Dr Manju Antil (Counselling Psychologist and Psychotherapist)

Relationship Churning Questionnaire (RCQ) Manual

Author: Dr. Manju Rani, Assistant Professor, K.R Mangalam University.

Introduction

Romantic relationships are a cornerstone of human experience, profoundly influencing emotional well-being, personal growth, and social stability. However, not all relationships progress linearly or remain stable over time. Among the varied dynamics of romantic partnerships, the phenomenon of relationship churning—repeated cycles of breaking up and reconciling—stands out as both common and complex. The Relationship Churning Questionnaire (RCQ) aims to systematically explore and evaluate these dynamics, providing a structured approach to understanding and addressing the underlying factors contributing to relationship instability.

Relationship churning has been identified as a prevalent occurrence in contemporary romantic relationships, with research indicating that a significant proportion of couples experience at least one cycle of separation and reconciliation. This pattern, often characterized by emotional turbulence and fluctuating commitment levels, raises critical questions about the long-term implications for relational satisfaction and individual mental health. Scholars like Dailey et al. (2009) and Vennum et al. (2014) have delved into this phenomenon, emphasizing the need for nuanced tools and frameworks to assess its impact. The RCQ is designed to fill this gap, offering an evidence-based instrument that can be utilized by clinicians, researchers, and individuals alike.

Defining Relationship Churning: Relationship churning is distinct from other forms of relational instability due to its cyclical nature. Unlike relationships that experience a singular rupture, churning relationships oscillate between periods of separation and reconciliation. This pattern often reflects deeper challenges, including unresolved conflicts, communication deficits, and emotional ambivalence. While some couples view reconciliation as an opportunity to address past issues and rebuild, others may fall into repetitive cycles that exacerbate dissatisfaction and emotional distress.

Prevalence and Sociocultural Context: The prevalence of relationship churning varies across demographic groups and cultural contexts. Studies suggest that younger adults, particularly those in emerging adulthood, are more likely to experience on-again/off-again relationships due to developmental factors such as identity exploration and shifting life priorities. Sociocultural norms also play a significant role in shaping how individuals perceive and navigate churning dynamics. For instance, collectivist cultures may emphasize reconciliation as a means of preserving familial and social harmony, while individualistic cultures may focus on personal growth and autonomy.

Emotional and Psychological Implications: The emotional toll of relationship churning is well-documented in psychological literature. Individuals involved in these relationships often report heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and self-doubt. The uncertainty inherent in repeated breakups and reconciliations can lead to emotional exhaustion, undermining both individual well-being and relational satisfaction. Conversely, some studies highlight the potential for personal growth and resilience, particularly when couples use reconciliation as a catalyst for addressing core issues and fostering healthier dynamics.

Theoretical Frameworks: Understanding relationship churning requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates theories from psychology, communication studies, and sociology. Attachment theory provides valuable insights into how early relational experiences shape individuals' tendencies to engage in cyclical relationships. For example, individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment styles may be more prone to churning due to their conflicting needs for intimacy and independence. Communication theories, such as the Relational Turbulence Model, further elucidate how miscommunication and relational uncertainty contribute to the cyclical nature of churning.

Development of the Relationship Churning Questionnaire: The RCQ was developed through a rigorous process of literature review, expert consultation, and empirical validation. Drawing on established measures of relationship satisfaction, communication patterns, and emotional health, the RCQ captures the multifaceted nature of relationship churning. Each section of the questionnaire is designed to assess a specific aspect of the phenomenon, from the frequency and context of breakups to the emotional impact and strategies for reconciliation.

Significance and Applications: The RCQ is more than a diagnostic tool; it is a means of fostering understanding and facilitating change. For clinicians, it offers a structured way to identify areas of concern and guide therapeutic interventions. For researchers, it provides a standardized measure for studying relationship dynamics across diverse populations. For individuals, it serves as a reflective tool, encouraging self-awareness and intentionality in navigating relational challenges.

As society continues to evolve, so too do the dynamics of romantic relationships. The RCQ represents a step forward in addressing the complexities of relationship churning, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving the health of romantic partnerships. Through its use, we can not only deepen our understanding of this phenomenon but also empower individuals and couples to build more stable, satisfying, and meaningful connections.

Review of Literature

Relationship churning, characterized by cycles of breaking up and reconciling, is a phenomenon that has gained increasing attention in relationship research. Studies have shown that approximately 60% of couples experience some form of churning during the course of their relationships (Dailey et al., 2009). While some research suggests that such cycles can provide opportunities for personal growth and relational renegotiation, other studies highlight the negative consequences, such as emotional distress, decreased trust, and reduced relationship satisfaction (Vennum et al., 2014).

Emotional and Psychological Impacts: Research indicates that individuals involved in churning relationships report higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to those in stable relationships (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). These emotional costs can be exacerbated by the uncertainty and lack of resolution associated with repeated breakups and reconciliations. However, some studies also note that churning couples often maintain strong emotional bonds, which may explain their tendency to reconcile despite past conflicts (Dailey et al., 2017).

Communication Challenges: Ineffective communication has been identified as a key factor contributing to relationship churning. According to Rhoades et al. (2012), couples in on-again/off-again relationships often struggle to address the underlying issues that led to their initial breakup. These unresolved conflicts can create a cycle of repetitive arguments and emotional disengagement. On the other hand, couples who engage in open and constructive communication during periods of reconciliation are more likely to experience improvements in relationship quality.

Relationship Satisfaction and Stability: Relationship satisfaction in churning couples is often lower than in stable relationships (Vennum et al., 2014). This dissatisfaction may stem from the emotional volatility and lack of predictability that characterize churning dynamics. However, some researchers argue that the process of breaking up and reconciling can serve as a catalyst for positive change if both partners are committed to addressing their issues (Dailey et al., 2013). Interventions aimed at improving communication and conflict resolution skills have been shown to enhance satisfaction and stability in such relationships.

