Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships

Abstract

The present work advances and tests an interdependence-based model of the associations among commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust. Findings from two longitudinal studies revealed good support for model predictions. Commitment-inspired acts such as accommodation and willingness to sacrifice provide diagnostic information regarding a partner's pro-relationship motives. Individuals come to trust their partners when they perceive that their partners have enacted pro-relationship behaviors, departing from their direct self-interest for the good of the relationship. The results of mediation analyses are consistent with a model of mutual cyclical growth in which (a) dependence promotes strong commitment, (b) commitment promotes pro-relationship acts, (c) pro-relationship acts are perceived by the partner, (d) the perception of pro-relationship acts enhances the partner's trust, and (e) trust increases the partner's willingness to become dependent on the relationship. Auxiliary analyses revealed that self-reported attachment style does not account for substantial variance beyond the features of interdependence that form the basis for the present model.

Full text

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships
Jennifer Wieselquist, Caryl E. Rusbult, and
Craig A. Foster
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Christopher R. Agnew
Purdue University
The present work advances and tests an interdependence-based model of the associations among
commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust. Findings from two longitudinal studies revealed good
support for model predictions. Commitment-inspired acts such as accommodation and willingness to
sacrifice provide diagnostic information regarding a partner's pro-relationship motives. Individuals come
to trust their partners when they perceive that their partners have enacted pro-relationship behaviors,
departing from their direct self-interest for the good of the relationship. The results of mediation analyses
are consistent with a model of mutual cyclical growth in which (a) dependence promotes strong
commitment, (b) commitment promotes pro-relationship acts, (c) pro-relationship acts are perceived by
the partner, (d) the perception of pro-relationship acts enhances the partner's trust, and (e) trust increases
the partner's willingness to become dependent on the relationship. Auxiliary analyses revealed that
self-reported attachment style does not account for substantial variance beyond the features of interde-
pendence that form the basis for the present model.
The more he treated her as though she were really very nice, the more
Lotty expanded and became really very nice, and the more he,
affected in his turn, became really very nice
himself;
so that they went
round and round, not in a vicious but in a highly virtuous circle.
—Elizabeth von Arnim, The Enchanted April
Sometimes involvement with a close partner is simple. When
partners' goals correspond and their behavioral preferences are
compatible, partners can readily achieve desirable outcomes such
as intimacy, companionship, and security. It is easy to behave well
and do the right thing when interdependence structure is congenial.
The true test of a relationship arises when circumstances are not so
congenial—when partners encounter dilemmas involving con-
flicted interaction, incompatible preferences, or extrarelationship
temptation. In dilemmas of this sort the immediate interests of the
individual are incompatible with the interests of the relationship,
and something must give.
Jennifer Wieselquist, Caryl E. Rusbult, and Craig A. Foster, Department
of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Christopher R.
Agnew, Department of Psychology, Purdue University.
This research was supported in part by National Institute of Mental
Health Grant BSR-1-R01-MH-45417 and National Science Foundation
Grant BNS-9023817. We thank Steven Drigotas for making it possible for
us to gather the Study 1 data. We thank John Holmes for both direct and
-indirect contributions to our general model.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
Wieselquist, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3270. Electronic mail may be sent to
wiesel@email.unc.edu.
What leads partners to behave well when they encounter inter-
dependence dilemmas? Why are some partners willing to forego
immediate self-interest and promote the interests of their relation-
ships whereas others are disinclined to do so? What are the
consequences of pursuing self-interest rather than the interests of
one's relationship? This article proposes that two constructs—
commitment and trust—play central roles in shaping motivation
and behavior in ongoing relationships. Our model combines con-
cepts identified by Rusbult and her colleagues in their analysis of
commitment processes (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994) with
concepts identified by Holmes and Rempel (1989) in their analysis
of trust. These theoretical analyses are highly complementary, in
that both analyses rest on concepts from interdependence theory
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
We begin by suggesting that transformation of motivation
shapes preferences and behavior in everyday interdependence di-
lemmas. Next we introduce the concept of commitment, describing
the bases of commitment and outlining the role of commitment in
promoting pro-relationship behavior. Then we describe the emer-
gence of trust, characterizing trust as a reflection of the partner's
commitment and benevolent intentions; that
is,
we describe trust as
an implicit gauge of the extent and reliability of a partner's
pro-relationship motivation. Finally, we present the results of two
longitudinal studies designed to test our general model.
Transformation of Motivation and Pro-Relationship
Behavior
An interdependence dilemma is a "dilemma" because it involves
conflicting motives. On the one hand, there may be compelling
reasons to pursue immediate self-interest. On the other hand, there
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, Vol. 77, No. 5, 942-966
Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0O22-3514/99/$3.0O
942

COMMITMENT AND TRUST943
may be compelling reasons to promote the interests of one's
relationship. Resolving interdependence dilemmas therefore en-
tails some degree of effort or personal cost. For example, if Mary
enacts a rude or hostile behavior, John's immediate impulse may
be to behave rudely in return. John may feel demeaned, he may
wish to defend his dignity, or he may seek to gain some measure
of revenge. The impulse to reciprocate negativity—to defend one-
self in the face of attack—appears to be quite strong (Rusbult,
Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Yovetich & Rusbult,
1994).
