 1983). Consistent with this ﬁnding, nearly half (41.5%) of all participants used

more than one medium to communicate their desire to break up (see Tables 3 and 6).

36

Research question 3 asked what relationship, if any, there was between the
reasons for breakup and the strategies used to break up. Overall, with the exception of it’s
not you it’s me strategies used when sudden death is the reason for breakup and
avoidance strategies when the reason for breakup is distance or moving, the data suggest
that reasons for breakup don’t have a substantial inﬂuence on the strategy chosen to break
up. There was a general preference for open communication as a breakup strategy, and
those who used open communication breakup strategies are not likely to use indirect,
avoidance, or it’s not you it’s me strategies. However, the negative correlation between
open communication and indirect, avoidance, and it’s not you it’s me strategies suggests
that those who use those strategies would not use open communication. Avoidance,
indirect, and it’s not you it’s me strategies were positively correlated to each other
however, indicating that people who prefer one also prefer the others. This suggests that
choice of breakup strategy could be inﬂuenced by something other than reason for
breakup. In a study on roommate conﬂicts, Sillars (1980) noted that in selecting conﬂict
strategies, participants considered attributions about a partner’s intent to cooperate, the
cause of the conﬂict (self, other, or external factors), and the stability of the conﬂict (is
the cause of conﬂict something that can be changed or not). Furthermore, the projected
outcome of use of a particular strategy may inﬂuence strategy choice. Perhaps breakup
strategy choice is inﬂuenced by these same factors. For example, if a person believes
future interaction with his/her partner is likely, s/he may be less likely to use avoidance or
indirect strategies. Another reason breakup strategy choice may not be inﬂuenced by
reason for breakup could be found in attachment styles or love styles. For example,

people with secure attachment orientations may be more likely to use open

37

communication to express desire to breakup.

Research questions 4a, 4b, and 4c concerned sex differences in reasons, strategies,
and the associations between reasons and strategies in breakups. Contrary to an
evolutionary perspective of sex differences, there were no signiﬁcant differences between
men and women in either reasons for breakup or strategies used to break up. Both men
and women were less likely to use it’s not you it’s me strategies when sudden death was
the reason for the breakup, however the effect size for women was more than double that
for men. This suggests that though neither men nor women are likely to use an it’s not
you it’s me strategy in response to a sudden death scenario, women are much less likely
to place the blame for breakup on themselves when sudden death was the reason for the
breakup. The sudden death scenario provided in Study 2 referred to a partner who had
unfaithful sexually to his/her partner. This is one type of sudden death reason for
breakups. However, this situation might suggest that men are less likely to be direct in
discussing a partner’s sexual inﬁdelity than women.

Limitations

Data were collected via surveys and hypothetical scenarios, which is an important
limitation in this study. In Study 1, individuals who had never initiated a breakup
indicated they would be open and direct nearly 97% of the time, but of those who had
initiated a breakup, 87% used open communication, and only 63% indicated their actual
reasons for breakup. This suggests that situational factors and/or experience with
breakups may inﬂuence choice of breakup strategy. Hypothetical scenarios, than, might
result in higher ratings for strategy choices that are socially appropriate, or ideal

strategies, instead of strategies that a person may ultimately choose when faced with a

38

particular situation.

A second limitation of this study also related to the survey data collection format.
Participants in Study 2 were given closed ended surveys, which could result in higher
ratings for strategies that are more socially desirable. This survey style could also lead
participants to indicate they would be likely to use strategies they might not have thought
of on their own. In an attempt to compensate for these issues, an open ended design was
used in Study 1 to inform the strategies which were provided in Study 2. In addition, an
open ended question was included on the instrument for Study 2, allowing participants to
add any additional strategies they might use.

Open ended and closed ended survey designs offer different beneﬁts at different
costs. Open ended allow a person to answer in his/her own words and do not carry the
potential of leading a person to answer in a way s/he might not have thought of alone. In
closed ended surveys, participants “code” themselves into predetermined categories.
Boster, Stiff, and Reynolds (1985) note that the two types of methods complement each
other, each compensating for where the other may lack. Similarly, Visser, Krosnick, and
Lavrakas (2000) note that closed ended surveys are most efﬁciently used when they are
preceded by an open ended survey, as this ensures a more comprehensive checklist of
choices. Study 1 used deductively derived breakup strategies in order to test Duck’s
(1982) model of the reasons for breakup and Cody’s (1982) typology of breakup
strategies. The deductively derived responses indicated that though each model was
accurate, neither was complete.

Another limitation of this study is the hypothetical scenarios that were created.

For example, sudden death describes a situation in which a partner discovers highly

39

negatively charged information about his/her partner. This could be sexual inﬁdelity, a
violation of trust, withholding vital personal information, such as already having a
signiﬁcant other or spouse or having children, or a number of other situations. Likewise
with any of the other reasons, factors that deﬁne a situation and make it unique to the
people involved may not necessarily be represented in the hypothetical scenarios
provided. Until a person is faced with a particular situation, s/he may not know how s/he
would handle it, causing him/her to report using strategies that she might not actually use.
In an effort to make the scenarios as generalizable as possible, they were created based on
the most frequently reported situations for that reason from Study 1, and a limited amount
of situation speciﬁc details were included.

