The authors advance an interdependence analysis of willingness to sacrifice. Support for model predictions was revealed in 6 studies (3 cross-sectional survey studies, 1 simulation experiment, 2 longitudinal studies) that used a novel self-report measure and a behavioral measure of willingness to sacrifice. Willingness to sacrifice was associated with strong commitment, high satisfaction, poor alternatives, and high investments; feelings of commitment largely mediated the associations of these variables with willingness to sacrifice. Moreover, willingness to sacrifice was associated with superior couple functioning, operationalized in terms of level of dyadic adjustment and probability of couple persistence. In predicting adjustment, willingness to sacrifice accounted for significant variance beyond commitment, partially mediating me link between commitment and adjustment; such mediation was not significant for persistence.
The related goals of the research were to delineate the domain of discontinuity, 1st by demonstrating its occurrence in a nonmatrix situation and, 2nd, by establishing the antecedent outcome conditions necessary for producing a discontinuity effect. The 1st goal was met by designing a mixed motive situation involving the production of origami products. Under these conditions, the magnitude of the discontinuity effect did not significantly differ from that in a matrix-only condition. The 2nd goal was met by a separate experiment that used H. H. Kelley and J. W. Thibaut's (1978) analysis of degree of noncorrespondence of outcomes. This experiment demonstrated that as noncorrespondence increased, so did the rate of competitive responding by groups but not by individuals. This pattern was qualified by an interaction with gender such that competitiveness was more markedly affected by noncorrespondence for groups of women than for groups of men.
A meta-analysis, a review, and an experiment investigated the effect of arousal on attraction. The meta-analysis examined experiments that manipulated arousal level. Results indicated that arousal affects attraction even when the arousal source is relatively unambiguous. In contrast, a review of experiments that manipulated arousal source ambiguity suggested that arousal exerts a stronger influence on attraction when arousal sources are greater in ambiguity. The authors proposed a judgment and adjustment model that states that arousal automatically affects judgments of attraction but that individuals can correct (i.e., adjust) for this automatic effect when the arousal source is unambiguous. Consistent with this model, an experiment provided evidence that cognitive busyness interferes with the adjustment process.
Romantic partners often have to sacrifice their interests to benefit their partner or to maintain the relationship. In the present work, we investigated whether relative power within the relationship plays an important role in determining the extent to which partners are likely to sacrifice. Drawing from both classic theories and recent research on power, we tested two competing predictions on the relationship between power and sacrifice in romantic relationships. We tested whether (a) power is negatively related to sacrifice and (b) power is positively related to sacrifice. Furthermore, we also explored whether the association between power and sacrifice is moderated by commitment and inclusion of the other in the self. To test our hypotheses, we used different methodologies, including questionnaires, diary studies, and videotaped interactions. Results across the five studies (N = 1,088) consistently supported the hypothesis that power is negatively related to tendencies to sacrifice in close relationships.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.