Content uploaded by James J. Ponzetti Jr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James J. Ponzetti Jr on Sep 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The moderating effects of rituals on
commitment in premarital
involvements
KELLY CAMPBELL
1
& JAMES J. PONZETTI JR
2
1
Family and Child Development, University of Georgia, USA,
2
School of Social Work and
Family Studies, The University of British Columbia, Canada
ABSTRACT Rituals promote commitment in marital and family relationships. However, the salience
of rituals to commitment in premarital involvements has not been investigated. This study examined if
rituals were related to commitment, and to what extent rituals moderated the association between
investment model variables (i.e., satisfaction level, investment size, and alternatives) and
commitment. University students (N¼100) who were in a couple relationship volunteered to
participate. Findings indicated that rituals were significant predictors of commitment; however, no
unique variance was accounted for once investment model variables were taken into consideration.
Rituals significantly moderated the relationship between alternatives and investments, and
commitment. Implications for future research are discussed.
KEYWORDS:rituals; commitment; investment model
The moderating effect of rituals on commitment in premarital involvements
Commitment is an essential factor in determining the persistence of intimate
involvements. It reflects a dynamic process that shapes the degree to which
individuals intend a particular relationship to persist into the future because it fulfills
personal needs and expectations in the present (Adams & Jones, 1999). Past research
has espoused rituals as vital elements of premarital involvements (Baxter, 1987;
Fiese et al., 2002). Thus, rituals provide an important means for understanding
commitment.
The authors equally contributed to this paper and are listed alphabetically. The study is based on a
graduate thesis by the first author under the direction of the second. An earlier version of this research was
presented at the International Association of Relationship Research conference, Madison, WI, July, 2004.
Correspondence to: James J. Ponzetti, School of Social Work and Family Studies, 2080 West Mall,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail: james.ponzetti@ubc.ca
Received 22 July 2006; Accepted 31 May 2007.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
Vol 22, No. 4, November 2007
ISSN 1468-1994 print/ISSN 1468-1749 online
ªBritish Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy
DOI: 10.1080/14681990701496415
Rituals serve as guides in close relationships especially during significant life
events and stressful periods. The magical quality of rituals is embedded in their
capacity to make transitions manageable. Simply knowing which rituals lay ahead
during a day, a year, or lifetime quells uncertainty and tempers feelings of anxiety
(Fiese, 1992; Schuck & Bucy, 1997; Shipman, 1982). Accordingly, rituals are
particularly beneficial during adolescence and early adulthood because this is a
unique time for establishing intimate involvements (Compan et al., 2002; Eaker &
Walters, 2002). Further, whether such involvements persist or end is related to
commitment (cf., Kelley, 1983). These conclusions suggest a link between rituals and
the development of commitment in premarital relationships.
Rituals
Rituals are symbolic events that are repeated in a predictable manner over time. They
are highly valued because they reflect the special experiences and unique interaction
that partners create and share together. Whether rituals emerge from deeply felt
religious convictions or consist of secular customs whose origin has been forgotten
over the years, the need for rituals seems universal. Rituals connect the past with the
present and give shape and meaning to the future.
Types
Ritual types range from formal structured occasions like weddings to less articulated
interactions like mealtimes. Some rituals celebrate normative transitions, such as
graduations and funerals, but others are emergent rituals in response to unexpected
or nonnormative occurrences, such as a divorce or health crisis. There are daily
practices (such as the reading of a bedtime story or expressing affection for a partner)
and rituals that occur on a weekly or monthly basis (such as going to a favorite
restaurant). In addition, some rituals are recognized by the whole community: for
example, seasonal events such as Thanksgiving, religious observances such as
Passover, or national holidays such as Independence Day. Others are exclusive to a
particular couple (e.g., anniversaries), recognize new generations (e.g., birthdays or
baptisms), or affirm entire family units (e.g., special holiday gatherings or reunions).
The assorted types of ritual represent sundry characteristics and serve various
functions.
Characteristics
Five characteristics are definitive of rituals. First, a ritual is a structured endeavor.