However, a retaliative act on John's part is likely to escalate
conflict, producing a hostile interaction that could harm his rela-
tionship with Mary. Thus, John's direct, self-interested impulses
are at odds with the interests of his relationship. From a strictly
personal point of view, the loss of pride John would suffer if he
were to swallow Mary's insult may seem more unpleasant than the
unpleasantness associated with retaliating, further irritating Mary,
and harming their relationship. Thus, if John is to behave in such
a manner as to benefit his relationship, he must swallow his pride,
control his impulse toward retaliation, and find it in himself to
behave in a conciliatory manner.
The interdependence theory distinction between the given situ-
ation and the effective situation provides a framework for under-
standing what makes some partners willing to endure cost or exert
effort to ensure the well-being of their relationships (Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978). The given situation refers to each partner's imme-
diate well-being in a specific situation, describing what we assume
to be each person's "gut level," self-centered preferences (e.g., the
impulse to retaliate when Mary behaves in a hostile manner). It
should be clear that people do not necessarily pursue their given
preferences. Frequently, behavior is shaped by broader concerns,
including strategic considerations, long-term goals, or desire to
promote both one's own and a partner's well-being. Movement
away from given preferences results from transformation of mo-
tivation, a process that leads individuals to relinquish their imme-
diate self-interest and act on the basis of broader considerations.
The effective situation describes the modified preferences that are
assumed to result from the transformation process; reconceptual-
ized, effective preferences are argued to guide behavior (e.g.,
accommodating rather than retaliating when Mary behaves in a
hostile manner).
The transformation process may produce a variety of orienta-
tions (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; McClintock, 1972). In well-
functioning relationships the transformation process frequently
yields pro-relationship motives, producing a shift from desire to
maximize one's immediate self-interest (MaxOwn) toward pro-
relationship orientations such as desire to maximize the partner's
interests (MaxOther) or joint interests (MaxJoint; Yovetich &
Rusbult, 1994). At the same time, antirelationship transformation
is also possible (e.g., desire to maximize the difference between
one's own and the partner's interests, or MaxRel).
In light of the variety of transformational tendencies that part-
ners might display, interdependence dilemmas can be construed as
diagnostic situations (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; such situations
have also been described as "strain tests"; cf. Kelley, 1983a).
Interdependence dilemmas are "diagnostic" in the sense that be-
havior in such situations is revealing of the individual's broader
goals,
values, and motives. Does John resolve a specific dilemma
by pursuing his immediate self-interest, or does he set aside
self-interest for the good of the relationship? If John reacts to
Mary's rudeness by swallowing his pride and accommodating,
such a departure from his gut-level self-interest demonstrates his
benevolent feelings for Mary and his constructive goals for their
relationship.
Relatively stable transformational tendencies are argued to
emerge as a result of adaptation. Specific dilemmas initially are
experienced as unique problems, the resolution of which may
result from either controlled or automatic consideration of the
dilemma (cf. Uleman & Bargh, 1989). For example, to resolve a
given dilemma John may engage in active thought, reviewing his
options, analyzing surrounding circumstances, considering his
goals for the future, and deciding whether to pursue self-interest or
the interests of the relationship. Alternatively, John may react in an
automatic or impulsive manner, on the basis of his immediate
preferences. Either way, experience is acquired.
Over time, some dilemmas will be experienced repeatedly. As a
result of adaptation, individuals presumably develop habitual ten-
dencies to react to specific dilemmas in specific ways, such that
transformation may occur quite rapidly, with little or no conscious
thought (Kelley, 1983b). At critical choice points individuals may
continue to engage in active decision making, but just as often
transformation of motivation may be guided by habit. In some
relationships, partners may routinely engage in pro-relationship
transformation, whereas in other relationships partners may rou-
tinely react selfishly or in a manner that is antithetical to the
well-being of the relationship. Thus, it becomes important to
identify the bases of stable transformational tendencies.
Commitment Processes
Consistent with other characterizations of the commitment pro-
cess (cf. M. P. Johnson, 1991; Levinger, 1979), we suggest that
commitment reliably promotes pro-relationship motivation and
behavior (Rusbult et al., 1994). Commitment level represents long-
term orientation toward a relationship, including intent to persist
and feelings of psychological attachment (Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult
et al., 1994). Commitment develops as a result of changes over
time in three aspects of dependence. Individuals become increas-
ingly dependent on their relationships—and become increasingly
committed—to the degree that (a) satisfaction level is high, or the
relationship gratifies the individual's most important needs (e.g.,
needs for intimacy, companionship, sexuality); (b) quality of al-
ternatives is poor, or the individual's most important needs could
not be gratified independent of the relationship (e.g., on one's own,
in alternative romantic involvements, by friends or family mem-
bers);
and (c) investment size is high, or numerous resources have
become attached to the relationship (e.g., time and effort, joint
possessions, shared friendship network).
