Prior On–Off Relationship Instability and Distress in

the Separation and Divorce Transition

JAMES KALE MONK*
JEREMY B. KANTER†
MATTHEW A. OGAN*

Divorce is considered distressing for many individuals (Sbarra et al., Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 2015, 24, 109); however, individuals in poor-quality relationships
may experience certain benefits of leaving an unstable union (Amato & Hohmann-Mar-
riott, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2007, 69, 621). On–off relationship cycling, or the
breakup and reconciliation of a relationship, is a salient indicator of poor relationship qua-
lity and a common form of relationship instability (Dailey et al., Personal Relationships,
2009, 16, 23) that is associated with distress (Monk et al., Family Relations, 2018, 67, 523).
In line with divorce–stress–adjustment and relational turbulence theory perspectives, we
hypothesized that those whose relationships were characterized by on–off instability would
experience less distress during the separation and divorce process. Given gender inequality
in marriage (e.g., Dempsey, Journal of Sociology, 2002, 38, 91; Monin & Clark, Sex Roles,
2011, 65, 320), we also hypothesized that this association would be more pronounced for
women. Using data from 98 divorced or separating couples, we found that relationship
cycling prior to the separation and divorce process was associated with fewer distress
symptoms for women. Conversely, a history of relationship cycling was associated with
more distress symptoms for men. Our study provides support and extends prior investiga-
tions illustrating that, for some, those in unions characterized by more turmoil, may expe-
rience relief following a termination.

Keywords: Relationship instability; Transitions; Distress; Relationship Cycling; Divorce;

Separation

Fam Proc x:1–13, 2021

D ivorce is linked to distress for individuals and families (Amato, 2010). Divorcing, for
example, is associated with decreased life satisfaction (Lucas, 2005), impairments in
health (e.g., Sbarra, Hasselmo, & Bourassa, 2015), and prolonged psychological distress
(Bourassa, Tackman, Mehl, & Sbarra, 2019). However, divorcees are not a monolithic
group. Although some adults experience prolonged hardship and divorce-related distress
(Sbarra et al., 2015), many individuals who divorce recover from this transition and adjust
to separation (see Hetherington, 2003). Distinguishing between those who experience

*University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

†
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Kale Monk, Department of Human
Development and Family Science, University of Missouri, 306 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail:
monkj@missouri.edu.
We would like to thank Dr. Sarah Patterson for her helpful feedback on a prior version of this manu-
script.

1
Family Process, Vol. x, No. x, 2021 © 2021 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12653
2 / FAMILY PROCESS

dissolution as a relief and those who struggle to recover is important to inform theoretical
development and clinical practices.
Amato and Hohmann-Marriott (2007) argue that individuals in poor-quality relation-
ships characterized by unhappiness and conflict are likely to experience an increase in life
satisfaction following marital dissolution. Conversely, those in less-distressed marriages
may experience decreases in life satisfaction following divorce. Thus, those who experi-
enced particularly tumultuous marriages may see the end as a “relief and a necessary step
for one’s own well-being” (Kn€ opfli, Morselli, & Perrig-Chiello, 2016, p. 550). Tumultuous
or volatile relationships characterized by frequent transitions in and out of the same rela-
tionship, for example, are likely to create upheaval (Monk, Ogolsky, & Oswald, 2018). On-
again/off-again relationship cycling, or the dissolution and reconciliation of a relationship,
is associated with significant relational upheaval including relationship violence, uncer-
tainty (Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009), and dissatisfaction (Dailey et al., 2009;
Vennum, Hardy, Sibley, & Fincham, 2015; Vennum & Johnson, 2014) for those currently
in these unstable unions. Therefore, on–off relationship cycling may be a salient indicator
that significant turmoil existed in the relationship—concerning enough to prompt rela-
tional disruption and warrant a prior change in relationship status.

Understanding the Tumultuous Separation and Divorce Transition

According to a divorce–stress–adjustment perspective (Amato, 2000), divorce is not sim-
ply a discrete event, but a process that unfolds over time. This process encompasses a vari-
ety of stressors and changes that can begin when couples are still married and is likely to
continue after a legal divorce is obtained (see Gottman, 1993). Typically, the divorce pro-
cess involves various changes, stressors, and risks associated with negative health out-
comes. However, the severity or degree of consequence depends on a variety of factors
including appraisals of the relationship that is ending. Similarly, relational turbulence
theory posits that times of transitions within relationships can be associated with signifi-
cant turmoil (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, 2016). Disruption or discontinuity
in relational experiences is associated with changes in how partners evaluate their rela-
tionship. As partners renegotiate interdependence following a separation and reconcilia-
tion cycle, for example, they may interfere with each other’s goals and routines, while also
experiencing significant uncertainty—doubts, concerns, and questions that are prevalent
in on–off relationships (e.g., Dailey et al., 2009). It stands to reason that those divorced
individuals with particularly unstable unions prior to divorce may experience relief or
reduced distress symptoms after they are removed from the tumultuous relational con-
text.

