Why Do Relationships Fail?

Should a relationship ending always be considered a ‘failure’? 

Relationships rarely fail for just one reason. Usually, a combination of factors leaves partners unsatisfied and unhappy, and every couple’s situation is unique.

The most common causes are toxic communication patterns, unresolved conflict, broken trust, mismatched expectations, lack of intimacy, incompatibility, and unhealthy dynamics.

Relationships can teach valuable lessons and help individuals grow, even if they don’t last forever. The experiences and insights gained can benefit future relationships and personal development.

Gottman’s Four Horsemen

The renowned psychologist and relationship expert John Gottman has studied relationships extensively and found “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” for relationships: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

According to Gottman and colleagues’ longitudinal research on newlyweds, these negative communication patterns predicted divorce (Gottman et al., 1998). Later evidence suggests the link is more modest than headline figures imply.

All couples slip into these behaviors at times. The key is how frequently they occur and whether more positive interactions balance them out.

Gottman recommends that a stable relationship has five (or more) positive interactions for every negative one during conflict (Gottman & Levenson, 1992).

Gottman recommends that for every negative interaction during conflict, a stable relationship has five (or more) positive interactions.

1. Criticism

Criticism involves attacking your partner’s character or personality, rather than focusing on a specific behavior.

It’s marked by blaming, accusations, and generalizations. Persistent criticism can make your partner feel assaulted, rejected, and hurt.

It often involves statements such as “you always” or “you never”. For example, “You never consider my feelings – you’re so selfish!” or “You never do anything around the house – you’re so lazy!”

Criticism leads to:

• Erosion of self-esteem – constantly being attacked and criticized will chip away at a person’s self-esteem and make them feel inadequate, unworthy, and unloved.
• Communication breakdown – becoming emotionally distant and defensive as a result of feeling judged and attacked.
• Resentment – feeling unappreciated and unvalued leads to resentment, frustration, and emotional distance.
• Trust issues – criticism undermines emotional safety and trust.
• Weakened intimacy – feeling judged and criticized damages emotional connection and sexual desire.
• Diminished relationship satisfaction.

2. Contempt

Contempt is the worst of the four horsemen. It involves treating your partner with disrespect, disgust, condescension, or ridicule and implies superiority towards your partner.

Contempt can be expressed through insults, name-calling, hostile humor, mockery, eye-rolling, sneering, or malicious sarcasm.

It conveys the message that you’re superior and your partner is worthless. Contempt is highly toxic to a relationship.

Research backs this up. Gottman and colleagues identified contempt as the single strongest predictor of relationship failure (Gottman et al., 1998).

Couples therapists trained in Gottman’s approach treat contempt as a priority warning sign. They coach partners to counter it with deliberate appreciation.

Therefore, contempt can contribute to relationship failure as it leads to:

• Lack of respect – contempt is the result of lacking respect for your partner. Without respect, a relationship is bound to fail.
• Emotional harm – contempt leads the victim to feel shame, distress, and worthlessness, and damages their self-esteem and well-being.
• Communication breakdown – sarcasm, mockery, criticism, and insults are not effective tools of communication. They prevent the couple from resolving conflict and addressing issues constructively – in fact, they lead to more conflict.
• Destruction of trust – it’s difficult to trust someone who treats you with contempt and shows you no respect.
• Poor health – being exposed to ongoing contempt can negatively impact a person’s mental and physical health due to stress, anxiety, and depression.
• Decreased relationship satisfaction.

3. Defensiveness

Defensiveness is typically a response to criticism. When we feel accused or attacked, we often respond with defensiveness, making excuses, denying responsibility, or even counter-attacking.

Defensiveness deflects blame by claiming innocent victimhood.

For example, you might ask your partner, “Hey, did you remember to get tomatoes at the supermarket?”

If they’re defensive, they might reply, “You didn’t write it on the list, so obviously, I didn’t get it. Just do it yourself next time.”

While defensiveness is understandable, it doesn’t solve problems. Instead, it escalates tension and creates an adversarial interaction.

Defensiveness can contribute to relationship failure because it leads to:

• Communication breakdown – it hinders open and honest communication and doesn’t allow conflicts to be resolved effectively.
• Lack of accountability – instead of listening and working towards a solution, a defensive person deflects blame and makes excuses, which can make conflicts worse.
• Loss of connection – it creates emotional barriers and distance, making it difficult to maintain a close and trusting connection.
• Resentment and hostility – constant defensiveness can lead to feelings of frustration and anger and thereby undermine the quality of the relationship.
• Diminished relationship satisfaction.

