Journal of Personalityand Social Psycholo$y Copyright 1987 by the American PsycholosicalAssociation, inc.

1987, Vo/.53, No. 4, 683-692 0022-3514/87/$00.75

The Dissolution of Romantic Relationships: Factors Involved in

Relationship Stability and Emotional Distress
Jeffry A. Simpson
Texas A&M University

This investigation was designed to examine factors involved in the stability of premarital romantic
relationships and the extent of emotional distress experienced following their dissolution. During
the fall of 1985, a large sample of individuals involved in ongoing dating relationships completed an
extensive questionnaire survey. The survey assessed 10 factors: satisfaction with the current partner,
closeness of the relationship, duration of the relationship, sexual nature of the relationship, the
quality of the best actual and imagined alternative dating partner(s), the ease with which a suitable
alternative partner could be found, exclusivity of the relationship, self-monitoring propensity, and
orientation to sexual relations Approximately 3 months later, all individuals were recontacted to
determine whether they were still dating the same partner and if not, how much emotional distress
they experienced following relationship dissolution. Analyses revealed that at a univariate level, all
10 factors successfully forecasted relationship stability. Three of the 10 factors---closeness, duration,
and ease of finding an alternative partner--reliably and independently predicted the intensity and
duration of emotional distress. Specifically,individuals who were close to their former partner, who
had dated the former partner for a long time, and who believed they could not easily acquire a
desirable alternative tended to experience more pronounced distress following dissolution. These
results are discussed in terms of the investment model and recent theorizing on emotion in rela-
tionships.

Few experiences in life are capable of producing more emo- been cross-sectional in design, has examined trajectories of dis-
tional distress, anguish, and suffering than is the dissolution o f engagement (e.g., Baxter, 1984), stages o f dissolution (e.g., Lee,
an important relationship. Indeed, the loss o f a significant part- 1984), and the impact of rewards, costs, investments, and alter-
ner can be one of the most, if not the most, distressing and trau- native partners on commitment in dating relationships (e.g.,
matic experiences that life has to offer (Bowlby, 1980; Holmes Rusbult, 1980). Much o f this research, however, is based on ret-
& Rahe, 1967). Given the important role that relationship dis- rospective accounts o f the events that preceded relationship ter-
solution plays in the lives of most individuals, surprisingly little mination. Because such accounts are susceptible to distortions
research has examined relationship dissolution and in particu- in the interpretation of and memory for past events (cf. Duck,
lar the factors that precipitate it (Berscheid, 1985; Huston & 1981), the results of cross-sectional research must be inter-
Levinger, 1978; Moles & Levinger, 1976; Norton & Glick, preted with caution.
1976). Longitudinal research circumvents many of these problems.
Past studies typically have focused on the dissolution of marl- Unfortunately, only a few longitudinal studies have examined
ted relationships (see Newcomb & Bentler, 1981, for a review). the factors that forecast the demise of premarital relationships.
Relatively few have examined the breakdown of premarital Burgess and Wallin (1953), in an extensive study o f premarital
ones. Research on premarital relationships, most o f which has courtships, identified five factors associated with relationship
dissolution: slight attachment to the partner, prolonged separa-
tion from the partner, parental opposition to the relationship,
This research was supported by a University of Minnesota Doctoral cultural differences between the partners, and personality
Dissertation Fellowship and is based on a dissertation submitted to the difficulties. Hill, Rubin, & Peplau (1976) found that premarital
Graduate School at the University of Minnesota. I would like to thank relationships characterized by little intimacy, unequal involve-
the members of my final oral committee--Ellen Berscheid, Mark Sny- ment, and large discrepancies in partners' age, educational aspi-
der, Eugene Borgida, Paul Rosenblatt, and James Terwilliger--fortheir rations, intelligence, and physical attractiveness were particu-
helpful comments and suggestions. I also would like to thank Harry larly vulnerable to dissolution. And Rusbult (1983) has demon-
Reis and four anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. Finally, strated that relationships characterized by increases over time
I would like to thank the telephone interviewers---C'ynthia A. Simpson, in rewards, satisfaction, investment size, and commitment and
Kerry O'Brien, and Paula Sport--who devoted countless hours during by decreases in quality of alternatives are less susceptible to dis-
the follow-up data collection phase.
Portions ofthis article were presented at the August 1987 convention solution.
of the American Psychological Association, New York. Moreover, few if any longitudinal studies have examined the
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffry factors that forecast the extent o f emotional distress that indi-
A. Simpson, Department of Psychology,Texas A&M University, College viduals experience when a relationship ends. Despite this pau-
Station, Texas 77843. city of research, several investigators adopting different theoret-
683
684 JEFFRY A. SIMPSON

