Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Sci. 2011 May 26;22(7):908–915. doi: 10.1177/0956797611410573

Developmental and Dyadic Perspectives on Commitment in Adult Romantic Relationships

M Minda Oriña 1, W Andrew Collins 2, Jeffry A Simpson 3, Jessica E Salvatore 4, Katherine C Haydon 5, John S Kim 6
PMCID: PMC3391597  NIHMSID: NIHMS386168  PMID: 21617252

Abstract

We tested hypotheses concerning the developmental roots of becoming the “weak-link” (less committed) partner in adult romantic relationships, and the associations between partners’ absolute and relative levels of commitment and dyadic outcomes. We examined 78 target participants who have been studied since birth and were involved in a romantic relationship when they were 20–21 years old. As predicted, people who received lower quality support from caregivers in toddlerhood or were unable to resolve conflicts with a best friend in mid-adolescence were more likely to become the weak-link (less committed) partner in their adult romantic relationships at age 20–21. Furthermore, the lower the weak-link partner was in commitment and the greater the discrepancy in commitment between the partners, the greater the likelihood that romantic couples displayed hostility (rated by observers) during a videotaped conflict resolution task when they were 20–21 years old. These findings are discussed from developmental and dyadic perspectives.

Keywords: Commitment, relationship dissolution, romantic relationships, weak-link partners, developmental trajectories

When one surveys research on intimate relationships, some stark ironies become apparent. For example, despite suggestions that patterns of interdependence in adult relationships should be affected by earlier relationships with parents and close friends (e.g., Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, 1999), remarkably little is known about whether or how relationships encountered earlier in life “set the stage” for an individual’s later adult relationships. In addition, even though relationships involve two people, many investigators continue to adopt an individual-centered perspective when thinking about and studying intrinsically dyadic processes and outcomes.

In this research, we adopt developmental and dyadic approaches to understanding how significant relationships earlier in life are: (a) systematically associated with relative levels of commitment in adult romantic relationships, and (b) how absolute and relative levels of commitment affect how couples behave in conflict resolution situations. We focus on commitment because it is a central theoretical construct in the study of relationships (Kiesler, 1971; Kelley, 1983; Rusbult, 1980) and one of the most powerful predictors of relationship disharmony and dissolution (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Rusbult, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2001). Indeed, from a theoretical perspective, commitment may be the best single barometer of relationship stability (Rusbult, 1983).

Commitment should also predict how much hostility is expressed in relationships, especially when partners have incompatible goals or interests. Highly committed people are motivated to behave in an accommodative manner when trying to resolve disagreements with their partners (Rusbult, 1980, 1983). Moreover, the inability or unwillingness to behave constructively when a partner’s interests diverge from one’s own or when a partner behaves badly is one of the best predictors of negative relationship outcomes (see Rusbult et al., 2001).

Relationship Commitment: The Centrality of the Weak-Link Partner

According to the principle of least interest (Waller & Hill, 1951), the partner in a relationship who has less to lose if the relationship ends should be in a stronger position to dictate important terms and conditions within the relationship. According to Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), weak-link partners should be less dependent on the relationship for good outcomes because they are relatively less satisfied, less invested, and/or have better alternatives to the current partner/relationship than strong-link partners do.

Weak-link versus strong-link status in a relationship should predict important relationship outcomes, above and beyond the main effects associated with each partner’s score on a given measure such as commitment (Attridge, Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995; Waller & Hill, 1951). Supporting this premise, Attridge et al. (1995) found that the weak-link partner in relationships predicted eventual dissolution in dating couples, above and beyond other information provided separately by each partner. This suggests that the commitment of the weak-link partner may be especially diagnostic of important relationship outcomes. Moreover, Agnew (1999) found that the “less interested” partner in each dyad (i.e., the weak-link) is more likely to determine the couple’s interdependent behaviors (e.g., deciding whether and when to use condoms).