Commitment reliably promotes persistence in a relationship
(e.g., Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996; Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992; Felm-
lee,
Sprecher, & Bassin, 1990; Rusbult, 1983). Moreover, com-
mitment promotes a variety of so-called maintenance acts, includ-
ing (a) disparagement of alternatives, or tendencies to drive away
or derogate tempting alternative partners (D. J. Johnson & Rusbult,
1989;
Miller, 1997); (b) willingness to sacrifice, or tendencies to
forego desired activities for the good of a relationship (Van Lange
et al., 1997); and (c) accommodative behavior, or tendencies to
accommodate rather than retaliate when a partner behaves poorly
(Rusbult et al., 1991). In addition, commitment promotes cognitive

944WIESELQUIST, RUSBULT, FOSTER, AND AGNEW
tendencies such as (d) cognitive interdependence, or tendencies to
think in terms of "we, us, our" rather than "I, me, mine" (Agnew,
Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998); and (e) positive illusion,
or tendencies toward excessively favorable evaluations of one's
partner or relationship (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Rusbult,
Van Lange, Yovetich, Wildschut, & Verette, 1999).
Existing research is compatible with the claim that commitment-
inspired maintenance acts result from transformation of motivation
(e.g., Rusbult et al., 1991; Van Lange et al, 1997; Yovetich &
Rusbult, 1994). For example, when confronted with accommoda-
tive dilemmas, individuals given plentiful reaction time (i.e., time
for transformation) react more constructively than do those given
limited reaction time; this discrepancy is not evident for situations
that do not require transformation of motivation. In addition,
existing evidence suggests that maintenance acts are associated
with couple well-being (e.g., Murray et al., 1996; Rusbult, Bisson-
nette, Arriaga, & Cox, 1998; Van Lange et al., 1997), operationally
defined as (a) probability of persisting and (b) scores on the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), a frequently used mea-
sure of quality of couple functioning.
Four features of commitment may explain why this variable
reliably promotes pro-relationship transformation. First, commit-
ted individuals are dependent and literally need their relation-
ships—the relationship provides desirable outcomes, investments
are sizeable, or alternatives are poor. The more individuals stand to
lose,
the more effort they will exert to hold on to what they've got
(cf. Holmes, 1981). Second, commitment involves long-term ori-
entation. In long-term involvements it is beneficial to develop
patterns of reciprocal pro-relationship behavior. Thus, pro-
relationship acts may represent a means of encouraging reciproc-
ity, thereby maximizing long-term self-interest (cf. Axelrod,
1984).
Also, with long-term orientation the costs of foregoing
self-interest are aggregated over a longer time perspective and in
light of the partner's reciprocal departures from self-interest (cf.
Kelley, 1983a). Third, commitment involves psychological attach-
ment. The self and the partner may become linked to the extent that
a departure from self-interest benefitting the partner may not be
experienced as personally costly (cf. Aron & Aron, 1997). And
fourth, commitment may induce a collectivistic, communal orien-
tation, including tendencies to respond to a partner's needs in a
rather unconditional manner. In a committed, communally ori-
ented relationship, partners may endure costs or exert effort with-
out counting what they receive in return (cf. Clark & Mills, 1979).
Interpersonal Trust
Thus far we have emphasized individual-level processes: We
have argued that individuals who are highly committed exhibit
pro-relationship transformation of motivation, and we have sug-
gested that such motivation makes individuals willing to depart
from their immediate self-interest in interdependence dilemmas.
However, this individual-level description presents only half of the
picture in understanding behavior in ongoing relationships.
In developing an interdependence-based explanation of pro-
relationship behavior, it is equally important to understand how
such individual-level processes influence partners (cf. Hinde,
1979).
Given that commitment plays a central role in relationships, it
would be adaptive for partners to implicitly or explicitly attend to
one another's commitment levels. Why so? First, commitment and
dependence make individuals vulnerable; such vulnerability is
reduced when the partner is equally vulnerable (equal vulnerability
represents balance of
power).
Second, couple well-being has been
shown to rest on both level of commitment and mutuality of
commitment (Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, in press; cf. Holmes &
Rempel, 1989; Kelley, 1983a). Third, maintenance acts follow the
principle of reciprocity—we are more willing to enact pro-
relationship behaviors to the degree that the partner is expected to
do so (Rusbult, Bissonnette, et al., 1998; Van Lange et al., 1997).
To the extent that achieving and sustaining equal dependence,
mutual commitment, and reciprocity of pro-relationship acts rest
on knowledge of a partner's commitment, an implicit gauge of the
partner's commitment would seem to have considerable functional
value. We suggest that relationship-specific trust is such a gauge.
Most theory and research concerning trust has examined this
phenomenon as a disposition—as a relatively enduring personal
attribute that is assumed to yield considerable stability in cogni-
tion, affect, and behavior across a variety of situations and across
a variety of interaction partners. For example, Rotter (1980) de-
scribed trust as a personality trait, and attachment theory empha-
sizes the ways in which early attachment experiences influence
mental models of attachment, which in turn shape later inclinations
to trust close partners (cf. Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Reis & Patrick,
1996).
In the present context it is suitable to describe trust as an
interpersonal phenomenon, construing trust not as a stable trait but
as a quality that is specific to a particular relationship with a
particular partner (cf. Hinde, 1979). Toward this goal, Holmes and
his colleagues have conceptualized trust as a relationship-specific
phenomenon, defining trust level as the expectation that a given
partner can be relied on to behave in a benevolent manner and be
responsive to one's needs (Holmes, 1989; Rempel, Holmes, &
Zanna, 1985; Sorrentino, Holmes, Hanna, & Sharp, 1995).
