1. society
2. social institution
3. marriage

Communication Quarterly
Vol. 60, No. 2, April–June 2012, pp. 165–189
Negotiating Breakups and Renewals
in On-Again=Off-Again Dating
Relationships: Traversing the
Transitions
Rene´ M. Dailey, Kelly R. Rossetto,
Andrea A. McCracken, Borae Jin, & Erik W. Green
Using phase-oriented interviews (N ¼ 65), this study explored how partners in on-again=
off-again relationships negotiated the turning points of breakups and renewals in their
relationships. The qualitative analysis revealed themes reflecting transition initiation
(i.e., the communication or behavior instigating the transitions) as well as themes reflecting how partners enacted and managed the transitions (e.g., viewing transitions as provisional, resolving past problems and planning for new issues, and using external factors
to maintain the transition). Navigating the relational transitions created a struggle for
some partners, but the negotiation process elicited feelings of a fresh start for others.
Collectively, the themes highlight factors related to communication as well as partners’
subjective interpretations, which may be useful in further understanding how partners
negotiate relational transitions.
Keywords: Breakups; Dating Relationships; On-Again=off-Again Relationships;
Relational Transitions; Renewals; Turning Points
Rene´ M. Dailey (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2005) is an associate professor in the Department
of Communication Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Kelly R. Rossetto (Ph.D., University of Texas at
Austin, 2009) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Boston College. Andrea A.
McCracken (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 2009) is an assistant professor in the Communication Department at Dixie State College. Borae Jin (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 2010) is an instructor in the Mass
Communication Department at Yonsei University. Erik W. Green (M.A., Central Michigan University, 2004) is a
doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at Concordia University Texas. This work was
supported by a special research grant provided by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University
of Texas at Austin. We thank James Roberts for his help in interviewing participants and Ashley Middleton for
her help in interviewing participants, as well as transcribing the interviews. Correspondence: Rene´ M. Dailey,
Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1105, Austin, TX
78712-0115; E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online # 2012 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.668847
166
R. M. Dailey et al.
When dating couples break up, partners must renegotiate or redefine their relationships. Rather than severing ties completely, recent research on post-dissolution
relationships suggests partners often maintain contact or develop friendships after
breakups (e.g., Busboom, Collins, Givertz, & Levin, 2002; Koenig Kellas, Bean,
Cunningham, & Cheng, 2008; Lannutti & Cameron, 2002; Scheinder & Kenny,
2000). Further, many relationships popularly referred to as ‘‘on-again=off-again’’ relationships renew after dissolution, and sometimes cycle through development and
dissolution multiple times (Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009). But how do
partners negotiate or redefine their relationships when breakups and renewals occur?
Negotiating or redefining the relationship after a breakup can be a difficult process
(Foley & Fraser, 1998; Kurdek, 1991). Negotiating renewals may be less distressful,
but perhaps still a challenging, process. Moreover, the existence of previous breakups
or renewals in the relationship may further complicate this negotiation process.
Although research on relational development and dissolution provides an understanding of the communication and relational dynamics in dating relationships
before and after dissolution, we do not yet explicitly know how on-again=off-again
partners negotiate transitions into being ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off.’’ Related to this, Rollie
and Duck (2006) emphasized assessing relational change:
Many relationships never fully dissolve. . . . Many so-called dissolved relationships
reemerge in similar or different (sometimes undesired) forms. Couples may break
up only to get back together again, break up again, get married, get divorced, and
then become friendly coparents. The point is that, rather than focusing on relational ending, scholars could focus on relational change more generally, because
relationships do not necessarily end just because they are labeled as defunct.
(pp. 237–238)
This article focuses on how on-again=off-again partners negotiate breakups and
renewals to understand the process of redefining relational status. Whereas research
predominantly categorizes relationships as together or apart, this emphasis on negotiating transitions highlights the process or change of relationships. On-again=off-again
relationships, in particular, show that relationships are not static but continually
change over time, and their multiple transitions provide a rich context to explore transition negotiations. In addition, the insights gained are likely applicable to all dating
relationships that experience transitions (e.g., developing a post-dissolution relationship or progressing from casually to seriously dating). Hence, assessing relational transitions in on-again=off-again relationships, which are prevalent among college-aged
individuals (Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009), offers a more dynamic perspective on the
progression of relationships (e.g., see Karney, Bradbury, & Johnson, 1999).
On-Again/Off-Again Dating Relationships
Recent research is developing an understanding of on-again=off-again (hereafter
on–off) relationships and how they differ from dating relationships that do not break
up and renew. For example, on–off partners report more negative behaviors in their
Communication Quarterly
167
relationships such as conflict and partner aggressiveness as well as fewer positive
behaviors, such as validation and understanding (Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009).
On–off partners also use less relational maintenance behaviors and have greater relational uncertainty (Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, 2010). Overall, on–off partners report
less relational quality than do partners who do not breakup and renew their relationships, and these differences appear to be exacerbated by the number of transitions
they experience (Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009). Despite having lower relational quality,
on–off partners report renewing due to factors such as lingering feelings, communicating more effectively, having negative experiences with alternative partners, and
perceiving positive changes in partners or the relationship (Dailey, Jin, Pfiester, &
Beck, 2011; Dailey, Rossetto, Pfiester, & Surra, 2009). On–off partners also report
benefits to their relationships such as the on–off nature helping them achieve a
new perspective of the relationship, overcome difficulties, or improve the relationship
(Dailey et al., 2011; Dailey, Rossetto, et al., 2009).
Unknown, however, is how on–off partners negotiate the relational transitions of
breakups and renewals; or, in other words, how partners enact or manage the changes
in relational status. Because breakups and renewals are points at which partners redefine or re-label their relationships, the navigation of these transitions may be crucial
to understanding the progression, as well as explaining the dynamics, of these relationships. For example, the manner in which partners negotiate transitions likely
has implications for the success or stability of, and satisfaction with, their relationships. By understanding how partners negotiate their breakups and renewals, we
can better predict whether on–off relationships will achieve stability or permanently
dissolve, which in turn will provide greater theoretical precision in explaining
relational trajectories as well as offer more specific practical applications for those
experiencing on–off relationships.
Relational Transitions as a Process
Although research has identified strategies partners use to dissolve dating relationships
(Baxter, 1982, 1984; Cody, 1982; Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009), as well as to renew relationships (Bevan, Cameron, & Dillow, 2003; Dailey et al. 2011; Patterson & O’Hair,
1992), initiating a breakup or renewal is only a part of the transition process. Recent
literature on post-dissolution relationships offers certain insights on redefining relationships after breakups. The strategies employed to dissolve relationships are associated with whether partners maintained relationships after the dissolution. Strategies
that implied a possibility for future redevelopment increased the chances of postdissolution friendships (Banks, Altendorf, Greene, & Cody, 1987), whereas avoidance
strategies decreased the chances of post-dissolution friendships (Metts, Cupach, &
Bejlovec, 1989). Demonstrating the importance of communication in the process of
redefining relationships, Koenig Kellas (2006) found that post-dissolution partners
varied in their level of communication after breakups, and those who talked at least
to some degree were better adjusted to the breakup than those who did not talk.
168
R. M. Dailey et al.
Yet, less understood is how partners manage the perhaps difficult process of
negotiating new roles, expectations, and levels of psychological and physical intimacy
(Foley & Fraser, 1998; Metts et al., 1989), particularly when there are no defined scripts
for this type of relationship (Foley & Fraser, 1998). Hence, we view these transitions as
a process, rather than as an isolated strategy.
Relational Turning Points
Conceptualizing breakups and renewals as turning points may be a fruitful framework for understanding how on–off partners transition through changes in relational
status. Critiquing early research on mate selection and dating, Bolton (1961) argued
that research should extend beyond examining characteristics partners bring to the
relationship and assess the relationship as a process that develops over time through
transactions. Taking this process-oriented view of relationships, Baxter and Bullis
(1986) defined a turning point as ‘‘any event or occurrence that is associated with
change in a relationship’’ (p. 470). Conville (1988) similarly concluded that a function of relational transitions or turning points was providing opportunities for
creating new rules in the relationship. As such, turning points may often be the times
at which partners move to different relational stages, including the changes in
relational status that occur in on–off relationships. Indeed, turning points reflecting
both breakups and renewals have emerged in research (Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Koenig
Kellas et al., 2008; Lloyd & Cate, 1985).
