Ready for the next step: Novel commitment amplification in romantic relationships

Abstract

Ample research examines the importance of one’s commitment level to their romantic relationship; however, individuals’ desire for progressive levels of commitment has received less attention in the literature. In the current studies, we introduce the novel concept of commitment amplification (i.e., the desire to become more committed in one’s romantic relationship) by developing and validating a new scale (the Commitment Amplification Scale). Additionally, we investigate the conceptual uniqueness of commitment amplification and examine associations with relationship-oriented thoughts (Study 1 and 2) and behaviors (Study 3). Results support the establishment of commitment amplification as a distinct and predictive construct. Furthermore, commitment amplification predicts relationship constructs above and beyond existing measures of commitment and commitment readiness.

Keywords

Commitment commitment amplification commitment readiness investment model of commitment relationship maintenance

Introduction

Oh, we could be married

And then we'd be happy

Oh, wouldn't it be nice?

-The Beach Boys

Romantic relationships are among the most intimate connections individuals engage in throughout their lifespan. Whether they transition from one relationship stage to another deliberately or by circumstance (Owen et al., 2013), partners become closer across time through shared experiences, emotions, and investments (e.g., Branand et al., 2019). Research on relationship trajectories has established cornerstone transitions in romantic stages as couples move from casual dating to exclusive partnerships, engagement, and marriage (and, at times, divorce; Holmberg & MacKenzie, 2002; Le et al., 2010; Le & Agnew, 2003). The extent to which relationships progress has often been attributed to levels of relationship commitment, or the desire to maintain a relationship over time (Rusbult et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2010). Commitment is a robust predictor of stay-leave behavior in relationships, as those high in commitment engage in more maintenance-oriented thoughts (e.g., cognitive interdependence) and behaviors (e.g., Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; McNulty et al., 2018).

However, the extent to which individuals are currently committed to a relationship may not be the only dimension that predicts progression through relationship stages. For example, individuals may desire to move to the ‘next stage’ in their relationship to secure partner exclusivity or signal the seriousness of a relationship (e.g., engagement). On the other hand, others may want to avoid progressing to more advanced stages (e.g., cohabitation, marriage) due to concerns about timing, avoiding previous mistakes, uncertainty about the partner’s commitment level, or contentment with the current state of the relationship (e.g., Mashek et al., 2011; Stanley et al., 2017). As such, we propose another mechanism describing the extent to which individuals desire to enhance commitment in romantic relationships that we term commitment amplification. We posit that commitment amplification is a distinct process that uniquely contributes to the progression of romantic relationships across established trajectories.

Desiring commitment: Receptivity and readiness

Commitment orientations can influence relationship outcomes even before the establishment of a romantic dyad. Extant research has identified individual differences in commitment receptivity, which describe individuals’ readiness and desire to begin a romantic relationship (Agnew et al., 2019). Specifically, commitment readiness captures the sense that individuals feel ‘ready’ to engage in a committed romantic relationship (Hadden, et al., 2018; Hadden & Agnew, 2020). This construct is associated with the active pursuit of relationship formation prior to coupling and predicts outcomes within existing relationships including greater future relationship commitment, relationship maintenance processes (e.g., self-disclosure), and dissolution (Agnew et al., 2019). Overall, the feeling that one is prepared to initiate a committed relationship is a determinant of current and future relationship outcomes including relationship quality and stay-leave behavior (Hadden et al., 2018).

Similarly, commitment desirability describes the extent to which individuals seek and desire committed relationships (Agnew et al., 2019). Like commitment readiness, commitment desirability is associated with relationship outcomes including personal commitment and has also been correlated with perceived partner commitment and relational stability. Further, negative associations between commitment desirability and dissolution consideration have been identified, such that individuals who desire less commitment think about ending their relationships more when they are together (Agnew et al., 2019; VanderDrift et al., 2009). The components of commitment receptivity underscore the importance of commitment orientations prior to relationship formation. Importantly, these dimensions focus on whether one believes it is the ‘right time’ to commit, which is only part of the complex and ongoing process of relationship commitment. Much of the existing literature on romantic relationship commitment has examined the components and process of current relationship commitment – that is, the extent to which individuals want a relationship to persist across time.

Current relationship commitment

Existing work frames commitment as a multi-dimensional construct. Some frameworks conceptualize commitment as consisting of dedication (e.g., wanting a long-term future with someone, having a shared relational identity) and constraint (feeling restricted to a relationship or partner due to financial or moral obligation; e.g., Stanley et al., 2010). Other frameworks conceptualize commitment as having affective, cognitive, and conative components (e.g., Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Regardless, commitment encompasses individuals’ emotional attachment to a relationship, long-term relationship orientation, and desire for the relationship to continue. These dimensions change over time as relationships progress, increasing in highly satisfied relationships and decreasing in those that are relatively dissatisfied. They are also predictive of relationship behaviors including self-disclosure, willingness to sacrifice, and accommodation (e.g., Agnew & Le, 2015). Moreover, current commitment is a robust predictor of stay-leave behavior such that greater levels of commitment contributes to relationship maintenance across time (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Le & Agnew, 2003).

Importantly, researchers identified the cognitive component of commitment (having a long-term relationship orientation) as the most robust predictor of relationship persistence, highlighting the importance of motivated relationship-oriented cognitions (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Because the intent to enact a behavior is a robust predictor of enacted behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), individuals’ mental orientations towards relationship trajectories emerge as a key mechanism for actual relational progression. That is, the extent to which individuals intend to progress across relationship stages should be a key determinant of actual romantic development. The current line of research proposes commitment amplification, or the orientation towards advancing commitment, as a unique predictor of relationship outcomes, which is consistent with the robust role of cognitive components of commitment on relational trajectories.

Moreover, the Investment Model of Commitment proposes that current relationship satisfaction is an important predictor of relationship commitment; however, it is not the sole predictor of dyadic persistence (e.g., Rhatigan & Axsom, 2006; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). The level of investments individuals make into a relationship and the perceived quality of alternatives are also unique predictors of one’s desire to maintain a relationship—even, at times, above and beyond satisfaction (Rusbult et al., 1986; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). For example, in close relationships, partners make tangible (e.g., money, housing, children) and intangible (e.g., time, emotional intimacy, cognitive interdependence; e.g., Goodfriend & Agnew, 2008) investments into their partner and emergent dyadic unit. These investments have psychological and practical implications, including shifts from independent to interdependent goal orientations (Kornblum et al., 2021) and shared assets (e.g., home ownership, parenting). These increases in investment level, in turn, strengthen commitment. As partners become increasingly committed through mutual investment, they engage in motivated cognitions and derogate relationship alternatives (e.g., other partners or singlehood) to promote quality and persistence (McNulty et al., 2018; Miller, 1997).

