m...“ L...

2007

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
UNCERTAINTY, FACE, AND COMMITMENT TALK IN
COLLEGE DATING RELATIONSHIPS

presented by
ROSALIE BETH SHEMANSKI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Communication

 

 

KW MW

 

Majo(.F)bfessor’s Signature
I o , l 3 . o (0

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lClRC/DateDue.indd-pi1

 

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNCERTAINTY, FACE, AND
COMMITMENT TALK IN COLLEGE DATING RELATIONSHIPS

By

Rosalie Beth Shemanski

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2006

ABSTRACT

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNCERTAINTY, FACE, AND
COMMITMENT TALK IN COLLEGE DATING RELATIONSHIPS

By
Rosalie Beth Shemanski

It is important to understand why partners choose to discuss or not
discuss commitment in order to fully understand how commitment talk influences
level of commitment, duration of relationship, and certainty of relationship and
self. Participants (N=190) were asked to recall and write down their most
memorable commitment conversation with their current or most recent romantic
partner. Participants were then asked to discuss what triggered the commitment
discussions and what each partner did in order to protect the face of their partner
and themselves. Likert type scales were also used to determine self and partner
uncertainty, concern for self and partner’s face, commitment level, and level of
commitment demonstrated. The results suggest that both face and uncertainty
play a role in determining if and how commitment will be discussed between

romantic partners.

DEDICATION
I want to dedicate this to all my friends in the Communication Department at
Michigan State University. I never would have known where to start or what to
do without you. I would also like to dedicate this to my advisor Dr. Kelly Morrison

and Stephen Aldrich for their guidance and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their advice, support. and
encouragement throughout my entire Master’s experience. First, thank you to
my advisor Dr. Kelly Morrison for challenging me and helping to me to achieve
my goals. Also, thanks to Dr. Minda Orina and Dr. M. Brent Donnellen for their
thoughtful comments, advice, and feedback. I would like to thank Catherine

Newman for all of her time and effort in helping to analyze the data.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................. vi

INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1

CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................ . 7
Commitment Talk ........................................ 7
Uncertainty ............................................. 9
Face ................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY ............................................ 17
Participants ............................................ 17
Instrumentation ......................................... 1 8
Coding of Open-ended Responses .......................... 19
Categories from the Open-ended Response ................... 20
Closed-ended Measures ................................. 25

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS .................................................. 27
Descriptive Statistics .................................... 27
Scale Correlations ...................................... 27
Discussion of Commitment ................................ 28
Uncertainty ............................................ 30
Face ................................................. 31
Post Hoc Analysis ...................................... 32

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION ............................................... 34

CHAPTER 5

CONCONCLUSION .......................................... 40
Notes ................................................ 40

REFERENCES ............................................... 41

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Examples of Positive and Negative Face Threats ............... 16
Topics of Memorable Commitment Conversations .............. 21
Triggers of Commitment Conversations ...................... 23
Avoid Embarrassment to Self or Partner ..................... 24
Reasons for Not Discussing Commitment .................... 25
Descriptive Statistics for Closed-Ended Scales ................ 27
Scale Correlations ....................................... 28
Correlations Between Uncertainty and Topics of Commitment Talk. 31

Correlations Between Face and Topics of Commitment Talk ...... 31

vi

Exploring the relationship between uncertainty, face, and commitment talk in
college dating relationships.

One goal of studying communication between romantic partners is to
understand how communication affects relationship satisfaction and longevity.
Commitment and how relational partners communicate about it is a factor
influencing satisfaction and longevity. Commitment represents a long-tenn
orientation toward a partner with the desire to maintain a relationship. The
concept of commitment also entails strong feelings of attachment (Rusbult &
Buunk, 1993). Commitment long has been recognized as a significant factor in
the development and continued stability of close personal relationships (Adams &
Jones, 1997), and scholars agree that commitment to a relationship is strongly
related to whether the relationship lasts or dissolves (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001).

Commitment talk is the content messages that reference the state of the
relationship (Emmers & Canary, 1996). Engaging in commitment talk allows a
dyad to discuss and address where their current relationship stands and future
plans for the relationship. Yet, according to Knapp and Taylor (1994), direct
face-to-face discussion of commitment between partners does not often occur.
Little information exists regarding the extent to which partners, and college
students in particular, discuss commitment, how they discuss it, or why they
avoid discussion of it. Given that many college dating relationships may lead to
marriage, it is vital to explore this aspect of relational communication.

One potential explanation for this lack of face-to-face commitment talk is

that romantic partners may feel uncertain about their relationship. This

uncertainty may be enhanced by a desire to avoid embarrassment of themselves
or their partners by broaching the topic of commitment. In other words, people
may be uncertain about commitment talk because they are worried about
threatening their own or their partner’s face. Baxter and Wilmot (1985)
suggested that commitment talk can potentially threaten the face of both
partners. Thus, in order to improve our understanding of commitment talk the
concepts of uncertainty and face must be explored. The goal of this research is
to examine how face and uncertainty influence commitment talk in college dating
relationships. I begin by reviewing the literature on commitment and commitment
talk.
Conceptualizations of Commitment

Commitment in romantic relationships has been studied in a number of
different ways and several scholars have forwarded theories, models, and
typologies of commitment, including: Kelley and Thibaut’s interdependence
theory (1978), Rusbult’s investment model (1983), and Johnson’s (1973) types of
commitment. In addition, the psychological processes related to commitment
and the levels of commitment also have been explored (Johnson & Rusbult,
1989; Martz et al., 1998; Miller, 1997; Murray & Holmes, 1993).
Theories and Models of Commitment

One of the first approaches used to study commitment has come from
interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Interdependence theory is
built on two constructs, (a) comparison level and (b) comparison level of

alternatives. The comparison level (CL) is defined as the standard against which

individuals judge what they are currently receiving from a relationship. Thus, CL
can be thought of as an individual’s expectations of profit from the relationship as
well as an indicator of satisfaction with the relationship. Interdependence theory
suggests that comparison of the current relationship with the CL determines if an
individual is satisfied with their relationship. For example, if current outcomes in
the relationship exceed CL, the individual should be satisfied with the
relationship. If current outcomes fall below CL an individual should not be
satisfied.

The second construct is comparison level of alternatives (CLaIt), defined
as the goodness of outcomes available in alternatives to the relationship. CLalt
is the standard an individual uses to decide whether to remain in the relationship
or dissolve the relationship. For example, if an individual believes that her
current relationship provides more rewards than those that would be available in
an alternative, then the individual will remain in the relationship. If current
outcomes fall below CLalt then the individual may decide to terminate it.

