Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction?

Authors:

Schoebi, Dominik, ORCID 0000-0003-3991-2712 . Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch  Karney, Benjamin R.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US Bradbury, Thomas N.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US

Address:

Schoebi, Dominik, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch

Source:

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 102(4), Apr, 2012. pp. 729-742.

NLM Title Abbreviation:

J Pers Soc Psychol

Publisher:

US : American Psychological Association

ISSN:

0022-3514 (Print) 1939-1315 (Electronic)

Language:

English

Keywords:

commitment, maintenance, marital interaction, relationships, satisfaction

Abstract:

Although commitment is theoretically distinct from relationship satisfaction, empirical associations between the concepts are high. After drawing from classic definitions of commitment to distinguish between commitment as the desire for a relationship to persist versus the behavioral inclination to maintain the relationship, we predicted that the former component would function much like satisfaction, whereas the latter component would operate independently of satisfaction to stabilize couple relationships. Using satisfaction and commitment data collected over the first 4 years of marriage (N = 172 couples), we demonstrate that only behavioral inclinations to maintain the marriage are related to observed marital interaction behaviors, to reported steps taken toward dissolution, and to 11-year divorce rates, independent of satisfaction. Consistent with dyadic ‘weak-link” conceptions of commitment, likelihood of divorce was found to increase as a function of the lower of the 2 partners’ inclination to maintain the relationship. Commitment may stabilize declining intimate partnerships, particularly when it is conceptualized as the inclination to maintain the relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Document Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

*Commitment; *Interpersonal Interaction; *Marriage; *Relationship Satisfaction

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):

Adult;  Divorce;  Family Conflict;  Female;  Follow-Up Studies;  Humans;  Interpersonal Relations;  Male;  Marriage;  Models, Psychological;  Personal Satisfaction;  Probability;  Problem Solving;  Surveys and Questionnaires;  Time Factors

PsycINFO Classification:

Marriage & Family (2950)

Population:

Human Male Female

Location:

US

Age Group:

Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Tests & Measures:

Quality of Marriage Inventory Marital Status Inventory   DOI: 10.1037/t17909-000

Grant Sponsorship:

Sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number: Grant MH48674 Recipients: Bradbury, Thomas N. Sponsor: Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland Grant Number: Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616 Recipients: Schoebi, Dominik

Methodology:

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Format Covered:

Electronic

Publication Type:

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Publication History:

First Posted: Nov 21, 2011; Accepted: Oct 14, 2011; Revised: Oct 11, 2011; First Submitted: Feb 1, 2011

Release Date:

20111121

Correction Date:

20140414

Copyright:

American Psychological Association. 2011

Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/a0026290

PMID:

22103577

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

psp-102-4-729

Accession Number:

2011-26987-001

Number of Citations in Source:

90

Library Chat

 

Stability and Change in the First 10 Years of Marriage: Does Commitment Confer Benefits Beyond the Effects of Satisfaction?

Contents

1. The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

2. Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

3. Does Commitment Stabilize Marriages? Evidence From Longitudinal Studies

4. Goals of the Present Study

5. Method

6. Participants

7. Procedure

8. Measures

9. Analytic Strategy

10. Results

11. Preliminary Analyses

12. How Are Fluctuations in Commitment Related to Changes in Relationship Satisfaction?

13. Are the Dimensions of Commitment Differentially Associated With Problem-Solving Behavior?

14. Does Commitment Predict Relationship Stability?

15. Discussion

16. Footnotes

17. References

Full Text

By: Dominik Schoebi Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; Benjamin R. Karney Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles Thomas N. Bradbury Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH48674 to Thomas N. Bradbury. Dominik Schoebi’s work was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616.

Arguably the simplest explanation for why a marriage dissolves is that one or both spouses become increasingly dissatisfied, diminishing the quality of couple interaction and prompting a separation or divorce in turn. Meta-analytic findings confirm the link between relationship distress and dissolution, but the magnitude of the association is modest (r ~ .3–.4; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), in part because many unhappy couples remain married. The concept of commitment is often invoked to explain the persistence of these unhappy marriages, under the assumption that relatively committed partners are motivated to continue their relationship for reasons other than their immediate emotional appraisals of the partnership (e.g., Kelley, 1983). A rich literature sheds light on the stabilizing role of commitment in dating relationships (e.g., Arriaga & Agnew, 2001), but the possibility that commitment operates differently in longer term partnerships has led some to call specifically for research on commitment in marriage and on the marital maintenance behaviors that commitment might motivate (e.g., Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). This article responds to this call, using observational and 11-year longitudinal data from newlywed spouses to address two questions that are largely unaddressed in the marital commitment literature: First, does commitment stabilize marriage? Second, does commitment motivate interpersonal behaviors? Because lowered relationship satisfaction provides a more parsimonious explanation for why spouses neglect relationship maintenance and contemplate divorce, we tested whether any effects of commitment on relationship outcomes and processes remain after controlling for spouses’ relationship satisfaction judgments.