On–Off Relationship Cycling

According to prior estimates, around 40% of young adults have experienced the dissolu-
tion and renewal of their current relationship (e.g., Dailey et al., 2009). Over 61% of indi-
viduals report that they have “ever” cycled with a partner at any point in their lifetimes
(Dailey et al., 2009). On-again–off-again relationship cycling is a particularly salient form
of relationship instability given individuals who leave and subsequently reconcile a rela-
tionship are more likely to experience (a) distress than those in more stable unions (Monk
et al., 2018) and (b) a continued pattern of instability (Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, &
Adams, 2014). Indeed, those in on–off relationships are prone to experience lower levels of
commitment, less satisfaction, poorer communication, less relationship maintenance, and
more relational uncertainty (Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, 2010; Dailey, Middleton, &
Green, 2012; Dailey et al., 2009). The general conclusion of over a decade of research is

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 3
that relationship cycling is associated with decreased relationship quality (see Dailey,
LeFebvre, Crook, & Brody, 2016).
Despite the overall detrimental effects of relationship cycling, some evidence suggests
that transitioning in and out of a relationship can promote positive growth. Some individ-
uals who cycled report that the process of breaking up and reuniting improved their rela-
tionship by giving them a new appreciation for their partner and a belief in the strength of
their relationship (Dailey, Jin, Pfiester, & Beck, 2011; Monk, Basinger, & Abendschein,
2020). Cycling may enhance relational dynamics because it places discussions about the
relationship in the foreground (Dailey, McCracken, Jin, Rossetto, & Green, 2013) and
talking about a relationship is associated with improved satisfaction (Acitelli, 1992). Addi-
tionally, the process of transitioning in and out of a relationship may lead to an increased
frequency of reflections on couple identity (Dailey, 2020).
Research on relationship cycling typically focuses on these unions while partners are
currently together (i.e., during an “on” period) and on unmarried, young adults (Dailey
et al., 2016; Dailey, Zhong, Pett, Scott, & Krawietz, 2020); however, the postdivorce period
reflects a unique opportunity to understand relationship cycling in “off” periods. Few stud-
ies, for example, have focused on dyads following separation despite the importance of this
stage given dissolution is typically not the end of relational interdependence (Agnew &
VanderDrift, 2015), with many partners continuing to maintain their relationships in
some form following a break up (Kellas, Bean, Cunningham, & Cheng, 2008), especially if
they share children (e.g., Dailey et al., 2013).
Moreover, given married partners may engage in a trial separation and reconcile (Ven-
num et al., 2014), it is possible that this dissolution is not permanent. However, formal
engagement in divorce proceedings may feel like a more permanent end to the instability
given the removal of structural constraints associated with legal separation (Poortman &
Mills, 2012). According to a cascade effect of divorce perspective (Booth & Edwards, 1985;
Gottman, 1993), individuals engaged in the divorce process (i.e., nearing a court date)
have also taken emotional or procedural steps that make it more difficult to stop the
momentum toward divorce in order to renew their unions (e.g., consulting attorneys or
starting proceedings vs. just considering divorce). Therefore, individuals going through
the divorce process are likely to view the dissolution as more permanent than prior break-
ups that resulted in reconciliation, further highlighting the importance of investigating
experiences of relationship cycling across this unique transition.

Present Study
Guided by prior research (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Monk et al., 2018) and
divorce–stress–adjustment (Amato, 2000) and relational turbulence theory (Solomon
et al., 2016) perspectives, we hypothesized that (H1) those who cycled in their relation-
ships prior to the separation and divorce process will report less relationship distress dur-
ing the legal process than those whose marriages were not characterized by prior
discontinuity in relationship status.
Furthermore, although the effects of marriage on psychological well-being are similar
for women and men (e.g., Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006; Williams,
2003), there are certainly inequalities in relationship efforts that tend to benefit men (e.g.,
Monin & Clark, 2011). For example, women tend to be more attuned to the status of a rela-
tionship (e.g., Acitelli, 1992), engaged in the labor to maintain relationships (Ogolsky,
Monk, Rice, Theisen, & Maniotes, 2017), and more affected by relational upheaval (Faul-
kner, Davey, & Davey, 2005) and relational changes (Hetherington & Kelly, 2003), which
are assumed factors in why women are more likely to instigate a divorce (Amato & Previti,
2003). Therefore, we hypothesized that (H2) the differences in distress by cycling will be

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021

4 / FAMILY PROCESS

distinct between partners, with the effect being more pronounced for women in different-
sex marriages as they may experience more relief when it comes to ending tumultuous
relationships than men.

