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.
Bazzini, D.G., & Shaffer, D.R. (1999). Resisting temptation revisited: Devaluation versus enhancement of an attractive suitor by exclusive and nonexclusive daters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 162-176.
2.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D.T. Gilbert & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Clark, M.S., & Pataki, S.P. (1995). Interpersonal processes influencing attraction and relationships. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 293-331). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76(1), 72-89.
5.
Gagne, F., & Lydon, J.E. (2001). Mindset and relationship illusions: The moderating effects of domain specificity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1144-1155.
6.
Gladue, B.A., & Delaney, H.J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378-391.
7.
Holmes, J.G., & Murray, S.L. (1996). Conflict in close relationships. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 622-654). New York: Guilford.
8.
Jackson, D.N. (1976). Jackson personality inventory manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
9.
Johnson, D.J., & Rusbult, C.E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.
10.
Kelley, H.H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvery, T. Huston, G. Levinger, et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-314). New York: Freemen.
11.
Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., & Cialdini, R.B. (1999). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
Lydon, J.E. (1999). Commitment and adversity: A reciprocal relation. In J.M. Adams & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 193-203). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
13.
Lydon, J.E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152-161.
14.
Lydon, J.E., Pierce, T., & O’Regan, S. (1997). Coping with moral commitment to long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 104-113.
15.
Madey, S.F., Simo, M., Dillworth, D., & Kemper, D. (1996). They do get more attractive at closing time, but only when you are not in a relationship. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 387-393.
16.
Miller, R.S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(4), 758-766.
17.
Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & Griffin, D.W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(1), 79-98.
18.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1979). Don’t the girls get prettier at closing time: A country and western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 122-125.
19.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Rusbult, C.E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.
21.
Rusbult, C.E., & Buunk, B.P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.
22.
Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564-596). New York: Guilford.
23.
Simpson, J.A., Gangestead, S.W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1192-1201.
24.
Simpson, J.A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of personality & social psychology, 69(4), 629-641.
25.
Van Lange, P., & Rusbult, C.E. (1995). My relationship is better than—and not as bad as—yours is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 32-44.
26.
Van Lange, P., Rusbult, C.E., Semin-Goossens, A., Goerts, C.A., & Stalpers, M. (1999). Being better than others but otherwise perfectly normal: Perceptions of uniqueness and similarity in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 269-289.
