Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
Lecture Notes
Chapter 14: Healing the Hurt: Relationship Repair and Reconciliation
Chapter Outline
I. The Investment Model of Relationship-Maintaining Behavior
• Extension of interdependence theory: According to Thibaut and Kelley’s
interdependence theory, relational partners become interdependent and committed to
one another through the exchange of valuable resources, such as love and possessions.
• Applied to relationship repair: Investment model of relationship-maintaining
behavior rests on the idea that commitment helps buffer relationships against the
destruction that hurtful events and conflict can cause.
A. Commitment
1. Resilient versus fragile relationships:
a. Satisfaction is highest when people are in rewarding relationships that
exceed their expectations.
b. Investments are “resources that become attached to a relationship and
would decline in value or be lost if the relationship were to end.”
c. Quality of alternatives refers to the types of alternatives that people
perceive they have outside of a current relationship.
2. Satisfaction
a. Rewards are “exchanged resources that are pleasurable and gratifying”
and costs are “exchanged resources that result in a loss or punishment.”
b. Reward–cost ratio (or outcome) in the relationship must be as good as or
better than expected. Interdependence theory and the investment model
use the term outcome to refer to the ratio of rewards to costs.
c. When rewards outweigh costs, the outcome is positive; when costs
outweigh rewards, the outcome is negative.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
3. Investments
a. Intrinsic investments are those that are put directly into the relationship,
including time, effort, affection, and disclosure.
b. Extrinsic investments are resources or benefits that are developed over
time as a result of being in the relationship. Material possessions,
common social system, and identity attached to being in a relationship.
c. Investments, along with satisfaction and the quality of alternatives,
influence whether people are committed to and stay in their relationships
with friends and romantic partners.
4. Quality of Alternatives
a. The quality of alternatives includes good and poor alternatives.
b. When people have good alternatives, they tend to be less committed to
their relationships. When people have poor alternatives, they tend to be
highly committed to their relationships.
c. On a more serious note, some individuals stay in unsatisfying and even
abusive relationships because they have poor alternatives.
B. Pro-Relationship Behaviors
1. Deciding to Remain
a. People who encounter serious problems or conflict in their relationships
sometimes give up or decide it would be better to end the relationship.
b. Couples who were committed to one another were less likely to report
exiting the relationship following a relational transgression, such as their
partner betraying or lying to them.
c. Couples were less likely to de-escalate their relationships if they had
reported high levels of satisfaction and investment earlier.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
2. Accommodating the Partner
a. People have a natural tendency to respond to negative events with more
negativity or to avoid the person who has hurt them, called a “fight or
flight” response.
b. However, when people are in a highly committed relationship, they are
3. Derogating Alternatives
a. Commitment also leads people to derogate their alternatives as
committed people tend to find reasons to downgrade potential alternative
partners.
b. When people derogate their alternatives, it also keeps them more
committed to their relationships because they perceive their quality of
alternatives to be relatively low.
c. Derogating alternatives can also function as a motivation to repair a
4. Showing a Willingness to Sacrifice
a. Sacrifices can be thought of as special types of investments that involve
putting aside one’s own immediate self-interest and focusing on the best
interests of the relationship.
b. People are more likely to make sacrifices for their partner or their
5. Perceiving Relationship Superiority
a. Relational partners who are highly committed to each other perceive their
relationship to be superior to other relationships, thought of as a
“relationship-enhancing illusion.”
b. People tend to see their own relationships as having more positive and
fewer negative characteristics than the relationships of others.
c. This type of thinking leads to positive attitudes about the relationship and
sets the tone for behaving constructively and making more sacrifices.
II. The Model of Accommodation
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
• Committed people accommodate and repair: The idea that people in committed
relationships are likely to accommodate their partners and repair their relationships is
captured in the model of accommodation.
• Ways people respond to problems:
o This model describes how people respond to dissatisfying events in their
relationships and predicts that people will be more likely to use constructive
responses when they are committed to their relationships.
• Constructive, destructive, passive, active responses: The behaviors that fall under each
category have been expanded by other researchers who have looked at how people try
to repair their relationships after a negative event has occurred.
A. Destructive Behaviors
1. Passive behaviors:
a. Neglect behaviors involve standing by and letting conditions in the
relationship get worse.
2. Active behaviors:
a. Exit behaviors include actions such as threatening to break up, moving
out of the house, and getting a divorce.
