Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships.

Abstract

On the basis of an interdependence analysis, it is proposed that commitment to a close relationship is associated with cognitive interdependence-a mental state characterized by a pluralistic, collective representation of the self-in-relationship. A cross-sectional survey study and a 2-wave longitudinal study revealed that strong commitment to a romantic relationship is associated with greater spontaneous plural pronoun usage, greater perceived unity of self and partner, and greater reported relationship centrality. Commitment and cognitive interdependence operate in a cycle of mutual influence, such that earlier commitment predicts change over time in cognitive interdependence, and earlier cognitive interdependence predicts change over time in commitment. Links between commitment and cognitive interdependence were weak or nonsignificant for relationships among best friends, suggesting that this phenomenon may be unique to romantic relationships.

Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes.

“…Consistent with this idea, most methods of measuring commitment subscribe to a multiple component view, with some definitions including satisfaction and intrinsic motivation as a basis of commitment (e.g., Rusbult, 1991), and others tapping into more introjected motives (e.g., Frank & Brandstatter, 2002;Johnson, 1991;Lund, 1985). Still other researchers have proposed an identity-based understanding of commitment (e.g., Lydon, 1996), including couple identity and a sense of "we-ness" in their definitions (e.g., Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998;Johnson, 1991), or have conceptualized commitment as a vehicle for fulfilling one's identity goals (e.g., Brickman, 1987;Burke & Reitzes, 1991;Gollwitzer & Kirchhof, 1998;Kanter, 1972;Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982).…”

“…Moreover, other people who read about a relationship that was described using the pronoun we versus she and I rated the relationship as being more close and of higher quality (Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). Indeed, research has shown that participants who use plural pronouns (we, us, our) to describe their romantic relationship are more likely to be committed to that relationship (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998). …”

“…I am not the first to examine how the self is tied to a specific other (e.g., Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998;Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991;Baldwin, 1992;Chen, Boucher, Tapias, 2006;Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). Aron and colleagues, for example, have developed a comprehensive body of work on self-other integration (see Aron et al, 2004, for a review), as measured by the IOS Scale.…”

Organization of Parent Knowledge: Compartmentalization and Integration in Adult Child-Parent Relationships

“…Of particular interest is the role of cognitive organization in relationship strategies (e.g., Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998;Andersen & Cole, 1990;Baldwin, 1992;Neff & Karney, 2004). Specifically, Showers and colleagues (Showers & Kevlyn, 1999; suggest that strategies for organizing positive and negative beliefs about relationship partners affect how individuals think about partners' negative characteristics and behaviors and predict overall attitudes toward partners and relationship outcomes.…”

“…For example, partners may distance themselves emotionally or physically (Vangelisti & Young, 2000) or employ cognitively oriented strategies, such as focusing on positive characteristics and ignoring negative ones (Holmes & Boon, 1990;Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). They may even transform negative behaviors into positive ones (e.g., reinterpreting criticism as dedication to detail; Murray & Holmes, 1993).Of particular interest is the role of cognitive organization in relationship strategies (e.g., Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998;Andersen & Cole, 1990;Baldwin, 1992;Neff & Karney, 2004). Specifically, Showers and colleagues (Showers & Kevlyn, 1999; suggest that strategies for organizing positive and negative beliefs about relationship partners affect how individuals think about partners' negative characteristics and behaviors and predict overall attitudes toward partners and relationship outcomes.…”