The Developmental Construction of the Weak-Link Partner

Despite the greater influence that weak-link partners have on relationship outcomes, nothing is known about the developmental course of becoming the weak-link partner in adult romantic relationships. Past research has focused almost exclusively on the proximal relationship features that shape commitment in adult romantic partnerships (Rusbult et al., 2006). In this research, we adopt a developmental perspective on how a person’s prior history of close relationships relates to whether s/he is likely to become the weak-link or the strong-link partner in his/her subsequent adult romantic relationships, given that significant relationships develop in meaningful patterns across the lifespan (Collins & Sroufe, 1999; Collins & van Dulmen, 2006; Furman & Wehner, 1994; Sroufe et al., 2005). Despite important differences between involuntary, hierarchical parent-child relationships and voluntary, egalitarian friendships and romantic relationships, behaviors across these relational domains should be similar to the extent that experiences with significant relationship partners influence one’s expectations and later interactions with future partners (Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004; Collins, 1995; Sroufe, Egeland, & Kreutzer, 1990). Because individuals adapt to new partners by assimilating new experiences to expectations developed in past relationships, early caregiver-child relationships and friendships should exert a particularly strong influence on an individual’s later romantic relationships (Collins & Sroufe, 1999).

Past research has documented systematic connections between the quality of early parent-child relationships and expectations/interactions in later adult romantic relationships, above and beyond the contributions of proximal variables (see Sroufe et al., 2005). For example, individuals who have secure relationships with their caregivers early in life tend to experience more growth over time in their commitment to their romantic partners early in adulthood (Duemmler & Kobak, 2001). These findings suggest that important features of adult romantic relationships can be affected by the quality of an individual’s prior relationship history.

To investigate who is more likely to become the weak-link versus the strong-link partner within adult romantic relationships, we examined developmentally salient socioemotional experiences with parents and friends at two earlier stages of life. We hypothesized that having unsupportive or negative interactions with significant others early in development should predict becoming the partner who is less dependent on the current romantic partner/relationship for good outcomes. These early negative experiences may lead individuals to doubt the responsiveness and concern of close others, leading them invest less in romantic relationships. Early negative social experiences may also activate self-protective motives to avoid being hurt or receiving “poor returns” on future interpersonal investments.

The two developmental stages we examined were target participants’ interactions with their mothers while doing challenging tasks at age two and targets’ style of resolving conflicts with their best friend at age 16. Learning how to balance autonomy needs with intimacy needs is a critical developmental task, particularly during toddlerhood and adolescence. Both of these developmental stages are important consolidation points during which individuals must learn to become independent and effectively negotiate their own needs, desires, and personal interests with significant others. By assuming the weak-link role in later romantic relationships, individuals should have greater power within their relationships, and they should have less to lose if/when their relationships dissolve (Attridge et al., 1995).

A Dyadic Perspective on Commitment and Dyadic Hostility

Although no past research has examined whether developmental trajectories forecast who becomes the weak-link versus the strong-link partner in adult romantic relationships, we know more about ties between commitment and certain dyadic outcomes. For example, research using individual-centered models has found that more committed people (i.e., those who score higher on commitment measures) inhibit negative responses and react in more constructive and benevolent ways when their partners behave poorly than less committed people do (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998; van Lange et al., 1997). This inhibition of negative responses, in turn, prevents or curtails escalating cycles of negative behavior in couples.

A dyad-centered perspective supplements these findings by proposing that relationship functioning should be more contingent on the weak-link partner’s than on the strong-link partner’s level of commitment. Moreover, the relative commitment levels of both partners should also affect relationship dynamics. Moving toward a dyadic perspective on commitment, Drigotas, Rusbult, and Verette (1999) claimed (but did not test) that “(w)hen one person’s level of commitment is substantially greater than (or lower than) that of his or her partner, relationships do not fare well (pp. 408–409).” This implies that the discrepancy between partners’ commitment levels might be more consequential for relationship harmony than either partner’s absolute level of commitment, even if both partners score relatively high in commitment (Attridge et al., 1995; Waller & Hill, 1951). This implies that lower absolute levels of commitment by one partner might not always be associated with poor relationship outcomes, and that higher absolute commitment levels might not always be tied to good outcomes.