The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

 

In an early analysis of marital stability, Levinger (1965, 1976) proposed that the power of commitment derives from its ability to explain why two comparably satisfied or unsatisfied relationships might evolve in different ways: With otherwise equal forces of attraction in material, symbolic, and affectional domains, partners with more barriers to dissolution will be more committed and therefore will be more motivated to communicate better and to invest more energy in getting the relationship back on track when satisfaction dips, thereby experiencing a reduced risk of relationship dissolution (Berscheid, 1998; Lewis & Spanier, 1979). To the extent that the intense, passionate emotions enjoyed by partners early in their relationship give way to companionate love and perhaps disenchantment as a marriage unfolds (Aron, Fisher, & Strong, 2006), understanding how forces other than attractions and satisfaction operate to stabilize intimate relationships emerges as a crucial task.

The broadly influential investment model was developed by Rusbult and colleagues (Rusbult, 1980, 1983) specifically to address the “unjustified persistence” problem, or why people remain involved in relationships that are not particularly satisfying. Building upon Levinger’s ideas and the principles of interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the investment model proposes that an individual depends upon a relationship—that is, an individual comes to need or rely upon a relationship as a source of desired experiences and outcomes—to the extent that he or she derives satisfaction from the relationship, has relatively few alternatives to the relationship, and has invested many resources in the relationship. With growing dependence comes a sense of commitment to the partner and to the relationship, according to the investment model, where commitment is understood to be “the sense of allegiance that is established to the source of one’s dependence” (Rusbult, Coolsen, Kirchner, & Clarke, 2006, p. 618). Note, however, that the investment model characterizes commitment as more than mere dependence upon a relationship, encompassing as well the special bond or attachment that one forms to the partner and the partnership. Dependence and commitment do go hand in hand in the investment model, but whereas dependence is theorized to be a structural property of dyads, commitment is viewed as a psychological state that captures more directly the experience of being in the relationship and being joined to another person within it (Rusbult et al., 2006). In turn, commitment is hypothesized to have two related but crucial downstream effects, first directly influencing how an individual behaves toward his or her partner and second influencing decisions to persist in the relationship. Conceptualized in this way, commitment is assumed to play a pivotal role in relationships, not only reflecting the dependence that arises between two people but also mediating links between the three bases that combine to determine dependence, on the one hand, and key actions likely to promote or curtail relationship development on the other (e.g., Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999). The unjustified persistence problem is therefore resolved by the investment model, in that commitment is rooted in experiences and judgments that extend beyond mere satisfaction; fluctuations in satisfaction therefore can occur without necessarily threatening relationship maintenance behaviors or relationship stability.

This theoretical representation of commitment, particularly the notion that commitment can be understood as the sense of allegiance one feels toward a unique and valued intimate bond, affords the concept a reasonable degree of precision as well as substantial explanatory power in relationship science. At the same time, the investment model provides more specificity with regard to hypothesized antecedents of dependence and commitment than to the means by which commitment affects interpersonal processes and decisions to persist. Although commitment level is assumed to influence a range of relationship maintenance mechanisms (e.g., accommodative behavior, willingness to sacrifice, derogation of alternative partners), the specific nature of these links is acknowledged to be underdeveloped, such that “future research should seek to further explicate the precise processes by which interdependent partners achieve long-term, well functioning relationships” (Rusbult et al., 1999, p. 446). This is an especially important challenge in that partners’ perceptions of pro-relationship maintenance behaviors are assumed to provide the foundation for trust and deepening dependence, a process that has been described as mutual cyclical growth (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999).

