Being Committed: Affective, Cognitive, and Conative Components of Relationship Commitment

Abstract

This article presents the first systematic empirical examination of the state of relationship commitment as advanced by Rusbult and her colleagues, defining the state in terms of affective, cognitive, and conative components. From this perspective, the state of commitment is seen as having three distinct components: (a) psychological attachment, (b) long-term orientation, and (c) intention to persist. Two longitudinal studies of individuals in dating relationships revealed that the three components each predict both couple functioning and eventual breakup status.Both studies also provided suggestive evidence that long-term orientation is a particularly important component of commitment in dating relationships.

The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests.

“…They also read that the partner was about to enroll into the program, but wanted the participants' input before Relationship commitment and satisfaction. Participants filled out a 12-item relationship commitment scale (α = .93; Arriaga & Agnew, 2001) and a 5-item relationship satisfaction scale (α = .92; Rusbult et al, 1998).…”

Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited

“…This tripartite view includes behaviour as a conative dimension (Allport, 1940;Wolff , 1980;Baumgarten, 1980;Arriaga et al, 2001;Gerdes, et al, 2008). Since then, many authors pay attention to the interrelated role of affect, cognition and behaviour (Ostrom, 1969;Breckler, 1984;Knopf, 1987;Fiedler et al, 1988;Polivy, 1998;Gabriel et al, 1999;Thompson, 1999;Farley et al, 2003;Stangor, 2013).…”

“…The ABC psychology demonstrates a strong affinity with the three functions of the soul that were already mentioned by Plato: feeling, thinking and acting The distinction between feeling, thinking and acting is used since a long time until nowadays as a common view on psychological experience, e.g. by Wolff (17th century); Baumgarten (18th century), Bain (19th century), Allport (1940), Smith (1947), Harding et al (1954), Katz and Stotland (1959), Rosenberg et al, (1960b), Ostrom (1969), Brodwin (1976), Ajzen (1988), ), Breckler (1984, Kay (1993), Arriaga et al (2001), Jorgensen and Stedman (2001), van de Grindt (2004), Sno (2008), and Gerdes et al (2008). According to this view, people show three types of responses while interacting with stimuli: affect, behaviour and cognition (ABC factors).…”

“…According to this view, people show three types of responses while interacting with stimuli: affect, behaviour and cognition (ABC factors). These experiences lead to feelings, thoughts and/or acting (Ostrom, 1969;Brodwin, 1976;Schneider, 1987;Ajzen, 1988;Kay, 1993;Arriaga et al, 2001;van de Grindt, 2004;Covey, 2005;Smidts, 2002;Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Asking people about their experiences results in expressions such as verbal statements of affect, perceptual responses and verbal statements of belief (cognition) and reports of behavioural intentions and commitment (Ostrom, 1969;Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001).…”

The relationship between servant leadership, affective team commitment and team effectiveness

“…Members of cohesive teams are committed to their teams, with team commitment being indicated by the degree of attachment to the team, a long-term orientation to the team and intentions to remain within the group (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001;Forsyth, 2010). As team cohesion and team member identification increases, so does team commitment (Johnson & Johnson, 2006).…”