METHOD
Sample and Procedure
We recruited participants from a court-mandated divorce education and co-parenting
workshop provided in a Midwest community. Former partners attended separate classes
and completed the course prior to receiving a court date for divorce proceedings (or other
changes related to separation like adjustments in parenting plans or child custody
arrangements). We collected data from participants after they completed the co-parenting
workshop. A total of 98 different-sex, divorced or separating dyads (N = 196 individuals)
completed surveys. On average, dyads had approximately two children (M = 1.90,
SD = 1.07) and had been together for an average of 11.74 years (SD = 6.45). About 25.7%
of participants indicated that they were legally divorced at the time of the survey and
86.7% of participants indicated that they were physically separated. Participants reported
being separated for an average of approximately 19 months (SD = 24.67). Most men
(89.2%) and women (93.8%) identified as white. Men were approximately 37 years old
(M = 37.32, SD = 7.06), and women were approximately 36 years old (M = 35.63,
SD = 6.93). With respect to men, 3.2% did not have a high school diploma, 14% had com-
pleted high school or a GED, 30.1% had some college, 16.1% had completed a 2-year college
degree or technical degree, 18.3% had completed a 4-year college degree, and 18.3% had a
graduate or professional degree. With respect to women, 3.1% did not have a high school
diploma, 17.7% had completed high school or a GED, 17.7% had some college, 14.6% had
completed a 2-year college degree or technical degree, 26% had completed a 4-year college
degree, and 20.8% had a graduate or professional degree. Men’s median monthly income
was between $3,001 and $4,000, whereas women’s median monthly income was between
$2,001 and $3,000. Approximately a third of men perceived that it was their decision to file
for divorce/separation (36.7% reported the decision was their partner’s and 30% reported
the decision was mutual). Similarly, 53.8% of women reported it was their decision (15.1%
reported the decision was their partner’s and 31.2% reported the decision as mutual).

Measures
Perceived history of relationship cycling
Participants were prompted to consider their relationship with their former partner
and respond to a question asking if at any point in their relationship “. . .did you ever
break-up, separate, or divorce and get back together” (no perceived history of cycling = 0;
perceived history of cycling = 1). Partners often feel uncertainty about relational status
changes if relationship transitions are not acknowledged or clarified (e.g., “taking a break”
from the relationship may have different meanings for different people; Dailey et al.,
2011; see also Halpern-Meekin & Tach, 2013); thus, men and women may perceive their
relationships differently (Hetherington, 2003). Indeed, there was disagreement in the
reports of cycling between approximately 36% of partners who responded to the item about
cycling; thus, we included perceptions of relationship cycling as an individual-level vari-
able. This individual-level focus is important given perceptions of instability are salient in
individuals’ relational appraisals (e.g., Solomon et al., 2016).

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 5
Psychological distress
Symptoms of depression and anxiety were assessed using the Patient Health Question-
naire-4 (PHQ-4; Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams, & L€owe, 2009). Participants were asked
about the frequency with which they experienced distressing symptoms (e.g., “Over the
last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?”) with exam-
ple symptoms including “feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge” and “feeling down,
depressed, or hopeless.” Responses were coded on a 4-point, Likert-type scale (0 = not at
all; 3 = nearly every day; a = .89, .91 for women and men, respectively).
Covariates
We assessed a variety of covariates that may be associated with distress in the dissolu-
tion process (e.g., Hetherington, 2003), including level of education, whose decision it was
to divorce/separate, length of relationship, and number of children.

Analytical Strategy
Analyses were conducted in Mplus Version 8.2. To address the first hypothesis, linear
path modeling was used to identify associations between perceptions of cycling and indi-
viduals’ psychological distress. This modeling approach allows one to explore associations
at the individual level, while also accounting for the dependency within dyads (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Model fit was evaluated using the (v2) statistic, the comparative fit
index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne &
Cudeck, 1992). CFI values above .95 indicated a good model fit. RMSEA values below .05
indicated a good model fit, whereas values between .06 and .08 indicated an adequate
model fit (Newsom, 2015). To address the second hypothesis, an Omnibus Wald test was
used to determine whether the effect of perceptions of cycling on distress significantly dif-
fered between former partners.

RESULTS
Missing data for variables of interest ranged from 2.0% to 8.2%. Missing data were han-
dled using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML; Acock, 2005). Approximately
46% of men and 49% of women stated they had ever cycled with their former partner. Of
those who reported cycling, men (M = 1.90, SD = 1.62) and women (M = 1.88, SD = 2.03)
generally reported cycling approximately twice in their relationship. Most individuals
reported that cycling most recently occurred while they were dating (n = 27) and/or mar-
ried (n = 23), with another indicating that cycling most recently occurred while they were
engaged (n = 1). Two one-way ANOVAs provided evidence that when cycling occurred was
not reliably associated with psychological distress (Men: F[2,20] = .26, p = .77; Women:
F[1,25] = 1.93, p = .18). Men (M = 3.76, SD = 3.28) and women (M = 3.90, SD = 3.24) did
not significantly differ on distress levels (t[90] = .28, p = .78). Perceptions of cycling were
correlated between former partners (r = .29, p = .01). In contrast, former partners’ reports
of psychological distress were not significantly correlated (r = .10, p = .34; see Table 1).
At the individual level, men’s distress levels did not significantly differ based on their
reports of cycling (Mcycled = 4.24, SD = 3.21, Mnoncyclical = 3.06, SD = 3.10 out of a range of
0–12; t[89] = 1.78, p = .08). Women’s distress levels significantly differed based on their
reports of cycling, with women who cycled reporting lower distress levels (Mcycled = 3.13,
SD = 2.84, Mnoncyclical = 4.83, SD = 3.55; t[91] = [2.54], p = .01). To examine whether dis-
tress differed by frequency of cycling (1 = cycled 1 time, and 2 = cycled 2 or more times,
given a low frequency of cycling over two times), two independent samples t-tests were
conducted. Results indicated no significant difference in distress by frequency of cycling

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021

6 / FAMILY PROCESS

(Men: t[17.64] = .12, p = .90; Women: t[20] = .46, p = .65) and, therefore, whether or not
cycling occurred in the past (vs. frequency) was used in subsequent analyses.

