Expressions of Commitment and Relational

¶ … Expressions of Commitment and Relational Uncertainty as Predictors of Relationship Quality and Stability over Time

This qualitative research study published in Communication Reports in 2011 was conducted to examine the question of how the communication of commitment is associated with relationship well-being. Daniel J. Weigel, Camille Brown and Cailin Kulp O'Riordan observe that though relationships are important to well-being, many have difficulty in constructing relationships that endure.

The purpose of this study was to look at how communication of commitment, commitment level, relational uncertainty and relationship well-being are linked over time. The author's proposed 6 hypotheses: H1) Commitment level and reported use of commitment indicators are positively associated with subsequent perceptions of relationship quality over time. H2) Use of the commitment indicators mediates the relationship between commitment level and relationship quality over time. H3) People who remain in their relationships are more likely to report higher commitment levels and greater use of commitment indicators at Time 1 than people whose relationships break up. H4) Relational uncertainty is negatively associated with perceptions of relationship quality over time. H5) Use of the commitment indicators mediates the relationship between relational uncertainty and relationship quality over time. H6) People who remain in their relationships report less relational uncertainty at Time 1 than people whose relationships break up.

Rusbult's investment model provides the theoretical framework for examining relationship commitment. This model defines commitment as involving a long-term orientation, a desire for the relationship to persist, and an attachment to one's partner. Knobloch and Soloman voice the rational for examining uncertainty in relationships. They define relational uncertainty as "the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement with others. More specifically, people can be uncertain about their own participation in a relationship, their partner's participation, and the relationship's future" (p.41).

Convenience sampling was used to recruit 230 university students, 175 female and 55 males, enrolled in undergraduate classes from two western universities. Of these 22 were married, 12 engaged, 179 seriously dating, and 12 casually dating. The mean relationship was 27 months and ranged from 1 to 312 months. Participants were 18 to 58 years of age with 54.4% Caucasian, 32.2% Asian, 6.5% multiethnic, 5.7% Pacific Islander, 3% Hispanic and 2.2% African-American.

Participants completed questionnaires at two points 4 months apart. Initially researchers visited classrooms and recruited participants to report on a current romantic relationship, defined as one that contains stronger feelings of affection, attachment, or closeness than found in typical friendships and could range from casually dating to marriage. Participants recorded the romantic partners' initials on the first page of the questionnaire to enable matching with the follow-up survey. Data was then collected 4 months later via email which included an online link to a questionnaire asking them to report on the current status of the relationship they reported on at Time 1, as well as the quality of that relationship. Of the 230 participants who completed the initial questionnaire, 123 completed the follow-up questionnaire.

The study found that that people are more positive about their relationships and stay in those relationships when they use commitment indicators more often, are more highly committed, and have lower relationship uncertainty. The authors concluded that "Given the centrality of relationships in people's lives, we believe that by creating a better understanding of the strategies and mechanisms involved in the communication of commitment, scholars can help paint a clearer picture of how people create and sustain committed, stable relationships" (p. 48).