CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE EFFECTS OF BREAKUPS
ON VALUE ORIENTATION IN THE HETEROSEXUAL DATING RELATIONSHIP
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology, Community Clinical
by
Robin M. Taback
August 1987
/
The Thesis of Robin M. Taback is approved:
M<J'~s,
Ph.D.
Susan D. Cochran, Ph.D., Chair
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to recognize a number of individuals, that without
them, the expeditious completion of this thesis would not have been
possible.
First, I wish to thank my esteemed thesis committee: to
Chris Holmes, who, with his willingness to take on the position under
short notice, brought additional clinical insight and research
expertise to the committee.
I would like to thank Roger Moss for
taking time to brainstorm with me when I was stuck, and just for being
there.
A very special thanks goes to my thesis chair, Susan Cochran,
who allowed me to join her research and gave me the important balance
of guidance and independence to create a good research study I can
call my own.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the research team of
Tom Lawrence, Karen Lock, Antoinette Pittman who collected and input
the megabytes of data used for this study.
A special thanks to Da.ve
Almeida, who, in addition to his participation with the data
collection, updated me on SPSSx and assisted me through the
statis~ical
analysis.
In addition, I would like to thank my very dear friend Stephanie
Sreall, whot as my third arm, assisted me both technically and morally
during this period.
Many thanks to my parents, who have given me
their love and support throughout my studies.
Finally, I would like
to thank my husband and friend, Yonatan Ariel, who historically has
been instrumental in teaching me both about breakups and about
relationship values.
With love, he has encouraged me, inspired me,
and believed in me.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
....................
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . .
-- Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Study Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments.
•
<)
iv
iii
v
vi
1
2
10
12
16
26
3'•
37
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1
Relationship Value Orientation Subscales.
Table 2
Reactions to Breakups Subscales • • • • •
Table 3
Gender Differences in Relationship Value
Orientation for Total Sample • • • • • • •
Table 4
Table 6
Table 7
26
28
29
Gender Differences in Relationship Value
Orientation among Subjects Who Have Experienced
...
Mean Scores on Relationship Value Orientation
Subscales as a Function Breakup Initiation. • . . . .
a Breakup
Table 5
.. ..
....
e
&
-e
e
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
Mean Score on Relationship Value Orientation
Subscales as a Function of Presence of Feelings
toward Last Breakup Experience • • • • • • • • •
30
31
...
32
Pearson Correlations Between Emotional Responses to
Breakups and Relationship Value Orientation Overall
and by Gender • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
33
v
ABSTRACT
TH.E EFFECTS OF BREAKUPS
ON VALUE ORIENTATION IN THE HETEROSEXUAL DATING RELATIONSHIP
by
Robin M. Taback
Master of Arts in Psychology, Community Clinical
The breakup, or terminating, of dating relationships is a common
Y'
and acceptable phenomenon of contemporary s:>ciety.
The.purpose of
this research is to explore the effects of breakups and the
ac~o~panying
emotional responses on relationship val1res.
The
Relationship Value ,Scale and Breakup Reaction Scale were administered
to 330 undergraduate college students.
relati.onsh~p
No
sig~ificant
differences in
values were fou,.'ld bet'N'een subjects who had and had not
experienced a breakup, although values differed as a ftmction of
gender, locus of initiation of the breakup and the presence of
feelings about previous breakup.
supported.
Much of the prior research was
r~'. "~_"\ \\-{ r\.
Discussion cor.llllents on fi11g:i.ngs that cognfti'Ve processes,
such as perceptions and thoughts ::tbout the breakup influence value
orientation, and not the mere experience of a breakup.
Behavioral
implications of values and other clinical issues are also discussed.
vi
The Effects of Breakups
on Value Orientation in the Heterosexual Dating Relationship
The dynamics of the interpersonal relationship is probably
one
of the the most mysterious, yet fascinating aspects of the clinical
psychology world: What brings two people together, what keeps them
together and what pulls them apart.
As an intimate relationship
develops, it moves through various stages which will either lead to a
stable or
pe~manent
arrangement, such as marriage, or to its
inevitable dissolution.
The question remains: are these dissolutions a result of
interpersonal psychopathology within a relationship, or are they,
because of their prevalence, a natural phenomenon, if not part of a
developmental stage (Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986) people must go through
while attempting to choose a life mate?
Whatever the approach,
premarital breakups are an integral part of our contemporary dating
phenomenon though little research has been done exploring the effects
of premarit.al breakups on attitudes toward future relationships.
People who have experienced breakups may, as a result, modify their
attitudes toward future relationships as a m.eans of coping; hence
their attitudes may be
than those who have not experienced
differen~
the loss of a significant relationship.
It was the primary purpose.of this study to explore correlates of
relad_onship values and relationship terminatioa experiences.
The
second goal of ':h:!.s research was to look at associations between
-.:·eported current feelings with regard to the most r-ecent breakup and
current relationship \Talues.
1
Study Variables
Value Orientation
Prior research (Cochran & Peplau, 1985; Peplau & Cochran, 1981;
Peplau, Cochran, Rook & Padesky, 1978) on relationship values within
various populations has found that values conform to two basic
independent dimensions: dyadic
a~tachment
and personal autonomy (the
preservation of self as an individual in the relationship).
Although
related, researchers (Raush, 1977; Peplau et al., 1978) stress that
these dimensions are not considered to be polarities on the same
continuum, rather unique (orthogonal) dimensions existing on their own
continuum.
In fact, it has been suggested by Raush (1977) that
autonomy may be a developmental prerequisite to creating a mature
interpersonal attachment.
Though the attachment and autonomous values are prominent and
found in numerous research studies (e.g. Cochran & Peplau, 1985;
Peplau & Cochran, 1981; Peplau, et al., 1978), it has been suggested
that they are not fixed dimensions; rather, they reflect current
cultural values concerning relationships.
In a study looking
a~
heterosexual relationships (Cochran & Peplau, 1985), a third dimension
of egalitarianism emerged from the relationship values scale.
This
egalitarian dimension, though highly correlated with autonomy, was
believed to have been strongly influenced by the high degree q£
feminist .:..wareness due to the appearance of the women's movement.
More recently, it has been argued (Peplau & Cochran, 1987) that more
current values may emphasize a "best frier.d" model for dating
relationships.
This tendency may also be a reflection of the
2
3
increasing positive valence attached to equality among the sexes,
resulting in more shared interests between partners.
In an attempt to seek out the factors that may influence
relationship values among the varied populations, nmnerous
f__a_cto~s~
have been correlated with the value orientation of individuals.
factors include
demograpl:li~(!S
The
(i.e. gender, age, educational level,
community and political activity, religiousity), as well as areas of
socialization (i.e. Sex-Role Traditionalism), idealization of the
partner and interpersonal intimacy and attachment (Peplau et al.,
1978; Peplau & Cochran, 1981; Cochran & Peplau, 1985).
Consistently across all genders and populations, homosexual and
heterosexual groups alike, strong positive correlations have been
found between the dyadic attachment value and both the degree of
religiousity and the feeling of intimacy (Peplau et al., 1978; Peplau
& Cochran, 1981; Cochran & Peplau, 1985).
found between personal autonomy and
al, 1978).