In general, much of the literature on turning points in romantic relationships has
focused on types of turning points (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Graham, 1997; Koenig
Kellas et al., 2008), attributions or reasons for the turning points (e.g., Lloyd & Cate,
1985; Surra, 1985, 1987), or establishing types of relationships based on changes in
commitment across the relationship (e.g., Graham, 1997; Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald,
& Cate, 1981; Koenig Kellas et al., 2008; Surra, 1985). Baxter and Bullis noted that a
turning point’s approach provides a framework for assessing communication and
meaning in relationships, yet research has not widely explored the communication
that occurs at these turning points. As Mongeau, Serewicz, Henningsen, and Davis
(2006) noted, ‘‘although existing turning-points research delineates some of the components of RRTs [romantic relationship transitions], very little research has focused
specifically on how these fundamental changes occur’’ (p. 340).
Exceptions to this are a few studies that have assessed relationship talk or partners’
meta-communications about their relationships at turning points (i.e., Baxter &
Bullis, 1986; Bullis, Clark, & Sline, 1993). These studies showed that talk about the
relationship was more likely to occur in transitions associated with breakups and
renewals (e.g., disengagement, exclusivity, or making up), as these transitions would
be difficult to enact without communicating about the relationship (Baxter & Bullis,
1986). In the relational transition from a platonic to a romantic relationship, partners
who knew each other or were friends prior to becoming romantically involved
talked more explicitly about the transition than those who did not know each other
(Mongeau & Teubner, 2002). This suggests that those who develop a romantic
Communication Quarterly
169
relationship soon after meeting have an implicit understanding that the goal is to
develop a romantic relationship, whereas those who are redefining their current
friendship likely need more explicit communication about the transition to have
greater certainty or clarity about the status of the relationship. Hence, on–off partners,
given their prior relational history, may be more likely to explicitly communicate
about the nature of the relationship at turning points regarding breakups and renewals. Previous studies assessing meta-communication at turning points, however,
broadly coded for whether communication occurred or not rather than for qualities
or features of the communication at these turning points. As such, the communication
regarding how partners negotiate or enact these transitions is less understood.
Overview of this Study
Partners in on–off relationships experience at least one breakup and renewal, typically experiencing several of these transitions (Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009). Research
suggests disengagement and reconciliation are significant turning points in relationships (Baxter & Bullis, 1986), and research on post-dissolution relationships suggests
communication at these significant turning points may be a critical factor in redefining relationships (Koenig Kellas, 2006). This study expands on previous research
regarding relationship development and dissolution by employing a turning points
approach to focus on how on–off partners negotiate or manage the significant relational transitions of breakups and renewals. In contrast to previous research that has
assessed changes in commitment as an indication of turning points, we specifically
define breakups and renewals as turning points in relationships as these transitions
represent times of redefining or renegotiating the nature of the relationship. We
conceptualize negotiation as a broad process that includes interactions instigating
the transitions (i.e., breakup and renewal initiations) as well as the progression of
the transitions (e.g., how the partners enact and manage the redefinition of the
relationship). Thus, two broad research questions drive our analysis:
RQ1: How do on–off partners negotiate breakups in their relationships?
RQ2: How do on–off partners negotiate renewals in their relationships?
Method
Participants and Procedure
The 65 participants in this study included college students (n ¼ 36) and community
members (n ¼ 29) from a larger study of on–off relationships. The sample was from a
large, Southwestern city in the United States. A majority of the sample were women
(n ¼ 46; 70.8%), and participant ages ranged from 18 to 52 (M ¼ 24.23, SD ¼ 7.94). A
little more than one-half were Caucasian or White (n ¼ 38; 58.5%); other ethnicities
included Asian or Pacific Islander (n ¼ 12; 18.5%), Hispanic or Latino (n ¼ 8;
12.3%), African American or Black (n ¼ 3; 4.6%), 3 reported another or multiple
170
R. M. Dailey et al.
ethnicities (4.6%), and 1 did not provide ethnicity information. Most participants
reported on a heterosexual relationship (96.9%).
Although on–off relationships are prevalent in college-aged populations (Dailey,
Pfiester, et al., 2009), we sought a more diverse sample, especially in terms of age,
to understand more about on–off relationship transitions as they occur across the
lifespan. The sample had a fairly even split between students and non-students,
but a small number of non-student participants (n ¼ 6) reported on a past on–off
relationship from high school or college. At the time of participation, about one-half
were currently together with their on–off partner (n ¼ 27; 41.5%), and 38 (58.5%)
were broken up. More specifically, 46.2% of the participants reported the relationship
was permanently over (n ¼ 30), 24.6% (n ¼ 16) thought the relationship would continue cycling, and 29.2% (n ¼ 19) reported the relationship had become relatively
stable. These percentages were similar for both students and non-students, v2(2,
N ¼ 65) ¼ 0.84, p ¼ .656. The length of relationships ranged from 2 to 252 months
(M ¼ 41.09, SD ¼ 39.94, Mdn ¼ 30). Of those who were currently not dating, the time
since the last breakup ranged from 1 to 240 months (Mdn ¼ 11). The number of
renewals, excluding an outlier of 100, ranged from 1 to 20 (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 2.91,
Mdn ¼ 3).
Participants were recruited using a department participant pool, Craigslist.com
advertisements, and paper flyers posted at local establishments. The advertisement
for the study noted that we were recruiting individuals who were in, or had been
in, an on-again=off-again relationship, which was defined as a relationship that
had broken up and renewed at least once. Students who volunteered to participate
received extra credit in communication courses. Community members received a gift
card for participation. We, along with two graduate student research assistants, conducted the interviews in a location of the participants’ choosing (e.g., on-campus labs
or local coffee shops). All interviews were audio-recorded. In the interview, participants were asked questions regarding each phase of their relationship (i.e., each
breakup and renewal), up to six breakups and renewals. If they had more than six
of either, participants were asked to describe the first three breakups and renewals
and the last three breakups and renewals. Length of the interviews ranged between
14.23 min and 91.29 min (M ¼ 46.93, SD ¼ 19.87). The 65 participants reported a
total of 339 transitions: 189 breakups (M ¼ 2.91, SD ¼ 1.18, Mdn ¼ 3) and 150 renewals (M ¼ 2.31, SD ¼ 1.13, Mdn ¼ 2).
Qualitative Design
When studying the process of breaking up and renewing relationships, it is problematic to observe individuals in these private, personal moments. A qualitative approach
(i.e., interviews) allowed us to access individuals’ perceptions and rich descriptions of
their breakups and renewals. Using a phase-oriented, structured interview schedule,
we asked participants to describe the communicative processes surrounding each
breakup and renewal. This approach involved a standard set of questions, along with
probes, to maintain consistency across interviewers and relationship phases. In the
Communication Quarterly
171
interview, participants were asked first to recall various characteristics of the
beginning of their relationship, then recall each phase of their relationship in a linear
fashion, and last to answer general questions about the relationship.
Given our current emphasis on negotiating transitions between the ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’
stages in these relationships, we analyzed the segments of the data specifically focused
on participants’ descriptions of the communication surrounding the breakups and
renewals. The first author unitized the responses in the transcripts to delineate the unit
of analysis for breakups and renewals. Responses to the following questions were considered the units of analysis regarding the negotiation of breakups: ‘‘How did you
know you were broken up? What did you and your partner do or say to indicate that
you were broken up? Please describe the interaction(s),’’ ‘‘What conversations did you
have about what the status or nature of your relationship would be like after the breakup?,’’ and ‘‘What actually happened as compared to what you discussed?’’ Responses
to the following questions were considered the units of analysis for renewal negotiations: ‘‘How did you know you were back together? What did you or your partner do
or say that indicated you were back together? Please describe the interaction(s),’’ ‘‘Did
you have conversations about the issues that led to the previous breakup? What did
you discuss in these conversations?,’’ and ‘‘Did you have conversations about what
your relationship would be like after this renewal?’’ These units were labeled with
the participant number and the breakup=renewal number (e.g., 7.B1 and 12.R3
indicates Participant 7, Breakup 1 and Participant 12, Renewal 3, respectively).
