2004
DOI: 10.1080/01463370409370196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of past dating relationship solidarity on commitment, satisfaction, and investment in current relationships

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given that solidarity focuses on the interpersonal relationship, research has largely centered on the benefits of solidarity in nonorganizational settings. For example, in romantic relationships, solidarity is a motivator that increases as the stages of the relationship progress (Wheeless, Wheeless, & Baus, 1984) and is related to commitment and satisfaction (Merolla, Weber, Myers, & Booth-Butterfield, 2004). Within friendships, self-disclosure has been identified as a predictor of closeness (e.g., Bowman, 2005).…”
Section: Solidaritymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Given that solidarity focuses on the interpersonal relationship, research has largely centered on the benefits of solidarity in nonorganizational settings. For example, in romantic relationships, solidarity is a motivator that increases as the stages of the relationship progress (Wheeless, Wheeless, & Baus, 1984) and is related to commitment and satisfaction (Merolla, Weber, Myers, & Booth-Butterfield, 2004). Within friendships, self-disclosure has been identified as a predictor of closeness (e.g., Bowman, 2005).…”
Section: Solidaritymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The theory proposes two types of expectations. First, comparison level (CL) captures an individual’s expectations for a relationship as it “reflects the quality of outcomes that the participant feels he or she deserves” (Kelley & Thibault, 1978, p. 9) and is based on observation of others, personal experiences in both past and current relationships, and cultural ideals (Merolla, Weber, Myer, & Booth-Butterfield, 2004; Weigel, 2007). Second, CL for alternatives (CL-Alt) refers to an individual’s expectations about the characteristics of a relationship that he/she could enter if their current relationship were to end.…”
Section: Interdependence Theory As a Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, this might indeed be the case for superficial relationships without commitment and/or a declaration of love. However, we believe that quite the opposite is likely for relationships that have progressed to a level of depth, long-term commitment, and perhaps love [10,11]. In other words, because of their generally nonchalant approach to involvements, men might be blindsided by how to handle strong emotional connections once those feelings are finally noticed and perceived, that is, once men shift from a game-playing approach as they fall in love with a particular significant other.…”
Section: Lee's Love Stylesmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These differences in approaches and ideas about love are supported by another study stating that "males may fall in love more easily than females…and may display greater romanticism in their relationship beliefs" ( [10], p. 416). This combination of occurrences leads to men's lives being changed dramatically after a relationship ends [1,11].…”
Section: Relational Termination From a Gendered Perspectivementioning
confidence: 99%