Negative correlations were
sex-rol~
traditionalism (Peplau et
Heterosexual women (even after controlling for their
stronger pro-feminism views)
eg:.1litarian autonomy than did
plac~d
significantly more importar.ce on
the"I!l.3:~e
subjects. The researchers
speculated that this phenomenon may have been due to either the
women's sensitivity and/or experience of not having
equal-power~
or to
men's lower sensitivity to and/or experience with unegalitarian
autonomy.
An additional gender difference was found in regard to
romanticism.
with dyadic
negative
For men, the
atta~J1l\1~er1,t;
correlat~gn
de_~-ree
of romanticism positively correlated
whereas for women, there was a significant
of egalitarian autonomy and romantici,i)m.
Therefore, we find women significantly more l!ynical '.Yith regards to
4
romance in a relationship than men.
Rubin (1969) has found that the
best predictor of the level of romanticism is the lack of experience,
hence an individual who has experienced the dissolution of a
relationship may be found to have different relationship values than
those who have not.
To measure relationship values in the current study, a
Relationship Attitude Scale (Cochran & Peplau, 1987) was employed.
After factor analyzing the scale, five orthogonal values were
.-----------
extracted: 1) Friendship value (reflecting the desire for equality and
independence within the relationship), 2) Commitment value (stressing
the hope for longevity of the relationship), 3) Similar Traditional
values (sharing and interest in family responsibility and traditional
roles), 4) Trust (stressing the desire for dependability within the
relationship), and 5) Sexual Freedom (emphasizing a good and open
sex life within the relationship).
Breakups
When the intimate relationship between two people falters, the
first question which arises is "why did it fail? 11 Perhaps the answer
gives one a better understanding of how to avoid unsuccessful matches
in the future.
Host of the research dor..e on relationship dissolution
has used individuals who are experiencing or have experienced marital
separation (for example Brown, et al., 1980, Berman
Ne,.;man & Langer, 1981, Spanier & Lachman, 1980).
&
Turk, 1981,
Bloom et al.
(1979) and Hill et al. (1976) both observed that marital separation tends
to be traumatic to ex-partners.
Hill et al. (1976) writes:
i·!artial disruption ••• remains a cou.."lter-normative phenomenon
which is often stigmatized by kin and community. A marriage is
5
typically ended only with considerable effort and stress, and
the process of getting back into circulation and replacing a
lost partner is likely to be much more difficult for both
parties. (Hill et al., 1976, p. 164)
It would seem reasonable to assume that since premarital separation is
not a counter-normative phenomenon, an ex-partner will be less
traumatized by the separation.
Relationships that end before marriage
usually are doing so within the context of a dating system where
coupling,
~qcoupling
and recoupling is a necessary and accepted
element (Hill et al., 1976).
Nevertheless,
p_:_:IJ:':<:J:'~tal rel~tio(lships
are often trial runs that teach and prepare a person for a longer and
more permanent commitment.
Relationship patterns can be exposed and
formed within the context of a dating relationship.
In the study by Hill et al. (1976), numerous relationship
characteristics were correlated to find factors that could best
predict breakups in non-married couples.
Aside from the external
factors such as the return to school (college), some of the
characteristics included a lack ofsimilarity in age, educational
aspirations, intelligence, physical attractiveness, as well as unequal
inv.:>lvement in the relationship.
Other characteristics included self-
reported non-exclusive dating, and low ratings of closeness,
probability of marriage, and scores on
Rubin~s
(1973) loving and
liking scales.
Stephen (i984) found, in his six month longitudinal study of
premarital couples, that the signi£icant predictors of breakup
the lack of
~ommitment
weF:!
to and lower levels of satisfaction with the
relationship along with distant geographical vicinity.
Once a breakup has Gccurred, there a.re many emotional responses
'
(}
6
to the experience.
Emotional responses to separation, such as
divorce, are numerous (Kaslow, 1984) and have been understood in terms
of stages an ex-partner must go through (Kaslow, 1984 and Ibrahim,
1984).
These stages are similar to Kubler-Ross's (1969) stages of
death and dying: denial, shock, anger, bargaining, depression and
acceptance.
Others (e.g., Davidoff & Schiller, 1983) have looked at
separation as a bombardment of emotions: confusion, trauma,
worthlessness, etc. and have suggested a crisis intervention approach.
Pittman and Cochran (1987) examined emotional reactions to
breakups by unmarried students.
Reactions conformed to four
orthogonal dimensions: 1) self-blame (blaming self for the the
relationship's failure), 2) anger (blaming the other partner), 3)
rationalization (thinking it is for the best), and 4) despair (feeling
of worthlessness without the partner).
It was the purpose of this
study to u.-·1derstand how experiencing a breakup may impact on one's
value orientation to close relationships.
More specifica,lly_, the
study explored how the specific emotional responses might alter a
p~_:!::~,OD:~i>~relationship
values, thus influencing
fut~re
behavior.
Using a relationship value orientation questionnaire together
with Pittman and Cochran's (1987) scale of emotional response to
breakups, the research investigated the relationship between the
dimensions.
Study Hypotheses
1. Subjects who have not experienced
.~
breakup will exhibit a
higher score in the Similar Traditional Value, the Commitment and
Trust values, and lower scores in Sexual Fr.eedom.
2. Subjects who have
experienced~
breakup will score highe:::- in
7
their ratings on
th~
relationship values
~Friendship
and Sexual
Freedom.
As discussed above, Rubin's (1969) findings state that the
degree of romanticism in a relationship is linked to the amount of
relationship
Romanticism infers idealistic images or
experience~
ideals not necessarily based on fact.
These images may be influenced
by the roles set down by the traditional society, hence reflecting the
value of Similar Traditional Values.
Romanticism also implies an
expectation of attachment to the partner which would be reflected by
the Commitment and Trust values.
The Friendship vall!e. is based on a
equality and autonomy within the relationship and similarity of
interests. Since
fr~endship
is based on experience over time with
another, it is considered a more reality-based value.
though not necessarily reality-based, reflects a
Sexual Freedom,
U()J}::::_~_rn_ot;ional
attachment, b,ence contradictory to the romantic ideal.
According to Hill et al. (1976), qualitative differences have
been found between men and women as well as initiators and noninitiators of the breakup.
Among those who did not initiate breakups
Hill et al. (1976), found that men displayed less realistic
understanding and more denial of the dynamics of the relationship than
did the women.
An analysis was done in this study to control for both
gender and initiative, the hypotheses being:
3.
Non-initiatin~
values and Commitment.
the
h~pes
of
men will_ score higher on Similar Traditional
In response to their feelings of denial with
reunificati~n,
these values reflect the struggle to hold
on to the relationship as it was.
8
4. Non-initiating women, will score higher on the values of
Commitment, Trust and Friendship. This reflects their rationalized
acceptance that even if it was the wrong partner, the relationship
values were right for future relationships.
5. Initiators £!_both sexes will score higher on both the
Friendship and Sexual Freedom values than those who do not initiate or
see the breakup as equal ••
A more egalitarian expression of values
was expected among those men and women who initiated the end of the
relationship.
With former social values, one might suspect the men to
lean toward the value of Sexual Freedom, while the women lean toward
Friendship and Trust.
Now with current trends displaying more
equality in relationships, the hypothesis predicted no significant
difference between men and women in the value orientation.