ical orientations have hypothesized that certain factors internal lationship stability (Burgess & Wallin, 1953). The occurrence
to a relationship, certain factors external to a relationship, and of sex is likely to intensify partners' obligation and commitment
certain individual difference factors ought to predict relation- to the relationship. Accordingly, relationghips that are sexual in
ship stability and emotional distress. nature should be less susceptible to dissolution.
Such relationships also might be characterized by strong
Factors Internal to a Relationship emotional distress following dissolution (D'Augelli & D'Augelli,
1979). Oftentimes, sex is an expression of and a means of build-
On the basis of interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, ing strong emotional intimacy in a relationship (see D'Angelli
1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), Levinger (1965, 1976, 1979) & D'Augelli, 1979; Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977). Individuals
has suggested that attraction to (i.e., satisfaction with) a rela- who have engaged in sex with their partners are likely to be
tionship might be one determinant of relationship stability. The highly emotionally invested in their relationships. Therefore,
attractiveness of a relationship is determined by the compari- the dissolution of sexual relationships may generate intense
son level, a standard that individuals use to evaluate the rewards emotional distress.
and costs of a relationship in terms of what they believe they In sum, relationships characterized by high satisfaction, pro-
deserve. Relationships that provide many rewards and few costs nounced closeness, long duration, and the occurrence of sex are
produce outcomes above the comparison level and therefore hypothesized to be less susceptible to dissolution and more vul-
ought to be satisfying and attractive. As a result, individuals nerable to emotional distress.
who are satisfied with their current relationship should be more
likely to remain in it over time. Factors External to a Relationship
Such individuals also might experience strong emotional dis-
tress following dissolution (Parkes, 1972; Parkes & Weiss, 1983; On the basis of interdependence theory, Levinger (1965,
Weiss, 1975). Given their rewarding nature, satisfying relation- 1976, 1979) has suggested that the quality of an individual's
ships may produce emotional ties between partners. Thus, rela- best alternative dating partner might be another determinant of
tionships characterized by high satisfaction may be more vul- relationship stability. The standard that individuals use to de-
nerable to emotional distress after a breakup. cide whether to remain in a relationship is the comparison level
Furthermore, the extent to which one is close to (i.e., interde- for alternatives, the lowest level of outcomes an individual will
pendent on) the current partner should influence relationship accept in an existing relationship in light of available opportuni-
stability (Berscheid, 1983, 1986; Kelley et al., 1983). According ties. Because individuals are most likely to leave a relationship
to Kelley et al. (1983), close relationships are those in which when its outcomes fall below the comparison level for altema-
partners have frequent and strong impact on one another in di- fives (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and because individuals who
Verse kinds of activities across time. Because close relationships possess an attractive alternative are likely to have relatively high
are likely to be ones in which individuals are highly invested, standards for this level, the relationships of individuals who pos-
they ought to be less vulnerable to dissolution over time. sess desirable alternatives should be particularly vulnerable to
However, they should be more vulnerable to severe emotional dissolution.
distress after dissolution (Berscheid, 1983, 1986; Bowlby, 1979, Such individuals also may experience less distress following
1980; Spitz & Wolfe, 1946; Weiss, 1975). Individuals in close dissolution (Berscheid, 1986). Individuals who possess highly
relationships are likely to develop routine patterns of interac- desirable alternative partners are likely to have alternatives who
tion and to share important plans and goals with their partners. are more capable of facilitating interrupted routines and plans.
When a close relationship ends, many of these interaction pat- If this is so, they ought to experience less pronounced emotional
terns, plans, and goals no longer can be fulfilled. Berscheid distress following a breakup.
(1983) has argued that the interruption ofongoing activities and Past approaches to alternative relationships (e.g., interde-
plans represents a sufficient and possibly necessary condition pendence theory) have focused mainly on alternative partners
for the experience of strong emotion. Accordingly, the dissolu- who are currently available to an individual (see Thibaut & Kel-
tion of close relationships should produce particularly intense ley, 1959). By and large, they have not focused on imagined
emotional distress. alternatives, prospective partners who are not yet known but
Relationship duration also ought to prognosticate relation- who might be acquired in the future. Because many individuals
ship stability (Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Davis, 1973). Relation- may not always think about, be aware of, or know of specific
ships that have endured over time have survived the formative persons who could serve as alternative partners (of. Levinger,
and often unstable stages of relationship development. Long- 1979), the quality of an individual's best imagined alternative
term relationships, therefore, should be less vulnerable to disso- partner might serve as a better predictor of relationship stability
lution. and emotional distress than the quality of their best currently
They also should be a source of more intense distress follow- available one.
ing dissolution (Bowlby, 1979; Weiss, 1975). The extent to Past approaches also have not fully considered the ease with
which an individual is emotionally invested in a relationship is which individuals are able to find suitable alternative partners.
likely to depend on how long the relationship has existed (cf. The quality of an individual's best current or imagined alterna-
Kelley et al., 1983). If this is so, the dissolution of long-term tive should have an impact on relationship stability and emo-
relationships ought to generate particularly strong emotional tional distress only ff such partners can be easily acquired.
distress. Thus, the best predictor of relationship stability and distress
Moreover, the sexual nature of a relationship might affect re- might simply be the ease with which individual's believe they
 RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION 685

can or could find a satisfactory replacement for the current tion of emotional distress that follows dissolution? To answer
partner. these questions, a longitudinal investigation was conducted.
In addition, relationship exclusivity might forecast relation- During the fall of 1985, a large sample of individuals involved
ship stability. Individuals who are dating the current partner in ongoing heterosexual dating relationships completed an ex-
exclusively are likely to have fewer alternative partners. The ab- tensive questionnaire survey. The survey assessed each of the
sence of alternatives may be an indication of and may actually l0 factors just discussed. Approximately 3 months later, these
promote commitment to the current relationship (el. Levinger, individuals participated in a follow-up telephone survey, the
1979). Consequently, the relationships of individuals who are purpose o f which was twofold: (a) to determine whether partici-
dating the current partner exclusively should be less vulnerable pants were still dating the same partner and (b) if they were not,
to dissolution over time. to assess the intensity and duration of emotional distress that
Relationship exclusivity also might affect emotional distress. followed relationship termination.
Alternative partners often may be capable of facilitating inter-
rupted plans, goals, and behavioral routines. Because of their
Method
greater accessibility to alternatives, individuals who are dating
both the current partner and others may experience less inter- I n i t i a l D a t a Collection." P a r t i c i p a n t s a n d R e q u i r e m e n t s
ruption (and therefore less emotional distress) following rela- of Participation
tionship termination.
In sum, it is hypothesized that individuals who possess poor Two hundred thirty-four University of Minnesota undergraduates
actual and imagined alternatives, who believe they cannot find ( 126 women and 108 men) completed an extensive questionnaire survey
a suitable alternative easily, and who are dating the current part- for introductory psychology course credit. To participate in the project,
participants had to meet three requirements. First, they had to be dating
her exclusively should be involved in relationships less suscepti-
someone at the time of initial data collection; second, they could not be
ble to dissolution and more vulnerable to emotional distress. engaged; and third, they could not be married.