The homogeneity of the participants in this study also limits the generalizability
of the ﬁndings. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 29, and were all college students,
which represents a narrow portion of the population. At this time in their lives, they may
not be seeking a potential spouse, or even a long-term relationship. Instead, they may be
more focused on short term relationships. This may explain why no signiﬁcant sex
differences were present in the current study. The positive correlations found for men
between sudden death scenarios and a preference for indirect breakup strategies and
between distance scenarios and a preference for avoidance strategies may also be affected
by the limitations of the current sample. Additionally, since the current sample was
largely Caucasian, potential cultural differences could not be examined accurately in this
study.

Direction for future research

Although reasons, with the exception of sudden death reasons and the decreased

40

likelihood of it’s not you it’s me strategies, did not have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on choice
of breakup strategies, there was a deﬁnite preference for open communication strategies.
The least preferred were indirect strategies. Avoidance, indirect, and it’s not you it’s me
strategies were positively correlated with each other, but negatively correlated with open
communication. This suggests that a factor other than reason may inﬂuence which
breakup strategies an individual is likely to use. Theoretically, this can contribute to an
increased understanding of the “big picture” process of relationships. It might be useful
for future research to examine other factors which may inﬂuence choice of breakup
strategy. Research on conﬂict styles may provide more insight into what factors inﬂuence
breakup strategy selection. Or, perhaps individual factors such as attachment style
orientation may inﬂuence strategy choice, causing people to create breakup strategy
repertoires that they refer to when they decide to initiate a breakup. More research on
breakups as a process in a bigger picture of the progression of romantic relationships
would further our understanding of both what happens after a breakup and how breakups
might inﬂuence the direction of future relationships.

Empirical studies on breakups which account for both sides of a breakup would
provide a great deal of insight into the breakup process. To the author’s knowledge, no
empirical studies exist on breakups which provide both partner’s recounting of the
breakup. This leaves a signiﬁcantly one-sided picture of the process, which is useful in
understanding the motivations of the person who initiated the breakup, but is not
generalizable to both partners. Additionally, it might be beneﬁcial to explore how dyadic
interaction might inﬂuence the breakup process, particularly in light of the use of

multiple mediums found in this study. Multiple medium use provides support for the

41

view of breakups as a process as opposed to a static event. This research approached
breakups from a one-sided perspective, and as such only examines an earlier portion of
the process. Dyadic interaction may inﬂuence the decision to use multiple mediums later
on in the breakup process. As previously noted in conﬂict literature, people often
consider the other party’s response when choosing how to approach the conﬂict. For
example, the use of multiple mediums in a breakup may be necessary if a partner is
resistant to the idea of breaking up, if s/he does not understand a previously given
breakup message, or attempts to pursue an alternate relationship the initiator does not
want.

Further, how might the increase in available communication mediums inﬂuence
the breakup process? As previously stated, past research suggests that when more
mediums are available, people tend to use them with each other rather than in place of
each other. Why might someone use more than one medium to inform his/her partner of
the desire to break up? Another question that might be asked is how people might
respond when more informal or indirect mediums are used to break up. If only an e-mail
and/or text message is sent, how might the rejected partner’s sense-making or grieving
process be different from that of someone who was directly informed of his/her partner’s
desire to break up and was given an opportunity to respond to that desire? Practically
speaking, this may be useful in negotiating exit from not only romantic relationships, but
friendships or professional relationships as well.

Third, as discussed above, breakup strategies can vary in their levels of
directness/indirectness, and self/other-orientation. While it may seem logical that the

most effective method of negotiating a breakup would be to select a strategy that is high

42

in its degree of directness and its degree of other-orientation, such strategies are not
always selected. It might be prudent to ask what factors might inﬂuence individual
differences in the selection of breakup strategies.

Another direction for future research might be to examine why there are no
signiﬁcant sex differences for reasons, strategy choice, or even frequency of initiation for
breakups. This ﬁnding is contrary to functional perspectives on sex roles, which reason
that women are more pragmatic in their approach to relationships and to evolutionary
perspectives which would argue that women seek to maintain relationships for economic
reasons. Perhaps sex roles have changed to a point where women are more conﬁdent that
they are not dependent on men for economic support. If this is so, what differences might
we see in women’s mate selection processes compared to that in past research? Again,
this is interesting in that social expectations of men and women may have evolved to the
point where some stereotypes of the evolutionary perspective may no longer apply.
Another possibility is that sex differences do not exist for the sample’s particular age
range, but instead emerge later on, when long term relationships are sought.

Finally, future research should consider measuring perceptions of equity in the
relationship that is ending. The more invested party in a relationship may choose to end
the relationship if s/he feels their feelings are not reciprocated (Hill, et al., 1976). Hill et
al. also noted that while men were found to be very likely to end a relationship they
weren’t highly invested in, they less likely than women to break up with their partner
when they were more invested in the relationship. How might differing levels of
investment in a relationship inﬂuence the reasons for breakups and strategy preference?