To begin the qualitative analysis, four of the authors were given 10 interview transcripts, seven of which were unique to the researcher and three of which were the
same for all researchers. Each independently developed initial themes regarding
breakup and renewal transitions. Using the data to ground the discussion of emergent themes, an initial coding scheme based on themes that were similar across the
researchers was created. This coding scheme was documented in an electronic codebook. We then assessed new interview transcripts to assess the legitimacy of the coding scheme. Using a constant-comparative approach (Glaser, 1965), existing themes
were clarified, new themes that emerged were added, and similar themes were merged
as the coding process progressed.
We initially coded the data together as a group to provide researcher triangulation.
Given the relatively large number of breakups (n ¼ 189) and renewals (n ¼ 150)
among the 65 participants, we first coded all of the breakups (n ¼ 81) and renewals
(n ¼ 61) in 30 randomly selected interviews. During the coding process, the researchers read the segmented unit of analysis, discussed their impressions of what themes
were present, and finally coded the data once consensus was achieved among the
researchers. To ensure we achieved saturation of the themes and to obtain a diverse
sampling of all the breakups and renewals, we also coded a random sampling of the
remaining breakups (n ¼ 35) and renewals (n ¼ 29). Saturation was achieved during
this process, and the first author coded the remaining breakups (n ¼ 73) and renewals
(n ¼ 60).
While coding, the researchers documented the presence of themes on the transcripts and in an electronic file. Quotes to help exemplify each theme were extracted
172
R. M. Dailey et al.
from the data and recorded in an electronic file. Source triangulation (Denzin, 1978),
or providing multiple quotes from varied participants, supports the themes within
the data and strengthens the credibility of the results (Baxter & Eyles, 1997; Krefting,
1990). Themes are described and evidenced with quotes in the Results section.
Sample quotes are identified with labels and line numbers from the transcripts
(e.g., 44.R2.212-216 indicates Participant 44, Renewal 2, lines 212–216).
Results
To reflect the process of negotiating relational transitions, we assessed participants’
descriptions of their breakups and renewals in two ways: (a) general styles of
re-labeling the relationship and (b) specific themes regarding the transition negotiation. The first pertains to the transition initiation episodes, whereas the second
focuses more on how the participants or partners managed the progression of the
transition. Whereas the general styles were mutually exclusive, the specific themes
were not. In the following, both are described for breakups and renewals.
Negotiating Breakups
General breakup initiation styles. Three general initiation styles regarding breakup
episodes emerged: civil discussion (n ¼ 91), hostile=abrupt (n ¼ 48), and passive=
avoidant (n ¼ 35). We reference these as styles, as they are more general approaches
than specific dissolution strategies.
The civil discussion style entailed partners having calm, rational, or measured
discussions about the breakups. Participants’ reports reflected that these discussions
ranged from partners having indifference to despair about the breakup. Although the
breakups were not always mutual, there was a common theme of respect among partners, and the discussions often included explanations for the breakup. For example,
one participant noted: ‘‘He told me his concerns and his feelings. And I told him
mine. And we both kind of decided that the only resolution would be to be broken
up’’ (6.B3.441-443). Characterizing a unilateral breakup, one participant stated:
I told her the truth. . . . I was as honest as I could be, because if I was honest about
everything, she wouldn’t, you know, she would trust that that was everything. So if
I hadn’t admitted that there were selfish reasons for me breaking up with her, she
wouldn’t have believed anything else I said. So, I had to be completely honest.
(24.B1.174-181)
The hostile=abrupt style typically involved shorter breakup episodes in which one
or both partners made more spontaneous decisions to break up. One participant said:
I was just really blunt with him. I wasn’t really emotional about it. And he was like,
‘‘Tell me straight up, do you have feelings for me? Do you love me or do you not?’’
And I was like, ‘‘I really don’t think I do.’’ And he was like, ‘‘Okay’’. . . really kind of
cynical. And he was like, ‘‘Then this is it, then, after you hang up the phone?’’ And I
told him to have a nice life . . . again! (9.B3.610-614)
Communication Quarterly
173
Another participant reported:
He was like ‘‘I’m not going to apologize.’’ I was like ‘‘Fine, we’re breaking up. It’s
over with.’’. . . It was totally angry and I was done with it. It was mostly screaming,
mostly being angry because I had known he was lying to me the entire time.
(63.B4.265-268).
When asked about the nature of the breakup interaction, another participant
described the following:
I’m sure I just got mad. . . . I was probably upset at the time. Like, you know, very
emotional. So I was just really pissed off. So, I was just like, ‘‘Forget it. It’s over.’’
. . . It was just like afterwards, I was like, what did I do? And get all emotional and
be like, ‘‘No, I’m sorry! I didn’t mean it. Come back!’’ (1.B2.338-347)
These abrupt interactions tended to have greater hostility in which partners
attacked each other, rather than discussing the issues. Some of these interactions also
involved conflicts that escalated to a breaking point. One participant succinctly contrasted the civil discussion and hostile=abrupt styles: ‘‘The first breakup was, even
though it was more unexpected, it was more civil, I guess. . . . It was more like sitting,
crying, and talking. And the second one was like screaming and anger driven’’
(28.B2.233-236).
In the passive=avoidant style, one partner ceased contact with the other or both
partners stopped or avoided contact with each other. For example, one participant
described how she knew the relationship had ended: ‘‘Yeah, just that, he stopped calling. We just stopped going out together and I finally realized that this is over’’
(35.B1.81-82). Acknowledging the lack of a face-to-face conversation, another noted:
‘‘I ended up mailing his things to him with a letter, a goodbye letter, just wishing him
the best. . . . It was difficult because there was no official saying of anything’’
(71.B3.222-228). Thus, rather than a specific interaction, a lack of contact or communication indicated a breakup for some on–off partners.
Specific breakup themes. We also found four specific themes regarding how breakups were negotiated or managed: outside opportunities and influences (n ¼ 62), leaving
an open door (n ¼ 58), post-dissolution struggle (n ¼ 62), and evaluation of the relationship (n ¼ 61).
The progression or negotiation of the breakup was influenced by outside opportunities and influences such as alternative partners, travel, or moving for school or
job opportunities. In some cases, the outside influence instigated the breakup. For
example, in responding to why the breakup occurred, one participant stated:
He really just wanted to be focused at his new university and stay, you know, just
one-track-minded and not have to feel guilty if he met new people and just not
have to be committed to someone and feel those burdens. (9.B1.96-98)
In exemplifying the influence of alternative partners, one participant said:
It was another guy. . . . [M]y boyfriend and I were just having a lot of problems, and
the other guy and I were still friends. Basically it was kind of like well, we broke up
174
R. M. Dailey et al.
and you know I guess it gave me more of a chance to talk to the other guy. That’s
kind of what precipitated this breakup. (70.B1.30-36)
In other cases, outside influences helped to maintain the breakup. In talking about
managing the experience of the breakup, one participant expressed: ‘‘It wasn’t bad
because I was living in [city] and he was here’’ (47.B2.139). As an additional example
of the influence of geographic distances between semesters in school, another noted:
‘‘We were able to avoid each other because it was summer’’ (12.B2.260). Overall, outside influences or opportunities either helped participants move toward a breakup or
helped them sustain a breakup they had enacted. In other words, these external influences facilitated, whether consciously employed or not, the breakup progression.
A common theme in breakups was an open door strategy by one or both partners
to retain the possibility of renewing later. At times, this strategy was used to soften
the breakup for the other partner or to get a reluctant partner to agree to a breakup.