I n d i v i d u a l Difference F a c t o r s
M e a s u r e s (Predictor Variables)
Individuals high and low in self-monitoring are known to Satisfaction index. Participant's satisfaction with their current (or
adopt different orientations toward romantic relationships (see "most steady") dating partner was assessed by an index consisting of 11
Snyder & Simpson, 1987). Those high in self-monitoring (who items. For each of II attributes, participants indicated (on 7-point
are responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situational ap- scales, where ! = very unsatisfactors 7 = very satisfactory) the extent
propriateness) tend to adopt an uncommitted orientation to to which they were satisfied with their current dating partner. The i 1
dating relationships, whereas those low in self-monitoring attributes included financial resources, physical attractiveness, ability
(whose actions typically reflect their own attitudes and disposi- to provide emotional support, reliability/trustworthiness,similarity of
tions) tend to adopt a committed one (Snyder & Simpson, attitudes and values, ability to be kind and understanding, similarity of
activity interests, stability and pleasantness of personality, social status,
1984). Moreover, individuals low in self-monitoring tend to pos-
ability to be close and intimate, and sexual attractiveness. These 11
sess a restricted orientation to enga~ng in casual sexual re-
items were aggregated to form a single, more reliable index (Cronbach
lations, whereas individuals high in self-monitoring tend to pos- alpha = .85). Scores could range from 11 to 77. Higher scores indicated
sess an unrestricted one (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986). greater satisfaction.
Given their committed and restricted orientations to roman- Closeness Inventory. The closeness of each participant's current dat-
tic involvements, individuals low in self-monitoring should be ing relationship was assessed by the Closeness Inventory (Berscheid,
involved in relationships that are less susceptible to dissolution. Snyder, & Omoto, 1987), which measures the frequency, diversity, and
Furthermore, they may be more likely to develop strong and strength of impact that exists between partners in a relationship. It has
lasting emotional ties to.their partners. Accordingly, such indi- three components. The first, frequency of impact, assesses the amount
viduals may be more likely to experience strong emotional dis- of time each participant typically spends alone with his or her dating
tress following dissolution. partner each day. Participants indicated the total number of minutes
typicallyspent alone with the partner each day. They were then assigned
Even though self-monitoring propensity might predict rela-
a frequency-of-impact scale score that ranged from 1 to 10 (see Ber-
tionship dissolution and distress, it probably is not the strongest seheid et al., 1987). Higher scores indicated a greater amount of time.
and most direct predictor of these phenomena. Recently, Sny- The second component, diversity of impact, assesses the number of
der et al. (1986) have identified six behavioral and attitudinal different activities each participant had engaged in alone with the dating
indexes that, taken together, more directly tap propensity to partner during the preceding week. Participants indicated which of 38
adopt a restricted as opposed to an unrestricted orientation to activities they had engaged in. These activities were added to form an
sexual relations. Perhaps individual differences in orientation index of the total number of activities. Participants were then assigned
to sexual relations might predict dissolution and emotional dis- a diversity-of-impactscale score that ranged from 1 to 10 (see Berscheid

tress more strongly than self-monitoring propensity does. et al., 1987). Higher scores indicated a greater number of different activ-
ities.
In sum, individuals who are low in self-monitoring and who
The third component, strength of impact, assesses the extent to which
adopt a restricted orientation to sexual relations are hypothe-
each participant is influenced or affected by his or her dating partner.
sized to be involved in relationships less susceptible to dissolu- Participants first responded to 27 items that assessed the amount of
tion and more vulnerable to emotional distress. influence the dating partner has on various aspects of their lives. These
Which o f these 10 factors predict the stability of romantic 27 items were rated on 7-point scales where I = I strongly disagree (that
relationships? And which ones predict the intensity and dura- my partner influences me) and 7 = I strongly agree (that my partner
686 JEFFRY A. SIMPSON

influences me). They then answered 7 items that assessed the extent to Orientation to sexual relations index. Participants' orientation to
which the daring partner affects their future plans and goals. These 7 sexual relations was assessed by six indexes designed to tap aspects of
items were rated on 7-point scales, where 1 = not at all and 7 = a great their past sexual behavior, their anticipated (future) sexual behavior, and
extent. All 34 items were then aggregated to form a single index (Cron- their attitudes toward engaging in casual, uncommitted sexual relations
bach alpha = .88). Scores could range from 34 to 238. Participants were (see Snyder et al., 1986).
then assigned a strength-of-impact scale score that ranged from I to 10 Four of the indexes consisted of single behavioral items: (a) number
(see Berscheid et al., 1987). Higher scores indicated greater influence. of partners in the past y ~ . "With how many different partners have
Once participants had been assigned l-to-10 scale scores on each of you had sex within the past y ~ . " ; (b) number of partners foreseen:
the three components, their scores were aggregated to form a single "How many different partners do you foresee yonrself having sex with
Closeness Inventory score. Scores could range from 3 to 30. Higher during the next five yearsT'; (c) number of one-night stands: "With how
scores indicated a greater degree of closeness (i.e., greater frequency, many different partners have you had sex on one and only one occa-
diversity, and strength of impact). sion?" (coded I if one or more partners, 0 otherwise); and (d) frequency
Length of relationship. The length of participants' current dating of sexual fantasy with other partners: "How often do you fantasize
relationship was assessed by the item "How many months have you about having sex with someone other than your most steady daring part-
dated (your current partner)?" ner?" (responded to on an 8-point scale, where 1 = never and 8 = at
Sexual nature of relationship. The sexual nature of participants' cur- least once a day). The two remaining indexes consisted of aggregated
rent daring relationship was assessed by an item inquiring about attitudinal items: (e) attitudes toward sex without commitment index,
whether they had engaged in sexual intercourse with their current part- with two aggregated items (e.g., "For me, having sex with someone does
ner (coded I if yes, 0 if no). not necessarily imply that I am committed to that individual"; higher
Best alternative partner index. The quality of each participant's best scores indicated greater willingness to engage in sex without commit-
alternative daring partner was assessed on an index composed of 11 ment); and (f) attitudes toward casual sex index, with six aggregated
items. Participants first identified one person whom they knew who was items (e.g., "I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying ca-
the best realistic alternative to their current partner. For each of the 11 sual sex with different partners"; higher scores indicated greater antici-
attributes described previously, participants then indicated (on 7-point pated comfort with, enjoyment of, and willingness to en~a~e in casual
scales, where 1 = much less, 7 = much greater) the extent to which the sex). Participants responded to all attitude items on 9-point scales,
benefits associated with dating the best alternative would be greater or where 1 = strongly disagree and 9 = strongly agree. The full possible
less than those associated with dating the current partner. These 1 I range of the index of attitudes toward sex without commitment and the
items were then aggregated to form a single, more reliable index (Cron- index of attitudes toward casual sex was 2 to 18 and 6 to 54, respectively.
bach alpha = .84). Scores could range from 11 to 77. Higher scores Each index was internally consistent (Cronhach alphas = .76 and .92,
indicated that the benefits associated with dating the best alternative respectively).
were greater than those associated with daring the current partner. Each of the six indexes was standardized (through Z-score transfor-
marion) and then ~ t e d to form a single, composite index of partic-
Best imagined alternative partner index. The quality of each partici-
ipants' orientation to sexual relations. As anticipated, principal-compo-
pant's best imagined alternative daring partner was measured by an in-
nents factor analyses conducted separately on male and female partici-
dex composed of 11 items. Participants first were asked to imagine the
pants revealed that all six indexes loaded highly on the first unrotated
best possible alternative dating partner they could realistically acquire.
factor. High scores indicated the adoption of an unrestricted orientation
For each of the 11 attributes described previously, participants then in-
to sexual relations, and low scores indicated the adoption of a re-
dicated (on 7-point scales, where 1 = much less, 7 = much greater) the
stricted one.
degree to which the benefits associated with dating the best imagined
alternative would be greater or less than those associated with dating the
current partner. These I 1 items were then aggregated to form a single, Procedure
more reliable index (Cronbach alpha = .86). Scores could range from
I l to 77. Higher scores indicated that the benefits associated with daring Participants reported to a large room in groups of 25 to 75. Once
the best imagined alternative were greater than those associated with everyone arrived, the investigator described the questions on the survey,
dating the current partner. restated the requirements of participation, emphasized the importance
Ease of finding an alternative panner index. The ease with which of honest reslxmdinf, and guaranteed anonymity. At the conclusion of
participants believed they could find a suitable substitute for their cur- the session, participants were informed that in approximately 3 months
rent partner was assessed by an index composed of six items (e.g., "I everyone would be recontacted and asked to respond to a brief tele-
would have little trouble finding someone who could serve as an ade- phone survey.
quate replacement for my current dating partner"; reverse keying). Par-
ticipants responded to the six items on 7-point scales where 1 = I F o l l o w - U p D a t a Collection: P a r t i c i p a n t s a n d P r o c e d u r e
strongly agree and 7 = I strongly disagree. These items were then aggre-
gated to form a single, more reliable index (Cronbach alpha = .90). Approximately 3 months (93 to I00 days) after the questionnaire sur-
Scores could range from 6 to 42. Higher scores indicated a suitable alter- vey was admiuistered, an attempt was made to recontact all 234 partici-
native could be found more easily. pants by telephone. Two hundred twenty-two participants (94.87%)
Exclusivity of relationship. The exclusivity of participants' current were successfully reached.
daring relationship (i.e., whether they were dating one or more than one
partner) was assessed by the item "What is your current dating status:
M e a s u r e s (Criterion Variables}
daring one person (my current partner)/dating more than one person
(my current partner and others)?" Participants who were dating only The follow-up survey assessed two criterion variables: relationship
the current partner were coded 0, and those who were dating the current stability and intensity and duration of emotional distress.
partner and others were coded 1. Relationship stability. The stability of participants' daring relation-
Self-Monitoring Scale. Participants" self-monitoring propensity was ship was assessed by the following item: "When you completed the ques-
assessed by the 18-item version ofthe Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & tionnaire last quarter, we asked you to give us the initials of the person
Gangestad, 1986). you were daring at the time. You indicated that you were dating a person
 RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION 687