Thus, the weak-link partner’s level of commitment along with the degree of discrepancy between the partners’ commitment scores should uniquely predict relationship outcomes. For example, if both partners are highly committed and there is little discrepancy in commitment between them, they should inhibit negative responses during conflict. If the weak-link partner is lower on commitment compared to other weak-link partners, and there is a small commitment discrepancy between the partners, both partners should be less likely to want changes from each other during conflict because neither partner should be motivated to demand change. If, however, the weak-link partner is lower on commitment and his/her strong-link partner is much more strongly committed (i.e., there is a large discrepancy in commitment), these partners should display the most dysfunctional patterns of conflict, especially the demand/withdraw pattern. Criticisms from the strong-link partner, who may want change, should be met with defensiveness from the weak-link partner, who should strive to keep the strong-link partner at bay (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). Accordingly, we tested whether the weak-link partner’s absolute level of commitment and the degree of commitment discrepancy between the strong-link partner and the weak-link partner predicted the degree to which each couple displayed and reciprocated cold and distancing behavior (hostility) during a videotaped conflict resolution and collaboration task.

The Current Study

The current study is based on data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA; Sroufe et al., 2005). At age 20–21, MLSRA target participants and their romantic partners of four or more months were invited to participate in were invited to participate in a couples assessment. Targets and their partners first independently completed self-report questionnaires that assessed their current relationship and then completed a videotaped conflict resolution and collaboration discussion task. We tested three hypotheses:

Developmental Hypotheses

The quality of maternal support/caregiving observed during challenging tasks (when target participants were 24 months old) should predict targets’ weak-link/strong-link status in their adult romantic relationships 20 years later. Receiving higher quality care at age two should predict a lower probability of being the weak-link partner in romantic relationships at ages 20–21 (Hypothesis 1). Targets’ quality of conflict resolution with their best friend at age 16 should also forecast their weak-link status in later romantic relationships (Hypothesis 2). The use of functional conflict resolution tactics with a best friend at age 16, indicative of greater mutuality and interpersonal sensitivity, should predict a lower likelihood of being the weak-link partner in later romantic relationships.

Dyadic Hostility

The lower the weak-link partner’s level of commitment and the greater the discrepancy between the commitment levels of partners, the greater the likelihood that the couple will display more observer-rated dyadic hostility (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Participants

The data were collected as part of the MLSRA, a prospective study of at-risk target participants and their families (Sroufe et al., 2005). Fifty-eight percent of the target participants are European-American, 14% are African-American, 3% are Native American or Latino, 16% are of mixed racial background, and 9% cannot be classifiable due to missing data on fathers’ race. The full sample is 55% male and 45% female.

We focused on a subset of the full sample (N = 78 target participants), all of whom were involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship of 4 months or longer and participated in couples assessment when targets were 20–21 years old. The mean length of relationships was 27.75 months (SD = 22.01).

Developmental Precursors

Parenting Quality at 24 months

When targets were 24 months old, they engaged in four videotaped problem-solving tasks with their mothers. Because the tasks were designed to be increasingly difficult and above each child’s capabilities, each toddler needed assistance from his/her mother to complete each task. Trained observers rated each caregiver’s (each mother’s) behavior during these interactions on a 5-point Parenting Quality scale that measured the quality of each parent’s support/sensitivity to the child’s emotional and developmental needs during the tasks. High scores were given to parents who were consistently supportive, enthusiastic, and patient throughout the tasks without being controlling or intrusive. The intraclass correlation was .82.

Friendship Conflict Resolution at Age 16

When targets were 16 years-old, they completed an hour-long audiotaped interview about their best friendship. Trained coders then rated how conflicts were typically resolved by each target with his/her best friend on a 7-point Friendship Conflict Resolution scale. High scores were given to targets who reported displaying mutual compromise, commitment to maintaining the friendship, and effective and fair approaches to conflict resolution. The interrater reliability was .61.

Romantic Relationship Assessments

Commitment at Age 20–21

When targets were 20–21 years-old, they and their current romantic partners independently completed relationship measures, including Lund’s (1985) Commitment Scale. Responses were made on 7-point Likert-type scales, anchored 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very/A Lot) (αfemale = .66, αmale = .59).

