Wikipedia

User:ESSH18/sandbox

Commitment in romantic relationships

edit

Romantic relationships are defined as the intention to commit to a relationship for a prolonged period [1]. Commitment consists of three positive but separate components: a cognitive component portraying long-term orientation for the relationship, a cognitive component representing the intention to persist in the relationship, and an affective component portraying psychological attachment[2]. Relationship commitment refers to the emotional and psychological dedication to sustain a long-term connection with a partner. A committed relationship is characterised by love, honesty and loyalty and implies the intention to remain together by nurturing the relationship through challenges and prioritising the relationship itself. Romantic relationships are deeply rooted by emotional bonds and properties of love [3] and aspects of commitment between two people underpin the formation of a long-term devotion[4]. Commitment has been postulated as a function to keep relationships secure in a society where nearly 40% of emerging adults report one or more breakup over a 20 month period [5].

Theoretical approaches, such as the interdependence theory, propose that commitment within a romantic relationship focuses on the importance of mutual influence and shared investments in long-term romantic bonds. This model has been expressed through the notion of the investment model of commitment, which suggests elements of satisfaction and investment foster strong commitment. According to Stanleys theory of commitment, the two components; dedication and constraint commitment infer the likelihood of a relationship either blossoming or failing, such as constraints including possible endings of relationships (such as financial consequences) which reinforce staying in a relationship, even when satisfaction wanes [6].

Levels of commitment may evolve overtime due to the influence of factors such as relationship satisfaction [7]. The nature and expression of commitment in romantic relationships are notably influenced by cultural norms and religious beliefs [8]. Across alternating societies, different expectations around marriage, cohabitation, and fidelity shape how individuals approach romantic commitment.

Theoretical approaches

edit

The Interdependence theory

edit

The interdependence theory expresses that interpersonal relationships occur through interpersonal interdependence, indicating that people influence one another's experience [9]. This theory was pioneered by the work of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959) [10], whom expressed the impact interactions have when shaping each others outcomes. The principles of this theory is summarised through the equation I = ƒ[A, B, S], which states that all interpersonal interactions (I) are a concern (ƒ) of the situation (S) as well as the actions and characteristics of the individuals (A & B) in the connection[11]. This theory is concerned with the structure of interdependence between two individuals and balancing reward and cost effects to analyse interaction preferences. The rewards of a relationships are coined as 'pleasures, satisfactions and gratifications the person enjoys' whereas the costs of relationships are defined as 'factors that operate to inhibit or deter the performance of behaviour[12]. However, preferences reflect more than the primitive pursuit of direct influence, as they are shaped by broader considerations such as a concern for a partners outcomes and goals[13]. This theory suggests that sustaining commitment in a romantic relationship is influenced by a persons perception of how rewarding the relationship is. For example, a high level of satisfaction, low perception of superior alternatives, and significant contributions tend to increase commitment, making individuals more likely to invest in maintaining the relationship[14]. Nonetheless, the interdependence model cannot explain all situations as to why individuals stay in relationships, such as abusive relationships [15]. The simplification of relationship dynamics within this theory often ignores the complexity of romance such as conflict and desire, and therefore future research into this theory should examine all aspects of commitment.

The investment model of commitment

edit

Caryl E. Rusbult produced the predictive psychological framework named the investment model which extends on the work of the interdependence theory. It allows for the prediction of characteristics within relationships, by asserting that the state of dependence is subjectively represented and experienced as feelings of commitment[16]. The three factors of this model are satisfaction, investment and comparison with alternatives. Aforementioned, individuals feel more satisfied when their relationships provide valued outcomes which fulfil needs. The investment model has advanced the applications of the interdependence theory by the additional third factor of 'investment size'. The components of investment size within this model suggests that there are are a variety of ways in which individuals become bound to their relationship such as time or emotional energy. According to Reis & Shaver (1988) when an individual allows their partner to access his or hers deepest emotional experiences and the partner answers in an affirming fashion, a deep rooted bound to one another occurs. Cognitive interdependence is another source of investment, as partners may come to think as a unit, which is characterised by a greater inclusion of partners into more positive thoughts about the relationship and viewing the relationship as a central to ones life[17].