For example, one participant reflected: ‘‘I just told him I think it’s best for us to just
take a break . . . which is never really a good thing to say because it just implies that
we’re taking a break’’ (2.B1.109-112). Another participant noted:
After I told him I didn’t want to be with him anymore . . . he tried to save it. I didn’t
want it. . . . I knew what my intentions were. But he was like, ‘‘Let’s take some time.
Let’s not break up. Let’s be separated.’’. . . I was like no, no, no. But it was the
easiest way out. (55.B2.160-164)
Some partners, however, truly wanted to maintain the possibility of reconciling in
the future. For example, one participant noted: ‘‘I mean he didn’t completely close the
door. . . . I think we both secretly had hope of . . . I don’t really think this might be
over’’ (6.B1.126-130). Another stated: ‘‘He was like, ‘The door’s shut, but it’s not
locked’ ’’ (22.B1.303). Another participant noted: ‘‘She just wanted to take some time
and re-evaluate. And so, I just tried to give her a little space, call her on occasion, kind
of check base. I was never interested in calling it quits’’ (30.B2. 148-150). Overall, this
theme suggests one way partners negotiated the breakup was to leave the door open,
whether this was purposely and explicitly stated or assumed by one or both partners.
Instead of completely severing ties, some partners decided to maintain a possibility of
renewing. In other words, they negotiated to separate (i.e., ‘‘take a break’’) but
potentially resume the relationship in the future. In other cases, one person perhaps
interpreted or assumed that a door was left open based on his or her partner’s more
ambiguous breakup strategy, even if the partner did not intend to leave the possibility
of renewal open.
Another common theme was post-dissolution struggle. Partners either had difficulties in redefining their relationship or in determining the quantity and quality of
their post-dissolution contact. For example, many couples tried to be friends but
found it difficult to navigate the ambiguity of their redefined relationship. One participant stated: ‘‘I mean I wanted to be friends. But we really couldn’t just because like,
you know, there’s all those emotions’’ (1.B3.548-549). Another participant remarked:
So, the fun, friendship time looked a lot like our dating time. So, we’d hang out and
he’d call and be like, ‘‘Wait, so what’s going on?’’ Or I’d call and be like, ‘‘Oh, my
Communication Quarterly
175
gosh. We need to slow down again.’’ It was just back and forth, like a tennis match.
And he’d call and be like, ‘‘Can we hang out or is that weird?’’ And I’m like, ‘‘No,
let’s hang out.’’ And then, the next day, it’d be too much. (75.B1.76-80)
In addition, some partners disagreed on what they wanted in the post-dissolution
relationship. For example, one participant noted: ‘‘She more wanted to be friends,
but I uh refused. It’s extremely hard, when you’re, you know, kind of open. . . . I
would still be wary, but still just as soon as you see this person, you just melt’’
(53.B1.80-91). Other couples seemed to establish rules or boundaries regarding the
nature of their contact, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the ambiguity or uncertainty
in the post-dissolution relationship. One participant described the following:
For a while, we talked, and we didn’t think it was possible for us to be friends without treating it like we were still in a relationship. . . . Originally, we thought we
wouldn’t be able to hang out without it being more. . . . Basically, if we’re going
to see each other, it has to be like around a group of people, so it’s not one on
one. And uh, try not to talk to each other very often because then that would just
make it harder on her, or both of us. (7.B3.261-273)
In sum, partners sometimes tried to negotiate the breakups by redefining, and
sometimes setting rules about, their post-dissolution relationship. Partners often
wanted to maintain some type of relationship after breakups. Many continued to
try to have contact and be friends but this sometimes proved difficult for one or both
partners, even if rules were in place. This theme shows how negotiations or navigations of relational transitions can often be challenging.
Another way partners tried to manage or process the breakups was through
evaluation of the relationship, the partner, or themselves. For some, this entailed
explicit communication with the partner about what was wrong with the relationship
or why the breakup was occurring. For example, one participant commented:
We would talk about, you know, we really want to focus on what we’re doing
personally so we can get back together. . . . We just wanted to be right with
ourselves and right spiritually so we could be a lot better couple. (36.B1.81-85)
Another explicitly evaluated his partner: ‘‘I told her that I didn’t really like the
person that she’d become, uh, during that time. I thought she was very materialistic.
That’s not the person I met. ‘I don’t even know you anymore’ ’’ (10.B5.614-616).
Another participant described evaluating the relationship and her own needs:
I was like, ‘‘That’s fine. Let’s not be together right now because obviously I can’t
compensate your needs.’’. . . He was like ‘‘Okay, whatever . . . I don’t understand.
I’m trying to put effort into this, some serious, mature effort into this, which is
what I thought you always wanted.’’ And I was like, ‘‘It is what I always wanted,
like a year ago. But you couldn’t do it then. . . . I need to move on. I need to legit
move on, get out, make friends, not think about you. And that’s what’s best for
me.’’ (16.B4.648-665)
For others, and sometimes in addition to explicit communication, this process was
more internal because their partner was unavailable, unresponsive, or they did not want
to engage the partner. This evaluation was manifested in attributions, explanations, or
176
R. M. Dailey et al.
rationalizations of the breakups. For instance, one participant noted that she found a
certain resolve about the breakup after a process of reflection: ‘‘I think I internalized
it more, and I felt like I should’ve known better, had a lot of those kind of feelings
and those thoughts of ‘I finally cannot do this anymore’ ’’ (76.B3.291-292). Another stated: ‘‘And I was just like, kind of, over it. I was like, I think I just started like teaching
myself to you know, to get over him because I was like, I felt like we were going to break
up’’ (1.B1.l38-139).
Overall, evaluation helped partners rationalize and come to terms with the breakup. This theme shows a sense-making process about the breakups—why they had to,
or should, break up; that is, for the majority of participants coded as exhibiting this
theme, this cognitive or communicative process of evaluation was helpful to initiate
or cope with breakups. Either it was negotiating with the partner to understand,
explain, or substantiate the breakup, or it was an internal attempt to manage the
breakup in order to move forward after the breakup.
Negotiating Renewals
General renewal initiation styles. Similar to breakups, we found themes regarding
the general style of the renewal initiations, as well as more specific themes or characteristics regarding how partners negotiated the renewals. The general styles include explicit
discussion (n ¼ 62), implicit renewals (n ¼ 49), and implicit to explicit renewals (n ¼ 20).
Some participants described their renewals as involving explicit discussions about
reconciling the relationship. These discussions typically took place before the partners
resumed full contact with each other or before they considered themselves dating
again. In some cases, these conversations were short. For example, one participant
noted: ‘‘He asked me if I wanted to be his girlfriend again and I said ‘yes’ ’’
(11.R1.111). Another participant noted that her boyfriend wanted confirmation
about getting back together: ‘‘It was kind of like one of those discussions where he
would want affirmation like ‘What are we? Are we back together’? Or something like
that—very direct about it’’ (70.R1.112-114). In other cases, there were multiple or
more lengthy discussions. For example, one participant stated:
Um, again we had a big conversation about it. And it was just throughout the weeks
and then we kind of just made it official. We were just like you know I think we had
a . . . we both were, just agreed that you know we should get back together . . . that
was the best decision. (66.R1.121-125)
For other participants, the renewal was implicit. For instance, participants
expressed the following: ‘‘It’s just like we would just know’’ (5.R1.111), or ‘‘It’s so
easy for me to get back into the cycle, because it’s like okay, we have a routine,
and we don’t really sit down face-to-face and say what’s on the table. We don’t really
do that’’ (43.R3.489-91). Another participant commented:
Well, this time there wasn’t really a set thing. We never really defined it as being
back together, but we did realize that we were acting in the same way as we did
before. It was the same thing, where we were talking to each other a lot. We weren’t
Communication Quarterly
177
seeing other people. . . . We never talked about it, but all the signs were there. So we
never really had to say it. (50.R3.343-347)
For others, they believed they had renewed after significant events with the partner.
