Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships.

Abstract

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.

Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships.

“…The reliability of this instrument was lower than would be ideal but was judged to be acceptable given that this instrument has frequently been used in previous research. Moreover, the present version of the instrument has been shown to exhibit good test-retest reliability (Van Lange et al, 1997).…”

“…Thus, the components of commitment extend beyond that which is predictable based on the degree to which John wants to be in a relationship (satisfaction), is bound to the relationship (investments), and has no choice but to be in the relationship (alternatives). Indeed, the empirical literature suggests that (a) commitment is the direct mediator of persistence and other prorelationship behaviors, and (b) commitment accounts for unique variance in prorelationship behavior beyond the variance accounted for by satisfaction, alternatives, and investments (e.g., Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;Rusbult, 1983;Van Lange et al, 1997).…”

“…Moreover, commitment is associated with a variety of so-called relationship maintenance acts, including (a) disparagement of alternatives, or tendencies to drive away or derogate tempting alternative partners (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990); (b) willingness to sacrifice, or tendencies to forego desired behavioral options for the good of a relationship (Van Lange et al, 1997); and (c) accommodative behavior, or tendencies to accommodate rather than retaliate when a partner behaves poorly (Rusbult et al, 1991). In short, committed individuals frequently are willing to exert significant effort or endure great cost toward the goal of maintaining their relationships.…”

“…For example, close involvement can produce changes in everyday activity preferences, arising from attempts to coordinate activities with those of a significant other (cf. Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989;Van Lange et al, 1997). Close involvement can also change the ways in which we communicate; for instance, increasing commitment is associated with enhanced tendencies to accommodate, or to diminish negative reciprocity during the course of interaction (cf.…”

Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes.

“…People overcome relationship challenges by engaging in a wide range of cognitions and behaviours that promote the development and maintenance of the relationship (e.g., Rusbult, Bissonnette, Arriaga, & Cox, 1998;Rusbult & Buunk, 1993;Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox, 1997). The way people perceive their partners and relationships is one such relationship maintenance process.…”