Although there is a reticence to vary a ritual, it can change in subtle and gradual
ways if necessary. Second, a ritual is prescribed. Rituals mean precision in
procedure. Using familiar symbols, actions, and words, rituals are enacted in this
way, not that. Third, rituals recur. Repetition is salient to the prescribed form. As a
ritual is repeated over and over, there gradually emerges a sense of rightness about
it. Fourth, a ritual is ascribed special meaning for those involved. It may be more
416 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
expedient, less expensive, or more efficient to do it another way, but it does not
impart the special meaning ascribed to it when it is not done the right way. The
signs and symbolic actions of ritual embrace meaning that cannot always be easily
expressed in words. Finally, rituals reinforce relationships. Through their execution
and repetition, these characteristics enable rituals to serve a variety of covert
processes as well as explicit functions (Fiese et al., 2002; Viere, 2001; Wolin &
Bennett, 1984).
Functions
Rituals serve important and diverse functions in interpersonal involvements especially
marital and family relationships. The first and most prominent function is to bind
people together and sustain ongoing interaction. For example, conjugal rituals
strengthen marital bonds, clarify marital role expectations, and enhance marital
satisfaction (Braithwaite & Baxter, 1995; Bruess & Pearson, 1997, 2002). As family
members share rituals, they develop a sense of belonging and connectedness as
family. Family rituals can transmit common values and beliefs, reiterate family history
and heritage, and gather members together during major changes (Baxter &
Clark, 1996; Friedman & Weissbrod, 2004). Second, rituals extend feelings of
belonging by creating a sense of distinctiveness. Personal development within the
familial context is supported by rituals (Fiese, 1992; Giblin, 1995; Mize, 1995).
Rituals also increase feelings of intimacy and solidify a shared identity (Chesser,
1980; Moriarity & Wagner, 2004). When individuals establish a common identity,
they also articulate to one another the way to live together (Bennett, Wolin, &
McAvity, 1988). In addition, dysfunctional patterns that undermine family
interaction can be altered using rituals (Leon & Jacobvitz, 2003). Finally, rituals
are powerful organizers and can facilitate relationship stability and continuity (Cheal,
1988; Denham, 2003; Kiser et al., 2005). Research clearly demonstrates the
protective role rituals provide for coping with uncertainty and change (Bennett
et al., 1987; Giblin, 1995).
Interpersonal rituals serve as a means of dealing with both normative and non-
normative stressors. For example, normative transitions, such as that from
adolescence to adulthood (Fiese, 1992; Meredith et al., 1989), to early parenthood
(Fiese et al., 1993), or to the later years (Albrecht, 1962; Meske et al., 1994), are
eased by rituals. Further, rituals facilitate adjustment to non-normative disruptions,
such as illness (Bush & Pargament, 1997; Markson & Fiese, 2000), alcoholism
(Bennett et al., 1987; Fiese, 1993; Wolin et al., 1980), marital dissolution (Berg-Cross
et al., 1992; Pett et al., 1992), remarriage (Braithwaite et al., 1998; Whiteside, 1989),
and single-parent families (Moriarity & Wagner, 2004; Olson, & Hayes, 1993). The
prescriptive and repetitive nature of rituals imparts predictability and order to
interpersonal life.
Given previous work concerning rituals in marriage and family relationships, it is
surprising that the association between rituals and commitment in premarital
relationships has not been studied (Fiese & Kline, 1993; Rogers & Holloway, 1991;
Viere, 2001; Wolin & Bennett, 1984).
Rituals and commitment 417
The investment model of commitment
One of the leading theoretical frameworks for understanding commitment is the
investment model developed by Rusbult (1980b, 1983). Extensive research has
supported the investment model and its theoretical claims (Rusbult et al., 1994;
Rusbult et al., 1986; Rusbult et al., 2004). The model is cross-culturally generalizable,
accounting for commitment processes in the United States, the Netherlands, and
Taiwan (Lin & Rusbult, 1995; Van Lange et al., 1997).
The investment model is based on interdependence theory, which uses economic
models to explain the process by which individuals develop a sense of commitment.