4. Stonewalling

Stonewalling is when one partner completely withdraws from the interaction, usually during conflict or disagreement. They shut down, physically or emotionally, and refuse to engage.

Stonewalling is a form of ostracism (social rejection and exclusion), so it evokes a strong emotional response.

The stonewaller might tune out, turn away, act busy, or engage in obsessive behaviors. It’s a way of avoiding conflict. But it can be very hurtful and frustrating for the partner on the receiving end.

From an evolutionary perspective, being sensitive to signs of ostracism was vital for survival in hunter-gatherer days, as social isolation had fatal consequences.

That’s why, to this day, the mind and brain interpret feeling ostracized as a threat. It can make us feel anxious and depressed.

If stonewalling is a common occurrence, it can have a detrimental impact on the health of the relationship as it leads to:

• Emotional damage – feeling ostracized undermines your fundamental need to belong and makes you feel like you’re unimportant and unworthy of their attention.
• Communication breakdown – it shuts down communication and therefore makes it impossible to address issues and resolve conflict. Without open and honest communication, issues will fester, and resentment will grow.
• Heightened conflict – rather than resolving conflict, it creates more conflict, anger, frustration, and distress.
• Damages emotional connection – feeling ignored and dismissed creates emotional distance and makes it difficult to trust and feel close to your partner.
• Decreased relationship satisfaction.

How Accurate Is the Four Horsemen Prediction?

Gottman’s research is often credited with predicting divorce with about 90% accuracy (Gottman et al., 1998). Those figures came from small samples of newlyweds. The same research group coded them intensively.

A much larger test paints a more modest picture.

Kanter et al. (2022) pooled 1,784 estimates from 64 studies. Each measured couples’ communication at one point and their relationship quality or breakup later. The results were modest:

• Negative communication: It predicted a greater chance of separating, but only to a small-to-moderate degree (d = −0.41).
• Positive communication: It did not reliably predict staying together (d = 0.24, p = .105).
• Relationship quality: Both kinds of communication had only small effects on how satisfying the relationship was later.

Negative behavior matters, as Gottman argued. But one early snapshot of how a couple argues is only a modest predictor of how things turn out.

What Best Predicts a Satisfying Relationship?

If communication alone is a modest predictor, what does predict how happy couples are? Joel et al. (2020) used machine learning on 43 longitudinal studies of couples (11,196 couples) contributed by 29 laboratories.

People’s own judgments about the relationship did best. How satisfied and committed they perceived their partner to be, and how appreciative they felt toward their partner, mattered most. Together, they explained about 45% of current satisfaction.

Personality traits and demographics such as income, education, and relationship length added little. The perceptions explained far less of later satisfaction (up to 18%).

None predicted whose relationship quality would rise or fall.

How partners see the relationship matters more than who they are. This supports Rusbult’s view that commitment drives whether people stay or leave (Rusbult et al., 1982).

Unresolved Conflict

Every relationship has issues and unresolved conflicts. What matters is how couples deal with them.

Avoiding the issues and pretending they don’t exist creates distance between people and can lead to resentment, tension, and disengagement.

The result is unmet needs, and one or both partners harbor negative feelings towards the other.

Small issues snowball and fester. Eventually, they can explode in unexpected ways and cause irreversible damage.

When conflicts fester without resolution, criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling tend to arise and become increasingly destructive cycles.

1. Criticism: When conflicts go unresolved, partners grow increasingly critical. They attack each other’s character or personality instead of addressing specific behaviors.
2. Contempt: Unresolved conflicts breed resentment. When people feel unheard, they may lose respect for their partner and slip into mockery, name-calling, and eye-rolling.
3. Defensiveness: When conflicts linger, one or both partners may deny responsibility, make excuses, or answer complaints with counter-complaints. Chronic defensiveness blocks productive resolution.
4. Stonewalling: Persistently unresolved conflict can end in one partner tuning out, ceasing to respond, or leaving. It usually happens when people feel overwhelmed and hopeless.

Unresolved conflict often signifies and perpetuates deeper trust issues in the relationship. If conflicts persist without resolution, partners may start doubting each other’s commitment to the relationship and willingness to put in the effort to work through problems.

They may feel uncertain about each other’s intentions, dependability, and whether they can count on each other to have their back.

How Couples Explain Each Other’s Behavior

How partners interpret each other’s behavior shapes how conflict plays out. Bradbury and Fincham’s (1990) review found that happy and unhappy couples explain the same events very differently:

• Happy couples: They credit good behavior to stable traits (“she’s kind”) and put bad behavior down to temporary causes (“he’s had a rough week”).
• Unhappy couples: They do the reverse. Good behavior is a fluke, and bad behavior reflects character.

