Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:35:17.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Relationship Expectations about the Commitment to Wed

A Contextual Analysis

from Part IV - Interdependence, Timing, and Expectations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

By
TeKisha M. Rice  and
Brian G. Ogolsky
Edited by
Laura V. Machia ,
Christopher R. Agnew  and
Ximena B. Arriaga
Laura V. Machia
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, New York
Christopher R. Agnew
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Ximena B. Arriaga
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews research on relational expectations as interdependence and commitment develop. There are myriad pathways to commitment which vary by individual, relational, and contextual factors. The goal of this chapter is to focus on existing typologies of relationship development and review literature on how and why individuals become increasingly committed to their partners. In doing so, we will review the origin and development of research on commitment to wed and track its history over time. We will also discuss previously unpublished data that capture the diverse reasons for upturns and declines in commitment and explore how expectations influence relationship maintenance/continuity. We will conclude with a discussion of methodological concerns and future directions.

Keywords

Expectationscommitment trajectoriescommitmentcommitment to wedrelationship continuity
Type
Chapter
Information
Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships , pp. 316 - 342
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2012). The “standards for openness hypothesis”: Why women find (conflict) avoidance more dissatisfying than men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 102–125. doi:10.1177/0265407511420193Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change (pp. 173–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Allen, W. D. & Olson, D. H. (2001). Five types of African‐American marriages. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 301–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb00326.xGoogle Scholar
Amato, P. R. & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 69–86. doi:10.1177/019251399020001004Google Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., Goodfriend, W., & Allsop, K. E. (2018). The invisible harm of downplaying a romantic partner’s aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 275–280. doi:10.1177/0963721417754198Google Scholar
Badr, H., Acitelli, L. K., & Taylor, C. L. C. (2008). Does talking about their relationship affect couples’ marital and psychological adjustment to lung cancer? Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 2, 53–64. doi:10.1007/s11764-008-0044-3Google 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. doi:10.1037/xge0000299Google Scholar
Barr, A. B. & Simons, R. L. (2012). Marriage expectations among African American couples in early adulthood: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 726–742. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00985.xGoogle Scholar
Barros-Gomes, P. & Baptist, J. (2014). Black women’s ambivalence about marriage: A voice-centered relational approach. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 13, 284–311. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.929064Google Scholar
Bell, R. A. & Buerkel‐Rothfuss, N. L. (1990). S(he) loves me, s(he) loves me not: Predictors of relational information‐seeking in courtship and beyond. Communication Quarterly, 38, 64–82. doi:10.1080/01463379009369742Google Scholar
Berger, C. R. & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.Google Scholar
Birnie, C., Joy McClure, M., Lydon, J. E., & Holmberg, D. (2009). Attachment avoidance and commitment aversion: A script for relationship failure. Personal Relationships, 16, 79–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01211.xGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, T. N. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3Google Scholar
Cate, R. M., Huston, T. L., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1986). Premarital relationships: Toward the identification of alternative pathways to marriage. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 3–22. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.1.3Google Scholar
Chaney, C. (2014). “No matter what, good or bad, love is still there”: Motivations for romantic commitment among Black cohabiting couples. Marriage & Family Review, 50, 216–245. doi:10.1080/01494929.2013.851056Google Scholar
Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.xGoogle Scholar
Collins, W. L. & Perry, A. R. (2015). Black men’s perspectives on the role of the black church in healthy relationship promotion and family stability. Social Work and Christianity, 42, 430–448. doi:10.1177/000312240406900603Google Scholar
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 974–979. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00067.xGoogle Scholar
Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827–842. doi:10.1177/0265407500176007Google Scholar
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Burton, L., & Turner, W. (1993). The importance of values in the study of culturally diverse families. Family Relations, 42, 238–242. doi:10.2307/585551Google Scholar
Fehr, B. (1999). Laypeople’s conceptions of commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 90–103. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.90Google Scholar
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0039Google Scholar
Few‐Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 169–183. doi:10.1111/jftr.12039Google Scholar
Fincham, F. D. & Beach, S. R. (2014). I say a little prayer for you: Praying for partner increases commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 587–593. doi:10.1037/a0034999Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.863723Google Scholar