Interdependence theory proposes that as individuals become involved with a particular
other, they are more likely to want the involvement to continue if they experience
rewarding outcomes from it. When individuals experience more rewards than costs
from their involvement, commitment emerges as a condition of their dependence.
The degree of interdependence is enhanced as both satisfaction with and investment
in the involvement increase and the quality of alternatives to their involvement
decrease (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). The investment model accordingly defines
commitment in terms of three interrelated components; namely, satisfaction level,
investment size, and quality of alternatives (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult et al., 1998).
Satisfaction level is conceptualized as the extent to which a relationship is worth-
while. Investment size refers to resources, both tangible (such as money and
possessions) and intangible (e.g., self-disclosure, emotional involvement), an indi-
vidual contributes to a relationship that is non-recoverable if the relationship were to
end. The quality of alternatives consists of an individual’s perceptions of available
options that would be more rewarding than the current relationship. Investment
model variables have been shown to predict commitment across a wide array of
relationships, such as friendships, dating relationships, marital relationships, gay and
lesbian relationships, and abusive relationships (Bui et al. 1996; Duffy & Rusbult,
1986; Impett et al., 2001; Rusbult, 1980a; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).
The purpose of the present study was two-fold. The main goal was to investigate
the link between rituals and commitment. While the association between the
investment model variables and commitment has been demonstrated, whether rituals
predicted commitment in premarital involvements, and, if so, whether commitment
was explained beyond that accounted for by investment model variables. The second
purpose was to examine whether rituals moderated the relationship between invest-
ment model variables and commitment. Rituals were hypothesized to moderate
feelings of commitment such that as rituals increased satisfaction level and investment
size increased and alternatives to the relationship decreased.
Method
Participants
One hundred undergraduate students (27 men, 73 women) at a large university in
western Canada who were in couple relationships but not married volunteered to take
418 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
part in the study. The majority of participants (70%) were exclusively dating at the
time they completed the questionnaire. Participants had been involved with their
partners for 22.5 months on average. The mean age of the participants was 22 years
(S.D. ¼2.7 years, range 19 – 33). The majority of respondents were either Euro-
Canadian (47%) or Chinese-Canadian (22%) which reflected the composition of the
student body.
Measures
The Premarital Rituals Scale (PRS) was designed to assess rituals in premarital
relationships. The PRS consisted of 45 items that assessed five dimensions of nine
ritual types (see Table I for a sample subscale from the PRS). Content for the PRS
was based on a qualitative study of marital rituals by Bruess and Pearson (1997). Nine
of the 12 ritual types identified by Bruess and Pearson were pertinent to premarital
involvements: enjoyable activities, intimacy expressions, togetherness rituals, com-
munication rituals, favorites, private codes, patterns/habits/mannerisms, escape
TABLE I. Sample subscale from the PRS.
ENJOYABLE ACTIVITIES
Examples of enjoyable rituals could include going out for dinner, playing sports, going to the movies,
going for walks, and participating in hobbies together.
Instructions: Think of typical enjoyable or recreational rituals in your relationship.
Circle ONE letter that best describes your current relationship.
Really
true
Sort of
true
Sort of
true
Really
true
1. A B We regularly engage in
enjoyable activities in
our relationship
OR We rarely engage in
enjoyable activities in
our relationship
CD
2. A B In our relationship everything
about time is scheduled;
enjoyable activities always
occur at set times
OR In our relationship enjoyable
activities are flexible.
We take part in them
whenever we can
CD
3. A B In our relationship we feel
strongly about engaging
in enjoyable activities
together
OR In our relationship it is
not that important if
we engage in enjoyable.
activities together
CD
4. A B In our relationship enjoyable
activities have a special
meaning
OR In our relationship
enjoyable activities are
just done to pass time
CD
5. A B In our relationship there is
little planning around
enjoyable activities
OR In our relationship
enjoyable activities are
planned for in advance
CD
Note: In each subscale, one item was reverse scored so in the example above question 5 was reversed
scored.
