Skip to content
Delete Learn

5.5 When to Walk Away

One of the hardest skills in relationships isn’t starting them or maintaining them. It’s knowing when to end them.

We’re wired to persist. Our brains hate uncertainty. The comfort of the known—even a painful known—often feels safer than the unknown of being single again. Add in genuine love, shared history, and the investment of years, and walking away can feel impossible.

But sometimes walking away is the right choice. Here’s what the research says about distinguishing between relationships worth fighting for and relationships that are already over.

The Sunk Cost Trap

In economics, the sunk cost fallacy is when people continue investing in something because of what they’ve already put in, even when that investment is lost regardless of future decisions.

Relationships are not immune.

Research on investment and commitment found that the sunk cost effect absolutely applies to relationships—but not in the ways you might expect.[1]

Money doesn’t drive sunk cost in relationships. Unlike business decisions, people don’t tie relationship happiness to financial investment. If you’ve spent a lot on shared vacations, that doesn’t make you more likely to stay in a bad relationship.

What does create sunk cost effects:

  • Emotional investment — The vulnerability, disclosure, and effort you’ve put in
  • Self-concept investment — When your identity becomes intertwined with the relationship
  • Future plans — The life you’ve envisioned together, even if you’re not currently happy

Partners may stay in relationships not because of what they’ve invested, but to see planned futures realized—even when current investment has stopped.[1]

A 2016 study confirmed that people are more likely to stay when money and effort (not time) have been invested.[2] Three years together doesn’t create the same commitment as three years of active building together.

The Investment Model

The most robust framework for understanding why people stay comes from Caryl Rusbult’s Investment Model, validated across 52 studies with 11,000 participants.[3]

Three factors determine commitment:

  1. Satisfaction level — Are you happy?
  2. Quality of alternatives — What else is available? (Including being single)
  3. Investment size — What would you lose by leaving?

People stay in unsatisfying relationships when they perceive high investments and poor alternatives. This explains why people remain in objectively harmful relationships: commitment emerges from dependence, not just love.

The model suggests a diagnostic question: Are you committed because you want to be, or because you feel you can’t leave?

The Four Horsemen: 93% Accuracy

John Gottman’s research on marital stability is famous for a reason: he can predict divorce with 93% accuracy based on how couples argue.[4]

The Four Horsemen of relationship apocalypse:

1. Criticism

Not the same as complaints. Complaints target behavior: “You forgot to take out the trash.” Criticism targets character: “You’re so lazy and irresponsible.”

Criticism says: something is wrong with you as a person.

2. Defensiveness

The natural response to criticism—and almost never helpful. Defensiveness is really counter-attack: “I forgot because you overwhelmed me with other tasks.”

Defensiveness says: the problem is you, not me.

3. Contempt

The single strongest predictor of divorce.[4] Contempt is criticism from a position of superiority: eye-rolling, mockery, sneering, hostile humor.

Contempt says: I am better than you.

Research shows contempt is particularly destructive in the first six years of marriage. Couples characterized by contempt even have weaker immune systems—they literally get sick more often.

4. Stonewalling

Checking out. Silent treatment. Physically present but emotionally gone. Usually a response to feeling flooded by conflict.

Stonewalling says: I’m done engaging with you.

When all four are present, the relationship is in crisis. But the presence of any one—especially contempt—is a red flag that demands attention.

Red Flags vs. Rough Patches

Every long-term relationship has difficult periods. The question is: which difficulties are normal, and which signal something fundamentally broken?

Research on dealbreakers across 6,500+ participants identified patterns:[5]

Universal Dealbreakers (Long-Term)

These were the traits most strongly rejected for serious relationships:

  1. Anger issues/abusive behavior — Most important dealbreaker
  2. Dating multiple partners — Fundamental incompatibility
  3. Untrustworthy — Foundation of relationship destroyed

Note what’s not on this list: occasional conflict, temporary unhappiness, external stress, or even some forms of incompatibility.

The Key Distinction

A rough patch is:

  • Situational — Connected to external stressors (job loss, health, family crisis)
  • Temporary — Has a foreseeable end or resolution
  • Mutual — Both partners acknowledge the difficulty and want to work through it
  • Respectful — Fundamental respect remains even during conflict

A red flag is:

  • Characterological — About who your partner is, not what they’re facing
  • Persistent — Pattern that doesn’t change despite discussion
  • One-sided — One partner minimizes, denies, or refuses to address
  • Contemptuous — Respect has eroded or was never there

The Asymmetry of Dealbreakers

Research found that people weigh dealbreakers more negatively than they weigh dealmakers positively—and this effect is stronger for women.[5]

This asymmetry makes evolutionary sense. The cost of staying with a harmful partner is potentially greater than the cost of leaving a good one. Our brains are calibrated for harm avoidance.

