Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements.

A typology of characteristic responses to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships is discussed, and hypotheses concerning the determinants of each category of response are outlined. It is argued that the four primary reactions to relationship decline are exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Three investment model variables (Rusbult, 1980a) should predict the conditions under which each response is most likely to be enacted: (a) the degree of satisfaction with the relationship prior to the emergence of problems, (b) the magnitude of the individual's investment of resources in the relationship, and (c) the quality of the best available alternative to the relationship. Four studies provided generally consistent support for the hypotheses. As predicted, to the extent that prior satisfaction was high, voice and loyalty were more probable, whereas exit and neglect were less probable. Similarly, increases in investment size encouraged voice and loyalty, whereas lower levels of investment appeared to inspire exit or neglect responses. More attractive alternatives promoted exit while hampering loyalist behavior. These results are in agreement with investment model predictions. However, there seemed to be no (or, at best, a weak) relation between alternative quality and voice or neglect reactions to dissatisfacti on. How do individuals respond when they become dissatisfied with their romantic involvements? Under what circumstances are they likely to actively discuss problems, and under what circumstances are they likely simply to end their relationships? When are people likely to react with quiet loyalty, and when do they respond with benign neglect? Social scientists have proffered numerous theories designed to describe the development of romantic relationships (Clore Levinger Murstein, 1976; Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973), but insufficient attention has been given to the phenomenon of relationship decline. Some researchers have explored the impact of a variety of concrete factors (e.g., income, education, age) on specific responses