However, the degree to which satisfaction, investments, and alternatives are associated with one's desire to become more committed to their partner -- that is, to amplify commitment -- remains unclear. The literature highlights how current investments and alternatives contribute to commitment at the time of assessment (e.g., Rusbult et al., 1986). But the function of investing in a relationship and derogating alternatives may not only maintain one’s current desire for the relationship to continue, but components of commitment may also work to promote amplification of relationship trajectories. That is, investing in one’s relationship and derogating alternatives may serve to entrench the partners within the relationship, as well as further motivate avoiding the loss of these investments. The extent to which individuals are engaging in the processes described by the investment model may be contributing not only to current level of commitment, but desired levels of commitment in the future.

Commitment amplification

Accordingly, once a relationship has been formed, progression from early relationship stages (e.g., casual dating) to the next (e.g., exclusive coupling, long-term commitment) often occurs deliberately (e.g., “deciding” rather than “sliding”; Stanley et al., 2006). Like individual variability in one’s receptivity to enter a committed relationship (e.g., Agnew et al., 2019), people may differ in the extent to which they desire to increase commitment within existing relationships. However, this phenomenon has yet to be uniquely examined in the literature on relationship commitment. As such, we propose the novel construct commitment amplification.

To be certain, the constructs of current commitment and commitment amplification are likely related – overall, individuals reporting high current commitment to a relationship may also desire to enhance commitment moving forward. Nevertheless, we propose that evaluations and reports of commitment amplification are conceptually distinct from current commitment. For example, an individual may feel relatively uncommitted due to low relationship quality but may still seek to become more committed in order to resolve this dissatisfaction, and because they believe there to be future potential for the relationship (e.g., doubling down on the relationship in an attempt to improve it). In this case, they may push to move in together or have a child, regardless of the effectiveness of these efforts. On the other hand, a partner may be happy with their current level of commitment in a relationship but not desire to amplify it any further either due to fear of disrupting a genuinely satisfying relationship (e.g., they don’t want to “ruin a good thing”), or fear of next steps (e.g., discomfort with the relationship becoming too serious).

We also argue that commitment amplification is conceptually distinct from commitment readiness for two primary reasons. First, whereas commitment readiness assesses individuals’ thoughts about whether the timing is right to be in a committed relationship (vs. being single or in a noncommitted relationship), commitment amplification assesses individuals’ desires about adjusting one’s level of commitment in their relationship, allowing individuals who are already committed to report that they desire even greater commitment. Second, and relatedly, commitment readiness seems particularly relevant in the early stages of relationship formation and development (though not exclusively), whereas commitment amplification is better situated within existing committed relationships. For example, commitment readiness predicts the likelihood that individuals will enact relationship-initiation behaviors (Hadden et al., 2018), whereas commitment amplification is likely more predictive of relational behaviors within existing relationships.

Aside from being distinct from commitment and commitment readiness, we posit that individuals’ commitment amplification desires vary for specific reasons. In particular, we suggest that differences in the desire for commitment amplification may be explained by individual variation in relationship orientations, notably attachment anxiety and avoidance (Bowlby, 1982; Mikulincer et al., 2003)

Attachment and commitment

Attachment systems function on two dimensions describing individuals’ expectations and behaviors in close relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). One dimension, attachment avoidance, is characterized by a discomfort with relational closeness; individuals high on this dimension tend to not rely on romantic partners for support or intimacy. The second dimension, attachment anxiety, describes those who desire very high levels of closeness with romantic partners due to a fear of abandonment. This often results in hypervigilance to relationship threats, fear of partner abandonment, and motivated behaviors and cognitions that aim to secure partner availability (Mikulincer et al., 2003).

Investigations into the role of attachment in the Investment Model of Commitment have demonstrated that those high in attachment anxiety report lower satisfaction and higher investments in relationships, but no significant differences in perceptions of relationship alternatives or commitment. Attachment avoidance also negatively predicts relationship satisfaction as well as investments and commitment, but positively predicts relationship alternatives (Etcheverry et al., 2013). Although results demonstrate differential effects of anxiety and avoidance on the subcomponents of relationship commitment, higher reports of attachment insecurity overall are predictive of lower overall levels of relationship commitment (Etcheverry et al., 2013).

However, key features of the attachment dimensions describe overall orientations towards relationships, which may include not only current feelings about commitment, but individuals’ expectations and desire for commitment in the future. The extent to which individuals harbor negative self-views and thus desire high levels of closeness (attachment anxiety) versus negative views of others and thus desire low levels of closeness (attachment avoidance) may predict the extent to which they desire more (or less) relationship commitment relative to their current commitment status.

Because those high in attachment anxiety tend to desire more closeness than those low in anxiety, the effects of attachment anxiety on current investments in relationships – but not commitment (e.g., Etcheverry et al., 2013) – may be associated with individuals’ desire for future outcomes. Individuals may not feel committed now, but they want to be in the future (i.e., they want to amplify commitment). Supportive of this possibility, previous research has established that those high in attachment anxiety desire greater levels of relationship closeness regardless of their current levels of relationship commitment (Slotter & Gardner, 2012). Contrarily, those high in avoidance may desire lower levels of commitment or to maintain current commitment as a function of their trait level discomfort with closeness.

Current study

As noted earlier, commitment amplification’s focus on enhancement within an existing romantic relationship is theoretically distinct from current measures of commitment (i.e., receptivity and current commitment). Further, unlike commitment readiness or desirability, the proposed measure assesses individuals’ orientations towards forging higher levels of commitment within existing relationships. In the current line of research, we offer commitment amplification as a novel construct and argue that it provides an extension of the established dimensions of current relationship commitment.

The goals of the current studies were threefold. First, we created a new scale to assess the novel construct of commitment amplification (Study 1). The second aim was to distinguish commitment amplification from existing measures of current relationship commitment (Studies 2 and 3) and commitment readiness (Study 3). The final aim was to use novel commitment amplification to predict a wide range of relationship outcomes including attachment (Studies 1 and 2), relationship quality (Studies 1 and 2), the components of the Investment Model of Commitment (Study 2), and various relationship behaviors (Study 3).

Accordingly, we advanced the following hypotheses: We predicted that commitment amplification would be distinct from both general commitment and commitment readiness, as measured by both factor analyses and in demonstrating predictive validity. However, we expect all three constructs of commitment to be positively correlated to one another. We also predicted that commitment amplification would be associated with a range of relevant relationship constructs, such that it would be positively related to attachment anxiety, relationship satisfaction, closeness, and relationship maintenance behaviors (specifically investment, self-disclosure, accommodation, and sacrifice in relationships), but negatively related to attachment avoidance and the consideration of relationship alternatives.

Study 1

Method

Participants

The study obtained Institutional Review Board approval from Ursinus College. To determine the size of our sample, we conducted a power analysis in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) estimating a small to medium regression coefficient (80% power, α = .05) with five predictors. This test yielded a target sample size of N = 317. We chose to oversample to increase our ability to detect significant effects and collected a sample of N = 357.

Participants were adult Prolific.co users who indicated in prescreening that they were currently in a relationship (M_age = 33.33, Mdn_age = 31, SD_age = 11.20, Range = 19–72; relationship length M_years = 7.73, SD_years = 7.34). All participants were based in the U.K. (n = 325), Canada (n = 18), or U.S. (n = 11). One person was removed for failing an attention check, yielding a final sample of N = 356. Participants were compensated at an average rate of $11.85 USD an hour for the roughly five-minute study. Full participant demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics, studies 1, 2, and 3.

