By Scott M.
Stanley and Galena K. Rhoades
A number of
studies have shown that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience physical
aggression in their relationships than married couples.[i]
Here, we look at two studies that shed light on this subject by exploring how
aggression in the relationships of individuals (mostly) in their 20s is
associated with various commitment dynamics. Wendy Manning, Monica Longmore,
and Peggy Giordano’s new study, Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment,[ii]
shares some themes with an earlier study of ours (Rhoades et al., in 2010): Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints.[iii]
In both
studies, physical aggression was measured as having some history of behaviors
such as pushing, shoving, hitting and beyond.[iv]
Using cross-sectional analyses within a later wave of their longitudinal Toledo
Adolescent Relationships Study involving 926 individuals aged 22-29, Manning
and colleagues found that cohabiting couples were more likely to report
aggression (31%) in their relationship than married (23%) or dating couples
(18%). These differences held even when controlling for many other variables.[v]
Similarly, in
our Relationship Development Study, a national longitudinal sample of 1,278 emerging
adults in unmarried relationships (aged 18 to 34), we found that 48 percent of
the unmarried adults reported some sort of physical aggression in the history of
their relationship. The percentages in our sample are likely higher due to the
wider age range and other differences. While the percentages in either study
may seem high to you, they are consistent with many other studies of those in
these earlier stages of life.[vi]
In our study, we
focused on the odds that people who reported aggression in their romantic
relationships would break up in the future. We found that those who reported aggression
in the prior year were more likely to break up in the next two years (37% did
so), compared to those reporting either no aggression (27%) or aggression that
occurred more than a year in the past (30%). The latter two groups were not significantly
different in the likelihood of remaining together. We also found that those who
were living together—compared to dating and not living together—were more
likely to report that their relationship experienced physical aggression within
the prior year. Among those with aggression, the odds were five times greater
that they would remain together over the next two years if they were cohabiting
versus dating (even when controlling for a number of other important variables).[vii]
Commitment Dynamics
Hitting is especially
common in relationships during earlier stages of life. Even though many break
up, it raises the question of why so many of these couples stay together—a
subject addressed by the focus on commitment in both papers we describe here.
There are many
different published theories of commitment in romantic relationships. The one
we like to use the most is that expressed by Stanley and Markman in the early
1990s, which was informed by the theoretical and empirical work of many
luminaries across disciplines and decades. Some of the notables include John Thibaut
and Harold Kelley, Peter Blau, George Levinger, Michael Johnson, Karen Cook and
Richard Emerson, and Caryl Rusbult.[viii]
Stanley and
Markman provide for a straightforward way of thinking about why relationships
continue or have certain qualities by dividing commitment into the dimensions
of dedication and constraint.[ix]
Dedication reflects the desire to be
with a person in the future, to form an identity as a couple, to sacrifice for
and prioritize the relationship. Dedication can lead you to doing the right or best
thing for your partner and the relationship, now and into the future. What we
call dedication often goes by the simple name of “commitment” in much of the
literature where commitment is measured relatively well.[x]
In contrast to
dedication, constraint commitment is
comprised of a collection of relatively disparate dimensions that reflect both
past investment in the relationship and factors that make it harder to leave—if one wanted to do so. Constraints come
in many forms, and they play a complicated role in the maintenance of
relationships. Sometimes they reflect investments (that can be lost),[xi]
and sometimes they reflect options that are limited or have become more so. In
either case, what constraints do, conceptually and empirically, is raise the
costs of leaving and reinforce staying, net of dedication.[xii]
Constraints are not all that important in a person’s day-to-day relationship
experience unless dedication is burned away; when dedication is gone, it is
constraint commitment that can keep you where you are at.
Here are two examples.
You have more constraint commitment to stay on current path (in any area of
life, not just relationships) when you have fewer alternatives to it. One type
of alternative relates to your perception of how available other desirable partners
would be if your present relationship ended. Another type of constraint is
financial. For example, if you’ve invested more—bought more together, combined
accounts, etc.—you have more to lose if you break it off. There are many other
types of constraints. Some are easily seen as evidence of past dedication and
some are built into a person’s life even before meeting the present partner.
