Running head: Why people fall out of love

Why Do People Fall Out of Love?

A comprehensive study of both current successful and failed former romantic

relationships.

ABSTRACT:

Generally there are many contributing factors to the deterioration of a given relationship or marriage, with similar and different elements existing throughout each specific case. Exploration

into both the alarming divorce rate of Americans and the prominent sociological phenomena pertaining to explanations of why people fall out of love are personal and societal necessities in the attempt to understand, promote and sustain healthy relationships. The ability to distinguish such elements relied heavily on data collected from specific questions administered in survey

form, a series of observational analysis of a focus group, and in depth personal interviews. Findings derived from this data collection suggest both successful and unsuccessful romantic

couples encounter similar relationship challenges, with successful couples ultimately displaying an ability to sustain relationships through strong commitment and effective communication

levels not found in unsuccessful romantic couples.

By

Brian Capriola

*Address Correspondence to:Brian Capriola

Undergraduate StudentWilliam Paterson University

300 Pompton RoadWayne, NJ 07470

Email: capriolab@student.wpunj.eduPhone: 973-600-6528

1

Running head: Why people fall out of love

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the more disheartening statistics each year is the increase in divorce among married

United States citizens, as these figures theoretically indicate a relationship has failed. Most

romantic relationships are unique in the sense no two individuals are completely the same.

Therefore, plausible notions suggests the deterioration or success of a given romantic

relationship differs from the deterioration or success of another romantic relationship. Further,

once accepting the aforementioned concept, one can reasonably assume two individuals in a

successful relationship communicate differently from a couple which has ended their relationship

(unsuccessful). If the sole purpose of a researcher's intentions are to identify and distinguish

between characteristics of successful and unsuccessful relationships, methods of ‘why’ an

individual couple succeeds or fails should be the focus of observational research. Based on this

progression, the underlying question is; Why do people fall out of love?

Theories will be developed under the pretense that a successful relationship is considered

to be a mutually desirable exchange of affectionate behavior between two people in a committed

union of some type (legal, title or otherwise), whereas unsuccessful or failed relationships will

consider those unions to be broken or disbanded (legal, title or otherwise). Clarification of such

relationships will be key throughout the construction of the research paper, as such variables

regarding overall happiness of a given couple can be widely debated and disrupt the findings.

Without getting overly explicit and literal, the relationship categories should be assumed in a

reasonable and logical form (i.e. husband and wife are a successful relationship, ex-boyfriend

and ex-girlfriend are unsuccessful). These guidelines have been set in place to eliminate the

figurative grey areas, as for the research purpose, couples maintaining living in the same

household as husband and wife are successful relationships because this seemingly works or fits

2

Running head: Why people fall out of lovethe lifestyle of choice. In a sense, they are more than likely choosing to remain in this

relationship for a variety of reasons (convenience, etc), and therefore is a success. These couples

will be examined to a degree, however, the main focus will be to identify more definitive

examples of each.

Identifying patterns and trends among both successful and unsuccessful relationships

through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods are vital to the

overall theorization of why people fall out of love. Further, an unbiased approach was essential

throughout the entire research process in order to ensure the most accurate data was obtained,

thus resulting in the most credible formation of theories and developed conclusions attempting to

explain this societal phenomena possible.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Successful Romantic Relationships Versus Unsuccessful Romantic Relationships

The specific attempt to identify certain similar and conflicting behavioral characteristics

between individuals currently and formerly engaged in successful romantic relationships is a

broad field of study which requires an extensive exploration of scholarly sources. Optimistic

expectation was that a successful relationship is considered to be a mutually desirable exchange

of affectionate behavior between two people in a committed union, whereas unsuccessful or

failed relationships are broken or disbanded. However, this sample of data proved to be an

extremely broad sphere to and difficult to conduct research accurately, as such variables

regarding classification of romantic couples in successful relationships can be widely debated

and disrupt findings. Therefore, guidelines were implemented to focus on and examine a more

concrete sample of romantic relationships by eliminating a large amount of figurative grey areas

3

Running head: Why people fall out of lovethereby establishing a spectrum of considered relationship success. Further, analysis of previous

works and annual statistics are more accessible both in existence and updated availability, thus

allowing for better overall data collection in order to form conclusions.

