Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, Vol. 73, No. 1.

104-113

Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-35 M/97/S3.00

Coping With Moral Commitment to Long-Distance Dating Relationships

John Lydon, Tamarha Pierce, and Shannon O'Regan
McGill University
The uncertainty of relationship transitions should elicit more elaborate cognitive processing about one's relationship. As a result, reports of a type of relationship commitment distinctive from satisfactionmoral commitmentmight be obtained from those about to begin long distance relationships. Students assessed prior to the academic year reported 2 types of commitment: moral and enthusiastic. Moral commitment was highly correlated with the meaning of the relationship and investment in the relationship, whereas enthusiastic commitment was highly correlated with satisfaction. Moral (but not enthusiastic) commitment predicted the subsequent survival of the relationship. Moral commitment also predicted appraisals of increased investment in and meaning of the relationship by the end of the term. Finally, moral commitment predicted negative affect and illness symptoms for those whose relationships ended. For people remaining in relationships, a new construct of moral burden emerged at Time 2. Burden was related to relationship dissatisfaction and stress and predicted the initiation of a subsequent breakup.

Would we assume that a person is committed to a close relationship because that person is happy, enthusiastic, and satisfied with the relationship? Lay conceptions of love and commitment appear consistent with Kelley's (1983) conceptualization of the two constructs as overlapping but not synonymous (Fehr, 1988). Similarly, Sternberg (1986) theorized that a person can experience a love characterized by passion and intimacy without commitment, which he termed romantic love. Finally, Rusbult and Buunk (1993) argued strongly that relationships research has overemphasized the construct of "satisfaction" at the expense of a (presumably distinct) construct of commitment. Clearly, theorists and laypersons alike subscribe to a notion that commitment is distinguishable from love and satisfaction. However, an examination of the data reveals a pattern of correlations that do not support this conceptualization very well. In a review of her own work, Rusbult (1991) noted that the correlations between satisfaction and commitment range from .50 to .80. Others have reported this same level of correlations (e.g., Fletcher, Fincham, Cramer, & Heron, 1987; Sternberg & Beall, 1991; Zuroff, 1994). Most striking are the data of Lund (1985), who created a "commitment" scale with the explicit intention of uncoupling commitment from love (by deleting items that correlated most highly with Rubin's 1973 love scale). Nevertheless, three sets of data from two samples of participants

John Lydon, Tamarha Pierce, and Shannon O'Regan, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et T Aide a la Recherche. The data collected were also used in an honors thesis by Shannon O'Regan. We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Richard Koestner and Harry Reis on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Lydon. Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1B1. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to jlydon@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca. 104

resulted in commitment-love correlations of .67, .74, and .76. The question then arises: Is there anything to commitment other than a general positive attitude toward a relationship?' Despite the high correlations between commitment and satisfaction, it is still possible that commitment may account for relationship outcomes above and beyond satisfaction. For example, Rusbult (1983) found that changes in commitment predicted relationship dissolution better than changes in satisfaction did. That is, as the impending breakup nearcd, one was more likely to see a decline in self-reported commitment than a decline in self-reported satisfaction. Subsequently, Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that a measure of commitment/behavioral intentions predicted the likelihood of abused women returning to their spouse, whereas positive feelings about the partner (i.e., satisfaction) did not predict likelihood of returning. Recently, Bui, Peplau, and Hill (1996) found that commitment predicted relationship duration when controlling for satisfaction. Especially striking about these results is that commitment and satisfaction were correlated .60 (K. T. Bui, personal communication, December 11. 1996). To understand how commitment may account for relationship outcomes above and beyond satisfaction despite their high level of cuvariation, we have turned to theorizing on the multidimensionality of commitment. Typically, commitment researchers (ourselves included) have conceptualized or measured commitment as a broad theoretical construct referring to an internal psychological state in which a person feels tied to or connected to someone or something (see Lydon, 1996, for a review). However, we have endorsed the suggestions of other commitment theorists (e.g., Brickman, 1987; M. P. Johnson, 1991; Meyer & Allen, 1984) that commitment may be usefully examined in terms of multiple dimensions or types (Lydon, 1996;

' These high correlations do not rule out the possibility that there is a useful distinction to be made between the two concepts {cf. height and weight). However, the onus would seem to be on researchers to make the case.

COPING WITH MORAL COMMITMENT Lydon & Dunkel-Schetter, 1994). The positive attitude or satisfaction dimension of commitment corresponds with Brickman's (1987) enthusiasm dimension of commitment as well as M. P. Johnson's (1991) personal commitment and Meyer and Allen's (1984) "want t o " commitment. We refer to this type of commitment as enthusiastic commitment. A second type of commitment that may be especially useful in addressing our question is the notion of moral commitment. M. P. Johnson (1991) described moral commitment as "the feeling that one ought to continue a relationship" (p. 121). He emphasized that moral commitment involves self-constraint; that is, a person is committed to the relationship not because of the moral aspects of social reaction but because of his or her own values. Although the notion of moral commitment may be theoretically appealing, it has been difficult to demonstrate empirically (Rusbult, 1991). In studies of people in dating relationships, positive feelings about the relationship seem to act as a heuristic guide to an array of relationship appraisals, including judgments of commitment (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Enthusiastic commitment appears more salient in such contexts than moral commitment. Studying married people presents a different set of conceptual problems for moral commitment. Because there remains some social pressure to avoid separation and divorce, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the feelings of constraint are internal constraints or external constraints. The goal of the present research was to identify a context in which we might elicit reports of moral commitment, distinguishable from enthusiastic commitment. This would allow us to test the validity and utility of a notion of moral commitment. It also would allow us to test whether moral commitment can account for significant relationship outcomes, independent of (i.e., statistically controlling for) enthusiastic commitment. Finally, it would add precision to our understanding of what exactly it is about commitment that is distinct from satisfaction. The challenge was to identify a context that would interrupt typical schematic processing and instead prompt more deliberative processing. We reasoned that the month before a person leaves his or her dating partner to go away to university would elicit deliberative thinking. The change from local to long-distance dating is a significant transition for a relationship, fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity. As a result, a person can be expected to engage in increased cognitive activity about past experiences, current status, and future expectations (Fletcher et al., 1987). Moreover, turning points in the pursuit of a goal are theorized to elicit a deliberative mindset (Gollwitzer, 1990). Therefore, the relationship transition may induce a deliberative mindset that prompts one to consider appraisals of the relationship in terms of more than just current positive affect (and concomitant enthusiastic commitment). Cognitive deliberations of one's values and beliefs vis-a-vis one's relationship and the impending move away from one's dating partner may facilitate the elicitation of self-reported moral commitment. This is not to suggest that enthusiastic commitment will necessarily decrease at this time. However, one may be uncertain about future levels of satisfaction and enthusiastic commitment, because circumstances will be changing in a major way. In contrast, when the relationship is highly satisfying and the context is stable, it

105

is unlikely that one will deliberate about feelings of obligation and duty. Thus, we hypothesized that people about to begin a longdistance relationship would report moral commitment, distinct from enthusiastic commitment. To evaluate the validity and usefulness of such a distinction, we tested differences between enthusiastic and moral commitment in three ways. First, we sought to identify different correlates of each type of commitment. Second, we examined how enthusiastic and moral commitment relate to relationship survival. Finally, we examined how enthusiastic and moral commitment relate to distress about relationship dissolution. Our predictions about correlates of moral commitment, distinct from enthusiastic commitment, were based on previous theorizing and research on commitment (Brickman, 1987; Lydon, 1996; Rusbult, 1983, 1991). Two key variables related to commitment are investment (Rusbult, 1980, 1983; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993) and meaning (Brickman, 1987; Lydon, 1996). Rusbult's (1991) investment model has shown repeatedly that investment, "the net forces binding one to an ongoing relationship" (p. 153), predicts commitment above and beyond satisfaction and the quality of alternatives. Moreover, researchers who take a dissonance/entrapment perspective (Brickman, 1987; Staw, 1976) would expect "sunken costs" or investments to be positively associated with commitment. Thus, if moral commitment is a type of commitment that is particularly distinct from satisfaction, then we should find that investment predicts moral commitment. Meaning refers to the sense that a goal expresses one's values, identity, and core beliefs about the self and others. In previous studies, meaning has been found to predict commitment to personal projects and volunteer work (Lydon & Zanna, 1990) as well as pregnancies (Lydon, Dunkel-Schetter, Cohan, & Pierce, 1996). Moreover, meaning predicted commitment to personal projects above and beyond that which was accounted for by the investment model variables. In theory, meaning should predict commitment to a close relationship. However, it has not been established that meaning can predict commitment to a close relationship above and beyond investment variables. Thus, by demonstrating a meaning-moral commitment relation we will be able to extend research and theory on meaning and commitment to the area of close relationships while supporting the case for the distinct merits of moral commitment. Note that in many contexts, meaning and investment will correlate with both enthusiastic and moral commitment. However, we expected that when people are in a deliberative mindset induced by a relationship transition, enthusiastic commitment would be more skewed toward satisfaction, whereas the core of commitment would be more strongly associated with moral commitment. Consequently, we expected enthusiastic commitment to be more strongly correlated with satisfaction items than with benchmark correlates of commitment. Nevertheless, we expected enthusiastic commitment to be significantly correlated with benchmark correlates of commitment. We expected that enthusiastic commitment would be positively related to the perceived attractiveness of one's partner, the rewards one receives from the relationship, and overall relationship satisfaction (Rusbult, 1991). We expected that enthusiastic commitment would also be negatively related to the perceived

106

LYDON, PIERCE, AND O'REGAN rate of relationship breakups among people in highly intimate and committed relationships than one might observe in those in more stable life situations. Finally, other researchers have identified the first university term as an especially stressful period for students (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986). We theorized that the loss of a committed relationship would increase distress but that this effect may be most apparent at a time when participants are experiencing a confluence of stressors. During less stressful periods, one may need greater statistical power to obtain the commitment-distress relation. After the Relationship Transition Whereas the focus of the present research was on the transition or turning point in a relationship as a context for eliciting and examining moral commitment, the longitudinal design begs the question: What happens to the factor structure of commitment responses once one has made the transition to a longdistance relationship? One might expect that people would continue to think of their long-distance relationships in terms of both moral and enthusiastic commitment. However, from our perspective, the transition to university elicits a deliberative mindset. We would expect that, once a person has made the transition and shifts to a more implemental mindset (Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995), the salience of moral commitment will recede, and the prominence of enthusiastic commitment will re-emerge.

stress of the relationship and the perceived attractiveness of alternatives (D. J. Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). In other words, people are more enthusiastic about relationships that do not engender stress, and they are less enthusiastic about what they have when alternatives look very attractive. Our second research objective was to examine relationship survival. Given the findings of Bui and her colleagues (1996), we expected commitment to predict relationship survival. However, .our stronger prediction was that moral commitment in particular would predict relationship survival above and beyond satisfaction and enthusiastic commitment. Again, this would clarify conceptually what it is about commitment that goes beyond satisfactionmoral commitment. If moral commitment predicts relationship survival, what accounts for this? What does moral commitment do? We theorized that commitment prompts appraisals of meaning and investment that bolster relationship commitment and stability (Lydon, 1996). In the present study we examined whether the degree of moral commitment indicated by a person the month before he or she left home predicted changes in appraisals of meaning and investment from this same time point to the end of the fall term. Our third research objective was to examine adjustment following relationship dissolution. Here we were guided by research on commitment and adjustment to stress. For example, Brown, Bifulco, and Harris (1987) found that women who experienced a negative life event in a committed life domain were more likely to experience an onset of depression than women who experienced similarly negative events in uncommitted life domains. More recently, Brunstein (1993) found that students experienced distress about not attaining goals only if they were committed to such goals. Finally Lydon et al. (1996) found that for women who decided to abort a pregnancy, their predecisional pregnancy commitment was positively related to changes in hostility, guilt, and depression (but not anxiety) following the decision to terminate the pregnancy. In the context of a dating relationship, we would not expect people whose relationships end to be necessarily more distressed than those whose relationships remain intact. Instead, we predicted that distress about relationship dissolution would be a function of a priori moral commitment. It is not the termination of a relationship per se, but rather the termination of a relationship high in meaning and commitment, that will evoke psychological distress (cf. Simpson, 1987). Long-Distance Relationships In addition to the aforementioned reason for studying people who are about to leave their dating partner to attend university, we had three other reasons for focusing on this particular group. First, we felt that for many of these students, their current relationship would be a very significant one. Whereas the levels of intimacy and commitment in university students' dating relationships may not increase linearly from one relationship to the next, we expected that for high school graduates, their most recent relationship would often have been their most intimate and committed relationship to date (Knox & Sporakowski, 1968; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Second, we expected that the uncertainty and subsequent life changes might prompt a higher

Method Overview
We assessed, at multiple time points, two cohorts of first-year university students in dating relationships. One cohort was initially assessed the month before they left home to attend university (Time 1). These students were then assessed again during the latter half of the fall term (Time 2) and again during the latter half of the winter term (Time 3), We conducted a brief telephone interview during the following summer to assess their relationship status (Time 4). Another cohort was enlisted at Time 2 and assessed in the same way as the first cohort across the last three time points (Times 2 - 4 ) . The main focus of our analyses was on the first cohort, for three reasons. First, the first cohort consisted almost entirely of students in long-distance relationships, except for cases in which both members of the dyad left home to attend a university in Montreal. The second cohort included a mix of students in local and long-distance relationships. Second, we suspected that the first university term would be the highest risk time for relationship breakups and that therefore the Time 1-to-Time 2 interval would be critical for this analysis. Finally, because the first university term is especially stressful, we expected the participants to be most vulnerable to distress as a function of relationship factors during the first term. Nevertheless, we used data from the second cohort to provide a useful set of supplementary analyses regarding the structure of commitment and the survival of relationships from Time 2 to Time 3.

Participants
The Time 1 sample consisted of 86 McGill University students (57 women and 29 men). Twenty-seven students completed a questionnaire during a weekend orientation the month prior to the beginning of the school year. During the following week, new students from outside of

COPING WITH MORAL COMMITMENT Quebec were telephoned and asked if they were in a dating relationship and, if so, whether they would be willing to complete one questionnaire by mail and two others in the fall and winter semesters at the university. They were offered $10 Can ($7 to $7.50 U.S.) if they completed the questionnaires. Sixty-two students in dating relationships agreed to have questionnaires sent to them. Fifty-nine returned completed questionnaires, 1 returned a blank questionnaire, 1 was returned as undeliverable, and 1 was not returned. At Time 2, 69 (48 women and 21 men) of the original 86 participants came to the laboratory and completed questionnaires. Eleven participants could not be located, 3 could not be reached by telephone, and 3 had withdrawn from the study. A second cohort of 67 first-year students was also enrolled in the study at this time point; they had been recruited the previous year. At Time 3, 61 of the 69 Cohort 1 participants returned to the laboratory. Four participants could not be reached by telephone, and 4 no longer had the same telephone numbers they had in the fall semester. Sixty of the 67 Cohort 2 participants returned in the winter. Six participants no longer had the same telephone numbers as in the fall, and 1 participant was no longer a student and chose to withdraw from the study.

107

Materials
Time I. We designed eight items to measure relationship commitment (i.e., moral and enthusiastic). We adapted them fora relationships context from an 8-item measure used to assess general commitment to a pregnancy (Lydon el al., 1996). They included the core items of feeling "committed to your relationship right now" and feeling "attached to your dating partner right now" with a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Participants also were asked to what extent they felt obligated to continue the relationship and a duty to continue the relationship (obligation items contributed to moral commitment), and they were asked to what extent they felt enthusiastic about the relationship, enjoyment about the relationship, relief if not in the relationship, and to what degree they perceived the relationship as a burden. These four items (the last two items were reverse scored) were designed as enthusiasm items that would contribute to a measure of enthusiastic commitment. Thirteen items were designed to assess the meaning that "your relationship has for you.'' The first six items assessed the extent to which the relationship: (1) expressed participants' values, (2) revealed something about their identity, (3) made them feel good about themselves, (4) reflected their concern for others, (5) revealed something about who they are as a person, and (6) was a reflection of their view of the world. The next six items asked to what extent would the ending of their relationship be a challenge or threat to each of the six issues above (e.g., a challenge or threat to the participants' values, their identity, etc.). Finally, participants were asked to what extent continuing the relationship was an important goal in their lives. These items were assessed on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). In addition, participants were asked a series of questions designed as correlates of moral commitment and enthusiastic commitment. Participants (using the same 5-point scale mentioned above) rated the extent to which the relationship was stressful. They were also asked how rewarding the relationship was, how invested they were in it, how attracted they were to their partner, how appealing their alternatives were, and how satisfied they were with the relationship. A baseline measure of affective states consisted of 20 items from the Affects Balance Scale (Derogatis, 1975). The 8 positive affects included: energetic, pleased, affectionate, glad, warm, excited, contented, and delighted. The 12 negative affects included 3 depression items (sad, unhappy, and hopeless), 3 guilt items (regretful, guilty, and ashamed), 3 anxiety items (tense, anxious, and nervous), and 3 hostility items