Unequal investments in the relationship may also inﬂuence dyadic interaction between a

43

couple during the breakup process. A more highly involved partner may be more resistant
to a breakup, perhaps causing his/her partner to use multiple strategies or even less
preferred strategies, if such strategies seem to be more effective at accomplishing the
breakup.

The current research examined the process of romantic relationship termination
with respect to the relationship between the reasons that a breakup was desired and the
strategies used to accomplish the breakup. When more is learned about the process of
termination of romantic relationships, greater understanding of the coping process and
possibly interaction in future relationships might be gained. F urtherrnore, research in this
area could extend to that of more formally committed relationships such as marriage, and

subsequently divorce mediation.

44

Appendix A
Breakup Study

 

   
 
 

Please answer each question in as much detail as possible. You will not be judged in any way by your
answers. Your responses will be kept anonymous and conﬁdential. You may choose to not answer any
question you do not feel comfortable answering. 1

 

For the following questicns. romantic relationships are relationships in which you and your partner have an
exclusive, established relationship.

1. Have you ever been in a romantic relationship where you initiated the breakup? (Circle One)

Yes, at least once No, never
**If no on item 1, please skip to questions 9-13.**

E Ifyes, please answer questions about the most recent instance where you initiated a breakup. I

2. Why, speciﬁcally, did you decide to end the relationship? In other words, what were your reasons for
wanting to break up?

3. How did you communicate your desire to end the relationship?

4. Did you explicitly talk to your partner about breaking up? Yes No
5. Ifyes, what did you say?

6. Is there anything else you did?

7. What medium(s) were used? (Check all that apply)

Face to Face Conversaion E-mail Written Letter
Instant Messenger Had a friend tell him/her Phone Call
Left Voice Mail/Answering Machine Message Other:
Please
explain
8. How long ago did this happen? day(s) week(s) month(s) year(s)

9. Prior to the breakup, how long had you been together?
day(s) week(s) month(s) year(s)
10. How would you describe your relationship with that person today?

11. Age (in years)
12. Sex: (Circle One) male female

13. If you have never been '11 a romantic relationship in which you were the partner to initiate the breakup,
please imagine the following hypothetical situation: You are in a romantic relationship and have decided
that you want to end that relationship. How would you go about communicating to your partner that you
wish to end the relationship? Please be as detailed as possible.

E Thank you for complet’ng this survey! I

 

45

Appendix B
Scenario 1: (sudden death)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. You go to visit your partner
at his/her place early one afternoon and ﬁnd him/her in bed with another person. Betrayed by
your partner’s inﬁdelity, you decide that s/he can’t be forgiven, and you decide to break up.

Scenario 2.“ (loss of personalfreedom)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. For the past six months, your
partner has been increasingly more demanding of your time, expresses strong jealousy when you
hang out with anyone else, and constantly says negative things about these people. You feel
smothered by his/her need to spend so much time with you and decide that you want to break up.

Scenario 3 : (distance or moving)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. Your partner has taken a new
job in a city about 800 miles from where you both live. S/he left to go work there about three
months ago. At ﬁrst, you visited each other, but that is happening less often now. A long distance
relationship is not wa\hat you want and you have decided that you want to break up.

Scenario 4: (pm-existing doom)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. You started dating him/her
because s/he was so different from you. You used to think these differences were attractive, but
lately you’ve realized that those differences are the reason you ﬁght so much. You just aren’t
compatible and you never were. You get irritated even just thinking about your partner and you
have decided that you want to break up.

Scenario 5 : (mechanical failure)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. You have begun to notice

more frequently that you and your partner do not agree on many issues which are very important
to you. You want a partner who has values more similar to your own, so you decide to break up.

Scenario 6: (process loss)

You and your relational partner have been seriously dating each other for a little over a year. The
two of you have an agreement date only each other and no one else. In the past few months, your
partner is always too busy with his/her own interests, and ignores your feelings. When s/he does
spend time with you, you feel it’s only because s/he feels s/he “has to.” Annoyed that although
there is potential, you can’t make the relationship work, you decide to break up.

46

Appendix C
Breakup Study

Please read each of the following scenarios. Please respond to each of the following
statements on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Your responses will
be kept anonymous and conﬁdential. You may choose to not answer any question you do
not feel comfortable answering.

The six scenarios from Appendix B were placed here for each of the six forms of
this questionnaire.

How would you break up with them?