3. People more likely to engage in destructive responses such as neglect,
punishment, exit, and antisocial communication when their relationships are
low in commitment and satisfaction.
B. Constructive Behaviors
1. Help people repair their relationships: Using voice and prosocial
communication is the best combination.
2. Voice and prosocial communication:
a. Voice encompasses discussion and problem-solving, including talking
about problems in a polite manner, seeking help from others, and
changing negative behavior.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
c. Dispositional hope refers to a person’s general tendency to feel hopeful
and optimistic across situations.
d. Relationship-specific hope refers to a person’s feelings of hope in a
particular relationship.
3. Loyalty
a. Partners who use loyalty optimistically wait for positive change by
hoping things will improve, standing by the partner during difficult
times, and supporting the partner in the face of criticism.
b. People may also minimize the importance of the transgression, see
4. Voice and prosocial versus loyalty
a. Voice involves directly confronting issues and solving problems whereas
loyalty often leaves issues unresolved.
b. Prosocial communication displays positive feelings and shows your
partner you are putting effort into the relationship whereas loyalty shows
care without much effort.
C. Limits and Extensions of the Model
1. People react constructively to negative events if their relationship is
committed and satisfying.
2. Constructive response to betrayals:
a. People generally use more constructive communication and less vengeful
behavior if they had been satisfied with and invested in the relationship
prior to the betrayal.
3. Finally, people tend to discuss jealousy in a constructive manner (similar to
voice) if they are committed to and invested in their relationship.
4. Limits to protection of relationship:
a. If a transgression is unexpected and hurtful, being in a previously
satisfying relationship can actually lead to stronger destructive reactions.
b. People who you love and have good relationships with can hurt you more
than people you do not care as much about.
III. Remedial Strategies
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
• Remedial strategies focus on specific behaviors that people engage in to try and fix
their relationship after they have done something wrong.
• Remedial strategies are attempts to correct problems, restore one’s positive face, or
repair the relationship.
• Research on discovered deception, sexual infidelity, social predicaments, and
forgiveness suggests that people use various remedial strategies when they have
committed a transgression.
A. Apologies and Concessions
1. Apologies can include a simple statement such as “I’m sorry,” expressing
guilt and remorse, derogating oneself, promising to make up for the bad
behavior, and promising never to engage in the transgression again.
2. Elaborate apologies are more successful: When people have committed
serious transgressions, apologies are most effective when they are perceived
as sincere, elicit empathy, and are given voluntarily.
3. Sincere apologies can lead the victim to perceive the transgressor as a
generally good and thoughtful person despite the hurtful event.
6. Apology must be voluntary: People are more likely to forgive their partners
for engaging in infidelity if they confess on their own and concede their guilt.
a. Concessions emerged as the most effective strategy for repairing a
relationship following infidelity.
B. Appeasement
1. Types of compensation behaviors: People who seek forgiveness often try to
make up for what they did and when people are caught deceiving a partner
whom they care about, they use remedial strategies.
2. Fairly effective strategy: Some research suggests that apologies are even
more effective, while other research suggests that promising to compensate
for one’s actions is an important part of an effective apology.
3. When people report that their partner used appeasement, they are more likely
to say that they granted forgiveness using nonverbal displays such as hugs or
smiles.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
C. Explanations
1. Using excuses or justifications:
a. When transgressors use excuses, they try to minimize responsibility for
their negative behavior by focusing on their inability to control their own
actions or by shifting the blame to others.
b. When transgressors use justifications, they try to minimize the negative
implications of the transgression by denying their behavior was wrong or
that the transgression was severe.
2. Explanation effectiveness degree varies: Explanations provide information
that “is crucial in deciding whether forgiveness is warranted and whether the
relationship can be mended.”
D. Denials
1. Some scholars believe denials are a special type of excuse, one that is good
enough for the transgressor to feel that a relational rule has not been broken.
2. Complexity of relational transgressions: What is perceived as a transgression
by one party might not necessarily be perceived as a transgression by the
other.
E. Avoidance and Evasion
1. Transgressors who use this strategy often report that talking about the
problem only makes it worse and it is better to let the transgression fade into
the background of the relationship and be minimized.
2. Avoidance and evasion used after an apology and granting of forgiveness
may be effective, but not as the primary strategy, in which case the problem
might be left unresolved and could resurface in the future.
F. Relationship Talk
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
1. Relationship talk involves talking about the transgression within the larger
context of the relationship.
