They are Watching: Child Wellbeing and Parent Interaction

Our lab has a new paper out on how interaction between parents is related to their children’s emotional wellbeing. The official abstract is here. The lead author is Kayla Knopp. She wrote a very clear lay summary of what is a pretty complex paper, so I asked her if I could post it, here.

Kayla Knopp’s Summary

We found that when couples change their specific interaction behaviors (communication and conflict management skills), their children’s wellbeing also tends to change in corresponding ways. On the other hand, we found no evidence that changes in more general marital satisfaction are linked to changes in children’s wellbeing; our findings suggest that children might respond most to the ways that parents interact with each other.

Breaking this down further, we found that improvements in parents’ communication skills were linked to improvements in their children’s emotional wellbeing (what we and others have called internalizing problems), whereas improvements in both communication and conflict management were linked to improvements in children’s behavioral problems (what we and others have called externalizing problems). That is, children seem to respond emotionally to parents’ communication, overall, but respond behaviorally to parents’ conflict. The overarching conclusion is that parents who improve their interactions with their spouse are likely to see similar improvements in their children’s emotional wellbeing and behavior.

A lot of theories suggest that children may be quite sensitive to the way their parents behave toward one another, and our research provides data that support that idea. The take-home from this study is that if we want to improve children’s wellbeing, teaching their parents how to better communicate and manage conflict is probably a great place to start. Now, we can’t say for sure that these changes in parents’ interactions will cause changes in children’s wellbeing; we did not do the kind of study that can establish a causal link. But what we can say is that our research supports efforts to help parents reduce their conflict and improve their communication.

Scott’s Additional Comments

I want to highlight a couple of points Kayla Knopp makes about our new paper. First, children may not be all that sensitive to how happy their parents are together; they are sensitive to how parents treat each other in ways that can be seen. Second, parents help their children by treating each other with respect—by communicating well and managing conflict constructively. For some couples, this is easier said than done. 

Knopp, K., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Parsons, A., Ritchie, L. L., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. M. (2017). Within-and between-family associations of marital functioning and child wellbeing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(2), 451 – 461. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12373

Broken Hearts and Deal Breakers: Reasons People Give for Divorcing

By Scott Stanley

Why do people divorce? What do people say about why they divorced? Those are two different questions, and I am going to focus on the latter—what people say about why.[i] That is a simpler question to answer than the larger and complex question of the various causes of divorce. The five reports I mention rely on a variety of methods and types of samples yet yield similar answers across different samples, methods, and eras. 

Sociologists Amato and Previti (2003)[ii] used data from the “Marital Instability Over the Life Course” project (Booth, Amato, & Johnson, 1998). These data are based on a national survey of people in 1980 and 1997. Those who divorced were asked, “What do you think caused the divorce?” The open-ended responses were coded into categories, with the top reasons for divorcing being:

• Infidelity
• Incompatibility
• Drinking or drug use
• Growing apart

In 2001, a group of family scholars conducted a large, random, statewide phone survey in Oklahoma.[iii] I was part of this team. We interviewed over 2000 people and asked those who had been divorced choose among nine “major” reasons for divorcing, the list being developed by the researchers ahead of time based on our knowledge of the literature. The top three reasons people gave were:

• A lack of commitment
• Too much conflict or arguing
• Infidelity or extramarital affairs

These reasons were followed by “getting married too young,” “little or no helpful premarital preparation,” and “financial problems or economic hardship.” The reports of marrying too young likely overlap with the general category of incompatibility, since this is one of the risks of marrying very young; people often do not know themselves or what they expect and desire in a mate at age 18. Amato and Previti presenting findings in support of this point, finding that incompatibility was more commonly reported as a reason for divorce among those who had married young than those who had married when a little older. 

Infidelity is on both lists covered so far (and on every list coming up). Clearly, that is a sub-category of commitment problems, so commitment is a major theme in both reports I’ve mentioned thus far. For some, infidelity is the main reason their marriage ended and, for others, infidelity is something that happened at the end of years of other problems, such as nasty conflicts, incompatibility, and substance abuse.

I Blame You

Amato and Previti found that many more people blamed their ex for their marriage ending (33%) than blamed themselves (5%). Similarly, in the report from the survey in Oklahoma, we found that most people (73%) believed that they had worked hard enough on their marriage but that their ex-spouse should have worked harder (74%). As in Amato and Previti, we see that most people who have divorced believe their ex was more to blame.

Mostly, people don’t blame themselves for divorcing. This is a good example of the point I made at the outset. There are many complex reasons why marriages fail, including characteristics of the individuals, family history (growing up), poverty, mental health issues, the way the relationship developed (Too fast or too slow? Timing and sequence. All the things I write about here, regularly), communication ability, attachment dynamics, individual misbehavior, and so on. In contrast, the reasons people give for divorcing are pretty straightforward, and while the actual causes can be complex, most people distill it down to failings on their partner’s side of the equation.