 

 

 

1. I wouldjust stop calling him/her. (avoidance)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
2. I would tell a friend and hope s/he says something to my partner. (third party)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
3. I would be too busy to spend as much time with him/her. (indirect)
l 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
4. I would tell him/her the real reasons I wanted to break up. (justiﬁcation of actual
reason)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
5. I would annoy him/her so s/he gets really mad at me. (get him/her to break up
with me)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
6. I would make up an excuse for why I wanted to break up. (justiﬁcation of false
reason)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
7. 1 would change my daily schedule around so I didn’t have to see him/her.
(avoidance)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
8. I would not tell my partner as much information about me. (indirect)
l 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
9. I would spend less time with my partner. (indirect)
l 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

10. I would cheat on him/her and make sure s/he found out. (get him/her to break up)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

11. I would make sure s/he found out that I was unhappy. (get him/her to break up)

47

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

I would list all the reasons I wanted to break up for him/her. (justiﬁcation of
actual reasons)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

I would blame myself even if that wasn’t why I wanted to break up so that I
wouldn’t hurt his/her feelings. (justiﬁcation of false reasons)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would change my phone number and block his/her e-mail address. (avoidance)
l 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would have someone else tell him/her. (third party)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would sit down and try to make him/her understand why we need to break up.
(direct)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would tell him/her that we needed to talk about breaking up. (direct)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

I would say whatever is necessary to make him/her understand I want to break up.
(justiﬁcation of false reasons)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would tell his/her family and ask them to explain it to him/her. (third party)
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely
I would take him/her out and have a long talk about exactly why I am unhappy.
(direct)
l 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

I would make sure I don’t lie or mislead him/her, and tell him/her why I wanted to
breakup. (justiﬁcation of actual reasons)

1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely Very Likely

Have you ever been in a relationship in which you initiated a breakup? Yes
No

If yes, how many times have you initiated a breakup?

 

How long ago was the last breakup you initiated?

 

What is your sex? Male Female

What is your age?

 

48

27. What is your ethnic background?

Caucasian African-American Asian
Hispanic
Native American Other

49

Appendix D
Factor 1: Open Communication
Open communication strategies are marked by communicating to a partner in some way,
either via a discussion or simply just telling a partner that the initiator wants to break up.
0 J A1: I would tell him/her the real reasons I wanted to break up.
0 J A2: I would list all the reasons I wanted to break up for him/her.
o JA3: I would make sure 1 don’t lie or mislead him/her, and tell him/her why I
wanted to breakup
0 D1: 1 would sit down and try to make him/her understand why we need to break
up.
D2: 1 would tell him/her that we needed to talk about breaking up.
0 IF 3: I would say whatever is necessary to make him/her understand I want to
break up

0 D3: 1 would take him/her out and have a long talk about exactly why I am
unhappy.

Factor 2: Inﬂict Relational Damage (Sabotage and Third Party)

There are two aspects to the items for this factor. It consists of both actions that an
individual does to sabotage, or deliberately harm the relationship as well as involving a
third party to inform a partner of the initiator’s desire to break up. In both instances, the
initiator is not directly communicating to his/her partner the desire to break up.

GT2: 1 would cheat on him/her and make sure s/he found out.

A3: I would change my phone number and block his/her e-mail address.

T2: 1 would have someone else tell him/her.

T3: 1 would tell his/her family and ask them to explain it to him/her.

Factor 3: Avoidance
Items for this factor all use avoidance of the partner, either physically or emotionally, to
accomplish the breakup. In this instance, the initiator doesn’t communicate to his/her
partner why s/he wants to break up, nor does s/he even communicate the desire to break
up.

0 11: I would be too busy to spend as much time with him/her.

o 12: I would not tell my partner as much information about me.

0 A2: I would change my daily schedule around so I didn’t have to see him/her.

Factor 4: It’s not you, it’s me
Items in this factor are characterized by the initiator’s attempts to “take the blame” for the
breakup. Even if the true reason for the breakup is the partner, the initiator of the breakup
will not attribute the breakup to the partner, instead shouldering that responsibility
him/herself.

0 JF 1: I would make up an excuse for why I wanted to break up.

0 IF 2: I would blame myself even if that wasn’t why I wanted to break up so that I
wouldn’t hurt his/her feelings.

50

.8563 55.0.2
ts... €230; _ 55 cm a: x85 2

umEm; _ E; «.cmm; 65 t .65 :mmb:
meE 2:95 _.. .o .h: x35 2 86m;

.3563
95:th 955; 29m 2 9:35

9. 88m“: 68

 

and no; mm.~ _ >23 .2 6.0598 cm a: 86.: 2:02, _.. 65 .5.— 3___a_m:oammc EEO we 50> 8c M:
...$EEE mom 3 022
:56 _ om 2:55 Ezumcom 2:8 >8 .a: x85 2 Bios
69.20 2:95 _.. co ...$EEE 5:5 6E: 286E 2 Son co .>=mcozoEm 8 coﬁmmv
ond 3.. EN 52.: mm 25% 2 >32 02 on 2:03 _.. .>__mo_m>ca 8:th u_o>< mocmEo><
5:8 35
.9th EB: ...$£EE m Lo EmEm>_o>:_ 65 3:85 8 AN 88¢“:
=2 em.m ocomEom m>mc 2:03 a: v.35 2 85.8 9: Bo 2:03 Ema EEH
_.. co Amoﬁoommv ...So 958 2.3 23 3 Seems. a E 9.3ch B 856 new momuonmw
and and an; 9.9: new $583 so :35 2:95 _.. .9220sz 65 EB: 38369.60 - 686:.
.3: v.35
2 Exam; _ E; nemamcoucz BEBE xomnumme 35 2 >=c=toaao
SEE 2 a. new Esou um 2:02, _.. 2: 55.8 65 @255 6c 2 .26ch
co .3: v.35 3 8:52, _ >53 mcommmc BE 5 >9: a: x35 2 23% :ozmoEzEEoo
who Ed and onto __m co: 5 EE :2 2:03 _.. 9: $5.3 2 $9.98 2825 :30
5 am cues. eEmem eoﬁecoo 38w".