with the initials [dating partner's initials]. Are you still dating this per- were closer to the panner, F ( I , 218) = 27.70, p < .001; had
son?" Participants could respond either yes or no. All 222 individuals dated the partner for a longer period of time, F ( I , 218) = 32.53,
answered this question. p < .001; were more likely to have engaged in sex with the part-
Intensity and duration o f emotional distress index. Participants who
her, F ( I , 218) -- 23.48, p < .001; possessed less desirable best
no longer were dating the partner (N = 94) then responded to three
actual, F ( I , 218) = 18.77,p < .001, and imagined, F ( I , 218) =
items: "Immediately after the breakup, how difficult was it for you to
make an emotional adjustment?" "Immediately aRer the breakup oc- 22.82, p < .001, alternative partners; thought they could find a
curred, to what extent did it disrupt your typical, everyday functioning suitable alternative partner less easily, F ( I , 218) = 65.90, p <
and routine?," and "How upset were you immediately after the .001; were more likely to be dating the partner exclusively, F(1,
breakup?" Participants responded to these three items on 7-point scales 218) = 34.69, p < .001; tended to be low in self-monitoring,
where 1 = not at all and 7 = a great deal~extremely. They then re- F ( I , 218) = 3.60, p < .06; and tended to adopt a restricted orien-
sponded to three more items: "How long did it take you to make an tation to sexual relations, F ( I , 218) = 12.91, p < .001. I A sig-
emotional adjustment after the breakup?" "How long were you upset nificant effect for sex also emerged, F( 10, 209) = 5.63, p < .001.
after the breakup?" and "How long did the breakup disrupt your typi- This effect was mainly attributable to the tendency of m e n to
cal, everyday functioning and routineT' Participants responded to these
adopt an unrestricted, and women a restricted, orientation to
three items on 8-point scales where 1 = no time at all and 8 = more
sexual relations. There were no Sex • Dating Status interac-
than 2 months. All six items were then aggregated to form a single, more
reliable index (Cronbach alpha = .87). Scores could range from 6 to 45. tions (all Fs < 1.51, ns).
Higher scores indicated more intense and prolonged distress. As might be expected, the factors forecasting relationship sta-
Additional items. Participants also responded to three additional bility were moderately correlated. To control for the covariation
items: "When (during the 3-month period) did you stop dating this per- that exists between them, a forward multiple regression analysis
son?" "Who initiated the breakup: you, both you and your partner (mu- was performed. Relationship stability served as the criterion
tually), or your partner." and "Are you dating anyone at the present variable, and all 10 factors served as predictors. The results of
time?" this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Five of the 10 predictor variables continued to be associated
Results with relationship stability at significant or marginally signifi-
cant levels when the effects of the remaining nine variables were
Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample statistically controlled for (i.e., partialed out). Specifically, the
O n e h u n d r e d twenty-eight individuals were still dating the satisfaction index (t ffi 1.88, p < .07), the length o f the relation-
same partner at 3-month followup. The m e a n age o f these par- ship (t = 2.47, p < .02), the sexual nature of the relationship
ticipants was 19.81 years. Descriptive statistics on the 10 pre- (t = 3.60, p < .001), the exclusivity of the relationship (t =
dictor variables, presented separately for these m e n and women, - 3 . 5 3 , p < .001), and the index of orientation to sexual re-
are displayed in Table 1. lations (t = - 2 . 4 0 , p < .02) all continued to predict stability.2
Men and women reliably differed on only 1 o f the 10 predic- The remaining five predictors no longer predicted stability once
tor variables. Men, relative to women, tended to adopt a rather
unrestricted orientation to sexual relations, t(126) = 5.62, ' To determine whether any of the three components of the Closeness
p < .001. Inventory differed in their ability to predict relationship stability, the
Ninety-four individuals were n o longer dating the same part- full inventory and all three components were correlated with the rela-
ner at 3-month followup. The m e a n age of these participants tionship stability measure. The following correlations emerged: full
was 19.36 years. Descriptive statistics on the 10 predictor vari- Closeness Inventory (r = .35), strength component (r = .34), diversity
ables, presented separately for these m e n and women, also are component (r = .27), frequency component (r = . 18). Pair-wise analyses
displayed in Table 1. Once again, m e n and women differed reli- performed on these dependent component correlations (Cohen & Co-
ably on only 1 of the 10 variables. Men, relative to women, hen, 1975) revealed that the strength component accounted for signifi-
cantly more variance on the relationship stability measure than did the
tended to adopt an unrestricted orientation to sexual relations,
frequency component, t(220) = 2.12, p < .05. All other pair-wise analy-
t(92) = 3.67,p < .001. ses proved to be nonsignificant(all ts < 1.20).
To determine whether any of the three factors believed to underlie the
Relationship Stability Self-MonitoringScale (see Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980) differed in their
ability to predict relationship stability, the full scale and all three factors
Which of the 10 factors, if any, are associated with the stabil- were correlated with the relationship stability measure. Pair-wise analy-
ity of romantic relationships? To answer this question, a 2 ses performed on these dependent correlations indicated that no single
(sex) • 2 (dating status: still dating vs. no longer dating) multi- factor (e.g., sociability) accounted for significantly more variance on
variate analysis of variance involving all 10 factors was con- this measure than did any other factor (e.g., acting, other-directedness),
ducted. A highly significant overall effect for relationship stabil- all ts < 1.00, ns.
ity emerged, F( 10, 209) = 14.04, p < .0001. 2 Unlike zero-order correlations, the statistical significance of partial
Given this effect, a series of 2 (sex) • 2 (dating status: still correlations can be strongly affected by the number and nature of the
predictors included in or excluded from a regression equation (Cohen
dating vs. n o longer dating) univariate analyses of variance was
& Cohen, 1975). Because of this, partial correlations must be inter-
then performed on each of the factors. These analyses revealed
preted with caution, particularly when predictors show multicollinear-
reliable effects in the predicted direction for all 10 variables. In ity or the effects ofzero-order and partial correlations diverge. Although
particular, individuals who were still dating the same partner at multicollinearitydoes not appear to be a problem in this study, the sig-
3-month followup, relative to those who were not, were more nificance of zero-order and partial correlations do differ on some of the
satisfied with their relationship, F ( I , 218) = 18.77, p < .001; factors in the relationship stability analysis. Therefore less emphasis is
688 JEFFRY A. SIMPSON