Reasons for Divorce and Final Straws

A study from our lab (Scott, Rhoades, Stanley, Allen, and Markman, 2013)[iv] used a multi-year, longitudinal sample of couples marrying who participated in premarital preparation between the years 1995 and 2001 through their religious organizations. After following this sample for many years, the team contacted those who had divorced and interviewed the fifty-two people who responded about their reasons, using the same list used by Johnson and colleagues These data are less representative than other samples here, but what the study lacked in sample size may be made up for by depth of information. Our team asked people not only the major cause of divorce but also about the “final straw.” The top reported reasons for divorce were:

• Lack of commitment
• Infidelity
• Conflict/arguing

Pretty familiar, right? The most common final straws were:

• Infidelity
• Domestic violence
• Substance abuse

Scott and colleagues made an important distinction in that the reasons why a marriage declines, leading to an end, can be different from what finally breaks the back of one continuing. And when it comes to deciding a marriage is over, women are more likely than men to say it’s done (found by Amato & Previti, and many others). In both Amato and Previti’s study, and in the report by Johnson and colleagues, women were more likely than men to report a marriage ending because of abuse. I still recall a talk based by Amato, years ago, where he noted that, on average, many marriages end when women become fed up with men behaving badly. Clearly, plenty of women behave badly also, as many divorced men will attest. Nevertheless, it is a common scenario where one partner (more often the man) exhibits behavior that the other partner (more often the woman) finally decides is more than too much to bear. In his talk, Amato described the same deal breakers listed by Scott and colleagues as final straws. Similarly, Johnson and colleagues (2002) reported top reasons men and women gave for divorcing, and found that the answers were mostly the same except that women were far more likely (44%) than men (8%) to report that domestic violence was a major reason for divorcing.

In 2004, AARP put out a report based on a large, national survey of older adults, aged 40 and up, on reasons for the divorces they experienced in their 40s, 50s, or 60s. The survey appears to be representative and used excellent methods.[v] Cutting to the chase (because time is of the essence when you are older), people reported these top reasons for divorcing:

• Abuse: verbal, physical, or emotional
• Differing values and lifestyles
• Cheating

Runner up was “simply falling out of love/no obvious problems.” So, the older set, who now account for a lot of divorce,[vi] give reasons for divorce similar to other reports covered here.

Hawkins, Willoughby, and Doherty published a study in 2012[vii] that reported reasons for marriages in the only study I cover here that was not retrospective. As part of the extensive work that Bill Doherty, StevenHarris, and colleagues have been doing about the possibility of reconciliations after filing—but before finalizing—divorce, the study by Hawkins and colleagues reports reasons given for divorcing within a sample of 886 individual parents who were in the process of divorcing. These parents were involved in mandated parenting classes as part of the legal system in Hennepin County, Minnesota. They found the two most common reasons for divorcing to be:

• Growing apart
• Not being able to talk together

People who were the least likely to entertain putting the brakes on their divorce reported growing apart, differences in tastes, and money problems. In an interesting twist, given the other findings noted here, abuse and infidelity were not reasons for divorcing that were associated with how much interest someone had in potentially reconciling the marriage.

Having My Baby: Or Not

There is a lot of consistency across these studies but might there be other reasons emerging as the deal breakers in the current era? While not a study, Vicki Larson (@OMGchronicles) recently tweeted about the observations of attorneys in a New York Post piece suggesting that conflicts over having children had become one of the biggest reasons for divorce.

Both I (@DecideOrSlide) and Nicholas Wolfinger (@nickwolfinger) tweeted that we did not know of research supporting this point. (Great science proceeds on Twitter. Follow me.) Nevertheless, Larson and I agreed that this is likely to be a growing reason for divorcing. I believe this is likely. First, I think people are more likely than ever before to slide into important relationships—including marriage and parenting—without making clear decisions about a future together. That means there will be a growing number of relationships moving into marriage that are poorly vetted.

Second, incompatibility has often been given as a reason for divorcing, and different family aspirations could easily become a major driver in this category as having children has become less of a default expectation in marriage. Whether or not two spouses were likely to be good parents, or to attempt to be,  most married couples in the past had children. Now, like everything else, whether or not to have children is much less a given and much more a (potential) negotiation (when it’s not a slide). 

It Takes Two to Tango

While no one can anticipate all the changes and circumstances that will impact a marriage in the future, singles interested in marriage do well to make the best choices they can at the start in preparing for a successful marriage (read more, here). And those who are married and happy who want to avoid divorce in the future have ways to strengthen and build on what they have (read more, here.) We all know that it takes two people to make a good marriage last. One person cannot make it happen without the other person also being willing to invest and grow. As mentioned already, it’s easiest after the fact for each individual to believe that their ex failed the dance. But to make a marriage last, it’s going to work best if each spouse is focused on the mantra my colleague Howard Markman and I push: “do your part.”[viii]

   

I am sure there are other studies bearing on this of reasons for divorce, but it is obvious that there is a convergence in reasons people give for their marriages ending. The individual stories will be varied and complex but the basic themes remain: broken hearts and deal breakers.