Practical Applications: The findings from the literature underscore the importance of targeted interventions for churning couples. Tools like the Relationship Churning Questionnaire (RCQ) can help identify areas of instability and guide therapeutic approaches. Cognitive-behavioral techniques, for example, have been effective in addressing maladaptive thought patterns and behaviors that perpetuate relationship instability (Markman et al., 2010).

 

Purpose of the RCQ

The RCQ aims to:

1. Identify patterns of relationship instability.
2. Assess the emotional impact of relationship dynamics.
3. Evaluate communication and conflict resolution skills.
4. Measure overall relationship satisfaction.
5. Provide actionable insights to improve relationship health.

 

Structure of the RCQ

The RCQ is divided into four sections, each focusing on a specific aspect of relationship dynamics:

1. Relationship Instability
2. Emotional Experience
3. Communication and Conflict Resolution
4. Relationship Satisfaction

Each section contains four questions, scored on a 5-point Likert scale:

1=Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neutral

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Administration

Target Audience: Adults in a current or recent romantic relationship.

Estimated Time: Approximately 10 minutes.

Instructions: Participants should respond to each question based on their experiences in their current or most recent relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship Churning Test (MCQ)

Instructions:

• Please read each statement carefully and choose the answer that best represents your feelings or experiences related to your relationship.
• There are no right or wrong answers; this test is meant to help you understand your thoughts and emotions.
• All responses are confidential, and your participation is voluntary.
• Answer each question based on your current or most recent relationship.

Respondent Information:

• Age: ______
• Gender: ______
• Relationship Status:
  ☐ Single
  ☐ In a relationship
  ☐ Married
  ☐ Divorced
  ☐ Widowed
  ☐ Other: ___________
• Length of Relationship: ______ (in months/years)

Part 1: Relationship Instability

1. My partner and I have broken up multiple times.
2. Our breakups often felt unresolved when we reconciled.
3. I frequently question the stability of our relationship.
4. Our relationship has frequent periods of uncertainty.

Part 2: Emotional Experience

5. I feel emotionally drained by the ups and downs in our relationship.
6. Despite challenges, I feel deeply connected to my partner.
7. The breakups and reconciliations have made me more anxious about the future.
8. I believe our relationship has made me stronger emotionally.

Part 3: Communication and Conflict Resolution

9. My partner and I struggle to communicate effectively about our issues.
10. We avoid discussing the reasons for our past breakups.
11. Our disagreements often feel repetitive and unresolved.
12. When we reconcile, we actively work on improving our relationship.

Part 4: Relationship Satisfaction

13. I feel satisfied with the overall quality of our relationship.
14. I trust that my partner values this relationship as much as I do.
15. The positives in our relationship outweigh the negatives.
16. I am optimistic about the future of our relationship.

Scoring

Participants’ scores are calculated by summing responses for each section:

Part 1: Relationship Instability (Q1-Q4)

• 4-8: Stable Relationship
• 9-12: Moderate Instability
• 13-16: High Instability

Part 2: Emotional Experience (Q5-Q8)

• 4-8: Positive Emotional Experience
• 9-12: Mixed Emotional Experience
• 13-16: Negative Emotional Experience

Part 3: Communication and Conflict Resolution (Q9-Q12)

• 4-8: Healthy Communication
• 9-12: Moderate Challenges
• 13-16: Significant Communication Issues

Part 4: Relationship Satisfaction (Q13-Q16)

• 4-8: Low Satisfaction
• 9-12: Moderate Satisfaction
• 13-16: High Satisfaction

Interpretation of Results

Highly Unstable Relationship

(High Instability, Poor Communication, Low Satisfaction)

• Indicates significant relationship challenges that may require professional counseling or intervention.

Emotionally Challenging but Hopeful

(Mixed Emotional Experience, Moderate Satisfaction)

• Suggests potential for growth through improved communication and problem-solving.

Stable but Emotionally Draining

(Stable Instability, Negative Emotional Experience)

• Reflects emotional challenges despite a structurally stable relationship. Self-care and couple’s therapy may be helpful.

Healthy Relationship

(Stable, Positive Emotional Experience, High Satisfaction)

• Reflects a strong and positive relationship dynamic, with challenges being well-managed.

 

Applications of the RCQ

1. Clinical Use: Identify areas of concern in couple’s therapy.
2. Research: Study patterns of relationship churning in different populations.
3. Personal Use: Reflect on personal relationship dynamics to foster growth.

Limitations

The RCQ is a self-reported tool, and responses may be influenced by participants' current emotional state or willingness to be honest. It should be used as part of a broader assessment.

Conclusion

The RCQ provides valuable insights into the complexities of romantic relationships. By identifying areas of instability, emotional challenges, and communication barriers, the RCQ can guide individuals and professionals in fostering healthier and more fulfilling relationships.

References

• Dailey, R. M., Hampel, S. P., & Roberts, L. J. (2009). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and status. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 471-496.
• Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2013). Relationship churning in emerging adulthood: On/off relationships and sex with an ex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(2), 166-188.
• Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2010). Fighting for your marriage: A deluxe revised edition of the classic best-seller for enhancing marriage and preventing divorce. Jossey-Bass.
• Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348-358.
• Vennum, A., Lindstrom, R., Monk, J. K., & Adams, R. (2014). "It’s complicated": The relationship between romantic relationship ambiguity and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 488-508.
• Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2017). On-again/off-again dating relationships: What keeps partners coming back? Personal Relationships, 14(2), 265-286.