Finkenauer, C. & Hazam, H. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 245–263. doi:10.1177/0265407500172005Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O. & Thomas, G. (1996). Close relationship lay theories: Their structure and function. In Fletcher, G. J. O. & Fitness, J. (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O., Fincham, F. D., Cramer, L., & Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.481Google Scholar
Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. In Clogg, C. C. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (Vol. 18, pp. 37–68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Fuhrman, R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–595. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.xGoogle Scholar
Furstenberg, F. F. (2009). If Moynihan had only known: Race, class, and family change in the late twentieth century. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 94–110. doi:10.1177/0002716208324866Google Scholar
Gager, C. T. & Sanchez, L. (2003). Two as one? Couples’ perceptions of time spent together, marital quality, and the risk of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 21–50. doi:10.1177/0192513X02238519Google Scholar
Gibson‐Davis, C. M., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The retreat from marriage among low‐income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1301–1312. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00218.xGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, G. P. (1988). Rules, scripts and prototypes in personal relationships. In Duck, S., Hay, D. F., Hobfoll, S. E., Ickes, W., & Montgomery, B. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (pp. 23–39). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179–205. doi:10.1177/0192513X08323694Google Scholar
Hampel, A. D. & Vangelisti, A. L. (2008). Commitment expectations in romantic relationships: Application of a prototype interaction-pattern model. Personal Relationships, 15, 81–102. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00186.xGoogle Scholar
Harknett, K. & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in marriage after the birth of a child. American Sociological Review, 69, 790–811. doi:10.1177/000312240406900603Google Scholar
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511Google Scholar
Holmberg, D. & MacKenzie, S. (2002). So far, so good: Scripts for romantic relationship development as predictors of relational well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 777–796. doi:10.1177/0265407502196003Google Scholar
Holmberg, D. & Veroff, J. (1996). Rewriting relationship memories: The effects of courtship and wedding scripts. In Fletcher, G. J. P. & Fitness, J. (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach (pp. 345–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 298–320. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00298.xGoogle Scholar
Huston, T. L. & Melz, H. (2004). The case for (promoting) marriage: The devil is in the details. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 943–958. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00064.xGoogle Scholar
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237Google Scholar
Huston, T. L., Surra, C., Fitzgerald, N., & Cate, R. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. & Gilmour, R. (Eds.), Personal Relationships: Vol. 2. Developing Personal Relationships (pp. 53–88). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. P. (1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships. In Jones, W. H. & Adams, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability (pp. 73–87). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J., & Huston, T. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 160–177. doi:10.2307/353891Google Scholar
Karney, B. R. & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3Google Scholar
Kelley, H. & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Knee, C. R. & Petty, K. N. (2013). Implicit theories of relationships: Destiny and growth beliefs. In Simpson, J. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (pp. 183–199). New York: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0009Google Scholar
Knobloch, L. K. & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication Research, 28, 243–257. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00806.xGoogle Scholar
Knobloch, L. K. & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78, 3–26. doi:10.1037/a0024063Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2007). The influence of same-sex marriage on the understanding of same-sex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 135–151. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01697.xGoogle Scholar
Lauer, S. & Yodanis, C. (2010). The deinstitutionalization of marriage revisited: A new institutional approach to marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 58–72. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00039.xGoogle Scholar