Characteristic	Study 1 N = 356	Study 2 N = 800	Study 3 N = 351
Characteristic	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Relationship status
Dating exclusively	266 (74.9%)	597 (74.6%)	253 (72.1%)
Engaged/Married	48 (13.5%)	101 (12.6%)	55 (15.7%)
Dating casually	4 (1.1%)	13 (1.6%)	8 (2.3%)
Another status	37 (10.4%)	89 (11.1%)	35 (10.0%)
Participant gender identity
Woman	258 (72.5%)	451 (56.4%)	199 (56.7%)
Man	89 (25.0%)	323 (40.4%)	141 (40.2%)
Non-binary	5 (1.4%)	15 (1.9%)	7 (2.0%)
Trans man	2 (.6%)	2 (.3%)	0 (0%)
Trans woman	0 (0%)	5 (.6%)	3 (.9%)
Agender	1 (.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Do not know	1 (.3%)	1 (.1%)	0 (0%)
Another identity	0 (0%)	3 (.4%)	1 (.3%)
Partner gender identity
Woman	98 (27.5%)	321 (40.1%)	143 (40.7%)
Man	250 (70.2%)	456 (57.0%)	199 (56.7%)
Non-binary	5 (1.4%)	11 (1.4%)	3 (.9%)
Trans man	1 (.3%)	2 (.3%)	2 (.6%)
Trans woman	0 (0%)	2 (.3%)	1 (.3%)
Do not know	1 (.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Another identity	1 (.3%)	4 (.5%)	1 (.3%)
Race
White	300 (85.5%)	678 (84.8%)	304 (86.6%)
Multiracial	15 (4.3%)	34 (4.3%)	10 (2.8%)
East Asian	12 (2.4%)	26 (3.3%)	4 (1.1%)
Black/African American	10 (2.8%)	25 (3.1%)	11 (3.1%)
West Asian	5 (1.4%)	7 (.9%)	1 (.3%)
Hispanic/Latino/Latinx	4 (1.1%)	6 (.8%)	1 (.3%)
Another identity	4 (1.1%)	20 (2.5%)	10 (2.8%)
Education
Some high school	9 (2.5%)	11 (1.4%)	8 (2.3%)
Graduated high school or equivalent	71 (20.0%)	102 (12.8%)	50 (14.2%)
Some college/university	95 (26.8%)	174 (21.8%)	81 (23.1%)
Graduated with an Associate's or technical degree	16 (4.5%)	67 (8.4%)	28 (8.0%)
Graduated 4-year college/university	103 (29.0%)	268 (33.5%)	116 (33.0%)
Some post-graduate training	10 (2.8%)	24 (3.0%)	12 (3.4%)
Graduated with a Master's degree	41 (11.5%)	125 (15.6%)	42 (12.0%)
Graduated with a doctoral degree	8 (2.3%)	24 (3.0%)	11 (3.1%)
Other	2 (.6%)	4 (.5%)	3 (.9%)
Income
Less than $10,000	9 (2.5%)	28 (3.5%)	11 (3.1%)
$10,000-$20,000	71 (20.0%)	85 (10.6%)	32 (9.1%)
$20,000-$55,000	95 (26.8%)	303 (37.9%)	141 (40.2%)
$55,000-$75,000	16 (4.5%)	172 (21.5%)	64 (18.2%)
$75,000-$100,000	103 (29.0%)	102 (12.8%)	52 (14.8%)
$100,000-$150,000	10 (2.8%)	44 (5.5%)	28 (8.0%)
$150,000-$200,000	41 (11.5%)	18 (2.3%)	4 (1.1%)
$200,000-$250,000	8 (2.3%)	3 (.4%)	2 (.6%)
More than $250,000	2 (.6%)	5 (.6%)	1 (.3%)

Measures

Commitment amplification

To create a scale assessing commitment amplification, we began by reviewing existing measures of commitment readiness and commitment desirability. Accordingly, we adapted three items from the commitment readiness scale (Agnew et al., 2018), modifying them to capture commitment amplification. We then generated seven additional items to better ensure content validity, while ensuring diversity of amplification possibilities in myriad relationships. In total, the new scale consisted of 10 items. Scale items are presented in Table 2. Participants completed this 10-item measure of commitment amplification by responding on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scores were averaged.

Table 2.

Study 1 commitment amplification scale.

	Item	M	SD	Exploratory factor loadings
1	†I am receptive to becoming more committed to my romantic partner.	5.53	1.41	.68
2	†I am not ready to become more committed to my relationship at this time. (R)	2.20	1.74	−.55
3	†I feel that this is the “right time” for me to become more committed to my relationship.	4.92	1.58	.78
4	I would like to move to the next step in my relationship.	4.82	1.55	.89
5	I am comfortable with the current commitment level in my relationship. (R)	5.64	1.33	.18
6	I think my partner and I should take our relationship to the next level.	4.67	1.56	.92
7	My relationship is ready for the next stage.	4.77	1.49	.93
8	My relationship is ready to progress.	4.89	1.47	.92
9	I want my relationship to become more serious.	4.62	1.56	.82
10	I am ready to invest more in my relationship.	4.99	1.50	.84

Note. Item 5 was ultimately dropped due to low factor loading.

† indicates adapted from the Commitment Readiness Scale (Hadden et al., 2018).

(R) indicates a reverse-scored item.

Attachment dimensions

Attachment anxiety and avoidance were assessed using the 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships – Short Form Scale (Wei et al., 2007). The measure consisted of two subscales, each averaged, assessing trait attachment anxiety (e.g., “I need a lot of reassurance from my partner.”) and avoidance (e.g., “I tend to avoid getting too close to my partner.”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Closeness

To evaluate the degree of closeness participants felt to their relationship partner, we used the 1-item Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) Scale (Aron et al., 1992). In this, participants are presented with a series of overlapping circles and asked to select “the diagram that best describes their relationship with their partner” (1 = no overlap, 7 = most overlap).

Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was measured by averaging the 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1998; e.g., “In general how satisfied are you with your relationship?”; 1 = never/not at all, 5 = very often/extremely).

Procedure

After consenting, participants confirmed they were currently in a relationship before proceeding. The survey was presented in a fixed order with the ECR-Short Form first, followed by the Relationship Assessment Scale, Inclusion of Other in Self, and lastly the Commitment Amplification scale (all scale descriptives are presented in Table 3). Finally, participants completed demographic items before being given a completion code to provide proof of participation.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for studies 1, 2, and 3.

	Study 1			Study 2			Study 3
	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	M	SD	α
Commitment Amplification^a	4.90	1.29	.95	4.97	1.30	.93	5.19	1.29	.95
Trait attachment anxiety	3.67	1.18	.76	3.51	1.14	.76
Trait attachment avoidance	2.23	.96	.84	2.21	.91	.60
State attachment anxiety				4.64	1.13	.84
State attachment avoidance				2.38	1.03	.81
Closeness	5.01	1.41	-	4.96	1.44	-
Current commitment^b				6.15	1.05	.71	6.24	1.05	.96
Satisfaction (RAS)	3.96	.81	.93
Satisfaction (IMS)				5.43	1.26	.92
Alternatives				3.17	1.26	.83
Investments				4.98	1.03	.68
Commitment readiness							6.91	1.23	.86
Self-disclosure							4.21	.84	.90
Sacrifice							6.34	1.65	.84
Accommodation							5.91	1.23	.85

Note. RAS: Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick et al., 1988); IMS: Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998).

^aCommitment amplification was measured with the original 10-item scale in Studies 1 and 2; it was measured with the final 9-item scale in Study 3.

^bDue to a coding error, Commitment was measured using only six of the original seven items in Study 2. The full seven-item scale was used in Study 3.

Analysis plan

To assess the constructed Commitment Amplification Scale, we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis. Next, to examine convergent validity, we explored zero-order correlations between attachment style, relationship satisfaction, closeness, and commitment amplification. Finally, we conducted simultaneous regressions to investigate possible shared variance between these associated variables in predicting commitment amplification.

Because it is possible that commitment amplification becomes less psychologically relevant in couples who have progressed through advanced relationship stages, we included relationship length as a proxy covariate in all regression analyses. All data were analyzed in Jamovi (v2.2; The jamovi project, 2021).

Results

Commitment amplification scale – exploratory factor analysis

We first examined the factor structure of the 10 commitment amplification items by conducting an exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction and varimax rotation with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. One factor was extracted from this analysis with all factor loadings being greater than .55 except item 5 which had a loading of .18 (see Table 2 for scale items, descriptives, and factor loadings). Although the 10-item factor analysis accounted for 61.33% of the variance and had good reliability (α = .85), we dropped item 5 from the scale due to its low factor loading. This new 9-item Commitment Amplification Scale accounted for more variance (67.75%) and had better reliability (α = .95) than the 10-item scale; thus, we retained the 9-item measure.

Bivariate correlations

We then ran Pearson correlations to investigate the relationships between commitment amplification and other measured variables (i.e., attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, closeness, and relationship satisfaction; see Table 4). As predicted, the associations between commitment amplification and attachment avoidance, closeness, and relationship satisfaction were significant (p < .05). However, contrary to predictions, commitment amplification was not significantly associated with attachment anxiety. These results indicate that individuals desire to amplify their commitment when they feel greater closeness to their partner, are more satisfied in their relationships, and exhibit lower levels of attachment avoidance (but not anxiety).

Table 4.

Study 1 zero-order correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. Commitment amplification	--
2. Attachment anxiety	.03	--
3. Attachment avoidance	−.43***	.20***	--
4. Closeness	.40***	−.18***	−.51***	--
5. Satisfaction (RAS)	.51***	−.24***	−.68***	.65***	–
6. Relationship length	−.19***	−.21***	−.03	.02	−.10

***p < .001.

Note. RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick et al., 1998).

Regression analyses

To explore which variables uniquely predicted commitment amplification, as well as to probe the non-significant anxiety correlation, we next conducted a series of simultaneous multiple regression analyses. First, we tested if relationship satisfaction and closeness were unique predictors of commitment amplification, controlling for relationship length. The analysis revealed that relationship satisfaction (β = .40, SE = .096, p < .001) and closeness (β = .15, SE = .055, p = .04) both remain significant predictors of commitment amplification, R² = .40, p < .001. These findings suggest that even though satisfaction and closeness are correlated (r = .65, p < .001), each construct is a unique predictor of the extent to which individuals desire to amplify commitment.

Because attachment anxiety and avoidance have been shown to co-vary and contribute to overall attachment insecurity (e.g., Nielsen et al., 2017), and were significantly correlated in our sample, we conducted a separate analysis entering attachment anxiety and avoidance as simultaneous predictors in the regression model. This test revealed that attachment avoidance (β = −.45, SE = .065, p < .001) significantly predicted commitment amplification, and anxiety marginally so (β = .08, SE = .054, p = .099; R² = .23, p < .001). Results from the simultaneous regression suggest that there is shared variance between respective attachment dimensions, and that attachment insecurity differentially predicts commitment amplification in a direction consistent with tendencies of both anxiety and avoidance.

Discussion

The aim of Study 1 was to explore the novel variable of commitment amplification by assessing the constructed scale and examining associations with theoretically related variables. Findings from the initial factor analysis revealed that the measure had good reliability and was significantly positively correlated with relationship satisfaction and inclusion of the other in the self, and negatively correlated with attachment avoidance. A non-significant zero-order correlation emerged with attachment anxiety, which was probed using regression analyses. When attachment anxiety and avoidance were entered simultaneously, attachment avoidance held as a significant predictor of commitment amplification as predicted, whereas the effect of attachment anxiety was marginally significant.

Overall, findings from Study 1 demonstrate that commitment amplification is a reliable variable with emerging convergent validity. However, it was not possible to determine its uniqueness from current relationship commitment. To address this issue in Study 2, we conducted additional factor analyses to examine whether commitment and commitment amplification exhibited loadings on unique scales, which would support the notion that the two constructs are distinct. We also assessed the Investment Model variables as correlates and predictors of novel commitment amplification. Lastly, we examined whether the associations between commitment amplification and attachment insecurity would replicate when examining attachment at both a trait and state level.

Study 2

Method

Participants

The study obtained Institutional Review Board approval from Ursinus College. We again conducted a power analysis in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) estimating a small to medium regression coefficient (80% power, α = .05), but included seven predictors to account for the additional variables of interest. This test yielded a target sample size of N = 355. We once again decided to oversample. Participants were recruited in an identical manner as Study 1, and again reported currently residing in Canada (n = 46), the U.S., (n = 47), or the U.K. (n = 707). In total, N = 800 adults (M_age = 33.73, Mdn_age = 31, SD_age = 10.96, Range = 18–77; relationship length M_years = 6.65, SD_years = 6.83) participated across two subsamples: n = 398 completed trait attachment dimensions, while n = 402 completed state attachment dimensions (see Measures, below).

Participants were selected along the same dimensions as Study 1 and were paid an average rate of $13.20 USD an hour for the roughly seven-minute study. Full participant demographics are shown in Table 1.

Measures

Commitment amplification, attachment, and closeness

Participants completed many of the same measures as Study 1: the newly created commitment amplification scale (10-item), trait attachment dimensions (Wei et al., 2007), and closeness (Aron et al., 1992).

Investment Model

In addition, participants completed the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998) which contains four subscales, each measured from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7): relationship investment (five items; e.g., “I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if it were to end”), alternatives (five items; “My needs for intimacy, companionship, etc. could easily be fulfilled by someone else”), satisfaction¹ (five items; e.g., “Our relationship makes me very happy”), and, finally, a measure of current commitment² (six items; e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner”). Scores for each subscale were averaged.

State-level attachment dimensions

Participants also completed state-level attachment items measuring anxiety (seven items; e.g., “I wish someone would tell me they really love me”) and avoidance (seven items; “I am afraid someone will want to get too close to me”; Gillath et al., 2009). These items are also measured from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). All scales were averaged. See Table 3 for descriptive statistics of the measures.

Procedure

After consenting, participants confirmed they were currently in a relationship before proceeding. Participants were randomly assigned via the Qualtrics randomization feature to complete either the trait or state attachment measures. After the attachment scales, all participants completed the same questionnaires. The survey was presented in a fixed order with the randomly assigned attachment measure first, followed by the current commitment scale, investments, alternatives, relationship satisfaction, closeness, and lastly the Commitment Amplification Scale. Finally, participants completed the same demographic items as Study 1 before being given a completion code to provide proof of participation.

Analysis plan

We again conducted factor analyses, this time to demonstrate discriminant validity of the commitment amplification scale and current relationship commitment. We explored zero-order correlations between the variables from Study 1 (attachment, closeness, commitment amplification), in addition to relationship satisfaction, investments, alternatives, and general commitment. Finally, we conducted simultaneous regressions to investigate possible shared variance between these associated variables in predicting commitment amplification. We once again controlled for relationship length in the regression models. As in Study 1, all data were analyzed in Jamovi (v2.2; The jamovi project, 2021).

Results

Distinguishing commitment amplification: exploratory factor analysis

Although the exploratory factor analysis of the commitment amplification scale in Study 1 demonstrated a single-factor solution with good reliability, we sought to further distinguish commitment amplification from current commitment within existing relationships. To do this, we randomly selected half of the participants’ responses and performed an exploratory factor analysis using all ten items from the original commitment amplification scale (including item five for replication purposes) as well as items from the validated measure of current relationship commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998). The EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood extraction with oblimin rotation (as recommended when the dimensions are theorized to be correlated; Costello & Osborne, 2005) with eigenvalues greater than 1.00.

The analysis produced a two-factor solution. Cumulatively, one factor accounted for 38.2% of the overall variance, and two factors accounted for 68.7%. All items from the commitment amplification and current relationship commitment scales loaded onto separate factors, except for item 5 of the commitment amplification scale which loaded onto the current commitment scale (see Table 5). Therefore, item 5 was permanently dropped from the commitment amplification scale due to its consistent low factor loading and potential conceptual overlap with current relationship commitment. Together, results from the exploratory factor analysis suggest that commitment amplification is empirically distinct from a commonly used and validated measure of relationship commitment. Further, commitment amplification can be construed as a unique mechanism through which individuals are not only desiring for their relationship to continue, but to progress their relationship forward across trajectories.

Table 5.

Study 2 factor analysis loadings.

	Item	Exploratory factor analysis		Confirmatory factor analysis
	Item	Factor 1 loadings	Factor 2 loadings	Factor 1 loadings	Factor 2 loadings
	Commitment Amplification Items
1	I am receptive to becoming more committed to my romantic partner.	.70	.05	.77
2	I am not ready to become more committed to my relationship at this time. (R)	−.37	−.27	−.47
3	I feel that this is the “right time” for me to become more committed to my relationship.	.81	.10	.86
4	I Would like to move to the next step in my relationship.	.92	−.01	.92
5	I am comfortable with the current commitment level in my relationship. (R)	−.18	.59
6	I think my partner and I should take our relationship to the next level.	.97	−.06	.93
7	My relationship is ready for the next stage.	.90	.02	.92
8	My relationship is ready to progress.	.87	.06	.90
9	I Want my relationship to become more serious.	.85	−.13	.78
10	I am ready to invest more in my relationship.	.79	.09	.83
	Current Commitment Items ^a
1	Item 1	−.02	.94		.90
2	Item 2	−.03	.88		.79
3	Item 3	.02	.85		.86
4	Item 4 (R)	.04	−.70		−.59
5	Item 6	.12	.81		.90
6	Item 7	.06	.89		.93

Note. Bolded factor loadings indicate the factor on which the item was retained. Item 5 of the commitment amplification scale loaded on to current commitment; therefore, it was excluded in the confirmatory factor analysis and from further use. (R) indicates a reverse-scored item.

^aDue to a coding error, Item 5 of the Current Commitment scale was omitted from the measure.

Distinguishing commitment amplification: Confirmatory factory analysis

To confirm the two-factor solution found in the described EFA above, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the other half of the participant sample. Using full information maximum likelihood and factor variances equal to one, we performed a two-factor CFA with the nine-item commitment amplification scale and all included items from the validated current relationship commitment scale (Rusbult et al., 1998). Consistent with the previous EFA, the current confirmatory factor analysis reached statistical significance (χ² (89) = 267, p < .001; TLI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07). All factor loadings had standardized estimates greater than .47 including reverse coded items, demonstrating adequate loading values.

In addition to the satisfactory model fit measures, all scale items from the commitment amplification and current relationship commitment scales loaded onto separate factors. These results confirm the uniqueness of commitment amplification as a separate construct from current relationship commitment using a confirmatory approach, ultimately replicating and extending the findings from the initial EFAs from both the current study and Study 1 (see Table 5).

Bivariate correlations

We then ran Pearson correlation analyses using all participants from Study 2 to examine the relationship between the established commitment amplification scale and other relevant variables identified by extant literature as robust predictors of relationship outcomes (see Rusbult et al., 1998; Rusbult et al., 2012). Commitment amplification was associated with key variables (i.e., relationship satisfaction, closeness, and attachment avoidance), replicating the findings from Study 1. Interestingly, in this sample, attachment anxiety (both state and trait) was significantly and positively associated with commitment amplification. In addition, commitment amplification was positively associated with commitment, satisfaction, and investments, and negatively correlated with alternatives (all p’s < .001). Taken together, these results suggest that commitment amplification demonstrates convergent validity with several key variables (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Study 2 zero-order correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.
1. Commitment amplification	-
2. Trait attachment anxiety	.11*	-
3. Trait attachment avoidance	−.33***	.26***	-
4. State attachment anxiety	.33***	-	-	-
5. State attachment avoidance	−.19**	-	-	.03	-
6. Closeness	.36***	−.14**	−.49***	.06	−.27***	-
7. Current commitment	.56***	−.14**	−.62***	.13**	−.36***	.56***	-
8. Satisfaction (IMS)	.48***	−.29***	.62***	.03	−.30***	.62***	.74***	-
9. Alternatives	−.33***	.14**	.39***	.01	.26***	−.35***	.55***	.46***	-
10. Investments	.31***	.06	−.35***	.21***	−.15**	.37***	.44***	.34***	−.21***	-
11. Relationship length	−.22***	−.18***	−.01	−.14**	−.08	−.01	.00	−.15***	.06	.10**

Note. IMS: Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998). Participants completed either the trait attachment or state attachment measures, but not both. Accordingly, degrees of freedom vary across correlations.

