At some point, many relationships meet the same sentence: “We’re going to get married anyway.” Perhaps it’s said as a joke at first. Then one day, the families meet. At a dinner, everyone sizes each other up, conversations are had, and small hints about the future float in the air. From that moment on, the relationship moves to an invisible level. You are no longer just two people. Families, plans, and expectations have entered the relationship. After a while, sentences like “we’ll get married in two years” become normalized. Sometimes only one side says it, but the other side is eventually drawn into this narrative. This is exactly where small things in the relationship might start to change. Arguments become slightly more frequent; certain behaviors no longer feel as good as they used to. Yet, the possibility of a breakup is often not even considered. Because that relationship is no longer just a bond between two people; it is a constructed future plan. Is it really love that holds us back, or is marriage simply the “next task” on the list?
The Invisible Timer: Social Clock and The Rhythm Of Society
The pressure to move a relationship to the next stage stems not only from the inner world of the partners but also from the concept of the Social Clock, as defined by Neugarten (1976). The social clock is a set of shared expectations in a society regarding “when” specific life events (marriage, having children, career milestones) should occur. If individuals see others in their age group checking these “boxes” one by one, they feel a synchronization disorder between their internal clock and the society’s clock.
At this point, marriage turns into a final task to pass the “adulthood exam” rather than a romantic union. Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) explain this as an individual’s effort to gain social acceptance by conforming to societal norms. To avoid falling behind that imaginary calendar and to silence the “it’s time” feeling, the individual ignores structural flaws in the relationship. Ultimately, breaking up means not just losing a partner, but “falling behind” one more year in the success calendar determined by society.
A Prison Of Consistency: Social Proof and The Fear Of Backing Down
Once families meet and sentences like “we’ll marry in two years” are established, the relationship is no longer a bond lived behind closed doors; it becomes publicized. At this point, a massive pressure of social proof is placed on the individual. According to Cialdini (2001), when we announce a decision to our surroundings, we feel an internal and external obligation to stick to that decision. In society, appearing “true to one’s word” and “decisive” is seen as far more valuable than appearing inconsistent.
Breaking up is not just a farewell; it is an admission to family and friends: “I was wrong, I invested in the wrong person.” According to the Self-Verification theory proposed by Swann (1983), people tend to prove the correctness of their choices and judgment skills. This prevents the individual from seeing major reasons for a breakup in their partner; because accepting those flaws feels like a betrayal of one’s own intelligence and life choices. Consequently, the individual chooses to stick to a miserable future plan rather than experience the social shame of being proven wrong.
Sunk Cost Fallacy: Should All This Effort Go To Waste?
As the relationship evolves into a concrete future promise like marriage, it’s not just emotions that are on the table. Years of shared experiences, bonds formed by families, and even household items bought for the future turn into massive investments in our minds. Arkes and Blumer (1985) explain this as the “Sunk Cost Fallacy.” According to this theory, as the investment (time, effort, money) in a project or relationship increases, individuals continue on that path even if they are unhappy, simply because they refuse to accept the loss of that investment.
At this point, Rusbult’s (1980) Investment Model comes into play, arguing that commitment does not come only from satisfaction; the size of the investment makes a breakup feel like a “bankruptcy.” The individual falls prey to the “Loss Aversion” drive, thinking, “If I break up now, the last five years will go to waste” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The mind codes staying in a familiar but unhappy order as a more “economical” choice than searching for a new and uncertain happiness.
Cognitive Dissonance and Mental Illusion: “We Are Perfect, The Problem Is Me!”
When a relationship enters that “point of no return” on the road to marriage, major flaws or incompatibilities displayed by the partner create unbearable tension in the mind. Festinger (1957) defines this as “Cognitive Dissonance.” The individual falls into a massive gap between the belief “I am a smart and selective person” and the reality “I am marrying the wrong person.” The mind begins to bend reality to resolve this painful tension. Either they will break up—which means facing all those social and emotional costs—or they will adjust their beliefs to fit the reality.
At this point, the individual reconstructs the partner and the relationship through the mechanism of Idealization. Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) explain this as “Positive Illusions,” but the situation here is more jarring. Instead of accepting the obvious problem (indifference, disrespect, or incompatibility), the individual shifts the blame onto themselves: “Actually, our relationship is perfect; I’m just too fussy, I examine everything under a magnifying glass.” The individual sabotages their own perceptions to justify the marriage decision and convinces their mind by attributing their unhappiness to their “perfectionist personality.” Thus, major reasons for a breakup are transformed into “personal obsessions” through a mental operation.
Conclusion: Stopping The Self-Betrayal
In conclusion, this journey we embark on by saying “marriage is the next task” eventually turns into a process where we cling to our own illusions more than our partners. The fear of loss brought by the investment model, the time pressure created by the social clock, and the effort to appear consistent build insurmountable walls around our minds. Sabotaging our own perception and seeing our partner’s flaws as our own “delusions” may seem like the easiest way to protect the established order at that moment. However, what we sacrifice to suppress the cognitive dissonance noted by Festinger (1957) is actually our own reality and our future peace.
Breaking up is not just leaving a person, a plan, or family expectations behind. Breaking up is sometimes showing the courage to admit we were wrong and risking an “incomplete” mark on that imaginary “adulthood report card.” It should be remembered that being “flawed but free” in your own truth is a much stronger guarantee of long-term mental health than appearing “perfect” in a script written by others. We are the ones who lock the door; but the key is always in our hands the moment we stop betraying our own voice.
References
-
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
-
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
-
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102(2), 284-304.
-
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
-
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79-98.
-
Neugarten, B. L. (1976). Adaptation and the life cycle. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(1), 16-20.
-
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
-
Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.