Relationship stability is distinguished from relationship satisfaction in the
interdependence theory. This theory posits that an individual may be satisfied
with a relationship but not dependent on it. Therefore, CLaIt, not relationship
satisfaction itself, determines relationship stability. For example, an unsatisfied
individual may remain in the relationship because the individual does not
anticipate receiving greater outcomes from alternatives. The theory also
suggests that a satisfied individual may leave a relationship if CLalt is higher than

the current relationship. The basic assumption of interdependence theory is that

one stays in a relationship only as long as one’s outcomes exceed the outcomes
in the best available alternative to the relationship (Dindia & Canary, 1993).

Rusbult’s (1983) investment model builds on interdependence theory and
posited that people will feel committed to their relationships to the extent that
they feel satisfied, believe they have few good alternatives to the relationship,
and have invested important resources in the relationship. The investment
model supports the idea that an individual’s decision to maintain the relationship
is a direct function of the individual’s commitment to the relationship.

Satisfaction level is determined by comparing the current relationship with
an individual’s CL (what an individual thinks he/she deserves or can reasonably
expect). Investments may include emotional energy, time, money, or anything
else the individual places value on. The more investments attached to a
relationship the more difficult it becomes to dissolve it because the costs become
too high. The quality of alternative partners is determined by judging the current
relationship against other possible available partners (CLaIt).

Support for the investment model can be found in a study linking
commitment and willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships (Van
Lange, Agnew, Harinck, & Steemers, 1997). Results were consistent with the
investment model as the findings indicated that high levels of satisfaction,
perceived low levels of relationship alternatives, and large investment levels
(equaling high levels of commitment) were associated with greater willingness to

sacnfice.

Rusbult’s (1983) investment model was again supported when
commitment and stability were tested in a study showing the model successfully
predicted relationship duration over a 15-year period (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996).
Research using the investment model has shown that one’s commitment level is
positively correlated with one’s satisfaction with the relationship and the amount
invested into the relationship, and negatively correlated with the perceived quality
of one’s alternatives (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993).

Typologies of Commitment

Johnson (1999) described commitment by delineating three types;
structural, moral, and personal. Johnson theorized that the three types of
commitment combine together to influence an individual’s decision to continue a
relationship. Structural commitment is any structural barrier to leaving the
relationship, including financial dependence, or harsh divorce laws that may keep
an individual in a relationship. In order to survive one feels they “Have To”
remain in their current relationship. Moral commitment stems from a sense of
obligation and may include religious beliefs, family pressure/tradition, or the
culture in which one lives. This is considered the “Ought To” reason to remain in
the relationship. Personal commitment is the “Want To” reason or the desire to
stay in the relationship and is based on personal choice.

Another typology of commitment was fonivarded by Weigel and Ballard-
Reisch (2002) who identified two categories of behavior that directly identify
one’s level of commitment to a partner. The first category is expressing

commitment, defined as directly telling one’s partner of one’s commitment and

 

intention to remain in the relationship. The second category is creating a
relational future, which is accomplished by communicating commitment in a more
indirect manner, such as celebrating milestones or planning for a future together.
Results from their study suggested that people use a combination of indirect and
direct behaviors to communicate the importance of the relationship as well as
commitment level to one’s partner. The sample for this study consisted of half
students and half participants in community education extension classes. The
mean age of participants was 29.

Psychological Processes Related to Commitment

Positive illusions, derogation of alternative partners, and relationship
superiority bias have been found to influence the strength of commitment to
one’s partner. Positive illusions involve filtering out negative information,
comparing the current relationship to less well-off relationships, and weighting
partner’s positive traits more heavily. Positive illusions have been found to help
individuals deal with doubts and fears regarding their relationship. In addition,
Martz et al. (1998) found that the level of commitment significantly predicted how
positive an individual’s evaluation of a current romantic relationship was, as well
as the individual’s optimism regarding the future of the relationship.

Derogation of alternative partners is illustrated when people are satisfied
with their current romantic relationship and avoid attractive alternatives or reduce
interest in seeking information about possible attractive alternative partners.
Three studies conducted by Johnson and Rusbult (1989) found a strong link

between highly committed individuals and the tendency to negatively evaluate

 

relationship alternatives. Their results indicated the higher the relationship
threat, and the higher the attractiveness, temptation, and availability of an
alternative, the more likely individuals were to devalue alternatives. For example,
if one finds another person attractive one may make the alternative seem less
desirable by deciding that the alternative is really not in that great of shape or has
a bad attitude.

A high level of commitment also may cause an individual to be inattentive
to their alternatives altogether. Miller (1997) found that commitment was related
to attentiveness to alternatives, such that the more attentive to alternatives an
individual was, the more one actively sought information about their other
options, and the less committed they were to partners.

Relationship superiority bias is the tendency for people to evaluate their
relationship more positively than the current relationship warrants. This serves to
maintain the commitment level and may help people cope with relationship
challenges and doubts (Murray & Holmes, 1993). Research has supported the
claim that strong commitment to a relationship increases a rose-colored,
relationship-enhancing view (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998).

Commitment Talk

One question that often is ignored in commitment research is how couples
actually communicate commitment. Knapp and Taylor (1994) identified three
forms of commitment talk: (a) indirect - where the messages implied a sense of
commitment but did not specifically mention it, (b) partner to third party — one

partner overhears the other talking about their relationship to a third party, and

(c) direct focus on commitment but indirectly referencing another person or
couple (a combination of indirect and direct commitment talk). For example, if
Steve and Katie discuss another couple focusing on the subject of commitment,
the discussion may be very informative of how Steve and Katie themselves view
commitment. Direct commitment talk does occur, but it is rare because it
generally occurs when possible extreme changes in the relationship are
anticipated. When the relationship has the potential to change dramatically, high
emotions of anger or excitement, depending on the change, most likely will be
involved (Knapp & Taylor, 1994).

Individuals may choose to discuss commitment with their partner for
various reasons including to express affection, to determine relationship
exclusivity, to understand sacrifices made for the relationship, and to discuss the
future of the relationship (Knapp & Taylor, 1994). Additionally, how commitment
is communicated also may be a cause for discussion. It commitment is
expressed at an inappropriate time for example, this action may initiate
discussion of commitment. Therefore, a variety of reasons exist for people
choosing to discuss commitment, which leads to the first two research questions:

RQ1: What reasons do college students report for discussing or not
discussing relational commitment?

R0 2: What events tn'gger their discussion of commitment?

While discussing commitment with one’s partner, the issues of quality
(how it is discussed) and quantity (how often it is discussed) are relevant, as both

have been shown to be positively associated with successful relationships.

Emmers-Sommer’s (2004) results suggest that the quality and quantity of the
communication is important to relational intimacy and relational satisfaction. Her
results also suggest that it may be beneficial to speak of commitment (or any
relationship matter) in great depth, often, and in a controlled manner (i.e.,
manage the production of coherent conversations and coordinate verbal and
nonverbal behavior).

If the quality and quantity of communication play a role to the success of a
relationship, why then do so many couples ignore discussing their specific
expectations regarding commitment? The answer may be found in the literature
on uncertainty.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty occurs when an outcome is unknown, such as how an
individual will respond in an initial encounter. Berger and Calabrese’s
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT, 1975) detailed the process of interactions
among strangers and considered ways in which individuals attempt to reduce
cognitive uncertainty and increase predictability.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Berger and Calabrese (1975) suggested that in initial meetings people try
to reduce anxiety and stress by making sense of interpersonal interactions.
Uncertainty is an individual’s lack of confidence to predict another’s behavior in
an interpersonal interaction. Reduction of anxiety and stress is accomplished by

reducing uncertainty about the self, the partner, and the relationship.

A central assumption of URT is that when individuals interact their main
concern is to successfully predict the behavior of the other. This can be
accomplished in two ways: (a) proactive processes - the development of
predictions about the other’s behavior before the other acts, and (b) retroactive
processes — the explanation of a behavior after it has occurred.

Berger and Calabrese (1975) developed seven axioms to explain how
uncertainty influences communication between two strangers. The axioms that
have particular relevance to the current study include; Axiom 1: As the amount of
verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty for
each person in the relationship will decrease; Axiom 3: High levels of uncertainty
cause increases in information-seeking behavior, as uncertainty levels decline,
information seeking behavior decreases; and Axiom 4: High levels of uncertainty
in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of communication content.
Low levels of uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy.

Berger and Calabrese (1975) suggested that, given high levels of
uncertainty, the amount of verbal communication in an interaction will increase
and the level of uncertainty will decrease. One way to reduce uncertainty is to
discuss the topic that is causing the uncertainty with the other individual(s)
involved.

Although URT traditionally has been used to study relationships in their
initial stages, research by Solomon and Knobloch (2001; 2004; Knobloch &
Solomon, 1999; 2002; 2005) has extended this original conceptualization to more

intimate relationships. Knobloch and Solomon (2002) have further specified the

10

concept of uncertainty to include dimensions of self uncertainty, which is when
one doubts their own involvement in the relationship, and relational uncertainty,
which includes the doubts people have about the relationship. Both of these
concepts are relevant to commitment talk because topic avoidance is particularly
prominent when the individual wants to avoid judgment or embarrassment (self-
protection), and avoid conflict or relationship destruction (relationship protection).
Thus, evidence suggests that uncertainty corresponds with a lack of
communication about high risk issues, most likely because individuals prefer to
maintain ambiguity rather than confront the risks involved in direct
communication (Aflfi & Burgoon, 1998). These findings imply that uncertainty
does not always produce information-seeking behaviors and, instead,
occasionally leads to a desire to maintain the elevated uncertainty levels.
Knobloch and Solomon’s (2002) research has found that individuals in a
relationship with high uncertainty will not be likely to engage in information-
seeking behaviors.

Furthermore, they have found that relational uncertainty appears to be
especially persistent beyond the initial stages of relationship development
(Solomon & Knobloch, 2001). Relational uncertainty can make interactions with
a partner more difficult, diminish dyadic well-being (Knobloch & Solomon, 2005),
intensify people’s reactions to relationship events (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004),
and enhance doubt about the status of the relationship itself. However, relational
uncertainty is not all negative, it can add excitement, romance (Berger & Bradac,

1982), spontaneity, or novelty (Brashers, 2001) to the relationship, which may

ll

help to explain why some individuals do not discuss commitment in specific
relationship terms.

Taken as a whole, Knobloch and Solomon’s work suggests that an
individual in a relationship with high self or relational uncertainty will not be likely
to engage in information-seeking behaviors. Although their work has specified
the concept of uncertainty into two distinct dimensions (i.e., self and relational),
their findings conflict with Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) notion that high
uncertainty will increase information-seeking behavior. Therefore the following
research questions are posited:

R03: How does self uncertainty influence commitment talk?

RQ4: How does relational uncertainty influence commitment talk?

One explanation for why individuals would avoid commitment talk is that
they may sometimes prefer not knowing information rather than finding out
negative information (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998). Individuals also may prefer to
remain uncertain rather than cause embarrassment to themselves or their
partner. This is further explored in the literature on face.

Face

The concept of face was discussed first by Goffman (1959) as patterns of
interactions, both verbal and nonverbal, in which evaluations are made of self
and others. Goffman (1959) defined face as the self presentation of identity in
interaction, and it depends on the self, the situation, and others involved in the

interaction.

12

Face is something that can be threatened by how the speaker or the
person being addressed behaves or responds. For example, discussing certain
issues, such as commitment, may threaten one or both parties” face depending
on how each individual behaves during the interaction. As relationships become
closer, each partner’s face becomes inextricably bound in the shared relational
identity, and when face is threatened, one or both partners experience anxiety
and discomfort (Cupach & Carson, 2002).

There are advantages and disadvantages related to each partner’s face
when discussing commitment. Discussion about commitment can promote
togetherness and closeness. However, in any discussion of commitment there is
also the prospect of humiliating individuals and damaging relationships. Many
individuals view talking about sensitive topics, such as commitment, as more
threatening under conditions of relational uncertainty (Knobloch & Carpenter-
Theune, 2004).

Research by Bello and Edwards (2005) examined face concerns and the
influence of various forms of equivocation. Equivocation was defined as the use
of ambiguity or vagueness and is used to protect face when an individual seeks
to avoid a hurtful truth or a deception. Their findings suggested that clarity is an
important concern for communicators and that many individuals may value
honesty more than politeness. However, others have found that the fear of
threatening self or the relationship motivates some to avoid topics (Afifi &

Burgoon, 1998).

13

Politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987) furthered the concept of face with their work
on politeness by distinguishing between two types of face: (a) negative face - the
basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction and (b)
positive face - the positive consistent self-image claimed by each member in the
relationship.

Communication that threatens relationship issues may be hazardous to a
relationship along two distinct lines; (a) individuals expect that such
communication will damage their self image; (b) individuals also believe that such
communication will jeopardize the well-being of their relationship. Brown and
Levinson’s work (1987) suggests that the face of each person depends on the
face of everyone else being maintained, and in general, it is in the best interest of
everyone involved to maintain the face of one another. Therefore, any
discussions of commitment potentially threaten the face of the other and setf.
Face Threatening Acts

Fear of face threats may be one explanation for why commitment is not
often discussed between partners in the earlier stages of a romantic relationship.
A Face Threatening Act (FTA) is an act that threatens the positive or negative
face of either the speaker or the individual being addressed and may vary in
magnitude (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). Acts that primarily threaten the
addressee’s negative face include those acts that predicate some future act of
the addressee, and in so doing put some pressure on the addressee to do (or

refrain from doing) the act. An example of this would be if Katie requested that

14

Steve only smoke on the porch. Acts that predicate some positive future act of
the speaker toward the addressee, and in so doing put some pressure on the
addressee to accept or reject them, and possibly to incur a debt are also
considered acts that may threaten the addressee’s negative face. For example,
if Steve offered to help Katie move, Katie may feel that if she agrees to accept
his offer she would then owe him a favor in the future.

