Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships

Stanley, Scott M.; Markman, Howard J.

doi:10.2307/353245

Cited by 598 publications

(810 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

776

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The constraint subscale assesses commitment based on individuals' perceptions of feeling constrained to stay in a relationship based on internal or external pressures. Coefficient alphas for the constraint and commitment subscaies exceed .90 and correlate substantially (e.g., .85 and .69) with Rusbult's four-item measure of commitment (Stanley & Markman, 1992).…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships.

McCullough¹,

Worthington²,

Rachal³

1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1,130

1,217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpersonal forgiving was conceptualized in the context of a 2-factor motivational system that governs people's responses to interpersonal offenses. Four studies were conducted to examine the extent to which forgiving could be predicted with relationship-level variables such as satisfaction, commitment, and closeness; offense-level variables such as apology and impact of the offense; and social-cognitive variables such as offunder-focused empathy and rumination about the offense. Also described is the development of the transgression-related interpersonal motivations inventory--a self-report measure designed to assess the 2-component motivational system (Avoidance and Revenge) posited to underlie forgiving. The measure demonstrated a variety of desirable psychometric properties, commending its use for future research. As predicted, empathy, apology, rumination, and several indexes of relationship closeness were associated with self-reported forgiving.The concept of forgiving, although not a traditional focus of personality and social psychology, has been of passing theoretical and empirical interest to the discipline for 40 years. In a chapter on benefit and harm in The Psychology oflnterpersonal Relations, Heider (1958) outlined a variety of attributional principles that underlie the quest for revenge after one has incurred an interpersonal transgression. In this context, Heider described forgiving as the forgoing of vengeful behavior, which he posited to be an implicit expression of the victim's self-worth. However,

show abstract

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships.

McCullough¹,

Worthington²,

Rachal³

1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1,130

1,217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Commitment was measured using Stanley and Markman's (1992) measure of commitment, which asked participants to respond to four items on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Example items were "My relationship with my romantic partner is more important to me than almost anything else in my life" and "I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we may encounter".…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religiosity and Relationship Quality of Dating Relationships: Examining Relationship Religiosity as a Mediator

Langlais

Schwanz

2017

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual and romantic partner religiosity are positively associated with marital quality. However, many studies focus on married couples, rather than examining dating relationships, and rely on single-item measures of religiosity. More importantly, few studies have examined the importance of relationship religiosity in the context of dating, despite the theoretical importance of this construct. Relationship religiosity is defined as participating in and discussing religiosity and spirituality with a current romantic partner. The goal of this study is to test relationship religiosity as a mediator between individual and partner religiosity for relationship quality of dating relationships using stringent measures of centrality of religiosity. Data for this study comes from 119 participants who were in dating relationships (74.8% female; mean age: 23.2 years). Participants completed a survey regarding their religiosity, their partners' religiosity, the religiosity of their relationships, and the quality of their dating relationships. Mediation analyses via linear regression showed that relationship religiosity fully mediated the relationship between individual religiosity and relationship satisfaction and fully mediated the relationship between partner religiosity and relationship satisfaction. However, relationship religiosity was not associated with commitment. Results from the study emphasize the importance of dyadic religious activities for dating couples. Further implications will be discussed.

show abstract

“…This in turn will depend on the extent to which partners are fond of each other, but also to the extent that termination of the relationship will be economically, socially and personally costly (cf. Stanley & Markman, 1992). For couples who have built up a stronger "stake" in the relationship, separation will entail stronger repercussions in terms of emotional stability and personal reputation as a "trustworthy" husband, fiancé or parent (cf.…”

Section: Theoretical Starting Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%