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for the 10 Predictor Variables
Still dating No longer dating

Women Men Women Men

Predictor variable M SD M SD M SD M SD
Satisfaction index 9 66.28 6.79 64.60 7.74 60.12 9.30 58.10 7.27
Closeness Inventoryb 15.71 3.57 15.66 3.78 13.17 3.65 12.87 3.41
Length of relationship (months) 16.75 14.80 16.30 12.51 7.33 8.75 6.94 9.82
Best alternative partner indexr 40.22 9.86 40.47 8.55 47.31 10.21 47.36 10.12
Best imagined alternative partner indexn 51.16 7.22 50.51 6.08 55.62 8.19 55.81 8.36
Ease offinding an alternative partner
index e 15.12 7.45 14.98 6.59 21.98 8.21 24.35 7.66
Self-Monitoring Scale 9.85 3.62 10.15 3.59 10.45 3.43 11.21 3.17
Orientation to sexual relations index f -2.31 2.81 1.28 4.39 -.76 4.06 2.86 5.07
% dating only current partner 89.19 92.45 56.10 57.69
% who have had sex with current partner 77.33 86.79 51.22 51.92

Note. For those still dating, women (N = 75), men (N = 53); for those no kruger dating, women (N = 42), men (N = 52).
9 Possible range = 11 to 77. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. ~ Possible range = 3 to 30. Higher scores indicate greater closeness, c Possible
range = 11 to 77. Higher scores indicate the quality of the best alternative is relatively greater, d Possible range = 11 to 77. Higher scores indicate the
quality of the best imagined alternative is relatively greater, e Possible range = 6 to 42. Higher scores indicate that an alternative could be found with
greater ease. f Higher (positive) scores indicate the adoption of an unrestricted orientation to sexual relations, and lower (negative) scores the adoption
of a restrictedone.