 

m 598%?

51

Appendix F

Rotated Factor Matrix(a)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

Factor
Open Indirect (Sabotage
Communication and 3rd Party) Avoidance It's nMu, it's me
d1 .759* -.281 -.154 .155
d2 576* -.085 -.158 .058
181 502* -274 -.064 -.192
d3 531* -045 _.141 .199
183 497* -129 .000 -.269
1212 493* .115 .042 -.o1o
if3 452* _.032 .208 -.137
9t3 .297 -.098 .252 .007
t3 .042 752* -.056 .057
90 -157 557* .006 .044
a3 -.046 526* .150 -.137
t2 -222 547* .145 .233
21 -.268 .463 .368 -.151
H -.146 .399 .389 .078
9" -.158 .364 .171 .230
13 .087 -005 571* —.077
i1 -145 .125 538* .059
12 .028 .104 535* .163
a2 -.078 .293 599* .141
if2 .049 .033 .079 503*
if1 -.196 .201 .176 594*

 

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Quartimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

52

 

 

:68 .656 65 5:5 6966:6566: 6:65:
2 6: 66.6666 666 .xo 6_ 666 5:5 95:56.6: :6:

6>666

 

$6.3 t 66:65 :6>6 6:6 :65 .656 2 626656 6_ 66x 65 :6 E6 2:_ E 8: 66 ~65 6:6666m .650
.6632
.2656 656:6 :_ 66.. 36: 6 66x65 :66: 65 :_ 6:368 6_ :6 >636 66>oE 6:322
$6.9 cm 666 :66; xcm 5:5 6: 6.66.6 2 662666 65.260 66:66: :6 66:6566 6:6. 6_ 9:65:26”. 66:65.65
666565 66:65 £3 65: 66:666 666 :66; 666:... 66666:".
6_ 6:6 66 6.363 666 266 6:6 666:; 6_ 6:6 636 6:565:66 6_ 66:66: ”62.6566: 62 6:66:66
$69 3 6x68 2 :6: 6:566 6626 6_ 6:666 6:98. 9:83 66: 9:65:66: 65 565 65.66“. .6 666..
636556.66 656:6 2 :6: 6:6. 6:6 .6: 95:56.6: 65 :6 66:66:
came 6 :8 6.6 69 6_ 66:66: :6: 66.55 .658 6.66::66 666636 66: 66 25:6: 86:6 66:666 666562
6.25:6 :oEEoo :_ 65:3:6 6>6: >65 66:.
.66: 6.:6666 6: 666 :33. .6656 :666 :8 665 6665666: 6.66__6>6 =6 :6 66: 60.6.:
666.: 5:66 6:6 66666.6 :_ 6:6 {62, .6 6E: :6 6: 6666 66:66: 566 :6 6:6 6636666
056.3 66 .6. 6 96:26 :666 6>6: 6:666 63 6:6 :38. 65:68: :2 :666: 56: 6666 6_:6:o=6_6m 666.. 6666660
6.6668 6:6 656966
66> 6_ 6:3 66:66: 6_: 6:386 6.6662885. E660
$6.6 m 6.66.— 6:6 .66t6>65:_ b6> 6_ :6666 6_6:66E66:_ >5:6._6::_ 66 6:65:66 65668-65
.66: 6666 6:60 56 >666E66 :6c6__:6 66:_6> 65:6“.
03.6 m 6E6; :60 6636666 a: 6.666 :60 6:6 6:60 :6 6.666 63:69:85 6>66 6:6:66a _66_:6:66_2
9:65:66:
6263.668 :6 2 66656 66: 65 66:65
:6>6 6686; 656:6 5:5 95:56.6: _63x66 6 66:66: 5666 66c6>666_6
066.3 E 6:36: :666 66: 6:666 :66 665 So 66:: 66:60 6_ 556an65 669666 265666: .362 5660 :666—6
.x. 66:“. 6.65666 665.560 .3666”.

 

 

mlBREm 66.6 6:6666M _ 62m
_ 636a.

