Commitment, Theories and Typologies

The Concept of Commitment

Commitment has been defined in various ways. At its root, commitment can be defined as intending to continue in a line of action. Thus, relationship commitment may be viewed as intending to continue in a relationship with a given person. The relative simplicity of this definition, however, masks significant differences in how commitment has been conceived by theorists over the years. Some view commitment in behavioral terms (i.e., continuing to do something). Others view it more psychologically, as the subjective experience of relationship continuation (e.g., how one feels about continuing a relationship with a partner). Some conceive of relationship commitment as a unidimensional concept, whereas others emphasize that it is either multidimensional in nature or that there are multiple types of commitment. For example, while some researchers describe commitment as having cognitive (e.g., thoughts), affective (e.g., feelings), and motivational (e.g., intentions) components, others describe several distinct types of commitment itself (such as moral commitment, structural commitment, and personal commitment). Still others have emphasized the distinction between voluntary commitment (i.e., being committed because one wishes to be) and nonvolun-tary commitment (i.e., being committed because one has to be). Although often possessing points of similarity, theories and typologies of commitment primarily tend to differ based on how commitment itself is conceptualized.

Theories and Typologies of Commitment

Early theories of commitment emphasized the positive factors that led people to continue in a relationship. Factors such as degree of love for a partner and satisfaction with the relationship were held to be important elements in keeping people together. Later theories, though not discounting the critical role of positive factors, included factors that prevent people from leaving a relationship, such as societal disapproval of divorce or not wanting to go through the process of starting over with a new partner. Currently, the most prominent extant theories of relationship commitment are George Levinger's Cohesiveness Theory, Caryl Rusbult's Investment Model, and Michael Johnson's tripartite typology. Although these approaches differ, they share some common elements, including the notion that relationships continue because of things that draw people to want to stay with a partner and because of things that prevent people from ending the relationship.

Levinger's Cohesiveness Theory of Commitment

Levinger was particularly interested in understanding processes involved in both keeping relationships (particularly marriages) together and breaking them apart. His Cohesiveness Model, rooted in Kurt Lewin's Field Theory, emphasized the role of two social forces in determining relationship commitment: attraction forces and barrier forces.

With respect to forces that attract, Levinger described two types of forces: present attractions and alternative attractions. Both present and alternative attractions are perceived as yielding [Page 246]positive outcomes for the actor but are quite distinctive in nature. Present attractions refer to forces that draw a person toward continuing a given relationship. For example, the love one feels for a partner serves as a present attraction to the relationship and helps to sustain it. Similarly, need fulfillment, wealth, and status are all considered to be commitment-promoting attractions when they are present in a current relationship. Alternative attractions, in contrast, refer to forces that pull a person away from a current relationship. For instance, a particularly compelling unattached colleague for whom one feels attraction may serve as an alternative attraction.

...