the effects o f the other predictors were removed (all ts < 1.40, ported experiencing moderate levels o f distress (Ms = 23.69 and
ns). With all l0 predictors in the regression equation, 40% o f 24.36, respectively).
the variance in relationship stability was accounted for (R = There was, however, a single, unanticipated Orientation to
.64, R 2 = .40, adjusted R 2 = .37). Sexual Relations • Sex interaction. Women who possessed an
unrestricted orientation to sexual relations and m e n who pos-
Intensity and Duration o f Emotional Distress sessed a restricted one tended to experience more emotional
distress t h a n did m e n who possessed an unrestricted orienta-
Which of the 10 factors, if any, predict the intensity and dura- tion and women who possessed a restricted one, F ( I , 87) = 5.37,
tion of emotional distress? To address this question, a multiple p < .03. A closer examination of this interaction revealed that
regression analysis was first conducted with scores on the index this effect was attributable to the p r o n o u n c e d distress experi-
o f intensity and duration o f emotional distress serving as the enced by women who adopted a n unrestricted orientation to
criterion variable and all 10 factors serving as predictors. W h e n sexual relations. Indeed, a weighted contrast (Hays, 1981) re-
all 10 factors were entered into the regression equation, a highly
significant overall effect for regression emerged,/7(10, 79) =
3.08, p < .003.
3 To determine whether any of the three components of the Closeness
Given this effect, a series of 10 multiple regression analyses Inventory differed in their ability to forecast the intensity and duration
was performed, one for each predictor variable. For each analy- of emotional distress, the full inventory and all three components were
sis, the predictor variable, sex, a n d the Predictor Variable • Sex correlated with the index of intensity and duration of emotional dis-
interaction term were hierarchically regressed on the index o f tress. The following correlations emerged: full Closeness Inventory
intensity and duration o f emotional distress. These analyses re- (r = .33), strength component (r = .43), diversity component (r --
vealed significant effects in the expected direction for 3 of the .13), frequency component (r = . 16). Pair-wise analyses performed on
10 predictors. these dependent component correlations (Cohen & Cohen, 1975) re-
Specifically, individuals who experienced more intense and vealed that the strength component accounted for significantly more
variance on the index of intensity and duration of emotional distress
prolonged distress, relative to those who experienced less
than did the dive~ty component, t(92) = 2.36, p < .02, and the fre-
distress, tended to have been closer to the former partner, quency component, t(92) = 2.61, p < .02. The other pair-wise analysis
F(I, 90) = 10.04, p < .003; to have dated the former partner for (between the diversity component and the frequency component) was
a longer period of time, F ( I , 90) = 13.36, p < .001; and to be- nonsignificant,t(92) < 1.00.
lieve they could not find a suitable alternative easily, F ( I , 90) ffi To determine whether any of the three factors believed to underlie the
8.19, p < .006. 3 Men and women did n o t differ in level of re- Self-MonitoringScale (see Briggs, Cheek, & Bu~, 1980) differed in their
ported emotional distress, F ( I , 90) = .19, ns. Both sexes re- ability to predict the intensity and duration of emotional distress, the
fullscaleand allthree factorswere correlatedwith the index ofintensity
and duration of emotional distress.Pair-wise analyses performed on
these dependent correlationsrevealed that no single factor accounted
placed on the partialed effects with respect to the relationship stability for significantlymore variance on thismeasure than did any other factor
findings. (all ts < 1.55, ns).
 RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION 689

vealed that unrestricted women experienced more intense and Table 3

prolonged emotional distress following dissolution than did the Regression Analysis: Intensity and Duration of
other three groups (unrestricted men, restricted women, and Emotional Distress Index
restricted men) considered together, F(I, 87) = 6.69, p < .01.4
Predictor variable Zero-order r /3
To determine whether these three predictors continue to fore-
cast emotional distress when the other predictors are controlled Length of relationship .36 .32**
for, a forward multiple regression analysis was conducted. ClosenessInventory .34 .25*
Scores on the index of intensity and duration of emotional dis- Ease of finding an alternative partner
tress were treated as the criterion variable, and all 10 factors index -.30 -.33*
Best imagined alternative partner
served as predictors. The results of this analysis are presented index -.06 - . 17
in Table 3. Self-Monitoring Scale -.04 - . 12
The three predictor variables continued to reliably predict Orientation to sexual relations index -.05 .10
the intensity and duration of emotional distress at significant Exclusivityof relationship .00 .08
Satisfaction index .14 .09
levels when the effects of all other predictors were partialed out.
Sexual nature of relationship -.02 -.07
Specifically, the Closeness Inventory (t = 2.40, p < .02), the Best alternative partner index - . 10 -.02
length of the relationship (t = 3.12, p < .003), and the index of
ease of finding an alternative partner (t = -2.14, p < .04) all Note. N = 94. Tolerance levelswere set so that all 10 predictors entered
continued to forecast the intensity and duration of distress. the regressionequation.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
With all 10 predictors in the equation, 28% of the variance in
the index of intensity and duration of emotional distress was
accounted for (R = .53, R 2 = .28, adjusted R 2 = . 19).5
Scores on the index of intensity and duration of emotional clined to have been dating the current partner exclusively. They
distress were not reliably associated with when during the 3- also were inclined to be low in self-monitoring and to adopt a
month period participants stopped dating the partner, t(92) < 1, restricted orientation to sexual relations. Because the 10 predic-
ns; who initiated the breakup, F(I, 90) < 2.25, ns; and whether tor variables were moderately correlated, however, some of the
participants were dating someone else at followup, t(92) < predictive variance they shared with relationship stability was
l,ns. redundant. Thus, at a multivariate level, only 5 of the 10 predic-
tors-satisfaction with the relationship, length of the relation-
Discussion ship, sexual nature of the relationship, exclusivity of the rela-
tionship, and orientation to sexual relations---continuedto pre-
The results of this investigation permit the following charac- dict relationship stability when all other predictors were
terizations. Individuals who were still dating the same person at controlled for.
3-month followup, relative to those who were not, tended to be Furthermore, individuals who experienced strong emotional
more satisfied with the relationship, to be closer to the partner,
to have dated the partner for a longer period of time, and to have
engaged in sex with the partner (as assessed 3 months earlier). 4 One speculativeexplanation for this finding stems from the observa-
tion that sexual and emotional intimacy tend to be more closelyassoci-
Moreover, they tended to possess a less desirable best actual or
ated with one another for women than for men (Ehrmann, 1959;Hinde,
imagined alternative partner, tended to believe themselves less 1984; Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977). Women tend to view emotional
capable of easily finding a suitable alternative, and were in- intimacy as a necessary prerequisite to engaging in sex, whereas men
are less inclined to hold such a view. Consequently, women who are
most likely to engage in sex with their partners (unrestricted women)
ought to be more emotionally invested in their relationships. Internal
Table 2 analyses did reveal that unrestricted women were significantly more
Regression Analysis: Relationship Stability likely to have engaged in sex with their partners than were restricted
women. Perhaps the intense distress experienced by unrestricted
Predictor variable Zero-order r B women may be attributed at least in part to their tendency to become
sexually involved with their partners.
Ease of finding an alternative partner
index -.47 - . 12 5 Self-monitoring did not forecast relationship stability when the
Exclusivityof relationship -.40 -.21"** effects of the other predictors were held constant. Furthermore, it did
Sexual nature of relationship .31 .23*** not predict emotional distress. Given the nature of the other nine pre-
Orientation to sexual relations index -.24 - . 15** dictors, however,this should come as no surprise. Unlike the other pre-
Length of relationship .36 .15** dictors, the Self-MonitoringScale was not constructed to assess and pre-
Satisfaction index .40 .14* dict aspects of interpersonal relationships. Naturally, any measure that
Best alternative partner index -.35 - . 10 is not designed for such predictive purposes cannot be expected to out-
ClosenessInventory .35 .06 perform those that are. Moreover, the effects that self-monitoring has
Best imagined alternative partner on interpersonal relationships are likely to be mediated by the charac-
index -.30 .06
Self-MonitoringScale - . 14 -.02 teristics of the relationships that high and low self-monitors typically
prefer or find themselves in (e.g., relationship duration, quality of alter-
Note. N = 222. Tolerancelevelswere set so that all 10 predictors entered natives, etc.). When the effects of these variables are partialed out, self-
the regressionequation. monitoringshould not have strong effects on important aspects of inter-
* p <. 10. ** p < .05. *** p < .001. personal relationships.
690 JEFFRY A. SIMPSON

