![]() ![]() One early approach to understanding commitment that applied ideas from these broader theories was developed by Johnson (1973). Hence, running through these conceptions was the idea that people stay or leave relationships for reasons additional to their satisfaction in the relationship and their desire to stay. In other words, sometimes people remain in relationships they might rather leave because the barriers to leaving are too great or the alternatives to staying are poor. Of particular relevance for this paper, Levinger (1965) focused on attraction and barrier forces, grounded in an interdependence framework, and Thibaut and Kelley (1959) posited that stability of relationship was not only a function of attraction, but the comparison level for alternatives. These theoretical perspectives have generated a number of studies on the nature and function of commitment (e.g., Kurdek, 1995) as well as more specific theories about the nature of commitment in relationships (see Adams & Jones, 1999). These theoretical systems are concerned with the forces that attract partners, and the personal, interpersonal, and social factors that influence the formation, development, and continuance of relationships. There is great overlap between these two theoretical systems, with interdependence theory growing out of the foundations of exchange theory. The former was developed by social psychologists (e.g., Kelley & Thibaut, 1978 Levinger, 1965 Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and the latter by sociologists and economists (e.g., Cook & Emerson, 1978 Emerson, 1962 Homans, 1958). Most modern views of commitment find their historical roots in interdependence theory or social exchange theories. ![]() More dedication, more material and perceived constraints and less felt constraint were uniquely associated with a higher likelihood of staying together over an eight-month period. Longitudinally, each facet uniquely predicted relationship stability. Cross-sectionally, these four facets of commitment were associated in expected directions with relationship adjustment, as well as perceived likelihood of relationship termination and of marriage. We examined dedication (i.e., interpersonal commitment) as well as three types of constraint commitment: perceived constraints (e.g., social pressure to stay together or difficulty of termination procedures, measured using Stanley and Markman’s (1992) Commitment Inventory), material constraints (e.g., signing a lease, owning a pet), and felt constraint (i.e., feeling trapped). Using a large, national sample of unmarried adults in relationships ( N = 1184), this study examined four aspects of relationship commitment and their associations with relationship adjustment and stability. Many have argued that it is important to examine different aspects of commitment in romantic relationships, but few studies have done so.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |