Post Break Up Relationship Lit

Post Break Up Relationship Lit Review

AFTER ALL IS SAID and DONE literature review into the relationships heterosexual and homosexual couples maintain after they break up.

FLOW of INFORMATION

This literature review presents a 25-page examination of the relationships that are maintained by couples after they break up. The literature review examines lesbian and gay relationships as well as heterosexual couples. In addition it seeks to determine whether or not children have an effect on the contact the couple maintains following a relationship that ends.

In seeking out this information it was discovered that very few studies exist on this topic and those that due are somewhat vague in their findings. This points to the need for further research in this area for future development of family therapy theories and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

When one is young they look forward to the day that they will meet the love of their life and live happily ever after. They are eager to find the one person they are meant to be with, settle down, raise a family and live the American dream. Unfortunately that dream doesn't always work out and can turn into a nightmare from which the only solution seems to be to break up. Couples break up every day throughout the country. Whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual couple, they can break up. Whether they have children or remained childless they can break up. Breaking up doesn't seem to have any socioeconomic concerns as it cuts across all financial boundaries, racial boundaries, geographic boundaries and sexual preference boundaries. People break up because of money, personality conflicts, affairs, arguments about children, job transfers, substance abuse issues and many other reasons. Breaking up takes many different forms, some more drama inspired than others. Some couples break up quietly and amicably resolving to remain friends while others agree the best way to do it is to never communicate again. Some couples create long drawn out scenes, while others involve law enforcement officials, family members, children and the neighborhood watch team. Breakups happen for many reasons and in many different ways but the end result is the couple is no longer a couple. Once the relationship has ended the couple decides what if any contact they will have with each other and if they will have contact what type of contact that will be.

Will they be friends? Will they continue to have sexual relations? Many people know couples in which anytime something goes wrong in life they still call the former lover to discuss it or lean on for emotional support. In addition many couples continue to have holiday dinners with each other's families just as they did when they were together.

The amount of contact a former couple decides to have can vary from couple to couple depending on circumstances. While it is a given that couples sharing children may have more surface contact than couples that did not have children, this doesn't necessarily point to more intimate contact by way of emotional or sexual intimacy. The bond of children however, may create a bond that childish couples never shared therefore leave the door open for continued dependence on each other after the breakup.

STATISTICALLY SPEAKING

For one to understand the literature involving couples post break up relationships it will be helpful to understand the statistics regarding relationships and divorce. While breakups also occur in couples that chose not to marry the statistics for such relationships are nearly non-existent as they would be inaccurate with no way to record keep their existences and dissolvent. For the purpose of this research married heterosexual and committed homosexual couples will be focused on.

For many years statistics have been thrown about that included the belief that 50% of marriages today, end in divorce. Recently this number has been challenged and the result was a reduction in the percentage of married couples believed to end in divorce. At one point according to the new statistical information provided by the National Center for Health Statistics 43% of married couples will end in divorce in America. Even more recently the New York Times published a study that placed the number at 40%. While this is encouraging news for engaged hopefuls it still means that out of every 100 couples that get married, only 60 of them will survive the long haul of marriage (Divorce Stats (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html).

The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43% of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years (Divorce Stats (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)."

With homosexual couples it is not as easy to determine the rate of break ups as the marriage issue has not yet been resolved for the majority of states, however, there have been studies conducted that put the break up rate in similar numbers as married couples in many instances.

In Scandinavian countries that do allow same sex marriages the divorce rates are similar to those of heterosexual couples according to nationally reported statistical information.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the years there have been very few studies conducted on the post break up relationships within former heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. Perhaps it is only recently becoming apparent that the relationships that former couples share have an impact on their lives and the future relationships that they enter. It is possible that it has been difficult to locate members of former couples who were willing to become part of a research study. It is also possible that science has not determined the value of such studies. Regardless of the reasons, there have been significantly fewer studies on this topic than on more readily available topics in the field of research.

The few studies that have been complied however have been comprehensive and thorough and pointed to a definite difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples in their post break up relationship actions.

One important study addressed the relationships that are maintained in members of former couples in both the heterosexual and the homosexual societies with interesting results.