distress following relationship dissolution, relative to those who a relationship (Kelley, 1983; Rosenblatt, 1977). The extent of
experienced less distress, tended to be closer to their former emotional attachment in a relationship is believed to be re-
partner, to have dated the former partner for a longer period of fleeted in the degree of emotional distress experienced upon its
time, and to believe they could not easily acquire a satisfactory dissolution (cf. Berscheid, 1986; Bowlby, 1979). The emotional
alternative. Although these three predictors were moderately distress findings reported here provide partial support for in-
correlated, a minimal amount of the predictive variance they vestment model predictions with respect to this affective com-
shared with the emotional-distress index was redundant. There- ponent of commitment. Specifically, individuals involved in re-
fore, at a multivariate level, all three factors----closeness, dura- lationships characterized by high investments (those that were
tion, and ease of finding a suitable alternative--continued to close and oflong duration) and by poor, inaccessible alternatives
independently predict emotional distress when all other predic- (those in which suitable alternatives could not be found easily)
tors were held constant. experienced greater levels of distress following dissolution. Con-
The hypotheses on which this research is based were derived trary to predictions, however, satisfaction did not predict emo-
from many different theoretical perspectives. Can these diverse tional distress.
hypotheses be integrated by a single, more general theory of Why might this be so? Moreover, why do closeness and dura-
interpersonal relations? Based on extensions of interdepen- tion, two factors that appear to reflect degree of investment,
dence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, serve as independent predictors of distress? And why does only
1959), Rusbult (1980, 1983) has proposed an investment model one measure of alternative quality--the ease with which indi-
that appears to provide considerable conceptual integration. viduals believe they can find a suitable alternativemforecast
According to this model commitment, which entails both the distress? Speculative answers to these questions can be found in
tendency to remain in and to feel psychologically attached to a recent theorizing on emotion in relationships. Berscheid ( 1983,
relationship (cf. Rosenblatt, 1977), should be a function of 1986) has argued that the interruption of routine interaction
three dimensions: level of satisfaction (i.e., the extent to which patterns, plans, and goals brought about by relationship disso-
the relationship provides rewarding outcomes), quality of alter- lution constitutes a sufficient and perhaps necessary condition
native partners (i.e., the extent to which alternatives can provide for emotion. The extent of emotional distress is believed to be
rewarding outcomes), and level of investment (i.e., the extent to a function of both the number of interaction patterns, plans,
which various resources have been put into the relationship). and goals interrupted (which in turn should depend on the level
The model predicts that commitment should be greatest in rela- of investment in the relationship) and the availability of alterna-
tionships characterized by high satisfaction, poor alternatives, tive partners who can facilitate these interrupted events (which
and high levels of investment. Each of these dimensions is di- should depend on the quality of alternatives).
rectly or indirectly represented by one or more of the l0 factors According to Berscheid's theory, the level of satisfaction
used in this investigation. should not necessarily forecast distress. Many rewarding out-
comes that produce satisfaction with a given partner (e.g., his
Relationship Stability or her social status, physical attractiveness, etc.) can be readily
One component of commitment is the tendency to remain provided by a variety of alternative partners, particularly by de-
in the same relationship over time (Kiesler, 197 l; Rosenblatt, sirable ones. Unlike intrinsic investments, which often require
1977). The relationship stability findings reported here support considerable time to develop, tend to be bound to one specific
investment model predictions with respect to this behavioral person, and are irrevocably lost when a relationship ends, many
component of commitment. Relationships characterized by rewarding outcomes typically require less time to develop, are
high satisfaction (assessed by the satisfaction index), by poor not exclusively associated with one individual, and are not sub-
alternatives (assessed by the alternative partner indexes), by ject to substantial loss following a breakup. Clearly, it is consid-
high intrinsic investments (assessed by the closeness, duration, erably easier to secure a partner who can provide good, reward-
and sexual nature indexes), and by individual differences in the ing outcomes than it is to secure one with whom a close, long-
tendency to become highly invested (assessed by the orientation term relationship can be developed. As a result, satisfaction
to sexual relations index) were indeed less susceptible to disso- should not be a strong predictor of distress.
lution over time. The level of intrinsic investment, however, should forecast
These results corroborate previous work on the investment emotional distress. Indeed, relationship closeness and duration,
model that has shown that decreases over time in satisfaction two of the best indicators of intrinsic investment level (cf. Kel-
and investment and increases in quality of alternatives predict ley et al., 1983), reliably and independently did so. In view of
relationship dissolution (Rushult, 1983). At the same time, this Berscheid's theory of emotion, this should come as no surprise.
investigation builds on past research by revealing that system- The number of behavioral routines, plans, and goals that part-
atic differences in the orientations that individuals adopt toward ners share should be a result of both the frequency, strength,
restricted versus unrestricted sexual relations also have strong and diversity of daily impact that exists in a relationship (as-
effects on relationship stability. In fact, these individual differ- sessed by the Closeness Inventory) and the length of time over
ences appear to affect stability independently oflevel ofsatisfac- which such impact has occurred (indexed by the length of the
tion, quality of alternatives, and level of investment. relationship). Because the extent of emotional distress is
thought to depend in part on the absolute number of events
Emotional Distress interrupted when a relationship ends, relationship duration and
A second component of commitment is the tendency to be- closeness should forecast distress independent of one another.
come psychologically and emotionally attached to a partner in Similarly, the quality of alternative partners also should fore-
 RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION 691