---

[i] This is not intended to be a systematic review. It is a brief review based on the studies I know about.

[ii] Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People's reasons for divorcing.  Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626.

[iii] Johnson, C. A., Stanley, S. M., Glenn, N. D., Amato, P. A., Nock, S. L., Markman, H. J., & Dion, M. R.  (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma:  2001 baseline statewide surveyon marriage and divorce (S02096 OKDHS).  Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

[iv] Scott, S. B., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., & Markman, H. J. (2013) Reasonsfor divorce and recollections of premarital intervention: Implications for improving relationship education. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(2), 131-145.

[v] The work was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which is a sign of typically excellent survey methods.

[vi] Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990-2010. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 67(6), 731-741.

[vii] Hawkins, Willoughby, & Doherty (2012). Reasons for divorce and openness to marital reconciliation. Journal of Divorce andRemarriage, 53, 453–463.; See also Doherty, W. J., Harris, S. M., & Wickel Didericksen, K. (2016) A typology of attitudes toward proceeding with divorce among parents in thedivorce process. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 57(1), 1-11.

[viii] For example, in our online program for couples at www.lovetakeslearning.com

Aggression in Twentysomethings’ Cohabiting, Dating, and Marriage Relationships

By Scott M. Stanley and Galena K. Rhoades

A number of studies have shown that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience physical aggression in their relationships than married couples.[i] Here, we look at two studies that shed light on this subject by exploring how aggression in the relationships of individuals (mostly) in their 20s is associated with various commitment dynamics. Wendy Manning, Monica Longmore, and Peggy Giordano’s new study, Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment,[ii] shares some themes with an earlier study of ours (Rhoades et al., in 2010): Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints.[iii]

In both studies, physical aggression was measured as having some history of behaviors such as pushing, shoving, hitting and beyond.[iv] Using cross-sectional analyses within a later wave of their longitudinal Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study involving 926 individuals aged 22-29, Manning and colleagues found that cohabiting couples were more likely to report aggression (31%) in their relationship than married (23%) or dating couples (18%). These differences held even when controlling for many other variables.[v]

Similarly, in our Relationship Development Study, a national longitudinal sample of 1,278 emerging adults in unmarried relationships (aged 18 to 34), we found that 48 percent of the unmarried adults reported some sort of physical aggression in the history of their relationship. The percentages in our sample are likely higher due to the wider age range and other differences. While the percentages in either study may seem high to you, they are consistent with many other studies of those in these earlier stages of life.[vi]

In our study, we focused on the odds that people who reported aggression in their romantic relationships would break up in the future. We found that those who reported aggression in the prior year were more likely to break up in the next two years (37% did so), compared to those reporting either no aggression (27%) or aggression that occurred more than a year in the past (30%). The latter two groups were not significantly different in the likelihood of remaining together. We also found that those who were living together—compared to dating and not living together—were more likely to report that their relationship experienced physical aggression within the prior year. Among those with aggression, the odds were five times greater that they would remain together over the next two years if they were cohabiting versus dating (even when controlling for a number of other important variables).[vii]

Commitment Dynamics

Hitting is especially common in relationships during earlier stages of life. Even though many break up, it raises the question of why so many of these couples stay together—a subject addressed by the focus on commitment in both papers we describe here.

There are many different published theories of commitment in romantic relationships. The one we like to use the most is that expressed by Stanley and Markman in the early 1990s, which was informed by the theoretical and empirical work of many luminaries across disciplines and decades. Some of the notables include John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, Peter Blau, George Levinger, Michael Johnson, Karen Cook and Richard Emerson, and Caryl Rusbult.[viii]

Stanley and Markman provide for a straightforward way of thinking about why relationships continue or have certain qualities by dividing commitment into the dimensions of dedication and constraint.[ix] Dedication reflects the desire to be with a person in the future, to form an identity as a couple, to sacrifice for and prioritize the relationship. Dedication can lead you to doing the right or best thing for your partner and the relationship, now and into the future. What we call dedication often goes by the simple name of “commitment” in much of the literature where commitment is measured relatively well.[x]  

In contrast to dedication, constraint commitment is comprised of a collection of relatively disparate dimensions that reflect both past investment in the relationship and factors that make it harder to leave—if one wanted to do so. Constraints come in many forms, and they play a complicated role in the maintenance of relationships. Sometimes they reflect investments (that can be lost),[xi] and sometimes they reflect options that are limited or have become more so. In either case, what constraints do, conceptually and empirically, is raise the costs of leaving and reinforce staying, net of dedication.[xii] Constraints are not all that important in a person’s day-to-day relationship experience unless dedication is burned away; when dedication is gone, it is constraint commitment that can keep you where you are at.

Here are two examples. You have more constraint commitment to stay on current path (in any area of life, not just relationships) when you have fewer alternatives to it. One type of alternative relates to your perception of how available other desirable partners would be if your present relationship ended. Another type of constraint is financial. For example, if you’ve invested more—bought more together, combined accounts, etc.—you have more to lose if you break it off. There are many other types of constraints. Some are easily seen as evidence of past dedication and some are built into a person’s life even before meeting the present partner.

