Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:10:45.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Love, Sex, and Satisfaction in On-Again/Off-Again Relationships: Exploring What Might Make These Relationships Alluring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2017

René M. Dailey  and
Alexander Powell
René M. Dailey*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
Alexander Powell
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: René M. Dailey, Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 2504A Whitis Ave. A1105, Austin, TX 78712-0115, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The current study explored positive relational qualities — love, need satisfaction, sexual satisfaction— to better understand what might be alluring to on-again/off-again (cyclical) partners given that they typically report lower relational quality and functioning than non-cyclical partners (i.e., those who have not broken up and renewed). A sample of 558 young adults in current romantic relationships (27.6% in cyclical relationships) reported on Sternberg's (1997) three love components (intimacy, passion, and commitment), relationship need satisfaction (e.g., companionship, emotional involvement), and their sexual satisfaction. Results supported the bulk of research showing cyclical partners report lower relational quality — cyclical partners reported less love, need satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. A pattern of findings regarding passion and need satisfaction regarding sexual and physical intimacy, however, suggests that cyclical partners might value the physical component of relationships more, and further, that passion might be more strongly related to global satisfaction as compared to non-cyclical partners. Overall, the value of this study is not in what differences were found but in ruling out certain explanations of what perpetuates cycling in young adult relationships. The current findings suggest the reasons individuals return to less satisfying relationships is complex and might require novel theoretical models.

Keywords

on-again/off-again relationshipscyclical relationshipssexual satisfactionrelationship needspassion
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 8 , 2017 , e11
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The relationship between dimensions of love, personality, and relationship length. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1181– 1190.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R.F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49–67.Google Scholar
Baxter, L.A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. In Huston, T. (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355–381). New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cate, R.M., Levin, L.A., & Richmond, L.S. (2002). Premarital relationship stability: A review of recent research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 261–284.Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Brody, N., LeFebvre, L., & Crook, B. (2013). Charting changes in commitment: Trajectories of on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1020–1044. doi:10.1177/0265407513480284 Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Hampel, A.D., & Roberts, J.B. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. doi:10.1080/03637750903514292 Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Jin, B., Pfiester, R.A., & Beck, G. (2011). On-again/off-again relationships: What keeps partners coming back? Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 417–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dailey, R.M., McCracken, A.A., Jin, B., Rossetto, K.R., & Green, E.W. (2013). Negotiating breakups and renewals: Types of on-again/off-again dating relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 382–410. 10.1080/10570314.2013.775325.Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Middleton, A.V., & Green, E.W. (2012). Perceived relational stability in on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 52–76. doi:10.1177/0265407511420192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Nelson, E., Crook, B., & LeFebvre, L. (2016, July). Weighing current satisfaction and perceived alternatives: Understanding what drives on-again/off-again relationships. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships, 16, 23–47. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x Google Scholar
Dailey, R.M., Rossetto, K.R., Pfiester, R.A., & Surra, C.A. (2009). A qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships: ‘It's up, it's down, all around.’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 443–466.Google Scholar
Drigotas, S.M., & Rusbult, C.E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87.Google Scholar
Fehr, B. (2013). The social psychology of love. In Simpson, J.A. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 201–233). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, H. (2006). The drive to love: The neural mechanism for mate selection. In Sternberg, R.J. & Weis, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 87–115). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grote, N.K., & Frieze, I H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 275–300.Google Scholar
Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W.D., Giordano, P.C., & Longmore, M.A. (2013a). Relationship churning in emerging adulthood: On/off relationships and sex with an ex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 166–188. doi:10.1177/0743558412464524 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W.D., Giordano, P., & Longmore, M. (2013b). Relationship churning, physical violence, and verbal abuse in young adult relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 2–12. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01029.x Google Scholar
Halpern-Meekin, S., & Turney, K. (2016). Relationship churning and parenting stress among mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 715–729. doi: 10.1111/jomf. 12297 Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love and sexual desire. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.Google Scholar
Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1997). Love and satisfaction. In Sternberg, R.J. & Hojjat, M. (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 56–78). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, D., Blair, K.L., & Phillips, M. (2010). Women's sexual satisfaction as a predictor of well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–11.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of the dissolution of commitment to relationships. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Personal relationships: Dissolving personal relationships (vol. 4, pp. 51–73). New York, NY: Academic Press Google Scholar
Karney, B.R., Bradbury, T.N., & Johnson, M.D. (1999). Deconstructing stability: The distinction between the course of a close relationship and its endpoint. In Adams, J.M. & Jones, W.H. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 481–499). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Le, B., Dove, N.L., Agnew, C.R., Korn, M.S., & Mutso, A.A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390.Google Scholar
Nepomnyaschy, L., & Teitler, J. (2013). Cyclical cohabitation among unmarried parents in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1248–1265. doi:10.1111/jomf.12064 Google Scholar
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., & Agnew, C.A. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, D.P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190–196.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The triangle of love. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R.J., & Barnes, M.L. (1988). The psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R.J., & Weis, K. (2006). The new psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
VanLear, C.A. (1998). Dialectic empiricism: Science and relationship metaphors. In Montgomery, B.M. & Baxter, L.A. (Eds.), Dialectic approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 109–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vennum, A. (2011). Understanding young adult cyclical relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (UMI 3477279).Google Scholar
Vennum, A., & Johnson, M.D. (2014). The impact of premarital cycling on early marriage. Family Relations, 63, 439– 452.Google Scholar
Vennum, A., Lindstrom, R., Monk, J.K., & Adams, R. (2014). ‘It's complicated’: The continuity and correlates of cycling in cohabitating and marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 410–430. doi:10.1177/0265407513501987 Google Scholar
Vohs, K., Catanese, K.R., & Baumeister, R.F. (2004). Sex in ‘his’ versus ‘her’ relationships. In Harvey, J.H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 455–474). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Waite, L.J. 2000. The negative effects of cohabitation. The Responsive Community, 10, 31–38.Google Scholar
Willoghby, B.J., Carroll, J.S., & Busby, D.M. (2014). Differing relationship outcomes when sex happens before, on, or after first dates. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 52–61.Google Scholar