(angry, resentful, and bitter). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they had felt each of these during the past week on a scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Participants also completed a general information sheet that included questions about how long participants had known their dating partner, how long they had dated, how far apart they would be living in the fall, and a set of questions about plans for leaving and dealing with being apart. They also completed a measure of relationship trust (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Finally, participants were given space to write about other thoughts and feelings they may have had about this issue. lime 2. At Time 2, participants received three packets of questionnaires. The first packet was to be completed by all participants, the second packet by those currently in a dating relationship, and the third packet by those whose relationship at Time 1 had ended. Packet 1 included the same items from the Affects Balance Scale as presented at Time 1. In addition, 26 items from the Pennebaker Inventory for Limbic Languidness (Pennebaker, 1982) were presented. Some items from the full 54-item inventory were dropped on the basis of zero frequencies from a sample of 67 McGill University undergraduates. Also at Time 2, participants completed Collins and Read's (1990) 18-item measure of adult attachment styles. This scale yields three attachment measures: comfortableness with closeness, anxiety and fear about being unloved, and ability to depend on others. As well, for Cohort 1, the Dishman self-motivation inventory (Dishman, Ickes, & Morgan, 1980) was presented to assess dispositional commitment. This is a 40-item measure in which participants rate on 5-point scales (that range from extremely uncharacteristic to extremely characteristic) such statements as " I ' m not very good at committing myself to things" and " I can persist in spite of pain and discomfort.'' This measure has been used primarily in health and sports psychology settings to predict behavioral adherence to athletic regimens. The meaning of the relationship, commitment, trust and other potential correlates of commitment assessed at Time 1 were repeated at Time 2 in Packet 2. An additional item asked participants how convenient their relationship was. Packet 3 at Time 2 was designed for participants whose relationship from Time 1 had ended. Participants were asked who had initiated the ending of the relationship: (1) me, (2) both of us, (3) my ex-partner Participants then were asked an open-ended question about why they thought the relationship had ended. This was followed by a series of scaled questions about why the relationship may have ended, the desire of the participant and his or her estimates of the ex-partner's desire to get back together, and Ihe probability of getting back together. Time 3. The Time 3 packets were essentially the same as the Time 2 packets. The difference was that we included a fourth packet for participants whose relationships had ended by Time 2. In fact, there were participants at Time 3 who completed all four packets because they were in three different relationships at each of the three time points. Packet 4 was designed for exploratory purposes: One page included a subset of questions from Packet 3 and questions about the number of dates and dating partners since the breakup. Time 4. Participants were telephoned during the summer about the current status of their relationship. If the relationship had ended, they were asked to recall when it had ended. We were also able to learn about relationships that ended during the school year but had resumed during the summer.

Results Long-Distance Versus Local Relationships Analyses of the eight items.designed to assess enthusiastic and moral commitment at Time 1 revealed a different pattern of correlations for participants who had been about to begin a

108

LYDON, PIERCE, AND O'REGAN

long-distance relationship compared with those who would remain in a local relationship. An average of the two face-valid commitment items, commitment and attachment, were correlated with an average of the two key "moral" items of obligation and duty. As predicted, obligation/duty was positively associated with commitment/attachment for participants who began long-distance relationships, r(65) = .36, p < .01, but not for those who remained in local relationships, r(l4) = .15, ns. Moreover, an average of the four items designed to assess enthusiasm (enthusiasm, enjoyment, not a burden, not a relief if relationship ended) was highly correlated with commitment/ attachment for participants in local relationships, r(14) = .60, p = .01, whereas the strength of the association was more moderate for those who entered long-distance relationships, r(65) =

Table 1 Factor Analysis of Time J Relationship Attitudes of Participants About to Begin LongDistance Dating Relationships
Factor Item Commitment Obligation Attachment Duty Enthusiasm Burden Relief Enjoyment Eigenvalue Note. N = 67. Enthusiastic Commitment .39 .02 .40 -.23 .68 -.57 -.62 .62 2.40 Moral Commitment .63 .73 .60 .61 .27 .25 .02 .21 1.40

.35, p < m.2

Of the 69 participants at Time 2, 55 were involved in longdistance relationships, and 14 were in local relationships (dating partner living within 200 km of them). Consistent with our predictions, 12 of the 14 local relationships were still intact at Time 2 (86%), whereas only 28 of the 55 long-distance relationships were still intact (51%), x 2 (l,JV = 69) = 5.55,p < .02. For the 58 participants contacted by telephone the following summer (Time 4), relationship distance during the academic year (local vs. long distance) was associated with time of relationship breakup (fall, winter, summer, or still together at Time 4), x 2 ( l , N = 58) = 19.48, p < .001. This association was mainly due to the fact thai 33 of 47 long-distance relationships ended during the fall and winter, whereas only 1 of 11 local relationships ended during the fall and winter.3 In contrast, 5 of the remaining 10 local relationships ended after the school year, whereas only 2 of 12 long-distance relationships ended after the school year (and possibly upon being reunited). In the end, 45% of local relationships and 26% of long-distance relationships remained intact for a full year. Thus, it appeared that the transition to a long-distance relationship increased the likelihood of relationship breakups. Moreover, the transition period elicited both enthusiastic and moral expressions of commitment, whereas for participants in more stable local relationships commitment appeared to be overwhelmingly characterized by enthusiastic commitment. As a result, the remainder of the Results section focuses specifically on commitment to long-distance relationships as a context in which to examine both enthusiastic and moral commitment.

tively, on this factor. We labeled the first factor Enthusiastic Commitment. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.40, accounted for 17% of the variance, and was based primarily on the other four items: commitment, attachment, duty, and obligation. These four items all had loadings on this factor of at least .60, and the loadings on this factor were at least .20 higher than the item loadings on Factor 1. We labeled the second factor Moral Commitment. We used factor scores for the eight items for each of the two factors to compute scores for enthusiastic and moral commitment. In this way, although commitment and attachment loaded more heavily on the second factor, they were properly weighted in the scores for enthusiastic commitment as well. The scores generated from the two factors were uncorrelated (r = .08).