Dyadic Hostility

Each couple engaged in a videotaped observational lab procedure. Each couple first discussed the problem that caused the most conflict in their relationship for 10 minutes while trying to resolve it. Each couple then discussed areas on which they agreed the most in their relationship for 4 minutes. Seven trained observers then rated each videotaped interaction on 7-point scales that assessed the level of hostility displayed in each interaction. This measure assessed the extent to which each couple displayed a cold and rejecting demeanor that reflected hopelessness and futility about the relationship (Collins et al., 1999). High scores were given to dyads where partners tried to distance themselves from each other psychological or emotionally, showed little remorse or recognition that they may have hurt their partner during the interaction, and/or expressed little or no hope of salvaging the relationship. Because the Hostility scale assessed the extent to which each couple engaged in reciprocal exchanges of hostility, both partners had to initiate and reciprocate these cold and rejecting emotions to receive the highest possible score. Couples in which neither partner engaged in hostile behaviors, or in which one partner engaged in hostile behavior while the other consistently tried to defuse hostility, received lower scores. The intraclass correlation was .96.

Results

Developmental Precursors

Descriptive statistics appear in Table 1. To test our hypotheses, we first determined whether each target participant was the weak-link or the strong-link partner in each relationship by examining both partners’ scores on the Commitment Scale. If the target participant scored lower than his/her romantic partner on commitment, s/he was classified as the weak-link partner; if the target scored higher than his/her partner on commitment, s/he was classified as the strong-link partner.1

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean SD N
Target Commitment 5.89 .79 78
Partner Commitment 5.97 .72 78
Overall parenting quality, 24 months 3.24 1.15 68
Conflict resolution with best friend, age 16 3.76 1.18 74
Dyadic Hostility 2.22 1.60 72
Open in a new tab

Note: All scales could range from 1 – 7

We then regressed this dichotomous variable (i.e., target is the weak-link partner versus target is the strong-link partner) on the developmental precursors (observer-rated parenting quality at 24 months and observer-rated friendship conflict resolution at 16 years) in two separate logistic regressions. For each analysis, an odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that targets are more likely to be classified as the strong-link partner, whereas an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that targets are more likely to be the weak-link partner.2

Parenting Quality

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the quality of parenting at 24 months predicted eventual weak-link status. As shown in Table 2, as the quality of rated parenting when targets were 24 months old increased, targets were less likely to be the weak-link partner in their romantic relationships 20 years later.

Table 2.

Predicting Weak-Link Status

β SE df Wald χ2 Odds ratio
Overall parenting quality, 24 months .47* .23 65 4.11 1.59
Conflict resolution with best friend, age 16 .57* .25 70 5.35 1.78
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

Friendship Conflict Resolution

Supporting Hypothesis 2, the quality of friendship conflict at age 16 also predicted eventual weak-link status (see Table 2). If target participants were rated as resolving conflict with their best friend in a more mutually satisfying manner and used more effective and fair tactics, they were less likely to be the weak-link partner in their later romantic relationships.

The Weak-Link Partner and Predictions of Concurrent Dyadic Behavior

Preliminary Correlations

Partner discrepancy commitment scores were calculated by regressing the strong-link partner’s scores onto the weak-link partner’s scores and saving the residual values (i.e., the deviations of the fitted line from the observed line).3 We next calculated correlations between the weak-link partner’s commitment score, the strong-link partner’s commitment score, the discrepancy between relationship partners’ commitment scores, the target participant’s developmental precursors, and dyadic hostility. The results, shown in Table 3, reveal that the weak-link partner’s commitment score (r = −0.34) and strong-link partner’s commitment score (r = −0.32) were both negatively associated with observer-rated dyadic hostility. Thus, less commitment reported by both the weak-link partner and the strong-link partner predicted greater dyadic hostility during the romantic conflict discussions when targets were 20–21 years-old.

Table 3.

