Feeling Stuck: Exploring the Development of Felt Constraint in Romantic Relationships

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Tyler B. Jamison,Jonathon J. Beckmeyer
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12496

T B. JUniversity of New Hampshire

J J. BWest Virginia University

Feeling Stuck: Exploring the Development of Felt

Constraint in Romantic Relationships

Objective: This research investigates the pro-

cesses leading to felt constraint in romantic rela-

tionships.

Background: Romantic commitment can be

driven by a genuine desire to remain roman-

tically involved with a partner, or it can be

motivated by real or perceived constraints (e.g.,

shared property, psychological control or coer-

cion, perceived obligations to one’s partner)

that make leaving relationships challenging.

When relationship commitment and stability

are driven by constraints rather than personal

desire, individuals may feel “stuck” in their

romantic unions, leading to negative outcomes

for both individuals and couples.

Method: Using data from in-depth interviews

with 35 individuals about their relationship his-

tories, we employed grounded theory techniques

to dene and explain the process of entering and

exiting relationships with high levels of felt con-

straint (i.e., stuck relationships). The nal sam-

ple included 14 individuals discussing 21 stuck

relationships.

Results: Participants often entered stuck rela-

tionships in their teens and early 20s. Based

on positive early experiences, couples quickly

accrued barriers to breakup (e.g., cohabitation,

marriage, children, family entanglement) that

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,

University of New Hampshire, 201 Pettee Hall, 55 College

Road, Durham, NH 03824 (tyler.jamison@unh.edu).

Key Words: commitment, relationship education, romantic

relationships.

sustained the partnership despite declines in

relationship satisfaction. The decision to leave

stuck relationships was often motivated by

maturing out of the relationship or becoming

more aware of alternatives.

Conclusions: Our study adds additional sup-

port for the notion that constraints are not uni-

versally problematic but must be understood

within the context of the developing relationship

in order to determine their likely consequences.

Implications: Our ndings support relationship

education focused on building an individual’s

capacity to (a) assess the future viability of

their partnerships and (b) overcome barriers to

breakup if and when that becomes relevant.

Relationship stability and commitment are typi-

cally viewed as important indicators of healthy

romantic development (Ogolsky et al., 2017).

However, theoretical models and empirical

research illustrate that commitment is not always

the result of a genuine desire to remain roman-

tically involved with a partner (Johnson, 1982;

Knopp et al., 2015; Stanley & Markman, 1992;

Weigel et al., 2015). In particular, romantic

commitment can be due to real or perceived

constraints (e.g., shared property, psychological

control or coercion, perceived obligations to

one’s partner) that make it challenging to end

romantic relationships (Rhoades et al., 2010).

When relationship commitment and stabil-

ity result from constraints rather than a per-

sonal desire to continue the partnership, indi-

viduals may feel stagnant, bound, or stuck in

880Family Relations 70 (July 2021): 880–895

DOI:10.1111/fare.12496

Feeling Stuck881

a partnership (Rhoades et al., 2010). Relation-

ships that are characterized by constraint com-

mitment can convey meaningful costs for young

adults as they make decisions about their indi-

vidual and romantic futures. For example, rela-

tionships high in constraint commitment may

be particularly vulnerable to relationship iner-

tia, making couples susceptible to accumulating

barriers to breaking up without sufcient delib-

eration (Stanley et al., 2006). This is problem-

atic because couples may slide through major

relationship steps and decisions without assess-

ing the long-term viability of the relationship

or while ignoring signs that the relationship

may not be well suited for permanence. When

young adults feel stuck in their romantic rela-

tionships, they may also sacrice personal goals

(e.g., educational or occupational opportunities)

to maintain the relationship (Kefalas et al., 2011;

Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Thus, relation-

ships being sustained by constraint commit-

ment may create a context that undermines,

rather than promotes, individual development

and well-being (Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2020).

The present study used qualitative data from

young adults to explore the circumstances that

lead individuals to remain in relationships after

their personal desire to stay together has eroded.

In doing so, we add to the literature on constraint

commitment by exploring the process that leads

to feeling “stuck” and how individuals decide to

dissolve those relationships.

Theoretical Context of Constraint Commitment

Romantic commitment is commonly opera-

tionalized as the intention or desire to continue

a relationship (Johnson, 1999). Thus, commit-

ment is often assumed to be a purposeful choice,

driven by regard for one’s partner and optimism

about the relationship’s suitability for long-term

partnership (Weigel et al., 2015). However, the-

oretical models of commitment propose a range

of commitment motives. For example, John-

son (1982) identied structural commitment as

an important reason why couples stay together.

He described structural commitments as exter-

nal to the individual, presenting barriers to

ending a relationship such as the expected social

reaction to dissolution, the difculty of termi-

nating the relationship, and practical concerns

about nances and other relationship invest-

ments. Similarly, Stanley and Markman (1992)

proposed a two-part commitment model that

included constraint commitment arising from

concerns about social pressure, termination

procedures, and attractiveness or availability of

alternatives.

Other researchers have further broken down

the concept of constraint commitment and

explored its consequences for couples. Rhoades

et al. (2010) identied three types of constraint

commitment: perceived, material, and felt.

Similar to Johnson’s (1982) and Stanley and

Markham’s (1992) models, perceived con-

straints corresponded to factors that created

stability in relationships (e.g., pressure from

family and friends, emotional and instrumental

investments made in the relationship, and the

difculty of dissolution). Material constraints

included tangible things that link relational

partners together but also create barriers to

dissolution (e.g., shared debt, sharing a car

or housing lease, having a pet). Finally, felt

constraint involved the sense of being stuck in

a relationship because of external pressures.

Rhoades et al. (2010) proposed that compared

with perceived and material constraints, felt

constraint is more subjective and reects indi-

viduals’ evaluations of what barriers may be

keeping them from leaving relationships. Felt

constraint was related to negative outcomes,

including lower relationship adjustment, higher

likelihood of breakup, and lower perceived

likelihood of marriage. However, it remains

unclear how individuals come to experience felt

constraint in their relationships. Because felt

constraint is subjective, qualitative research is

a useful tool for understanding how individuals

experience felt constraint and the processes or

circumstances that lead to those feelings.

Theoretical models of commitment provide

important insights into how relational stability

can be based on factors aside from the per-

sonal desire to continue a relationship. For

the purpose of clarity in the present study, we

refer to the desire to continue a relationship

as personal commitment and the structural

or external factors keeping individuals in the

relationship as constraint commitment.Wedid

not include moral commitment in our investiga-

tion (i.e., feeling a duty or moral obligation to

remain in the relationship; see Johnson, 1982).

We also use the term stuck relationships to

describe partnerships in which at least one

person experienced felt constraint (Rhoades

et al., 2010).