Of the people who have experienced breakup, it was anticipated
that correlations will be found between the specific feeling responses
about breakups and the emphases in the relationship values.
The
difference of 7alues reflect the mechanism by which individuals cope
with and adjust to the loss of an intimate relationship.
The
adjustment works by re-examining and adapting relationship values for
future relationships.
Hypotheses are:
6. Subjects reporting no feelings about prior breakup will
e~press ~
greater interest in the value of Sexual Freedom and less
con·.:ern for
-~he
value _cf Commitment than subjects who have feelings.
Individuals who claimed to have no feelings about the past breakup may
be displaying a lack of emotional bonding to a p:1rtner.
Their focus
on that relationship, and possibly future relationships might be to
enjoy it for its sexu3l and physical benefits.
9
7. The emotional
response~ anger~
a breakup will be
positively correlated with the relationship values
~
Trust and
Friendship. The reaction of Anger to a breakup is an expression of
having made oneself vulnerable to the other and feeling violated by
him or her.
In an effort to avoid being hurt again, a person may seek
a relationship in which the sense of vulnerability is lessened and the
sense of security, trust and equality is heightened.
8. Expression of rationalization in response
positively correlated
~
~ ~
breakup will be
the Friendship and Similar Traditional
values.
The Rationalization response reflects the attitude that
brea~ing
up was inevitable, a relief and for the best.
Their values
will reflect a more pragmatic approach, one that desires more practical
compatability in partners, such as Friendship and Similar
Traditional values.
9. With regard
~
the Despair response, it is predicted to be
positively correlated to the relationship value
Similar Traditional Values.
~
Commitment and
The emotional response of Despair is a
reflection of the trauma experienced as a result of the breakup, that
ther-e ls no hope for the future without their partner.
This
particular response will create a desire to hold on to what was, that
the most essential aspect of this person's life is the relationship.
The expression of despair is also an exhibition of rigid thinking in
the mind of the person.
They seem unable to find alternatives to
obsessing about the relationship.
tp
(h,~ir
This rigid thinking may genecalize
relationship_ va~u.e9, thus projecting a traditional
relationship roles.
7i·~w
of
10. The reaction of Self-Blame is expected to positively
correlate with the Commitment and Trust.
The strong feeling of Self-
Blame is one that includes a lack of self-trust and confidence in a
relationship, blaming oneself for the demise of the relationship.
Such a display of poor self-esteem and might lead one to seek external
means of gaining self-worth. They most likely would pursue commitment
and trust in a relationshipo
Methods
Subjects
The subjects consisted of approximately 330 heterosexual college
students (180 male and 150 female), between the ages of 18 and 25.
Respondents were drawn from a subject pool of undergraduate psychology
students in partial fulfillment of course requirement at California
State University, Northridge.
Questionnaires
A questionnaire package was completed by all participants as a
part of a larger research project (Cochran & Peplau, 1987).
The
development of this questionnaire benefited from the prior research
done with college-age dating couples (Hill et al., 1976; Rubin et al.,
1981), with lesbians (Peplau et al., 1978), with gay men (Peplau &
Cochran, 1981) and heterosexuals (Cochran & Peplau, 1985).
Bias due
to order of presentation was controlled for through counterbalancing
o£ the questionnaires.
For this study, subjects were required to
complete two tests instruments which a:re described in further detail
belov.•.
Relationship Value
beliefs regarding
11
Scale~
Each participant was asked about their
serious/committed love relationships 11
10
~>Tith
the
11
opposite sex.
Students rated 26 value statements (e.g. "Being able to
laugh and joke easily with each other 11 ) on the degree of importance
using a 9-point scale ("1" being not at all important and "9" being
extremely important).
This scale is scored for five orthogonal
dimensions of relationship values: Friendship (11 items, Cronbach's
=
.~pha
.77), Commitment (4 items,
Values (6 items,
=.60), Similarity in Traditional
=.63), Trust (3 items,
=.73), and Sexual Freedom (4
=.51) (see Table 1).
items,
Breakup Reaction Scale. This scale is made up of a list of 23
feeling statements regarding breakups (e.g. "How could s/he do this to
me").
This list was based on reactions gathered from a heterogeneous
group of adults who were in group treatment for distress. following a
breakup of an intimate love relationship.
Subjects were asked whether or not they had experienced a
breakup.
If so, they were asked to indicate when the breakup
occurred, who initiated the breakup (using a 5-point scale from
"completely his/her decision" to "completely my decision"), and if
they still had "feelings" about the breakup.
Those who reported that
they still had feelings were instructed to rate the 23 statements on a
4-point scale on how often they experience the thought ( 11 111 being
rarely or not at all and "4 11 being most or all of the time).
scale is scored for four
()J:'.~l1?~ona~
This
dimensions of reactions to breakup
(see Table 2): Self-blame (5 items, Cronbach's alpha =.65), Anger (9
items,
=.69).
=.85), :Rationalization(5 items,
=.71), Despair (5 items,
Results
All data were subjected to ANOVA's, t-tests and Pearson r. analyses
through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSx). The
< ANOVA'l was
used to reveal any significant differences of relationship
values on the dimension of breakup experience and gender. Among those
who had experienced a breakup, a· t-tes;,! was used to deter1ni:ne
differences between relationshipvalues for the variables of the
amotmt of time (in months) since the breakup and the presence of
feelings about previous breakup.
A. two-way; (gender x initiative)
between-subjects analysis of variance was employed to test the
main effects and interactions of gender and initiative on relationship
values.
Whereas a·l:-test}was used to find differences on the variable
of having feeling about breakup,
ai
Pearson product moment
correlational coefficient testiwas applied to detect the correlation
of the four feelings scales with the relationship
Breakup Experience> Gender and Amount of Time
Although <?:<'
si~nificant
vall1~M~A'
Sin~
differences, in relationship values were found
between those who had and had not experienced a breakup,
d~_!_fer~1l£?:S
Breakup.
were found bet'Neen
~enders
sit5ni.f~~~l:i.~
of the whole sample.
Male
subjects SC()red significantly lower than female subjects on the values
of
Commitm~I~~,
!_(1) = 4.08, p
<
.05, and Friendship, F(l) = 21.54,
E.
<.001, and significantly higher on the value of Sexual Freedom, !(1) =
15.30,
E.<
.001 (see Table 3).
No significant differences in
relationship values were revealed among :cecent breakups (up to 5
months), less recent (more than 5 months less than 12 months) and nonrecent breakups ( 12 months and over).
."
Gender and
Initiatio~
of Breakup.
A: 2
x 3 analysis of variance;
<'·-.;
12
13
was administered to extract the main effects and interactions, of
gender and initiation (initiator, non-initiator, mutual initiation) on
relationship values.
No interactions were detected, though main
effects for both gender and initiator status were present.
Gender
differences from the sub-sample who had experienced a breakup
reflected the results of the entire sample:
(F(l96) = 2.16,
< .05)
£_
and
FE:i,~l14sl1:i,p
men valued Commitment
(!_(196)
3.61,
=
significantly less than women and Sexual Freedom (!(196)
.001) significa11t:lymore (see Table 4).
£_
<.001)
= -4.22,
£.
<
The initiation variable was
created by C()mbining the "complete" and "partial" responsibility
scores ( 1 with 2 and 5 with 4)
to,de.termine.~t.h~
···-··
.