Rituals and commitment 419
episodes, and play rituals. Three were excluded because they were considered less
relevant to premarital involvements: routines and tasks, spiritual rituals, and
celebration rituals. The opportunity to partake in routine tasks may be compromised
because premarital involvements typically do not involve a shared residence that
would facilitate interaction on a regular daily basis. Both spiritual and celebration
rituals were considered less salient because occurrence was either infrequent or
sporadic. Premarital involvements are often shorter in duration than marital or family
relationships and do not encounter societal expectations and support for prescribed
activities, which may jeopardize the shared participation in spiritual rituals and
celebration rituals.
The format of the PRS was adapted from the Family Rituals Questionnaire (FRQ;
Fiese & Kline, 1993). Fiese and Kline identified eight dimensions relevant to family
rituals, five of which pertained to premarital involvements: occurrence, repetitiveness,
affect, meaning, and deliberateness. Three were excluded: attendance, continuance,
and roles. Rituals emerge in a relationship as partners spend time together so
attendance was necessary for rituals to occur in the first place. Continuation was not
relevant because premarital involvements do not span generations. Finally, the roles
dimension was redundant with the roles and patterns ritual type described by Bruess
and Pearson (1997).
Each of the 45 PRS items were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale
(1 ¼lowest score, and 4 ¼highest score). The range of each participant’s summed
rituals score was from 45 – 180. The mean rituals score for the sample was 128, with a
standard deviation of 21.5, and a median of 129. The distribution was not
significantly skewed (skewness ¼70.29, S.E. ¼0.24) and it approximated a normal
distribution. Reliability analyses revealed acceptable coefficients for the PRS. The
Cronbach alpha for the overall PRS was 0.93. Internal consistency scores were
computed for the PRS subscales representing ritual type. Cronbach alphas were 0.74
for leisure, 0.48 for intimacy, 0.69 for couple time, 0.68 for communication, 0.78 for
favorites, 0.80 for private codes, 0.72 for roles, 0.68 for escape episodes, and 0.67 for
play.
Commitment and the investment model variables (i.e., satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size) were assessed using the Investment Model Scale
(IMS). The IMS is a self-report 37-item scale questionnaire consisting of four
subscales (Rusbult et al., 1998). Participants were asked to rate how well each
question represents their thoughts or feelings on a 9-point Likert-type scale with
response options ranging from 0 to 8. The commitment subscale consists of seven
global items. The range of possible scores is from 0 to 56. The mean commitment
level score was 44, with a standard deviation of 13.5, and a median of 48. The
distribution was skewed (skewness ¼71.39; S.E. ¼70.24). The satisfaction,
alternatives, and investments subscales each consist of five items. The possible
summed range of scores is from 0 to 40. The mean satisfaction level score was 32,
with a standard deviation of 9.7, and a median of 35. The distribution was skewed
(skewness ¼71.8; S.E. ¼0.24). The mean quality of alternatives score was 14, with a
standard deviation of 10, and a median of 13. The distribution approximated a
normal distribution (skewness ¼0.70; S.E. ¼0.24). The mean investment size score
420 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
was 26.5, with a standard deviation of 9.2, and a median of 29. The distribution
approximated a normal distribution (skewness ¼70.75; SE ¼0.24). Although the
distributions for satisfaction level and commitment level were skewed, these findings
are consistent with previous research (cf., Rusbult et al., 1998). The internal
consistencies (i.e., Cronbach alpha scores) for the IMS were high with a range from
0.86 (for investments) to 0.98 (for satisfaction). These results were also comparable
to research by Rusbult and her colleagues.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from lower division courses at a large university in western
Canada. Classes were informed about the purpose of the study then surveys were
distributed and completed voluntarily outside of class. Surveys were returned at the
following class meeting. Participants were assured all responses would be anonymous
and confidential.
Data analysis
Labovitz (1970, 1972) supported the use of interval statistics on ordinal-level
variables and it is common practice in work on the investment model by Rusbult
(1983). Analyses were completed in four steps. First, sex differences were examined
using independent-groups t-tests. Descriptive statistics, t-values, and correlations
between variables are displayed in Table II. Second, main effects of rituals on
commitment were examined using simple linear regression. Third, the significance of
rituals on commitment controlling for the investment model variables was assessed
with hierarchical multiple regression. Finally, moderation was tested by following the
procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Variables were standardized prior
to the analyses (Aiken & West, 1991). Commitment was initially regressed on each
investment model variable and rituals. Then, an interaction term (i.e., the product of
the variables already entered) reflecting the two-way interactions was entered at the
second step of the equation to discern any moderating effects. Moderation is
TABLE II. Descriptive statistics, tvalues, and intercorrelations.
Females Males
t
Value
Total sample IM variables
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Rituals Satisfaction Investments
Rituals 125.8 21.4 133.8 21.2 1.68 127.9 21.5
Satisfaction 31.6 10.6 33.3 6.9 0.96 32.0 9.7 0.60**
Investments 25.8 9.7 28.4 7.7 1.43 26.5 9.2 0.44** 0.47**
Alternatives 14.5 10.6 13.9 9.9 70.27 14.3 10.4 70.50** 70.58** 70.59**
Commitment 44.1 14.2 44.4 11.8 0.12 44.2 13.6 0.52** 0.78** 0.67**
**p50.01 level.
Rituals and commitment 421
indicated by a significant interaction term regardless of the effects measured in
previous steps.
Results
No significant differences were noted between males and females so further
consideration was not necessary. Rituals were a significant predictor of commitment
(B¼0.52, F¼36.56, p50.001) accounting for 27% of the variance. However,
rituals contribute no unique variance to commitment when investment model
variables are taken into account (see Table III).
Table IV shows the interaction effects of rituals and investment model variables
on commitment. For satisfaction, no interaction effect was found. However, the
TABLE III. Standardized regression coefficients for commitment: Main effects.
Predictor Step 1 Step 2
Investment Model variables
Satisfaction (S) 0.48** 0.50**
Investments (I) 0.27** 0.28**
Alternatives (A) 70.29** 70.30**
Rituals (R) 70.05
Adjusted R
2
0.76 0.76
Fchange 106.20** 79.48**
**p50.001.
TABLE IV. Standardized regression coefficients for moderating influences of rituals.
Predictor Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Satisfaction 0.78*** 0.72*** 0.91**
Rituals 0.09 0.22
S6R70.29
Adjusted R
2
0.60 0.60 0.60
Fchange 148.92*** 1.12 0.46
Investments 0.67*** 0.55*** 2.06***
Rituals 0.28*** 1.00***
I6R71.95***
Adjusted R
2
0.45 0.50 0.57
Fchange 81.04*** 12.75*** 16.86***
Alternatives 70.73*** 70.63*** 71.79***
Rituals 0.21** 70.09
A6R1.07***
Adjusted R
2
0.53 0.56 0.61
Fchange 114.25*** 7.42** 12.36***
**p50.01, ***p50.001.
422 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
interaction effect of investment size was significant, explaining 7% of the variance in
commitment. Significant interaction effects were also noted for the quality of
alternatives, explaining 5% of the variance.
The simple slopes of the regression of significant investment model variables on
commitment at low and high values were computed to gain further perspective on
two-way interactions. Values one standard deviation above the mean were considered
high and values one standard deviation below the mean were considered low, which is
standard for variables for which there is no theoretical rationale for determining high
and low values (Aiken & West, 1991).
For investment size, if participants reported low investment (i.e., below the
mean), more rituals predicted more commitment. Yet, when participants reported
high investment, more rituals also predicted more commitment though not as great
(see Figure 1). On the other hand, if participants reported high quality of alternatives
(i.e., above the mean) or they perceived they had more options than their current
involvement, then more rituals predicted less commitment. However, for participants
who reported low quality of alternatives or few options to involvement, more rituals
predicted more commitment (see Figure 2).
Discussion
Previous research has focused exclusively on marital and family relationships
neglecting premarital involvements. This study extended past research regarding
rituals to premarital involvements. Rituals in premarital involvements were a sig-
nificant predictor of commitment. An increase in rituals predicted commitment
whereas lower commitment was predicted by a decrease in rituals. These results
FIGURE 1. Interaction of investment size and rituals on commitment.
Rituals and commitment 423
provided a preliminary indication of the import of rituals for premarital involvements
in early adulthood.
