Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:10:34.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commitment in Different Relationships Statuses: Validation Study of the Personal Commitment Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2015

Ana Pego Monteiro ,
Susana Costa-Ramalho ,
Maria Teresa Ribeiro  and
Alexandra Marques Pinto
Ana Pego Monteiro*
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal)
Susana Costa-Ramalho
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal)
Maria Teresa Ribeiro
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal)
Alexandra Marques Pinto
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana Pego Monteiro. Faculdade de Psicologia. Departamento de Psicologia da Família. Alameda da Universidade. 1649–013. Lisboa (Portugal). E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study presents the validation process of the Portuguese version of the short-form Dedication Scale (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006; Stanley, 1986), with a sample of 924 participants in different relationship statutes. With 14 items, this short version is recommended by the authors for its simple use, when wanting to measure commitment in romantic relationships. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the instrument did not have a totally acceptable fit with the data so an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. This revealed a one-dimensional structure of the scale, and led to the exclusion of two items, which relate to a distinct meta-commitment dimension. In sum, the Portuguese version (ECP - Personal Commitment Scale) has 12 items, with good internal consistency (α = .82), correlations item-total between .36 and .60, and good criteria validity (p < .001). Its use for research is therefore appropriate. In a second study, significant differences were found between the participants' four relationship statuses (dating non-cohabiting and cohabiting relationships, formal unions and marriage) (p < .001; η2 p = .03). Results showed that married participants were more committed than those in a formal union, even when controlling for several relational and socio-demographic variables. No differences were found between cohabiting and non-cohabiting dating participants. Men reported higher levels of commitment than women (p < .001; η2 p = .02). Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

commitment scaledatingcohabitationmarriagededication
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E34
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

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

Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 333–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing. Michigan, MI: Harper & Row Limited.Google Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3 rd Ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 33–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, M. M., & Hill, A. (2005). Investigação por questionário [Research with questionnaires] (2 nd Ed.). Lisboa, Portugal: Sílabo.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 61, 243–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00324720701571806 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., & Whitton, S. W. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs' advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships. In Burgess, R. L. & Huston, T. L. (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 169–193). New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43, 203–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dem.2006.0018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lind, W. (2008). Casais biculturais e monoculturais: Diferenças e recursos [Monocultural and bicultural couples: Differences and resources] (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.Google Scholar
Madge, C. (2007). Developing a geographers' agenda for online research ethics. Progress in Human Geography, 31, 654–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2002). First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 1065–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251302237303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00189.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maroco, J., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2006). Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas? [What is the reliability of the Cronbach's alpha? Old questions and modern solutions?]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 4, 65–90.Google Scholar
McGoldrick, M., & Shibusawa, T. (2012). The family life cycle. In Walsh, F. (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4 th Ed., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Narciso, I., & Ribeiro, M. T. (2009). Olhares sobre a conjugalidade [Views on marital relationships] . Lisboa, Portugal: Coisas de Ler.Google Scholar
Niehuis, S., Huston, T. L., & Rosenband, R. (2006). From courtship into marriage: A new developmental model and methodological critique. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 23–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0601_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
Olson, J. R., Goddard, H. W., & Marshall, J. P. (2013). Relations among risk, religiosity, and marital commitment. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12, 235–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.806705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortman, A.-R., & Mills, M. (2012). Investments in marriage and cohabitation: The role of legal and interpersonal commitment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 357–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00954.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, A. L., & Cashwell, C. S. (2013). Moral commitment in intimate committed relationships: A conceptualization from cohabiting same-sex and opposite-sex partners. The Family Journal, 21, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480712456671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, J. M. (2006). Not crossing the “extra line”: How cohabitors with children view their unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1117–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, P. C. (2008). The mating game: A primer on love, sex and marriage (2 nd Ed.). California, CA: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452274812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.553 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 107–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014358 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513x11420940 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rindfuss, R. R., & VandenHeuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review, 16, 703–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1972963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 CrossRefGoogle 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026290 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, S. B., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Reasons for divorce and recollections of premarital intervention: Implications for improving relationship education. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 131–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032025 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17, 517–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, J. A. (2004). Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: Demography, kinship, and the future. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 921–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00062.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. (1986). Commitment and the maintenance and enhancement of relationships (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Denver, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. (2003, November). Assessing couple and marital relationships: Beyond form and toward a deeper knowledge of function. Paper presented at the Healthy Marriage Interventions and Evaluation Symposium of the Measurement Issues in Family Demography Conference. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage & Family, 54, 595–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M., & Rhoades, G. K. (2009). Marriages at risk: Relationship formation and opportunities for relationship education. In Benson, H. & Callan, S. (Eds.), What works in relationship education: Lessons from academics and service deliverers in the United States and Europe (pp. 21–44). Doha, Qatar: Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 243–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, J. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5 th Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Storaasli, R. D., & Markman, H. J. (1990). Relationship problems in the early stages of marriage: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.4.1.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, D. J., Bennett, K. K., & Ballard–Reisch, D. S. (2003). Family influences on commitment: Examining the family of origin correlates of relationship commitment attitudes. Personal Relationships, 10, 453–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-6811.2003.00060.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2008). Effects of parental divorce on marital commitment and confidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 789–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012800 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed