Cognitive Processes of the Initiator in a Non Marital Relationship Dissolution of Former Best Friends

However much people may hope that in entering a relationship, they may dare happy endings, the opposite is more likely to happen. Relationship dissolution is something that most people who have entered in a relationship, even those who are only observers, can always account for. And it has become general knowledge that undergoing a breakup is associated with a lot of negative affect. People hence are curious as to why these dissolutions do happen. Which is why it is not surprising that there have been an increase in scholarly attention over the last few decades in the examination of various aspects of relational endings (Kellas et al., 2008).
A relationship with a significant other is often an integral part of a person's life and one's own personal development (Battaglia et al., 1998). Therefore, the end of a relationship signals a loss of a part of that person and it was shown in several studies that termination of a relationship, whether marital or nonmarital, through dissolution or bereavement, is among the most distressing events that an individual can experience (Flemlee et al., 1990; Sbarra, 2006). According to a study done by Davis, Shaver, and Vernon (2003), the dissolution of romantic relationships are associated with a variety of negative physical and emotional responses, ranging from anxiety, depression, psychopathology, loneliness, immune suppression, fatal and nonfatal physical illness or accidents, and decreased longevity to immediate death through suicide or homicide. This only goes to show how much dissolution of relationships affects various people in different ways. But despite all these, most individuals fare well over time and adapt quickly, which often involves a transition from a state of cognitive-emotional disorganization and upheaval to one of restored psychological well-being and relative calm; in other words, a move from a state of relative distress and emotional dysregulation to one of emotional calm and restored psychological balance (Sbarra, 2006). During this transition, it has also been shown that a process wherein a reorganization and redefinition of one’s conception of self without (or in different relationships to) the other person occurs (Davis et al., 2003).
But beyond the effect of relationship dissolutions, researches also abound on how the dissolution process takes place. According to VanderDrift, Agnew, and Wilson (2009), dissolution is the product of a series of leave behaviors (deciding to dissolve, initiating dissolution, and suggesting dissolution) that can be enacted by either partner, resulting in the relationship being terminated. Several conceptual models of relationship dissolution suggest, implicitly or explicitly, a sequential process that occurs in steps or stages (Battaglia et al., 1998). In a study by Duck (1982; as cited in Battaglia et al., 1998), he found that in one model, relationship dissolution was described as having four phases: intrapsychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing. During the intrapsychic phase of relationship dissolution, each partner privately assesses the relationship in terms of its equity, satisfaction and possible alternatives. Once partners' private thoughts become public, the dyadic phase of relationship dissolution begins. During the dyadic phase, partners oscillate between relationship repair and dissolution behaviors. Once the couple decides to end the relationship, the social phase begins, when the couples accept the societal repercussions for separating. Lastly, during the grave-dressing phase individuals begin coming to terms with the break-up and looking for reasons why the relationship did not last. In another model, Kelley and Thibaut (1978; as cited in Battaglia et al., 1998) theorized that relationships come to an end when the costs for staying in the relationship outweigh the rewards for continuing in the relationship. Named interdependence theory, this holds that people assess their comparison level and comparison level for alternatives when deciding between staying in and leaving a relationship. The comparison level is the individual's subjective expectation regarding what they want and feel they deserve from a relationship. The comparison level for alternatives includes all other available alternatives to the current relationship, which are assessed in terms of their rewards and costs relative to the rewards and costs of the existing relationship. When people determine that their comparison level is greater than their comparison level for alternatives, they usually remain in the relationship, but when they decide that their comparison level for alternatives is greater than their comparison level, they typically dissolve the relationship.
From these dissolution models, it could be surmised that when it comes to ending a relationship, there is a great deal of thought that comes with it. In studying situations before dissolutions, it was found that one aspect for the deterioration of a relationship is avoidance, during which time, the person neglecting uses this as a coping mechanism for the failure of the relationship and begins to redefine his/her life without the partner (Rusbult et al., 1986, 1987, 1998, as cited in Myers, 2008; Davis et al., 2003). Other reasons for breaking up also arose in a study conducted by Baxter (1986) wherein he found that females were likely to mention more reasons for breaking up (i.e. obligations to grant autonomy beyond the relationship, obligations to be open, and expectation of equity) while males were more likely to mention a lack of a magical quality as their reason for breaking up.
In post-breakup studies however, it was found that there is a great deal of pain involved. For the one who initiated the breakup, distress comes from the guilt over hurting someone, the upset feelings over the persistence of the other, or from the uncertainty felt over how to respond to the other (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992, as cited in Myers, 2008). On the other hand, Davis and his associates (2003) found that those whose partners initiated the breakup reported greater physical/emotional distress and a loss of interest in sex but had less self-blame and guilt. These differences in emotional experience between the one who initiated the breakup and the partner are attributable, in part, to the fact that life events perceived to be under one's control are less distressing than those perceived to be beyond one's control (Sprecher et al., 1998). However, during instances wherein, before the dissolution of the relationship, those involved in a relationship that had higher self-expansion, there was more detrimental impact on their working self-concept post-dissolution, which adds to the distress those involved feels (Lewandowski et al., 2006). Accounting for both aspects though, Sbarra (2006) concluded that the individuals who initiated the separation would still adapt much more quickly after the breakup.
In deciding to end a relationship then, more often than not a negative image of the initiator always arises since the initiator is seen as being the one who would cause the possible unpleasant events brought about by dissolution. Some of these cognitive processes involved in dissolution that the initiator experiences may fall under cognitive dissonance - one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Cognitive dissonance is the pressure of an aversive motivational stage when a person holds two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another (Bem, 1967). Aronson also defined it as a negative drive state which occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, beliefs, opinions) which are psychologically inconsistent. Since the occurrence of dissonance is presumed to be unpleasant, the individual strives to reduce it by adding “consonant” cognitions or by changing one or both cognitions to make them “fit together” (Aronson, 1969 as cited in Berkowitz, 1969). For example, in a case of a male initiator, he thinks that he is a good person but knows that breaking up will cause unpleasant consequences which are not good. Cognitive dissonance occurs because of the logical inconsistency of a good person doing something which is not good. To reduce the tension caused by this inconsistency, the initiator is likely to make rationalizations or resort to other defense mechanisms (Changing minds.org, n.d.). The initiator tries to appear rational, both to others and to himself.
Because most research on relational endings focus on its impact on the partner of the initiator, this study aims to explore the side of the initiator. More specifically on how the initiator confronts and processes the thought of dissolving the relationship: how the initiator moves from thoughts of dissolution toward an actual decision; how the initiator convinces self of the soundness of the decision (i.e., how initiator weighs favors and cost of being in the relationship against favors and costs of dissolution), etc.; how the initiator wrestles with the impending effects of dissolution to both parties and its implications on his/her (and other people’s) image of him/herself; and how the initiator’s knowledge of self develops or changes throughout the process of dissolution, including recovery.
The researchers hypothesized that: 1. there is a more careful cognitive processing involved, especially on what the dissolution can do for both parties when they were former best friends due to the greater involvement of both parties as compared to partners who were not former best friends; 2. for partners who were former bestfriends, the dissolution is modified from unpleasant to not so unpleasant by the initiator, wherein he/ she rationalizes the decision by finding reasons that would make the dissolution a better option for both parties, not just for the initiator himself; and, 3. that regardless of their kind of relationship before the romantic relationship began, self-concept is lowest right after the dissolution, mostly because of the impact to the non-initiator. The current research will explore on how these cognitive processes may differ for non-marital relationship dissolutions of former best friends as compared to non marital relationship dissolution of partners who were not formerly best friends.


**research proposal of our group in Psych180: Social Psychology **