Reasons for Changes in Commitment: Variations by Courtship Type

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare partners in different types of courtship on the reasons they gave for changes in commitment. In previous research four courtship types (accelerated, accelerated-arrested, intermediate and prolonged) were identified from differences in newly weds' graphs of changes in the chance of marriage during courtship. In this study respondents' explanations for each turning point in the graph were coded as: intrapersonal/normative, dyadic, social network, or circumstantial. Significant differences among the types were found for the number of dyadic and circumstantial reasons and the proportions of intrapersonal/normative and circumstantial reasons. The types also tended to differ on the proportions of intrapersonal/normative and dyadic reasons for downturns. The results, combined with previously identified differences on partners' performance of activities together and with the social network, indicate that the types reflect distinct developmental patterns.

When a Small Thing Means so Much: Nonverbal Cues as Turning Points in Relationships

“…They have also had interest in particular changes that the turning points bring about, such as levels of commitment, relational satisfaction (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986;Surra, 1987), self-efficacy (i.e., Docan-Morgan, 2011), and closeness (e.g., Golish, 2000;Johnson, Wittenberg, Villagran, Mazur, & Villagran, 2003;Johnson et al, 2004;Poulos, 2012). As noted, nonverbal behavior has not been the primary focus of this scholarship.…”

Communicatively remembering turning points of relational development in heterosexual romantic relationships

“…Although a romantic relationship's past can be represented any number of ways, several scholars over the past two decades have looked to the "turning point" as their focus (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986;Bullis, Clark, & Sline, 1993;Graham, 1997;Surra, 1985Surra, ,1987Surra, Arizzi, & Asmussen, 1988;Surra & Hughes, 1997). Originally conceived by Bolton (1961), a "turning point" refers to a transformative event that alters the relationship in some way.…”

“Our first big fight” as a milestone in the development of close relationships

“…The violation of relationship expectations related to the FBF would likely stimulate the attribution process for the interactants in terms of the violations (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1981). Indeed, diffe ring attributions are associated with significant relationship turning pointsincluding the "First Fight" (Lloyd & Cate, 1985b;Surra, 1987). An FBF, therefore, while a specific instance of conflict in a relationship, does involve the causal connections between behaviors, thoughts, and emotions that define close relationships (Kelley et al, 1983).…”

“…471-472). First, studies using the turning point as a unit of analysis (Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981;Surra, 1987;Surra & Huston, 1987) have been directed more toward gathering other information (e.g., general patterns of commitment) than discovering the particular aspects of turning points themselves. Second, studies tend to be overly reductionistic in their analyses of turning point data.…”

“…Second, studies tend to be overly reductionistic in their analyses of turning point data. For example, Cate (1984, 1985b) and Surra (1984Surra ( , 1987) derived a four-category system (dyadic, individual, network, circumstantial) for classifying the reasons respondents gave for changes in commitment. Baxter and Bullis (1986) point out that the dyadic category contains "everything from 'having a fight,' to 'having sex,' to 'getting engaged,' " and conclude that "a finer-grained analysis is warranted" (p. 471).…”