The Commitment Calibration Hypothesis: When Do People Devalue Attractive Alternatives?

Abstract

The authors theorized that adversity elicits relationship maintenance responses when level of adversity is calibrated with level of commitment. To test this, the authors examined the commitment-devaluation effect: Those committed to a close relationship are thought to devalue attractive alternatives. Two levels of adversity were operationalized. Participants evaluated an attractive alternative (moderate threat), or participants evaluated the same target after learning that the target was attracted to them (high threat). Unmarried and low on a relationship commitment scale was considered low commitment; unmarried but high or married but low on the scale were considered moderately committed. Finally married and high on the scale was considered high commitment. Under moderate threat, moderately committed rated the alternative as less attractive than those low and high in commitment. Under high threat, those high in commitment rated the alternative as less attractive than those low and moderately committed. Gender differences and comparisons with single people were examined.

Sexually Selective Cognition: Beauty Captures the Mind of the Beholder.

“…This is consistent with research suggesting that men sometimes devalue attractive alternatives to their current romantic partner by judging those alternatives to be less desirable (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;Lydon, Meana, Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman, 1999;Simpson et al, 1990). Future research might profitably explore the different moderating effects of variables such as sociosexuality and relationship commitment, at different stages of cognitive processing.…”

A People-As-Means Approach to Interpersonal Relationships

“…People in a romantic relationship rate alternative partners as less attractive than do single participants (Karremans, Dotch, & Corneille, 2011;Miller & Maner, 2010;Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990). This effect is especially pronounced for people who are strongly (vs. weakly) satisfied with or committed to their current partner (Cole, Trope, & Balcetis, 2016;Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;Lydon et al, 1999;Lydon, Fitzsimons, & Naidoo, 2003; see also Meyer, Berkman, Karremans, & Lieberman, 2011). Another series of studies has demonstrated that People as Means 9 people committed to their partner direct attention away from attractive alternatives (Linardatos & Lydon, 2011;Maner, Gailliot, & Miller, 2009).…”

“…For example, a person can limit his/her appeal or attractiveness to potential partners (Forest, Krueger, & Orehek, 2017;Frankenhuis & Karremans, 2012) and can avoid opportunities to help others progress toward their goals. Preventing alternatives from seeming instrumental can be executed by devaluing alternative partners Lydon et al, 2003;Lydon et al, 1999) and by directing attention away from alternatives (Linardatos & Lydon, 2011;Maner et al, 2009). …”

Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes.

“…Maybe people in more committed relationships are able to gaze at attractive others without incurring negative costs for their relationship, for example. Indeed, according to the commitment calibration hypothesis (Lydon, Meana, Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman, 1999), if the level of adversity is lower than the level of commitment, the relationship is not challenged. Moreover, research has demonstrated that what is threatening in a dating relationship may not be threatening in a marriage, and vice versa.…”