Correlations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Weak link partner’s commitment level —
2. Strong link partner’s commitment level .71** (N = 75) —
3. Discrepancy of partners’ commitment level −.54** (N = 75) −.07 (N = 75) —
4. Overall parent caregiving at 24 months .10 (N = 66) .13 (N = 66) −.06** (N = 68) —
5. Conflict resolution with friends at 16 .02 (N = 71) .04 (N = 71) −.01 (N = 74) .22* (N = 78) —
6. Dyadic hostility with romantic partner at 20–21 −.34** (N = 69) −.32** (N = 69) .14 (N = 72) −.32** (N = 64) −.30* (N = 68)
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

Predicting Dyadic Hostility

To test Hypothesis 3, we ran a hierarchical regression analysis in which observer-rated dyadic hostility was regressed on: The weak-link partner’s commitment score, the strong-link partner’s commitment score, and the gender of the weak-link partner (Step 1); the discrepancy between the two partners’ commitment scores (Step 2); the two-way interaction between the weak-link partner’s commitment score and the size of the within-couple commitment discrepancy (Step 3). To decompose the interactions, simple regression slopes were calculated at each level of a predictor at one standard deviation above and below the sample mean (Aiken & West, 1991).4

Only the weak-link partner’s gender predicted dyadic hostility (see Table 4). When weak-link partners were female, couples displayed greater observer-rated hostility in the conflict interactions than when the weak-link partner was male. Partially supporting Hypothesis 3, a marginally significant two-way interaction emerged between the weak-link partner’s commitment score and the discrepancy between the two partners’ commitment scores (see Table 4). As shown in Figure 1, when there was less discrepancy between partners’ commitment scores (i.e., when partners had more similar commitment scores), couples displayed moderate levels of hostility, regardless of the weak-link partner’s level of commitment. However, when there was a larger discrepancy, the weak-link partner’s level of commitment was associated with greater hostility. The full model accounted for 20% of the variance in observer-rated hostility.

Table 4.

Commitment: Predicting Dyadic Hostility

B S EB β R2
Step 1 .18
Weak-link partner’s score −.51 .34 −.24
Strong-link partner’s score −.24 .40 −.09
Sex of weak-link partner .49* .18 .30*
Step 2 .17
Weak-link partner’s score −.38 .47 −.17
Strong-link partner’s score −.34 .47 −.13
Sex of weak-link partner .49* .19 .30*
Discrepancy of commitment .26 .63 .06
Step 3 .20
Weak-link partner’s score −.29 .47 −.13
Strong-link partner’s score −.19 .47 −.07
Sex of weak-link partner .52** .18 .32**
Discrepancy of commitment −.20 .66 −.05
Less committed X Discrepancy −1.16† .63 −.25†
Open in a new tab

Note: N= 69

†

p < .06

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The interaction of the weak-link partner’s commitment and the discrepancy of partners’ commitment scores predicting dyadic hostility. Predicted values are plotted for participants scoring 1 SD above and 1 SD below the sample mean on each measure.

Discussion

These findings indicate that developmental and dyadic perspectives increase our understanding of the origins and outcomes of romantic relationship commitment in early adulthood. We documented that the probability of becoming the weak-link partner in adult romantic relationships depends on the quality of important relationships experienced earlier in life. Individuals who received lower quality parenting from their mothers at age two or were less able to resolve conflicts effectively with their best friends at age 16 were more likely to be the relatively less committed (weak-link) partner in their adult romantic relationships at age 20–21. Thus, having poorer quality or conflictual relationships in either toddlerhood or adolescence appears to be a risk factor for becoming the weak-link partner in adult relationships.

Our findings also show that the prediction of certain dyadic outcomes can be improved when one assesses the commitment of both partners in relation to each other. When the weak-link partner was relatively less committed compared to other weak-link partners and when relationship partners’ scores were highly discrepant, couples were more likely to reciprocate hostile behaviors during a conflict discussion. These results extend those of Drigotas et al. (1999) and Attridge et al. (1995) by showing that the mutuality of both partners’ levels of commitment and the level of the weak-link partner’s commitment jointly affect dyadic functioning.