Trust is said to include three components (Holmes & Rempel,
1989):
(a) predictability, or belief that the partner's behavior is
consistent; (b) dependability, or belief that the partner can be
counted on to be honest, reliable, and benevolent; and
(c)
faith, or
conviction that the partner is intrinsically motivated to be respon-
sive and caring—belief that the partner's motives go beyond
instrumental bases for benevolence. Each component is argued to
be a necessary feature of trust.
How do we develop conviction that our partners are predictable
and dependable, and how do we develop faith that our partners
consistently will be responsive to our needs? Over the course of
extended involvement, partners inevitably confront situations in
which personal interests are pitted against the interests of the
relationship; that is, individuals encounter the sorts of interdepen-
dence dilemmas or "strain tests" described earlier. In such situa-
tions,
individuals implicitly make a choice: "Should I do what's
good for me, or should I put my partner's needs before my own?"
As noted earlier, Holmes and Rempel (1989) suggested that the
emergence of trust rests on the manner in which individuals are
perceived to behave during such episodes. Episodes of this sort are
termed diagnostic situations, in recognition of the fact that behav-
ior in such situations is diagnostic of the individual's broader
goals,
values, and motives.
We suggest that commitment-inspired maintenance acts are
diagnostic of pro-relationship orientation. Accommodation and

COMMITMENT AND TRUST945
sacrifice may provide particularly unambiguous evidence of be-
nevolent motives, in that when individuals accommodate rather
than retaliate—and when they sacrifice otherwise desirable activ-
ities to solve problems of noncorrespondence—they demonstrate
that they are willing to behave toward the partner in a generous and
giving manner. To some extent, cognitive maintenance tendencies
may provide parallel evidence, especially insofar as such tenden-
cies are seen to involve exceptional effort or cost. If it is true that
the benevolent acts promoted by commitment provide evidence
regarding strength of pro-relationship orientation, then trust can be
construed as a mirror reflecting the strength of a partner's
commitment.
As partners develop increased trust in one another they are
likely to become increasingly dependent on one another; that is,
they are likely to become increasingly satisfied with the relation-
ship,
increasingly willing to forego alternatives, and increasingly
willing to invest in the relationship (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). As
John becomes increasingly confident that Mary will be responsive
to his needs, he is likely to experience enhanced satisfaction with
their relationship. Moreover, as John's trust grows, he should be
more willing to make himself vulnerable by cognitively or behav-
iorally driving away alternatives, and he should be more willing to
throw in his lot with Mary by investing in their relationship,
emotionally or behaviorally. Such increased dependence will yield
strengthened commitment, which in turn should produce increased
willingness to engage in generous, pro-relationship acts.
In short, we are describing a mutual cyclical growth model in
which (a) Partner A's high dependence (high satisfaction, poor alter-
natives, high investments) increases A's commitment; (b) Partner A's
strong commitment motivates A's pro-relationship behavior; (c) Part-
ner B's observation of A's pro-relationship behavior increases B's
perceived partner pro-relationship behavior; (d) Partner B's perceived
partner pro-relationship behavior increases B's trust; and (e) Partner
B's strong trust makes B increasingly willing to become dependent,
which in turn enhances B's commitment, and so on. Thus, over the
course of a well-functioning, long-term relationship, each person's
movement toward increased commitment should be accompanied by
enhanced trust and parallel increases in commitment on the part of the
partner.
Research Overview and Hypotheses
Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of our model. We
conducted two studies to obtain evidence relevant to this model. In
A's
Dependence
Level
f \
B's
Dependence
Level
^ J
HIA's
Commitment
Level
V J
H5A's
Trust
Level
t
i
H5B's
Trust
Level
v. J
HIB's
Commitment
Level
^ J
H2A's
Prorelationship
Behavior
\ J
H3
H3
H2
A's
Perception of B's
Prorelationship
Behavior
v J
1
H4
1
B's
Perception of A's
Prorelationship
Behavior
^. J
B's
Proreiationship
Behavior
^ J
Figure 1. A mutual cyclical growth model of the associations among commitment, pro-relationship behavior,
and trust (HI through H5 refer to hypothesized associations among model variables).

946WIESELQUIST, RUSBULT, FOSTER, AND AGNEW
each study we obtained data from both partners in ongoing rela-
tionships—Study 1 was a three-wave longitudinal study of dating
relationships, and Study 2 was a two-wave longitudinal study of
marital relationships. We used two operational definitions of
pro-
relationship behavior, examining (a) accommodative behavior
(Studies 1 and 2) and (b) willingness to sacrifice (Study 1 only).
Given that our model is partially dyadic in character, some
predictions involve within-individual associations whereas other
predictions involve across-partner associations. For example, our
model predicts that increases in Partner A's commitment cause
increases in Partner A's pro-relationship behavior (a within-
individual link) and predicts that increases in Partner A's pro-
relationship behavior cause increases in Partner B's perceived
partner pro-relationship behavior (an across-partner link). To dis-
tinguish between within-individual and across-partner links, all
hypotheses are described as associations between variables for
Partner A and Partner B.