Mongeau, P. A., Carey, C. M., & Williams, M. L. M. (1998). First date initiation and enactment: An expectancy violation approach. In Canary, D. J. & Dindia, K. (Eds.), Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Investigations of Sex and Gender in Interaction (pp. 413–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Monk, J. K. & Ogolsky, B. G. (2019). Contextual relational uncertainty model: Understanding ambiguity in a changing sociopolitical context of marriage. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11, 243–261. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12325Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Lamarche, V. M., Gomillion, S., Seery, M. D., & Kondrak, C. (2017). In defense of commitment: The curative power of violated expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 697–729. doi:10.1037/pspi0000102Google Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., & Oswald, R. F. (2018). As the states turned: Implications of the changing legal context of same-sex marriage on well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 3219–3238. doi:10.1177/0265407518816883Google Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., & Oswald, R. F. (2019). Personal well-being across the transition to marriage equality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 33, 422–432. doi:10.1037/fam0000504.Google Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., Theisen, J. C., & Maniotes, C. R. (2017). Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9, 275–306. doi:10.1111/jftr.12205Google Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G., Surra, C. A., & Monk, J. K. (2016). Pathways of commitment to wed: The development and dissolution of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 293–310. doi:10.1111/jomf.12260Google Scholar
Osborn, J. L. (2012). When TV and marriage meet: A social exchange analysis of the impact of television viewing on marital satisfaction and commitment. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 739–757. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.618900Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2014). Record share of Americans have never married as values, economics and gender patterns change. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/#will-todays-never-married-adults-eventually-marryGoogle Scholar
Pulice-Farrow, L., Brown, T. D., & Galupo, M. P. (2017). Transgender microaggressions in the context of romantic relationships. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 362–373. doi:10.1037/sgd0000238Google Scholar
Riggio, H. R. & Weiser, D. A. (2008). Attitudes toward marriage: Embeddedness and outcomes in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 15, 123–140. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00188.xGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. & Arriaga, X. (1997). Interdependence theory. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (2nd ed., pp. 221–250). London: Wiley.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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101Google Scholar
Segrin, C. & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage? Journal of Communication, 52, 247–263. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02543.xGoogle Scholar
Sherman, J. (2017). “Stress that I don’t need”: Gender expectations and relationship struggles among the poor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 657–674. doi:10.1111/jomf.12387Google Scholar
Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Lei, M. K., & Landor, A. M. (2012). Relational schemas, hostile romantic relationships, and beliefs about marriage among young African American adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 77–101. doi:10.1177/0265407511406897Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Schmeeckle, M., & Shu, X. (2006). No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. In Fine, M. A. & Harvey, J. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 357–375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.357Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. (1987). Reasons for changes in commitment: Variations by courtship type. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 17–33. doi: 10.1177/0265407587041002Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. (1995). Reasons coding manual IV. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Surra, C. A., Arizzi, P., & Asmussen, L. A. (1988). The association between reasons for commitment and the development and outcome of marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 47–63. doi:10.1177/0265407588051003Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. & Gray, C. E. (2000). A typology of processes of commitment to marriage: Why do partners commit to problematic relationships? In Waite, L. J., Backrach, C., Hindin, M., Thomson, E., & Thornton, A. (Eds.), The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (pp. 253–280). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. & Hughes, D. K. (1997). Commitment processes in accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 5–21. doi:10.2307/353658Google Scholar
Surra, C. A., Hughes, D. K., & Jacquet, S. E. (1999). The development of commitment to marriage: A phenomenological approach. In Adams, J. M. & Jones, W. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability (pp. 125–148). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Surra, C. A. & Bartell, D. S. (2001) Attributions, communication, and the development of a marital identity, in Manusov, V. & Harvey, J. H. (Eds.), Attribution, Communication Behavior, and Close Relationships (pp. 93–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Towner, S. L., Dolcini, M. M., & Harper, G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban African American adolescents: Patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth & Society, 47, 343–373. doi:10.1177/0044118X12462591Google Scholar
Vannier, S. A. & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2017a). Great expectations: Examining unmet romantic expectations and dating relationship outcomes using an investment model framework. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1045–1066. doi:10.1177/0265407517703492Google Scholar
Vannier, S. A. & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2017b). Passion, connection, and destiny: How romantic expectations help predict satisfaction and commitment in young adults’ dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 235–257. doi:10.1177/0265407516631156Google Scholar
Vaterlaus, J. M., Skogrand, L., Chaney, C., & Gahagan, K. (2017). Marital expectations in strong African American marriages. Family Process, 56, 883–899. doi:10.1111/famp.12263Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×