Those who follow our work closely will recognize in these themes why we believe that cohabitation matters (especially before commitment to a future is clear and mutual). While it’s become easy to have positive perceptions about the benefits of cohabiting prior to, or instead of, marriage, what people often fail to recognize is that cohabiting also increases constraints to remain together before dedication has become clear or matured[xiii] This is what we refer to as the problem of “inertia.”[xiv]

The Interplay of Dedication and Constraint in Relationships with Aggression

In both studies in focus here, dedication and various dimensions of potential constraint were analyzed. In their study, Manning and colleagues found that dedication was associated with lower odds of being in a relationship with aggression, as did we in our earlier research. There are at least a couple of reasons why this is so. First, people are generally going to be less committed to a relationship with aggression. Second, a body of studies shows that commitment (think of dedication, here) inhibits negative behaviors, including aggression,[xv] which would partly explain why people who are more dedicated to their partners will report less of it.

The two studies we describe here also found that relationships with more aggression tended to have lower dedication and higher constraints. This is pretty much exactly what you would expect. Additionally, Manning and colleagues found that the high-constraint/low-dedication combination was more common for cohabiters than marrieds or daters.

Both studies contain nuances that make the interpretation about cohabitation and commitment complex. For example, while Manning and colleagues found that both dedication and constraint were associated with aggression, as we just noted, they did not find that these commitment dynamics explained why cohabitation was more associated with aggression than marriage or dating.

Further, we found that living together was strongly associated with the likelihood that relationships with a history of aggression would continue, even while taking into account measures of constraint, overall relationship quality, and dedication. Based on the idea of inertia, you might expect that controlling for some aspects of constraint would lower the degree to which cohabitation was associated with aggression; but living together remained associated with aggression and with aggressive relationships continuing.

Selection, Inertia, and Asymmetrical Commitment

Do the increased constraints of cohabiting make it more likely that people in aggressive relationships will remain in those relationships, or is something else in the mix? All of these findings are consistent with the fact that there is a lot of selection for risk in cohabiting relationships that lack a clear, mutual commitment to marriage (or at least, a future). That is, some people are at greater risk than others for virtually every negative relationship outcome you can think of because of factors related to their history, their family, their genetics, or their economics. And people already at greater risk are more likely to cohabit in the ways associated with the most risk (e.g., with a number of partners and/or before there is a serious, mutual commitment to marriage). We believe that cohabitation is a particular problem for some people because it increases the odds that a relationship already select for greater risk will continue—or continue longer than it otherwise would have. We have shown that moving in together increases constraints and also that constraints make it more likely one will remain in a relationship net of dedication.^{XiV & XV}

In total, these studies make a great deal of sense. What may be missing in them, however, is another dimension we think a lot about: asymmetrical commitment.

The two samples for the studies described here included individuals rather than couples. They do not have measures of commitment from bother partners, just the one. We have evidence that cohabitation without (or before) engagement or mutual plans to marry may be—in a way—a magnet for couples where one partner is substantially less dedicated than the other. We recently wrote about asymmetrically committed relationships (here), describing research where commitment levels of both partners are assessed. We have found that asymmetrical commitment is more likely to exist in cohabiting than dating relationships, and, among marrieds, to be more likely to exist when couples lived together prior to engagement or marriage. While some of these relationships epitomize higher constraint and lower dedication, what matters most for this next point is that the levels of dedication are not mutual.

Asymmetrical commitment may turn out to be one ingredient in the way cohabitation and aggression are linked. We have found that asymmetrically committed relationships are more prone to aggression and generally have low relationship quality.[xvi] Many asymmetrically committed relationships contain one partner who is not committed enough to inhibit negative behaviors and another who, while relatively highly committed, will be massively frustrated by a growing awareness of their partner’s lower commitment. That sounds like a recipe for highly destructive conflict.

Being Safe

Many relationships involve aggression, especially in the earlier stages of life examined in these two studies. While it is common and it comes in many forms, aggression in intimate relationships is unsafe and carries the potential for lasting harm. The most dangerous patterns of all involve aggression that leads to injuries and/or ongoing control and intimidation.[xvii] In contrast, what allows individuals to thrive in life and succeed in relationships is emotional and physical safety with the security of mutual commitment.

Whether cohabiting, married, or dating, if you or someone you know is in an unsafe relationship, there are people who are eager to help. The phone number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline is 800-799-7233.

This article first appeared at the blog of the Institute for Family Studies on 1-17-2017.

Scott M. Stanley is a research professor at the University of Denver and a fellow of the Institute for Family Studies (@DecideOrSlide). Galena K. Rhoades is a research associate professor at the University of Denver.

---

[i] Brown, S. L., & Bulanda, J. (2008). Relationship violence in young adulthood: A comparison of daters, cohabitors, and marrieds. Social Science Research, 37(1), 73-87.