Are Perceptions of Relationship Cycling Associated with Psychological Distress?

We first conducted an unconditional model investigating if individuals’ perceptions of
cycling were associated with their own psychological functioning. Model fit was adequate:
v2(2) = 2.54, p = .28, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.00–.22], CFI = .92, SRMR = .04. Men’s per-
ceptions of cycling were not significantly associated with their distress levels (b = .17,
p = .104), whereas women who cycled reported lower levels of psychological distress
(b = .26, p = .009).
We then conducted a conditional model accounting for the study covariates (see supple-
mental Table S1). Model fit was adequate: v2(8) = 9.61, p = .29, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI
[.00–.13], CFI = .92, SRMR = .03. Bivariate associations highlighted that educational
attainment and number of biological children did not significantly vary for either men’s or
women’s psychological functioning (see Table 1) and were not significantly associated with
distress levels for either (former) partner in the model (see supplemental Table S1). Thus,
for parsimony, educational attainment and the number of biological children were
removed from the model. Removing these covariates improved model fit (BIC = 3413.83
vs. BIC = 2406.78 for the model with all covariates and the model with significant covari-
ates, respectively).
As illustrated in Table 2, accounting for whose decision it was to divorce/separate and
relationship length, women who cycled reported lower psychological distress (b = .27,
p = .006), whereas men who cycled reported greater psychological distress (b = .23,
p = .019). For men, compared to when it was their own decision to end the relationship,
when it was a mutual decision, men reported significantly lower distress levels (b = .38,
p < .001). In addition, men’s distress was higher when couples had been together for a
longer period of time (b = .22, p = .019). Given that the effects of cycling on distress were
in opposite directions for men and women, we first assessed if the effects were signifi-
cantly different. Based on the standardized betas and nonoverlapping confidence intervals
(95% CImen: [.04, .43]; 95% CIwomen: [ .46, .08]), we conclude that these effects were dis-
tinct. To determine whether the magnitude of the effect was stronger for women, we
reverse coded the cycling variable for women so that the valence of effects was in the same
direction. According to an Omnibus Wald test, there was no reliable difference in the mag-
nitude of the effect of cycling on distress between men and women (v2[1] = .08, p = .78).
According to post hoc analyses, for women who cycled, there was no significant difference
in distress based on whose decision it was to divorce (F[2,42] = .65, p = .53). Similarly, for

TABLE 1
Bivariate Correlations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. History of cycling .29** .19 .08 .09 .10

2. Psychological distress .26* .10 .12 .22* .10
3. Educational attainment .04 .03 .55** .20 .14
4. Length of relationship .05 .07 .48** — .55**
5. Number of children .19 .08 .22* .55** —

Note. Cross-partner correlations are on the diagonal in bold. Women’s estimates below the diagonal;
Men’s estimates above the diagonal.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 7
TABLE 2
Trimmed Conditional Model

Male psychological Female psychological

distress distress
Predictors b (SE) Predictors b (SE)

Perceptions of .23 (.10)* Perceptions of .27 (.10)**

cycling cycling
Rel. length .22 (.09)* Rel. length .04 (.10)
Decision to divorce/separate Decision to divorce/separate
Partner .11 (.11) Partner .02 (.10)
Mutual .38 (.11)** Mutual .10 (.11)

Note. Cycling and whose decision it was to leave the relationship were assessed at the individual level.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

women, the effect of cycling on distress was not moderated by relationship duration
(b = .02, p = .88) nor length of time since separation (b = .17, p = .37). For men who
cycled, however, there were significant differences in distress by whose decision it was to
divorce (F[2,38] = 4.73, p = .02). Men who reported it was their decision had the greatest
distress (M = 6.39, SD = 3.15) compared to those whose partners made the decision
(M = 3.57, SD = 2.14, p = .04) and those who reported a mutual decision (M = 3.21,
SD = 3.33, p = .02). Relationship duration (b = .06, p = .65) and time since separation
(b = .04, p = .82) did not moderate the association between cycling and distress for men.
In order to rule out other potential confounding experiences, we explored if including
the reason for why the relationship dissolved influenced the association between cycling
and psychological distress as a post hoc analysis. Potential reasons included: Differences
in raising kids, alcohol and/or drug abuse, physical violence, being afraid for one’s safety,
emotional and/or verbal abuse, involvement with criminal activity, sexual abuse, infi-
delity/affair, mental health problems, money problems, working too many hours, and loss
of relationship connection. All reasons were asked of both dyad members and reported on
a 4-point scale (0 = not at all influential to 3 = extremely influential). Given the various
reasons for dissolving the union and small sample, we first conducted t-tests for each dyad
member to determine whether reasons for dissolving the relationship differed by
experiences of cycling. The only significant difference was the influence of infidelity/affair
on ending the relationship (Mcycled = 1.29, SD = 1.38, Mnoncyclical = 1.88, SD = 1.38;
t[88] = 2.00, p = .048) for men. Thus, to retain a balanced design, this covariate was
included for both dyad members. The influence of infidelity/an affair was not significantly
related to either (former) partner’s distress levels, nor did it alter the association between
cycling and distress for each dyad member (see supplemental Table S2). This post hoc
analysis provides further evidence that perception of cycling influenced distress levels,
above and beyond the reasons individuals provided for dissolving their relationship.