The model depicted in Figure 1 is symmetrical, with five con-
structs for Partner A and five parallel constructs for Partner B. In
light of this symmetry, our hypotheses describe the Figure 1 links
that begin with Partner A's dependence and end with Partner B's
dependence. Within-individual predictions describe both the asso-
ciations of men's predictors with their own criteria and the asso-
ciations of women's predictors with their own criteria. Across-
partner predictions describe both the associations of men's
predictors with women's criteria and the associations of women's
predictors with men's criteria.1
We obtained measures of relevant model variables on multiple
research occasions so that we could test our hypotheses in both
concurrent analyses and in analyses examining change over time in
each model variable. We anticipated that each of the links dis-
played in Figure 1 would be evident not only (a) in analyses
examining the associations among model variables at a single
point in time (i.e., in concurrent analyses) but also (b) in analyses
examining the associations of earlier predictors with later criteria,
controlling for earlier levels of the criterion (i.e., in residualized
lagged analyses). To the extent that a given predictor variable is
associated not only with (a) concurrent scores for a given criterion
but also with (b) change over time in that criterion, we are in a
better position to rule out plausible alternative explanations of our
findings (e.g., mood effects or self-report bias).
On the basis of the model described above, we advanced six
hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 through 5 represent each of the specific
links in the Figure 1 model. An additional hypothesis—termed the
"Commitment-Trust Hypothesis"—examines an association that
is not a direct link in the Figure 1 model. The Commitment-Trust
Hypothesis predicts that Partner A's commitment will be associ-
ated with Partner B's trust. Although A's commitment and B's
trust are not directly linked in Figure 1, given that we have
characterized trust as an implicit gauge of the strength of a part-
ner's commitment, this association should be evident if our
interdependence-based model is valid.
Commitment-trust
hypothesis:
Partner A's commitment level will be
positively associated with Partner B's trust level.
The first direct link in our model predicts that commitment
develops as a consequence of changes over time in dependence.
Numerous empirical investigations have revealed support for this
hypothesis, documenting the independent associations of satisfac-
tion level, quality of alternatives, and investment size with com-
mitment level (e.g., Bui et al., 1996; Felmlee et al., 1990; Rusbult,
1983;
Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; Simpson, 1987). Accord-
ingly, in the present work we will examine a composite depen-
dence variable—a variable reflecting total dependence on a rela-
tionship.
Hypothesis
1: Partner A's dependence level will be positively asso-
ciated with Partner A's commitment level.
Second, and consistent with prior research regarding commit-
ment and pro-relationship acts, we predicted that strong commit-
ment would promote tendencies toward pro-relationship behaviors
such as accommodative behavior and willingness to sacrifice (e.g.,
Rusbult, Bissonnette, et al., 1998; Rusbult et al., 1991; Van Lange
et al., 1997).
Hypothesis
2:
Partner A's commitment level will be positively asso-
ciated with Partner A's pro-relationship behavior.
Our third hypothesis rests on the assumption that interdepen-
dence structure to some degree is "real" and therefore perceivable
by all involved parties. In contrast to the social constructionist
point of view (cf. Gergen, 1985), we anticipated that partners'
perceptions of one another's actions to some degree would be
veridical (at least insofar as we are in a position to judge that which
is "veridical"). Specifically, we predicted that there would be a
link between one person's self-reported tendencies toward pro-
relationship behavior and the partner's perceived partner pro-
relationship behavior (e.g., when I say that I accommodate, my
partner should perceive that I accommodate).
Hypothesis
3:
Partner A's self-report of pro-relationship behavior will
be positively associated with Partner B's perceived partner pro-
relationship behavior.
Fourth, we predicted that the perception of partner pro-
relationship acts such as accommodation and willingness to sac-
rifice would yield enhanced trust in the partner.
Hypothesis
4:
Partner B's perceived partner pro-relationship behavior
will be positively associated with Partner B's trust level.
Finally, in line with our model of mutual cyclical growth, we
predicted that trusting individuals will be willing to take risks and
make themselves vulnerable by becoming increasingly dependent
on their relationships (i.e., trust should be associated with high
satisfaction, poor alternatives, and high investments).
Hypothesis
5:
Partner B's trust level will be positively associated with
Partner B's dependence level.
1 We did not anticipate any substantively meaningful differences in the
strength of association among model variables for women and men. Ac-
cordingly, we refer to the partners in a given relationship as "Partner A"
and "Partner B," and do not distinguish between partners in our hypothe-
ses.
However, to explore the possibility of sex differences (and time
differences) in levels of
variables
and in the strength of association among
variables, we tested our hypotheses in regression analyses that included
main effects and interactions for both partner sex and time.

COMMITMENT AND TRUST947
Importantly, in addition to performing tests of the simple asso-
ciations predicted in Hypothesis 1 through 5, we also performed
parallel first-order mediation analyses (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986).
If our model is valid, we should find that in analyses examining the
associations of each criterion with its presumed proximal and
next-most-distal predictor (a) the presumed proximal predictor
should continue to account for substantial variance in the criterion,
whereas (b) the presumed distal predictor should account for
reduced variance in the criterion. To the extent that tests of
mediation are consistent with expectations, we can feel more
confident of the validity of our model. For example, we will be in
a better position to rule out common method variance or socially
desirable responding as explanations of the observed simple asso-
ciations among model variables.
