Skip to main content

Partner commitment moderates the association between commitment and interest in romantic alternatives

Current Psychology volume 40, pages 1439–1447 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that individuals who are committed to their relationship are less interested in romantic alternatives. This research examined whether the negative association between commitment and interest in alternative partners depends on the level of partner’s commitment. In Study 1, married individuals (N = 289) completed questionnaires assessing their commitment, perceptions of their partner’s commitment, and two indicators of interest in alternatives. We found that committed individuals’ tendency to remain inattentive to alternatives and to report fewer infidelity experiences was significantly weaker among individuals who perceived their partner to be low (vs. high) in commitment. In Study 2, we recruited both members of married couples (N = 156) and replicated the moderating effect of partner commitment using the partner’s self-reports. Our findings suggest that how committed the partner is, or is perceived to be, can play an important role in committed individuals’ faithfulness, highlighting the dyadic processes of relationship maintenance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Data analyzed in the present study are part of a larger dataset on married life. A subset of the data has been published (Park et al. 2018), but no variables in this article were reported elsewhere. A complete list of measures used for this study is available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dq7ze/).

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arriaga, X. B., Reed, J. T., Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Relationship perceptions and persistence: Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1045–1065.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2017). Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 700–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barranti, M., Carlson, E. N., & Côté, S. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research: Description and empirical demonstration of response surface analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 465–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 217–233.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, E. J., Overall, N. C., Hammond, M. D., & Fletcher, G. J. (2017). When does men’s hostile sexism predict relationship aggression? The moderating role of partner commitment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dailey, R. M., Brody, N., LeFebvre, L., & Crook, B. (2013). Charting changes in commitment: Trajectories of on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1020–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etcheverry, P. E., & Le, B. (2005). Thinking about commitment: Accessibility of commitment and prediction of relationship persistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice. Personal Relationships, 12, 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956–974.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F., Khan, A., Lydon, J., & To, M. (2008). When flattery gets you nowhere: Discounting positive feedback as a relationship maintenance strategy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gere, J., MacDonald, G., Joel, S., Spielmann, S. S., & Impett, E. A. (2013). The independent contributions of social reward and threat perceptions to romantic commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 961–977.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Shimotomai, A. (2011). Conflicting pressures on romantic relationship commitment for anxiously attached individuals. Journal of Personality, 79, 51–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joel, S., Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Keltner, D. (2013). The things you do for me: Perceptions of a romantic partner’s investments promote gratitude and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1333–1345.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. N., & Weiser, D. A. (2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 939–950.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, P. S., Fletcher, G. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). The mating sociometer and attractive others: A double-edged sword in romantic relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 126–141.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, B., Korn, M. S., Crockett, E. E., & Loving, T. J. (2011). Missing you maintains us: Missing a romantic partner, commitment, relationship maintenance, and physical infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 653–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linardatos, L., & Lydon, J. E. (2011). Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 737–753.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lydon, J., & Karremans, J. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: A motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: The evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, J. K. (2016). Highlighting the contextual nature of interpersonal relationships. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 247–315). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munsch, C. L. (2012). The science of two-timing: The state of infidelity research. Sociology Compass, 6, 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processing perspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 429–459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A. M., & Lemay, E. P. (2017). The wandering eye perceives more threats: Projection of attraction to alternative partners predicts anger and negative behavior in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517734398.

  • Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oriña, M. M., Collins, W. A., Simpson, J. A., Salvatore, J. E., Haydon, K. C., & Kim, J. S. (2011). Developmental and dyadic perspectives on commitment in adult romantic relationships. Psychological Science, 22, 908–915.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Attachment and dependence regulation within daily interactions with romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 16, 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y., Han, G., Jeong, Y., & Park, S. W. (2018). Partner-idealization and marital satisfaction: The mediating role of communication patterns. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of commitment dynamics in cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 369–390.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Righetti, F., & Impett, E. A. (2017). Sacrifice in close relationships: Motives, emotions, and relationship outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12342.

  • Ritter, S. M., Karremans, J. C., & van Schie, H. T. (2010). The role of self-regulation in derogating attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 631–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87–113). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2013). Attachment insecurity and infidelity in marriage: Do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 242–251.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schoebi, D., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 729–742.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sciara, S., & Pantaleo, G. (2018). Relationships at risk: How the perceived risk of ending a romantic relationship influences the intensity of romantic affect and relationship commitment. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., & Tackett, J. L. (2012). Social threat, social reward, and regulation of investment in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 601–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 791–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 1241–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, K., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2009). Divorce attitudes around the world: Distinguishing the impact of culture on evaluations and attitude structure. Cross-Cultural Research, 43, 280–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visserman, M. L., & Karremans, J. C. (2014). Romantic relationship status biases the processing of an attractive alternative’s behavior. Personal Relationships, 21, 324–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A2A02926605).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Yoobin Park

  2. Department of Psychology, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, South Korea

    Sun W. Park

Authors
  1. Yoobin Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sun W. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sun W. Park.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, Y., Park, S.W. Partner commitment moderates the association between commitment and interest in romantic alternatives. Curr Psychol 40, 1439–1447 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0079-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0079-1

Keywords

  • Commitment mutuality
  • Commitment asymmetry
  • Infidelity
  • Extramarital relationship