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Regression analyses

Finally, to replicate and extend findings from Study 1, we ran several simultaneous regression analyses. Given that all expected variables were significantly correlated in this sample, we ran simultaneous regressions to distinguish each variable’s unique variance in predicting commitment amplification, controlling for relationship length. Lastly, because the total sample was divided into two subsamples with half of the participants completing trait-level attachment dimensions and the other completing state-level measures, regressions were run separately for each subsample.

Trait attachment subsample

All variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis with commitment amplification as the outcome. Trait attachment anxiety, current relationship commitment, and satisfaction remained unique predictors of commitment amplification. However, trait attachment avoidance, alternatives, investments, and closeness did not (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Study 2 regression coefficients predicting commitment amplification.

	Trait attachment subsample			State attachment subsample
	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Trait attachment anxiety	.171	.047	<.001
Trait attachment avoidance	.052	.072	.34
State attachment anxiety				.241	.045	<.001
State attachment avoidance				−.016	.052	.70
Closeness	.063	.046	.21	.010	.047	.84
Current commitment	.485	.095	<.001	.352	.077	<.001
Satisfaction (IMS)	.097	.075	.166	.152	.065	.02
Alternatives	−.025	.050	.61	−.039	.047	.40
Investments	.058	.056	.21	.052	.058	.25
Relationship length	−.164	.008	<.001	−.177	.008	<.001
	R ²	p		R ²	p
Overall model	.40	<.001		.43	<.001

Note. IMS: Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998).

State attachment subsample

Again, all variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis with commitment amplification as the outcome. Replicating findings from the regression analysis with trait attachment, state attachment anxiety, current commitment, and relationship satisfaction, remained the only significant unique predictors of commitment amplification (see Table 7). Taken together with the trait attachment regression outcomes, results suggest that individual differences in attachment anxiety, satisfaction, and feelings of current commitment to one’s relationship predict the desire to enhance relationship commitment above and beyond other measured variables.

Discussion

Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses from the current study suggest that novel commitment amplification is empirically distinct from current relationship commitment. Two-factor solutions consistently accounted for greater variance in participant responses, and factor loadings supported the proposed scale while replicating low loadings of Item 5, further supporting its exclusion from the final measure. Additionally, commitment amplification was significantly predicted by current relationship commitment and attachment anxiety across both subsamples, and of satisfaction in the state attachment subsample. Results indicate that forms of relationship quality, as well as measures of attachment, are uniquely associated with individuals’ desires to amplify commitment.

Although Study 2 demonstrated the uniqueness of commitment amplification compared to current relationship commitment, it did not distinguish between commitment amplification and commitment readiness. Additionally, commitment amplification was shown to predict relationship quality and attitudes, but the variable’s role in predicting relationship behaviors remains unmeasured. Thus, Study 3 was designed to examine the distinctiveness of the scale compared to commitment readiness as well as its role in key relationship behaviors including self-disclosure, willingness to sacrifice, and accommodation.

Study 3

Method

Participants

Similar to the previous two studies, participants (N = 351; M_age = 35.55, Mdn_age = 32, SD_age = 12.23, Range = 20–76; relationship length M_years = 7.09, SD_years = 7.04) were adult Prolific. co users who reported being in a relationship and were residing in Canada (n = 21), the U.S. (n = 2), and the U.K. (n = 328). We again conducted a power analysis in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) estimating a small to medium regression coefficient (80% power, α = .05), with six predictors. This yielded a projected sample of N = 338, for which we oversampled. Participants were paid an average rate of $10.83/hour USD for the roughly six-minute study. All procedures were approved by the Ursinus College Institutional Review Board. Full participant demographics are shown in Table 1.

Measures

Commitment amplification and commitment

Participants completed the 9-item commitment amplification scale, as well as the commitment subscale from the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998).

Commitment readiness

New to this study, participants completed an eight-item measure of commitment readiness (Agnew et al., 2019). Items were measured from do not agree at all (0) to agree completely (8; example item: “I feel ready to be involved in a committed relationship.”). All items were averaged.

Behavioral relationship outcomes

Participants completed three measures of relationship outcomes: self-disclosure (Laurenceau et al., 2005), willingness to sacrifice (Arriaga, 2004), and accommodation (Rusbult et al., 1991).

Self-disclosure is a three-item frequency scale (e.g., “To what degree do you disclose your feelings to your romantic partner?”) measured from very little (1) to a great deal (5). Willingness to sacrifice is also a three-item scale (e.g., “I am willing to do things for my partner even if she or she does not always thank me.”) with response options ranging from do not agree (1) to agree completely (9). Finally, accommodation measures the frequency of responses to relationship problems (e.g., “When my partner is very angry with me and ignores me for a while, I talk to him/her about what’s going on”; “When my partner yells at me or speaks to me in a raised voice, I consider breaking up.”) from I never do this (0) to I constantly do this (8). All scales were averaged. Scale descriptives can be found in Table 3.

Procedure

After consenting, participants confirmed they were currently in a relationship before proceeding. Participants first completed the commitment scale, followed by commitment readiness. Next, the behavioral outcomes were presented in a randomized order. Finally, participants completed the commitment amplification scale and demographic items.

Analysis plan

We again ran an exploratory factor analysis that included commitment amplification, commitment, and the newly included commitment readiness scale, to determine whether novel commitment amplification was unique from the other two measures of commitment. We also conducted bivariate (zero-order) correlations between all included relationship variables. Finally, we ran simultaneous regressions using the three commitment measures (commitment amplification, commitment, and commitment readiness) in predicting the behavioral outcomes, in order to explore if commitment amplification can predict such relationship behaviors while controlling for commitment and commitment readiness. Once again, we controlled for relationship length in the regression analyses.

Results and discussion

Distinguishing commitment amplification from commitment and commitment readiness

Although Study 2 revealed that commitment amplification was distinct from commitment, we sought to further distinguish commitment amplification from other commitment-related constructs. Accordingly, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis using the 9-item Commitment Amplification Scale as well as validated measures of commitment and commitment readiness. As in Study 2, we conducted the EFA using maximum likelihood extraction with oblimin rotation and eigenvalues greater than 1.00.

The analysis produced a significant two-factor solution. The first factor, which consisted of the seven commitment items and the eight commitment readiness items, accounted for 32.65% of the variance, whereas the second factor, which consisted of the nine commitment amplification items, accounted for an additional 26.39% of the variance (see Table 8). Thus, the EFA reveals that commitment amplification is empirically distinct from both commitment and commitment readiness³.

Table 8.

Study 3 factor analysis loadings.