53

 

.:..: 5.3 66 666.6 _...s 6:6 .6:. 9.66: .66.66
.6. =6 .6 .6: .6 6.6.66 636:6 26666.66 6:6 ..6. 6 .6:

.66

..66.6 6. .6:..66 66666 6.663 .6:.
6.6.>6:66 :. 666665 .6.:6:6..6.6.
656:6 6. 6..666 65666.98

.6::66

 

$6.6. C 6..66:. 6: 66 ..6:..66 6.: 5.3 66 666.6 6. 6.:63 :666 ..6.:.:.. .66.6>:6: .6 .66.6> 6>60 66:68:. >..66..6:_
.6.:6:6..6.6. ..65 .6666 .55 .:6..6>..6E
6:6 6.6:.6 66 6. 6:... 6.:63 6: .6:. .6:..66 6.: 6:6. .66 .66.66 .6 666.6:. :6..6>..6E :6666.
$6.6. C .6.66 6. 6.:63 6: .6:. 36: 6:66:56 6:66. 66: :6666 566.3 :6 6. 66:66.6 66.66:..< 66.6”. - :6..66_...666
.66 666.6 6. .6: 66x66 6.:6.66
.6: .6:. .6:..66 .6: 6:56. .6666 6:6 ...6 .. 666.6 .6:..66 6. 66:66.6 :6666m.
$666 66 6. .6: ..6. 6:6 ..6:..66 .6: 6.... ..:66 6.:6.66 6.:6.6w .6. :6..6>..6E .6366 66666.6xm .66.6< - :6..66_....666
.66
..66.6 6. 6.:63 6:6 .6:. 5.: ..6. 6. 6:6... .666 6..6:..66 .6:..66
$6.6 6 .6: 6.66 6:6 .6:..66 .6: 5.2, 66 ..66.6 6. 6.:63 6.6V. 5.2. 66 .66.: :66.66 .656:6 6>6I >666 6..:... 6 .6 66...
.66 666.6 6. 6:6:6;
.6666 :6..66.6>:66 6 6>6: 6. .6:..66 6.: 5.; :366 .66:6.6:.
6.6 6.... 6.6:.6 66 6. 6.:63 6:6 666.66 6. >636 6:.66 :6..66.:6E:.66 6.6.6666 6 :. 66
$6.66 66 6. 6: 6666666 .6:..66 6.: 5.; 66 666.6 6. 6.562, :..666 ..66.6 6. 6..666 66666.6X6 >_..6..6xm .6:..66 6.6. 566.5
66:6:6 >6 .6:..66 .6:
6.:. :6. .6: ....s 6:6 66 6.666666 .6: 6:6.6 6:6 6:6... .6:.E6;
-6 9.65.66 .6: 6166.6 ..66:.6: 6:6:6 .6: 666:6:6 .665...) .6:..66 5.3 :6..66.:6E:.66
$6.6 6 6:6 66 ..6:..66 .6: 5.3 66 666.6 6. 6.563 .6..::6... .6 :66. .66 66666.6 2.66.6.6 .6:..66 666.6><
$ .66.“. 6.6E6xm 66...:c6n 666: 36.6.5

 

 

366 6636.26 . 6636

N 2.3

54

Table 3a

Study 1 Medium(s) Used to Breakup

 

 

Medium 11 % of "/o of
Used sample initiators
Face to Face 67 56.78% 77.91%
Imam 16 13.56% 18.60%
Messenger

Voicemail /

Answering 5 4.24% 5.8 1%
Machine

E-mail 13 11.02% 15.12%
Third Party 3 2.54% 3.49%
Wrote a o 0
Letter 3 2.54/6 3.49/0
Phone 50 42.37% 58.14%
Other 1 0.85% 1.16%

 

Note. Total N for Study 1 = 1 18, n for initiators = 85

Table 3b

Study 1 Number of Mediums Used to Breakup

 

 

Number 11 % of % of
Used sample initiators
One medium 35 29.66% 40.70%
Two

. 31 26.27% 36.05%
med1ums
Tm." 13 11.02% 15. 12%
med1ums
Four or more 5 4.24% 5.81%

mediums

 

Note. Total N for Study 1 = 1 18, n for initiators = 85

 

55

Table 4a

Sex Differences in Reason for Breakmg

 

2(1)

 

 

 

 

 

Men Women x go p

L n = 45) (n = 40)
Sudden Death 9 7 0.09 -0.03 .769
Mechanical Failure 2 4 1.00 0.1 1 .318
Pro-existing Doom 5 3 0.32 -0.06 .569
Process Loss 17 17 0.20 0.05 .657
Personal Freedom 9 10 0.25 0.05 .619
Distance or Moving 7 13 3.18 0.20 .075
Other 8 9 0.24 0.05 .623
Table 4b
Sex Differences in Breakup Strategy

Men Women 12(1) (0 p

(n = 45) (n = 40)
Direct 40 34 0.06 -0.03 .862
Avoidance 2 2 0.03 0.02 .809
Third Party 3 1 0.78 -0. 10 .379
1ndirect 10 7 0.24 -0.05 .627
Gave Actual Reason 27 26 0.56 -0.91 .454
Gave False Reason 5 9 1.03 0.12 .310

 

56

Table 5

Study 2 Strategies Paired t-tests

 

 

Pairs M SD I p

open-indirect 2.51 1.03 38.15 <.001
open-avoidance 1.20 1.35 13.92 <.001
open-notyou 1.52 1.31 18.10 <.001
indirect-avoidance -1.30 1.05 .1924 <.001
indirect-notyou -0.98 1.09 "14.11 <.001
avoidance-not you 0.31 1.26 3.88 <.001

 

57

566.656 .65 ..6 666
..6 6665.66... 6.66.6 6.66.66. 6.66:. .666... 66.666 :6 .6 6. 666.66.... 3.6666566 6.6 36:66:66 65.666 36. 6 c. 66666,. 6.67.

