Commitment and Sacrifice in Emerging Adult Romantic Relationships

Abstract

The development of commitment and satisfaction with sacrifice has been associated with relationship health and stability. Given the importance of early romantic relationships, the purpose of the present study was to explore how these constructs relate and develop in an emerging adult population (n ¼ 246). Through an initial confirmatory factor analysis, we found the two constructs can be distinct. Then, using interdependence theory and a cross-lagged model over three time points, we found support for a bidirectional relationship between commitment and satisfaction with sacrifice. In addition, we found a main effect for relationship length and instability (i.e., cycling) on Time 1 and Time 3 dedication respectively.

Temporal Ordering of Supportive Dyadic Coping, Commitment, and Willingness to Sacrifice

“…This was not anticipated, as interdependence theory proposes that commitment allows partners to adopt a long‐term view of their relationship, whereby immediate desires can be sacrificed for the long‐term health and viability of the union (Kelley & Thibaut, ). Using the same analytic approach, prior work has also demonstrated longitudinal linkages between these constructs (Monk et al, ). We suspect that these variables may not have been associated in the present study because of an underlying developmental process.…”

“…First, by drawing on longitudinal data with assessment of the key constructs at three time points and the use of sophisticated analytic techniques, we were able to tease out the temporal ordering between supportive dyadic coping, commitment, and willingness to sacrifice. Prior research has only rarely empirically tested the ordering of these variables (e.g., Monk et al, ), and we are unaware of any study that has done so with such a large, diverse sample or with data collected over 5 years. Second, this study advances the development of interdependence theory, and it represents one of the first efforts to understand how dyadic coping relates to other relationship cognitions, aside from satisfaction.…”

“…Applying this framework to the present study, we anticipated that anchors' commitment (e.g., “I would like for our partnership to last for a long time”) will predict a greater willingness to sacrifice (“Usually, I am willing to sacrifice my own desires for my partner's desires”), consistent with prior research (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, ; Van Lange et al, 1997). Insofar as willingness to sacrifice may translate into action, sacrificial behaviors may be perceived as investments and strengthen commitment, resulting in bidirectional reinforcement of each construct (e.g., Monk, Vennum, Ogolsky, & Fincham, ).…”

Perceived parent and friend support for romantic relationships in emerging adults

“…By longitudinally following a sample of EEA into MEA (possibly extending the sample also to include late EA, 26–29 years), researchers would be able to understand the sequential path from friend support initially predicting commitment, satisfaction, and quality of alternatives in the early years of EA to parental support predicting commitment, satisfaction, and investments in the middle years of EA. Researchers would also be able to understand in greater detail the role of social support in influencing intrapersonal aspects relating to intrinsic investments, such as sacrifice (Monk, Vennum, Ogolsky, & Fincham, ) or moral commitment (Rodrigues & Lopes, ), but also relating to extrinsic investments, such as cohabitation (Willoughby, Madsen, Carroll, & Busby, ). Another important addition to this research in future studies is the inclusion of dyadic data (Cook & Kenny, ).…”

Coming Out and Getting Back In: Relationship Cycling and Distress in Same‐ and Different‐Sex Relationships

“…Despite the prevalence and potential negative outcomes of relationship cycling, there is no research on this phenomenon in same‐sex romantic relationships. The few studies of cycling that include same‐sex partnerships have subsamples that are too small to be informative (about 2%–3% indicated that they were in a same‐sex relationship; e.g., Monk, Vennum, Ogolsky, & Fincham, ).…”