Previously conducted research considers sustained marriages as the highest and ultimate

form of successful romantic relationship based on American cultural standards. Marriage,

through documentation and legal union, becomes the ultimate representation of a couple

affirming their love. Deciphering influencing factors which cause people to seek and ultimately

sustain romantic relationships is a key step toward an attempt to identify why people fall out of

love, as one can not fully grasp either ideal without comprehension of the other. “There is the

evolutionary reason we want to insure the continuation of the species, reproduce, raise our

young. This is done more effectively with a partner” (Snyder Gutowski, 2001). Throughout the

journal article Why marriage?, the researcher forms a position suggesting an inherent and

scientific desire of the unconscious to perhaps be the thriving force between two persons forming

a romantic relationship. Although findings are indicative of such a naturalistic human

dependency for a “life creating and life sustaining relationship” (Pearlman, 2000), Gutowski

argues relationships also serve to improve quality of life.

If accepting the aforementioned belief of marriage representing the ultimate relationship

success, a representative of the ultimate failure would be identified using the same extreme of

divorce. “In the United States, researchers estimate that 40 percent to 50 percent of all first

marriages and 60 percent of second marriages will end in divorce” (Hawkins & Fackrell, 2011).

While findings show various factors contribute to marriage termination in the United States, in

depth investigation brings many challenges of a relationship to the surface. A more narrow

scope, vital to the critical research of why people fall out of love, can be developed through the

4

Running head: Why people fall out of lovestudy of previous works. To achieve the highest possible level of accuracy, one must study both

types of relationships; Those of individuals that have established, affirmed (act of marriage) and

maintain their love (act of sustaining marriage) can be compared to relationships of individuals

which had established and affirmed (act of marriage) but could not maintain their love (act of

divorce).

Communication and Commitment

The research will attempt to identify patterns presented throughout multiple facets of

human communication, ranging from verbal and nonverbal interpersonal communication. In

particular, how people communicate while in love will be crucial to the overall development of

conclusions. Certain verbal and nonverbal interactions, throughout given times in a relationship,

can have a tremendous effect on overall relationship satisfaction and sustainability. Previous

works have shown the correlations between “overall relationship satisfaction and positive verbal

and nonverbal behaviors” (Spott & Pyle, 2009). The study’s findings indicate an increase in

relationship satisfaction through positive communication and verifies that a sustainment of

effective communication will influence the longevity of a romantic relationship. Thus,

communicative interactions between both current and former romantic partners should be taken

into consideration and be investigated during the data collection process, as communication may

result in the eventual relationship termination and unsustainability.

Commitment levels of individuals in romantic relationships have been extensively

researched in the past, yet how individuals communicate this commitment or “love” is often

overlooked. “Drawing attention to these behaviors and their biological underpinnings, we may

help people to understand the hidden meanings, motivations, and mistakes associated with

5

Running head: Why people fall out of loveexpressions of romantic commitment” (Ackerman & Griskevicius, 2011). The research

highlights the importance of not only remaining faithfully committed, but communicating this

level of commitment throughout the lifespan of a romantic relationship. Further, physical sexual

interaction and display of affection are investigated ultimately to prove relationship satisfaction

may greatly influence overall initial relationship satisfaction;, however, cerebral displays of

affection prove more indicative of romantic devotion.

Successful Relationships, Communication and Commitment

Prior works have indicated romantic couples that experience an occurrence of a

detrimental event or existence of conflicting issue, (lack of commitment, financial strain or

otherwise) respond with unsuccessful or unsustainable communicative behavior resulting in a

failed romantic relationship. A couple experiencing a similar occurrence of a detrimental event

or existence of conflicting issue (lack of commitment, financial strain or otherwise) but

successfully communicate forgiveness and maintain the sustainable communicative behavior at

acceptable levels will result in a sustainable romantic relationship. “Some marital interaction

patterns, such as disagreement and anger exchanges, which have usually been considered

harmful to a marriage, may not be harmful in the long run” (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Through

observations of couples attempting to reconcile a “high conflict issue”, the research suggests

there to be legitimate arguments suggesting failed romantic relationships are not a direct cause of

an actual detrimental event, but rather the result of a communicative breakdown from the event

that contributes more to the deterioration of a relationship. In theory, these struggles are present

in sustained marriages but the relationship remains intact due to their ability to communicate and

6

Running head: Why people fall out of lovesuccessfully maintain consistent, healthy interactions that are critical to overall stability and

longevity of romantic relationships.