Differential Correlates of Enthusiastic and Moral Commitment

An examination of correlates of the two commitment measures revealed that Enthusiastic Commitment was correlated with attraction to one's partner, r(65) = .62; finding the relationship rewarding, r(65) = .61; satisfaction in the relationship, r(65) = .61; finding alternatives unappealing, r(65) = .50; and finding the relationship not stressful. r(65) = .54, all ps < .001. Comparisons of correlation coefficients for correlated samples (see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991 ) 4 revealed that all of
2 We surveyed a second sample of students in local relationships during the fall term (N ~ 30), replicating the results with the smaller sample from the summer. The 4-item index of enthusiasm was highly correlated with the 2-item core commitment index, r(28) = .62, but the 2-item obligation/duty index was not related to the core commitment index, r(28) = .27, ns. 3 Note that not everyone who broke up at Time 2 was interviewed at Time 4 and that some Time 2 breakups were temporary. 4 The traditional test for comparing nonindependent correlation coefficients is Hotelling's t. Steiger (1980) subsequently challenged this formulation and proposed an alternative, more conservative test. More recently, Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991) critiqued both formulae and put forward a formulation of what thev describe as a "still more accurate

Measures of Enthusiastic and Moral Commitment

We conducted a factor analysis of Time 1 responses for participants about to begin long-distance relationships, using the eight items assessing properties of relationship commitment (A' = 67). Because the two factors obtained from an oblique rotation were uncorrelated (r < .10), we performed a subsequent analysis using a varimax rotation to obtain a simpler solution (Tabachnick&Fidell, 1989). As seen in Table 1, the first factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.40, accounted for 30% of the variance and was based primarily on four items: enthusiasm, enjoyment, burden, and relief if ended, with the lasl two items reversed. These four items all had loadings of at least .57 and loadings of .27 or lower on the second factor. The benchmark commitment and attachment items had loadings of .39 and .40, respec-

COPING WITH MORAL COMMITMENT these, save rewards, were more strongly associated with Enthusiastic Commitment than with Moral Commitment (ps < .05). Enthusiastic Commitment was also associated with investment, r(65) = .36, p < .01, and meaning, r(65) = .30, p < .05. However, as predicted, Enthusiastic Commitment was more strongly associated with satisfaction than with investment (Z = 2.21, p < .02) and meaning (Z - 2.70, p < .01). The primary correlates of Moral Commitment were: (a) the extent to which participants reported their relationship to be meaningful (i.e., expressing their identity and values), r(65) = .61, and (b) the degree to which participants felt invested in the relationship, r(65) = .56. Meaning was more strongly associated with Moral Commitment than with Enthusiastic Commitment (Z = 2.02, p < .03), but the difference in correlation coefficients was not significant for the comparison of investment (Z - 1.22). Again, as predicted, Moral Commitment was more strongly related to meaning and investment than to satisfaction, f(63) = .33 (Zs = 2.47 and 1.95, ps < .05). Finally, the correlation between Moral Commitment and rewards remained highly significant even when controlling for Enthusiastic Commitment, partial r(64) = .48, p < .001. Following the data analytic strategy of Rusbult (e.g., 1983), we performed two regression analyses to predict enthusiastic and moral commitment, respectively. In both analyses the three key variables from the investment modelsatisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investmentwere entered along with meaning to predict commitment. For enthusiastic commitment, satisfaction was the primary predictor (/? - .43, sr = .34, p < .01). Quality of alternatives also was a significant predictor (/? = .23, sr = .20,/; < .05), and investment was marginally so (/? = .23, AT = .18, p < .10). Meaning did not explain unique variance in enthusiastic commitment (sr = .08). In contrast, for moral commitment, meaning was the primary predictor (/? - .40, sr = .31, p < .01). Also, despite the high correlation between meaning and investment, r(65) = .60, investment was also a significant predictor of moral commitment (0 .30, sr = .23, p = .02). Satisfaction and quality of alternatives did not explain unique variance in moral commitment (srs < .10). Finally, we examined the relations of enthusiastic and moral commitment with Rempel et al.'s (1985) trust scale (Time 1) and the three dimensions of Collins and Read's (1990) attachment scale (measured at Time 2, JV = 55). Enthusiastic commitment was associated with faith, r(65) = .40, p < .01; predictability, r(65) = .33, p < .01; comfort with closeness, r(53) = .29; and less anxiety about relationships, r(53) ~ ~-33, p < .02. Moral commitment was associated only with dependability from the trust scale, r(65) = .24, p < .05. Neither commitment measure was associated with a measure of disposition^ commitment, the Dishman self-motivation inventory (rs < .10). s In sum, two orthogonal dimensions of commitment were found for participants in long-distance dating relationships. Satisfaction was highly correlated with enthusiastic commitment, and it contributed more to enthusiastic commitment than did meaning and investment. In contrast, meaning and investment

109

were highly correlated with moral commitment, and they contributed more to moral commitment than did satisfaction.

Relationship Survival
We performed / tests comparing the Time 1 moral commitment scores and enthusiastic commitment scores of participants in long-distance relationships who stayed together versus participants whose relationships ended by Time 2 (end of the fall term). Participants who stayed together reported more moral commitment at Time 1, M(28) = .33, than those who broke up, Af(27) = - . 3 6 , z(53) = 3.46, p < .01. In contrast, participants who stayed together reported only marginally more enthusiastic commitment (M = .26) than those whose relationships ended (M = - . 1 8 ) , *(53) = 1.83, p < .10. Among participants who broke up, there was no association between self-reports of who initiated the breakup and Time 1 commitment measures (Fs < I ) . To compare the independent and possibly interactive effects of moral commitment and enthusiastic commitment on relationship survival, we performed a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, entering the main effects of moral and enthusiastic commitment in the first step and the product (interaction) term in the second step of the analysis. Moral commitment remained a significant predictor of relationship survival, controlling for enthusiastic commitment (f3 = .40, AT = .40, p < .01). However, enthusiastic commitment was not a significant predictor of relationship survival, controlling for moral commitment (/? .19, AT = .19, ns). In an additional regression analysis we entered satisfaction, quality of alternatives, investment, and meaning in the first step of the regression, and then enthusiastic and moral commitment in the second step, to predict relationship survival. Even though meaning and investment were both marginally related to relationship survival, neither was a significant unique predictor of relationship survival in Step I, nor was quality of alternatives. Satisfaction was a significant predictor of relationship survival, even after enthusiastic and moral commitment were entered (/? = - . 3 5 , sr = .24, p < .05), whereas enthusiastic commitment was not (sr = .02). Important moral commitment remained a significant predictor of relationship survival after controlling for all of the above variables (p = - . 3 6 , sr = - . 2 5 , p < .05).