[ii] Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2016, early online version). Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues.

[iii] Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Kelmer, G., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 678-687.

[iv] As it typical in many studies that include measurement of aggression, both studies measured physical aggression based on reports of any history of it in respondents’ relationships (being on the receiving end or dishing it out). Manning et al. used a measure asking about both relatively minor (push, shove, hit) and severe aggression (beat up) and Rhoades et al. used a measure asking about both minor aggression as well as physical injuries. In most studies such as those noted here, the type of violence in the relationships will mostly not be what people think about when they think of battering or domestic violence shelters. Instead, it will be what researchers now well understand to be the relatively more common aggression found in the relationships of young adults who have difficulties managing conflict and regulating negative emotions. That does not change the fact that aggression is always dangerous. Detailing the issues and controversies about types of violence is beyond our scope, here.

[v] The difference between marriage and cohabiting moved to p < .10 rather than p < .05 with all the control and other variables, though the size of the effects was essentially unchanged (an indicator that the analysis becomes a little less statistically powerful with so many variables being included).

[vi] Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., and Short, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101 – 111.; Cui, M., Ueno, K., Gordon, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). The continuation of intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 300-313.; Rhoades, G. K., and Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I Do”: What do premarital experiences have to do with marital quality among today’s youngadults? Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project.

[vii] See page 685 in Rhoades et al. (2010): Odds Ratio = 4.92, controlling for relationship quality, children together, children from prior relationships, duration of the relationship, dedication (interpersonal commitment) to partner, and a host of various measures of constraint commitment.

[viii] For more on theories and some history on research on commitment, see Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243-257.

[ix] Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.

[x] For example, not merely coding a couple as more committed because they are married versus not, but using a scale to assess the construct: Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999).  The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160-177.; Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P.  (1993) Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175 204.; Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6), 820-841.

[xi] Things that we would generically refer to as constraints are often called investments in other models of commitment, such as the one used most fully and typically in social psychology that was founded by Caryl Rusbult: e.g., Rusbult, C. E. (1980).  Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

[xii] Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010).  Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 543-550.

[xiii] Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348 - 358.

[xiv] Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.

[xv] e.g., Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N. Pond, R. S., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 291-305.

[xvi] Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2016, early online version).Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

[xvii] As just one citation for this point, see: Johnson, M. P. and Leone, J. M. (2005).  The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.  Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.

While Making Family Movies, Capture the Everyday Splendor of Family Life

I’ve been watching tape, video tape, from when our family was young. I would not be doing this but I’ve been finally preparing to have these tapes digitized for posterity. I don’t think the library of congress is all that interested but I hope, one day, my now emerging adult sons will be. And I think the odds of it all being lost somewhere along the way are not small.

This whole task has led me to some insights about what you capture and how you hand it off to the next generation. Some of what I share here is for people more at my stage of life, but a lot of my thoughts are going to matter most for those of you who are somewhere closer to the start of that arc of family history than us.

Backdrop: Working on the prequel to the sequel

I want our two sons to have a reasonable shot at having all these videos we recorded when they were young.  My wife and I have things pretty sorted out on saving photos for them but I’ve put off dealing with the video, until now. The immediate impetus to work through the videos was learning about a service that makes it easy for me to box up the videos and send them off to the big digitizer in the sky (Tennessee, I think). You can also probably get this done with a local service in your city. Ask around if you are ready to do that.

Suggestion Number One: These are not the droids you’ll be looking for

If you are going to capture videos of your family, I would record a lot more of the day-to-day family stuff than you otherwise might. I’m talking about playing, laughing, dancing, and bathing (use some discretion if you later desire that your emerging adults do not hate you). One of our most precious videos catches our sons dancing to a video of River Dance, maybe around the ages of 5 and 2.5. I say “maybe” because I’m too lazy to get up right now from typing to ask my wife, who would somehow know precisely how old they were at the time and maybe what they ate for lunch that day. I know they were little and cute, and they were enthusiastic in their dancing. Their dancing was electric as well as confirming of paternity. Um, let’s just leave that alone.

Another of my personal favorites is of our youngest, maybe around 3, wrapped tightly in a towel after a bath, arms inside, looking like a little pastry with legs and no arms. He was trying to jump up on our bed without the use of his arms. It. Is. Hysterical. He tries and tries and tries and finally makes it. These days, we might call that grit. It is joy.  

In addition to such moments, we, of course, have a lot of video of birthdays and Christmas occasions as well as trips to and from various relatives. To grandma’s house we went and returned. That’s all nice to have, really it is. But the videos I am finding most precious now are the ones with just the four of us doing normal stuff. I also realize that I remember plenty of special occasions relatively well. At least, I don’t see things in those videos that surprise me or remind me of things I simply had no memory for, now.

This suggestion is the one I didn’t see before this weekend. You might already get this. I didn't. Special occasions are so predictable. The "special" dates and times are more staged and filled with expected moments. To me, the magical stuff is the loveliness of family life on the small stage.

To the right is a completely un-staged photo from my own childhood. That's one of my older brothers hugging me. He's had a very hard life. This was not a special occasion, but of course it was. An I have absolutely no memory of it, now, but it's a joy to see.

Suggestion Number Two: There is another

Record a lot more of child number two, and numbers three through whatever, if you have them, than you are already doing. We all know how this goes. The first child gets massive attention; the second, gets less. And even when you are trying to focus on the second, that will be affected by the first one having developed massive skills in photo-bombing everything. Star Wars, indeed.

Twenty years or more from now, when you are cataloguing stuff for your children to have, you might wish you’d acted a little more to capture more of everyone. We did pretty well but think about if you’ll find it awkward to hand over 70 videos of the first child and 30 of the second, and 10 of the third. Fourth child and beyond? Well, they will be happy that you still remember their name. You can counter this now, but only a bit. Try to record less of the first one (just try) and more of the others. You can thank me 25 years from now. I’ll stick around.

I know a lot of families are very complex (step parent relationships, adoption when children are older, and so forth). Don’t avoid figuring out a strategy for your family as it really is, just because it may be more complex. 

Suggestion Number Three: Your digital life might as well be stored on Alderaan

Okay, that’s a little dramatic, but it’s important to consider how to protect some of what you are capturing at the home planet just in case someone decides to test a new death star, nearby. The Empire really does not care that your children get this stuff, so you might want to start figuring out now how you are going to get some of this to them. My sons are digitally savvy young adults, of course. But we all know the biggest risk in any attempt to preserve this stuff: These precious family memories will slip into the cacophony of the digital avalanche of rest of their lives—and be lost forever. As organized as I am and as gadget and electronically inclined they are, I would still bet more on it all being lost than not many years from now. I know that is what is most likely, but “never tell me the odds.”

I will try to counter this possibility with notes, instructions, and guilt—for their own good. Consider all that is stacked against you in passing this digital stuff along. They need to know they have it. They need to remember they have it. They need to care that they have it while they can still preserve it. It needs to be kept in various places (like multiple copies). They need to have it in a way that it is remotely likely to be readable by much more advanced systems and formats in the future. I came across some Zip drives in my closet in the basement just this weekend. For those who are wondering, Zip drives were a type of floppy (inside) medium that could hold a whopping 100MB (that's an M not a G). I do not have any Zip drive devices anymore. I could go find one but I won’t bother. What’s on that format is lost forever. I didn’t throw those out yet but I will. Without looking. They will do the same with anything that is not easily usable by their devices by the time they care enough to look at or save things.

Suggestion Number Four: Use the force

This is the hardest suggestion here for most of us to follow because it requires that you use some force to be somewhat more disciplined right now, amidst the drool, tears, homework, jobs, spectator events, and obligations of raising children. If you are like most people, you are capturing so many photos and videos that the task of figuring out later what’s valuable will become too daunting. That mountain of stuff will be useless unless you can capture less or cull much more as you go. If you leave your children terabytes of digital memories, your children will need the NSA to comb through it all to find the best stuff. You may not be afraid of this if you are quite young, but all I can say is, you will be. You will be. At least be afraid enough to be motivated to capture and keep a lot less than you are, now.

Here’s an idea I heard on the radio (podcast, actually—I am pretty current) from my favorite broadcaster covering tech, Leo Laporte. He recommends identifying 1 photo a month (yeah, that was a “1”. One. Uno. A singularity. The loneliest number.). Then, send the digits for that picture off to a company that prints good quality photos on archival paper. Laporte noted that the service he’s using charges a buck or so per photo. His argument was brilliant. If you have some shoe boxes of these chosen photos, your children are highly likely to keep those boxes no matter what else happens on Alderaan. Smart.

I think that’s quite a comment on the digitization of our lives. My wife made fabulous albums of our son’s early lives. These are amazing. And we have those. I am sure our sons will always have them unless there is some fire or flood that damages these treasures.  I have the equivalent from my parents, who are now gone. They didn’t have digital but I have the photos, like the one below. It's also a rare photo of me in a coat and tie. (I'm the cute one.)

Like so many things in life, this task is simply expressed and difficult to accomplish. Make it easy and interesting for those who come after to keep memories of what came before.

 

Asymmetrical Commitment in Unmarried Relationships

by Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades

With some couples, one partner is substantially more committed than the other. We call these Asymmetrically Committed Relationships (ACRs). No one who is looking for lasting love wants to find themselves in an ACR but we suspect it has become increasingly easy to land in one. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Commitment and Power

Relationship scholars have long been fascinated by the implications of ACRs, though only a handful of studies examine the characteristics of these relationships.[i]

Decades ago, sociologist Peter Blau wrote at length about differential investment in a relationship. Below is a classic quote from his 1964 book.

“If one lover is considerably more involved than the other, his greater commitment invites exploitation or provokes feelings of entrapment, both of which obliterate love.”[ii]

Decades before Blau wrote, Willard Waller coined the relatively well-known “principle of least interest” about power in relationships. This new principle was influenced by writings of sociologist, Edward Ross.[iii] Waller wrote:

‘‘That person is able to dictate the conditions of association whose interest in the continuation of the affair is least.’’[iv]

The principles Waller and Ross wrote about obviously hold for any relationship, whether romantic, family, or business. In the social science literature focused on the nature of commitment, the same themes emerge.[v] The person who is most committed to a relationship continuing has, in some important ways, less power than the one who cares less—especially if that partner could not care less. Blau drew attention to the nature of these relationships by putting them squarely into the framework of commitment, noting how differential commitment can obliterate love, as large differences in power often do.

In a new study entitled Asymmetrically Committed Relationships,[vi] we along with our colleagues examined asymmetrical commitment in the relationships of unmarried, young adults.

Our study

For our study, we used a subsample of 315 couples in our national, longitudinal sample of dating and cohabiting young adults in opposite-sex relationships ages 18 to 34.[vii] This sample allowed us to directly compare partners’ ratings on commitment (how dedicated one is to the future, to being a couple, etc.). We defined ACRs as those in which the partners differed by 1 standard deviation or more; thus, relationships were either ACRs or not, and within ACRs, there is a weak-link and strong-link partner.[viii] This assured that couples we were analyzing as having ACRs had an, arguably, important difference in partner levels of commitment. To get a feel for this, for a couple where the average of the two partners was, well, average, but with one high and one low, this would be like the strong link scoring at the 69^th percentile on commitment while the weak link scores at the 31^st.    

Our sample is of couples who were generally in established but unmarried relationships who were together an average of just over two years at the start of the longitudinal study. Forty-one percent were living together and 59% were not. There was a mutual commitment to marry in 47% of the relationships. In 24% of the relationships, one or both partners had a child from a prior relationship and 13% had a child together.

What did we find regarding the numbers of asymmetrical relationships?

• 65% of relationships were mutually committed and 35% were not.
• Men were much more likely to be the weak link than women (23% vs. 12%).

We have not always found such interesting differences between men and women on commitment in our studies on premarital cohabitation, but when we have found them, the differences always go in the direction reflected in this study; in non-married or premarital relationships, when there is a difference, men are more likely to be the less committed partner than women, by a factor of about 2:1. One finding from our earlier studies seems especially relevant here.[ix] We found that there was no difference in the commitment levels of husbands and wives among couples who either only cohabited after being engaged or who waited until marriage to move in together, but among those who had lived together prior to being engaged, there was a substantial difference in commitment between partners. Husbands in these marriages tended to be less committed than their wives as well as less committed than men or women in relationships where couples had only lived together after marriage or engagement. For these couples, the differences were strong before marriage and remained apparent and large years into marriage.

Before taking in some other findings, let’s reflect. Say you are considering marrying someone but you believe they are less committed to you than you are to them. You may or may not marry this person but, if you do, you do not want to count on a trip to the alter to fix the gap in commitment. As we like to say, transition is not transformation.

In our work on premarital cohabitation, we have tested the prediction that that moving in together before marriage or engagement is riskier than waiting until after that big question about commitment to the future is settled. Our concern has been that people risk getting stuck in relationships they might otherwise have left because cohabitation made it that much harder to break up.[x] We have found support for that prediction in many samples with findings published in multiple journal articles.[xi] Based on the reasoning behind that prediction, we predicted that those who were currently cohabiting would be more likely to be in ACRs because living together would have made it more likely for these relationships to have continued. That is what we found.   

• Couples who were living together were significantly more likely (42%) to be in ACRs compared to those who were not living together (30%). 

Similarly, we expected that those with plans for marriage would be substantially less likely to be in ACRs.

• Couples with mutual plans to marry were significantly less likely (25%) to be in ACRs compared to those without mutual plans (45%).

That last finding must seem terribly obvious, but we were interested in it because of our belief that ambiguity about the nature and status of relationships has become such a strong part of how relationships form these days. Having mutual plans for marriage should be consistent with partners having both high and symmetrical commitment. Even so, we found this non-trivial percentage (25%) of relationships that were ACRs despite mutual plans for marriage. You might wonder how that could happen. Much of what we just wrote about cohabiting prior to being married or, at least, prior to having mutual clarity to a future together provides one explanation.  

The relationship dynamics of asymmetrical commitment

We also looked at the relationship quality of ACRs versus non-ACRs. Both weak- and strong-link partners rated their relationships as having lower overall quality and as having higher levels of conflict and higher levels of aggression[xii] compared to those not in ACRs.

We found evidence that weak links’ ratings of poor relationship quality could easily be attributed to the fact of their low commitment, which makes total sense. First, people will be less committed to relationship that have problems. Second, relationships will have more problems when people are less committed. The strong links’ patterns were more surprising. Typically, being highly committed leads to greater inhibition of negative behavior and happier relationships, but not for strong links. They tended to score very high on commitment (higher on average even than those not in ACRs), but they also reported lower relationship quality, more conflict, and more aggression—including aggression toward their partners.