-
non-:-initiator and
__ .. , . .
••
"•-""f
initiator groups, and used the middle.sco;-e (3) to create a third
group: Hutual initiators.
Two values appeared dependent on the locus
of initiation of breakup (see Table 5).
initiators had a significantly
--- -
~igher
Non-initiatoFsand mutual
regard for the Trust value than
;
did the Initiators, both individually (respectively: F(l95)
< .05;
F(l95)
.01).
= -2.45,
£.
<
=
2.11, £.
.05) aad combined, (!_(195) = -2.76, p
<
Surprisingly, non-init1a,tors.. ya,1w:;d. St?.]{.ual Freedom
significantly more than the initiators }F(l95)
Presence~
Feelings and
Responses~
=
2.18, £.
< .05).
Breakups Correlates. A
significant difference was found between the presence or absence of
·--~-.--,~---·-"'-•"
•''
-·-·
..-.;O:.c,.·.--~~;,,'~0
o'-
0 """-'·
-'C
feelings for the relationship value of Sexual
p
<
o''O ·•'' ••'' '.
''
'
Free~om,
T'••: ,._
t
---"·-;:~·->,,,•_;:.,
(195)
... _,_.
=
2.10,
.05 (see Table 6).
Correlations comparing emotional responses to breakups and
relationship values were conducted for the total sample and for each
gender separat:ely.
Table 7.
The results of these analyses can be found on
In the overall analysis, the response of Anger correlated
14
significantly with the value of Sexual Freedom, r
---··
'
.
- - · " · " " . < - ' - , .• ,·;-,--.. ·-····
.2S, p
=
-
-
<
.01.
Despair negatively and significantly correlated with valuing
Friendship,
~
= -.18, E <
Sexual Freedom,
~
=
.16,
.OS, while positively correlating with
E<
.OS.
Finally, the feeling of Self-Blame
was positively correlated with the Commitment value,
Among men only, their scores on the
~
~g~_:t"_ -~~al:~
= .16, E < .OS.
were positively
f-.~--.
and significantly cor:_rel,?.ted with Similar Traditional
E<
.05, Trust,
.OS.
For
~ =
w~~~~·
Sexual Freedom, r
.24, p
<
.OS, and Sexual Freedom,
va,-!tJ,~S, ~
~
= .25, E <
Anger also was significantly associated with valuing
= .28, E < .OS.
In addition, for women, the
response of Rationalization positively correlated with Trust_,
E<
.OS, the Despair reaction negatively correlated with the
Friendship,
~
= • 21,
~ =
.29,
va,J~e
of
= -.22, E < .OS, and the thoughts of Self-Blame
correlated positively with the Commitment value, r = .24, p
.··-···'
'\o"
·-·----
··-·
-
-
<
.05 (see
Table 7).
Hypotheses
1. and 2.
The hypotheses that subjects who ha,ve
n~ver
experienced a breakup will display more romanticized values tha.n th, 0 se
..
-~·
-·-
who have experienced breakups were not suppor:t_ed.
The data was
subjected to another test comparing the values of people who have
undergone a breakup
recent~y
(less than S months ago), less recently
(more than 5 months, but less than 12 months) and some time ago (from
1 to 7 years).
Again, no significant difference was revealed. {Thus
""~,-
neither the experience of breakup or time since breakup influences the
values individuals have towards relationships
3. and 4.
J
Since there were no significant interaction effects
for gender and initiation of breakup,
ne~~-i:l~r_
of these hypotheses were
15
supported.
Hence there was no qualitative difference in relationship
values between men and women who did not choose to breakup the
relationship as was expected.
However a main effect for gender,
similar to the full sample, was found.
As might be expected, the
women rated the Friendship value significantly higher than the men,
,.. ,._, ·-.• ~
"
'_,,.,,.:;-_("'~-::.-.:;;.p.-.·.,>,-
while men rated Sexual Freedom significantly higher than the women.
"
..Jo
Unexpectedly, non-initiators valued Sexual Freedom
significantly more than initiators of the breakup and no differences
were found on the Friendship value.
~El_:l:~~
In addition, initiators valued
significantly less than both non-initiators and mutual-
initiators.
6. The hypothesis that people
who do not have feelings about
- -'-
'•
their previous breakup would display a less emotional .;q:ta.chmentval ue
was partially
"'·"'-"''·-·'"'"'''
Those who reported having no feelings about
s~pp()rted.
····-··.
'
··-
past breakup showed a significantly higher rating on the relationship
value of Sexual Freedom,
~(195) =
2.10,
~
<
.05, though no
significant difference on the Commitment value was observed.
7.
This hypothesis, which stated that Anger will be related to
the values of Trust and Friendship was not; s_upported by th_e ov.er?ll
analys.,....is.
This
i~_i._S_<l~-~-s
that the feelings
of
.
---
~J:J.ger.
-
may..... not---·-··.l~.c:t4~
people to protect themselves with a more nurturing relationship.
On
the contrary, the response of Anger strongly correlated, for the full
sample and for men and women individually, with the value of Sexual
Freedom, r
= .25,
~
<
.01.
These results may indicate more of an
aggressive response to the breakup.
Interestingly, the men's feeling
of Anger was also found to be positively correlated with Similar
Traditional values and Trust.
These results may be reflecting their
efforts to regain control in a relationship.
8.
The fifth hypothesis, which predicted that the
Rationalization response will positively correlate to Friends"Qip and
..... ~~-~<-=·-~~"·--~-"-. -·· .- ,- .
Similar Traditional values, was not supported.
~--·
•
.
.
-
- .,
->' _,,,
,-,___. "'
_-•.• --·.- -.-.· • . · • -.
.-..
,-.'
In fact, no
correlations with Rationalization were found in the overall analysis;
however, after controlling for gender, the Rationalization of the
female subjects correlated with the Trust value,
~9.... E:!Y~dence
9.
~
= .29,
~
< .05.
was found J:o support the sixth hypothesis which
predicted that the Despair response w:ot1l<l be correlated with
Commitment and Similar Traditional
val~~s.
Surprisingly, for the full
sample and for the women, the feelings of Despair negatively
correlated with Friendship
(~
= -.18,
~
<
.05).
With no gender
distinction, _Despair also positively correlated with Sexual Freedom (r
.16,
~
10.
< .OS).
Results reveal that this hypothesis was partially
by the data.
both overall
~
< .OS).
Sljpport:e~
The reaction of Self-Blame did correlate with Commitment
(~ =
.16,
~
< .OS)
and for the female subjects
(~ =
.24,
On the other hand, the data did not support any
relationship between Self-Blame and Trust.
Discussion
Study Findings
.
{~'--'""'
)
It was the purpose\of
this studyjto investigate the effects
------·-···
','-"'o"·,,-.
of breakup experiences on relationship value orientation .I
two essential findings that emerged from this research.
There were
First,
was
.-,..,·-·:::-_...,,.....
that the mere existence of a breakup experience does not appear to
influence the values people maintain toward relationships; however,
1 /
~o
17
the way
people
-
experie11<:!~
..
-
--="·'·"~/·-'·"""·"·"··-~·-~·
orientation.
-~--~---
.§.~S2I}~t¥,
0
the. breCI.~"up
__dg<:s
influent.:;e .. theJr
.va:l,!]e
-- . . .