Future research needs to clarify why poor parenting quality early in childhood and poor conflict negotiation at age 16 forecasts weak-link status in adult romantic relationships. We suspect that early negative social experiences instill strong self-protective motives to avoid being hurt or to forestall losing or receiving “poor returns” on future interpersonal investments. Individuals who have negative relationship histories may become dominant in their relationships, eventually becoming weak-link partners, to obtain greater power or autonomy. Having a history of unsupportive or conflictual relationships may also undermine an individual’s ability to use relationship-maintenance processes effectively. Such people might be less likely to derogate attractive alternative partners (Miller, 1997; Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990), perpetuating the belief that better potential partners are still available. Such people may also be less able to sustain positive partner illusions, which protect relationships from threats and downturns (Murray & Holmes, 1997).

On the other hand, if an individual learns how to navigate issues involving intimacy and commitment with close others successfully early in development, having a history of positive and supportive relationships may bolster his/her trust in and reliance on partners, regardless of the changes or stressors a romantic couple is likely to face. Higher levels of trust, in turn, should motivate the strong-link partner to enact more pro-relationship behaviors, thereby increasing both partners’ commitment to the relationship across time (Simpson, 2007; Wieselquist et al., 1999).

Though not predicted, it is not surprising that greater hostility was observed when the weak-link partner was a female. Women are more likely to use language to reinforce intimacy and maintain relationships, whereas men strive to maintain independence and consolidate their status (Tannen, 1994). Thus, when female partners are the weak-link in a relationship, there should be relatively fewer attempts to reinforce intimacy and maintain the relationship.

Caveats and Conclusions

Even though they are prospective, our findings are correlational and cannot address questions of causality. For example, we do not know whether receiving lower quality parenting early in life causes people to become weak-link partners in their adult romantic relationships. Furthermore, other intervening experiences (e.g., therapy, a beneficent mentor or friend) during development might prevent individuals from becoming weak-link partners in adulthood. What our findings do imply is that more negative interpersonal experiences with parents or a best friend earlier in life predict eventual weak-link versus strong-link status in romantic relationships.

Our use of multiple methods and informants to assess target participants’ relationships at different points of their lives strengthens our confidence in these results. These results, for example, cannot be attributed to shared method variance, and it is impressive to find theoretically meaningful associations between constructs that were measured across nearly 20 years of developmental history.

In conclusion, this research addresses a major gap in the commitment literature by elucidating how early socioemotional experiences contribute to patterns of interdependence within adult romantic relationships. Developmental and dyadic perspectives give a deeper and more nuanced understanding of current relationship dynamics. Our perspective and findings are also likely to have important implications for how relationship counselors and therapists view, assess, and help romantic couples achieve more positive relationship outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from NIMH to Byron Egeland, L. Alan Sroufe, and W. Andrew Collins (R01-MH40864), Jeffry A. Simpson (R01-MH49599), M. Minda Oriña (5T32MH015755-28), Jessica E. Salvatore (T32MH015755-32), and Katherine C. Haydon (MH19893), and from an NICHD grant to W. Andrew Collins, Byron Egeland, and L. Alan Sroufe (R01-HD054850). We thank Chris Agnew for providing comments on a previous draft of this manuscript.

Footnotes

1

For three couples, the target could not be classified as the weak-link or the strong-link partner because both partners had identical commitment scores. These couples were dropped from the analyses.

2

Secondary analyses were conducted to ensure our findings were not attributable to relationship length or the gender of the weak-link partner. All reported effects remained statistically significant when we controlled for weak-link gender, and all remained at least marginally significant when we controlled for relationship length (all ps < .06).

3

Difference scores tend to be unreliable (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Cronbach & Furby, 1970), and they are problematic because they are correlated with the two scores that create them (i.e., the weak-link scores correlate negatively with the difference score for each dyad). On the other hand, residualized scores are widely used because they are both reliable and they are not highly correlated with the scores that create them (Williams & Zimmerman, 1982).

4

Secondary analyses indicated that the effects did not change when we controlled for relationship length. Furthermore, relationship length, the interactions of the main effects with relationship length, and the interactions of the main effects with weak-link gender also did not significantly predict dyadic hostility.