Those acts that primarily threaten the addressee’s positive face are those
that show the speaker has a negative evaluation of some aspect of the
addressee's self-image. For example, if Steve expresses disapproval of Katie’s
loud and gregarious personality by saying, “Do you always have to be so noisy
and obnoxious?” Katie’s positive face would be threatened.

Threats that directly damage the speaker's positive face are those acts
that involve damaging one’s own self-image. For example, if an individual trips
and falls down a set of stairs in front of someone he or she holds in high regard,
this would be a threat to the speaker’s positive face. Threats that primarily
threaten the speaker's negative face would include any hazard to the individual’s
basic claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. An example of
this would be if Steve told Katie that he would go to church with her on Sunday,
even though he did not want to. See Table 1 for examples of both positive and
negative face threats to the speaker and hearer.

Some overlap in the classification of FTAs does exist because some
FTAs fundamentally threaten both negative and positive face. Examples of FTAs

that may threaten both negative and positive face are complaints, interruptions,

15

threats, strong expression of emotion, and requests for personal information

(Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Table 1. Examples of Positive and Negative Face Threats

 

 

 

 

 

 

Negative Positive
Acts that primarily threaten the Acts that primarily threaten the
Addressee's negative face. Addressee’s positive face.
Hearer Threats Expressions of Disapproval
Warnings Disagreements
Suggestions Challenges
Advice Mention of Taboo Topics
Acts that primarily threaten the Speaker's Acts that primarily threaten the
negative face. Speaker's positive face.
Speaker Excuses Self-Humiliation
Expressing Thanks Acting Stupid
Acceptance of Offers Confessions
Future Unwanted Commitments Admissions of Guilt

 

 

A positive face threat has been found to be more strongly associated with
lingering damage to the relationship than a negative face threat, as indicated in a
study conducted by Cupach and Carson (2002). This signifies that FTAs to an
individual’s own desire to be liked and accepted can be very damaging to the
relationship. Consequently, discussions of commitment may simultaneously
threaten both positive and negative face, and ultimately damage the relationship.
Specifically, the person initiating the conversation about relational commitment
may threaten their own positive face with concern for self-humiliation. The
mention of the taboo topic of commitment may threaten the positive face of the
listener. The speaker, due to feeling humiliated by bringing up the subject of

relational commitment, may offer excuses to the listener, thus threatening the

16

negative face of the speaker. Therefore, the following research questions are
posited:

R0 5: How does concern for own face influence commitment talk?

R0 6: How does concern for partner’s face influence commitment talk?

Research supports the idea that it may be beneficial and insightful to
further research the effect of face in relationships. According to Afifi and Metts
(1998), “results from their study suggested that politeness theory (Brown &
Levinson, 1987) may provide a good theoretical framework for future research
efforts in this area.” (p. 386).

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 190) were drawn from upper level undergraduate and
graduate communication (N = 72, 37.9%), geography (N = 52, 27.4 %), and
nursing (N = 66, 34.7%) students at a large mid-westem university. Participation
was voluntary and took place in a classroom setting on campus. Fifty four of the
participants were male (28.4%) and 136 (71.6%) were female. The participants
ranged in age from 19 to 39 (M = 22.17, SD = 1.83), with one participant not
completing this question. The sample was 82.6% Caucasian, 6.3% African
American, 4.7% Asian American, 1.6% Hispanic, .5% Pacific Islander, 2.6%
mixed, and 1.6% of the sample did not denote their race. Of the sample 97.4%
indicated that they were heterosexual, 1.6% homosexual, and .5% bisexual.

The average length of time participants had been with their romantic partner was

17

25 months (2.08 years), SD = 23.3 months (1.94 years), and the most frequently
reported length of time was 6 months.

To assure that the three departments tested (communication, geography,
and nursing) were not significantly different, means and standard deviations were
compared across all scales. There were no significant differences, thus the three
departments were combined into one large group for the remaining analyses.
Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variables are self and relational uncertainty, and concern
for self and other’s face. The dependent variable is commitment talk.
Instrumentation

The data were collected using a self-report survey; The Relationship
Questionnaire (see Appendix A) included both Likert-type items and open-ended
questions. Concern for self face and partner’s face was assessed using Oetzel
and Ting-Toomey’s (2003) face concerns scale. Self and relational uncertainty
were measured by Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999) uncertainty scales, with
lower values indicating greater degrees of self and relational uncertainty.
Previous research has shown that this scale has high reliability scores of ac =.80
or higher (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999).

Commitment level was measured by commitment stage and the amount of
time invested in the relationship. To measure how committed an individual
islwas to their current or most recent relationship the Rusbult, Martz, and

Agnew’s (1998) Commitment Scale was used. Expression of commitment and

18

creation of relational milestones were assessed according to Weigel and Ballard-
Reisch’s (2002) Behavioral Indicators of Commitment instrument.

The open—ended questions asked participants to recall and describe their
most memorable conversation regarding commitment in the last calendar year.
Participants also were asked to describe the reasons and events that triggered
discussion of commitment. If they had not experienced a conversation pertaining
to commitment in the last year with a romantic partner they were asked to give
reasons why they had not discussed it.

Only 30% (N = 56) of the recalled conversations actually described a word
for word conversation. In contrast, over half, 55% (N = 104) of the recalled
“conversations” were summaries of what had been talked about. Due to the lack
of actual recalled conversations, the decision was made to code the data for
topics of commitment talk that emerged rather than the nature of the talk (i.e.,
face-threatening acts, politeness, or indirection).

Coding of Open-ended Responses

The author and one coder derived the coding categories through an
inductive analysis of the open-ended responses. Each coder took approximately
half of the completed surveys and created a list of the topical areas that
consistently emerged from the data. The unit of analysis was the message itself,
rather than individual thought units. Each message was evaluated for topical
categories. When a response revealed a new topic, a category was created to
accommodate that topic. The coders applied the same procedure to the other

half of the surveys and compared their results. The first category scheme was

19

developed after discussion and practice coding between the author and the
coder. The final category structure emerged after a second iteration of the entire
process. The author then trained an additional independent coder and each of
them coded and compared approximately one forth of the surveys to check for
coder agreement. Once it was established that the coders understood the
category scheme, each person then coded 100 more surveys. Cohen’s kappa
was used to measure intercoder reliability for these 100 surveys. The kappa’s
are reported below along with the category descriptions, and all were found to be
“good” or “excellent” according to Fleiss (1981).1
Categories from the Open-ended Responses

Topics of commitment talk. Nine categories emerged in response to the
question that asked participants to recall their most memorable conversation
about commitment with a romantic partner. The first category was the status of
the relationship, which was defined as any discussion about the commitment
level of the relationship that maintains or moves the relationship forward. The
second category, uncertainty, was defined as any uncertainty about the
relationship, commitment, or the future. The next category was decrease in
commitment level and was defined as any decrease in commitment level such as
a break-up. Long distance was the forth category that emerged from the data
and was defined as any struggle or issue that was related to a long distance
relationship. The fifth category was marriage, which was defined as any
discussion about proposals, engagements, marriage, or honeymoons. The sixth

category was labeled trust, and was defined as any conversation regarding trust,

20

infidelity, jealously, or discussion of ex-partners. Caring was the seventh
category and was defined as a positive expression of loving, caring, or feelings.
Conflict inequity was the eighth category and was defined as one person feeling
differently than the other. The ninth category was labeled as miscellaneous and
included statements that did not fit the categorization structure. Cohen’s kappa
for the intercoder reliability on this item was k = .87 (See Table 2 for categories
and examples).