-.-...
.
-.
·-~-..:-·.--.--•-·
the differences between men and women in
relationship values is definitative and stable, whether or not a
----«>.~--~-------~'-·
breakup is experienced:
women value
Frien~~tl~l?"}Il()re
in a
relationship, while men value Sexual Freedom more in a relationship.
·~.>.',,·=.·--~~'--·"•F•"•'"'-
•"•''"'=-·c>•
-
•" • ; ·'·<•
··~-··v
•
Looking initially at breakup experience, the results show no
difference in values between people who have and have not experienced a
breakup. This contrasts with Rubin's (1969) findings that less
experience is linked to more romantic attitudes towards relationships.
This lack of significance might be explained in two
r~8:YS:
either the
variable was not measured well, or breakups are n()rmative to the point
that there is no difference between then.
Extraneous variables, such
as current relationship satisfaction, may account for some error.
On
the other hand, as Hill et al. (1976) imply, breakups are a normal and
expected part of the dating scene, hence the implications of
experiencing a breakup are not great enough to actually change
relationship values.
Yet, the way in which they cognitively process
the ending of the relationship will ultimately affect their values.
As one cognitive process influences the other, the perceptiQn of the
breakup and feelings about the breakup influence attitude toward
succeeding relationships.
As to how these perceptions and feelings
change values, it is understood that coping mechanisms, as a result of
cognitive dissonance, are at work: that of having conflicting
at~itudes
or conflicting actitudes and behaviors.
The\/cognitive
;;.,_,.--,.
~
dissonance theoryj(Festinger,
1957) states that action is taken to
..
~
reduce the cognitive discomfort due to the clash of attitudes, beliefs
or behaviors.
Hence, attitude and values towards relationships will
18
be influenced by
·-·"·
•
•-
,·.~ -~·
•
-'
-<
• - . • • ••
th~
feelings
and thoughts generated
by the loss of an
., ·...... -,;. .. _,.
. , •. •"'··-· ·· ·.· ·. "·.· · · ." · ,
.,.
v •.. ~~ ..·.·'t•-'•·o···'- .• -~.<·
~~-·
~···
-'O'
__ . , •• ; · -
_-,v_,.,.,.,,, .· ., •
·_
.
.
intimate relationship.
Ar. important influence on relat::i_cmship
value
orientation was the
_.,,o·.... • .,, . ·'·' .·.: •-,
• ..•,.
•
:<-'."• •.
.,.-,,~
-->'
~ ."~
perception of who initiated the previous breakup.
,.,.----~-~~-~----~-----~~~~ .....,..
.._. ::;:.:.::::::~.::~:.""
·~"- -·---~' ""'""' ·~-'"' ..
Interestingly,
~ ... ,_ ·-
those who perceived themselves as primarily responsible
foJ; t h.e
.. -..
.
... -·,
the
relati~nsh:i_p
--~---
en~t
.
.of
.
va).Jlf:!g trust significantly less than those who
perceived the other party or both parties equally as responsible.
This minimizing of trust may reflect the initiator's cognitive
dissonance which occurred because of the desire: to break away
necessitating the betrayal of one's partner.
between valuing trust in a
relationshi~
The inconsistency
and breaking up a relationship
causes too much internal conflict, resulting in justification of the
behavior (breakup] by minimizing the value [trust].
Surpdsingly, a pe.r:son
~q.o J:>gliev~d
that the othe:r party _was
responsible. or mostly responsible fQ.I .. the end... oLthe
reacted by desiring
. -~---'~»'_,,.--.. .•.. --~·~,~_,._._______ -
·-
moreS~x:tt(l~
- , •. ,-.
freedom •
relatiQt1.s);l~p,
The reaction may reflect a
cognitive coping mechanism by which the person is attempting to 1)
-.
·····-·--'
regain a sense of control within their interpersonal life, 2) prove
that they can survive without them, 3) completely flush them out of
their thou,ghts, 4) get attention and rebuild their self-esteem, S)
seek r.:venge or any combination of the above.
Feelings or thoughts about a previous
,.P
c<?_gl1~tiye _p:ro~ess
'·"
····~·
bre§:.~HP.,,i:~,
•••,~.-.-. ~., ,_,__,,_,., ••..,,,..,. • .,... " ' ~,-.',
•
- •
•
•
-
a second
•
that influence<i 3:t.titucies tow<:l_rci. relationships. As
expected, those '.Yho reported having no feelings about the previous
breakup displayed a greater val t:.e of Sexual Freedom.
Unlike the non-
initiators of breakups, this lack of feelings may indicate a general
'
I
19
lack of emotional attachment to partners even before the breakup.
Their pattern may be to pursue more self-serving and sexual gratifying
relationships without emotional intimacy or commitment.
The people who expressed
.,..__. ... <•• ,.
-
..,~ ~
'
., . · , · · - -
f.~~J:i,ngs,
••
P.f.. J\:Q.g. ~Ec and, Despair reflected
-
'
• • ~-,f,<";·.,--.-··-
.
.-,-•• ,, .•_:,_,;,;~.---·;·_"-
similar cognitive processes to that of the non-initiator of the
breakup: valuing Sexual Freedom.
correlation wa,s foJJp,d
····~-~---·
l?~t:ween
This is not surprising since a
people who did .-.-.-.'
not initiate the breakup
-~--·_,
and the feeling of Anger about the breakup (Pittman & Cochran, 1987).
In a parallel fashion, valuing Sexual Freedom allows the person \oiho is
experiencing angry and hopeless feelings to protect themselves against
getting hurt again by maintaining emotional distance and avoiding
vulnerability to others.
Another important connection was made between the feelings of
blaming the self for demise of relationship and the value of
Commitment. The correlation found between those who blame themselves,
(especially the female subjects), and Commitment supported the
hypothesis that people with low self-esteem will display a lack of
self-confidence regarding their future relationships.
Their value of
Commitment represents a need for security within a relationship as
they do not trust themselves to be a desirable or successful partner
in a close relationship.
The\ second m<;ijOL findii~g in this st udy;'jwas the gender differ,~nces
in relationshi? values.
The current study's results support previOlJ.S
research by Cochran and Peplau (1985) and Hill et al. (1976).
For all
subjects and for those who experienced a breakup, women scored higher
than ::nen in the Friendship value and men b.igher in the Sexual Freedom
value.
6
The Friendship value includes statements that desire a sharing
20
of tasks and expenses, a career and social life outside of
relationship, as well as emotional and sexual intimacy, which is
similar to Cochran and Peplau's (1985) egalitarian autonomy value.
The reaults support Cochran and Peplau's (1985) findings that women
scored higher than men in the egalitarian autonomy value.
The
Friendship value, being a more comprehensive relationship value,
partially supports Hill et al.'s (1976) assertion that women are more
aware of relationship dynamics and respond rationally toward
relationship breakups.
Men appear more narrow in their own desires of
ry'<:~·>/,·,·,.
a relationship. In the uni-dimensional and somewhat hedonistic value
of Sexual Freedom, one can easily lose sight of the dynamics within an
interpersonal relationship.
Despite the advances of the feminist movement, women are still
basically alone in the emphasis of the emotional and cooperative
aspects of relationships.
As women are striving for economic
independence and equality within their relationship, men, content with
their economic status, continue to pursue the pleasures of their heart
and body.