RESEARCH QUESTION

As evidenced throughout the above literature review, critical investigation into works of

others is vital towards the research process of attempting to identify trends and characteristics of

individuals currently and formerly in romantic relationships. Further, the specific attempt to

identify certain similar and conflicting elements of communicative behavior between individuals

currently and formerly engaged in successful romantic relationships is a broad field of study that

has not specifically focused on the result of maintaining feelings of love in a romantic

relationship. Thus, this research will focus primarily on what causes people to fall out of love.

RQ1: Why do people fall out of love?

Hypothesis (H)1: People in a successful romantic relationship communicate more

effectively than people in failed romantic relationships.

H2: People in successful romantic relationships face similar challenges and potentially

detrimental high conflict issues as those in failed romantic relationships.

H3: Levels of commitment in a romantic relationship have an influence on the ultimate

sustainment of the romantic relationship.

The research question and aforementioned theories have been developed to address a

fixation with maintaining a current personal romantic relationship for the rest of time, as well as

to expand and elaborate on prior research findings. Although there is no fathomable scenario

where this personal relationship fails, there is always an element of doubt which coincides with

human nature. Moreover, the failed relationship statistic of couples who divorce after marriage is

7

Running head: Why people fall out of lovehighly visible, especially in American culture. These findings will hopefully offer a greater

understanding of the role communication and commitment play in the ability to sustain lifelong

intimate relationships, both on a specific personal and wide scale sociological level.

METHODS

There are usually many contributing factors to a the deterioration of a given relationship or

marriage, with similar and different elements existing throughout each specific case. The ability

to distinguish such elements relied heavily on data collected from specific questions

administered through survey, a series of observational analysis of a focus group, and in depth

personal interviews. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods was

necessary to the development of conclusions and theories explaining why people fall out of love.

A multitude of independent and dependent variables were used along with multiple

sources of data collection. Key independent variables include: age group, relationship status, and

dependent variables issues such as arguing.

Survey

The survey relatively easily allowed for a significant amount of data to be acquired.

Based on personal employment and current academic schedule, a multitude of outlets were

readily available. Furthermore, a virtually nonexistent budget prohibited more expensive

research methodologies and therefore the survey was extremely plausible. The survey was

distributed among employees and customers at Hendrickson’s Restaurant in Bayonne, New

Jersey, as well as to current students enrolled at three accredited New Jersey higher learning

institutions (County College of Morris, Union County College, William Paterson University).

Factors such as location, age, and gender were to be as equally represented as possible so skewed

8

Running head: Why people fall out of loveresults and trends can be avoided. By dividing the survey throughout a majority of northern New

Jersey, various demographics were surveyed and thus provided a reasonable representation of the

population. Four counties were represented by a total of 169 total respondents in Hudson,

Morris, Union and Passaic counties. While the goal was to achieve 200 total respondents, 169

survey responses is nearly 85 percent of the initial goal and thus acceptable.

Bar patrons allowed for a consistent interaction with customers of varying age, gender,

demographic, affluence and marital status. This variation proved quite valuable towards

understanding a wide population range. Exactly fifty Hendrickson’s Restaurant customers or

employees are represented within the 169 total respondents; reflective of roughly 30 percent of

the total respondent sample. In theory, Hudson county is represented by this figure as well.

Exactly 50 more respondents from William Paterson University are reflected within the 169 total

respondents, or nearly another 30 percent. The surveys were administered among fellow students

before class in the Hobart Hall and during personal downtime in the student center. Passaic

County (or those who spend time interacting within Passaic County) are reflected at roughly 30

percent. The final 40 percent of respondent samples were collected through similar format, as

administrators of the survey are students at County College of Morris and Union County

College. Classrooms and common downtime lounges were utilized to survey 30 current County

College of Morris students, reflecting a bit under 18 percent of the total sample. Union County

student response resulted in roughly 23 percent of the sample with 39 total respondents

completing the survey. Thus, both Union and Morris counties account for near a combined 40

percent of the sample in theory.

The survey begins with a location indicator at the top left corner to denote where the

survey was conducted (H-Hudson, M-Morris, P-Passaic, U-Union) and is followed by a set of

9

Running head: Why people fall out of lovedirections and a disclaimer stating the respondent should only answer one side of the two sided

survey. The front is designed to identify trends and characteristics of those currently involved in

romantic relationships (successful), while the back side is designed to report certain trends or

characteristics among those who at one time but are no longer in romantic relationships

(unsuccessful). Both “Side 1” and “Side 2” start with questions to denote gender and age. The

following six questions were designed to gauge the seriousness of the current or former

relationship in query through simple “yes” or “no” provided selections. Trends among the 18-25

demographic in failed relationships correlated with not living together, not being married, and

not having children. On the other hand, older respondents overwhelmingly showed living with

their current or former spouse, with a much higher marriage and child rate. Further questions

regarding monogamy and financial status were provided to hopefully identify or eliminate

lifestyle patterns and possible affluence factors present in the given relationship.

The next portion of the survey is curtailed more towards distinguishing between more

detailed aspects of the given relationship. Issues such as overall relationship satisfaction,

physical attraction, communication and trust are attempted to be identified through a series of

questions in which the respondent can choose between five possible answers (choosing one). The

provided answer selections range from Never, Almost Never, Sometimes, Almost Always, and

Always. Correlations between successful and unsuccessful relationships are particularly shown

with the relationship satisfaction and trust questions.

The survey concludes with a list of open-ended questions which ask “Side 1” respondents

to, for example, “list three words to describe their significant other” and investigates why they

feel they are in love. “Side 1” respondents are asked to identify any possible scenario that may

lead to them falling out of love. On the other hand, “Side 2” respondents are asked whether or

10

Running head: Why people fall out of lovenot they were, or still are in love. The most important question is asked to “Side 2” respondents,

which is directly “why did you fall out of love”. Examinations of those who have been and fallen

out of love is vital in the attempt to ultimately explain why people fall out of love.

Focus Group Observation

The ability to observe multiple relationships had been made available on three separate

occasions, and therefore researchers were able to collect significant amounts of data to be

analyzed. Again, this offered a closer look at current romantic relationships, which eventually led

to multiple personal interviews of both successful and unsuccessful couples. With the objective

to identify any possible patterns and behaviors of individuals currently involved in romantic

relationships (successful), which will ultimately be used to determine any correlation between

the aforementioned patterns and behaviors with those from failed romantic relationships

(unsuccessful). The coaching staff and significant others to the staff of the Mountain Lakes High

School Football Team were being secretly observed. Eventually, the participants were made

aware of their participation at the conclusion of the third and final event. Permission was

received by all participating members.

The eight couples included a total of five married couples, two unmarried couples living

separately and one unmarried couple living together. Of the five married couples three had

children and have been together for over ten years. Coding was used to identify certain

behavioral characteristics. Equal amount of both male (1) and female (1) were used as observers

and coders, as to limit bias. The in-depth questions from the survey were again used for this

focus group while the introductory questions were not needed.

11

Running head: Why people fall out of loveObservational data recorded based on certain observed behaviors between the two

individuals in a current relationship. Among the categories were time spent together, laughter,

teasing, rudeness, public affection, flirting, complimenting and manners. The observations took

place at a surprise thirtieth birthday party, post game dinner and another social gathering in

which all couples were in attendance. The median age was forty years old and relationship length

eleven to twenty years.

Focus Group Discussion

Following the conclusion of the observation, a focus group consisting of the participating

individuals was conducted to more thoroughly supplement the data collected through both survey

and observation. The focus group was met with on two separate occasions. Specifically, the data

collected from the focus group was aimed towards the further investigation of the open-ended

question portion of the survey, as the same in depth questions from the survey were again used

for the focus group and introductory questions were omitted. Moreover, the group discussed

issues topics in regards to relationship satisfaction, trust, physical attraction and financial issues.

Personal Interview

To better ensure both sides of the spectrum were being reflected in the data, a personal

interview of males currently involved in a romantic relationship was conducted separately. Both

individuals participated in the focus group and were selected based partly on their response

within the focus group sessions. The individual chosen from the successful romantic relationship

(Kevin) is currently married and has two children with his current wife, while the individual

chosen from the unsuccessful romantic relationship (Nick) was with his former significant other

12

Running head: Why people fall out of loveduring the observational portion of the focus group but was single during the focus group

discussion and personal interview.