	Item	Exploratory factor analysis
	Item	Factor 1 loadings	Factor 2 loadings
	Commitment Amplification Items
1	I am receptive to becoming more committed to my romantic partner.	.19	.63
2	I am not ready to become more committed to my relationship at this time. (R)	−.29	−.30
3	I feel that this is the “right time” for me to become more committed to my relationship.	.07	.83
4	I Would like to move to the next step in my relationship.	−.05	.96
5	I think my partner and I should take our relationship to the next level.	−.04	.96
6	My relationship is ready for the next stage.	−.02	.91
7	My relationship is ready to progress.	.04	.88
8	I Want my relationship to become more serious.	−.07	.91
9	I am ready to invest more in my relationship.	.16	.75
	Current Commitment Items
1	Item 1	.91	−.05
2	Item 2	.95	−.02
3	Item 3	.87	.00
4	Item 4 (R)	−.57	−.05
5	Item 5 (R)	−.40	−.02
6	Item 6	.89	.04
7	Item 7	.87	.02
	Commitment Readiness Items
1	Item 1	.72	.03
2	Item 2 (R)	−.58	.11
3	Item 3	.57	.14
4	Item 4 (R)	−.62	.11
5	Item 5	.63	.15
6	Item 6 (R)	−.29	.10
7	Item 6	.67	.10
8	Item 8 (R)	−.69	.04

Note. (R) indicates a reverse-scored item. Bolded factor loadings indicate the factor on which the item was retained.

Bivariate correlations

Next, we examined whether commitment amplification was associated with behavioral relationship outcomes, specifically self-disclosure, willingness to sacrifice, and accommodation, via Pearson correlations. As predicted, commitment amplification was positively associated with all three outcomes. Specifically, individuals who desired commitment amplification reported greater levels of self-disclosure (r = .51, p < .001), willingness to sacrifice (r = .26, p < .001), and accommodative tendencies (r = .45, p < .001). Taken together, these results suggest that commitment amplification demonstrates convergent validity with several key outcomes (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Study 3 zero-order correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Commitment amplification	--
2. Current commitment	.60***	--
3. Commitment readiness	.48***	.67***	--
4. Self-disclosure	.51***	.57***	.48***	--
5. Sacrifice	.26***	.29***	.24***	.24***	–
6. Accommodation	.45***	.60***	.50***	.51***	.36***	--
7. Relationship length	−.21***	−.12*	.05	−.11*	.03	−.11*

Note. ***p < .001.

Regression analyses

Finally, we tested the robustness of commitment amplification as a predictor of the three behavioral relationship outcomes. In each simultaneous regression, we entered commitment amplification as the predictor, controlling for commitment, commitment readiness, and relationship length, and the relationship outcome as the criterion.

Supporting predictions, commitment amplification was a significant positive predictor of self-disclosure (β = .23, p < .001), willingness to sacrifice (β = .14, p = .03), and accommodation (β = .12, p = .03), above and beyond commitment, commitment readiness, and relationship length (see Table 10). Together, these results further support the distinctiveness of commitment amplification from commitment and commitment readiness and demonstrate that commitment amplification is a robust unique predictor of behavioral relationship outcomes.⁴

Table 10.

Study 3 regression coefficients predicting behavioral relationship outcomes.

	Self-disclosure			Sacrifice			Accommodation
	β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Amplification	.232	.036	<.001	.141	.083	.031	.118	.051	.032
Commitment	.325	.052	<.001	.177	.119	.021	.387	.073	<.001
Readiness	.148	.041	.013	.053	.094	.459	.185	.058	.002
Rel. Length	−.027	.005	.543	.080	.012	.132	−.037	.008	.408
	R ²	p		R ²	p		R ²	p
Overall model	.37	<.001		.10	<.001		.37	<.001

Note. Amplification: Commitment Amplification Scale. Commitment: current commitment subscale of the IMS (Rusbult et al., 1998). Readiness: Commitment Readiness Scale. Rel. Length: relationship length (years).

General discussion

The aims of the current studies were to investigate the novel construct of commitment amplification through the assessment of a newly created scale and theorized associated variables. Across replicated exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, results demonstrated a single-factor, 9-item scale, assessing commitment amplification with strong reliability. In Study 1, commitment amplification was significantly positively associated with relationship satisfaction and relationship closeness, and negatively associated with attachment avoidance. These results suggest that individuals desire to increase commitment in satisfying relationships in which they feel close to their partner. Further, higher reports of attachment avoidance (i.e., harboring negative view of others, fearing closeness) predict lower levels of commitment amplification. This is conceptually consistent with extant literature on attachment dimensions, which describes the tendency for those high in avoidance to refrain from becoming increasingly closer to their partners (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2003).

Using further exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the scale structure and reliability from Study 1 was replicated in Study 2. To distinguish commitment amplification from existing measures of relationship commitment, we simultaneously entered the novel scale with items from a previously established scale for current commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998). Even in such a stringent test of conceptual uniqueness, each scale loaded onto separate factors, with the exception of item 5 from the original 10-item commitment amplification scale. This item was subsequently—and permanently—dropped, yielding a final, 9-item scale.

Study 2 also replicated significant associations between commitment amplification, relationship satisfaction, closeness, and attachment insecurity. In addition, Study 2 extended Study 1 by showing the associations between commitment amplification and attachment at both the state and trait level. The association between trait attachment anxiety and commitment amplification was small; however, state attachment anxiety and commitment amplification reached a medium effect size. It is possible that individual differences in state attachment may have reflected more immediate feelings of anxiety and avoidance, which then corresponded with current commitment amplification reports, as opposed to trait level attachment which assesses relationship orientations more broadly.

Other significant associations emerged between commitment amplification and the components of the Investment Model of Commitment. Specifically, relationship alternatives were negatively associated with commitment amplification, whereas investments and current commitment were positively correlated. Importantly, the association between current commitment and commitment amplification was strong; however, the relationship was not so robust that the two constructs should be considered conceptually parallel. Indeed, current commitment and commitment amplification had sufficient unique variance in both the bivariate correlations and the simultaneous regressions that the variables can be construed as distinct. Overall, commitment amplification further contributes to our understanding of relationship dynamics that predict the progression of relationship trajectories as individuals seek to bolster relational interdependence and closeness.

Finally, Study 3 again affirmed commitment amplification’s distinctness from current commitment as well as commitment readiness. The measure was also found to predict relationship behaviors including self-disclosure, willingness to sacrifice, and accommodation. The Commitment Amplification Scale accounted for unique variance in the behavioral outcomes in regression models accounting for current commitment, commitment readiness, and relationship length. Together, these studies suggest that novel commitment amplification is both a reliable and distinct measure from current relationship commitment and readiness, establishing the unique utility of the construct and situating the tool in existing literature.

Limitations and future considerations

One limitation of the current work is our sample: mostly white individuals in different-gendered (and perhaps heterosexual or hetero-passing) relationships. Marriage, in particular, functions fundamentally as a social—and arguably political (Yamin, 2012)—institution. Therefore, there may be different amplification opportunities for couples based on their race, gender identity, sexuality, economic standing, or other social groupings. While the wording of the commitment amplification items was intentionally vague to cross many different “next steps” in relationships, caution is warranted in generalizing these results to different sociopolitical and legal contexts.

Additionally, many of our participants report being in long-term relationships and report being highly committed and satisfied. Although this may limit our generalizability, it provides a unique opportunity to examine commitment amplification as a distinct relational mechanism. For instance, our measure of commitment amplification demonstrated moderate levels of endorsement with sufficient variability. Therefore, scholars may be able to use commitment amplification as another method of assessing relational processes when samples are relatively high in satisfaction and commitment.