The direction of cause is not fully settled. Unhappy explanations may cause dissatisfaction, or dissatisfaction may sour explanations. Karney and Bradbury (2000) found that changes in explanations predicted later satisfaction more than the reverse.

Findings like this have been put to practical use. In a study of 120 couples, Finkel et al. (2013) tested a 21-minute exercise in which partners reappraised a conflict from a neutral third party’s viewpoint.

Marital quality kept declining in the control group. In the group that did the exercise, the decline was eliminated.

Trust Issues

Trust is eroded when partners don’t feel safe being vulnerable and open with each other, which is less likely when conflicts go unaddressed.

Resentment and emotional walls build up, making it harder to maintain the safety, goodwill, and benefit of the doubt essential for trust.

Betrayal, dishonesty, and breaches of trust can severely damage a couple’s sense of security and closeness and ultimately break the bond between partners. It contributes to relationship failure in several ways:

• Emotional Distance: Partners struggle to open up and fully connect on an emotional level.
• Jealousy and Suspicion: Insecurity about a partner’s actions and intentions can show up as constantly questioning their loyalty, going through their phone, or spying.
• Withholding: Partners may withhold information, avoid communication, and become defensive.
• Negative Cycle: Insecurity and mistrust lead to behaviors that further erode trust.
• No Foundation: Without trust, a relationship cannot be healthy and fulfilling.

There’s often a vicious cycle where unresolved issues and dysfunctional conflict patterns like the “four horsemen” erode trust. That fuels further conflict and makes it even harder to resolve.

Breaking this cycle requires a commitment to developing healthier conflict resolution and rebuilding trust and emotional safety.

Why Breaking the Rules Destroys Trust

Close relationships run on unwritten rules, such as respecting privacy, keeping confidences, and offering emotional support. Argyle and Henderson (1984) argue that trust is probably the most important rule not to break. Without it, a relationship is almost certainly doomed.

Almost all research on betrayal asks the person who was betrayed. Lalot et al. (2026) asked the betrayers instead.

They collected 1,131 written accounts from people in France, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA who had betrayed someone close to them. Disloyalty and unfaithfulness was the most common type (31.7% of accounts) and the main form when the person betrayed was a romantic partner. One 25-year-old man wrote:

“I dated someone else, even though my relationship with my partner was already at a point where you could expect exclusivity or should definitely let them know if you were dating someone else, and I didn’t do that.”

Betrayers did not play down their role. They blamed themselves most for betraying a romantic partner (5.91 out of 7, versus 4.33 for workplace betrayals).

How close the relationship was, more than how severe the betrayal looked, shaped whether the betrayed person forgave or cut ties.

Not every broken rule is dramatic. A 29-year-old woman described a moment of neglect:

“I didn’t do much to celebrate a major birthday in my partner’s life. I thought they didn’t really care, so I didn’t do anything special besides a nice dinner.”

Because these are self-reports, they show what betrayers are willing to admit.

Mismatched Expectations

Cultural and societal factors can shape our expectations and experiences in relationships.

In some cases, cultural norms, gender roles, and societal pressures can lead to misunderstandings, boredom, conflict, and dissatisfaction and negatively impact the relationship.

Expectations can often lead to disappointment.

If partners don’t align on important values, goals, and expectations, it can lead to conflict, and if there’s no resolution, it can lead to a breakdown in the relationship. For example,

• Frank wants to get married and have children, but Lara doesn’t.
• Steve wants to open up the relationship (non-monogamy), but Jane wants to stay monogamous.
• Calvin would like to spend most of his free time with Chloe, but she prefers meeting up once a week.
• Brianna wants to travel and see the world, but her partner Jada wants to buy a house and settle down.

While these couples can work towards finding common ground, sometimes these different expectations can’t be resolved.

Be mindful of how social media can influence expectations of romantic relationships.

Lack of Intimacy

Intimacy is the glue that holds a relationship together. It makes partners feel like a team, like they’re building a life together.

Without intimacy, partners may simply coexist.

They may stop trying to spend quality time together, keep the spark alive, or work towards shared goals.

Over time, they may drift apart and feel like they no longer have a shared life.

