The independent contributions of social reward and threat perceptions to romantic commitment.

Abstract

Although separate literatures have emerged on effects of social threats (i.e., rejection and negative evaluation) and rewards (i.e., connection and intimacy) on the process of commitment to a romantic relationship, no research has examined the influence of both simultaneously. Using an attachment framework, we examined the relation of social threats and rewards to investment model constructs (i.e., commitment, satisfaction, investment, quality of alternatives) in 3 studies. Study 1 (N = 533) and Study 2 (N = 866) assessed attachment styles, reward and threat perceptions, and investment model constructs, and data were analyzed using structural equation models. In Study 3 (N = 358), reward and threat perceptions were experimentally manipulated followed by measurement of investment model constructs. Results showed that attachment avoidance was uniquely associated with lower perceptions of reward, whereas attachment anxiety was uniquely associated with stronger perceptions of threat. Stronger reward perceptions were associated with higher commitment, investment, and satisfaction, as well as lower quality of alternatives in all studies. Stronger threat perceptions were associated with lower satisfaction in all 3 studies. Stronger threat perceptions were also correlated with higher levels of investment and commitment, although these effects did not replicate in our experimental study. Thus, perceptions of reward appear unambiguously associated with higher levels of all facets of commitment, whereas perceptions of threat are most strongly associated with lower satisfaction. These results underscore the importance of considering the effects of rewards and threats simultaneously in commitment processes.

Social Anhedonia and Romantic Relationship Processes

“…Attachment avoidance did indeed mediate the anhedonia–commitment relationship. This result supports the perspective that attachment avoidance is the outcome of perceiving both low rewards and high costs to intimacy, with social anhedonia likely increasing avoidance by decreasing perceived rewards (Gere, MacDonald, Joel, Spielmann, & Impett, ; Spielmann, Maxwell, MacDonald, & Baratta, ; Troisi et al, ). Future longitudinal research should examine the extent to which social anhedonia increases attachment insecurity over time via changes in the perceived rewards of intimacy.…”

Revising Working Models Across Time: Relationship Situations That Enhance Attachment Security

“…They also have a lower threshold for experiencing social and physical pain compared to others, become frustrated when others do not acknowledge their needs, and are prone to feeling regret regarding previous relationships (Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor, & Mikulincer, 2013;DeWall et al, 2012;Joel, MacDonald, & Plaks, 2012;MacDonald & Kingsbury 2006;Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993;Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997). These responses elevate their emotional intensity and sense of "drama", as revealed by their tendency to perceive relationship threats (Gere et al, 2013), to over-interpret the significance of daily relationship events (Campbell et al, 2005), and to be more strongly affected by hurtful partner behaviors relative to others .…”

“…In general, people who perceive that they are more committed than is their partner will feel underpowered; they may expend a lot of effort in trying to understand their partner's perspective (Gordon & Chen, 2013). In attachment contexts, individuals who are experiencing anxious thoughts and feelings carefully monitor situations for signs of their partner's commitment, readily perceive relationship threats, overreact to daily interactions by reevaluating their relationship, desire more security when they think of trust, and exhibit more negative affect and behavior relative to less anxious individuals (Bartz & Lydon, 2006;Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005;Collins, 1996;Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006;Gere, MacDonald, Joel, Spielmann, & Impett, 2013;Mikulincer, 1998;Pierce & Lydon, 1998;Simpson et al, 1996;Snapp, Lento, Ryu, Rosen, 2014). Although virtually all individuals prioritize trust in relationships, chronically anxious individuals prioritize intimacy to a much greater extent than do others (Ren, Arriaga, & Mahan, in press).…”

Attachment insecurity and perceived importance of relational features

“…As such, we included a measure to assess participants' evaluations of the four key features of their current relationships. Previous literature (Gere, MacDonald, Joel, Spielmann, & Impett, 2013) has suggested that anxiously attached individuals do not actually experience greater intimacy than do secure individuals. Consistent with this, we predicted that insecure individuals' personal importance rankings may not necessarily match their actual current experiences.…”