DISCUSSION
Divorcing or separating from a partner is a stressful series of changes and transitions
(Amato, 2000). Although the majority of individuals adjust to the divorce transition
(Hetherington & Kelly, 2003), some divorc ees report significant distress throughout this
process (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Sbarra et al., 2015). We sought to understand
one potential factor in distinguishing those who experience divorce as a relief and those
who experience more distress. We found partial support for our first hypothesis, such that

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021

8 / FAMILY PROCESS

relationship cycling prior to the separation and divorce process was associated with fewer
distress symptoms for women. This supports and extends prior investigations illustrating
that those in unions characterized by more turmoil, experience more benefits from a ter-
mination (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007).
We hypothesized that the association would be strongest for women given past work
highlighting the inequalities experienced by wives in different-sex marriage (e.g., Demp-
sey, 2002), which was partially supported. Although the magnitude of the effect was simi-
lar for men and women, there was a distinct gender difference in that the association for
men was in the opposite direction of our hypothesis. Indeed, men who reported cycling in
their relational past with their former partner experienced more psychological distress
symptoms. It could be that men who had cycled were more complacent or felt that this pat-
tern may repeat itself. Men, on average, express more unrealistic fantasies about reconcil-
iation and persisting attachments following divorce (Hetherington, 2003). These
experiences may partially explain why marital disruption can present unique challenges
for men (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988) although the mental health effects of transi-
tioning out of marriage in general tend to be similar for men and women (e.g., Strohschein,
McDonough, Monette, & Shao, 2005). The gender difference as it relates to prior cycling
and distress may be due to the fact that, in different-sex marriage, men may reap more
rewards than women, who engage in more domestic labor and invest more emotional effort
and instrumental support into their unions (e.g., Monin & Clark, 2011). Thus, a prece-
dence for reconciliation in their relationship history might fuel fantasies of relationship
renewal for those most prone to them and who benefit the most from them coming to frui-
tion, which may be exacerbated by the fact that individuals in on–off relationships are
likely to experience ambivalence and lingering feelings for a former partner after dissolu-
tion (e.g., Dailey et al., 2009, 2011). Indeed, uncertainty and ambivalence about a breakup
or an ex-partner are associated with more post-dissolution distress and a greater likeli-
hood for reconciliation consideration (e.g., Dailey et al., 2020).
However, if the separation feels more permanent, such as when a couple takes serious
steps toward divorce, men in particular may become more concerned that the reconcilia-
tion of a beneficial union is not assured despite there being a past precedence for this
dynamic. Rooted in gendered power dynamics, a violated assumption that a relationship
will renew could be distressing as reality starts to “sink in” for some men in particular due
to the benefits of marriage they receive, whereas women might feel more relief that they
are no longer trapped in past patterns of instability. In support of this explanation is the
fact that women are more likely to dissolve a marriage (e.g., Amato & Previti, 2003), indi-
cating a gender-equity-based dissatisfaction with the union. Although we do not know
who initiated prior dissolution and reconciliation cycles, individuals who initiated prior
breakups are more likely to instigate subsequent dissolution following reconciliation (Dai-
ley et al., 2011), indicating women in our sample may have been more decisive than men
in their prior breakups, as well. Further, women may be more likely to desire remaining
single if they cannot have a stable, egalitarian relationship (see Gerson, 2010, 2017),
which illustrates that staying single may be more preferable than reconciling an unstable
union. Likewise, past research indicates that women, in general, may fall out of love more
readily (Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981), report more positive consequences of divorce (e.g.,
Bevvino & Sharkin, 2003), and report less distress following divorce than men (potential
economic disadvantages aside; Leopold, 2018) in some studies (see Amato, 2000, for a
review). Alternatively, it is possible that the men in these cyclical relationships felt that
the time apart during marital separation improved their relationship (see Dailey et al.,
2011) and forced these individuals to reflect on the strengths of the relationship that they
were missing (Dailey, 2020).