The "study investigated the relative contributions of gender and sexual orientation as factors associated with the formation of boundaries in dyadic intimate relating in both same- and opposite-sex couples (Harkless, Blaine, 2005)."

This study was important to the general and broad-based topic as it examined relational patterns. The study was considered a first of its kind because of the fact that it studied relational patterns that had not been empirically evaluated in the past but instead was simply accepted within the lesbian relationship pattern. It was actually considered to be a pattern unique to lesbians. Previous accepted beliefs included the idea that lesbians remained connected to their ex-partners more often and at a closer level than either couples that had been gay or heterosexual in the past.

Following break up it has been widely accepted and assumed that lesbians remained close to their former partners more often than non-lesbian couples did but there had not been any scientific data to back it up.

This study was extremely thorough and extensive examining many facets of the post relationship action of different types of couples to determine whether or not there is a difference in the contact and bond between ex-lovers in a lesbian relationship and other types of relationships.

The study utilized a research design approach emphasizing the methodological utility and heuristic value of including sexual orientation as an independent variable in studies of gender dynamics (Harkless, Blaine, 2005).

Two general classes of theoretical frameworks, those emphasizing gender role socialization influences and those emphasizing systems influences, were discussed in terms of their relative goodness of fit as conceptual bases for the data (Harkless, Blaine, 2005)."

The method used for this particular study was a questionnaire method. A questionnaire is considered a popular and valid choice of research methodology that serves several purposes.

The questionnaire method provides the opportunity for the participant to answer questions without a face-to-face interview.

This helps to eliminate any perception that the interview results were influenced by the personality of the interview or interviewee. Past research has shown that face-to-face conversations can in fact be influenced by how the participants feel about each other as people during the interview. If a participant is shy, easily intimidated or otherwise put off by the process then the answers may not be as pure or in depth as they would otherwise have been.

In addition the questionnaire can provide a measure of anonymity for those who participate if it is structured in a way that will allow that to occur.

Case studies are another method often used for the purpose of research however, case studies can be costly and timely and prohibit the inclusion of a large or geographically widespread sampling of participants.

The use of a questionnaire for the purpose of this study was an excellent choices as it allowed for a controlled population number, but provided the opportunity for a large sampling as well as provided the opportunity to answer questions without concern about the meshing personalities of the research team and the personalities of the participants.

The questionnaires for the purpose of this particular study were completed by 179 participants. The gender preference breakdown of the participants included 60 lesbians, 45 heterosexual females, 39 heterosexual males and 37 gay males (Harkless, Blaine, 2005).

When the study was completed and the data went through analysis it was found that gay men and lesbian women reported a higher degree of post relationship involvement with their former partners than heterosexual couple members reported occurring.

The data reflect how inclusion of sexual orientation can broaden understandings of gender differentiated phenomena beyond more traditional gender-only based accounts (Harkless, Blaine, 2005)."

The study questionnaire asked general demographic data and then moved into couple and gender specific questions. The questions required the participants to acknowledge their relationship with their former partner including whether or not they maintained emotional ties, sexual ties or other types of contact with the former partner. The questionnaire also asked for gender specific information as to whether the participant were gay, lesbian or straight.

The outcome of the research parroted what society has seemed to know all along. It was indicative of what had been assumed and what this study had hypothesized regarding the post break up relationships of gay, lesbian and straight couples.

Lesbians had more contact and interaction with their former partners than any of the other participants however those who had been involved in male gay relationships also showed a significant increase in post relationship activity with the former partner as compared to what was reported by those who had left heterosexual relationships.

This study worked to solidify the importance of gender preference studies for the purpose of pinpointing why the differences exist so that future understanding about how divorce impacts children as well as those who were in the couple.

In another study the topic of stalking former partners was addressed but provides insight and information regarding the desire to have contact with the former partner. This was done by providing characteristic elements of those who participate in stalking activities after a relationship breaks up.

This is important to the current study as it provides characteristics of the type of personality that has a hard time moving past the former relationship though it was only marginally important because the activities of a stalker are measurably different and more concerning than those of a former couple that mutually choose to maintain contact.

This study exclusively examined heterosexual couples and their experiences with their former partners after they had broken up. The study included 305 female participants. Its goal was to identify specific characteristics of partners that had formerly been married and their stalking tendencies.