As Cochran and Peplau (1985) discussed, men might be less
sensitive to egalitarian needs because they may not have experienced
as much inequality in their lives in order to empathize.
Limitations
One of the~~ain limitations of this study/includes the la.cl<-.of
•"·"··--,.,j
theoretical bases by which hypotheses could be drawn and the limited
amount of previous
research in the area
of premarital breakups.
.
----·
..
~
··-
--~-··
~
can speculate that the lack of research may be due to the lack of
importance placed on premarital relations as compared to marital
One
21
relations, or perhaps the only recent growing importance of premartial
relations as a result of later marriages.
Whatever the case, the
results of this study have exposed important relationships between
breakup factors and relationship values.
These relationships add to
overall goals of relationship research which in its recent emergence
has attempted to provide description, causal analysis and theoretical
building in the field of close relationships (Kelley, et al., 1983;
Peplau & Cochran, 1987).
Yet, additional research, must be done to
enhance relationship theory in the area of premarital couples. Future
research design may need modification in order to determine more
certain causality, which leads to the second limitation.
Since the study was using a correlational design, direction of
causality is unclear.
The question still remains: do feelings about a
breakup change the relationship values or do values influence the way
people respond to breakups?
One
way to determine causality would be
.....
---~
to use a
p_:r:~test/posttestdesign
Hill et al. (1976) had done.
·-~·-·-
before and after the relationship, as
However, simply put, thoughts or
feelings of Anger and Despair would not seem to be the way a person
responds to a breakup if their primary value is Sexual Freedom, as it
is seen in this study.
~~v--.....
Uncontrolled or extraneous variables.is a third limitation to the
study.
·--
'
"~·"'·-~- '
.
Although the questionnaires were quite comprehensive, the
addition of certain variables would have been helpful in exploring the
effects of breakups and relationship values.
Variables such as the
quality, satisfaction, length of the former relationship and number of
additional breakups experienced might have given a better
understanding of the effects breakups had on the values that followed.
22
Finally, the issue of generalizability is a concern with this
---~--,--
study.
···-···--
-~----~·'-"""~··--~
····'-'-'"· _,____ ,~ -,
:•"• .- •• :.• - - _._, v
First, the participants, college students, could have
biased the results in a way that make them fallacious for non-college
students, especially with the female subjects.
Since the female
subjects are clearly valuing egalitarian and autonomous aspects of a
relationship, one still wonders how deep the women's movement has
penetrated the non-college educated society.
Such a study might be
beneficial if done in a non-collegiate/non-profession environment to
find distinctions on this level.
The age factor of the sample may have also affected
generalizability, especially when comparing men and women's values.
It would be reasonable to expect that the relationship values of a
thirty year old man might be more commitment oriented as opposed to
his relatively sexually focused eighteen to twenty-two year old
counterpart.
The same could be said for women.
A single woman of
thirty or more may also have developed different relationship values
based on her life choices or life frustrations.
In addition, the question of generalizability to married couples
remaing.
Hill et al. (1976) devoted some of their discussion
comparing breakups of relationships before and after marriage.
Similarities were found both in the area of perception of the
relationship: who was less satisfied in the relationship and who
precipitated the separation, as well as the area of sexual differences
of emotional aftermath.
Nevertheless, with the growing number of
later marriages and the ever increasing number of cohabiting couples,
the importance of non-marital relationship research is increasing.
23
Issues of satisfaction, expectations and compatibility would be
relevant in non-married couples, and worth more extensive research.
Clinical Implications
One of the initial questions at the outset of this study was
whether the breakup phenomenon was a normal, even essential stage that
people must go through as part of the preparation for long term
colillllitments, or is it an indication of pathological or abnormal
behavior that needs therapeutic intervention?
Rath~s
(1987)
delineates six general criterion used to determine whether behavior is
likely to be abnormal.
--~,<-·-c~¥~~·.·.~
Those criterion include 1) infrequent
.- .• ,,
behavior, 2) socially unacceptable behavior, 3) faulty perception of
reality, 4) personal distress, 5) self-defeating behavior and 6)
dangerous behavior.
Since over 2/3 of the sample (198/392) had
experienced a relationship breakup, it probably would not be
considered
11
infrequent" or "socially unacceptable" behavior.
However,
personal distress, which may not be visible to others, may, indeed, be
the reason for a person to seek counseling after experiencing a
breakup. Of course, personal distress can ultimately lead to selfdefeating (eg. alcoholism, drug addiction) and dangerous behavior (eg.
suicide, homicide), and psychotherapy groups have been established to
deal specifically with the issue of losing a loved one.
Since personal distress is an internal phenomenon, cognitive
processes are at work.
Distress comes from the way an individual
perceives the event or situation.
Pittman and Cochran (1987), using a
cognitive-behavioral approach, revealed the strong correlation between
the amount of emotional distress experienced and the thoughts or
feelings about a breakup.
Since the cognitions: beliefs and
24
attitudes, are what usually guide a person into certain behaviors, it
behooves the clinician to become aware of value responses to breakup
experience and the behavioral implications of the value orientations.
As
disct~sed
above, individuals who experienced feelings of anger
and despair after having survived a breakup tended to value sexually
free behavior.
promiscuity.
Such behavior may include acute or chronic sexual
Whether it is a healthy coping mechanism by which one
can overcome the hurt, or a means to take revenge, clinicians should
take measures to educate clients of the deadly threats of AIDS, as
well as other venereal diseases when a breakup has occurred.
On a
more dynamic level, people, especially women, who blame themselves for
the breakup tended to seek out commitment in their next relationship.
The danger, of course, is that she might rush into a relationship that
is unsuitable in many other ways and ultimately set herself up for
failure again, thus perpetuating the worthless image she has drawn for
herself.
Usually at least one person suffers when a· breakup occurs (mutual
breakups are still rare, only 42/293
= 14.3% reported in the current
study), and there can be some strong negative effects as a result of
the breakup.
The seemingly narcissistic value of Sexual Freedom
reflects increasing alienation and could increase a ".!?ense of
detachm,E!:qt. In its extreme form, breakups might create a phenomenon
where individuals are unable to adapt and grow within the framework of
a stable relationship, marriage included.
On the other hand, some positive effects of breakups might be
increased personal individuation, where the identity of one person is
25
not wrapped around or fused to another.
People will begin to look
inward for strength and fulfillment, rather than depending on external
sources of strength.
Breakups, as Hill et al. (1976) support, also
work as a natural filtering process by which mate-selection is
refined.
With all the benefits, breaking up is still hard to do.
Hill et
al. (1976) write, "the [mate-selections] process is probably more
complicated than suggested by fixed-sequence filter theory" (p.165-6).
They report two particular situations that make it difficult for
dating couples to separate when they ought to "[lacking an]
appropriate facilitating factors (e.g. external excuses)" and
"withdrawing from a relationship in which their commitment is not
reciprocated" (p. 166).
Hill et al., (1976) suggest that couples
should create their own times for re-evaluating and redefining their
relationship.
On such an occasion the couple can come to a mutual
decision to stay together or breakup. Hill et al. (1976) found that
their study worked as a catalyst for people to re-evaluate their own
relationship.
Ridley et al. (1982) through the Guerney Relationship
Enhancement program attempted to increase self-disclosure and empathy
{vith dating couples.