Those who
follow our work closely will recognize in these themes why we believe that
cohabitation matters (especially before commitment to a future is clear and
mutual). While it’s become easy to have positive perceptions about the benefits
of cohabiting prior to, or instead of, marriage, what people often fail to recognize
is that cohabiting also increases constraints to remain together before
dedication has become clear or matured[xiii]
This is what we refer to as the problem of “inertia.”[xiv]
The Interplay of Dedication and
Constraint in Relationships with Aggression
In both studies
in focus here, dedication and various dimensions of potential constraint were
analyzed. In their study, Manning and colleagues found that dedication was
associated with lower odds of being in a relationship with aggression, as did
we in our earlier research. There are at least a couple of reasons why this is
so. First, people are generally going to be less committed to a relationship
with aggression. Second, a body of studies shows that commitment (think of
dedication, here) inhibits negative behaviors, including aggression,[xv]
which would partly explain why people who are more dedicated to their partners
will report less of it.
The two studies
we describe here also found that relationships with more aggression tended to
have lower dedication and higher constraints. This is pretty much exactly what
you would expect. Additionally, Manning and colleagues found that the
high-constraint/low-dedication combination was more common for cohabiters than
marrieds or daters.
Both studies
contain nuances that make the interpretation about cohabitation and commitment
complex. For example, while Manning and colleagues found that both dedication
and constraint were associated with aggression, as we just noted, they did not
find that these commitment dynamics explained why cohabitation was more associated
with aggression than marriage or dating.
Further, we
found that living together was strongly associated with the likelihood that
relationships with a history of aggression would continue, even while taking
into account measures of constraint, overall relationship quality, and
dedication. Based on the idea of inertia, you might expect that controlling for
some aspects of constraint would lower the degree to which cohabitation was
associated with aggression; but living together remained associated with
aggression and with aggressive relationships continuing.
Selection, Inertia, and Asymmetrical
Commitment
Do the increased
constraints of cohabiting make it more likely that people in aggressive
relationships will remain in those relationships, or is something else in the
mix? All of these findings are consistent with the fact that there is a lot of selection
for risk in cohabiting relationships that lack a clear, mutual commitment to
marriage (or at least, a future). That is, some people are at greater risk than
others for virtually every negative relationship outcome you can think of because
of factors related to their history, their family, their genetics, or their
economics. And people already at greater risk are more likely to cohabit in the
ways associated with the most risk (e.g., with a number of partners and/or
before there is a serious, mutual commitment to marriage). We believe that
cohabitation is a particular problem for some people because it increases the
odds that a relationship already select for greater risk will continue—or
continue longer than it otherwise would have. We have shown that moving in
together increases constraints and also that constraints make it more likely
one will remain in a relationship net of dedication.XiV & XV
In total, these
studies make a great deal of sense. What may be missing in them, however, is
another dimension we think a lot about: asymmetrical commitment.
The two samples
for the studies described here included individuals rather than couples. They
do not have measures of commitment from bother partners, just the one. We have
evidence that cohabitation without (or before) engagement or mutual plans to
marry may be—in a way—a magnet for couples where one partner is substantially
less dedicated than the other. We recently wrote about asymmetrically committed
relationships (here), describing research where commitment levels of both
partners are assessed. We have found that asymmetrical commitment
is more likely to exist in cohabiting than dating relationships, and, among
marrieds, to be more likely to exist when couples lived together prior to
engagement or marriage. While some of these relationships epitomize higher
constraint and lower dedication, what matters most for this next point is that the
levels of dedication are not mutual.
Asymmetrical
commitment may turn out to be one ingredient in the way cohabitation and
aggression are linked. We have found that asymmetrically committed
relationships are more prone to aggression and generally have low relationship
quality.[xvi]
Many asymmetrically committed relationships contain one partner who is not
committed enough to inhibit negative behaviors and another who, while
relatively highly committed, will be massively frustrated by a growing
awareness of their partner’s lower commitment. That sounds like a recipe for
highly destructive conflict.