Ultimately, an individuals decision to stay or terminate a relationship is mediated by feelings of commitment, as it summarises the nature of an individuals dependence on a partner. Empirical tests of the investment model consistently portrayed that commitment level is positively correlated with satisfaction and investment in a relationship [18]. All three factors are necessary to understand commitment. An analysis of the longitudinal study of ongoing dating relationships by Rusbult (1983) portrayed that changes in feelings overtime were associated with corresponding changes in feelings of commitment. Increased commitment was related to increasing satisfaction, declining alternatives and increasing investments.

Though the investment model has shown to predict the contributing factors to commitment in long term relationships, elements such as attachment style, conscientiousness and agreeableness are not directly measured by this model[19]. These dispositional factors indirectly influence the effects of commitment in romantic relationships and developing this model would contribute to an outcome of results that measure in depth aspects of commitment in a long term relationship.

Commitment Inventory

edit

The commitment inventory theoretically underpins the notion of commitment in romantic relationships. Stanley and Markman (1992) [20] based this theory on two main components of commitment; dedication and constraint. Dedication refers to the intrinsic desire to be with ones partner, encompassing couple identity by having a long-term view of the relationship and making it a priority. However, constraint commitment describes the characteristics of ones relationship that makes it difficult to break up, for example financial investments or social pressure to stay together [21]. This inventory consists of 36 dedication items and 69 constraint items, each representing six sub scales and have demonstrated good internal consistency in terms of Cronbachs alpha. Research of the commitment inventory has shown to be a viable measurement for global religiosity in terms of dedication [22].

Sociological concepts

edit
 
Icons of various religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Religion

edit

In recent years, religion has become an increasing important factor in romantic relationships, as couples seek shared spiritual values that can strengthen the longevity of a relationship [23]. Many religions stress the sanctity of lifelong commitment whereby romantic relationships are viewed as sacred convents. Religious teachings underscore values such as loyalty and mutual respect, contributing to the stability of romantic partnerships and the vow of commitment [24]. Commitment within religious contexts often transcends personal desires and is defined as a divine obligation to encourage partners to work through challenges like conflict [25]. Religious views of commitment are often examined through the institution of marriage, viewed as both a personal pledge and a devotion to another individual. For example, in Islam the concept of nikah (marriage) is seen as a "mutual obligation" where both partners are expected to uphold religious duties of respect [26]. Furthermore, in Christianity, marriage is seen as a sacred convent between partners but also God, emphasising a pursuit of lifelong unity and enduring commitment. The work of David and Stafford (2015) [27]emphasised the bond between religion and spirituality, with this study revealing that a connection with God determines the quality of a spousal relation and commitment to one another.

However, issues with religious beliefs can hinder commitment in relationships. Differing interpretations of faith or a change in one partner’s level of religious devotion, can lead to unmet spiritual needs. Despite a large body of research being conducted on religion and commitment within marital satisfaction [28], the controlling of couples religious beliefs rarely occurs. Future research should explore the influence of religiosity affiliation in various religions to deconstruct different factors that may affect commitment [29]. This will help comprehend the collaboration of religious beliefs and commitment in romantic relationships [30].

 
Love is universal

Culture

edit

Commitment in romantic relationships can vary within cultures, shaped through traditions, expectations and societal values. Cultural norms can affect how commitment is expressed. Jalali (2023) further proposed culture as providing considerable growth in commitment between partners, enabling relationships to excel. Cultures with traditional views on marriage may see commitment as a moral obligation but egalitarian cultures may view romantic commitment as more fluid [31]. Whilst love is universal, its development and expression in romantic relationships differs depending on whether the culture emphasises independence or interdependence on the self [32].

Individualistic
edit

Individualistic culture accentuate the prioritisation of the individual over an entire group. In western cultures, such as the US, individualistic cultures view romantic relationships as a prominent basis for marriage and marital satisfaction [33]. In the US, love is highly concentrated within the dyad, ignoring emotional bonds [34]and therefore the foundations of commitment are not cemented. Research states that in the US, a romantic relationship is not often recognised as long-term commitment. A study conducted by Lin and Rusbult discovered that Americans tended to report weaker commitment of interdependence with their partners[35]. As the Western culture values attributes to the self, processes of commitment within romantic relationships may be harder to navigate, as prioritisation of own goals over the stability of long-term relationships often occurs. The economist, Robert Rowthorn, concluded that a decrease in societal views of lifelong commitment has occurred when examining individuals in Louisiana, who were offered alternate types of marriage such as "covenant marriage" [36]. This marriage shows that individuals have to agree to higher entry and exit costs.