Table 2. Topics of Memorable Commitment Conversations

 

 

Categories Example

Status of the Relationship "Should we date exclusively?"

Uncertainty 3:120:31: rhabits were making him doubt my commitment to our
Decrease in Commitment Level "I don't want to go out with you anymore."

Long Distance "The whole long distance thing is harder than I expected"
Marriage ’Will you many me?"

Trust "I would never cheat on you, you know that."

Caring "Love you baby."

"I am committed to us, you just expect me to be committed in the

Conflict lnequity way you want."

 

Events that trigger discussions of commitment. Twelve categories were
created to describe the events or conversations that triggered the discussion of
commitment. The first category, upcoming or recent life changing event, was
defined as any event that would occur in the near future that would have an
impact on either the partner or the relationship. The second category that
emerged was celebrations, which was defined as any celebration, holiday,
vacation, or wedding. The duration of the relationship was the third category and

was defined as any mention of length of time dating. The fourth category was

21

labeled the status of the relationship, and referred to any discussion of
maintaining or moving the relationship fonivard. Uncertainty was the fifth
category and included any uncertainty about the relationship, commitment, or the
future. A decrease in commitment level was any decrease in commitment level
or a relational break-up and was category six. The seventh category, physical
contact, included sex, kissing, cuddling, or any type of physical contact. External
issues was the ninth category, and was defined as any discussion of outside
issues not related to the relationship, such as movies or the weather. The tenth
category was labeled external networks, and included any discussion with or
about other people. Relationship conduct was the eleventh category and was
defined as everyday relationship occurrences such as talking, going on a date, or
hanging out. The final category was miscellaneous and included statements that
could not be categorized by the current structure. The Cohen’s kappa for the
intercoder reliability on this item was k = .858 (See Table 3 for categories and

examples).

22

Table 3. Triggers of Commitment Conversations

Categories

Upcoming or Recent Life
Changing Events

Celebrations

Duration of the Relationship
Status of the Relationship
Uncertainty

Decrease in Commitment Level
Physical Contact

Conflict

External Issues

External Networks

Relationship Conduct

Example

"It really stinks that you have to go back to school at the end of
the summer."

"It was our anniversary."

'We were dating for about 6 months."

"I wanted to know how he felt about our future."

"She wanted to know where we were in our relationship."

"A recent break up."

'We had our first kiss."

’We were fighting about me not coming home as much."

"A commerical."

”A friend asked us if we were thinking about getting married."

"In the car, eating french fries."

 

Protecting partner’s face. If participants reported concern for their

partner’s face during the conversation, they were asked what they said or did to

protect their partner’s face. Six categories emerged from the data. The first

category was labeled attention to partner and was defined as anything that

protects the partner’s feelings or does not embarrass the partner. Another

category was conflict avoidance — conflict escalation, which included not wanting

to fight, staying calm, being rational, keeping the conversation light, and avoiding

assigning blame. Attention to self was the third category, and was defined as a

focus on self, not embarrassing self, or taking responsibility. Attention to the

conversation included conversational awareness, such as politeness, turn-taking,

apologizing, listening, and honesty. The next category was re-affinning

commitment, which was defined as reciprocating feelings, expressing feelings,

and confirming commitment or relationship status. The final category was

miscellaneous, which included anything that did not fit into the previously defined

23

categories. Cohen’s kappa for the intercoder reliability of this item was k = .72

(See Table 4 for categories and examples).

Table 4. Avoid Embarrassment to Self or Partner

 

Categories Example

Attention to Partner "I didn't discredit anything he said."
Conflict-Avordance ' Avond "I didn't want to push the issue."
Escalation

Attention to Self "I just need to focus on myself right now."
Attention to Conversation "I asked politely."

Re-Affirm Commitment "l recipricated the I love you."

 

Protecting self face. If participants reported concern for their own face
during the conversation, they were asked what they said or did to protect their
own face. The data revealed the same six categories as described above, for
protecting partner’s face. Cohen’s kappa for the intercoder reliability of this item
was k = .81.

Reasons for not talking about commitment. If the participant had not had
a conversation about commitment but wanted to, participants were asked to
describe the reasons for their choice, and seven categories surfaced. The first
category was labeled partner’s disposition and included anything to do with
partner’s personality, attitude, traits, and openness. Uncertainty about partner
was the second category and was defined as uncertainty related to how partner
feels about the relationship and/or uncertainty about how the partner would react.
The third category was to protect partner, which was defined as protecting the
partner’s face and or feelings. Protect self was the fourth category and was
defined as protecting one’s own face and or feelings. Relationship issues was

the fifth category and was comprised of issues related to the relationship such as

24

timing, the relationship future, and the relationship status. The sixth category
was external issues and was defined as any outside issues not related to the
relationship. For example, one of the participants was dating a study abroad
student and knew their partner would be returning to their home country at the
end of the year. The final category was miscellaneous and included statements
that did not fit into the current category structure. Cohen’s kappa for the
intercoder reliability of this item was k = .90 (See Table 5 for categories and

examples).

Table 5. Reasons for Not Discussing Commitment

 

 

Categories Example

Partner's Disposition "He's a jerk."

Uncertainty about Partner "Scared he would dump me."

Protect Partner "Not wanting to hurt her feelings."

Protect Self "Fear of appearing dramatic."

Relationship Issues "I was worried it would changewhat we had."
External Issues "I knew I was leaving to another country."

 

Close-ended Measures

Several scales were used for this research and are described below. All
scales consisted of 7-point Likert type items with response options ranging from
1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree, unless othenrvise noted. When
assessing each scale’s reliability, three criteria were used to determine whether
an item should be excluded from the scale: a) face validity, b) inter-item
correlations, and c) the overall Cronbach’s alpha for the scale.

Concem for self face. Six items were used to assess how concerned the
participant was for their own face when discussing commitment with their partner.

