Understanding relationship development: Towards a more rigorous approach

(Press-News.org) URBANA, Ill. – Gaining a better understanding of how romantic relationships develop over time is key to helping couples maintain a satisfying union and overcome challenges. Researchers and practitioners rely on theories to provide insights, and it’s important that they are accurate and reliable. A new paper from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign discusses how contemporary methodologies can be applied to common relationship theories in a more rigorous way.

“How relationships change influences relational, individual, and broader family functioning,” said lead author Jeremy Kanter, associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Illinois. “If we can refine and strengthen existing theories, we can move the field forward and help support relationship interventions for couples.”

To study relationship development, such as how relationship satisfaction changes over time, scholars often use Group-Based Trajectory Modeling (GBTM) in their studies. This approach groups individuals whose relationships change in a similar fashion across time together, facilitating a deeper understanding of the most common change patterns as relationships progress. For example, this approach has helped highlight that declines in marital satisfaction are not inevitable for most couples.    

Kanter and his colleagues suggest employing GBTM to more rigorously test relationship science theories. They provide examples of refutable hypotheses when using GBTM approaches that reflect core concepts in those theories and can be used to test their relevance and accuracy in empirical studies.

The researchers discuss five popular relationship theories: 

Enduring dynamics: A couple’s experiences during courtship will largely determine how their relationship develops. Those who start out with high levels of relationship functioning will likely maintain these high levels over time, while couples that start out with lower levels will remain so, indicating a pattern of stability throughout a relationship. Emergent distress: Most couples are relatively satisfied early in their union, but some couples will experience increased negativity and hostility over time, which can be detrimental to the relationship.  Gradual disillusionment: Some couples who have very high levels of initial satisfaction will have unrealistic expectations of their partner and eventually experience disappointment and disillusionment, leading to declining relationship quality over time. Vulnerability-stress-adaptation: Individual characteristics, stressful events, and couples’ interaction patterns combine to influence relationship quality. As a result, most couples begin their union relatively satisfied, and changes in satisfaction depend on the broader context surrounding the couple.    Relational turbulence: Couples tend to be the most vulnerable during transitional periods when partners are adapting to new roles and routines. Couples that struggle during these transitions may feel that the relationship is turbulent, resulting in later relational distress.  “These different theories are going to have different foci of intervention — whether we should focus on supporting couples when they are dating, as newlyweds, or before a transition happens,” Kanter said.

Each theory also leads to a different set of hypotheses. For example, the enduring dynamics theory would predict significant differences between couples initially and stable satisfaction over time. The emergent distress model, in contrast, would predict initial similarities among couples, but significant differences in changes over time.

“In the past years, we’ve had rapid advancements in methodology. Many of our theories were developed before we had the sophisticated tools to collect and analyze data that we do now. We want to ensure we're bringing our theories along as those innovations are happening within the research field,” he said.

For example, it’s important to consider fluctuation patterns in relationship processes (non-linear ebbs and flows) and dyadic patterns (how each partner’s changes affect the other) for a more comprehensive understanding of relationship development, Kanter noted.  

“Perhaps some of the theories should be modified or combined to better reflect current knowledge of relationship patterns. This will ultimately help practitioners develop recommendations for families at risk and provide suggestions for enhancing or maintaining relationship quality.”

The paper, “Using group-based trajectory modeling to test theoretically driven hypotheses about relationship development,” is published in the Journal of Family Theory & Review [10.1111/jftr.12632]. Authors include Jeremy Kanter, Christine M. Proulx, Amy J. Rauer, and H. Cailyn Ratliff.

END