 

 

 

 

6:. 6...
66.. 666.6 66. 666.6 66. 666.6 66. 666.6. no. A:66 .6. ‘N66.. 566.666...
66. 66.6 8.. 66.6 66. 66.6 mo. 66.6 66. 66.6. 6... 66.6 66:66.6><
66. .6. 66. 66.. 66. 6.6... 66. 66.. 66. 66.. 66. 66.. .6666...
66666.66...
66. 66.6 66. 66.6 66. E6 6... 66.6 66. 66.6 .6. 6....6 6.666660
6W6.6..m
NW 2 mm .2. mm .64 gm 2. mm .64. Dim E
61616.... 6.6:...6I”. 8663 6:362 6.666.-|6. .1. 6.... .66.
66666.6 666.). 66666.6 6666.65 $666.66 666666
68.66:. .66 66666...

 

 

 

6:6—66.6 8.. 66666. ..6 666666,. 6 66 66.66.65 6.3%... ..6 666.6. .66.. :6 66.666 6666/.

6 6.66...

58

Table 7

Sex Differences in the association between reason and strategy choice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female 1 _p
Sudden Death
Open Comm 3.66 3.87 -.95 n.s.
Indirect 1.72 1.34 2.17 .036
Avoidance 2.80 3.04 -.63 n.s.
It’s not you 1.79 1.40 1.82 .077
Personal Freedom
Open Comm 3.94 3.95 -.44 n.s.
Indirect 1.27 1.29 -.11 n.s.
Avoidance 2.44 2.69 -.76 n.s.
It’s not you 2.29 2.35 -.18 n.s.
Distance/Moving
Open Comm 3.59 4.03 -1.95 .058
Indirect 1.55 1.21 1.63 n.s.
Avoidance 2.29 2.28 .02 n.s.
It’s not you 2.60 2.21 1.22 n.s.
Pre-existing Doom
Open Comm 3.69 3.87 -.88 n.s.
Indirect 1.26 1.18 .77 n.s.
Avoidance 2.72 3.25 -1.86 .070
It’s not you 2.82 2.95 -.46 n.s.
Mechanical Failure
Open Comm 3.91 3.94 -. 12 n.s.
Indirect 1.24 1.35 -.52 n.s.
Avoidance 2.43 2.51 -.22 n.s.
It’s not you 2.47 2.70 -.75 n.s.
Process Loss
Open Comm 3.78 3.78 -.03 n.s.
Indirect 1.54 1.36 .93 n.s.
Avoidance 2.71 2.63 .27 n.s.
It’s not you 2.61 2.12 1.34 n.s.

 

59

Table 8

Means, Standard Deviations, and Rotated Factor Loadings for Breakup Strategy Survey
Items

 

Factor Loadings

 

Item M SD 1 2 3 4

16 4.13 0.99 .759* -.281 -.154 .155

17 3.89 1.10 676* -.085 -.158 0.58

4 4.24 0.95 602* -.274 -.064 -.192
20 3.60 1.21 .531* -.045 -.141 .199

21 3.88 1.10 .497* -.129 .000 -.269
12 3.25 1.27 .493* .115 .042 -.010
18 3.92 1.04 .452* -.032 .208 -.l37
11 3.98 1.06 .297 -.098 .252 .007

19 1.28 0.72 .042 .752* -.056 .057

10 1.33 0.77 -.157 657* .006 .044

14 1.47 0.96 -.046 626* .150 -.137
15 1.30 0.74 -.222 .547* .145 .233

1 2.14 1.37 -.268 .463 .368 -.151
2 1.68 1.11 -.146 .399 .389 .078

5 1.76 1.02 -.158 .364 .171 .230

9 3.66 1.21 .087 -.005 671* -.077
3 2.76 1.28 -.145 .125 638* .059

8 2.77 1.39 .028 .104 635* .163

7 2.40 1.31 -.078 .293 599* .141

13 2.61 1.32 .049 .033 .079 603*
6 2.04 1.16 -.196 .201 .176 .594*

 

Note. * indicates highest factor loadings. Descriptions of items found in Appendix D and
item reliability found in Appendix E. Factor 1 = Open communication, Factor 2 =
Indirect Strategies, Factor 3 = Avoidance, Factor 4 = It’s not you, it’s me Strategies.