Example items included “I was concerned with protecting my personal pride,” and

25

"I was concerned with maintaining my dignity.” One item was deleted to improve
the scale’s internal consistency. For the remaining concern for self face items
acceptable reliability was obtained (a = .87).

Concern for partner’s face. Six items were used to assess how concerned
the participant was for their partner’s face when discussing commitment.
Example items included “I was concerned with maintaining the dignity of my
partner,” and “I tried to be sensitive to my partner’s self-worth.” This scale had
reliability (Cronbach’s d) of .88.

Relationship uncertainty. The Likert type items ranged from 1 (completely
uncertain) to 7(completely certain). The reliability (Cronbach’s a) for this scale
was a = .91 and had six items that included, “how certain are you about whether
or not you and your partner feel the same way about each other?” and “how
certain are you about the future of the relationship?”

Self uncertainty. The self uncertainty scale had eight items including,
“how certain are you about how committed you are to the relationship?” and “how
certain are you about whether or not you want this relationship to last?” The
reliability (Cronbach’s a) for this scale was a = .96.

Demonstration of commitment. The Likert type items for the
demonstration of commitment ranged from 1 (all of the time) to 7 (never). Nine
items, including, “showed affection,” and “included partner in future plans” were
used to measure how demonstrative participants were of their commitment. The '

reliability (Cronbach’s q) for this scale was a = .93.

26

Commitment level. Ten items were included on the commitment level
scale. Example items from this scale were, “I want our relationship to last for a
very long time,” and “I would feel upset if our relationship were to end in the near
future.” This scale had a reliability (Cronbach’s a) of .94.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Six scales were used in this study to measure commitment level,
demonstration of commitment, concern for self face, concern for partner’s face,

uncertainty about the relationship, and uncertainty about self (See Table 6).

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Close-Ended Scales

 

 

M SD
Concern for Face Scale 4.53 1.27
Concern for Partner's Face Scale 5.29 1.17
Relationship Uncertainty Scale 5.35 1.42
Self Uncertainty Scale 5.65 1.29
Demonstration of Commitment Scale 5.21 1.45
Commitment Level Scale 4.53 1.49

 

Note. N = 190.
Scale Correlations

Four of the scales used in this study measured concern for self face,
concern for partner’s face, uncertainty about the relationship, and uncertainty
about self. The data indicated that concern for self face was positively correlated
with concern for partner’s face, r = .25, p < .001. These results indicate that as
concern for own face increases, concern for partner’s face also increases.

Concern for self face was negatively correlated with self uncertainty, r = -.16, p <

27

.05, and relationship uncertainty, r = -.15, p < .05. Thus, as concern for self face
increases the less personal certainty one experiences about their relationship,
and the less relational uncertainty they experience. The data also indicated a
positive correlation between relationship certainty and concern for partner’s face,
r= .25, p < .001, and a positive correlation between relationship uncertainty and

self uncertainty, r = .77, p < .001 (See Table 7).

Table 7. Scale Correlations

 

CPFS CSFS SUS RUS
Concern for Partner’s Face Scale ,, ..
(CPFS) 1 .25 0.14 .25
Concern for Self Face Scale (CSFS) .25“ 1 -.16" -.15"
Self Uncertainty Scale (SUS) 0.14 -.16" 1 0.77“
Relationship Uncertainty Scale (RUS) .25“ -.15* 0.77“ 1

 

Note. 'p < .05, two-tailed.
“p < .001, two—tailed.

Discussion of Commitment

RQI asked what reasons college students report for discussing or not
discussing relational commitment. The second portion of R01 is answered by
the twenty-six percent of participants that did not discuss relational commitment
with their partner. Of those, the responses given most often included uncertainty
about partner (31%), protect self (20%), and relationship issues (16%).
Uncertainty about partner included fear of rejection from partner and uncertainty
about how the partner would react if commitment was addressed. To protect
one’s self was the next most common category and included the participant
feeling scared and/or not wanting to embarrass themselves. The category of

relationship issues consisted of bad timing and not wanting to ruin the friendship.

28

When participants did not talk to their partners about commitment they
often turned to others for advice and guidance regarding their romantic
relationship. Fifty—five percent of the participants that did not talk to their partners
about commitment talked about it with friends. Participants also talked with
family members (22.4%), roommates (4.1%), and undisclosed others (6.1%).
Some participants, however, did not talk to anyone about their relational
commitment to their partners (12.2%).

R02 and the first part of R01 were answered when participants that did
talk about commitment with their romantic partner were asked to describe what
events or conversations generated the discussion. The responses to this
question were open-ended and thus, some participants’ responses included
more than one category. Four of the 12 categories, which can be found above,
were most frequently mentioned as the events or conversations that triggered the
discussion about commitment and they were: (a) relationship conduct, (b)
upcoming or recent life changing events, (c) status of the relationship, and (d)
external networks.

Twenty-two percent of the participants’ conversations about commitment
with their romantic partner were prompted by relationship conduct. Examples of
relationship conduct included talking on the phone, going on a date, or taking a
walk. Upcoming or recent life changing events were described as generating
commitment discussion by 21% of the participants. This category included
graduation, a new job, and geographical issues such as moving. Status of the

relationship was chosen by 18% of the participants and examples consisted of

29

discussing the relationship future and where the relationship was going. The
external issues category was revealed by 18% of the participants. External
issues such as watching a TV show or reading a book were included in this
category.

Uncertainty

The second set of research questions (R03 and R04) asked how
uncertainty about self and uncertainty about the relationship influenced the
decision to discuss commitment. The data indicated statistically significant
positive correlations between self uncertainty and status of the relationship,
r= .16, p < .05; marriage discussion, r = .25, p <.001; and discussion of caring,
r = .15, p < .05. The data also showed a statistically significant negative
correlation between self uncertainty and decease in commitment level, r= -.24,
p < .001. No other statistically significant correlations emerged for self
uncertainty and discussion of commitment.

Relationship uncertainty was found to have statistically significant positive
correlations with discussing the status of the relationship, r = .20, p < .001;
marriage, r= .28, p < .001; and caring, r= .15, p < .05. Relationship uncertainty
also was found to have statistically significant negative correlations with
discussing a decrease in commitment level, r= -.33, p < .001; and conflict
inequity, r = -.17, p < .05. The data revealed no other statistically significant
correlations between relationship uncertainty and discussion of commitment (see

Table 8).

30

Table 8. Correlations Between Uncertainty and Topics of Commitment Talk

 

 

Self Uncertainty Relationship Uncertainty
Status of the Relationship 45* .20"
Uncertainty -.11 -.13
Decrease in Commitment Level -24“ -.33**
Long Distance -.06 -.11
Marriage .25" .28“
Trust -.01 .02
Caring .15* .15'
Conflict lnequity -.13 -.17*

 

Note. *p < .05, two-tailed.
“p < .001, two-tailed.