2. Relationship invocation: involves expressing attitudes or beliefs about the
relationship or using the qualities of the relationship as a backdrop for
interpreting the transgression.
3. Metatalk: involves explicitly discussing the transgression’s effect on the
relationship.
IV. Forgiveness
• Acknowledgment of Harmful Conduct
o For forgiveness to even be necessary, one or both partners must acknowledge that
there has been wrongdoing.
• Extension of Undeserved Mercy
o The hurt person must make a decision to extend mercy to the partner, the idea
being such mercy is undeserved.
• Emotional Transformation
o Forgiveness involves an emotional transformation that allows hurt individuals to
let go of negative feelings.
• Relationship Renegotiation
o Forgiveness entails renegotiating the nature of one’s relationship, including rules
and expectations for future behavior.
A. Forgiving Communication
1. Explicit Forgiveness
a. Explicit forgiveness involves making a direct statement, such as “I
forgive you,” and is the clearest way to communicate forgiveness to a
transgressor and convey that one wants to repair the relationship.
b. Both partners also have more closure and the relationship has a better
chance of strengthening instead of declining.
2. Nonverbal Display
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
a. People display forgiveness nonverbally through behaviors such as smiles,
hugs, or head nods, when they want to repair the relationship, indicate
that a transgression is not that serious, or avoid confrontation.
b. Nonverbal displays often occur with the transgressor engaging in
3. Discussion
a. People who use this strategy often grant forgiveness within the context of
a deeper discussion of the hurtful event and its consequences for the
relationship.
b. Discussion can include renegotiating relationship rules, explaining why
and how the transgression occurred, and expressing feelings to one
another.
4. Minimizing Approach
a. People use the minimizing approach to emphasize that the hurtful event
was not that “big of a deal” and that the partner should not worry about it
anymore, most likely when the transgression is not very serious.
5. Conditional Forgiveness
a. Conditional forgiveness is used when people grant forgiveness contingent
on the partner’s behavior and is often a temporary state leading more
likely to relationship deterioration.
b. Forgiveness is contingent not only on the hurt person’s change in
motivation but also on the offending person’s change in behavior.
c. Behavior change was the most important ingredient when friends,
B. Conditions That Promote or Impede Forgiveness and Forgiving Communication
1. The Seriousness of the Transgression
a. People are less forgiving when a transgression is especially serious, but
victims sometimes reassess the transgression as less serious if they decide
to stay in the relationship.
b. Seriousness of a transgression relates to how much a behavior violates
relationship expectations, since hurtful events vary in the extent to which
someone considers them unacceptable.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
d. Even if people do forgive their partner, they are likely to do so with
conditions.
2. Relationship and Partner Characteristics
a. People are more likely to forgive their partners and engage in positive
communication when they are in high-quality relationships with
rewarding partners.
b. People are also likely to evaluate transgressions as less serious, to forgive
their partners, and to engage in more positive communication if they
perceive their partner to be socially attractive and rewarding.
c. Forgiveness may also be especially likely when victims perceive their
partner to be more rewarding than they perceive themselves to be.
V. Relational Reconciliation
• Different from forgiveness or repair:
o You can forgive someone without reconciling with them.
o Repair strategies focus on fixing problems and saving a relationship when
problems occur, whereas reconciliation involves getting back together and
rebuilding a relationship after a breakup or a falling out.
• Reconciliation is not uncommon:
o Almost 75% of college students had broken up and then reconciled with a romantic
partner at least once. Around 25% of divorcing parents believe that with hard work
their marriages could still be saved.
• People break up and then reconcile for a variety of reasons, many of which are
connected to concepts such as rewards and costs.
• Couples who have similar religious beliefs and those who cohabited before marriage
are more likely to reconcile after being separated. Communication can also influence
whether or not people get back together after a breakup.
A. Reconciliation Strategies
1. Explanation and Disclosure
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
a. Open communication that includes explanations and disclosure is the key
to mutual interaction, which seems to be important in reconciling all
types of relationships, from romantic to family.
b. Mutual interaction involves communicating openly about why the
2. Relationship References
a. Another common strategy is to remind the former partner of all the
positive aspects of the former relationship, by playing up the reward
value of the former relationship.
3. Promises
a. Related to rewards, but instead of reminding the ex-partner about the
positive aspects of the former relationship, the strategy of promises
involves telling the partner how good the future relationship would be.
b. Like relationship references, the promising strategy seems designed to
convince the ex-partner that their reestablished relationship would
contain more benefits than costs.