A second limitation is the use of cross-sectional methodology. Accordingly, no causal effects of reports of commitment amplification on individual and relationship outcomes can be established. While collected reports of commitment amplification provide meaningful information regarding the extent to which individuals seek to amplify commitment within their relationships, future research should examine the predictive power of commitment amplification across time and amongst relationships of varying lengths. For example, it could be that commitment readiness is an antecedent to commitment amplification desires in the early stages of relationships. In addition, examining these motivations within a dyadic context could prove fruitful in predicting in situ behaviors. Exploring the relationship between amplification desire and behaviors will provide further support for the influence of commitment amplification on relationship outcomes (e.g., future commitment, relationship quality, and stay/leave behavior).

A third limitation of the current studies is that, while we established convergent validity (e.g., relational investments, satisfaction), there was relatively few measures included that would establish discriminant validity beyond assessment of current relationship commitment and commitment readiness. Future research could examine variables such as relationship instability using cross-sectional (e.g., Booth et al., 1983) or longitudinal (e.g., Whitton & Whisman, 2010) methods.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the potential for commitment amplification to function as an adaptive response to perceived relational threat, albeit with potentially maladaptive outcomes, as individuals may be motivated to protect their relational investments. In moderate instances, individuals may have asymmetrical commitment amplification desires, which could spur conflict or dissatisfaction within established dyads. Future research should examine not only the speed at which individuals are fulfilling relationship trajectory scripts and achieving relationship milestones, but the symmetry with which partners desire to do so. It is possible that amplifying commitment too quickly (or slowly) may result in negative self- and relationship outcomes, such as low identity and relationship clarity (e.g., Emery et al., 2021). Asymmetrical commitment amplification desire within relationships could cause conflict and even dissolution, as partners struggle to achieve agreement on the trajectory of their relationship (e.g., Stanley et al., 2017).

However, in more severe instances of maladaptive commitment amplification, the desire to enhance commitment could lead to harmful behaviors such as coercion to remain in the relationship or stealthing (i.e., non-consensually removing or otherwise damaging contraception devices during sex; Davis, 2019). Further, individuals may orchestrate commitment amplification through the social isolation of a partner or forced dependence on the relationship through financial investments and reliance on the partner (e.g., Laurin et al., 2016). Ultimately, commitment amplification can serve as a functional mechanism for progressing romantic relationships but may negatively impact relational outcomes in the face of accelerated or disproportionate desire for amplification.

Conclusion

Individuals vary in the extent to which they desire to amplify commitment within existing romantic relationships. The current investigation established the Commitment Amplification Scale and identified how amplification desires are associated with self and relationship outcomes. Overall, the desire to amplify commitment is a unique and predictive dimension that may function as an adaptive process employed to strengthen relationships.

Footnotes

Author’s note

Portions of this research were presented at the conference for Society of Personality and Social Psychology in Atlanta, GA (2023). Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Morgan Cope at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: mcope2019@fau.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: mcope2019@fau.edu.

ORCID iD

Morgan A. Cope

Notes

References

Agnew

C. R.

Hadden

B. W.

Tan

(2019). It’s about time: Readiness, commitment, and stability in close relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829060

Agnew

C. R.

(2015). Prosocial behavior in close relationships: An interdependence approach. In Schroeder

D. A.

Graziano

W. G.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 362–375). Oxford University Press.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Arriaga

(2004). Components of commitment in relational and organizational contexts. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University.

Arriaga

X. B.

Agnew

C. R.

(2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011

Booth

Johnson

Edwards

J. N.

(1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/351516

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x

Branand

Mashek

Aron

(2019). Pair-bonding as inclusion of other in the self: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02399

10.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868

11.

Davis

K. C.

(2019). Stealthing: Factors associated with young men’s nonconsensual condom removal. Health Psychology, 38(11), 997–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000779

12.

Emery

L. F.

Gardner

W. L.

Carswell

K. L.

Finkel

E. J.

(2021). Who are “we”? Couple identity clarity and romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220921717

13.

Etcheverry

P. E.

Wei

(2013). Attachment and the investment model: Predictors of relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 546–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01423.x

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A-G.

Buchner

, et al. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

15.

Gillath

Hart

Noftle

E. E.

Stockdale

G. D.

(2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.009

16.

Goodfriend

Agnew

C. R.

(2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323743

17.

Hadden

B. W.

Agnew

C. R.

Tan

(2018). Commitment readiness and relationship formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1242–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218764668

18.

Hadden

B. W.

Agnew

C. R.

(2020). Commitment readiness: Timing, the self, and close relationships. In Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept (pp. 53–67). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_4

19.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

Hendrick

(1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151009

20.

Holmberg

MacKenzie

(2002). So far, so good: Scripts for romantic relationship development as predictors of relational well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502196003

21.

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 and social Psychology, 57(6), 967–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967

22.

Kornblum

Unger

Grote

(2021). How romantic relationships affect individual career goal attainment: A transactive goal dynamics perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 125, 103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103523.

23.

Laurenceau

J-P.

Feldman-Barrett

Rovine

, et al. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. The Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314.

24.

Laurin

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Finkel

E. J.

Carswell

K. L.

vanDellen

M. R.

Hofmann

Lambert

N. M.

Eastwick

P. W.

Fincham

F. D.

Brown

P. C.

(2016). Power and the pursuit of a partner’s goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 840–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000048

25.

Agnew

C. R.

(2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035

26.

Dove

N. L.

Agnew

C. R.

Korn

M. S.

Mutso

A. A.

(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

27.

Mashek

Israel

Aron

(2011). Wanting less closeness in romantic relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614164

28.

McNulty

J. K.

Meltzer

A. L.

Makhanova

Maner

J. K.

(2018). Attentional and evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000127

29.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00142.x

30.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Pereg

(2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024515519160

31.

Miller

R. S.

(1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758

32.

Owen

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

(2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097

33.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Axsom

D. K.

(2006). Using the investment model to understand battered women's.

34.

Rusbult

C. E.

Agnew

C. R.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2012). The investment model of commitment processes. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social Psychology (pp. 218–231), Sage Publications Ltd.

35.

Rusbult

C. E.

Johnson

D. J.

Morrow

G. D.

(1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786859

36.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

(1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216002

37.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

38.

Rusbult

Verrette

Whitney

Slovik

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 53.

39.

Slotter

E. B.

Gardner

W. L.

(2012). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11(3), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.591538

40.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x

41.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Scott

S. B.

Kelmer

Markman

H. J.

Fincham

F. D.

(2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516672013

42.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Whitton

S. W.

(2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x

43.

The jamovi project . (2021). Jamovi. (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from. https://www.jamovi.org

44.

VanderDrift

L. E.

Agnew

C. R.

Wilson

J. E.

(2009). Nonmarital romantic relationship commitment and leave behavior: The mediating role of dissolution consideration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1220–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337543

45.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L.

(2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041

46.

Whitton

S. W.

Whisman

M. A.

(2010). Relationship satisfaction instability and depression. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 791–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021734

47.

Yamin

(2012). American marriage: A political institution, University of Pennsylvania Press.