For example, one participant noted:
I brought him to like sorority events . . . and he eventually introduced me to people
as his girlfriend. I knew that we were, but like the public display of that was kind of
like. . . . To people, they know that we’re a couple. And then he invited me to go to
an Easter thing with his family, and it was an out of town thing, so that was a pretty
big deal. (6.R1.207-211)
Thus, for some participants, resuming previous patterns or significant events in the
relationship were the means of determining whether the relationship had renewed. For
these couples, negotiation appeared to be unspoken or behavioral.
For others, partners resumed previous patterns that implicitly indicated they
were dating but eventually felt the need to explicitly re-label the relationship and
declare that they were back together. We term this renewal style implicit to explicit.
Exemplifying this style, one participant noted the following:
After we started hanging out again, after a week or two, then we finally started
talking again. ‘‘Okay, we’re in a relationship’’ and stuff. So I guess that it was after
the getting back together that we really started talking about actually being together
more seriously. (35.R1.125-127)
Another participant expressed the progression from implicitly to explicitly
renewing:
We kind of just fell back into how it was before. Um, going on dates, movies,
dinner, the park, stuff like that. So that kind of indicated that we were back
together again. And we did have another talk, saying like, ‘‘Okay, we’re kind of
back together now.’’ We didn’t have a really long talk. It was just like, oh, we’re
back together. So it was just real quick. (50.R1.103-106)
Some partners needed an explicit declaration before getting back together, whereas
for others, the resumption of previous patterns indicated they were back together. In
sum, reestablishing communication, verbally or nonverbally, seems to indicate the
reunification.
Specific renewal themes. Three specific themes regarding the negotiation or
management of the renewals emerged as well: setting terms and conditions (n ¼ 58),
perceived change in partner or relationship (n ¼ 75), and the belief that the renewal
was temporary or a trial renewal (n ¼ 22).
First, setting terms and conditions involved partners reflecting on the previous
breakup or previous stages of the relationship and setting terms or planning for
the renewal. Some participant reports reflected how partners, either individually or
together, processed why the relationship previously dissolved and how the relationship should be repaired to avoid similar problems. For example, one participant
noted: ‘‘We basically just talked about the issues we had, what had gone wrong with
178
R. M. Dailey et al.
the last breakup, how we wanted to fix that, make things better’’ (7.R2.206-208).
Another participant said:
And we really didn’t discuss it deeply, but I think he also made the choice at that
point to give it a try, but I made it very clear that it was unacceptable, that his behavior in not supporting me was completely unacceptable and that we were not going
to be able to continue the relationship if he continued to behave like that.
(63.R3.221-224)
Referring to how past behaviors needed to change, one participant stated:
We talk about it some. And I tried to make my feelings known that I wasn’t going
to stand for that anymore and that there’s been too much on- and off-again and we
were really good then for about a while. . . . I think we talked a lot more about what
we wanted in the relationship and where we wanted our lives to go at that point.
(65.R2.119-124)
One participant summarized: ‘‘I made it very clear that, we will start seeing each
other again, but this is when, like, I starting laying down the groundrules that we
hadn’t before’’ (12.R2.342-344).
Overall, this theme entailed more explicit negotiation of renewals. Partners either
processed the previous breakup and how the relationship had run off course, or they
set new guidelines to ensure the relationship would be more satisfying or stable. In
one sense, this may be intuitive; unless it was an external obstacle that instigated
the breakup, partners may be expected to have some negotiation of what did not previously work in the relationship before moving forward. Yet, not all participant
reports reflected this theme, suggesting that some couples did not explicitly negotiate
terms of the renewals.
An additional factor that facilitated the progression of the renewals was change:
change in the nature of the relationship, change in one or both partners, or change
in how partners’ viewed or perceived the relationship. Some participants noted that
having a sense of closure to previous phases of the relationship or finding a fresh start
helped the process of the renewal. For example, after feeling that some issues in the
relationship had been resolved, one participant noted: ‘‘[W]e were starting so fresh
with each other. So the big thing was that we were just not into the fighting and
the jealousy and stuff’’ (35.R1.157-160). Another participant noted: ‘‘We treated
[the renewal] like it was an opportunity to start over with a clean slate, try to let
bygones be bygones, so to speak’’ (45.R1.119-120).
Others found a new confidence in the relationship or were reassured
about their partners’ relational commitments. One participant’s perspective
of the relationship changed once her partner was more direct about his
involvement:
I realized I had some doubts. He’d already broken up with me. I didn’t want that to
happen again. I wanted to be sure he was serious. So I did talk to him about that a
little bit. And he said, ‘‘I have no reservations about being in a relationship with
you.’’ (62.R1.112-114)
Communication Quarterly
179
Other participants discussed changes by one or both partners that helped the
progression of the renewals. One participant illustrated the following:
I felt that something that would be different this time around is that I finally had a
handle on my own feelings a little bit. I could meet her in the middle. She wouldn’t
be in control of the relationship. I felt it would be a little more split this time
around. (10.R3.421-424)
Another expressed mutual efforts: ‘‘At this phase in our relationship is when we
got married and really, really tried hard and really did good together’’ (65.R2.124125). Yet another expressed the following:
When we got sober we had to re-introduce ourselves to each other. And we were
still really, really immature emotionally. But at least we were making progress. And I
think at least we’re trying to get to know each other, and instead of being mutually
resentful and pissed off we were trying to see each other for who each other was.
(63.R5.363-368)
Overall, this theme indicates that change or transformation within the self, the
partner, or the relationship, whether unexpected or intentional, was not only a reason
for renewing, but a force propelling the progression of the renewal. For some, the
change experienced was a shift in perspective or reframing of the relationship and
sometimes these changes were only beliefs or expectations of change, all of which
may facilitate subsequent breakups. Whereas the setting terms and conditions theme
highlights partners’ plans or guidelines for future change, this theme reflects an
assumption or perception that certain changes had already occurred and the participants’ view of the relationship had been altered based on this change.
As perhaps a converse to the open door theme for breakups, some partners negotiated the renewals by having either an explicit or implicit understanding that the
renewal was temporary or a trial renewal. In other words, whereas the open door
theme suggested that the relationship was not permanently terminated, this theme
suggested the relationship was not necessarily permanently renewed. One person
noted: ‘‘The last [renewal] was the most unofficial. . . . It was very on a trial basis.
It was like, maybe today I’ll hang out with you, maybe not. I don’t know’’
(71.R2.176-177). Some participants noted that an upcoming move by one or both
partners led to viewing the renewal as temporary. One participant summarized:
It was an implicit understanding that we were together while I was here. . . . In the
back of our minds, we knew that this wasn’t gonna last forever, because I was
gonna have to go back to [state] at some time or another, and she was still in [city].
(68.R1.105, 129-130)
Another referenced how one partner was soon going to college: ‘‘We had a deadline. We didn’t have to worry about the relationship progressing so far that we
wouldn’t be able to break up because we knew when we were going to break’’
(24.R1.316-318). Others discussed how previous transgressions or hesitancies about
the relationship led them to be cautious about renewing or committing to a long-term
relationship. For example, one participant commented: ‘‘I didn’t want to say that we
were in a very long-term relationship. I just wanted to give it another trial period
180
R. M. Dailey et al.
before we jumped into anything more serious’’ (73.R3.279-280). Another participant
recalled the following:
I said to him, ‘‘I really want to try this again.’’ And I explained to him that nothing
really happened with that guy. Nothing noteworthy anyway. . . . So he was like
‘‘Okay, we’ll give it another chance and see what happens.’’ (31.R2.243-246)
Overall, some partners negotiated a temporary renewal of the relationship,
whether this was implicit or explicit. For some, this was a way to experience the
benefits of the relationship without requiring commitment. For others, it was a trial
period to determine if the relationship would be satisfying or if the partner had truly
changed. In contrast to the other two renewal themes, this theme did not reflect an
expectation that the relationship would be different after this transition.
