This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lydon, J. E. Articles by Mayman, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lydon, J. E. Articles by Mayman, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Commitment Calibration Hypothesis: When Do People Devalue Attractive Alternatives?

McGill University, jlydon{at}hebb.psych.mcgill.ca

Marta Meana

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Deborah Sepinwall

University of Vermont

Nancy Richards

University of Ottawa

Shari Mayman

University of Western Ontario

The authors theorized that adversity elicits relationship maintenance responses when level of adversity is calibrated with level of commitment. To test this, the authors examined the commitment-devaluation effect: Those committed to a close relationship are thought to devalue attractive alternatives. Two levels of adversity were operationalized. Participants evaluated an attractive alternative (moderate threat), or participants evaluated the same target after learning that the target was attracted to them (high threat). Unmarried and low on a relationship commitment scale was considered low commitment; unmarried but high or married but low on the scale were considered moderately committed. Finally married and high on the scale was considered high commitment. Under moderate threat, moderately committed rated the alternative as less attractive than those low and high in commitment. Under high threat, those high in commitment rated the alternative as less attractive than those low and moderately committed. Gender differences and comparisons with single people were examined.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 2, 152-161 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167299025002002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Ackerman and D. T. Kenrick The Costs of Benefits: Help-Refusals Highlight Key Trade-Offs of Social Life Personality and Social Psychology Review, May 1, 2008; 12(2): 118 - 140. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Gagne and J. E. Lydon Bias and Accuracy in Close Relationships: An Integrative Review Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2004; 8(4): 322 - 338. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Broemer and M. Diehl What You Think is What You Get: Comparative Evaluations of Close Relationships Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 2003; 29(12): 1560 - 1569. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Gagne and J. E. Lydon Identification and the Commitment Shift: Accounting for Gender Differences in Relationship Illusions Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2003; 29(7): 907 - 919. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. K. Marcus and R. S. Miller Sex Differences in Judgments of Physical Attractiveness: A Social Relations Analysis Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2003; 29(3): 325 - 335. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E. Lydon, G. M. Fitzsimons, and L. Naidoo Devaluation Versus Enhancement of Attractive Alternatives: A Critical Test Using the Calibration Paradigm Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2003; 29(3): 349 - 359. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Gagne and J. E. Lydon Mindset and Relationship Illusions: The Moderating Effects of Domain Specificity and Relationship Commitment Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 2001; 27(9): 1144 - 1155. [Abstract] [PDF]