It was compared to other post break up situations with formerly married heterosexual couples.

The 305 participants were all undergraduate students. Each of them was asked to complete a questionnaire survey that included 48 individual questions (Roberts, 2005).

The survey was geared to assess the characteristics of the participants and former partners of the relationships.

One of the weaknesses of this survey method in this particular study was the fact that the female partner was asked to assess and describe characteristics of her former male partner which leaves the door open to subjective opinions based on how the female partner perceived the actions and characteristics of her male former partner.

One hundred and five (34.4%) participants were classified as stalking victims; ninety-eight (32.1%) as suffering harassment, and 102 (33.4%) as experiencing no-harassment. No differences were found between the three groups in demographic characteristics of participants or former partners. Stalking former partners were most likely to have: a history of substance use (alcohol and/or drugs); criminal involvement; violence; mental health problems; difficulties in forming relationships; reacting with inappropriate emotion and jealousy and suspiciousness of the participant's relationships with others (Roberts, 2005)."

While the first two studies are contributing information to the overall topic of the amount nd type of contact that many couples still have with each other following a breakup they do not address the specific question at hand. The next study however takes the narrowly defined question and allows it to be examined from many angles and in the end answers the exact question being asked.

It is important to have gathered the information from the other studies however, to have a foundational basis to build this one on. In addition the other studies helped define whether or not there are fundamental differences in whether or not gender issues and sexual identity differences have any bearing on whether or not couples that break up still have relationships with their former partners.

This study also noted the fact that there are very few studies done with regards to whether or not couples that break up continue to maintain any type of relationships following the breakup.

This study is an excellent measurement tool for the question as it not only examined the question at hand but it did so by looking at and comparing homosexual couples and heterosexual couples (Kenzie, 2005).

The study used a large participant population which provides credibility to the results as well. There were 292 homosexual couples used in the study while there were 272 opposite gender couples that were included (Kenzie, 2005).

The study aimed to examine the amount of contact the couples maintained after they broke up their relationship. The study did not confine the examination to only sexual relations but included emotional contact as well. This is important because of the question about emotional support following a break up and the question about whether the former partner is able to provide that support.

Further, two types of influences on post-dissolutional relationship qualities were investigated. Variables that originated within the dyad or individuals (personal) had a stronger influence on relationship qualities than did variables that originated from the dyad's environment (structural). The importance of understanding post-dissolutional relationships and future research suggestions are discussed (Kenzie, 2005)."

The study used relational disengagement models to determine the relationships has worked through the various stages of dissolvent and that they were completely done.

Duck and Knapp wrote in 1984 that there are various stages that are necessary to ending a relationship that each partner must go through before one can fully disengage from that former relationship much like the stages of grief (Duck, 1982; Knapp, 1984).

Duck suggested in 1982 that there may be attempts to re-negotiate the relationship during the stage referred to as the social phase of the relational dissolution model. This is part of the previously researched and labeled disengagement process.

In 1984 however Baxter disagreed and stated that the previous study had failed to provide measurements of involvement outside of anecdotal evidence.

Research addressing the anecdotal incidences in which it was reported that one party said to the other party "lets just be friends" or put that message on the table during the relationship may not have really wanted to enter a full scale serious relationship therefore it would not be possible to apply the disengagement strategies to those couples effectively as both parties may not have been committed to the union to begin with (Kenzie, 2005).

This was not the first study conducted on former members of couples and what their relations were following the breakup though it was the first to include heterosexual and homosexual couples in the study.

Studies conducted in the past with regards to the relationships that members of post break up couples continue to engage in also gauged the type of friendship that was developed between the members of the former couple.

In those studies on both heterosexual and homosexual former couples the study results indicted that there are differences in the type of friendships that develop between two friends that at one time had been a couple and two people who had never been involved in a relationship together before.

Both heterosexual and homosexual participants of those studies also reported becoming friends with those they were formerly involved with romantically according to the research (Nardi, 1992; Weston, 1991; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter, 1985).

In 2000 however a study conducted by Schneider and Kenny took the research a step further and tried to isolate the type of friendship that was developed once a couple had been romantically involved and then terminated the relationship and were successful in their endeavor.