RESULTS

Survey

Early data collection of the completed surveys showed roughly a 60/40 split between

female and male respondents, not unlike the current enrollment of college students in the United

States. Females represent nearly 60 percent of both U.S. enrollment figures in the United States

and the survey. This statistic is not surprising considering the majority of surveys were

conducted on college campuses. The median age of respondents was elevated from the national

college average of 24-27 years old, with a median age of 26-40 (based on the age group

provided). Respondents under the age of 18 were asked not to complete the survey. The average

length of a failed relationship was between one and two years in the sample, while the average

length of successful current relationships is between three and ten years. Trends among the 18-25

demographic in failed relationships correlated with not living together, not being married, and

not having children. On the other hand, older respondents overwhelmingly showed living with

their current or former spouse, had a much higher marriage and child rate.

Nearly 70 percent of “Side 2” respondents selected “No” when asked if both themselves

and their former significant other were employed during the relationship”. Nearly 90 percent of

“Side 1” respondents recognized their relationship as monogamous, while more than half of the

“Side 2” respondents claimed at least one in the members of the relationship was in some way

unfaithful. Correlations between successful and unsuccessful relationships are particularly shown

with the relationship satisfaction and trust questions, as a large majority of “Side 1” respondents

13

Running head: Why people fall out of loveselected “Almost Always” or “Always” at nearly 80 percent for both, while “Side 2” respondents

were overwhelmingly “Never” or “Almost Never” at nearly 90 percent for both.

Perhaps the most interesting data analysis can be shown through this portion of the

survey, however, with a possible link or theory still yet to be developed. In regard to the physical

attraction question, statistics remained relatively high at “Almost Always” or “Always” at nearly

75 percent for “Side 1” and roughly 65 percent for “Side 2” respondents. This is understandable

given that physical attraction is possibly universal. Both “Side 1” and “Side 2” respondents

selected “Almost Always” or “Always” to the question “How often do arguments occur?”.

Almost 70 percent of the current relationship respondents ranked closely to the 80 percent of

failed relationship respondents. This data tentatively suggested similar relationship problems

exist in successful and failed relationships, and should be examined closely.

Focus Group Observations

Analysis of data yielded minor results from the observation focus group, as correlations

between noticeable trends or characteristics were difficult to identify due to inconsistent patterns

of observed behaviors. There were some interesting findings of similar communicative behavior

among the couples which, solely based on concrete observational analysis, appears contradictory

to expected behaviors of couples currently in romantic relationships. Following the focus group

observation, two of the eight relationships were terminated, offering the possibility to view

behavior leading up to a relationship termination.

Notable observed behavior, of the eventual failed relationships, proved to reflect similar

findings with “time spent together” (meaning the amount of time two were seen conversing or

sitting together). Surprisingly, the failed couples were together more than than the successful

14

Running head: Why people fall out of lovecouples and showed more affection publicly. On the other hand, teasing and rudeness among

these couples were also elevated, while compliments and manners seemed to be lacking.

Focus Group Discussions

The couple’s participation is reflected among the focus group sample, which yielded a

higher percentage of “Sometimes” responses to overall relationship satisfaction and questions

regarding trust. Given the sample size was smaller, the focus group did show a much lower level

of physical attraction, but much the same and higher levels of trust and communication. Again,

the “Almost Always” response was consistent across the board pertaining to argument

frequency.

There are many significant findings obtained from the focus group discussions. The most

interesting key point taken is similar to the survey findings regarding arguments. The participants

of the focus group discussion in successful romantic relationships universally agreed that

arguments occur “Almost Always”, with virtually some type of disagreement taking place on a

daily basis. On the other hand, both parties who terminated the romantic relationship felt

arguments occurred “Sometimes”, forming the general consensus that too much arguing did not

result in the relationship termination. This element of discussion was investigated almost

exclusively until the end of the focus group discussion, with both successful and unsuccessful

relationship participants offering mostly similar viewpoints. The general position of

interrelationship arguing can be summarized by those in successful relationships as a results of

the added pressures of being parents and financial responsibilities. The individuals of the failed

relationships echoed a sense of lacking argument because one or both members decided to

concede their aggressions or feeling the argument altogether was not worth the aggravation.

15

Running head: Why people fall out of loveUltimately, the avoided argument was more satisfying than either proving their former

significant other wrong or obtaining the desired result initially hoping to achieve through

arguing.