A central premise of the current research is that while the breadth of commitment as a concept within the investment model is an obvious asset, its heterogeneity as a concept must be addressed before it can enable fruitful hypotheses linking commitment as a psychological state to particular forms of interpersonal transactions. To the extent that commitment is understood as allegiance to one’s partner and relationship, we believe it is important to note that allegiance (and related concepts such as loyalty, faithfulness, and adherence) does not necessarily carry with it any behavioral efforts toward relationship maintenance. (Indeed, many people legitimately claim true allegiance to a democratic nation, to public broadcasting, to a religious faith, or even to an intimate partner without necessarily engaging in actions such as voting, donating money, praying, or apologizing for misdeeds.) We therefore propose that the concept of commitment can be profitably refined to include one element reflecting a desire for the relationship to persist and a related but distinct element reflecting the inclination to maintain the relationship. Early conceptualizations of the investment model alluded to this sort of distinction—Rusbult (1983, p. 102), for example, observed that “the definition of commitment includes two categories of definition advanced by other authors: behavioral intent and psychological attachment”—but these two elements have been subsumed and conflated in most conceptualizations of commitment. Formalizing a distinction between commitment as an inclination to engage in maintenance behaviors (which we refer to here as IM) and commitment as a longer term orientation (the desire for persistence, or DP) may be particularly important for understanding stability in marriage, as it combines a future-oriented goal or desire with the means by which that goal might be achieved. Three more specific implications of such a distinction are outlined next.

Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

 

One possible advantage to distinguishing IM and DP elements of commitment is that doing so may help clarify recent findings that directly contradict investment model predictions, notably, a lack of association between commitment and marital maintenance behaviors. For example, Tran and Simpson (2009) used Rusbult’s five-item Commitment Scale to examine commitment in relation to 74 married couples’ observed constructive and destructive behaviors during a problem-solving interaction. This research design had the advantage of combining self-report and observational measurements, thus eliminating concerns of shared method variance. Although relatively committed partners would be expected on theoretical grounds to engage in more effective communication, Tran and Simpson found that commitment no longer predicted observed behaviors after controlling for relationship satisfaction. This might be interpreted as a strong challenge to the hypothesis that commitment contributes to relationship maintenance efforts, but distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment suggests an alternate view. Specifically, conceptualizing one dimension of commitment as an inclination to engage in behavioral efforts to maintain one’s relationship might result in commitment predicting relationship maintenance behaviors even after controlling for relationship satisfaction (cf. Finkel et al., 2002). Conceptualizing and assessing commitment in terms of one’s desire for the relationship to continue, in contrast, might overlap considerably with partners’ relationship satisfaction and therefore yield redundant effects.

This observation draws attention to a second possible benefit to distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment, which pertains to vexing measurement concerns. As noted earlier, the conceptual punch gained from the concept of commitment comes from it being distinct from relationship satisfaction. The investment model allows for covariation between satisfaction and commitment—for example, one would expect individuals to be more committed to relationships that are more fulfilling, all else being equal—yet there must be more to commitment than satisfaction if commitment is to operate by stabilizing a relationship that is not as satisfying as it once was. Unfortunately, although commitment is readily distinguished from satisfaction at a theoretical level (and even at an intuitive level: e.g., there are happy spouses who are uncommitted to their relationship and committed spouses who are unhappy with their relationship), measures of the two constructs correlate very highly. A meta-analysis of more than 50 studies and nearly 12,000 subjects found a correlation of .68 between satisfaction and commitment, with some correlations as high as .90 (Le & Agnew, 2003; also see Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). In the face of such correlations, predicting relationship stability from measures of satisfaction and commitment provides limited information about their relative and unique contributions in the underlying model; until this overlap is resolved, the more parsimonious interpretation is that commitment and satisfaction measures tap a single underlying concept.

Compounding this concern is the heterogeneous item content used in measures of commitment. With the widely used five-item Commitment Scale (Rusbult, 1983), participants are asked questions about their expectations for the future of the relationship (“How likely is it you will end your relationship in the near future?”) and about their preferred duration of the relationship (“For what length of time would you like your relationship to last?”). People might want to end their relationship not because they are uncommitted to it but rather because they find it unfulfilling, because the partner has treated them badly, or because they have learned that prior efforts at relationship maintenance have failed. As these alternative interpretations reflect global sentiments toward the relationship, inclusion of these items might account for at least part of the strong observed overlap between commitment and satisfaction. A later seven-item measure of commitment with revised item content again yielded very high correlations with satisfaction (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), suggesting that this problem extends beyond one particular instrument. Here, we adopt the view that testing investment model predictions regarding the relative contributions of satisfaction and commitment to relationship stability is likely to benefit from distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment.