ICPR Abstracts: Session 23

---

Session 23: Symposium

Critical Thinking About the Construct of Commitment

Debra K. Hughes
Miami University
J. Adams,
University of Tennessee
Michael Johnson,
Pennsylvania State University
John Lydon, McGill University
George Levinger (discussant)
University of Massachusetts


Over the course of the last three decades, scholarly 
knowledge about the construct of commitment has 
increased through active theory-building and theory-
testing.  The resulting information about commitment 
processes in close relationships provides fertile ground for 
critical thinking about the construct and evaluation of its 
measurement.  There is a growing consensus among 
researchers that commitment is a multidimensional 
experience that motivates individuals to either stay with or 
leave a relationship.  What has consumed those studying 
commitment in the recent past is the measurement of this 
multidimensional perspective.  Additionally, commitment 
scholars are beginning to examine critically the differences 
between what predicts commitment from what it is.
        The proposed symposium combines a discussion 
of these underlying theoretical concerns with the 
presentation of studies that lend more information about 
the specific forces at work in binding people together.  
One of the main purposes of the symposium is to highlight 
the individual studies' overlapping emphasis on 
multidimensional predictors of commitment to personal 
relationships, while preserving the unique and provocative 
issues presented by the studies.  The theoretical and 
empirical differences between the papers make explicit 
several critical issues in the field.
        Adams presents a series of investigations 
initiated to explore the conceptual boundaries of 
interpersonal commitment. The results of six studies, 
using a variety of empirical methods and involving over 
1,700 participants, suggested that the various definitions 
and conceptualizations of interpersonal commitment found 
in the literature reflect three underlying dimensions. These 
dimensions represent the attraction, moral/normative, and 
barrier aspects of commitment described in most extant 
models and appear to be consistent with spouses' personal 
accounts of being in committed relationships.  Some 
implications of these findings for theory and future 
research are discussed.
        Johnson's paper explores the three part 
commitment framework that he has developed over the 
last thirty years or so.  The core idea of the framework is 
the argument that there are three distinct experiences of 
"commitment" (personal, moral, and structural), such that 
the concept of global commitment misrepresents the 
nature of commitment phenomena.  The experiences of 
personal, moral, and structural commitment are rooted in a 
social structure that shapes both the "real" consequences 
of relationship events in terms of commitment, and one's 
experiences of those commitments.  In the first part of his 
paper, Johnson briefly outlines the commitment 
framework.  In the second part of the paper he presents 
data that demonstrates that one can distinguish among the 
three types of commitment, and that one must, because 
they have different causes and effects. Finally, Johnson 
discusses what he sees to be the problems this analysis 
implies for the utility of the concept of global 
commitment.
        Hughes presents results from a study that tested 
the theoretical propositions that the overall intention to 
remain committed in premarital relationships is predicted 
by several personal, moral, and structural components.  
This model of commitment differs from Johnson's theory 
in that global commitment is proposed as the phenomenon 
that results from three components of commitment.  
Additionally, the study presents empirical evidence that 
the breadth and impact of alternatives to the relationship 
contributes to a better understanding of the forces at work 
in the motivation to stay in a relationship. Commitment to 
work is added to other, more commonly used indicators of 
alternatives to relationships in order to gain a better 
understanding of the interface between work commitment 
and relationship commitment. Using a sample of 464 
respondents, results from the cross-sectional and 
longitudinal analyses suggested that individuals involved 
in premarital relationships do indeed evaluate personal, 
moral, and structural features of their relationships, 
including indices of commitment to work, in their 
decisions to remain committed to their partners. These 
types of commitment are distinguished by the experience 
of the decisions, by whether the source of the experience is 
internal or external, and by whether it is one of choice or 
constraint.
        Similar to Johnson's framework, Hughes found 
that personal, moral, and structural components make 
unique contributions to the prediction of premarital 
commitment.  In addition, moral and structural 
components played a role in decisions about commitment. 
Specific components in these areas are the value of being 
consistent, concern with the social network, and for 
women only, partner replaceability. The study also 
contributes empirical evidence that the breadth and impact 
of alternatives is more far- reaching than typically 
proposed and measured.  Hughes argues that commitment 
to work is a potential alternative to the relationship and 
results indicate that it operates in predicting global 
commitment when it is moderated by satisfaction, but for 
women only. 
        The fundamental reason for studying 
commitment in close relationships is that, even in the best 
of relationships, people at times face adversity.  It is 
critically important then that we deepen our understanding 
of the relation between commitment and adversity.  Lydon 
theorizes that when the level of adversity exceeds the level 
of commitment then relationship maintenance responses 
will be weakened.  However, when the level of adversity 
is comparable to the level of commitment we will see 
relationship maintenance.  Moreover, when the level of 
commitment exceeds the level of adversity we will not see 
relationship maintenance because the adversity is not 
sufficient to activate a relationship maintenance response.  
Lydon's research manipulates the level of adversity and 
assesses levels of commitment demonstrating that people 
engage in relationship maintenance responses when the 
level of adversity is comparable to the level of 
commitment but not when the level of adversity exceeds 
the level of commitment or when the level of commitment 
exceeds the level of adversity.  Research on gender 
differences in response to relationship adversity will also 
be presented.
        By juxtaposing phenomenological data on 
accounts with data that reflect more objective causal 
analyses, we begin to address questions about what 
information individuals use to make commitment 
decisions and why some people might make better 
commitment decisions than others. Collectively, we 
present a discourse on the nature of commitment, and 
differences in the conceptualization and measurement of 
the construct in both marital and premarital samples.