Why Commitment Predicts Relationship Survival

Measures of meaning and investment at Time 2 for participants whose relationships survived were correlated with moral commitment at Time 1 (rs = .55 and .54, ps < .01, respectively). We performed regression analyses with the Time 2 measures of meaning and investment as the criteria. For each regres-

procedure" (p. 508) which uses Fisher z transformations of the rs being compared.

* Length of relationship as of Time I was marginally related to moral commitment, r(65) = .22, p < .10, but it was unrelated to enthusiastic commitment (r - .00), and it was unrelated to relationship status at T i m e 2 ( r = .01). Gender was unrelated to Time 1 moral and enthusiastic commitment (Fs < 1). Moreover, gender did not covary with Time 2 relationship status (together vs. broken up), x2O> N = 55) = 1.11, ns. Finally, gender did not covary with who initiated the breakup (x2 < 1).

110

LYDON, PIERCE, AND O'REGAN

sion analysis, we entered the corresponding Time 1 measure (of meaning or investment) simultaneously with the Time 1 measure of moral commitment so that we could examine changes in meaning and investment as a result of Time 1 moral commitment. Moral commitment predicted increases in appraisals of meaning from Time 1 to Time 2 (0 = .37, sr = .32, p = .05). As well, it predicted increased appraisals of investment from Time 1 to Time 2 (J3 = .40, sr = .38, p < .05). Thus, one possible explanation for how moral commitment promoted relationship survival during a time of transition and threat is that moral commitment prompted participants to see their relationships as increasingly meaningful and as relationships that they felt increasingly invested in maintaining.

Table 2 Predicting Distress Following Relationship Dissolution

Predictor3 Moral commitment Dependent variable11 Illness symptoms Depression Guilt Hostility Anxiety Enthusiastic commitment sr .43 .55 .59 .65 .00 0 .20 .12 .24 .13 .12 sr 20 12 24 13 12

0
.44* .66** .72** .01

Commitment and Distress

We performed t tests comparing the negative affect, positive affect, and illness symptoms of participants who were still together at Time 2 and those whose relationships had ended. There were no differences between the two groups for any of these measures (all ts < 1). Our prediction, though, was that commitment would predict distress among participants whose relationships ended. To test this, we performed a series of multiple regressions in which we entered moral commitment and enthusiastic commitment to predict three distress criteria: negative affect at Time 2, positive affect at Time 2, and illness symptoms at Time 2. We computed an affect balance score (Time 1 positive affect - Time 1 negative affect) and entered this in the first step of each of the three regression analyses as a control variable for possible chronic distress. For participants whose relationships ended, moral commitment at Time 1 predicted more negative affect at Time 2 {(3 = - . 6 1 , sr = .53, p < .01), independent of Time 1 affect balance and enthusiastic commitment. Moreover, enthusiastic commitment was unrelated to negative affect (r = .13, ns). Similarly, moral commitment predicted reports of more frequent illness symptoms in the past week (/? .44, sr = .43, p < .05), again controlling for affect balance at Time 1 and enthusiastic commitment at Time 1. Also, again, enthusiastic commitment was not reliably related to illness symptoms, r(26) = .20, ns. Finally, we did not find that moral or enthusiastic commitment were related to positive affect (rs = -.08 and .18, respectively). We performed more in-depth analyses regarding negative affect by examining each of four particular negative affects in separate regressions. For each analysis, we entered the Time 1 measure of the criterion as a predictor so that we could essentially test for moral and enthusiastic commitment as predictors of changes in each particular affect. As seen in Table 2, an examination of the specific negative affects revealed that moral commitment predicted changes in depression (0 .57, sr .55, p < .01), guilt (0 ~ .65, sr .59, p < .01), and hostility (0 = .72, sr = .65, p < .01), but not anxiety (0 ~ .01). Enthusiastic commitment did not predict any changes in negative affect (all rs < .25, ps > .10). 6 Finally, all of the analyses for participants whose relationships ended were repeated for those whose relationships remained intact. Neither moral commitment nor enthusiastic commitment

Note. N ~ 27. For illness symptoms, we controlled for Time 1 positive affect and negative affect. For the four negative affects, we controlled for the corresponding assessment at Time 1. a Time 1. b Time 2. *p < .05. **p < .01.

were related to any of the criteria (illness symptoms and all affect measures; all rs < .15). In sum, participants whose relationships ended did not appear more distressed than those whose relationships remained intact. However, level of moral commitment to the relationship prior to breakup predicted distress following breakup. Specifically, moral commitment predicted reports of more frequent illness symptoms and more negative affect. The effect on negative affect was found for depression, guilt, and hostility, but not anxiety.

Changing Face of Commitment

At Time 2, 28 Cohort 1 participants were still in the same long-distance dating relationship as Time 1. Thirty-seven Cohort 2 participants (25 women and 12 men) also were in a longdistance dating relationship at Time 2. We compared their responses with the eight items assessing relationship commitment. First, there were no mean differences between the two cohorts for any of the eight items. Second, to compare the pattern of correlations between cohorts, we generated within-group correlation coefficients for the 8 x 8 correlation matrix of the eight items measuring enthusiastic and moral commitment. This resulted in 28 correlations. These correlation coefficients were treated as multiple dependent measures in a multivariate analysis of variance with cohort as the between-subjects factor. There was no effect for cohort, F(28, 35) - 1.04, ns. Because there were neither mean differences between cohorts nor differences in the degree of association among the eight items, we combined the two cohorts so that we could examine the factor structure of relationship commitment at Time 2. A factor analysis with an oblique rotation revealed two uncorrelated factors (r = .10). Therefore, we performed a second

s Because satisfaction predicted relationship survival directly, we tested whether satisfaction, rather than enthusiastic commitment, might predict distress following relationship dissolution. Satisfaction was unrelated to all distress measures (rs < .10).