Contributor Information

M. Minda Oriña, St. Olaf College.

W. Andrew Collins, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus.

Jeffry A. Simpson, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Jessica E. Salvatore, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Katherine C. Haydon, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

John S. Kim, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Agnew CR. Power over interdependent behavior within the dyad: Who decides what a couple does? In: Severy LJ, Miller WB, editors. Advances in Population: Psychosocial Perspectives. Vol. 3. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1999. pp. 163–188. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arriaga XB, Rusbult CE. Standing in my partner’s shoes: Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24:927–948. [Google Scholar]
  4. Attridge M, Berscheid E, Simpson JA. Predicting relationship stability from both partners versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69:254–268. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berscheid E, Reis HT. Attraction and close relationships. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social psychology. 4. Vol. 2. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 193–281. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlson EA, Sroufe LA, Egeland B. The construction of experience: A longitudinal study of representation and behavior. Child Development. 2004;75:66–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00654.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins WA. Relationships and development: Family adaptation to individual change. In: Shulman S, editor. Close relationships and socioemotional development. New York: Ablex; 1995. pp. 128–154. [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins WA, Aguilar B, Hennighausen K, Hyson D, Jimerson S, Levy A, et al. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota; Minneapolis: 1999. Scales and coding manual for observed interactions in romantic relationships. [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins WA, Sroufe LA. Capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental construction. In: Furman W, Brown BB, Feiring C, editors. The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 125–147. [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins WA, van Dulmen M. “The course of true love(s)…”: Origins and pathways in the development of romantic relationships. In: Booth A, Crouter A, editors. Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and Opportunities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 63–86. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cronbach LJ, Furby L. How should we measure “change”—or should we? Psychological Bulletin. 1970;74:68–80. [Google Scholar]
  13. Drigotas SM, Rusbult CE, Verette J. Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships. 1999;6:389–409. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duemmler SL, Kobak R. The development of commitment and attachment in dating relationships: Attachment security as a relationship construct. Journal of Adolescence. 2001;24:401–415. doi: 10.1006/jado.2001.0406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eldridge KA, Christensen A. Demand-withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In: Noller P, Feeney JA, editors. Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 289–322. [Google Scholar]
  16. Furman W, Wehner E. Romanic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In: Montemayor R, Adams GR, Gullotta TP, editors. Advances in adolescent development: Volume 6, Personal relationships during adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. pp. 168–195. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiesler CA. The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kelley HH. Love and commitment. In: Kelley H, et al., editors. Close relationships. New York: Freeman; 1983. pp. 265–314. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lund M. The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting the continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1985;2:3–23. [Google Scholar]
  20. Miller RS. Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997;73:758–766. [Google Scholar]
  21. Murray SL, Holmes JG. A leap of faith?: Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997;23:586–604. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.6.1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rusbult CE. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1980;16:172–186. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rusbult CE. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;45:101–117. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rusbult CE, Arriaga XB, Agnew CR. Interdependence in close relationships. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS, editors. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Oxford: Blackwell; 2001. pp. 359–387. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rusbult CE, Coolsen MK, Kirchner JL, Clarke JA. Commitment. In: Vangelisti AL, Perlman D, editors. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 615–635. [Google Scholar]
  26. Simpson JA. Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16:264–268. [Google Scholar]
  27. Simpson JA, Gangestad S, Lerma M. Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990;59:1192–1201. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sroufe LA, Egeland B, Carlson EA, Collins WA. The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. NY: Guilford Publications; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sroufe LA, Egeland B, Kreutzer T. The fate of early experience following developmental change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development. 1990;61:1363–1373. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02867.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tannen D. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley; 1959. [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Lange PAM, Rusbult CE, Drigotas SM, Arriaga XB, Witcher BS, Cox CL. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997;72:1373–1395. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.72.6.1373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Waller WW, Hill R. The family, a dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden Press; 1951. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wieselquist J, Rusbult CE, Foster CA, Agnew CR. Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;77:942–966. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES