Working models and relationship quality in dating couples
Working models and relationship quality in dating couples - Free fuck buddy websites were you don t pay
According to attachment theory, individuals form internal working models based on their interactions with other close others, which guide their desire and need for interpersonal relatedness (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Hazen & Shaver, 1987).
Given the costs of failed relationships (e.g., personal distress, problems with work, lower well-being for children, lost opportunities to meet other partners), it is important consider how individuals are approaching these decisions.Other research shows that mismatches in partner selection on factors such as personality, values, personal habits, and leisure activities are related to relationship distress (e.g., Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999; Kurdek, 1993; Fowers, Montel, & Olson, 1996).These findings suggest that being aware of preferences for certain partner characteristics and making sound decisions about partner selection may increase compatibility and subsequent relationship adjustment.The current study tested if more thoughtful and clear relationship decision-making processes would relate to individuals’ levels of satisfaction with and dedication to their partners as well as their extra-dyadic involvements.In a sample of 252 men and women, the results showed that regardless of relationship status (i.e., dating, cohabiting, or married), those who reported more thoughtful decision-making processes also reported more dedication to their partners, higher satisfaction with the relationship, and fewer extra-dyadic involvements.In summary, several studies suggest that making decisions in relationships, rather than sliding through transitions or letting things just happen, may relate to better relational functioning.
However, there is limited research directly assessing an individuals’ own accounts of how they experience relationship transitions.In commitment theory terms (Stanley & Markman, 1992), such transitions, particularly when they are unplanned or happen in the absence of clear decision, may increase constraints while not necessarily increasing interpersonal commitment or dedication to the relationship.The literature on cognitive dissonance, establishes clearer decisions should set up stronger action tendencies to follow through (Brehm, 2007).Further, in a national sample, two-thirds of cohabiting respondents indicated that they slid into living together rather than the partners making a mutual decision about it (Stanley, Rhoades, & Fincham, 2010).Related to this, cohabitations that begin before a mutual commitment to marry has been made are characterized by lower relationship quality both during cohabitation (Brown & Booth, 1996) and even after marriage, for those who go on to marry (Kline et al., 2004, Murrow & Shi, 2010; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009).(2006) that relationships transitions characterized more by “sliding” than “deciding” would evidence greater average risk for relationship distress. deciding in relationships captures elements of impulsivity and relationship capacity (e.g., poor communication styles, relational efficacy), however is notably distinct from these personality and relational concepts.