COPING WITH MORAL COMMITMENT Table 3

111

Factor Analysis of Time 2 Relationship Attitudes of Participants in Long-Distance Dating Relationships

Factor Item Commitment Obligation Attachment Duty Enthusiasm Burden Relief Enjoyment Eigenvalue Note. N = 64. Enthusiastic Commitment .63 .16 .76 .15 .81 -.19 .42 .73 2.47 Moral Burden .10 .83 .16 .73 -.12 .39 .52 -.30 1.74

factor analysis with a varimax rotation. As seen in Table 3, the first factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.47, included enthusiasm and enjoyment, but it also had much higher loadings for commitment and attachment than at Time 1 (see Table 1). The second factor, with an eigenvalue of 1.74, still included duty and obligation, but the loadings for commitment and attachment were very low (.10 and .16). In contrast, the items "would it be a relief to not be in the relationship" and "a burden to you right now" loaded .52 and .39 in the same direction as duty and obligation. This suggested that at Time 2 we no longer had a measure of moral commitment but a measure of moral burden. Again, we used factor scores based on the two factors to compute Time 2 measures of Enthusiastic Commitment and Moral Burden. Correlational analyses revealed that Enthusiastic Commitment at Time 2 continued to be associated with satisfaction, attraction to one's partner, and rewards. However, with commitment and attachment now contributing more to the Enthusiastic Commitment measure, we found Enthusiastic Commitment strongly correlated with investment, r(6\ ) = .57, and meaning, r(6\) = .51. Moreover, the correlations with trust increased, most notably with faith, r(62) = .54, and dependability, r(62) = .41, p < .01. Moral Burden was still modestly correlated with investment, r(6l) .30; and meaning, r(61) = .27; as well as with dissatisfaction, r(62) = .31, ps < .05; and stressfulness of the relationship, r(62) = .37, p < .01. Participants in Cohort 1 also responded to a question regarding how convenient the relationship was. It is interesting that Moral Burden was highly correlated with the convenience of the relationship, r(25) = .62, p < .01. None of the attachment measures, or self-motivation, or Time 2 illness symptoms, or Time 2 negative affect were correlated with either Enthusiastic Commitment or Moral Burden. Not surprisingly, positive affect was correlated with Time 2 Enthusiastic Commitment, r(62) = .46, p < .01. We used Enthusiastic Commitment and Moral Burden at Time 2 to predict the survival of long-distance relationships at the end of the winter term (Time 3) and at the end of the following summer (Time 4 ) . Although the means were in the right direction, Enthusiastic Commitment did not predict relationship sur-

vival ateither Time 3, /(56) = 1.47, or Time 4, /(47) = 1.56,*$. As expected, Moral Burden was not at all related to relationship survival (/s < 1). It is interesting, though, that Moral Burden was related to who initiated relationship dissolutions. We combined data from participants whose relationships had ended by Time 3 or Time 4 ( = 24) and conducted a three-groups oneway analysis of variance (who initiated breakup: me, both of us, my ex-partner). Participants who initiated the breakup had reported significantly more moral burden at Time 2 (A/ = .52) than those who reported that their partner was partly responsible {M = .47) or solely responsible (M - . 1 1 ) for initiating the breakup, overall F(2, 22) = 4.22, p < .05, contrast F(l, 22) = 5.34, p < .05. There was no effect for enthusiastic commitment (F < 1). In sum, once participants made the transition to university and a long-distance relationship, self-reports of duty and obligation became more weakly associated with commitment and more strongly associated with burden. Moral burden appeared to be a negative motivational state of stress and dissatisfaction that persisted as a matter of convenience. Moral burden did not predict the survival of the relationship, but it predicted the process of dissolution. Moral burden increased the likelihood that participants would initiate relationship dissolution unilaterally.

Discussion
People in dating relationships can, and do, experience a type of commitment distinct from enthusiasm and satisfaction. This sense of moral commitment was based primarily on the personal meaning of the relationship, consistent with our previous findings (Lydon et al., 1996; Lydon & Zanna, 1990) and theorizing (Lydon, 1996) about commitment being grounded in meaning (see also Brickman, 1987). Moreover, moral commitment was highly correlated with investment, consistent with research (e.g., Rusbult, 1980, 1983) and theory (Brickman, 1987; Rusbult, 1991). Importantly, moral commitment predicted relationship persistence during a major transition filled with uncertainty about the relationship. The process by which this may occur was suggested by the finding that moral commitment predicted increased appraisals of meaning and investment for intact couples. This is consistent with recent theorizing about commitment and appraisal processes (Lydon, in press). The notion is that threats to a relationship will motivate the committed person to make appraisals that further bolster his or her commitment and fend off the threats. Thus, during the difficult relationship transition period (50% breakup rate), seeing one's relationship as increasingly tied to one's values and identity (i.e., having meaning) may strengthen the basis of one's commitment. Moreover, appraising the costs of a long-distance relationship as an investment rather than as a loss should also strengthen one's commitment. Finally, for participants whose relationship ended, moral commitment predicted distress. These findings replicate and extend Lydon et al.'s (1996) findings on pregnancy commitment and distress following abortion. Consistent with the pregnancy study, commitment predicted depression, guilt, and hostility, but not anxiety, following relationship dissolution. Moreover, in the

112

LYDQN, PIERCE, AND O'REGAN

present study this same pattern of results was found for reports of illness symptoms.