Discussion
This study sought to assess how on–off partners manage or negotiate breakups and
renewals. Because breakups and renewals are a process, we focused on how partners
marked or labeled their relational transitions as well as how they enacted the transitions. The general styles show the initiation episodes, whereas the specific themes provide a better understanding of how partners in on–off relationships navigated changes
in relational status. This analysis adds to the extant literature on partners’ communication and individuals’ interpretations of relational events in redefining relationships
at significant turning points in romantic relationships. Whereas previous research has
assessed whether or not communication occurred at turning points (Baxter & Bullis,
1986; Bullis et al., 1993; Koenig Kellas, 2006), this analysis shows more specifically how
communication and behavior is used to manage these transitions.
Initiating Transitions: Redefining the Relationship
Before partners can begin to negotiate the transition, one or both partners likely need
to redefine or re-label the relationship, whether implicitly or explicitly, as either moving toward dissolution or toward (re)development. The themes that emerged across
participant reports regarding transition initiation generally encompass the breakup
and renewal strategies from previous research (Baxter, 1982, 1984; Bevan et al.,
2003; Cody, 1982; Dailey, Beck, Jin, & Pfiester, 2008; Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009;
Patterson & O’Hair, 1992). In particular, these themes substantiate that directness
is an important feature of strategies (see Baxter, 1985; Wilmot, Carbaugh, & Baxter,
1985). Clarity in relationship status likely facilitated the transition process, as many
desired a ‘‘state of the relationship’’ talk or a definition of the new phase. Although
on–off partners tend to have uncertainty about relational status (Dailey, Pfiester,
et al., 2009; Dailey, Rossetto, et al., 2009), which is linked with avoiding talk about
relationship status (e.g., Afifi & Burgoon, 1998; Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune,
2004), these significant points in the relationship may have elicited or required
relational meta-communication (Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Mongeau & Teubner, 2002),
perhaps to reduce their uncertainty (see Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988).
Communication Quarterly
181
Yet, it is interesting to note that formally labeling the transition was not needed by
all participants. Similar to Foley and Fraser’s (1998) finding that some couples made a
more tenuous distinction between friendship and dating than others, some of the participants had a more fluid view of their relationships. This was indirectly evidenced by
those who had more implicit breakups and renewals. Further, although our interview
questions did not explicitly ask about the need to re-label the relationship, a few participants spontaneously referenced this issue in different parts of the interviews. One
person noted: ‘‘I don’t know why there is such a need for a specific label. . . . But, I guess
it can be confusing for not just us, for people around us’’ (29.365-367). Another similarly expressed the following: ‘‘I suppose we never really put a label on it. Didn’t really
1
need to, except for Facebook[ ], you know. I didn’t really ask questions. It was just
assumed’’ (10.27-28). Although representing a minority of the sample, these participants were comfortable with ambiguity regarding relationship status. As such, despite
generally identifying their relationship as entailing stages of being together and apart, if
we had not specifically asked about what indicated a breakup or renewal, a few participants may not have identified any such distinct turning points. Thus, future research
identifying predictors of whether and how partners punctuate relational status changes,
and how this impacts the larger negotiation process, would be beneficial.
Negotiating Transitions
Communication among partners influenced their movement through the process of
breaking up or renewing. As perhaps the most explicit example of negotiation in this
analysis, many participants reflected on previous stages of the relationship and
addressed specific concerns in attempts to avoid similar issues when renewing (i.e.,
setting terms and conditions). This theme reflects how partners collaborated and
planned to alter behaviors or routines to increase the chances of a successful renewal.
In terms of breakups, use of explicit evaluation, which often involved discussions or
explanations about why the relationship was ending, likely helped partners come to
terms and proceed with the dissolution.
Other themes—open door and temporary=trial renewal—reflected how partners
often circumvented a full enactment of the transitions to manage the change in relational status. For breakups, negotiating a chance for renewal appeared to help the
movement into a different state of the relationship. Similarly, for renewals, knowing
the reconciliation was temporary or perceiving it as a trial period eased the steps
toward being back together. In contrast to the predominance of needing an explicit
marking of a new relational phase, as noted earlier, partners sometimes managed
transitions by redefining the relationship to an ambiguous state. In other words,
although a breakup or renewal had been declared, uncertainty regarding the nature
of the relationship appeared to be preferable to fully enacting the transition.
The post-dissolution struggle theme, perhaps a result of the ambiguity negotiated,
reflects the difficulties involved in transitioning from dating to being broken up.
Rather than redefining the relationship to a state in which partners did not have
contact (i.e., completely terminating the relationship), trying to maintain a friendship
182
R. M. Dailey et al.
proved difficult to navigate for many. As compared to the relatively standard scripts
for relationship development prior to breakups (see Honeycutt, 1993), participant
reports reflect the lack of scripts regarding post-dissolution relationships (see also
Foley & Fraser, 1998). Partners were often unsure of the quantity and quality of contact they should have after dissolving the romantic nature of their relationship. This
struggle could also be interpreted as managing the dialectical tensions, particularly
the tension of autonomy and connection, at transitions points in the relationship
(see Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Conville, 1991; Cupach, 1992). Similarly, setting
new terms and conditions during renewals may reflect the management of dialectical
tensions. Perhaps managing tensions is a more involved and overt process at the significant turning points of breakups and renewals (see also Baxter & Erbert, 1999).
Investigating how partners manage dialectical tensions during transitions may reveal
additional insights on this negotiation process.
Whereas navigating the transitions created a struggle for some partners, it also
helped others experience an increased confidence in the relationship. This is related
to the benefit some on–off partners report about the cyclical nature of their relationships (Dailey et al., 2011; Dailey, Rossetto, et al., 2009). The breakup and renewal
process sometimes allows partners to resolve problems, generally improve the functioning of the relationship, or have a fresh start to the relationship. This highlights
that on–off relationships, despite their lower relational quality in general (Dailey
et al., 2010; Dailey, Pfeister, et al., 2009), should not be viewed as inherently problematic; some partners perceived that the on–off nature strengthened their relationship.
Further, these findings suggest that different types of on–off relationships exist, which
vary in relational dynamics and outcomes.
The post-dissolution struggle theme, and perhaps the setting terms and conditions
theme, additionally highlights the importance of assessing the times between the
breakups and renewals. These interim periods are a part of what make on–off relationships unique and are marked by greater ambiguity. Furthermore, these interim
periods offer a unique point of comparison for dating relationships that do not break
up and renew in terms of how transition negotiations differ between and within relationships. Research should further explore how partners define this interim period,
and the quantity and quality of contact during such periods, to more specifically
understand how this influences the progression of on–off relationships. Moreover,
as Mongeau and Teubner (2002) noted, a relational transition may entail multiple
turning points; and, thus, also examining turning points in on–off relationships
not pertaining to relational status would provide additional insights.
Internally Processing Transitions
Based on Baxter and Wilmot’s (1985) finding that relational status talk is a predominant taboo topic, Mongeau and Teubner (2002) reported an unexpected prevalence
of relational meta-talk in their study of relationships transitioning from platonic
to romantic. Our interview questions specifically focused on conversations about
relational transitions, or meta-communication about the nature of the relationship,
Communication Quarterly
183
and we found that many, although not all, participants discussed the new nature of
the relationship. Hence, the lack of meta-communication during some transitions
perhaps contributed to a couple of themes reflecting individuals’ internal processing
of the transitions.
Models of dissolution (e.g., Duck, 1982; Lee, 1984) as well as stage models of
relationship development (e.g., Knapp, 1984; Knapp & Vangelisti, 2005), incorporate
individual partners’ interpretations or perspectives of relationship events, such as the
intrapsychic and grave-dressing phases in Duck’s model. Previous research has also
shown the importance of attributions and accounts regarding breakups (e.g., Harvey
& Fine, 2006; Sorenson, Russell, Harkness, & Harvey, 1993; Weber, 1998). Internal evaluations and attributions regarding breakups (either alone or in conjunction with
explicit evaluations with the partner) appeared to help participants make sense of
the transitions, which may have helped them enact the dissolution. Less research has
focused on interpretations and attributions regarding renewals. Yet, recent research
has revealed that a common reason for renewals is perceiving a change in the self,
the partner, or the relationship (see Dailey et al., 2010; Dailey, Rossetto, et al.,
2009), which parallels the theme of change in which participants noted a new or different perspective on the relationship. Typically based on changes in circumstances
(e.g., geography), partners’ behaviors, or dynamics in the relationship, some partners
perceived a renewed confidence or a fresh start to the relationship, which seemed to
propel the progression of renewals.
Salient Communication and Cognitive Features in the Negotiation Process
Collectively, the themes point to specific communication features that may be important in further understanding how partners negotiate transitions. As discussed earlier,
the initiation styles support the focus on the directness of transition styles or strategies (e.g., Baxter, 1985). Directness of the initiating strategies may impact the larger
process of enacting the transitions. Yet, based on the differences between the civil discussion and hasty=abrupt styles, as well as on themes such as evaluation and setting
terms and conditions, the explicitness or openness of discussion regarding the negotiation process should also be assessed. In other words, the depth or extensiveness of
discussions about the transition may predict how fully the transitions are enacted or
the degree of struggle experienced. In addition, based on the breakup initiating
themes such as civil discussion and hasty=abrupt, assessing the tone or climate of
communication during the transition may be insightful. For example, the tone
may impact or be impacted by the dynamics of the relationship before or after the
transitions. Moreover, the setting terms and conditions and post-dissolution struggle
themes suggest that the degree of struggle or the intensity of transition negotiations
may predict factors such as ambiguity of relational status, how well previous issues
are resolved, the level of conflict in the relationship, the clarification of relational
expectations, or whether partners renew their relationships.
The themes also highlight factors related to partners’ subjective interpretations
that may be beneficial in explaining the negotiation process. For example, themes
184
R. M. Dailey et al.
such as evaluation, perceived change, open door, and temporary=trial renewal suggest
the degree to which partners internally manage or contemplate the transition may be
useful in understanding the progression of the transition. In addition, the open door
and temporary=trial renewal themes suggest partners’ decisiveness or resolve in
relabeling the relationship may be important to predicting the progression of the
transition as well as outcomes of the negotiation process.
Extending this analysis, future research could assess the degree to which on–off
partners’ transitions in relational status entail these communicative and cognitive
features. Given Baxter and Bullis’s (1986) assertion that a turning points approach
provides a framework for assessing communication and meaning in relationships,
this work offers specific characteristics to examine regarding how partners’
communication and evaluations contribute to, or reflect, relational transitions. In
addition, these results could also extend on existing models of relationship development, such as Knapp’s (1984; Knapp & Vangelisti, 2005) stage model, by explicating
how partners move through different relational stages. Further, these results offer
additional dimensions to consider in understanding romantic relationship trajectories (e.g., Huston et al., 1981; Surra, 1985, 1987). Whereas these trajectories are
typically based on increases or decreases in commitment, the characteristics revealed
here could provide a richer understanding of trajectories in on–off as well as dating
relationships in general. Further, these characteristics, perhaps when assessed in combination, may reveal different patterns or types of on–off relationships. Related to
this, we are exploring types of on–off relationships in terms of how partners negotiate
the transitions (Dailey, McCracken, Jin, Rossetto, & Green, 2012). Overall, these
future research directions should yield greater theoretical precision in explaining relational trajectories and in predicting which on–off relationships will achieve stability
and which will permanently dissolve.
Implications for On–Off Partners
In addition to the theoretical implications of examining features of transition negotiations, these results offer certain practical implications for partners in on–off relationships. For example, if one or both partners desire to permanently terminate the
relationship, it may be best to be explicit and unambiguous when expressing the intent
to dissolve the relationship (i.e., not leaving the door open for a renewal). In addition,
although partners may wish to retain a friendship or are ambivalent about permanently severing ties, the difficulty reported by many in navigating a post-dissolution
friendship suggests contact after breakups may complicate the breakup process.
The evaluation breakup theme also suggests that discussing why the relationship is dissolving may provide closure to partners during the breakup process. Conversely, if
partners desire to maintain the relationship, these results suggest on–off relationships
can change in positive directions if partners discuss and change problematic aspects of
the relationship. Some partners felt the breakup and renewal process helped to improve
the relationship or provided a fresh start indicating that on–off partners may be able to
improve or enhance the relationship if they explicitly negotiate the renewal.
Communication Quarterly
185
Limitations
This analysis provided a detailed picture of how partners negotiated relational transitions. The methods employed, however, entailed certain limitations. Comparing
partners’ descriptions of the transitions to understand the dyadic negotiation process
would be desirable in the study of on–off relationships. Although it was an initial goal
of this study to interview both partners (separately) and compare their responses,
obtaining data from both partners proved difficult. Many partners who were not currently dating understandably did not want to contact their previous partners (and, in
some cases, it may be inadvisable for them to do so). Many of those who were currently dating also declined to invite their partners, perhaps due to on–off partners’
greater relational uncertainty (Dailey et al., 2010; Dailey, Pfiester, et al., 2009); both
partners participating may have elicited discussion of topics they wished to avoid.
Hence, future research that attempts to obtain data from both partners should be
conducted with caution. Nonetheless, our data solely reflect the participants’ perspectives, which may be shaped by face needs or how the participants have since made
sense of their relationships (see also Rollie & Duck, 2006). Further, we make inferences about couples’ communication, yet our data represent only the participants’
perspectives of the transitions and the relationships.
In addition, the interviews were retrospective descriptions of relationships. A few
participants, particularly those with higher numbers of transitions or those reporting
on a relationship that occurred several years prior to participation, had difficulty in
recalling details about certain transitions, which resulted in a few transitions not
being coded. In addition, the retrospective nature of the data makes it difficult to
decipher whether participants’ evaluations or attributions about relationship events
were current perceptions or their appraisals when experiencing the transitions. Participants’ reports may have been shaped by their current relational statuses, or they
may have developed different perspectives on the relationships than they did when
experiencing each transition (Rollie & Duck, 2006). Longitudinal research in which
partners are interviewed or surveyed at multiple points would be especially beneficial
in this respect.
Although we sought a diverse sample in terms of life stage, about two-thirds of
participants discussed a relationship that occurred during high school or college.
Hence, our themes may be more applicable to relationships that occur early in people’s dating experiences. Additional research is needed to determine if the negotiation
processes are different for those who experience on–off relationships later in life. In
addition, given that the majority of the sample was women, the themes found may be
particularly representative of women’s experiences.
Whereas our structured interview provided certain benefits (e.g., obtaining similar
information regarding each breakup and renewal, the linear structure likely
prompted better recall of the progression of their relationships), it also entailed some
disadvantages. For example, we may not have captured a complete narrative (e.g., see
Koenig Kellas & Manusov, 2003), as we did not ask participants to tell us the story of
their relationships. Completeness in narratives, which reflects adjustment to or a
186
R. M. Dailey et al.
closure about breakups (Sorenson et al., 1993), may be a factor in whether partners
renew the relationship.
Although we asked participants to recount each breakup and renewal in the order
that they occurred (with the exception of those who experienced more than six
renewals) we assessed breakups and renewals collectively and we made no distinctions between, for example, a second breakup and a fifth breakup. Analyzing the data
with such distinctions in mind would have proved difficult given that relationships
had varying numbers of transitions. Yet, assessing how previous transitions impact
subsequent transitions may yield additional insights about the negotiation process.
In addition, given that we defined breakups and renewals as turning points, assessing
partners’ own definitions of all turning points within each transition may provide
greater specificity in how partners negotiate changes in relational statuses.
