Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lydon, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Naidoo, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lydon, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Naidoo, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 3, 349-359 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167202250202
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Devaluation Versus Enhancement of Attractive Alternatives: A Critical Test Using the Calibration Paradigm

John E. Lydon

Gráinne M. Fitzsimons

Loren Naidoo

McGill University

The calibration paradigm was used to test the competing hypotheses that (a) commitment motivates unduly negative evaluations of attractive alternatives (devaluation) versus (b) low commitment motivates exaggerated positive evaluations of attractive alternatives (enhancement). Single participants and dating participants low and high in relationship commitment were presented with an attractive, available person of the opposite sex and asked to judge the person’s romantic appeal from their own perspective or from the perspective of their friends. Contrary to predictions based on the enhancement hypothesis, single and low-commitment participants did not provide higher ratings from their own perspective. In support of devaluation and calibration hypotheses, committed participants did provide lower ratings from their own perspective. Singles did not rate the target less attractive in a third condition in which the target was unavailable. However, dating participants, regardless of commitment level, rated the unavailable alternative negatively, consistent with social comparison processes and interdependence theory.

Key Words: commitment • devaluation • close relationships • alternatives


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
J. C. Karremans and T. Verwijmeren
Mimicking Attractive Opposite-Sex Others: The Role of Romantic Relationship Status
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2008; 34(7): 939 - 950.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
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]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
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]