We also examined the simple associations of all model variables
with scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), a
frequently used measure of couple well-being. To the extent that a
process of mutual cyclical growth characterizes the associations
among model variables, we should find that all model variables
exhibit positive associations with quality of couple functioning.
Finally, in addition to examining the role of interdependence
structure in shaping the development of trust, we also explored the
associations of model variables with attachment style. A priori, it
might seem plausible that attachment style would play a role in the
process depicted in Figure 1. For example, given that the concept
of felt security resides at the heart of attachment theory, it might
seem reasonable to anticipate that trust would be positively asso-
ciated with secure attachment and negatively associated with
anxious-ambivalent and avoidant attachment. Also, given that
one's interdependence history is assumed to play a role in shaping
current transformational tendencies, it might seem plausible that
commitment and inclinations toward pro-relationship behavior
would exhibit parallel associations with the three attachment
styles. The extant literature provides support for this line of rea-
soning, suggesting that mental models of attachment exert mean-
ingful effects on the capacity to trust a partner and on willingness
to depart from self-interest on behalf of that person (for reviews,
see Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Reis & Patrick, 1996). We held the
general expectation that although such associations might be evi-
dent, our interdependence-based model would account for unique
variance above and beyond an attachment-based model.
Method
Study
1
Participants and recruitment. Study
1
participants were 53 couples (53
women,
53 men) who
participated
in a
three-wave longitudinal study
of
romantic relationships; Times
1 and 3
spanned about
a
10-week period
in
couples' relationships.2 We recruited participants
via a
two-stage process:
(a) descriptions
of the
project were posted
on the
notice board
for the
University
of
North Carolina research participant pool
as
well
as in the
campus newspaper;
and (b)
interested couples contacted Jennifer
Wie-
selquist to receive additional information about the project and to volunteer
for participation.
At Time 1 participants were 19.94 years old
on
average (17% freshmen,
28%
sophomores,
24%
juniors, 24% seniors, 8% other). The majority were
Caucasian (6% African American,
1%
Asian American, 91% Caucasian,
1%
Latino,
2%
other).
At
Time
1
participants
had
been involved
for an
average
of 19.17
months.
The
majority described their involvements
as
steady dating relationships (5% dating casually, 10% dating regularly, 74%
dating steadily,
11%
engaged or married). Most participants described their
relationships
as
monogamous (91% said neither partner dated others,
5%
said one partner dated others,
5%
said both partners dated others).
There
was
some attrition over
the
course
of the
study.
We
obtained
complete data—data
for
both partners
for all
model variables
for all
three
research occasions—for
40 of
53 couples (with
the
exception
of
missing
data
for the
occasional variable). Thirteen couples separated over
the
course
of
the study;
for
these couples,
we
obtained complete data
for the
research occasions prior
to
breakup.
The
sample included
53
couples
at
Time
1, 45
couples
at
Time
2, and 40
couples
at
Time
3. We
performed
preliminary analyses
to
determine whether couple attrition might have
influenced
the
obtained findings;
the
results
of
these analyses suggested
that attrition exerted little
or no
substantively meaningful effects
on the
observed associations among model variables.3
Research design and procedure.
We
obtained data from each couple
on three occasions over the course
of
an academic semester—once every
4
to
5
weeks.
At
each research occasion partners attended sessions during
which they completed questionnaires
and
participated
in
laboratory tasks
relevant
to
broader project goals. While completing their questionnaires,
partners were separated
to
prevent them from viewing
one
anothers'
responses.
We
assured participants that their responses would remain
confidential
and
that their partners would never
be
informed
of
their
responses.
At the end of
each research occasion
we
partially debriefed,
paid,
and
thanked couples
for
their assistance. Couples were paid $10
for
participation
at
each research occasion;
in
addition, individuals who were
recruited through
the
research participant pool received credit toward
partial fulfillment of the requirements
for
introductory psychology courses.
Questionnaires. The questionnaires included measures
of
dependence
(satisfaction, alternatives, investments), commitment level, accommoda-
tive behavior, perceived partner accommodation, willingness
to
sacrifice,
perceived partner willingness
to
sacrifice, trust level,
and
dyadic adjust-
2 Data from this project were also used
in (a)
Drigotas, Rusbult,
and
Verette
(in
press), which examined
the
association
of
mutuality
of
com-
mitment with couple well-being (Study
1
used data from Times
1, 2, and
3);
(b)
Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist,
and
Whitton (1999), which exam-
ined
the
associations among partner affirmation, movement toward
the
ideal
self,
and
dyadic adjustment (Study 1 used data from Times
1, 2, and
3);
and (c) Van
Lange
et al.
(1997), which examined
the
association
of
commitment with willingness to sacrifice (Study
4
used data from Time 2).
3 We performed preliminary analyses
to
determine whether attrition
might have influenced
our
results. First,
we
categorized couples into
two
groups:
(a)
full-data couples (40 couples
for
whom
we had
complete data
at Times 1,
2,
and 3) and (b) partial-data couples (13 couples
for
whom
we
did not have complete data because
of
breakup).