These findings are consistent with what theorists such as Blau had long suggested: it is immensely dissatisfying and frustrating to be the more committed partner in an unequally committed relationship. That’s not a happy place to be. In fact, in a report we wrote a couple of years ago (Before “I Do”), we showed that those who had perceived, prior to marrying, that they were more committed than their partner reported lower marital quality.[xiii] The perception of asymmetrical commitment was among the best predictors of lower marital quality once married.

Break Ups

Not surprisingly, ACRs were more likely than mutually-committed relationships to break up. But, curiously, ACRs in which men were the weak links were just as likely to continue as non-ACRs. In other words, relationships were not likely to end merely because the man was much less committed than the woman. The relationships most likely to end were those in which the woman was the weak link.

This finding was reminiscent of a few earlier studies, including some from decades ago, that examined differential levels of investment, love, or commitment between partners.[xiv] We knew to test for this but we were not sure how strongly to expect this finding, in this day and age. Overall, women’s levels of commitment were vastly more predictive than men’s levels of who stayed together and who did not (five times more predictive). In part, we think this means that there are some men (by no means all or most) who are content to hang out with a woman they are not really serious about until that woman gets fed up.   

Are there more asymmetrically committed relationships than ever before?

We believe that asymmetrically committed relationships are more common now than anytime in the past 50 years. We cannot test or prove this by any data of which we are aware, but we believe this because of the following reasoning:

1. There has been a steady decline in cultural rituals and defined steps in the development of romantic relationships. Ambiguity reigns.
2. There is a growing preference for this ambiguity because people fear rejection and fear that commitment is dangerous.
3. Important relationship transitions, such as moving in together or having a child together, now increasingly happen more from processes characterized by sliding than deciding. Deciding more often will reflect the formation and declaration of commitment.
4. This environment of mixed or confusing signals makes it easier than before to get deeply involved in—and stuck in—ACRs.

Think of it this way. With fewer cultural scripts and customs forcing commitment to be made clear (whether high or low, mutual or not), more people are finding themselves in long-term, unmarried relationships, sometimes for many years, before they come to realize that their partner is just not that into them. Sliding into moving together or having a child together is often not transformative. The strongest commitments tend to be those that come about from decisions, particularly decisions people make while they still have full freedom to choose.

All this presents a difficult set of circumstances for many young adults. Sure, it’s not usually too wise to ask about your partner’s willingness to build a life with you on a second date (and we hesitate to use the word “date” since even that concept has fallen under the spell of ambiguity.[xv]) But when the inertia for continuing a relationship is growing, it starts to be increasingly risky to avoid steps to determine if you both are on the same page.

A word of advice. If you are searching for lasting love and commitment, do not wait too long to get things clear about if you and your partner want the same future. We cannot say exactly how long you should know someone before pushing for more clarity about commitment; we just know a lot of people are waiting too long. And, as they wait, the less committed partner has strong reasons to avoid having “the talk” (want more on that? here and here).  

It’s painful to be hanging in with someone who is mostly just hanging around.

---

[i] You can read much more about the literature on this notion in our new paper. See endnote VI below.

[ii] Page 84 in Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

[iii] Ross, E. A. (1921). Principles of sociology. New York, NY: Century.

[iv] The principle of least interest: see Page 191 in Waller, W. (1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York, NY: Gordon.

[v] For a review, see Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243-257.

[vi] The official posting for the paper by the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships can be found at the link in this article. If you wish to read the paper and are unable to because of the paywall, you can read our final, submitted version of this paper here.

[vii] The parent sample well reflects the demographics and characteristics of young adults in this age range in the U.S. One paper that describes the sample and methods of the parent study is this one: Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348 - 358.

[viii] To our knowledge, the language of “weak links” and “strong links” was first used by Attridge et al.: Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. (1995). Predicting relationship stability from both partners versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 254-268.

[ix] Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560.

[x] For the original, main piece on this assertion, see the following article. What we predicted there has been demonstrated now in a variety of empirical studies: Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509. You can read this manuscript in word document form here.

[xi] All findings controlling for variables associated with selection: e.g., Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.; Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 107-111.; Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 906-918.

[xii] In survey studies using general samples such as this one, the type of violence in the relationships will mostly not be what people think about when they think of battering, or domestic violence shelters; instead, it will be what researchers now well understand to be the relatively common aggression found in the relationships of young adults who have difficulties managing conflict and regulating negative emotions. This is a complex subject far beyond our purposes here but we wish to make clear what is measured in this type of survey study.

[xiii] This report is also based on a subsample of our national, longitudinal study of sample of unmarried young adults, whom we followed longitudinally for 5 years.

[xiv] For example, Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147-168.; Sprecher, S., Schmeeckle, M., & Felmlee, D.  (2006). The principle of least interest:  Inequality in emotional involvement in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 27(9), 1255-1280.

[xv] See various pieces we have written ambiguity in today’s premarital or unmarried relationships: here, here, or here, for example.