From bad to worse: Relationship commitment and vulnerability to partner imperfections

Abstract

Having a satisfying romantic relationship is not always feasible, particularly as one discovers less‐than‐perfect partner characteristics. It is suggested that less committed couple members are more vulnerable to negative partner characteristics than are highly committed couple members. Forty‐one dating couples individually indicated their commitment level, were randomly assigned to receive positive‐ or negative‐false feedback about the partner’s personality, and indicated their postmanipulation satisfaction and uncertainty levels. Negative partner feedback affected the satisfaction of less committed but not highly committed individuals. Feeling uncertain about the relationship mediated less committed couple members’ increased vulnerability to negative partner information. The association between uncertainty and commitment was curvilinear and stronger under conditions of relationship threat. Self‐esteem did not predict responses to threat.

Curiosity Protects Against Interpersonal Aggression: Cross‐Sectional, Daily Process, and Behavioral Evidence

“…Prior research has shown that there is a downside to healthy processes in lengthy romantic relationships: as people remain in stable romantic relationships for long periods of time, there is an increased prevalence of boredom (Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, ) and aggression (Arriaga, Slaughterbeck, Capezza, & Hmurovic, ). Our results extend this work, showing that aggression was less likely in briefer romantic relationships (of months rather than years), and being a curious person was associated with even less aggression in these fledgling romantic relationships.…”

Market value, quality of the pool of potential mates, and singles' confidence about marrying

“…To assess people's beliefs about their likelihood of obtaining a partner who meets their criteria for a spouse, participants rated their chances of securing an acceptable marriage partner on a 5‐point response scale (1 = no chance, 2 = a little chance, 3 = a 50/50chance, 4 = a pretty good chance, 5 = analmost certain chance ). Specifically, individuals responded to the question: “Thinking of the qualities that you consider absolutely necessary or desirable in a mate, how likely is it that you will find a suitable partner to marry?” Although single‐item measures are not ideal, such measures are parsimonious and have been used successfully by other researchers to assess beliefs about future marital behavior (e.g., Arriaga, Slaughterbeck, Capezza, & Hmurovic, 2007; Surra & Hughes, 1997).…”

With partners like you, who needs strangers? Ostracism involving a romantic partner

“…Simply knowing that a partner is involved in an interaction may prime a sense of belonging (Aron et al, ) and security (Karremans et al, ). Individuals who derive security from a partner (Murray & Holmes, ) or who feel a strong relational bond (Arriaga, Slaughterbeck, Capezza, & Hmurovic, ) are relatively immune to relationship threats, and even compensate for costly interactions (Murray et al, ). This suggests a modest or no decline in immediate needs being met when a partner is involved in an ostracism event (i.e., the difference in needs being met may be smaller when a partner is involved vs. absent).…”

“…We predicted that being ostracized (vs. included) by a partner would cause more negative relationship evaluations, relative to the effect of ostracism among strangers. Given the resilience of committed individuals when confronted with relationship threats, we also examined whether highly committed individuals would be immune to the effects of partner ostracism on relationship evaluations (Arriaga et al, ; Murray et al, ; i.e., whether high commitment moderates the negative effect of ostracism when a partner is involved in the interaction).…”