We performed analyses
of
variance
on the
Time
1
data
to
assess initial differences between
the
groups. The groups
did not
initially differ
in
age, duration
of
relationship,
or Dyadic Adjustment. Importantly, separately for full-data and partial-data
couples,
we
calculated
the
correlations among
all
Time
1
variables—
Dependence, Commitment, Accommodation, Perceived Partner Accom-
modation, Sacrifice, Perceived Partner Sacrifice, Trust,
and
Dyadic
Ad-
justment. Out
of
28 correlations,
7
differed significantly
or
marginally;
in
six
of
seven instances, the association was weaker among full-data couples
(comparing
rs for
full- vs. partial-data couples, average
z =
-0.42). Such
differences
may be
attributable
to
greater variance
in
model variables
for
partial-data couples, who were
on
the road
to
breakup. Thus,
to the
extent
that attrition-based bias existed, such bias
at
worst was prejudiced against
our analysis,
in
that (a) we have fewer observations for partial-data couples
and (b) the associations among variables were
a
bit stronger for partial-data
couples. Although
it is
difficult
to
fully assess the extent
to
which attrition
influenced
our
findings, these analyses give
us
some confidence that such
influence
was
minimal.

948WIESELQUIST, RUSBULT, FOSTER, AND AGNEW
ment, along with additional measures that are irrelevant to the goals of the
present research (e.g., partner affirmation, correspondence of outcomes).
Following previous research regarding the investment model (Rusbult,
1983;
Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), to measure dependence level we
included four items each to assess the three bases of dependence-
satisfaction level (e.g., "All things considered, to what degree do you feel
satisfied with your relationship?" 0 = not at all satisfied, 8 = completely
satisfied),
quality of alternatives (e.g., "All things considered, how attrac-
tive are the people other than your partner with whom you could become
involved" 0 = alternatives not at all appealing, 8 = alternatives are
extremely appealing; reverse scored, such that high values reflect high
dependence), and investment size (e.g., "Have you personally invested
things in your relationship that you would in some sense lose if the
relationship were to end—have you invested time or energy, have you
disclosed secrets to one another, etc.?" 0 = put nothing into relationship,
8 = put a great deal into relationship). We developed a single measure of
dependence by averaging responses to all scale items (a at Times 1, 2, and
3 = .76, .79, and .86).
Following previous research regarding commitment processes (Rusbult,
1983;
Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), we included five items to measure
commitment level (e.g., "To what degree do you feel committed to main-
taining your relationship?" 0 = not very committed, 8 = completely
committed; a = .82, .84, and .90). To determine whether partners could
actually perceive one another's commitment, we included a parallel instru-
ment to measure perceived partner commitment (e.g., "To what degree
does your partner feel committed to maintaining your relationship?" 0 =
not very committed, 8 = completely committed; a = .82, .84, and .87). We
developed a single measure of each construct by averaging the items
designed to tap each variable.
Following previous research regarding accommodation processes (Rus-
bult et al., 1991), we included 16 items to measure accommodative behav-
ior. The instrument included four stems describing accommodative dilem-
mas—situations in which the partner enacted a potentially destructive exit
or neglect behavior (e.g., "When my partner is upset and says something
mean to me or snaps at me..."). Each stem was followed by four
items—one each for exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (e.g., for exit, "I feel
so angry that I want to walk right out the door"). Participants reported the
frequency with which they engaged in each of 16 responses (four responses
for each of four stems; 0 = never, 8 = always; a = .71, .70, and .69). A
parallel instrument measured perceived partner accommodation (e.g.,
"When I'm upset and say something mean to my partner or snap at
him/her .. ., my partner talks to me about what's going on, trying to work
out a solution," 0 = partner never does this, 8 = partner always does this;
a = .80, .65, and .73). We reverse scored items where necessary so that
high numbers consistently reflected tendencies toward accommodation
(i.e.,
destructive items were reverse scored), and we developed averaged
measures of accommodative behavior and perceived partner
accommodation.
Following previous research regarding willingness to sacrifice (Van
Lange et al., 1997), we asked participants to list the four "most important
activities in your life, other than your relationship." Participants listed life
domains such as parents and siblings, career, education, religion, friends, or
pastimes (e.g., playing soccer). We pitted personal well-being against
relationship well-being using the logic of forced-choice methodology—for
each activity, the participant was asked to "Imagine that it was not possible
to engage in Activity No. 1 and maintain your relationship with your
partner. To what extent would you consider giving up this activity for the
good of your relationship?" (0 = definitely would not give up activity, 8 =
definitely would give up activity; a = .76, .82, and .86). A parallel
instrument measured perceived partner willingness to sacrifice (i.e., par-
ticipants described the four most important activities in the partner's life,
reporting the extent to which the partner would be willing to give up each
activity; a = .76, .85, and .86). We developed a single measure of each
construct by averaging the items designed to tap each variable.
To measure trust we identified the four most reliable items from the
predictability, dependability, and faith subscales of the Rempel et al.
(1985) instrument to develop a 12-item measure of trust level (see reli-
ability coefficients in Rempel et al., 1985, p. 103; e.g., "Though times may
change and the future is uncertain, I know my partner will always be ready
and willing to offer me strength and support," 0 = agree not at all, 8 =
agree completely; a = .89, .88, and .89). We developed a single measure
of trust by averaging responses to all scale items.
