The Why of Relationship Commitment

The Why of Relationship Commitment

The Why of Relationship Commitment

The Why of Relationship Commitments

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [10591]

Lydon, John E. et Linardatos, Lisa. 2012. «The Why of Relationship Commitment». Dans The Science of the Couple: The Ontario Symposium Volume 12 , sous la dir. de Lorne Campbell, Olson, James M., Zanna, Mark P. et LaGuardia, Jennifer, p. 110-137. New York (États-Unis): Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs

Intentions :
Les auteurs s’intéressent à la question de l’engagement dans le couple. Ils nomment trois raisons qui expliquent la motivation des couples à s’engager. «A person may commit to a relationship because the relationship has been pleasant, enjoyable, and satisfying, what might be described as satisfaction-based commitment (M. Johnson, 1991) or enlightened self-interest. […] A second reason to commit to a relationship is because it is seen as something one ought to do (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This has been referred to as introjection and reprensents an assimilation of values, standards, and pressures of others that induce guilt if not otherwise followed. A third reason, and the focus of our research, has been commitment because the relationship reflects a person’s identity(Brickman, 1987; Burke & Reitzes, 1991), having been incorporated into one’s representation of self. This is reffered to as identification.» (p. 120)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«It is likely that all three of these bases of commitment uniquely contribute to relationship functioning; however, we hypothesize that identification may be especially crucial in sustaining relationships in the face of adversity.» (p. 120)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Données documentaires diverses

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse théorique

3. Résumé

«There are a least two theoretical approaches from which to study identification: (1) a motivational perspective, as we have done in the academic domain (Burton, Lydon, D’alessandro, & Koestner, 2006); and (2) a self-construal perspective (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). We review these theorical approaches and demonstrate how we have applied them in our own research. […] The concept of relationship identification follows from the work on relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992) and relational selves (Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, 2006), which illustrate the importance of how one mentally represents the relationship between self and other.» (p. 121) In conclusion, the authors wrote that «[p]ositive relationship experiences can make a person feel good, but the true power of a relationship to influence, and maybe even transform, one’s self-worth is contingent on one taking the risk to identify with the relationship, to staking a claim that the relationship is indeed an important, integral part of one’s self. It may be safer to hold back and not identify, thereby avoiding the potential pain of rejection or betrayal. But a lack of identification may weaken one’s ability to think and do the things that help sustain de relationship, and self-protective reticence to identify may fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy.» (p. 137)