If emotional, physical, and/or sexual intimacy is missing from a relationship, it can contribute to relationship failure in several ways:

• Emotional Distance: It creates distance and leads to feelings of loneliness and relationship dissatisfaction.
• Strained Communication: Without emotional intimacy, trust is eroded and conversation can become superficial, so conflicts are harder to resolve and needs harder to express.
• Infidelity: It can lead to infidelity as partners search for intimacy and closeness elsewhere.
• Lost Safety: Intimacy makes partners feel safe being vulnerable. Without it, they may avoid difficult conversations, bottle up resentments, or resort to criticism and defensiveness.

Incompatibility in Relationships

No two people are perfectly compatible in every way. But significant incompatibilities that go unaddressed can lead to ongoing conflict, frustration, and eventual relationship breakdown.

Here’s how various types of incompatibility can contribute to relationship failure:

1. Values and Life Goals: Fundamentally different visions for life make common ground hard to find. One partner wants children and the other doesn’t, or one prioritizes career and the other family.
2. Communication Styles: Very different styles cause frequent misunderstandings. A direct partner and an indirect one may struggle to grasp each other’s needs, as may an emotional partner and a more logical one.
3. Personality Differences: Opposites can attract, but big differences cause friction. An extrovert and an introvert may clash over social life, and an organized partner and a spontaneous one over daily habits.
4. Intimacy and Affection: Mismatched sex drive, sexual preferences, or desired affection breed frustration and feelings of rejection. Unless openly communicated and accommodated, one or both partners may feel chronically unfulfilled.

Incompatibility in certain areas doesn’t necessarily mean the relationship will fail.

Still, both partners need to be open and understanding and foster good communication and compromise – if this is missing, it can become problematic.

Couples with significant incompatibilities may constantly battle over differences, feel misunderstood or unfulfilled, and wonder if they’re really with the right person.

Who Is Most at Risk of Divorce?

Some couples are statistically more likely to divorce. Duck (1988) found that marriages are more likely to be unhappy or to end when they involve:

• Younger partners: Early marriage often means early parenthood and little time to adjust.
• Lower socio-economic status and education: These couples tend to have children early in the marriage.
• Different backgrounds: Partners differ in race, religion, or other demographic background.
• Family history: One partner experienced parental divorce as a child, or had more sexual partners than average before marriage.

These are risk factors, not destiny. Only a proportion of such couples divorce, and many divorces involve couples who fit none of these descriptions (Duck, 1988). Income, education, and relationship length also explained comparatively little about relationship quality once partners’ own perceptions were counted (Joel et al., 2020).

Unhealthy Relationship Dynamics

Some relationships descend into unhealthy dynamics, such as manipulation, control, abuse, or codependency. Codependency means consistently putting a partner’s needs ahead of your own boundaries, often enabling their destructive behavior.

How Toxic and Abusive Dynamics Ruin Relationships:

• Violated Safety: Trust and the fundamental expectation of safety and respect are violated.
• Emotional Damage: Shame, fear, worthlessness, and low self-esteem make it difficult or impossible to maintain a healthy relationship.
• Power Struggles: Control can lead to resentment and power struggles.
• Exhaustion: Constant arguments, unreasonable expectations, hot-cold behavior, and second-guessing are exhausting, so the victim might disengage emotionally and mentally to cope.
• Cycle of Violence: Periods of abuse followed by apologies, promises of change, and temporary calm lead to confusion, dependence, guilt, and shame.
• Hard to Leave: A toxic/abusive relationship is bound to fail in satisfaction and fulfillment. But control and manipulation often make it difficult for victims to leave.

How Codependency Can Lead to Relationship Failure

• Lack of Boundaries: The codependent prioritizes their partner’s needs and feelings, which can lead to resentment, frustration, and imbalance.
• Enabling: Codependents enable destructive behaviors such as addiction, irresponsibility, or poor self-care. This perpetuates unhealthy patterns and stops them thriving individually and in the relationship.
• Dependency and Control: The other partner relies heavily on the codependent for emotional support and validation. That can overwhelm the codependent, yet it also gives them a sense of being needed and in control, which perpetuates the cycle.
• One-Sidedness: It’s a one-sided relationship that fails to meet partners’ needs effectively.

Codependency is a destructive yet addictive dynamic, meaning it’s unhealthy for both individuals but very difficult to get out of (due to dependence).

Psychological Models of Relationship Breakdown

Psychologists have also studied how relationships come apart and why partners stay or leave. These models add structure to the everyday causes above.

Duck’s Three Types of Break-Up

Researcher Steve Duck (2001) argues that relationships end for an almost infinite number of reasons. Still, they fall into three broad categories:

• Pre-existing doom: Incompatibility and failure are almost predestined, for example because of a very large age or status gap.
• Mechanical failure: A well-matched, well-intentioned couple still cannot make daily life together work. Duck sees this as the most common cause.
• Sudden death: Discovering a betrayal or infidelity leads to immediate termination.