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 9
Based on past research, men in relationships that are characterized by cycling may
exert more effort in family life, such as being more involved in fathering than those in
more stable relationships (Turney & Halpern-Meekin, 2017). It could be that men are
more likely to increase effort and involvement at certain stages of relationships, such as
during relationship initiation to lure a mate and during a separation when the fear of los-
ing the partner is present, potentially as an effort to lure a former partner back with coop-
erative behavior after experiencing breakup remorse (see Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976).
Temporary separations like cycling can be used as a conflict resolution tactic to vent frus-
tration and demonstrate personal upset in the “heat of the moment” while maintaining
the assumption that reconciliation in the future is assured (Washburn-Busk, Vennum,
McAllister, & Busk, 2020). Nevertheless, it is important to note that results were some-
what inconsistent for men with bivariate difference tests and the unconditional model
revealing no statistical significance of cycling and distress, and only the conditional model
revealed a significant effect in the opposite proposed direction. Thus, our speculation of
these results for men in particular should be interpreted with caution and replicated in
future research.
Further, in addition to accounting for relationship length and why the relationship dis-
solved, we did not find any differences between when individuals most recently cycled and
their distress. The question still stands, how does past relationship cycling influence later
well-being? The answer to this question likely involves continued, underlying relational
turmoil, which is connected to cycling. Relationship scholars argue that the seeds of mari-
tal distress are sown even before marriage (Clements, Stanley, & Markman, 2004), as
early relationship experiences predict later marital outcomes (e.g., Overbeek, Stattin, Ver-
mulst, Ha, & Engels, 2007). In fact, issues early in relationships tend to endure over time
and foreshadow subsequent relational distress (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, &
George, 2001) and couples seldom improve over their initial levels of satisfaction through-
out marriage (Proulx, Ermer, & Kanter, 2017). Individuals who experienced premarital
relationship cycling, for example, reported less confidence in their decision to marry, expe-
rienced less satisfying marital trajectories, and were more likely to report a subsequent
trial separation than those without a history of instability (Vennum & Johnson, 2014).
This finding is reinforced by the fact that premarital doubts are associated with later
divorce (Lavner, Karney, & Bradbury, 2012).

Clinical Implications
Individuals can have varying reactions to divorce or the threat of separation. Instances
when one partner in a couple is more committed to continuing the relationship than
another are common and provide clinicians with the opportunity to appraise the asymme-
try in relationships (e.g., Stanley et al., 2019). Indeed, there are divorcing couples and
partners who are not fully committed to ending their marriage and would be interested in
seeking reconciliation services (Doherty, Harris, & Wilde, 2016). Given one or both part-
ners may experience ambivalence about the separation, processing the complex emotional
reactions to divorce is salient, particularly in relationships with a history of ambivalence
and ambiguity. In order to normalize and validate mixed or ambivalent feelings, clinicians
may wish to acknowledge the broad range of emotions clients might experience at any
given moment during the process (e.g., grief, fear, relief) and that these emotions may vac-
illate. Helping couples in distressing on–off relationships stabilize their unions or safely
leave them may be a considerable goal for clinicians (Monk et al., 2018).
With regard to working with “mixed agenda couples” (i.e., one partner is more resolute
in pursuing a divorce and another is hoping to reconcile) in therapy, for example, it can be
useful to consider discernment counseling to provide clarity and confidence regarding next

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021

10 / FAMILY PROCESS

steps in order to avoid sliding through a relationship transition (divorcing or getting back
together) without conscious deliberation (Doherty, Harris, & Wilde, 2016). However, this
model is focused on couples on the brink of divorce when one partner is “leaning in” and
the other is “leaning out” of the relationship, so if the divorce has happened or is assured,
clinicians could help former partners who experience unrequited desires for reconciliation
come to terms with the end of the relationship as a form of acceptance (see Hollenbaugh,
Strauss, Feldmann, Oyeniyi, & Vashisht, 2020) in order to recover and overcome potential
“breakup remorse.” Of course, individuals still experience some degree of distress result-
ing from the end of a relationship even if they are secure in their decision to separate. Cop-
ing with relationships loss remains critical to explore with those navigating the divorce
process regardless of ambivalence or ambiguity.
Furthermore, continued contact with the former partner is common for divorcing cou-
ples, especially those sharing children or needing to divide up property (Amato, 2000).
This is salient because continued independence may be discomforting and can lead to pres-
sure to reconcile (Dailey et al., 2011); thus, clinicians might focus attention on plans for
navigating continued interdependence in order to prevent undesirable patterns from reoc-
curring or help individuals to be realistic about their expectations for further interaction
with their ex-spouse. Clinicians might also explore clients’ relationship histories while
paying particular attention to past reconciliations (e.g., reasons for leaving and reasons
for renewing) to determine the underlying causes of instability patterns. Not only might
this help partners come to terms with the permanent end of an on–off relationship by rec-
ognizing the relational volatility, but it might also help clients identify early relational
characteristics that they might want to stymie in future relationships.

Considerations and Future Directions

This study is cross-sectional, so we are not able to definitively rule out selection effects.
For example, those who cycled previously may have done so due to prior mental health
concerns, which continued after the divorce. Nevertheless, dissolution and other forms of
relationship instability are associated with distress over time (Rhoades, Kamp Dush,
Atkins, Stanley, & Markman, 2011) and changes in mental health (for better or worse)
often occur following separation (Amato, 2000; Williams & Umberson, 2004). Future
research should investigate these experiences prospectively across marriage and after
divorce to understand whether any changes in distress or relief continue after the prover-
bial “dust has settled” (if it ever does). Cross-sectional (Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007)
and laboratory studies (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1996) reinforce that the influence of
marital quality on health is stronger for women than men, but these gender differences
may not hold over time (Proulx et al., 2007; Umberson et al., 2006). Thus, longitudinal
data would provide further insight into the gender differences found in the present study.
Prospective assessments of cycling can also provide insight into how prior cycling influ-
ences current mental health. Larger, more diverse samples would allow for further explo-
ration of potential moderators relevant to cycling and distress. Participants were
navigating the divorce process and all completed study measures after receiving education
about co-parenting from a court-mandated class, which could potentially affect their per-
ceptions of distress. Although participants were asked about distress in the “last two
weeks” (before attending the court-mandated workshop), this group could differ from the
general divorcing population. Similarly, all participants completed surveys in person in a
Midwest county, which may not represent attitudes and experiences in other regions.
Likewise, the demographic makeup of our sample must also be considered as it was pre-
dominantly white. Although the demographic layout of our sample is similar to that of the
region (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), our findings may not generalize to other racial and

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 11
ethnic groups. Future investigations on this topic would benefit from more diverse sam-
ples, given experiences like minority stress, for example, can impact mental health in
addition to relationship cycling (see Monk et al., 2018).
The dyadic approach of the current study was a strength as most relationship instability
(e.g., cycling) is captured when individuals are still in a romantic relationship (i.e., during
an “on” period). Focusing on romantic dyads (couples vs. individuals) is associated with
biased samples of relatively high functioning, stable partnerships (Barton, Lavner, Stanley,
Johnson, & Rhoades, 2020). In contrast, as a result of our focus on separating/divorced part-
ners during an “off” period, we captured instability while also potentially mitigating some of
the sampling biases of dyadic data methodology. To simultaneously leverage the benefits of
multiple reports from the same dyad and account for sampling biases, future work should
continue focusing on dyads following dissolution. This is especially fruitful given the fact
that interdependence, particularly among couples with children, can continue long after dis-
solution (Agnew & VanderDrift, 2015) and should not be ignored.

REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married
couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181015.
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012–1028. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x.
Agnew, C. R., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2015). Relationship maintenance and dissolution. In APA handbook of per-
sonality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 581–604). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-021.
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62,
1269–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x.
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high- and low-distress marriages that end in
divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00396.x.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjust-
ment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03024005002.
Barton, A. W., Lavner, J. A., Stanley, S. M., Johnson, M. D., & Rhoades, G. K. (2020). “Will you complete this sur-
vey too?” Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 34, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000583.
Bevvino, D. L., & Sharkin, B. S. (2003). Divorce adjustment as a function of finding meaning and gender differ-
ences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v39n03_04.
Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1985). Age at marriage and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47,
67–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/352069.
Bourassa, K. J., Tackman, A. M., Mehl, M. R., & Sbarra, D. A. (2019). Psychological overinvolvement, emotional
distress, and daily affect following marital dissolution. Collabra: Psychology, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1525/col
labra.184.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research,
21, 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005.
Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Before they said “I do”: Discriminating among marital
outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 613–626.
Dailey, R. M. (2020). On-again, off-again relationships: Navigating (in)stability in romantic relationships. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dailey, R. M., Hampel, A. D., & Roberts, J. B. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships:
An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and
status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903514292.
Dailey, R. M., Jin, B., Pfiester, A., & Beck, G. (2011). On-again/off-again dating relationships: What keeps part-
ners coming back? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.
503249.
Dailey, R. M., LeFebvre, L., Crook, B., & Brody, N. (2016). Relational uncertainty and communication in on-
again/off-again romantic relationships: Assessing changes and patterns across recalled turning points. Wes-
tern Journal of Communication, 80, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1094123.

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021

12 / FAMILY PROCESS

Dailey, R. M., McCracken, A. A., Jin, B., Rossetto, K. R., & Green, E. W. (2013). Negotiating breakups and renew-
als: Types of on-again/off-again dating relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 382–410. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.775325.
Dailey, R. M., Middleton, A. V., & Green, E. W. (2012). Perceived relational stability in on-again/off-again rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 52–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407511420192.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1475-6811.2009.01208.x.
Dailey, R. M., Zhong, L., Pett, R., Scott, D., & Krawietz, C. (2020). Investigating relationship dispositions as
explanations for on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 201–211.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519861156.
Dempsey, K. (2002). Who gets the best deal from marriage: Women or men? Journal of Sociology, 38, 91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/144078302128756525.
Doherty, W. J., Harris, S. M., & Wilde, J. L. (2016). Discernment counseling for “mixed-agenda” couples. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 42, 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12132.
Faulkner, R. A., Davey, M., & Davey, A. (2005). Gender-related predictors of change in marital satisfaction and
marital conflict. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01926180590889211.
Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in
America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gerson, K. (2017). The logics of work, care and gender change in the new economy. In B. Brandth, S. Halrynjo &
E. Kvande (Eds.), Work-family dynamics: Competing logics of regulation, economy and morals (pp. 19–35).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57–75.
Halpern-Meekin, S., & Tach, L. (2013). Discordance in couples’ reporting of courtship stages: Implications for
measurement and marital quality. Social Science Research, 42, 1143–1155.
Hetherington, E. M. (2003). Intimate pathways: Changing patterns in close personal relationships across time.
Family Relations, 52, 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00318.x.
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2003). Divorce reconsidered: For better or worse. New York, NY: Norton.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social
Issues, 32, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02485.x.
Hollenbaugh, K. M. H., Strauss, L. M., Feldmann, T. M., Oyeniyi, O., & Vashisht, K. (2020). An exploration of
counselors’ beliefs and approaches for relationship loss. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25, 159–172. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1664126.
House, J. S., Landis, A. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newly-
wed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 237–252.
Kellas, J. K., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories, turning points, and
adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 25, 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086804.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (1996). Marital
conflict and endocrine function: Are men really more physiologically affected than women? Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 64, 324–332.
Kn€opfli, B., Morselli, D., & Perrig-Chiello, P. (2016). Trajectories of psychological adaptation to marital breakup
after a long-term marriage. Gerontology, 62, 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445056.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & L€owe, B. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and
depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50, 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(09)70864-3.
Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Do cold feet warn of trouble ahead? Premarital uncer-
tainty and four-year marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 1012–1017.
Leopold, T. (2018). Gender differences in the consequences of divorce: A study of multiple outcomes. Demography,
55, 769–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0667-6.
Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitudinal study of reaction and adaptation to divorce.
Psychological Science, 16, 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01642.x.
Monin, J. K., & Clark, M. S. (2011). Why do men benefit more from marriage than do women? Thinking more
broadly about interpersonal processes that occur within and outside of marriage. Sex Roles, 65, 320–326.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0008-3.

www.FamilyProcess.org
MONK, KANTER, & OGAN / 13
Monk, J. K., Ogolsky, B. G., & Oswald, R. F. (2018). Coming out and getting back in: Relationship cycling and dis-
tress in same- and different-sex relationships. Family Relations, 67, 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.
12336.
Monk, K., Basinger, E. D., & Abendschein, B. (2020). Relational turbulence and psychological distress in roman-
tic relationships in the military. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 942–964. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265407519883701.
Newsom, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., Theisen, J. C., & Maniotes, C. R. (2017). Relationship maintenance: A
review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9, 275–306. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jftr.12205.
Overbeek, G., Stattin, H., Vermulst, A., Ha, T., & Engels, R. C. (2007). Parent-child relationships, partner rela-
tionships, and emotional adjustment: A birth-to-maturity prospective study. Developmental Psychology, 43,
429–437.
Poortman, A. R., & Mills, M. (2012). Investments in marriage and cohabitation: The role of legal and interper-
sonal commitment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 357–376.
Proulx, C. M., Ermer, A. E., & Kanter, J. B. (2017). Group-based trajectory modeling of marital quality: A critical
review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9, 307–327.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576–593.
Rhoades, G. K., Kamp Dush, C. M., Atkins, D. C., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Breaking up is hard
to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 25, 366–374.
Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex
Roles, 7, 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287767.
Sbarra, D. A., Hasselmo, K., & Bourassa, K. J. (2015). Divorce and health: Beyond individual differences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414559125.
Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational Turbulence Theory: Explain-
ing variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communi-
cation Research, 42, 507–532.
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Kelmer, G., Scott, S. B., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2019). Unequally into
“us”: Characteristics of individuals in asymmetrically committed relationships. Family Process, 58, 214–231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12397.
Strohschein, L., McDonough, P., Monette, G., & Shao, Q. (2005). Marital transitions and mental health: Are there
gender differences in the short-term effects of marital status change? Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2293–2303.
Turney, K., & Halpern-Meekin, S. (2017). Parenting in on/off relationships: The link between relationship churn-
ing and father involvement. Demography, 54, 861–886.
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS demographic and housing estimates (No. DP05). Retrieved from https://data.ce
nsus.gov/cedsci/table?q=missouri&g=0400000US29&hidePreview=false&tid=ACSDP1Y2018.DP05&vintage=
2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PP_D1&cid=DP05_0001E.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Liu, H., & Needham, B. (2006). You make me sick: Marital quality
and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002214650604700101.
Vennum, A., Hardy, N., Sibley, D. S., & Fincham, F. D. (2015). Dedication and sliding in emerging adult cyclical
and non-cyclical romantic relationships. Family Relations, 64, 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12126.
Vennum, A., & Johnson, M. D. (2014). The impact of premarital cycling on early marriage: Premarital cycling
and early marriage. Family Relations, 63, 439–452.
Vennum, A., Lindstrom, R., Monk, J. K., & Adams, R. (2014). “It’s complicated”: The continuity and correlates of
cycling in cohabiting and marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 410–430.
Washburn-Busk, M., Vennum, A., McAllister, P., & Busk, P. (2020). Navigating “breakup remorse”: Implications
for disrupting the on-again/off-again cycles in young adult dating relationships. Journal of Marital and Fam-
ily Therapy, 46, 413–430.
Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and
psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 470–487.
Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course per-
spective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500106.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2021