They reported that participants had different types of relationships with their former romance partners than they had with non-former romantic partners though all of the relationships fell under the term of friendship.

Further, the redefinition of a romantic relationship into a post-dissolutional relationship may be challenging. Kurdek (1991a) surveyed same-sex partners after their romantic relationship had terminated and reported the greatest difficulty faced by the participants was negotiating the current relationship with one's ex-partner. In addition, Foley and Fraser (1998) found that ex-partners had difficulty integrating a post-dissolutional relationship into a shared social network (Kenzie, 2005)."

All studies agreed that more information and further studies on the topic were warranted and could provide valuable information.

Furthermore it was agreed that part of the future studies should compare heterosexual relationships following a break up to homosexual relationships following a break up. In addition it was determined by the studies that initial descriptions of the post dissolutional relationship would need to be deeply examined as would the role of the past dissolutional relationships (Metts, et al., 1989; Schneider & Kenny, 2000). It was also suggested that heterosexual relationships be examined apart from homosexual relationships at least in the area of data collection for the purpose of determining whether homosexual and heterosexual couples reacted differently to the need or desire of post break up relationships (Foley & Fraser, 1998).

In other aspects of relating, same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships have been found to share more similarities than differences. Specifically, similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships have been found in studies of closeness (Peplau & Cochran, 1990), commitment (Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Lewis, Kozac, Milardo, & Grosnick, 1981), jealousy (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002), love level (Peplau & Cochran, 1990), maintenance behaviors (Haas & Stafford, 1998), satisfaction (Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Peplau & Cochran, 1990) and sexuality (Kurdek, 1991b). Yet, because same-sex romantic relationships exist in an environment that often does not condone, rarely encourages, and offers few relational role models (Demo & Allen, 1996; Kurdek, 1991b), the differences in the social context of same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships may lead to significant differences between the qualities of and influences on the two types of post-dissolutional relationships (Kenzie, 2005)."

After examining the previously conducted studies with regard to post break up relationships this study set out to accomplish three different goals. The first goal that the study set itself for was to broaden the descriptions of relationships post break up.

The study identified and isolated four different means of measurement and characteristics by which to use to describe post break up relationships. They were named as:

the degrees of interpersonal contact, emotional and sexual intimacy, and satisfaction experienced in the relationship (Kenzie, 2005)."

The next step that the study undertook in accomplishing the three primary goals that the study team wanted to reach dealt with the influence that personal variables and structural variables had on the above qualities.

This was an important part of the study as the variable's impact would play in important part in not only the outcome of the study but also in the credibility of the results.

One of the things that this study recognized and acknowledged before it began was the difference that was already apparent and understood when it came to the comparison of lesbian relationships and heterosexual relationships.

Consider an attempt at describing lesbian ex-lover relationships offered by Becker (1988) who provides a typology ranging from "fictitious friendships" in which the ex-partners pay lip service to their friendship yet rarely communicate with each other, to "family" relationships in which the ex-partners view each other as integral parts of their lives (Kenzie, 2005)."

One of the issues that have been recognized and validated by researchers in this topic has been the ability to identify and quantify the relationship characteristics following a break up. One example would be the amount of contact involved. Are researchers to believe and accept that limited contact means less of an emotional bond or is it possible to have a strong emotional bond without a lot of contact?

Can two people who used to be in a relationship and consider themselves to be close enough to be called family even after a break up want the relationship to change with time? Finally is it possible that the communication comes from being a part of the wider family and not so much out of a desire or need to continue a relationship with the ex-partner?

These questions are all questions that had to be acknowledged during this study to provide purity and understanding when it came to the analysis of the results.

One early study in a similar field provided data that if the data is limited to friendship or no friendship it is relatively easy to quantify and ascertain the percentage of former relationship partners that want to have relationships following their break up Metts et al. (1989). It becomes more complicated and difficult when researchers attempt to define friendship through sexual and emotional ties following a break up and the degree of those elements that may or may not be present. It is further complicated by asking whether children effect the post break up relationship as it then becomes prudent to determine if the children are the cause of that continued relationship.