Conclusion
Extending on previous models and research regarding relational development and
dissolution, this analysis provides insights on how on–off partners navigate the relational transitions of breakups and renewals. Themes that emerged highlight the roles
of explicit communication between partners, individuals’ evaluations and interpretations of the relationship, and factors external to the relationship in facilitating or
impeding changes in relational status. Collectively, the themes provide communicative and cognitive features of the negotiation process that will likely be useful in
further understanding relational transitions, as well as how the negotiation process
is related to other dynamics, in on–off relationships.
References
Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). ‘‘We never talk about that’’: A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationship on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5,
255–272. doi: 10.1111=j.1475–6811.1998.tb00171.x
Banks, S., Altendorf, D., Greene, J. O., & Cody, M. J. (1987). An examination of relational
disengagement. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 19–41. doi: 10.1080=
10570318709374250
Baxter, L. A. (1982). Strategies for ending relationships: Two studies. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 46, 223–241. doi: 10.1080=10570318209374082
Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of relational disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 1, 29–48. doi: 10.1177=0265407584011003
Baxter, L. A. (1985). Accomplishing relationship disengagement. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 243–265). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12, 469–493. doi: 10.1111=j.1468–2958.1986.tb00088.x
Baxter, L. A., & Erbert, L. A. (1999). Perceptions of dialectical contradictions in turning points
of development of heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 16, 547–569. doi: 10.1177=0265407599165001
Communication Quarterly
187
Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluative qualitative research in social geography: Establishing
‘‘rigour’’ in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22,
505–525. doi: 10.1111=j.0020–2754.1997.00505.x
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 2, 523–269. doi: 10.1177=0265407585023002
Bevan, J. L., Cameron, K. A., & Dillow, M. R. (2003). One more try: Compliance-gaining strategies
associated with romantic reconciliation attempts. Southern Communication Journal, 68,
121–135. doi: 10.1080=10417940309373255
Bolton, C. D. (1961). Mate selection as the development of a relationship. Marriage and Family
Living, 23, 234–240.
Bullis, C., Clark, C., & Sline, R. (1993). From passion to commitment: Turning points in romantic
relationships. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal
relationships (pp. 213–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Busboom, A. L., Collins, D. M., Givertz, M. D., & Levin, L. A. (2002). Can we still be friends?
Resources and barriers to friendship quality after romantic relationship dissolution. Personal
Relationships, 9, 215–224. doi: 10.1111=1475–6811.00014
Cody, M. (1982). A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role intimacy
and relational problems play in strategy selection. Communication Monographs, 49, 148–170.
doi: 10.1080=03637758209376079
Conville, R. L. (1988). Relational transitions: Inquiry into their structure and function. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 423–437. doi: 10.1177=0265407588054003
Conville, R. L. (1991). Relational transitions: The evolution of personal relationships. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Cupach, W. R. (1992). Dialectical processes in the disengagement of interpersonal relationships. In
T. L. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: Theoretical approaches (pp. 128–141). New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Dailey, R. M., Beck, G., Jin, B., & Pfiester, A. (2008, July). On-again=off-again relationships: What
keeps partners coming back? Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship
Research conference, Providence, RI.
Dailey, R. M., Hampel, A. D., & Roberts, J. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again=off-again
relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and relational
quality vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. doi:
10.1080=03637750903514292
Dailey, R. M., Jin, B., Pfiester, R. A., & Beck, G. (2011). On-again=off-again relationships: What
keeps partners coming back? Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 417–440. doi:10.1080=
00224545.2010.503249
Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2009). On-again=off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships?. Personal Relationships, 16,
23–47. doi: 10.1111=j.1475–6811.2009.01208.x
Dailey, R. M., McCracken, A. A., Jin, B., Rossetto, K. R., & Green, E. W. (2012). Negotiating breakups and renewals: Types of on-again=off-again dating relationships. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Dailey, R. M., Rossetto, K., Pfiester, R. A., & Surra, C. A. (2009). A qualitative analysis of on-again=
off-again romantic relationships: ‘‘It’s up, it’s down, all around.’’ Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 26, 443–466. doi:10.1177=0265407509351035
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Academic.
188
R. M. Dailey et al.
Foley, L., & Fraser, J. (1998). A research note on post-dating relationships: The social embeddedness
of redefining romantic couplings. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 209–219.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12,
436–445.
Graham, E. E. (1997). Turning points and commitment in post-divorce relationships. Communication Monographs, 64, 350–368. doi: 10.1080=03637759709376428
Harvey, J. H., & Fine, M. A. (2006). Social construction of accounts in the process of relationship
termination. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship
dissolution (pp. 189–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Honeycutt, J. M. (1993). Memory structures for the rise and fall of personal relationships. In
S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships: Understanding relationship processes series
(Vol. 1, pp. 60–86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. M. (1981). From courtship to marriage:
Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal
relationships 2: Developing personal relationships (pp. 53–88). London, England: Academic.
Karney, B. R., Bradbury, T. N., & Johnson, M. D. (1999). Deconstructing stability: The distinction
between the course of a close relationship and its endpoint. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 481–499).
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic=Plenum.
Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Newton, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2005). Interpersonal communication and human relationships
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Knobloch, L. K., & Carpenter-Theune, K. E. (2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic
relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication
Research, 31, 173–205. doi: 10.1177=0093650203261516
Koenig Kellas, J. (2006). ‘‘The worst part is, we don’t even talk anymore’’: Post-dissolutional communication in break up stories. In K. M. Galvin & P. J. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections:
Readings in relational communication 4th ed., (pp. 281–290). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Koenig Kellas, J., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories,
turning points, and the adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 23–50. doi: 10.1177=0265407507086804
Koenig Kellas, J., & Manusov, V. (2003). What’s in a story? The relationship between narrative
completeness and adjustment to relationship dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 20, 285–307. doi: 10.1177=0265407503020003002
Krefting, L. (1990). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222. doi: 10.5014=ajot.45.3.214
Kurdek, L. A. (1991). The dissolution of gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 265–278. doi: 10.1177=0265407591082006
Lannutti, P. J., & Cameron, K. A. (2002). Beyond the breakup: Heterosexual and homosexual
post-dissolution relationships. Communication Quarterly, 50, 153–170. doi: 10.1080=
01463370209385654
Lee, L. (1984). Sequences in separation: A framework for investigating endings of the personal
(romantic) relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 49–73. doi:
10.1177=0265407584011004
Lloyd, S. A., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Attributions associated with significant turning points in
premarital relationship development and dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2, 419–436. doi: 10.1177=0265407585024003
Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Bejlovec, R. A. (1989). ‘‘I love you too much to ever start liking you’’:
Redefining romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 259–274.
doi: 10.1177=0265407589063002
Communication Quarterly
189
Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Davis, K. L. (2006). Sex differences in
the transition to a heterosexual romantic relationship. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.),
Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 337–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mongeau, P. A., & Teubner, G. (2002, November). Romantic relationship transitions. Paper
presented at the National Communication Association convention, New Orleans, LA.
Patterson, B., & O’Hair, D. (1992). Relational reconciliation: Toward a more comprehensive model
of relational development. Communication Research Reports, 9, 117–129. doi: 10.1080=
08824099209359904
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in
personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 14,
516–547. doi: 10.1111=j.1468–2958.1988.tb00166.x
Rollie, S. S., & Duck, S. (2006). Divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships: Stage models
and their limitations. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 223–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: Are
they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 451–466.
doi:10.1177=0265407500173007
Sorenson, K. A., Russell, S. M., Harkness, D. J., & Harvey, J. H. (1993). Account making, confiding,
and coping with the ending of a close relationship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
8, 73–86.
Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social
networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 357–375. doi: 10.1037=0022–
3514.49.2.357
Surra, C. A. (1987). Reasons for change in commitment: Variations by courtship type. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 17–33. doi: 10.1177=0265407587041002
Weber, A. L. (1998). Losing, leaving, and letting go: Coping with nonmarital breakups. In
B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 267–306).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wilmot, W. W., Carbaugh, D. A., & Baxter, L. A. (1985). Communicative strategies used to
terminate romantic relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 204–216.
doi: 10.1080=10570318509374195
Copyright of Communication Quarterly is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.