4. Stage-Setting
a. “Setting the stage” can reduce uncertainty and give people a feel for
whether or not their former partner is amendable to a reconciliation
attempt.
b. Re-following someone on social media, viewing their stories more often,
and commenting on their posts and pictures again can also help set the
stage for possible reconciliation.
5. Vulnerable Appeals
a. When people let their ex-partners know how much they miss them and
want to be with them again, they not only open them up for rejection but
also put them in a powerless position.
b. Vulnerable appeals can be successful because they communicate regret
and may erase doubts about how much one ex-partner cares for the other.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
6. Direct Requests
a. People might build up to a direct request by first setting the stage, or
engage in explanation and disclosure, along with referencing the positive
aspects of the relationship, before directly asking the ex-partner to get
back together.
b. Direct requests maybe risky, so many couples say that reconciliation
happened naturally over time when they let go of their anger and started
spending more time together.
B. Reintegration in the Social Network
1. Third parties play other roles: Sometimes reconciling with one’s partner is
only the first step and the relationship being part of a larger social network,
often needs repair with hopes to be accepted and supported by family and
friends.
2. When a person undergoes a breakup, the social network is usually supportive
and occasionally may have even encouraged the breakup.
3. Using strategies to save face:
a. People update friends and family members so they won’t be surprised
when they hear about the reconciliation, involving setting rules about
how family and friends should talk to and treat the partner.
VI. On-again, Off-again Relationships
1. Cycling relationships prevalent today: On-again, off-again relationship was
defined as breaking up and then getting back together at least once.
2. Social media play a role: Looking at an ex’s photos on social media may even
trigger the release of hormones such as oxytocin and dopamine, which are
respectively associated with attachment and excitement.
3. Interestingly, having sympathy for the partner was given as a reason for
getting back together more the second and third time than the first time.
4. Tend to report more problems:
a. On-again, off-again relationships are generally characterized by less
positive behavior as well as more negative behavior.
b. Family and friends also become less supportive of these relationships the
more the couple breaks up and gets back together.
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
5. Five common types of on-again, off-again dating relationships were identified
as: habitual, mismatched, capitalized on transition, gradual separators, and
controlling.
6. Capitalizing on transition:
a. Those who capitalize on the transition are most likely to communicate
effectively, stay together, and use their “off” time productively.
7. Mismatched couples also fare well:
a. Upon renewal, they tend to discuss their breakups and renewal openly
with one another and carefully think about whether they should get back
together.
b. Their discussions tend to be explicit and may include details of what they
want and need if the relationship is to work out.
8. Controlling has worst outcomes:
a. Couple breakups are more one-sided and messier, and they tend to get
back together without as much thought.
9. Habitual fall in the middle:
a. Partners who get back together for convenience and comfort have not
always worked on the issues that drove them apart initially.
VII. Relational Redefinition: Can We Still Be Friends?
• Shifting from romance to friendship:
o Most partners usually do not make a clean break after breaking up, especially if they
were in a long-term relationship and had a shared social network.
o If mutual respect and admiration exists between partners, a platonic friendship may
emerge.
• Shifting from spouses to co-parents:
Guerrero, Close Encounters, 6e
SAGE Publishing, 2021
o Half of all divorced couples report contact with their former spouse, being
especially likely if the couple has children together, had a relatively long marriage,
or hold liberal social values.
• True for former dating partners:
o Sixty percent ex-couples who remained friends after breaking up showed a pattern
of decreasing closeness over time—with their commitment to the friendship
decreasing in the months after breaking up.
o Twenty-one percent ex-couples said that they became better friends over time
after breaking up whereas about 7% indicated that there was little change in their
friendship over time.
• Ex-partners have different experiences:
o Engaging in reflective talk involves discussing the old romantic relationship,
bringing up old memories, and getting closure.
o Becoming friends or best friends occurs when ex-partners realize that they really
can be “just friends” and, in some cases, even best friends.
• Events related to unsuccessful transition:
o Awkward or uncomfortable conversations, one-sided attempts to reestablish a
romantic relationship, jealousy-provoked interaction, negative feelings about and
being ignored by the ex-partner.
o It is difficult for ex-romantic partners to make the transition to being just friends if
one of them still has romantic feelings for the other or can’t let go of old issues
that lead to conflict.