60

Table 9

Correlation between age and strategy selection

 

 

Open Indirect Avoidance It’s not You
r .1) r .0 r .0 r P
Male
1 .052 .842 .477 .053 .324 .205 .138 .598
2 .337 .116 .237 .275 .095 .665 -.081 .712
3 -.268 .333 .276 .340 .550 .034 .361 .186
4 .143 .526 .311 .159 .093 .682 -. 121 .592
5 -.455 .066 .420 .093 .195 .454 -.250 .334
6 .240 .408 .445 .111 -.116 .693 -.026 .928
Female
1 .022 .917 .059 .779 -.115 .584 -. 152 .468
2 .168 .520 -.205 .429 -.067 .805 -.263 .308
3 -. 148 .471 -.025 .902 -.O48 .817 -.061 .768
4 .265 .273 .111 .650 -.328 .170 .281 .243
5 .159 .470 -.031 .888 .217 .320 -.238 .274
6 .142 .497 .152 .468 -. 108 .607 -.053 .802

 

Note: Scenario 1 = sudden death; Scenario 2 = loss of personal freedom; Scenario 3 =

distance or moving; Scenario 4 = pre-existing doom; Scenario 5 = mechanical failure;
Scenario 6 = process loss.

61

9:266... 29: .0 Son.

wow: 25.60.: 00.5. wEEuoE 03. no»...

a: xuem o. 666.: 2.5.66: .0 .3532 _. >633

666: E:.66E 6:0

 

66

O
N
a|duies so abetuaojed

l!)
N

on

mm

6 2:9".

62

References

Banks, S.P.; Altendorf, D.M., Greene, J.O. & Cody, M.J. (1987). An examination of
relational disengagement: Perceptions, breakup strategies, and outcomes. The
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 19-41.

Battaglia, D.M., Richard, F.D., Datteri, D.L. & Lord, CG. (1998). Breaking up is
(relatively) easy to do: A script for the dissolution of close relationships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 829-845.

Baxter, LA. (1984) Trajectories of relational disengagement. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 1, 29-48.

Baxter, LA. (1985). Accomplishing relationship disengagement. In: Understanding
personal relationships: an interdisciplinary approach, Sage Publications,
London, eds: Duck, S,, Perlman, D.

Boster, F .J ., Stiff, J.B., & Reynolds, RA. (1985). Do persons respond differently to
inductively-derived and deductively-derived lists of compliance gaining message
strategies? A reply to Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 49, 177-1 87.

Busboom, A.L., Collins, D.M., Givertz, MD. & Levin, LA. (2002). Can we still be
friends? Resources and barriers to friendship quality after romantic relationship
dissolution. Personal Relationships, 9, 215-223.

Buss, D.M. (2000). Desires in human mating. In: Evolutionary perspectives on human
reproductive behavior. 39-49. Academy of Sciences, New York, eds: LeCroy, D.,
Moller, P.

Choo, R, Levine, T. & Hatﬁeld, E. (1996). Gender, love schemas, and reactions to
romantic breakups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 143-160.

Clark, C.L., Shaver, P.R., & Abrahams, M.F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic
relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 709-722.

Cody, M. (1982). A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role
intimacy, reactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection.
Communication Monographs, 49, 148-170.

Davis, D., Shaver, P.R., & Vernon, ML. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral
reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and
attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871-884.

Dindia, K., & Canary, DJ. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on
maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-

63

 

173.

Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In:
Personal Relationships. 4 : Dissolving Personal Relationships, 1-30.

Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships:
A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13-30.

Gottman, J .M., & Levenson, R.W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later
dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 221-233.

Guerrero, L.K., Elvoy, S.V., & Wabnik, A1. (1993). Linking maintenance strategies to
relationship development and disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 273-283.

Hess, J .A. (2000). Maintaining Nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An
investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication
Research, 26, 458-488.

Hill, CT, Rubin, Z., & Peplau, LA. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103
affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147-168.

Kahn, A, & McGauhey, TA. (1977). Distance and liking: When moving close produces
increased liking. Social Psychology Quarterly, 40, 138-144.

Kellas, J K & Manusov, V. (2003). What’s in a story? The relationship between
narrative completeness and adjustment to relationship dissolution. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 285-307.

Klohnen, E.C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is
attractive—self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment

security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.

Knapp, ML. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn and Bacon,
Inc. Boston, MA.

Kraemer, KL. (1982) Telecommunications/transportation substitution and energy
conservation. Telecommunications Policy, 6, 39-59.

Murstein, B1 (1970). Stimulus—Value—Role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 32, 465-481

Rice, R.E. & Case, D. (1983). Computer-based messaging in the university: A description
of use and utility. Journal of Communication, 33, 131-152.

64

Rubin, Z., Hill, CT, Peplau, L.A., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. ( 1980). Self-disclosure in
dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 305-317.

Schmitt, D.P., & Shackelford, T.K. (2003). Nifty ways to leave your lover: The tactics
people use to entice and disguise the process of human mate poaching.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1018-1035.

Sillars, AL. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conﬂicts.
Communication Monographs, 47, 180-200.

Simon, P., & Garfunkel, A. (1982). Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover. Concert in Central
Park (Live).

Sprecher, S., F elmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated
with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 15, 791-809.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, PC. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than
others; Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463-481.

Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, LB. (2000). Sex differences in desired
characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 1 7, 843-853.

Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal
growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10,
113-128.

Taylor, DA. (1968). The development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration
processes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 75, 79-90.

Wilmot, W.W., Carbaugh, D.A., & Baxter, LA. (1985). Communicative strategies used to

terminate romantic relationships. The Western Journal of Speech Communication,
49, 204-216.

65