cast emotional distress. A measure of the ease with which indi- References
viduals thought they could find a suitable alternative reliably
and independently did so even though measures of individuals' Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Jour-
best actual and imagined alternatives did not. These results are nal of Sociat and Personal Relationships, 1, 29--48.
consistent with Berscheid's theory of emotion. To facilitate in- Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Chris-
terrupted plans, goals, and behavioral routines, alternative tensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. MeClintock,
partners must not only be capable of providing good, rewarding L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-
168). San Francisco: Freeman.
outcomes; they also must be accessible. If such partners are not
Berseheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aron-
readily available, they cannot facilitate interrupted events and son (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 413--484).
therefore quell emotional distress following a breakup. Because New York: Random House.
the index of ease of finding an alternative partner takes into Berscheid, E. (1986). Emotional experience in close relationships: Some
account both the quality and the perceived availability of alter- implications for child development. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.),
natives, it should be a stronger predictor of distress. Relationships and development (pp. 135-166). Hiilsdale, NJ: Erl-
It is difficult to know whether individuals who thought they baum.
could find suitable alternatives experienced less distress because Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1987). Profiles in closeness:
they actually acquired such partners or because they simply Investigations of people's closest relationships. Unpublished manu-
thought they could do so. Internal analyses revealed that such script.
individuals were more likely to be dating someone else at fol- Bowlby,J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Lon-
don: Tavistoek.
lowup. However, dating status at followup was only weakly cor-
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and de-
related with strength of emotional distress. It is, of course, pos- pression. London: Hogarth.
sible for alternatives to facilitate interrupted events without ac- Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the
tually becoming dating partners. Nevertheless, the mere belief Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
that attractive alternatives can be found if wanted or needed 38, 679-686.
appears to assume a central role in mitigating emotional dis- Burgess, E. W., & Waltin, P. (t953). Engagement and marriage. New
tress. Perhaps the expectation that interrupted events can and York: Lippineott.
eventually will be facilitated by someone in the near future is Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation
enough to minimize emotional reaction to dissolution. analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
This research, of course, possesses some limitations. First, it D'Augelli, J. E, & D'Augelli, A. R. (1979). Sexual involvement and rela-
is based on self-report information. Even though many of the tionship development: A cognitive developmental approach. In R. L.
factors hypothesized to forecast relationship stability and emo- Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange m developingrelation-
ships (pp. 307-349). New York: Academic Press.
tional distress successfully did so, it is not possible to know
Davis, M. S. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: Free Press.
whether and the extent to which what individuals say and be- Duck, S. (1981). Toward a research map for the study of relationship
lieve about their relationships accurately reflects the objective breakdown. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships:
conditions that exist within them. Second, this study is based VOl. 3. Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 1-29). London: Aca-
on the responses of only one member of each dyad. However, demic Press.
the incidence of relationship stability and emotional distress is Ehrmann, W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Holt.
also likely to depend on how both members o f a dyad perceive Hays, W. L. (1981). Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
the factors relevant to their relationship. To gain greater insight Winston.
into dissolution processes, future research must examine the Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Break-ups before mar-
perceptions of both partners. And third, despite the fact that riage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 147-
many of the hypotheses on which this investigation is based 167.
Hinde, R. A. (1984). Why do the sexes behave differently in close rela-
were derived from the accounts of individuals recovering from
tionships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 471-501.
divorce and despite the fact that over 90% o f the individuals
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating
who participated in this research are likely to marry at some scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 2 i 3-218.
point in their lives (of. Kelley et al., 1983), the findings of this Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and rela-
investigation can be generalized only to individuals involved in tionships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115-156.
premarital romantic relationships. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Ber-
Nonetheless, this research makes several contributions to our scheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger; E.
knowledge and understanding of relationship dissolution pro- MeClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson, Close relationships (pp.
cesses. First, it identifies new, previously unexplored variables 265-314). San Francisco: Freeman.
that have important effects on relationship stability. Second, it Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. A., Huston,
provides some of the first evidence on which factors promote T L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R.
(1983). Close relationships. San Francisco: Freeman.
emotional distress following a breakup. Third, it reveals that
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations:A theory
only a subset of the factors implicated in the breakdown of pre-
of interdependence. New York:Wiley.
marital relationships are also involved in producing emotional Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Aca-
distress following dissolution. And fourth, it reveals that the demic Press.
three factors that do predict emotional distress---closeness, du- Lee, L. (1984). Sequences in separation: A framework for investigating
ration, and ease of finding an alternative---do so independent of endings of the personal (romantic) relationship. Journal of Social and
one another. Personal Relationships, 1, 49-73.
692 JEFFRY A. SIMPSON

Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integra- ations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental So-
tive review.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-28. cial Psychology, 16, 172-186.
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital disso- Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The
lution. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 21--47. development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in
Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view of the dissolution of pair heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange chology, 45, 101-117.
in developing relationships (pp. 169-193). New York: Academic Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring:
Press. Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 125-139.
Moles, O. C., & Levinger, G. (1976). Introduction. Journal of Social
Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating rela-
Issues, 32(i), 1--4. tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4L 1281-
Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1981). Marital breakdown. In S. 1291.
Duck & R. Giimour (Eds.), Personal relationships: Vol 3. Personal Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1987). Orientations toward romantic re-
relationships in disorder (pp. 57-94). London: Academic Press. lationships. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships:
Norton, A. J., & Giick, P. C. (1976). Marital instability: Past, present, Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 45-62). Beverly Hills,
and future. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 5-20. CA: Sage.
Parkes, C. M. (1972). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life. New Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and
York: International Universities Press. sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 51,
Parkes, C. M., & Weiss, R. S. (1983). Recoveryfrom bereavement. New 181-190.
York: Basic Books. Spitz, R. A., & Wolfe, K. (1946). Anaclitic depression. Psychoanalytic
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy and Stud), of the Child, 2, 313-342.
dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 86-109. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
New York: Wiley.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1977). Needed research on commitment in marriage. Weiss, R. S. (1975). Maritalseparation. New York: Basic Books.
In G. Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives
on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 73-86). Amherst: University of Mas- Received September 22, 1986
sachusetts Press. Revision received May 26, 1987
Rushult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associ- Accepted May 27, 1987 9

Kintsch Appointed Editor of PsychologicalReview, 1989-1994

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of Walter Kintsch, University of Colorado, as editor of Psychological
Review for a 6-year term beginning in 1989. As of January 1, 1988, manuscripts should be
directed to

Walter Kintsch
Department of Psychology
University of Colorado
Campus Box 345
Boulder, Colorado 80309

Manuscript submission patterns for Psychological Review make the precise date of completion
of the 1988 volume uncertain. The current editor, Martin Hoffman, will receive and consider
manuscripts until December 3 l, 1987. Should the 1988 volume be completed before that date,
manuscripts will be redirected to Kintsch for consideration in the 1989 volume.