Commitment and Context

When studying dating relationships, researchers typically are not able to unconfound satisfaction and commitment. In fact, we assume that the confound is a natural onepeople often do feel enthusiastic about their commitments, especially when the barriers to leaving the relationship are weak (low structural commitment [M. P. Johnson, 1991]). However as Kelley (1983) stated, "There must be certain occasions that provide the impetus to assess the relationship" (p. 294). By studying people who were facing uncertainty about their relationship during the final weeks before leaving their partners, we were able to capture a type of commitment independent of satisfaction. Another context in which we may find commitment uncoupled from satisfaction is in marriage. We suspect that in marriages moral commitment may be very important, but it may be more difficult to study empirically. Because of strong structural constraints in a marriage, a researcher may be unsure whether the source of motivation is relatively self-determined (e.g., identified or integrated regulation) or non-self-determined (external or introjected regulation; see Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990, for an explication of these various types of regulation in terms of self-determination theory). By studying people in dating relationships we could better disentangle an internalized moral commitment from a structural commitment based on external constraints, because the structural constraints would not be as strong as in a marriage. We theorized that uncertainty triggered a deliberative mindset. By deliberating about their relationships, participants may have made more differentiated relationship appraisals than they would in a more stable relationship context. In theory, experimental manipulations of mindset should produce similar results even among people in stable relationship contexts. Furthermore, it would be useful to develop an expanded measure of moral commitment that might be sensitive enough to capture the construct in more typical relationship research contexts. Previous research by Fehr (1988) and by Aron and Westbay (1996) on lay representations of commitment may provide a valuable source for constructing an expanded measure of moral commitment. The status and utility of enthusiastic commitment is less clear. Satisfaction predicted relationship survival directly, unmediated by enthusiastic commitment. In theory, enthusiastic commitment is satisfaction plus motivation. Empirically, though, measures of satisfaction may do a better job of predicting relationship outcomes, because the motivational effects of relationship satisfaction (i.e., enthusiastic commitment) are theorized to operate in a rather automatic and un-self-conscious fashion (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Thus, one may not cognize about the motivational implications of relationship satisfaction in order for satisfaction to motivate one to make relation ship-maintaining attributions, for example. What are the implications of distinguishing between satisfaction and moral commitment? Although we and others have emphasized self-perceptions of commitment, the issue of distinguishing between satisfaction and moral commitment may

be important in partner perceptions. When faced with life stressors, what are the consequences of learning that one's partner is "in love" but not committed to you or to the relationship? The failure of a partner to accommodate, sacrifice, or provide social support may be especially harmful when expectations were to the contrarybecause satisfaction was mistaken for commitment. It also is important not to mistake moral commitment for moral burden. The former is a more positive motivational state that may prompt one to engage in relationship maintenance behaviors; the latter, though, may be more of an amotivational state, akin to an "empty marriage." It would be interesting to see, for example, if moral commitment might be positively related to accommodation behavior but moral burden negatively related to accommodation behavior. The caveat, of course, is that moral burden may not always be easy to capture. Participants who felt moral burden were more likely to initiate a breakup. Moreover, in a long-distance relationship, one may allow such a relationship to continue for at least a short while, because there is no daily interaction. Local dating relationships, in contrast, may be terminated before feelings of obligation and burden coalesce as moral burden. One may find moral burden more often in marriages than in dating relationships because dissolution is not as quick and easy a response to a burdensome marriage as a burdensome dating relationship (high divorce rates notwithstanding).

Conclusions
When a close relationship is challenged and undergoes a "stress test" (Kelley, 1983), feelings of enthusiasm become less predictable. Moreover, the likelihood that the relationship will endure is not so much due to personal dispositions to be "committed" (self-motivation inventory); rather, a critical issue concerns the personal meaning that a person ascribes to the relationship and the motivation that creates to be committed to the relationship. In turn, distress does not result simply because a relationship ends. Rather, distress results from the ending of a relationship that was a source of meaning and created a sense of commitment. Relationships are fraught with daily hassles, conflicts, and possibly major stressful life events. These events may temporally undermine feelings of enthusiasm and satisfaction, or at least challenge the confidence one has in such affect-laden beliefs. It is at these times that the fate of relationships may be influenced by feelings of moral commitmentfor better or for worse.

References
Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551. Blais, M., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C , & Vallerand, R. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.

Brickman, P. (1987). Commitment. In C. B. Wortman & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Commitment, conflict, and caring (pp. 1-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, G. W., Bifulco, A., & Harris, T. O. (1987). Life events, vulnerability, and onset of depression: Some refinements. British Journal of

Psychiatry, 150, 30-40.

COPING WITH MORAL COMMITMENT Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061-1070. Bui, K.T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). "testing the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244-1257. Cohen, S-, Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963-973. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663. Derogatis, R. L. (1975). Affects balance scale. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometrics Research. Dishman, R. K., Ickes, W., & Morgan, W. P. (1980). Self-motivation and adherence to habitual physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 115-132. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579. Fletcher, G. J. 0., & Fincham, F. (1991). Attribution processes in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 7 - 3 5 ) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fletcher, G. J. O., Fincham, F , Cramer, L., & Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481-489. Gollwitzer, P. (1990). Action phases and mindsets. In E. T Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967 980. Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. Advances in Personal Relationships, 3, 117-143. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson, (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-314). New York: Freeman. Knox, D. H., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1968). Attitudes of college students toward love. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 638-642. Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23. Lydon, J. (1996). Toward a theory of commitment. In C. Seligman, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The eighth Ontario Symposium (pp. 191-213). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lydon, J. (in press). Commitment and adversity: A reciprocal relation. In W. H. Jones & J. M. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability. New \brk: Plenum. Lydon, J., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. ( 1994). Seeing is committing: A longitudinal study of bolstering commitment in amniocentesis patients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 218-227. Lydon, J., Dunkel-Schetter, C , Cohan, C , & Pierce, T. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A commitment approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1 4 1 151. Lydon, J., & Zanna. M. (1990). Commitment in the face of adversity:

113

A value-affirmation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1040-1047. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984), Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag. Reis, H. T, & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 9 5 112. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New \brk: McGraw-Hill. Rubin, Z. (1973). Lilting and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117. Rusbult, C. E. (1991). Commentary on Johnson's commitment to personal relationships: What's interesting, and what's new? Advances in Personal Relationships, 3, 151-169. Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204. Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in abusive relationships: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558-571. Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683-692. Staw, M. B. (1976). Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251, Sternberg, J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135. Stemberg, J., & Beall, E. (1991). How can we know what love is? An epistemological analysis. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 257-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New \brk: HarperCollins. Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset and positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 2 1 3 226. Zuroff, D. (1994). [Personality and interaction styles of dating couples]. Unpublished raw data.

Received August 1, 1995 Revised March 3, 1997 Accepted March 4, 1997