If something feels like a dealbreaker to you, trust that instinct. You’re wired to detect it.

The Decision-Making Process

A 2021 study of nearly 1,000 people examined how people actually think about staying versus leaving.[6]

Key finding: The strongest reasons to stay are the mirror of the strongest reasons to leave.

Satisfaction is a reason to stay; dissatisfaction is a reason to leave. Love is a reason to stay; lack of love is a reason to leave.

But some constructs are asymmetric:

Stronger as “leave” reasons:

  • Quality of alternatives
  • Fundamental incompatibility
  • Lack of respect

Stronger as “stay” reasons:

  • Love
  • Investment
  • Hope for change

What this means: Don’t wait for your reasons to leave to equal your reasons to stay. The calculus isn’t balanced. The reasons keeping you in a bad relationship (investment, hope, fear of alternatives) are different in kind from the reasons that signal you should go.

Predictors of Dissolution

A meta-analysis of 137 studies covering 37,761 participants over 33 years identified the strongest predictors of breakup:[7]

The most protective factors (d = .57 to .85):

  • Commitment — Not just love, but decision to maintain
  • Love — Genuine affection and care
  • Inclusion of other in self — Identity intertwining
  • Dependence — Positive reliance (not codependence)

Modest predictors:

  • Satisfaction (lower than you’d expect)
  • Perceived alternatives
  • Investment size

Weak predictors:

  • Attachment styles
  • Personality measures

The surprise: Satisfaction is only a modest predictor of whether couples stay together.[7] Many unhappy couples persist; some happy couples split.

Why? Because satisfaction fluctuates. Commitment is a decision. Couples who survive rough patches have commitment that transcends temporary unhappiness.

When It’s Already Over

A longitudinal review of 115 studies representing over 45,000 marriages found an uncomfortable truth:[8]

When spouses disagree about how happy the marriage is, only marriages where the husband is unhappier than the wife show increased divorce risk.

This asymmetry suggests that men’s dissatisfaction may be a stronger signal of relationship distress—perhaps because men are socialized to express less unhappiness, so when they do, it’s more significant.

Other signals from research:

  • Contempt has become normalized — You or your partner roll eyes, mock, or sneer regularly
  • You’ve stopped turning toward — Bids for connection are ignored or rejected
  • Fundamental values have diverged — Not preferences, but core beliefs about life
  • The ratio is inverted — Negative interactions consistently outweigh positive (healthy ratio is 5:1)
  • You’re relieved when they’re gone — Absence brings peace, not longing

The Other Side

Here’s something reassuring from research on post-breakup growth:[9]

People who ended significant relationships reported, on average, five types of personal growth they believed would improve future relationships.

They felt:

  • More self-confident
  • More independent
  • Stronger
  • More emotionally stable

The caveat: Growth was correlated with accepting some responsibility for what went wrong. People who blamed everything on their ex or on circumstances experienced more distress and less growth.

Walking away—when it’s the right choice—isn’t failure. It’s the recognition that some relationships cannot be fixed, and that staying prevents both people from finding something better.

What This Means for You

If you’re questioning whether to stay or go:

1. Distinguish sunk cost from real reasons

Are you staying because of what you’ve built, or because you still want to build? Investment in the past doesn’t obligate investment in the future.

2. Identify the Four Horsemen

Criticism, defensiveness, contempt, stonewalling. Are they present? How often? Most concerning: Is contempt normalized?

3. Assess the asymmetry

Your reasons to stay (love, history, hope) are fundamentally different from your reasons to leave (incompatibility, disrespect, harm). They don’t need to be equal for leaving to be right.

4. Trust dealbreakers

Research confirms you’re wired to detect them. If something feels like a dealbreaker, it probably is.

5. Get external perspective

People in distressed relationships often can’t see clearly. A therapist, trusted friend, or family member may see patterns you can’t.

Sometimes walking away is the bravest thing you can do—for both of you.

References

  1. Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1639-1652. doi:10.1177/0146167208323743

  2. Rego, S., Arantes, J., & Magalhães, P. (2016). Is there a sunk cost effect in committed relationships? Current Psychology, 37, 508-519. doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9529-9

  3. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37-57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035

  4. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781315806808

  5. Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1697-1711. doi:10.1177/0146167215609064

  6. Machia, L. V., & Ogolsky, B. G. (2021). The reasons people think about staying and leaving their romantic relationships: A mixed-method analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(8), 1279-1293. doi:10.1177/0146167220966903

  7. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377-390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

  8. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

  9. Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 113-128. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00039