Collectivist
edit

Collectivist cultures involve belonging to the in-group and favour a focus on a 'we' identity [37]. Dependence prevails in collectivist cultures, whereby an individuals support network consists of both ones intimate relationships but also ones in-group [38]. Research shows that in China, the term "romantic relationship" contains elements of long-term commitment, where Chinese culture considers obligations to parents and family when searching for love in a mate [39]. Parental involvement in selection of marital partner is greater in collectivist cultures [40], where harmony and belonging within a relationship is endorsed. Thus, collectivism promotes security and positive regard from a romantic partner, whereby commitment is valued as it ensures stability and continuity, crucial for maintaining strong romantic relationships.

Applications

edit

The applications of commitment in romantic relationships have been explored through many aspects of life, as it promotes dedication, resilience and long-term partnership to enhance personal growth and family dynamics. Researching the topic of marriage in terms of commitment fills a critical gap in the broader field of relationship science.

 
A couple of 14-carat gold wedding rings.

Marriage

edit

The foundational element of marriage is the devotion and commitment one gives to their partner. Lifetime commitment is one of the most valued amongst 10 characteristics in marital satisfaction[41]. Research portrays that the nature of commitment in marriage is established between two differing aspects. Firstly, a legal commitment within marriage is applied, entailing a legal enforceable contract to protect against the risk of joint investments [42]. Secondly, marriage also implies an interpersonal commitment between two individuals, as it signals a 'long-term horizon'[43]. Surra and Hughes termed the idea of commitment in marriage as "commitment to wed," implying the likelihood of a dating relationship ending in marriage [44]. Empirical findings have shown that higher levels of marital commitment are associated with higher levels of marital satisfaction [45]. Extensive research has interpreted that couples with lower commitment have more thoughts about relationship alternatives and become more reactive to negative behaviour from their partners [46].

  1. ^ Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A Conceptual Structure and Empirical Application. Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00868.x
  2. ^ Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being Committed: Affective, Cognitive, and Conative Components of Relationship Commitment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011
  3. ^ Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of close relationships. Oxford University Press.
  4. ^ Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x
  5. ^ RHOADES, G. K., KAMP DUSH, C. M., ATKINS, D. C., STANLEY, S. M., & MARKMAN, H. J. (2011). Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: The Impact of Unmarried Relationship Dissolution on Mental Health and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023627
  6. ^ Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245
  7. ^ Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Langston, C. A., & Insko, C. A. (1998). Cognitive Interdependence: Commitment and the Mental Representation of Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
  8. ^ Rokach, A. (2024). Love Culturally: How Does Culture Affect Intimacy, Commitment & Love. The Journal of Psychology, 158(1), 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2023.2244129
  9. ^ Lange, P. A. M. V., Kruglanski, A. W., Higgins, E. T., Higgins, E. T., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2011). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222
  10. ^ Saloshin, H. E. (1961). The Social Psychology of Groups. By John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. 313 pp. $7.00 [Review of The Social Psychology of Groups. By John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. 313 pp. $7.00]. Social Work, 6(1), 123–124. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/6.1.123
  11. ^ M., P. A., & Lange, V. (2012, October 12). A history of interdependence: Theory and research: 19: Handbook of T. Taylor & Francis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203808498-19/history-interdependence-theory-research-paul-van-lange
  12. ^ Saloshin, H. E. (1961). The Social Psychology of Groups. By John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. 313 pp. $7.00 [Review of The Social Psychology of Groups. By John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. 313 pp. $7.00]. Social Work, 6(1), 123–124. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/6.1.123
  13. ^ Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An Interdependence Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202
  14. ^ Holmes, J. G. (2020). The Structure of Interdependence Shapes Social Cognition in Relationships. In Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships (pp. 37–49). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108645836.003
  15. ^ Heron, R. L., Eisma, M., & Browne, K. (2022). Why Do Female Domestic Violence Victims Remain in or Leave Abusive Relationships? A Qualitative Study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(5), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2019154
  16. ^ Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An Interdependence Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202
  17. ^ Davis, B. A., & Weigel, D. J. (2020). Cognitive interdependence and the everyday expression of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 1008–1029. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519884640
  18. ^ Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and Commitment in Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v12n02_01
  19. ^ Moore, K. A., & Campbell, A. (2020). The Investment Model: Its Antecedents and Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of Relationships Research, 11. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2020.15
  20. ^ Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245
  21. ^ Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics and Use With Unmarried Couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6), 820–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10385788
  22. ^ Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-engagement Cohabitation and Gender Asymmetry in Marital Commitment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.553
  23. ^ De la Torre, R., Gutiérrez, C., & Hernández, A. (2020). Religious reconfiguration in Mexico: Beliefs and Practices National Survey, 2016. Social Compass, 67(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037768620922122
  24. ^ Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2011). Should I Keep Trying To Work It Out? Sacred and Secular Perspectives on the Crossroads of Divorce. Brigham Young University Studies (1959), 50(2), 143–157.
  25. ^ Pargament, K. I., & Lomax, J. W. (2013). Understanding and addressing religion among people with mental illness. World Psychiatry, 12(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20005
  26. ^ Ahmad, M. A. (2018). The importance of marriage in Islam. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 6(11), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i11.2018.1082
  27. ^ David, P., & Stafford, L. (2015). A Relational Approach to Religion and Spirituality in Marriage: The Role of Couples’ Religious Communication in Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13485922
  28. ^ Chan, H.-W., & Tam, K.-P. (2021). Do people’s assumptions about the social world matter? The effects of social axioms on environmental attitude and efficacy beliefs. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101598-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101598
  29. ^ Aman, J., Abbas, J., Lela, U., & Shi, G. (2021). Religious Affiliation, Daily Spirituals, and Private Religious Factors Promote Marital Commitment Among Married Couples: Does Religiosity Help People Amid the COVID-19 Crisis? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 657400-. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.657400
  30. ^ Erratum: Zimmer et al. (2016). (2017). Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 5(1), 177-. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2017-0031
  31. ^ Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across Cultures: A Meta-Analytical Approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339–1358. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.14
  32. ^ Rokach, A. (2024). Love Culturally: How Does Culture Affect Intimacy, Commitment & Love. The Journal of Psychology, 158(1), 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2023.2244129
  33. ^ Park, J., Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2016). Cultural variation in implicit independence: An extension of Kitayama et al. (). International Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12157
  34. ^ Sprecher, S. (1988). The Psychology of Love [Review of The Psychology of Love]. Contemporary Sociology, 17(6), 828–829. American Sociological Association. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073631
  35. ^ Lin, Y.-H. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to Dating Relationships and Cross-Sex Friendships in America and China. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595121002
  36. ^ Rowthorn, R., Rowthorn, R., & Dnes, A. W. (2002). Marriage as a signal. In The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce (pp. 132–156). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495328.008
  37. ^ Gladwin, T. N. (1981). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related ValuesHofstedeGeert. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980, 76 pp., $29.95. The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 681–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285738
  38. ^ Sprecher, S. (1988). The Psychology of Love [Review of The Psychology of Love]. Contemporary Sociology, 17(6), 828–829. American Sociological Association. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073631
  39. ^ Gao, G. (2001). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in Chinese and US American romantic relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00007-4
  40. ^ Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2010). Cultural Variation in Parental Influence on Mate Choice. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109337711
  41. ^ Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie, J. A. (2004). The Relationship Between Marital Characteristics, Marital Interaction Processes, and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00286.x
  42. ^ Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312249906400302
  43. ^ Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245
  44. ^ Surra, C. A., & Hughes, D. K. (1997). Commitment Processes in Accounts of the Development of Premarital Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/353658
  45. ^ Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie, J. A. (2004). The Relationship Between Marital Characteristics, Marital Interaction Processes, and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00286.x
  46. ^ ARRIAGA, X. B., SLAUGHTERBECK, E. S., CAPEZZA, N. M., & HMUROVIC, J. L. (2007). From bad to worse: Relationship commitment and vulnerability to partner imperfections. Personal Relationships, 14(3), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00162.x
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ESSH18/sandbox&oldid=1262497602"
  NODES
eth 4
see 4
Story 2