The program does not claim to ensure a
successful long-term relationship, though it does create an
environment by which role fit and need fulfillment can be assessed and
whereby a dating couple can make mutual decisions about their
relationship in a warm and empathetic environment.
'
~
Table 1
Relationship Value Orientation Subscales
Items
Friendship
Working together on tasks
rather than dividing
them between you.
.60
Each of you being able
to have your own career. .57
Being able to laugh and
joke easily with each
other.
.53
Trying new sexual
activities or techniques
with your boy I girlfriend. • 50
Having major interests
of your own outside the
relationship.
.48
Having a supportive group
of friends besides your
boy/girlfriend.
.48
Each of you having the
same amount of power in
the relationship.
.45
Being able to talk about
your most intimate
feelings.
.43
Sexual compatibility
(a good sexlife).
.40
Having similar attitudes
about women's issues.
.35
Sharing financial
responsibilities equally •• 33
Factor Loadings
Commit- Tradiment
tional Trust
Sexual
Freedom
.18
.04
.11
-.08
.05
-.12
.08
-.03
.04
.11
.29
-.14
.02
-.03
.12
.29
-.30
.13
.10
-.05
-.27
.18
.22
-.12
.20
-.11
.05
-.13
.09
-.02
.36
-.29
.12
.13
.18
.21
.12
.20
.02
.01
.04
.06
.01
.20
Note. N = 293~ Factors extracted by the principal axis factor
method and rotated by varimax procedure.
See Table l (continued)
t~
25
27
Table 1 (continued)
Relationship Value Orientation Subscales
Items
Spending as much time
together as possible.
Knowing the relationship
will last.
Sharing many activities
with each other.
Enjoying your relationship
now without insisting on
a future commitment.
Friendship
Being able to have sex
with people others.
Living together.
Sexual monogamy
Having more to say in
relationship decisions.
Sexual
Freedom
.19
.65
.19
.11
-.04
.06
.57
.19
.18
-.09
.38
.54
.13
.10
-.01
.28
-.33
.05
-.03
.09
Raving the same degree of
religious/spiritual
involvement or
commitment.
-.08
Having certain duties
in the relationship that
are exclusively yours.
.07
You and your partner
having similar political
attitudes.
-.01
Having similar interests. .30
Having similar attitudes
about responsibilities
and duties toward parents,
relatives and friends.
.22
Knowing that you can
depend on partner.
Knowing that your
partner depends on you.
Factor Loadings
Commit- Tradiment
tional Trust
.12
.58
.05
• 20
.04
.54
.12
.23
.05
.07
.• 53
.44
-.13
.22
.14
-.06
.12
.42
.11
.18
.27
.13
.04
~76
.12
.15
.18
.10
• 72
.03
-.06
-.24
.21
.29
.OS
.20
.08
-.05
.09
.12
.07
.15
.62
.50
--:47
-.20
.OS
.38
-.04
.42
Note. ' N = 293. Factors extracted by the principal axis factor
method arid rotated by va;:imax procedure.
28
Table 2
Reactions to Breakups Subscales
Items
How could (s)he do this to me.
(S)he was stupid to do this to me.
(S)he really let me down.
This shouldn't have happened to me.
One day (s)he'll realize (s)he
was wrong to leave me.
How can I get even.
I won't risk being hurt again.
Why didn't i see it coming.
Factor Loadings
RationalAnger ization
Despair
.78
.76
.68
.67
-.10
.11
-.02
.01
SelfBlame
.16
.01
.OS
.02
.01
.31
.10
.07
.63
.59
.45
.44
-.06
• 29
.08
.02
.02
.03
.13
.01
.21
.12
.35
.14
It's a relief to have it over with. .04
It's really for the best that we
broke up.
-.18
Why did I hang in there so long.
.19
I shouldn't have gotten involved
with him in the first place.
.42
It was inevitable that we were
going to breakup.
-.08
.77
-.17
.01
.59
.52
-.14
.06
-.08
-.05
.52
.10
-.07
.45
.10
.11
-.21
.83
.OS
.01
.30
-.08
.13
.61
.46
.36
.40
.29
.14
.23
.05
.08
.69
.15
.14
-.06
.64
.64
.45
.23
I'll never meet another person as
good as him.
-.12
I'll feel awful about this breakup
forever.
.15
I should have prevented this.
.18
Maybe the breakup is only temporary. .11
I'm getting what I deserve.
.06
What if it happens again.
How can I trust myself in
future relationships.
I'd destroy any relationship.
Something is wrong with me.
I could have handled things
differently.
.os
-.18
.19
.06
.13
.18
.13
.16
-.17
Note.( N = 132. ~~Factors extracted by the principal axis factor
method-ai'id r~)tated by the varimax procedure.
.20
.04
29
Table 3
Gender Differences in Relationship Value Orientation for Total Sample
Women
(n=130}
Men
~n=161)
Mean
(S.D.)
Mean
Friendship
73.47
(8.08)
69.37
(7.38)***
Commitment
23.88
(8.03)
22.38
(7 .31)
Similar
Traditional Values
65.49
(8.08)
65.59
(7 .59)
Trust
33.14
(7.41)
31.65
(7 .50)*
Sexual Freedom
31.47
(6.47)
34.78
(7.44)***
Relationshi~
*p
***p
< .05
< .001
(S.D)
Values
30
Table 4
Gender Differences in Relationship Value Orientation among Subjects
Who Have Experienced a Breakup
Women
(n=93)
Hen
(~=105)
Mean
(S.D.)
Mean
(S.D)
Friendship
73958
(7.74)
69.70
(7.41)***
Commitment
23.79
(8.59)
21.30
(7 .63)*
Similar
Traditional Values
66.08
(7 .81)
65.86
(7 .43)
Trust
33.05
(7 .52)
31.36
(7 .80)
Sexual Freedom
31.36
(6.66)
35.55
(7. 21 )***
Relationshi£ Values
*p
***p
<
.05
< .001
31
Table 5
Mean Scores on Relationship Value Orientation Subscales as a
Function of Breakup Initiation
Group _!
non-initiator
Group ~
initiator
(n=67)
(n=89)
Group 2_*
mutual
(n=42)
Mean
(S.D.)
He an
(S.D.)
Mean
(S.D.)
Friendship
71. 50
( 8 • 00)
70.88
(7.54)
72.91
(8.06)
Commitment
23.43
(8.19)
22.39
(7 .96)
21.14
(8.56)
Similar
Traditional
Values
65.92
(6.76)
65.61
(8.16)
66.78
(7.72)
Trust
33.12
(7.75)a
30.54
(7.50~c
34.02
(7.50)ad
Sexual
Freedom
34.92
(7.05)a
32.39
(6.87)b
33.96
(8.09)ab
Relationship
Values
*Group 1 = subjects reporting they did not initiate breakup
Group 2 = subjects reporting they initiated breakup
Group 3 = subjects reporting both parties agreed to breakup
Note: Different letter subscripts indicate groups that are
significantly different, as determined by post-hoc
Scheffe tests.
0C<
32
Table 6
Mean Score on Relationship Value Orientation Subscales as a Function
of Presence of Feelings towards Last Breakup Experience
Feelings
Absent
(n=60}:"'"
Present
(~=137)
(S.D.)
Mean
Friendship
71.38
(7.89)
71.62
(7. 79)
Commitment
23.05
(7 .99)
22.22
(8.29)
Similar
Traditional Values
65.74
(7. 78)
66.08
(7 .56)
Trust
32.56
( 7.05)
31.93
(7 .99)
Sexual Freedom
35.22
(7 .28)
32.87
(7 .18)*
*.E.
\}
i
Mean
Relationshi~
'
;.-:
< .05
(S.D)
Values
33
Table 7
Pearson Correlations Between Feelings About Breakups and Relationship
Value Orientation: Overall and by Gender
Anger
Relationshi~
Rationalization
Despair
SelfBlame
Values
Friendship
.05
.04
-.18*
-.06
Women
.02
.12
-.22*
-.17
Men
.08
-.06
-.13
Commitment
.07
-.05
.01
.16*
Women
-.04
-.07
.01
.24*
.17
-.06
.02
.12
.08
.12
.01
.04
-.06
.17
-.18
.09
.21*
.07
.18
-.00
.13
.14
.06
-.02
Women
.01
.29*
-.00
.11
Men
.24*
.02
.12
-.13
Sexual Freedom
.25**
.06
.16*
-.00
Women
.28*
.12
.10
.15
Men
.25*
406
.18
-.16
Men
Similar Traditional Values
Women
Men
Trust
*p
**p
< .05
< .01
.07
References
Berman, W., & Turk, D. (1981). Adaptation to divorce: problems and
coping strategies.
Journal~
Marriage and the Family,
~'
179-183.
Bloom, B. L., White, S. W., & Asher S. J. (1979). Marital disruption
as a stressful life event. In B. Levinger & o.
c.
Moles (Eds.),
Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes and Consequences (pp.
184-200). Basic Books. New York.
Brown, P., Felton, B., Whiteman, V., & Manela, R. (1980). Attachment
and distress following martial separation. Journal
~Divorce,
l•
303-317.
Cochran, S.D., & Peplau, L.A. (1985). Value orientations in
heterosexual relationships.
Psychology~
Women Quarterly,
~.
477-488.
Cochran,
s.
D., & Peplau, L.A. (1987). [Dating Relationships Survey].
Unpublished raw data.
Davidoff, I. F., & Schiller, M. S. (1983). The divorce workshop as
crisis intervention: A practice model.
Journal~
Divorce,
~(4),
37-54.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston,
IL:Row, Peterson.
Finlay, B., Starnes, C. E., & Alvarez, R. B. (1985). Recent changes in
sex-role ideology among divorced men and women: Some possible
causes and implications. Sex Roles,
Hill, C. T., Rubin,
z.,
~(5/6),
637-653.
& Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before
marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues,
32(1), 147-168.
34
35
Ibrahim, A. I. (1984). The process of divorce. Conciliation Courts
Review,
~(1),
81-87.
Kaslow, F; W. (1984). Divorce: An evolutionary process of change in
the family system. Journal
2i Divorce,
l(3), 21-39.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston,
T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson,
D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York:
w.
H. Feeman.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Bantam. New York.
Kurdek, L.A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Early development of
relationship quality in heterosexual married, heterosexual
cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples. Developmental Psychology,
~(3)'
Newman,
305-309.
a., & Langer, E. (1981). Post-divorce adaptation and the
attribution of responsibility. Sex Roles,l, 223-232.
Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1981). Value orientations in the
intimate relationships of gay men.
Journal~
Homosexuality,
6(3)' 1-19.
Peplau, L.A., & Cochran, S. D. (in press). A relationship perspective
on homosexuality. In D. T. McWhorter, S. A. Sanders, & J. B. N.
Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexual and heterosexual: The Kinsey scale.
New York: Oxford Press.
Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S. D., Rook, K.,
&
Padesky, C. ( 1978). Loving
Women: Attc.chment and autonomy in lesbian relationships .Journal
of Social Issues, 34(3), 7-27.
Pittman, A., & Cochran,
of~ lo~
s.
D. (1987, April). Reactions to. the breakup
relationship. Paper presented at the meeting of the
36
Western Psychological Association, Long Beach, CA.
Rathis, S. A. (1987). Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Raush, H. L. (1977). Orientations to close relationships. In G.
Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationship: Perspectives
on the meaning
~intimacy.
Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Ridley, C. A., Jorgensen, S. R., Morgan, A. G., & Avery, A. W. (1982).
Relationship enhancement with premartial couples: An assessment
of effects of relationship quality. The American Journal of
Family Therapy,
~(3).
41-49.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social
psychology. Holt. New York.
Rubin,
z.
Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex
differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles,
l•
821-835.
Spanier, G., & Lachman, M. (1980). Factors associated with adjustment
to marital separation. Sociological Focus,
ll•
369-381.
Appendix A
STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
1.
Check all questionnaires before handing them out to be certain
they are complete.
2.
At the start of the session, pass out the questionnaires.
3.
Read the following statement:
You must be 18 years or older to participate in this survey.
if you are under 18 please tell me now. Please read the
instructions on the first page before you begin. Do not put
your name on the questionnaire. I will sign your cards and
leave them next to the box for you to pick up as you finish.
Many of the question which you are asked in this questionnaire
are personal and of a sensitive nature. You do not need to
answer any or all of the questions on the questionnaire should
you choose not to. Should you find along the way that you do
not wish to continue, you may stop altogether at any time
without penalty.
Let me reassure you that all of your responses are
confidential. There is no way that I or any of the other
people involved in this project can match identity with your
answers.
When you have finished please put your completed questionnaire
in the box. Then read a brief statement about the purpose of
the study which is here next to the box. Also, please
remember to take your cards as you leave.
4.
If anyone is under 18, excuse them from the experiment.
5.
Sign everyone's card and place it next to the box.
6.
Put the debriefing statement next to the box.
' 0
37
38
Appendix B
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF WOMEN'S/MEN'S RELATIONSHIPS
This questionnaire asks questions about your friendships and
intimate relationships. The information you provide is very
important. It will help us to gain an accurate picture of
women/men's relationships today.
Please answer the questions fully and honestly. Some of the
questions may seem personal. They are i~portant to help us
understand the intimate behaviors of women/men in relationships.
However, if there are any questions which you do not wish to
answer, feel free to omit them. Please answer each question as
well as you can and try not to skip any.
Your answers are COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS.
name on the questionnaire.
Please do not put your
This research if being conducted under the supervision of
Prof. Susan Cochran, department of Psychology, CSUN, in conjunction
with Prof. L. Anne Peplau, Department of Psychology, UCLA. Should
you have any questions about this research or how these
questionnaires are administered, please contact Dr. Cochran by
phone (885-3868 or 885-2827) or during her office hours, MWF 10-11.
Her office is Sierra Tower 314.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
39
Appendix C
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The study you have just participated in is exploring several
factors in the close relationships of men and women, including your
personal values, your feelings about relationships, being alone,
and yourself, and your sexual behavior and attitudes.
Through your answers we hope to answer important questions
about why men and women fall in love, how they negotiate their
intimate relationships with each other, and what are some of the
reasons why people experience loneliness. We are also interested
in understanding the impact of current concerns that people may
have about sexually transmitted diseases and sexual behavior.
Thank you very much for your assistance on this project •
.
"