Although relationship dissolution is a fruitful context for field studies of attribution processes, only a handful of studies have been conducted and these have often produced contradictory results. This study analysed the written accounts of ex-partners from recently terminated premarital relationships. Type of attribution (self, other, interpersonal, external) was related to items representing the severity of the impact of the dissolution. Among other findings, evidence indicated that females whose relationships had been terminated longer were more likely to use interpersonal attributions and less likely to use other attributions when accounting for the break-up. It is argued that attribution following relationship termination should be viewed as an on-going process rather than as a singular event.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berger, P. & Kellner, H. (1964). `Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge'. Diogenes(46), 1-24.
2.
Bloom, B. , Asher, S. & White, S. (1978). `Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and analysis'. Psychological Bulletin (85), 876-894.
3.
Duck, S. W. & Sants, H. K. A. (1983). `On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships really interpersonal states?'Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology(1), 27-41.
4.
Fletcher, G. J. O. (1983a). `The analysis of verbal explanations for marital separation: Implications for attribution theory'. Journal of Applied Social Psychology(13), 245-258.
5.
Fletcher, G. J. O. (1983b). `Sex differences in causal attributions for marital separation'. New Zealand Journal of Psychology(12), 82-89.
6.
Harvey, J. , Weber, A., Yarkin, K. & Stewart, B. (1982). `An attributional approach to relationship breakdown and dissolution'. In S. W. Duck (ed.). Personal Relationships 4: Dissolving Personal Relationships. Academic Press: London & New York.
7.
Harvey, J. H. , Wells, G. L. & Alvarez, M. D. (1978). `Attribution in the context of conflict and separation in close relationships'. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes & R. F. Kidd (eds). New Directions in Attribution Research. Wiley: New York.
8.
Hill, C. , Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L. (1976). `Break-ups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs'. Journal of Social Issues (32), 147-168.
9.
Hollingshead, A. & Redlich, F. (1958). Social Class and Mental Illness. Wiley: New York.
10.
Huston, T. , Surra, C., Fitzgerald, N. & Cate, R. (1981)`From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process'. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (eds). Personal Relationships 2: Developing Personal Relationships. Academic Press: London & New York.
11.
Kelley, H. H. (1977). `An application of attribution theory to research methodology for close relationships'. In G. Levinger & H. L. Raush (eds). Close Relationships: Perspectives on the Meaning of Intimacy. U Mass Press: Amherst, Massachusetts.
12.
La Gaipa, J. J. (1982). `Rules and rituals in disengaging from relationships'. In S. W. Duck (ed.). Personal Relationships 4: Dissolving Personal Relationships. Academic Press: New York.
13.
Lloyd, S. A. & Cate, R. M. (1985a). `Attributions associated with significant turning points in premarital relationship development and dissolution'. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2), 419-436.
14.
Lloyd, S. A. & Cate, R. M. (1985b). `The developmental course of conflict in dissolution of premarital relationships'. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2), 179-194.
15.
McCall, G. (1982). `Becoming unrelated: The management of bond dissolution'. In S. W. Duck (ed.). Personal Relationships 4: Dissolving Personal Relationships. Academic Press: New York.
16.
Newman, H. (1981). `Communication within ongoing intimate relationships: An attributional perspective'. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (7), 59-70.
17.
Newman, H. M. & Langer, E. J. (1981). `Post-divorce adaptation and the attribution of responsibility'. Sex Roles (7), 223-232.
18.
Pettit, E. J. & Bloom, B. B. (1984). `Whose decision was it? The effects of initiator status on adjustment to marital disruption'. Journal of Marriage and the Family (46), 587-595.
19.
Stephen, T. (1984a). `A symbolic exchange framework for the development of intimate relationships'. Human Relations (37), 393-408.
20.
Stephen, T. (1984b). `Symbolic-interdependence and post-break-up distress: A reformulation of the attachment construct'. Journal of Divorce (8), 1-16.
21.
Stephen, T. (1985). `Fixed-sequence and circular-causal models of relationship development: Divergent views on the role of communication in intimacy'. Journal of Marriage and the Family(47), 955-963.
22.
Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital Separation. Basic Books: New York.