While Metts analysis certainly had more in depth detail than Becker's did and it provided fewer generalizations overall it was still too narrow for the purpose of giving complete and accurate pictures when it comes to post break up relationships. The problem with that study was that communication, intimacy and satisfaction within such friendships was not described so that there was a way to measure them for the purpose of research.

Although Metts et al.'s (1989) description of post-dissolutional relationships avoids the broad vagueness of Becker's (1988) categories, it subsequently is too narrow to provide an adequate picture of the relationships that emerge between former dating partners because the communication, intimacy, and satisfaction within these relationships is not measured or described (Kenzie, 2005).

The research team for this particular study decided to use a different approach than what had been used in the past.

While previous studies had defined the results by commonly held friendship traits the study team in this study decided to measure the results against characteristics that uniquely common to the friendship of former partners.

The study also decided not to concentrate on either heterosexual or homosexual relationships but instead to examine them both and hold them against each other to compare results.

The research used emotional and sexual intimacy and amount of interpersonal contact as the means by which to measure the post break up relationship and that relationship's importance to the former partners.

Interpersonal contact has been a benchmark of relationship research for many years. The amount and the depth of that contact has been used to measure the quality and quantity of those relationships for the purpose of examining many aspects of relationships.

One of the reasons that this has been given so much weight in current studies is because past research has concluded that it provides a significant and important influence on how long such post break up relationships last and how well those relationships are maintained.

RQ1a: What degree of interpersonal contact occurs between same-sex and opposite-sex former dating partners (Kenzie, 2005)? "

Intimacy is the second issue that is examined in the studies about relationships and in particular past relationships. Past research has found that one of the reasons many former partners work to maintain a sexual relationship following a break up is to try and reduce the stress and pain of losing the emotional intimacy that goes with being in a relationship. It is also the suspected reason according to research of the past for partners maintaining emotional intimacy ties to each other even after they have made the decision to break up.

Former romantic partners have been found to continue physical intimacy, albeit in low amounts (Foley & Fraser, 1998). Thus, the second quality examined, intimacy, is defined as how emotionally and sexually involved the ex-partners continue to be after the romantic dissolution (Kenzie, 2005). "

This led to the question of this studied research of:

RQ1b: What degree of emotional and sexual intimacy exists between same-sex and opposite-sex former dating partners (Kenzie, 2005)? "

The third element of this study looked at the satisfaction by the former partners when it came to the satisfaction of the newly defined relationship that they had with their former partners.

Satisfaction with communication with the ex-partner is one of the most important measurements to how long and how satisfying the relationship post break up will be according to previous research (Rusbult, 1980) (Kenzie, 2005).

Satisfaction is especially important in the study of post-dissolutional relationships because the relationships can be presumed to have a history of dissatisfaction leading to the dissolution of the romance (Kenzie, 2005)."

That is why the third question of the study was What degree of relational satisfaction is reported by same-sex and opposite-sex former dating partners (Kenzie, 2005)?

The variables in this study were similar to what had been used and addressed in previous studies with some fundamental differences.

In this study for example the relational commitment offered a guide to readers that could examine some of the possible predictors of contact. These included intimacy and satisfaction of the post break up relationship in both same sex couples and different sex couples.

It was recognized and agreed upon for this study that most models of relational commitment have some variation. In addition it was agreed that most of the models currently available to researchers point both to external or structural and internal or personal variables as the barriers to the post break up relationships that are experienced (Attridge, 1994; Johnson, 1982; Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993) (Kenzie, 2005)."

Personal variables included the feelings that participants had for their ex-partners while structural variables included elements such as social environment, having common friends or working in the same place (Kenzie, 2005).

These are important factors to consider in any future relationship studies as well as the ability to change the work place needs to be included as a possible. The ability to change the way one feels about relationships in general or post break up relationships is not so easily changed and these differences must be addressed in any future research attempt to help to replicate this study result and provide even more evidence of the purity of the results.

For this study it was also decided that a shared network of friends and family had to be included in the list of variable elements when it came to the study of couples who break up and their desire and satisfaction for post break up relationships.

These elements and concerns and agreements led to the final question of the research which was:

RQ2: What is the relative influence of personal and structural variables on the amounts of interpersonal contact, intimacy (emotional and sexual), and satisfaction reported in post-dissolutional relationships between former dating partners (Kenzie, 2005)? "