Other key findings noted that individuals married longer than ten years place minor

displays of affection, either verbal or nonverbal, to be far more gratifying than those married

under five years. Relationship satisfaction was said to be far less physical in the individuals in

romantic relationships over ten years, whereas individuals in romantic relationships under five

years and in failed romantic relationships cited physical attraction as very important. Conversely,

the individuals in longer romantic relationships placed financial security as very important to a

relationship, whereas the younger counterparts felt placed a lower importance on finances.

Personal Interview

A personal interview with respondent Kevin Wallace highlighted the financial struggles

and and difficulties raising children due to conflicting outlooks on child rearing. In the interview

Wallace states, “Things my wife and I would never have fought about in the past are being

consistently argued day to day. It’s amazing” (Wallace, 2014). When asked by the researcher

why he continues the relationship he responded, “Because there is no other choice, really. We

decided when we were about to have [our first child] that we were in the relationship forever.

Failure wasn’t going to be an option from that point on”. In regards to how severe the arguments

were and whether commitment levels could be compromised, Wallace responded, “We argue all

the time about my messiness, but again you try to be better. Sometimes I forget, other times I’m

lazy. But at the end of the day I know my wife is not going to leave and take my family away

over cleaning issues”.

16

Running head: Why people fall out of loveA personal interview with respondent Nick Lane demonstrates the difficulties a long

distance relationship presents. Arguments are avoided because they can be, as the ability to avoid

his former significant other was readily available. “Not living together is a big deal because you

don’t want to get into it, you don’t have to” (Lane, 2014). The respondent went on to discuss the

possible polar opposite of living in a studio apartment for example, as there is almost nowhere

else to go during stressful times. “With one room, one tv, things can get very difficult. It’s either

fight or flight in that case”. In this sense, effectively communicating and compromise is in

essence the only response in order to sustain the romantic relationship.

DISCUSSION

The argument is considered an ultimate form of communication, and thus effective

communication, whereas the lack of an argument to disagreeable issues proved to be

unsuccessful or non existent communication. This further supports the idea of both a higher

commitment level and effective communication resulting in the sustainable relationships. The

lack of communication in the unsustainable relationship showed otherwise. Individuals in

successful romantic relationships feel their relationship was worth the aggravation and

displeasure of arguing, and ultimately were committed to sustaining the relationship through

effective communication. Perhaps fighting was more common than expected among successful

romantic partners because the high commitment levels required necessary communication to

occur rather than be avoided. In a way, for a relationship such as the Wallace’s, choosing not to

argue or communicate would in theory be just as successful because the relationship still would

have sustained regardless. However, choosing to argue in the hope of arriving at a common

ground of compromise increased overall relationship satisfaction.

17

Running head: Why people fall out of loveThere is another side to the argument, as evidenced in the survey with the amount of

married couples claiming to argue more versus those who did not live together. If two

individuals in a romantic relationship live together unmarried, minor arguments of perhaps of not

turning lights off or other bickering like maintaining a clean household (as cited in the survey)

can result in a relationship termination because a level of commitment achieved through

marriage does not exist. Based on the findings, one could reasonably assess that people do not

end a marriage over socks being left on the floor.

Unfortunately, the bottom line remains that marriages and romantic relationships in the

United States are statistically failing. There is much work to be done regarding the sustainment

of healthy romantic relationships. This small New Jersey focus group supports this argument.

Continued investigation into the communicative behaviors and trends among America’s romantic

couples should be explored on a national scale. More respondents from a wider location would

better reflect the national make-up of the current population. All levels of affluence, age, gender,

race, geographical location, and other identifiable characteristics would offer the best possible

data collection necessary in developing the most accurate theories and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Ultimate levels of commitment, such as marriage and producing children, requires

increased levels of effective communication for relationship sustainment. Less commitmented

relationships require less effective communication, and thus the chosen compromise is often

termination of the relationship to achieve satisfaction through separation. Individuals currently

sustaining romantic relationships and individuals that terminated, and ultimately failed to sustain

a romantic relationships, are separated by a very fine line. Nearly all couples are forced to deal

18

Running head: Why people fall out of lovewith similar issues and challenges that pose to be detrimental to their relationship sustainment.

The ability to sustain romantic relationships, however, is accomplished through effective

communication on a consistent basis. Further, the ability to avoid a communicative breakdown is

vital to the overall stability of romantic relationships.

People fall out of love as a direct result of a failure to compromise, effectively

communicate, and remain committed to the relationship.

