Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups.

Abstract

A model of breakup decisions is proposed that extends interdependence theory. This dependence model asserts that the primary issue in understanding breakup decisions is degree of dependence on a relationship. Dependence is great when important outcomes in the current relationship are not available elsewhere. Need satisfaction dependence measures identify important needs in a relationship and compare satisfaction of those needs in the current relationship to satisfaction in alternative relationships. Two longitudinal studies provide good support for the dependence model. Need satisfaction dependence measures significantly differentiated between subjects who remained in their relationships and those who voluntarily broke up. The studies also compared the model to simpler breakup models and assessed whether commitment mediates the link between dependence and breakup decisions. Why do individuals sometimes remain in relationships that are not terribly satisfying? This article advances a dependence model of breakups. The dependence model clarifies and extends concepts from interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), proposing that the decision to remain in or voluntarily end a given relationship is strongly related to the degree of dependence on that relationship. Dependence is asserted to be great when the most important needs a relationship fulfills cannot be gratified elsewhere. Thus, we suggest that an individual may sometimes remain in a relationship that is not terribly satisfying because of high dependence on that relationship—dissatisfying as it is, the relationship may nevertheless fulfill important needs that cannot be gratified in alternative relationships. From the outset, it is important to distinguish between the concepts of satisfaction and dependence. These constructs were first introduced in Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) interdependence theory, in their discussion of two subjective criteria for Editors Note. Because one of the authors is an associate editor on this journal, this article was subjected to a special review process to avoid any potential conflict of interest. We thank former associate editor Norbert Kerr for having graciously agreed to take complete responsibility for processing this article.—NM

Cites (1)

1. Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in Treatment Evaluations
   Judd, Charles M., Kenny, David A. · 1981 · Evaluation Review

Show all 1 references

Cited by (16)

1. The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands
   Thomson, Matthew, MacInnis, Deborah J., Whan Park, C. · 2005 · Journal of Consumer Psychology
2. Interdependence, Interaction, and Relationships
   Rusbult, Caryl E., Van Lange, Paul A. M. · 2003 · Annual Review of Psychology
3. Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers.
   Omoto, Allen M., Snyder, Mark · 1995 · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
4. Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science
   Finkel, Eli J., Eastwick, Paul W., Karney, Benjamin R., Reis, Harry T., Sprecher, Susan · 2012 · Psychological Science in the Public Interest
5. Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships.
   Agnew, Christopher R., Van Lange, Paul A. M., Rusbult, Caryl E., Langston, Christopher A. · 1998 · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

See all 352