Two Key Studies of Explanations for why Relationships Change or End (DP IB Psychology)

Key study one: Mitnick et al. (2009)

Aim:  To investigate changes in satisfaction levels of couples after becoming parents compared to couples who have not had children (with reference to Duck’s phase model)

 Participants:

• Samples from the data of 37 US-based longitudinal studies tracking first-time parents from pregnancy up to the child being about a year old

• 4 longitudinal studies of childless couples were used for comparison

• A total of almost 6,000 individual samples were included in the study

Procedure:

• A meta-analysis was conducted using research articles of couples with and without children dating from as far back as 1887 up to and including 2006

• The researchers identified keywords which formed the basis of the research, for example:

  • ‘transition’

  • ‘parenthood’

  • ‘relationship satisfaction’

• The researchers also obtained unpublished research from key researchers in the field of relationships to add to their findings

• The studies included in the meta-analysis were generally self-report questionnaires and surveys which used rating scales to measure the level of satisfaction expressed by the participants

 Results:

• There was a significant decline in relationship satisfaction for the couples who had children compared to the childless couples:

  • This decline was particularly true for the first couple of years after the first child had been born

  • There was a good deal of variability in the above finding, with some couples recording large decreases in satisfaction compared to slight increases in some cases

  • The above findings are relevant to Duck’s intra-psychic and dyadic phases of his model in which dissatisfaction is a key trigger for the onset of relationship breakdown

Conclusion: Becoming first-time parents may affect the satisfaction levels of a relationship, with most impact on the relationship being negative

Evaluation of Mitnick et al. (2009)

Strengths

• This meta-analysis used a variety of statistical measures, which is an objective and consistent way of conducting the procedure which increases the reliability of the findings

• The study lends support to the idea that there may be a common pattern to relationship breakdown as predicted by Duck’s phase model:

  • A stress point (in this case the birth of a child) threatens the relationship

  • Dissatisfaction is expressed, which may be shared with the other person and which may ultimately lead to the relationship being terminated

 Limitations

• A meta-analysis cannot hope to fully explore (or explain) why and how relationship breakdown occurs as it ignores both individual differences and qualitative methodology, for example:

  • The lack of satisfaction expressed may have already existed before the birth of the first child

  • Some couples may express dissatisfaction more easily than others - but this does not mean that they necessarily feel dissatisfied

  • A lack of qualitative data robs the study of explanatory power, the ‘why’ of relationship breakdown

• One of the issues with this study is that it measures satisfaction up to only one year after the birth of the child, which means that long-term effects of becoming a parent and the effect on satisfaction are unknown

Key study two: Felmlee (1995)

Aim: To investigate the fatal attraction hypothesis (FAH) as an explanation for relationship breakdown.

Participants: 301 students from the University of California 

Procedure: 

• The participants completed a self-report in which asked them to list the qualities that had first attracted them to a recent partner

• After making this list they were then asked to list the qualities that they least liked about that person.

Results: 

• Felmlee identified 88 (almost 30%) of what she termed FA break-ups

• These FA relationships could be defined as being relationships based on the other person having qualities that initially provoked excitement or fascination

• Felmlee identified three patterns that are typical of FA breakdowns:

  • 1. Fun to foolish: This was the most common reason for relationship failure:

    • A ‘fun’, outgoing, party loving person is gradually seen as immature, irresponsible and foolish by their partner

  • 2. Strong to domineering: The attraction here might be based on someone who offers strength, who has definite opinions and a reassuring presence:

    • These traits may be perceived as being dictatorial, bossy, forceful and overbearing after a while

  • 3. Spontaneous to unpredictable: This describes the sort of person who may suddenly suggest a weekend in Paris out of the blue: 

    • The person initially appears to be living in the moment, living life to the full,  but they may ultimately be viewed as having a lack of focus, being unreliable, inconsistent and just overall ‘flaky’.

Conclusion: There does seem to be a consistent and predictable pattern to FA relationships

Evaluation of Felmlee (1995)

Strengths

• The study could be said to have good validity:

  • Patterns in the data do seem to support the fatal attraction hypothesis

  • Additionally, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and real-world observations that back up Felmlee’s findings (there is even a film called ‘Fatal Attraction’ which the theory takes its name from)

• This theory attempts to explain why relationships break down, as opposed to Duck’s phase model which simply charts the progression of relationship breakdown

Limitations  

• The sample is ethnocentric as it only used students from the University of California,making it limited in generalisability

  • The FAH is biased towards individualistic cultures

  • Collectivist cultures do not necessarily conform to the FAH:

    • People from collectivist cultures are less likely to actively choose unsuitable partners, particularly if the tradition is for arranged marriages

    • Having several ‘experimental’ relationships - particularly in cultures where marriage is highly valued - would be frowned upon and may render the person unsuitable for marriage