The association between the investment model predictors and commitment
replicated earlier research (Le & Agnew, 2003). Individuals who were more satisfied,
invested more, and perceived fewer alternatives to their relationships, reported more
commitment. Yet, the results of this study indicated only the association between
investment size and quality of alternatives, and commitment was moderated by
rituals. When satisfaction was considered, rituals relation to commitment was not
significant even though satisfaction appeared to be a stronger predictor of com-
mitment than rituals. The strong positive relationship between satisfaction level and
commitment appears to override the influence of rituals. Satisfaction with a rela-
tionship may be a necessary condition for commitment regardless of rituals.
The association between investment size and commitment was moderated by
rituals. The level of investment in the premarital involvements promoted commit-
ment. This finding may be explained if rituals are considered another form of invest-
ment. From this perspective, the presence or absence of rituals was unimportant
because if investments were high, the addition of rituals would increase commitment
as it would if investments were low. The fact that increases in commitment were
stronger when participants did not invest in their involvements may be due to rituals
making up for the lack of other investments.
Rituals change the relationship between the quality of alternatives and commit-
ment. If alternatives to the current relationship are high, then more rituals did not
predict more commitment. That is, low rituals did predict high commitment. On the
other hand, if alternatives are low, then more rituals fostered more commitment.
FIGURE 2. Interaction of alternatives and rituals on commitment.
424 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
When potential alternatives to particular heterosexual involvements are better than
remaining in it, more rituals may not compensate for the difference. Yet, if the
desirability of alternatives is low, more rituals predicted more commitment. By
definition, rituals emerge from and characterize the special nature of particular
involvements. Thus, rituals supplement the influence of alternatives on commitment.
Several factors may limit the interpretation of the current findings. The first
limitation concerns sample representativeness. Participants included college-age
individuals who were queried about premarital involvements. Only one member of
any particular couple completed the questionnaire so these findings are individual
rather than dyadic effects. In future research, diverse groups (e.g., nonheterosexual
relationships, common law partnerships) and both partners of a couple, including
each partner’s perception of the others’ ritual enactment, could be investigated.
Second, the data reported were subject to the limitations of similar research designs.
The causal relations between rituals and commitment cannot be addressed. These
and other possible interpretations remain to be explored in subsequent studies.
Nevertheless, several notable strengths about the import of rituals in maintaining
premarital relationships may be drawn from the results.
Despite these limitations, this study is notable for several reasons. First, it
examined how rituals are linked to commitment in premarital heterosexual involve-
ments. Prior to this study, the focus of research on rituals was on marital and family
relationships. Previous studies have described the constructive influence of marital
and family rituals. The findings reported here suggested that rituals are similarly
associated with commitment in premarital involvements. However, to be succinct,
rituals in premarital involvements did not predict commitment beyond the exp-
lanation accounted for by investment model variables.
A second contribution pertains to rituals moderation of the relationship between
investment model variables and commitment. Results from this study indicated that
rituals altered the prediction of commitment for investment size and quality of
alternatives.
This study provided foundational information about rituals, investment model
variables, and commitment in premarital involvements. Building on these findings,
future researchers are left with exciting avenues for expanding the literature on rituals
in close relationships.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Dan Perlman on an
earlier draft.
References
ADAMS,J.&JONEs, W. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
AIKEN,L.&WEST, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
ALBRECHT, R. (1962). The role of older people in family rituals. In C. TIBBITTS &W.DONAHUE (Eds.),
Social and psychological aspects of aging (pp. 486 – 491). New York: Columbia University Press.
Rituals and commitment 425
BARON,R.&KENNY, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,51, 1173 – 1182.
BAXTER, L.A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships,4, 261 – 280.
BAXTER,L.&CLARK, C. (1996). Perceptions of family communication patterns and the enactment of
family rituals. Western Journal of Communication,60, 254 – 268.
BENNETT, L., WOLIN,S.&MCAVITY, K. (1988). Family identity, ritual and myth: A cultural perspective
on life cycle transition. In C. FALICOV (Ed.), Family transitions (pp. 211 – 234). New York:
Guilford Press.
BENNETT, L., WOLIN, S., REISS,D.&TEITLEBAUM, M. (1987). Couples at risk for transmission of
alcoholism: Protective influences. Family Process,26, 111 – 129.
BERG-CROSS, L., DANIELS,C.&CARR, P. (1992). Marital rituals among divorced and married couples.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,18, 1 – 30.
BRAITHWAITE,D.&BAXTER, L. (1995). ‘‘I do’’ again: The relational dialects of renewing marriage vows.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,12, 177 – 198.
BRAITHWAITE, D., BAXTER,L.&HARPER, A. (1998). The role of rituals in the management of
dialectical tensions of ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ in blended families. Communication Studies,48,
101 – 120.
BRUESS,J.&PEARSON, C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship. Communication
Monographs,64, 25 – 46.
BRUESS,J.&PEARSON, C. (2002). The function of mundane ritualizing in adult friendship and marriage.
Communication Research Reports,19, 314 – 326.
BUI, K., PEPLAU,L.&HILL, C. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and
stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22,
1244 – 1257.
BUSH,E.&PARGAMENT, K. (1997). Family coping with chronic pain. Family Systems and Health,15,
147 – 160.
CHEAL, D. (1988). The ritualization of family ties. American Behavioral Scientist,31, 632 – 643.
CHESSER, B. (1980). Analysis of wedding rituals: An attempt to make weddings more meaningful. Family
Relations,29, 204 – 209.
COMPAN, E., MORENO, J., RUIZ,M.&PASCUAL, E. (2002). Doing things together: Adolescent mental
health and family rituals. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,56, 89 – 94.
DENHAM, S. (2003). Relationships between family rituals, family routines, and health. Journal of Family
Nursing,9, 305 – 330.
DUFFY,S.&RUSBULT, C. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual
relationships. Journal of Homosexuality,12(2), 1 – 23.
EAKER,D.&WALTERS, L. (2000). Adolescent satisfaction in family rituals and psychosocial
development: A developmental systems theory perspective. Journal of Family Psychology,16,
406 – 414.
FIESE, B. (1992). Dimensions of family rituals across two generations: Relation to adolescent identity.
Family Process,31, 151 – 162.
FIESE, B. (1993). Family rituals in alcoholic and nonalcoholic households: Relations to adolescent health
symptomology and problem-drinking. Family Relations,42, 187 – 192.
FIESE,B.&KLINE, C. (1993). Development of the Family Ritual Questionnaire: Initial reliability and
validation studies. Journal of Family Psychology,6, 290 – 299.
FIESE, B., HOOKER, A., KOTARY,L.&SCHWAGLER, J. (1993). Family rituals in the early stages of
parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family,55, 633 – 642.
FIESE, B., TOMCHO, T., DOUGLAS, M., JOSEPHS, K., POLTROCK,S.&BAKER, T. (2002). A review of 50
years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration? Journal
of Family Psychology,16, 381 – 390.
FRIEDMAN,S.&WEISSBROD, C. (2004). Attitudes toward the continuation of family rituals among
emerging adults. Sex Roles,50, 277 – 284.
GIBLIN, P. (1995). Identity, change, and family rituals. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples
and Families,3, 37 – 41.
IMPETT, E., BEALS,K.&PEPLAU, L. (2001). Testing the Investment Model of relationship
commitment and stability in a longitudinal study of married couples. Current Psychology,20,
312 – 326.
426 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
KELLEY, H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. KELLEY,E.BERSCHEID,A.CHRISTENSEN,J.HARVEY,
T. HUSTON,G.LEVINGER,E.MCCLINTOCK,L.PEPLAU &D.PETERSON (Eds.), Close relationships
(pp. 265 – 314). New York: Freeman.
KELLEY,H.&THIBAUT, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
KISER, L., BENNETT, L., HESTON,J.&PAAVOLA, M. (2005). Family ritual and routine: Comparison of
clinical and non-clinical families. Journal of Child and Family Studies,14, 357 – 372.
LABOVITZ, S. (1970). The assignment of numbers to rank order categories. American Sociological Review,
35, 515 – 524.
LABOVITZ, S. (1972). Statistical usage in sociology: Sacred cows and rituals. Sociological Methods and
Research,1, 13 – 38.
LE,B.&AGNEW, C.R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the
investment model. Personal Relationships,10, 37 – 57.
LEON,K.&JACOBVITZ, D. (2003). Relationship between adult attachment representations and family
rituals quality: A prospective, longitudinal study. Family Process,42, 419 – 432.
LIN,Y.&RUSBULT, C. (1995). Commitment in dating relationships and cross-sex friendships in
American and China. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,12, 7 – 26.
MARKSON,S.&FIESE, B. (2000). Family rituals as a protective factor for children with asthma. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology,25, 471 – 479.
MESKE, C., SANDERS, G., MEREDITH,W.&ABBOTT, D. (1994). Perceptions of rituals and traditions
among elderly persons. Activities, Adaptations and Aging,18, 13 – 26.
MEREDITH, W., ABBOTT, D., LAMANNA,M.&SANDERS, G. (1989). Rituals in family strengths: A three-
generation study. Family Perspective,23, 75 – 83.
MIZE, L. (1995). Ritual experience and its emergence with story: An experience in meaning.
Contemporary Family Therapy,17, 109 – 125.
MORIARITY,P.&WAGNER, L. (2004). Family rituals that provide meaning for single parent families.
Journal of Family Nursing,10, 190 – 210.
OLSON,M.&HAYES, J. (1993). Successful single parents. Families in Society,74, 259 – 267.
PETT, M., LANG,N.&GANDER, A. (1992). Late-life divorce: Its impact on family rituals. Journal of
Family Issues,13, 526 – 552.
ROGERS,J.&HOLLOWAY, R. (1991). Family rituals and the care of individualized patients. Family
Systems Medicine,9, 249 – 259.
RUSBULT, C. (1980a). Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Representative Research in Social
Psychology,11, 96 – 105.
RUSBULT, C. (1980b). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment
Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,16, 172 – 186.
RUSBULT, C. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration)
of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,45, 101 – 117.
RUSBULT,C.&MARTZ, J. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of
nonvoluntary commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 558 – 571.
RUSBULT, C., JOHNSON,D.&MORROW, G. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult
romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the Invest Model. Social Psychology
Quarterly,49, 81 – 89.
RUSBULT, C., DRIGOTAS,S.&VERETTE, J. (1994). The Investment Model: An interdependence analysis
of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. CANARY &
L. STAFFORD (Eds.), Communication and relationship maintenance (pp. 115 – 140). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press Inc.
RUSBULT, C., MARTZ,J.&AGNEW, C. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level,
satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5, 357 – 391.
RUSBULT, C., OLSEN, N., DAVIS,J.&HANNON, M. (2004). Commitment and relationship maintenance
mechanisms. In H. REIS &C.RUSBULT (Eds.), Close relationships: Key readings (pp. 287 – 303).
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
SCHUCK,L.&BUCY, J. (1997). Family rituals: Implications for early intervention. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education,17, 477 – 494.
SHIPMAN, G. (1982). Handbook of family analysis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
VAN LANGE, P., RUSBULT, C., DRIGOTAS, S., ARRIAGA, X., WITCHER,B.&COX, C. (1997).
Willingnessto sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72,
1373 – 1395.
Rituals and commitment 427
VIERE, G. (2001). Examining family rituals. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and
Families,9, 285 – 288.
WHITESIDE, M. (1989). Family rituals as a key to kinship connections in remarried families. Family
Relations,38, 34 – 39.
WOLIN,S.&BENNETT, L. (1984). Family rituals. Family Process,23, 401 – 420.
WOLIN, S., BENNETT, L., NOONAN,D.&TIETLEBAUM, M. (1980). Disrupted family rituals: A factor in
the intergenerational transmission of alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,41, 199 – 214.
Contributors
KELLY CAMPBELL, M.A., Graduate Student.
JAMES J. PONZETTI JR, Ph.D., D.Min., Associate Professor.
428 K. Campbell & J. J. Ponzetti Jr