19

Running head: Why people fall out of love

REFERENCES

Ackerman, J., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. (2011). Let's get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1079-1094.

CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. (2013, February 19). National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends. Retrieved September/October, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

Diaz, Z. (2013, November 19). Why do people get married? Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/19/why-do-people-get-married/

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47-52.

Hawkins, A. J., Fackrell, T. A., & Harris, S. M. (2011). How common is divorce and what are the reasons? Should I try to work it out?: A guidebook for individuals and couples at the crossroads of divorce Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Commission on Marriage.41-63.

Jayson, S. (2013, June 17). Marriage rate may be low, but more weddings predicted. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/17/marriage-trends-demographics/2424641/

Lane, N. (December 2, 2014). Personal Interview

Reich, A. (2013, November 04). This Map Of U.S. Divorce Rates Shows Where Marriages Go To Die. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/us-divorce-rate_n_4184261.html

Snyder Gutowski, J. (2001). Why marriage?. Modern Psychoanalysis, 26(1), Center for Modern Psychoanalytic Studies. New York, NY, 1-8.

Spott, J., Pyle, C., & Punyanunt-Carter, N.M., (2009). "Positive and Negative Nonverbal Behaviors in Relationships: A Study of Relationship Satisfaction and Longevity." Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 29-41.

Treadwell, D. (2011). Introducing communication research: paths of inquiry. SAGE Publications. (1-200)

Wallace, K. (December 2, 2014). Personal Interview

20

Running head: Why people fall out of love

APPENDIX A: Survey

*Location Indicator*

Side 1 of 2Please note the information obtained from this survey may be cited in a research paper for COMM-2490.

Directions: If you are currently involved in a romantic relationship, please answer the following questions provided on this page only. Otherwise, please do not answer the questions on Side 1 and turn the paper over to Side 2.Circle the most appropriate answer for each of the following questions:

Gender: Male FemaleAge: 18-25 26-40 41-55 56+ If under age 18 please do not continue

How many years have to been with your significant other (S.O.)?Under 1 year 1-2 years 3-10 years 11-20 years over 20 years

Do you live together? Yes NoAre you married? Yes NoDo you have children together? Yes NoHas the relationship ended at any point in the past? Yes NoAre both you and your S.O. currently employed? Yes NoIs the relationship monogamous? Yes No

Are you satisfied with the relationship? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysDo you communicate feelings effectively? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysDo you trust your S.O.? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysAre you physically attracted to your S.O.? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysHow often do arguments occur? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

Please write your response to the following questions in the space provided:What three (3) words would you use to best describe your S.O.?

What are three (3) of your S.O.’s best qualities?

What are three (3) things you would like to change about your S.O. (physical features, character features, other)?

What are the three (3) most common causes of arguments between you and your S.O.?

Are you in love with your S.O., yes or no? If no, why are you in the relationship? If yes, what makes you believe you are in love now and do you think this could ever change?

21

Running head: Why people fall out of love

22

Running head: Why people fall out of love

*Location Indicator*

Side 2 of 2Please note the information obtained from this survey may be cited in a research paper for COMM-2490.

Directions:If you have been but are no longer in a romantic relationship, please answer the following questions provided on this page. Otherwise, please return the survey to the surveyor.Circle the most appropriate answer for each of the following questions:

Gender: Male FemaleAge: 18-25 26-40 41-55 55+ If under age 18 please do not continue

How many years were you and your former significant other (F.S.O.) together?Under 1 year 1-2 years 3-10 years 11-20 years over 20 years

Did you live together? Yes NoWere you married? Yes NoDo you have children together? Yes NoHad the relationship ended at any point in the past? Yes NoWere both you and your F.S.O. employed during the relationship? Yes NoWas the relationship monogamous (were either you or your F.S.O. unfaithful)? Yes NoWas termination of the relationship amicable? Yes

No

Were you satisfied with the relationship? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysDid you communicate feelings effectively? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysDid you trust your F.S.O? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always AlwaysWere you physically attracted to your F.S.O.? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always

AlwaysHow often did arguments occur? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

Please write your response to the following questions in the space provided:

Do you believe you and your F.S.O. were in love at one time, yes or no? If no, when and how did you realize you were not in love with each other? What were some of the most common causes of friction or arguments? If yes, do you still have feelings for your F.S.O.? Why are you no longer in love with your F.S.O.?