Face

Research questions 5 and 6 asked how concern for own face and concern
for partner’s face influenced commitment talk. The data revealed no statistically
significant correlations between concern for partner’s face and topics of
commitment talk (see Table 9). Concern for own face, however, had a
statistically significant negative correlation with discussing the topic of marriage, r
= -.23, p < .001. No other statistically significant correlations emerged between

concern for self face and topics of commitment discussion (see Table 9).

31

Table 9. Correlations Between Face and Topics of Commitment Talk

Concern for Self Face Concern for Partner's Face

 

Status of the Relationship _03 .09
Uncertainty .09 .10
Decrease in Commitment Level -.11 -.03
Long Distance .05 -.03
Marriage -.23** .01
Trust -.01 -.07
Caring -.09 .03
Conflict lnequity .07 -.09

 

Note. *p < .05, two-tailed.
**p < .001, two-tailed.

Post Hoc Analysis

Upon further examination of the data, several observations appeared
pertinent to better understand the relationship between uncertainty, face, and
commitment talk. Therefore, additional analyses were performed.

Triggers of commitment discussion. The data revealed that self
uncertainty and relationship uncertainty were correlated with what events
triggered discussions of commitment. The data indicated statistically significant
negative correlations between self uncertainty and decreases in commitment
level triggers, r= -.16, p < .05; and conflict triggers, r= -.16, p < .05.
Relationship uncertainty also was negatively correlated with decreases in
commitment level triggers, r= -.18, p < .05; and conflict triggers, r = -.16, p < .05;
and positively correlated with status of the relationship triggers, r = .14, p < .05.

The data indicated no relationship between concern for partner’s face and

the events that triggered a commitment conversation. Concern for self face,

32

however, had a statistically significant positive correlation with uncertainty as a
trigger for discussion, r = .19, p < .001.

Prevention of commitment talk. According to the data, reasons that
prevented discussion of commitment were correlated with both self uncertainty
and relationship uncertainty. Self Uncertainty showed a statistically significant
negative correlation with uncertainty about partner, r = -.25, p < .001, and
wanting to protect partner, r = -.16, p < .05. The data indicated a negative
correlation with relationship uncertainty and uncertainty about partner, r= -.24,
p < .001.

Again, the data revealed no relationships between concern for partner’s
face and the prevention of a commitment conversation. However, the data
revealed statistically significant positive correlations between concern for self
face and partner’s disposition, r = .15, p < .05; uncertainty about partner, r = .24,
p < .001; and wanting to protect self, r= .17, p < .05.

Commitment level. The instrument used for this analysis was the Rusbult,
Martz, and Agnew’s (1998) Commitment Scale. The data suggested that the
more committed to the partner participants were, the more likely they were to
discuss the status of the relationship, r = .19, p < .001; marriage, r= .33,

p < .001; and caring, r= .16, p < .05; and the less likely they were to discuss a
decrease in commitment level, r = -.29, p < .001. Reasons for not discussing
commitment with one’s partner were also correlated with how committed the
individual was to the relationship. Commitment level was negatively correlated

with uncertainty about partner, r = -.20, p < .001, such that the more committed

33

an individual was to their partner the less likely they would not discuss
commitment due to uncertainty about their partner. Surprisingly, there was not a
statistically significant correlation between relationship conduct and commitment
level. Finally, the more committed individuals were to their partners the less
likely they were to not discuss commitment in order to protect their partner’s face,
r = -.20, p < .001.

Discussion

The premise of this research was to evaluate how uncertainty and concern
for face affect the decision to discuss commitment with one’s partner. When
partners engage in commitment talk it allows them to discuss and address the
status of the relationship and the direction in which the relationship is headed.
Commitment talk, however, can potentially threaten the face of both partners
(Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). The findings in this study support that both face and
uncertainty play a role in determining if and how commitment will be discussed
between romantic partners.

Even though the data was limited in this study due to the fact that many
participants did not transcribe a conversation word for word, Knapp and Taylor’s
(1994) identified forms of commitment talk could easily be detected. Examples of
indirect commitment talk were plentiful and included discussion of the future in
general, long distance issues, and expressions of caring. The combination of
indirect and direct communication was observed in a handful of reported
conversations where the couple discussed parents or friends’ infidelity and what

it meant to the relationship. Direct commitment talk occurred much more often

34

then expected and perhaps this was the case because participants were asked
to recall their most memorable commitment conversation. Being prompted to
recall a conversation about commitment likely triggers the recall of direct, rather
than indirect conversations. Research supports that direct conversations often
occur when there is a potential for something to change dramatically (Knapp &
Taylor, 1994). The data collected here supports that notion as upcoming or
recent life changing events prompted 21 % of the commitment conversations.

Although the number of times commitment was discussed was not
obtained in this research, the quantity of communication was alluded to in a
number of responses. Sixteen percent of the commitment conversations were
prompted by relationship conduct, which includes everyday relationship
occurrences that are often ongoing. Some participants directly stated that their
relationship commitment is frequently discussed. Research has suggested that
communication quantity is important to relational intimacy and satisfaction
(Emmers-Sommer, 2004), however, there was not a statistically significant
correlation between relationship conduct and commitment level. Future research
should consider further evaluation to ascertain the relationship between quantity
of communication and commitment levels in other samples.

Quality of communication also has been described as a possible factor
influencing relational intimacy and satisfaction (Emmers-Sommer, 2004) and
therefore, the more in-depth and serious the conversation the more beneficial the
conversation may be to the relationship. Discussing commitment in a controlled

manner is a factor when determining the quality of communication. The

35

participants often paid special attention to the conversation and used
conversational politeness, apologies, and listening techniques when discussing
commitment issues. Forty percent of the participants discussed the status of the
relationship, which included re-affirming commitment and moving the relationship
forward.

The reasons most often cited for not talking about commitment had to do
with protecting one’s own face and uncertainty about how the partner would
react. If the participant was high in uncertainty about partner they were not likely
to engage in commitment discussion. These results parallel Knobloch and
Carpenter-Theune’s research (2004), which found that relational uncertainty and
topic avoidance appear to overlap.

Research questions one and two examined the reasons college students
discuss or chose not to discuss relational commitment, and the topics that
triggered these discussions. The data suggested that many commitment
conversations occur during everyday relational encounters including a date or
watching a movie. These findings are important because they illustrate how
commitment issues and topics are thought of often and are common
conversational staples among individuals involved in a romantic relationship,
rather than a taboo topic. A taboo topic according to Baxter and Wilmot (1985) is
a topic that is identified as ‘off limits’ to one or both of the relationship parties.
These results conflict with previous research (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985) that found
explicit relational communication was rare and state of the relationship talk

dominated the data as taboo. Future research needs to focus on determining if

36

commitment talk is seen as a taboo topic or if over time the new generation has
become more comfortable discussing such topics that may leave them
vulnerable.