In order to examine the simple associations of all model variables with
couple well-being we included a version of Spanier's (1976) Dyadic
Adjustment Scale that is suitable for dating relationships. This 32-item
instrument assesses qualities of adjustment such as intimacy, agreement,
effective problem solving, and shared activities (e.g., "Do you and your
partner engage in outside interests together?" 0 = none of
them,
4 = all of
them;
"Do you kiss your partner?" 0 = never, 5 = every day; a = .90, .92,
and .94). We developed a single measure of adjustment by summing
responses to all scale items.
Study 2
Participants and recruitment. Study 2 participants were 65 couples (65
women, 65 men) who participated in Times 3 and 5 of
a
six-wave longitudinal
study of marital relationships; Times 3 and
5
spanned about a 12-month period
in couples' marriages.4 We recruited participants via a three-stage process: (a)
Over a 3-year period we located couples who applied for marriage licenses at
the Orange County, North Carolina, Courthouse; (b) research assistants tele-
phoned couples to determine whether they wished to receive project informa-
tion (interested couples were mailed such information); and (c) the principal
investigator telephoned couples to solicit their participation. The analyses
reported in this article are based on all couples who completed research
activities at Times 3 and 5 of the study, at which occasions we measured all
relevant model variables.
At Time 3 participants were 32.51 years old on average. All participants
had completed high school, 45% had bachelor's degrees, and 37% had
graduate degrees. Participants' personal annual salary was around $25,000.
The majority were Caucasian (2% African American, 3% Asian American,
94%
Caucasian). Forty-seven percent were Protestant, 18% were Catholic,
2%
were Jewish, and
33%
had other religious orientations (e.g., atheist). At
Time 3 participants had been married for about 2 years (24.02 months), and
38%
had given birth to one or more children.
There was some attrition over the course of the study. We obtained
complete data—data for both partners for all model variables for both
Time 3 and Time
5—for
65 couples (with the exception of missing data for
4 Data from this project were also used in (a) Arriaga and Rusbult
(1998),
which examined the association of accommodation with partner
perspective taking (Study 1 used data from Times 2, 4, and 6); (b)
Bissonnette, Rusbult, and Kilpatrick (1997), which examined the associa-
tions among commitment, empathic accuracy, and accommodation (data
from Times 2 and 4 were used); (c) Drigotas, Rusbult, and Verette (in
press),
which examined the association of mutuality of commitment with
couple well-being (Study 2 used data from Times 1, 3, and 5); (d) Drigotas,
Rusbult, Wieselquist, and Whitton (1999), which examined the associa-
tions among partner affirmation, movement toward the ideal
self,
and
dyadic adjustment (Study 4 used data from Time 6); (e) Gaines et al.
(1997),
which examined the association of attachment style with accom-
modation (Study 4 used data from Time 3); (f) Rusbult, Bissonnette, et al.
(1998),
which examined the association of accommodation with both
commitment and couple well-being (data from Times 1, 2, and 3 were
used);
(g) Rusbult et al. (1999), which examined the association of com-
mitment with positive illusion (Study 3 used data from Times 2 and 5); and
(h) Van Lange et al. (1997), which examined the association of commit-
ment with willingness to sacrifice (Study 6 used data from Times 3, 4,
and 5).

COMMITMENT AND TRUST949
the occasional variable).
A
total
of
123 couples participated
in
the study
at
Time
1, 88
couples participated
at
Time
3, and 65
couples participated
at
Time
5.
We performed preliminary analyses
to
determine whether couple
attrition might have influenced
the
obtained findings;
the
results
of
these
analyses suggested that attrition exerted little
or no
substantively mean-
ingful effects
on the
observed associations among model variables.5
Research design
and
procedure.
The
project
was a
six-wave lagged
longitudinal study: Couples commenced participation
at
different times but
engaged
in
parallel activities
at a
parallel pace, completing research activ-
ities
at
approximately 6-month intervals.
At
Times
3 and 5 we
mailed
partners copies
of
questionnaires, asking them
to
complete their question-
naires independently. Completed questionnaires were returned via the mail.
We assured participants that their responses would remain confidential and
that their partners would never
be
informed
of
their responses. At the end
of each research occasion we partially debriefed, paid, and thanked couples
for their assistance. Couples were paid
$25 for
participation
at
each
research occasion.
Questionnaires. The Time
3
and Time
5
questionnaires included mea-
sures
of
dependence level (satisfaction, alternatives, investments), commit-
ment level, accommodative behavior, perceived partner accommodation,
trust level, dyadic adjustment,
and
attachment, along with additional mea-
sures that are irrelevant to the goals
of
the present research (e.g., centrality
of relationship). The questionnaires included items that were similar to
(or
identical
to)
those used
in
Study 1
to
measure dependence level (13 items;
a at Times 3 and 5
=
.77 and .80), commitment level (5 items;
a =
.78 and
.84),
accommodative behavior
(16
items;
a = .81 and .83),
perceived
partner accommodation (16 items;
a =
.84
and
.87), trust level (12 items;
a
= .88 and .91), and
dyadic adjustment
(a
version suitable
for
marital
relationships;
32
items;
a =
.91
and
.94).
In
addition, participants read
the
Hazan
and
Shaver (1987) paragraph descriptions
of
secure, anxious-
ambivalent, and avoidant attachment and reported the degree to which they