23

Running head: Why people fall out of love

APPENDIX B: Coding Rubric

Objective: To identify any possible patterns and behaviors of individuals currently involved in romantic relationships (successful), which will ultimately be used to determine any correlation between the aforementioned patterns and behaviors with those from failed romantic relationships (unsuccessful).

Observation: Coaching staff and significant others of the Mountain Lakes High School Football Team were observed on three separate occasions during specific functions and events. The participants were not made aware of their participation until the conclusion of the third and final event. Permission was received by all participating members.

Coders: Brian Capriola Ashley Constandi

Location: Surprise 30th Birthday Party (1st digit in 3 digit code)Post Game Dinner (2nd digit in 3 digit code)Coaches Party (3rd digit in 3 digit code)

Participants:Dan/Cindy Nick/Jill Kevin/Jessica W. Jeff/Jessica R. Michael/Sally Darrell/Eve Matt/Kara Jason/Nicole

Categories:

Coder(Name of person observing)

Couple(Names of both individuals of couple being observed)

Time Spent Together (1 for less time spent together overall, 2 for more time spent apart overall)

Manners/Courtesy (1 for either “please or thank you” being observed from either partner to the other, 2 for neither

“please or thank you” being observed from one person to the other)

Rudeness (1 for no rude comments or putdowns observed from either partner to the other, 2 for rude

comment(s) being observed from either partner to the other)

Teasing (1 for no teasing being observed from either partner to the other playful or otherwise, 2 for

teasing being observed from either partner to the other, playful or otherwise)

24

Running head: Why people fall out of loveConversation Agreement/Disagreement

(1 for either partner observed to agree with statement of other partner, 2 for either partner observed to disagree with statement of the other partner, 3 for both agreement and disagreement

observed)

Laughing (1 for either partner observed to be laughing from either an intentional action or comment

provided by other, 2 for either partner not observed to be laughing from an intentional action or comment provided by the other)

Flirting (1 for either partner observed to be engaged in sexually suggestive conversation topic with the

other partner, 2 for either partner not observed to be engaged in a sexually suggestive conversation topic with the other partner, 3 for either partner observed to be engaged in a

sexually suggestive conversation topic with another person other than their partner)

Complimenting (1 for either partner observed to have complimented the other verbally or nonverbally, 2 for

neither partner observed to have complimented the other verbally or nonverbally)

Public Affection (1 for couple observed kissing, hugging or hand holding, 2 for couple not observed kissing,

hugging or hand holding)

25

Running head: Why people fall out of love

APPENDIX C: Statistical Table of Observations

Coder Couple Time Manner Rude Tease Agree Laugh Flirt Comp PDA

Brian Dan/Cindy 2,2,2 2,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,3 1,1,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 1,1,1

Brian Nick/Jill 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,3 2,1,1 1,2,3 2,2,2 2,2,2

Brian Matt/Kara 1,2,1 1,1,1 1,2,1 2,1,2 3,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,2,1 2,2,2

Brian Darrell/Eve 1,2,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,2,1 3,3,3 1,2,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2

Brian Kevin/Jess W. 1,2,1 2,1,2 1,1,1 1,1,1 3,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2

Brian Jason/Nicole 1,2,2 2,2,2 2,1,1 1,2,1 1,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,1,1 1,2,2

Brian Michael/Sally 2,2,2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 2,1,2 1,1,1 1,1,1

Brian Jeff/Jess R. 1,2,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,3 1,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2

Ashley Dan/Cindy 2,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 1,1,2 2,2,2 2,2,1 2,1,1

Ashley Nick/Jill 2,2,2 1,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,3,3 2,1,2 1,1,3 2,2,2 2,2,2

Ashley Matt/Kara 1,2,1 1,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 3,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2

Ashley Darrell/Eve 1,2,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,2,2 3,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2

Ashley Kevin/Jess W. 1,2,1 2,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 3,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2

Ashley Jason/Nicole 2,2,2 2,2,1 2,1,2 1,2,2 1,3,3 1,1,1 2,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2

Ashley Michael/Sally 2,2,2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,3 1,1,1 2,1,2 1,1,1 1,1,1

Ashley Jeff/Jess R. 1,2,1 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 3,2,2 1,2,2 1,1,1 2,2,2 2,2,2

26