Being Safe
Many
relationships involve aggression, especially in the earlier stages of life
examined in these two studies. While it is common and it comes in many forms, aggression
in intimate relationships is unsafe and carries the potential for lasting harm.
The most dangerous patterns of all involve aggression that leads to injuries
and/or ongoing control and intimidation.[xvii]
In contrast, what allows individuals to thrive in life and succeed in
relationships is emotional and physical safety with the security of mutual
commitment.
Whether cohabiting,
married, or dating, if you or someone you know is in an unsafe relationship, there
are people who are eager to help. The phone number for the National Domestic
Violence Hotline is 800-799-7233.
This article first appeared at the blog
of the Institute for Family Studies on 1-17-2017.
Scott M. Stanley is a research professor
at the University of Denver and a fellow of the Institute for Family Studies
(@DecideOrSlide). Galena K. Rhoades is a research associate professor at the
University of Denver.
[i]
Brown, S. L., & Bulanda, J. (2008). Relationship violence in young
adulthood: A comparison of daters, cohabitors, and marrieds. Social Science Research, 37(1), 73-87.
[ii] Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C.
(2016, early online version). Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during
emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues.
[iii] Rhoades,
G. K., Stanley, S. M., Kelmer, G., & Markman, H. J. (2010).
Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and
constraints. Journal of Family
Psychology, 24, 678-687.
[iv]
As it typical in many studies that include measurement of aggression, both
studies measured physical aggression based on reports of any history of it in
respondents’ relationships (being on the receiving end or dishing it out). Manning
et al. used a measure asking about both relatively minor (push, shove, hit) and
severe aggression (beat up) and Rhoades et al. used a measure asking about both
minor aggression as well as physical injuries. In most studies such as those
noted here, the type of violence in the relationships will mostly not be what
people think about when they think of battering or domestic violence shelters.
Instead, it will be what researchers now well understand to be the relatively
more common aggression found in the relationships of young adults who have
difficulties managing conflict and regulating negative emotions. That does not
change the fact that aggression is always dangerous. Detailing the issues and
controversies about types of violence is beyond our scope, here.
[v]
The difference between marriage and cohabiting moved to p < .10 rather than
p < .05 with all the control and other variables, though the size of the
effects was essentially unchanged (an indicator that the analysis becomes a little
less statistically powerful with so many variables
being included).
[vi]
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., and Short, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and
reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101 –
111.; Cui, M., Ueno, K., Gordon, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). The
continuation of intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75,
300-313.; Rhoades, G. K., and Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I Do”: What do premarital experiences have to do with marital quality among today’s youngadults?
Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project.
[vii]
See page 685 in Rhoades et al. (2010): Odds Ratio = 4.92, controlling for
relationship quality, children together, children from prior relationships,
duration of the relationship, dedication (interpersonal commitment) to partner,
and a host of various measures of constraint commitment.
[viii]
For more on theories and some history on research on commitment, see Stanley,
S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment.
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2,
243-257.
[ix]
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing
commitment in personal relationships. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.
[x] For example, not merely coding a couple as more committed
because they are married versus not, but using a scale to assess the construct:
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment:
Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160-177.; Rusbult, C. E.,
& Buunk, B. P. (1993) Commitment
processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10, 175 204.; Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M.,
& Markman, H. J. (2011). The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics
and use with unmarried couples. Journal
of Family Issues, 32(6), 820-841.
[xi]
Things that we would generically refer to as constraints are often called
investments in other models of commitment, such as the one used most fully and
typically in social psychology that was founded by Caryl Rusbult: e.g.,
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and
satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.
[xii]
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting
dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5),
543-550.
[xiii]
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The impact of the
transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal
findings. Journal of Family Psychology,
26(3), 348 - 358.
[xiv]
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs.
Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
[xv]
e.g., Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N. Pond, R. S., Lambert, N. M.,
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes on
aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship
commitment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(2), 291-305.
[xvi]
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., &
Fincham, F. D. (2016, early online version).Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships.
[xvii]
As just one citation for this point, see: Johnson, M. P. and Leone, J. M.
(2005). The differential effects of
intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National
Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
