Pathways of Commitment to Wed: The Development and Dissolution of Romantic Relationships

• Author: J. Kale Monk,Catherine A. Surra,Brian G. Ogolsky
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12260
• Date: 01 April 2016
• Published date: 01 April 2016

B G. O University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

C A. S The Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg∗

J. K M University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign∗∗

Pathways of Commitment to Wed: The Development

and Dissolution of Romantic Relationships

The authors used changes in commitment to

wed and reasons for these changes to clas-

sify couples into developmental pathways. Using

data from a random sample of dating cou-

ples (N=376), they found 4 distinct commit-

ment processes: (a) dramatic,(b) conict ridden,

(c) socially involved, and (d) partner focused.

Dramatic commitments were dened by rela-

tively frequent uctuations in commitment and

negative attributions about their relationships.

Conict-ridden commitments were dened by

high levels of conict and relatively frequent

decreases in commitment. Individuals in socially

involved commitments reported the highest pro-

portion of positive dyadic attributions and refer-

ences to joint interaction with social networks.

Those in partner-focused commitments reported

a high proportion of positive dyadic attribu-

tions and referencesto interaction with partners.

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 904W.

Nevada St., MC-081, Urbana, IL 61801

(bogolsky@illinois.edu).

∗School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, W319

Olmsted Building, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, The

Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg,Middletown,

PA 17057.

∗∗Department of Human Development and Family Studies,

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 904W.

Nevada St., MC-081, Urbana, IL 61801.

KeyWords: commitment, dissolution, satisfaction, love, mate

selection.

Types also differed on important relational vari-

ables, including satisfaction, love, ambivalence,

worries about marriage, and leisure. Dramatic

commitments were more likely than any other

type to break up and showed an increased likeli-

hood of regression in stage of involvement.

The question of why some relationships progress

toward marriage whereas others falter is at the

core of relationship science. The answer to

this question lies in the study of commit-

ment processes, and past work has shown that

developmental pathways toward marriage vary

considerably across couples (e.g., Surra, 1985).

Assessing this variability in early relationship

development is important because premari-

tal characteristics of the relationship predict

outcomes in later marriages (e.g., Clements,

Stanley, & Markman, 2004).

Currently, however, much of the research

on dating couples assumes that the manner in

which relationships are formed is similar across

individuals; that is, the focus is on the aver-

age individual or couple, which produces a

single explanation for behavior by aggregating

multiple responses into one way of being. For

example, evolutionary perspectives assume that

ideal mate preferences guide the selection of

romantic partners. Although specic mate pref-

erences differ across sexes as a function of dif-

ferent reproductive strategies,the mechanism for

selecting partners is universal (although there

Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (April 2016): 293–310 293

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12260

294 Journal of Marriage and Family

may be some cross-cultural variation; see Buss

et al., 1990). Likewise, early compatibility the-

ories (e.g., Murstein, 1970) posit that partners

possess preferences for potential partners. Care-

ful consideration of the compatibility between

traits possessed by the self and the potential part-

ner, however, underlies the formation of roman-

tic relationships. The specic preferences and

desired compatibility may differ across individ-

uals, but the underlying process is assumed to be

the same for all individuals.

Although much is gained by focusing on aver-

ages or universal theories, the assumption that

responses from different individuals represent

a single developmental process is not always

tenable because multiple pathways to the same

outcome may exist. Thus, in this study we clas-

sied people into meaningful groups according

to perceptions of how and why commitment to

wed developed in their relationships and exam-

ined whether constructs from different theories

predict unique patterns of development and rela-

tionship outcomes. The purposes of this study

were threefold: (a) to develop a typology of dat-

ing individuals, (b) to test how different theories

explain the diverse relationship types, and (c)

to examine whether the new typology predicts

relevant dating outcomes (e.g., breakup).

T D  C  W

According to the investment model, commit-

ment represents one’s attachment to and inten-

tion to continue a relationship and results from

higher levels of satisfaction, more investments,

and lower quality alternatives (Rusbult, 1980).

The investment model posits that commitment

has three distinct components. The rst compo-

nent, psychological attachment, is the affective

bond that enables partners to grow connected.

Second is long-term orientation, a cognitive

component encompassed by the belief that the

relationship will continue into the future. Third

and last is intention to persist, the motivational

component that moves relationships forward.

Although these components have been hypothe-

sized to comprise commitment, they operate dif-

ferently across different types of relationships.

In dating couples, long-term orientation alone

predicts relationship quality (Arriaga & Agnew,

2001), and stability in long-term expectations

of relationship quality (compared to uctuation)

was the strongest predictor of relationship stabil-

ity (Arriaga, 2001). These motives differ from

those of married couples in that the motiva-

tional intention to persist predicts lower levels of

divorce above other components of commitment

(Schoebi, Karney,& Bradbury, 2012). Thus, dat-

ing and married couples have divergent commit-

ment experiences, and future expectations are

more fundamental for daters. In addition, Surra,

Hughes, and Jacquet (1999) argued that com-

mitment is studied most effectively by focus-

ing on predictions about future involvement. We

were interested in individuals’ predictions about

the likelihood of developing a particular kind of

relationship, a marital relationship, and thus we

adopted Surra and Hughes’s (1997) term com-

mitment to wed, which is the likelihood that a

dating relationship will result in marriage.

Although little work has attempted to dis-

tinguish global commitment from commitment

to wed, the latter is likely to be distinct from

global commitment and other relational con-

structs (e.g., relationship satisfaction) because

of the increased structural constraints (e.g.,

investments) that are apt to affect the decision

to marry. According to commitment theory,

dating partners have fewer social and legal

boundaries conning them to relationships than

married partners (see Johnson, 1999; Stanley &

Markman, 1992). As a result, thoughts about

the future of the relationship may be more

prominent among dating partners than mar-

ried partners in stable relationships, and such

thoughts convey assurances about the future

(Stafford & Canary, 1991). For example, Surra

and Gray (2000) found that dating partners

reported numerous changes in commitment to

wed, which were attributed to interactions and

beliefs about the future of the relationship.

According to Arriaga (2001), “There is much

to be gained by examining unique patterns of

change over time, patterns that would not be

captured by conventional measures” (p. 763).

For example, in committed relationships com-

mitment may plateau at a high level and remain

stable for the long term. In less committed rela-

tionships, however, commitment may remain at

a low level or may reach high levels, but uc-

tuate dramatically over time (Surra & Hughes,

1997). Thus, measuring commitment at only one

point in time may misrepresent the true level of

commitment by creating an illusion of stability

(Ogolsky, 2009) and may not account for insta-

bility that may be present in tempestuous rela-

tionships. Moreover, because we were interested

in creating a developmental typology, it was