Mending Fences: How Heterosexual Married Individuals Perceive Breaks in Their Connection to Their Spouses and How Couples Repair Them

Purpose: Marriages in the U.S. exist in a cultural context that is in a state of flux. In spite of high divorce rates, the option of cohabitation and an overall weakening of marriage as an institution, the majority of young people in the United States still want to marry and most Americans will marry at some point in their lives (Cherlin, 2004). At the same time, there are unique and formidable pressures on modern marriages. While the most frequently presented problem in psychotherapy is distress in an intimate relationship (Johnson & Lebow, 2000), existing theories of adult intimate relationships provide incomplete explanations of the role of conflict in marital satisfaction and longevity (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Empirical studies have failed to identify any one particular set of interventions that are more effective than others (Baucom et al., 1998; Dunn & Schwebel, 1995; Wampold et al., 1997). The purpose of this study was to address gaps in the literature by examining the process of repair in contemporary heterosexual marriages in the U. S.

Method: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 individuals. They were married between 7 and 10 years, in their first marriages, with at least one child over the age of 2 who was a product of the marriage. Subjects were Caucasian, U. S. citizens who spoke English and had at least a college degree. They were self-identified as satisfied with their marriages. The researcher analyzed the data using the principles of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Analysis began with line-by-line coding followed by collapsing initial codes into more abstract categories and concepts. HyperResearch software aided in organizing and cataloguing the data.

Results: Four types of repair were identified: coming to agreement, compromising, agreeing to disagree and living with conflict that remained unresolved. While the first three categories involved a feeling of resolution, the fourth left subjects feeling resigned, not resolved. Repair was possible if individuals were capable of self-reflection, taking accountability, apologizing, becoming realistic about marriage and acceptance. Couples accomplished repair through communicating, building trust and developing empathy and understanding. Elements of relational resilience included: being committed, making time for the relationship, showing appreciation, respecting and appreciating, having flexible gender roles, maintaining some autonomy, sharing core beliefs, sharing a sense of humor and sharing parenting. Enjoying the companionship of marriage, growing and changing together and having the relationship as a secure base were benefits of resolving conflict.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings of this study suggest that clinicians can use the framework of the four types of repair and the elements of relational resilience as assessment tools when treating couples. Using a strengths perspective, familiar to social work practitioners, clinicians can attempt to move couples towards a type of repair that resolves differences while identifying and reinforcing elements of relational resilience. Findings indicate that repair in these marriages both required and enhanced relational resilience.