Incompatibility, for example, is a closer look at mechanical failure.

Duck also argues that the “official” reasons people give for a break-up are psychologically more interesting than the real ones. Break-up involves individual psychological processes, group processes, cultural rules, and self-presentation.

This applies mainly to romantic relationships, which are exclusive, rather than to friendships, which are not publicly “announced” (Duck, 2001).

Duck’s Four Phases of Dissolution

Duck (1982) describes dissolution as a process, not an event. It moves through four phases, and each begins when a person crosses a psychological threshold:

1. Intrapsychic: “I can’t stand this anymore.” One partner privately weighs the other’s behavior, the costs of leaving, and the alternatives.
2. Dyadic: “I’d be justified in withdrawing.” The couple confronts the problems, has “relationship talks,” and may attempt repair.
3. Social: “I mean it.” Partners negotiate life after the split and share their versions of events with friends and family.
4. Grave-dressing: “It’s now inevitable.” Each person works on “getting over” the relationship and tells their own version of the break-up story.

Duck compares the last phase to erecting a tablet over the relationship’s grave. It saves face and justifies the original commitment (Duck, 1988). It also keeps some memories alive.

Rollie and Duck (2006) later revised the model into five phases. It adds post-relationship stages focused on preserving self-esteem and understanding why the relationship failed.

Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) describe a similar “coming apart” staircase: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating. Gottman’s Four Horsemen tend to appear at the circumscribing stage.

Rewards, Costs, and Fairness

Social exchange theory treats relationships as an exchange of rewards and costs. Homans (1974) framed feelings for others as profit, which is reward minus cost.

Blau (1964) added that interactions cost time, energy, and commitment. A relationship stays worthwhile only while its rewards outweigh its costs.

Equity theory adds that fairness matters, not just profit. Partners want a balance between what each puts in and gets out. Feeling under- or over-benefited drives dissatisfaction.

The economic view has limits. Clark and Mills (1979, 1993) distinguish exchange relationships, where partners keep a mental ledger of who owes what, from communal relationships, where giving responds to a partner’s needs.

In close communal relationships, people stop keeping score. Reciprocity is actually weaker there than in casual relationships, so cost-benefit accounting describes new or casual bonds better than deep ones.

Why People Stay or Leave

Satisfaction alone poorly predicts whether people stay. Rusbult’s investment model adds commitment, which rests on three things:

• Satisfaction: How rewarding the relationship feels compared with its costs.
• Alternatives: The quality of the options outside the relationship.
• Investment size: The time, effort, and shared resources already put in.

Rusbult et al. (1982) found that prior satisfaction and larger investments predicted constructive responses to conflict. Believing that more attractive alternatives existed promoted exit and limited loyalty.

Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) classified responses to dissatisfaction on two dimensions: active or passive, and constructive or destructive.

• Exit (active, destructive): Actively ending or abusing the relationship.
• Voice (active, constructive): Actively trying to improve the situation.
• Loyalty (passive, constructive): Waiting for the situation to improve.
• Neglect (passive, destructive): Letting the relationship deteriorate.

Voice and loyalty tend to maintain relationships, while exit and neglect erode them. Rusbult et al. (1991) call a constructive reaction to a partner’s bad behavior accommodation, and found women more likely than men to accommodate.

Sources

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1(2), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407584012005

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003

Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1–30). Academic Press.

Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Open University Press.

Duck, S. (2001). Breaking up: The dissolution of relationships. Psychology Review, 7(3), 2–3.

Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1595–1601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474938

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., Arriaga, X. B., Baker, Z. G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Bergeron, S., Birnbaum, G. E., Brock, R. L., Brumbaugh, C. C., Carmichael, C. L., Chen, S., Clarke, J., Cobb, R. J., Coolsen, M. K., Davis, J., de Jong, D. C., Debrot, A., DeHaas, E. C., … Wolf, S. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117

Kanter, J. B., Lavner, J. A., Lannin, D. G., Hilgard, J., & Monk, J. K. (2022). Does couple communication predict later relationship quality and dissolution? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12804

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.295

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1996). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Lalot, F., Bertram, A.-M., Schuck, J., Maritz, L., & Bardeau, A. (2026). The things we do to each other: A study of betrayal narratives from the betrayer’s perspective. Personal Relationships, 33(2), Article e70065. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.70065

Rollie, S. S., & Duck, S. (2006). Divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships: Stage models and their limitations. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 223–240). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53

Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90042-2

Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1230–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1230