The data also revealed the common trend of discussing their romantic
commitment with third parties, most often reported, friends. When participants
do not talk to their partner about commitment over half of them turn to friends.
This is a significant finding that demonstrates the importance friends may have
on how the relationship is viewed and how commitment is discussed in the
future. Future research should investigate how third parties, especially friends,
impact how individuals approach the discussion of commitment later in their
relationship.

Research questions three and four asked how self and relational
uncertainty influence commitment talk. The data support Knobloch and
Solomon’s (1999; 2002; 2005; Solomon & Knobloch, 2001; 2004) findings that
individuals in high self or relationship uncertainty will not be likely to engage in
information-seeking behaviors (e.g., commitment talk). The number one reason
given for not discussing commitment was uncertainty about partner. This
uncertainty about partner did not increase the participants’ desire to discuss
commitment as Uncertainty Reduction Theory would have predicted. Although
uncertainty sometimes produced commitment discussions, it often did not. In
fact, as self and relational certainty decreased the less likely participants were to
discuss the topics of status of the relationship, marriage, and caring. Perhaps

the dimensions of relational and self uncertainty need to be addressed under the

37

premise of a different theory as URT was never intended to be used to explain
encounters beyond initial interactions.

Relationship uncertainty and self uncertainty were highly correlated.
Knobloch and Solomon (1999) also found a substantial correlation between self
and relationship uncertainty. After a factor analysis, their results indicated that
relationship uncertainty covaried with self uncertainty. Although Knobloch and
Solomon raised the question of distinctness between the two scales, they came
to the conclusion that the two scales were not unidimensional. It is possible that
the correlation between relationship and self uncertainty was high in this study
because the participant was projecting about how their partner felt. For example,
if the participant was highly certain about self in the relationship than that
individual may be more likely to project that their partner feels the same resulting
in high relationship certainty.

The final set of research questions addressed how concern for own face
and concern for partner’s face influenced commitment talk. Overall, the data
suggested that concern for partner’s face had little impact on the commitment
conversational topics or the triggers of the conversations. Concern for own face,
though, was related to both the topics and the triggers of the commitment
conversations. The data showed that as concern for own face increased the less
likely a commitment conversation would take place due to partner’s disposition,
uncertainty about partner, and wanting to protect self. The data also suggested
that as concern for own face increased the less certain participants were about

their self and relational commitment. These results indicate that concern for own

38

face together with self and relational uncertainty impacted the decision to discuss
relational commitment. Additional research needs to further examine the
relationships between concern for own face, uncertainty, and the topics and
triggers of commitment talk.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study include the characteristics of the sample, the
method by which the data was collected, and the direction of causality. First,
males were underrepresented in this investigation. The females in this study
made up over 70% of the participants. Consequently, the results of this study
can be generalized with more confidence to the female population. A related
limitation is the overall race, age, and education of the participants was very
homogenous, which reduces the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the method in which the data was collected is also a
limitation. The participants were asked to report by recalling a conversation,
which is most likely affected by time and the current status of the relationship.
Also, data were only collected from one partner, the absence of data from the
other partner leaves a gap in the data and does not provide a complete picture of
why couples do or do not discuss commitment.

Finally, because of the nature of the findings it is impossible to speak of
causality associations between uncertainty, face, and commitment talk. While
relationships can be discussed, utilizing recall data precludes analysis of cause

because temporal ordering cannot be established between the variables.

39

Conclusion

This research explored how self and relational uncertainty and concern for

self and partner’s face affect the decision to discuss commitment with one’s

partner. The findings in this study maintain that both face and uncertainty play a

role in determining if and how commitment will be discussed between romantic

partners. It is important for future scholars to continue to focus on how face and

uncertainty play a role in decisions to discuss intimate relationship topics with

partners as well as social networks. Finally, it may be useful to broaden our

theoretical focus and consider how face concerns influence the uncertainty that

couples face when broaching discussions of commitment.

Notes

[1]

For data entry each category was given a binary code with the number one signifying

that the category was present (i.e., reported by the respondent) and the number zero
signifying that the category was not present (i.e., not reported by the respondent). The
goal for this coding was to create a representative list of categories, one that would
demonstrate the breadth of responses reported by the participants rather than the
frequency of each response. This choice was made in order to facilitate data entry
purposes because the participants wrote quite extensively in response to each question.
For example, an entry for a participant who reported their most memorable conversation
about commitment reported, ‘I would never cheat on you, you know that. . . It (cheating)
would never happen because I know you would kick me to the curb’ would receive

only one code for the trust category being present, rather than two. Thus, the data are
representative of the range of categories reported rather than the depth reported for each

category.

40

REFERENCES

41

REFERENCES

Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital
commitment: An integrative analysis. American Psychological
Association, Inc., 72, 117-1196.

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). 'We never talk about that": A comparison of
cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic
avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.

Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation
violations in close relationships. Joumal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 365-392.

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998).
Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-
954.

Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and
conative components of relationship commitment. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1 190-1203.

Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253-269.

Bello, R., & Edwards, R. (2005). Interpretations of messages the influence of
various forms of equivocation, face concerns, and sex differences. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 160-181.

Berger, & Bradac, J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in
interpersonal relations. London: Edward Arnold.

Berger, 0., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication.
Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of
Communication, 51, 477-497.

Brown, R, & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bui, K.-V. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of

relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual
couples. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244-1257.

42

Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of
interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Joumal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 443-462.

Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on
maintaining relationships. Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships,
10, 163-173.

Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity
indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 21, 399-411.

Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J. (1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing
strategies on young couples’ relational repair and intimacy.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 166-182.

F leiss, J L. (Eds.). (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2"d ed.).
New York: Wiley.

Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

Goldsmith, D. J., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and
relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human
Communication Research, 26, 234-263.

Johnson, & Rusbult, C. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative
partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships.
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.

Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical
application. Sociological Quarterty, 14, 395-406.

Johnson, M. P. (1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to
relationships: Experiences of choice and constraint. In J. M. Adams & W.
H. Jones (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship
stability (pp. 73-87). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Knapp, M., & Taylor, E. (1994). Commitment and its communication in romantic

relationships. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on Close
Relationships (pp. 153-175). Needham Heights, MA.

43

Knobloch, & Carpenter-Theune, K. E. (2004). Topic avoidance in devel0ping
romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational
uncertainty. Communication Research, 31, 173-205.

Knobloch, & Solomon. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational
uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261-278.

Knobloch, & Solomon. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction:
Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human
Communication Research, 28, 243-257.

Knobloch, & Solomon. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information
processing. Communication Research, 32, 349-388.

Martz, J. M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X. B., Slovik, L. F., Cox, C. L., & Rusbult, C. E.
(1998). Positive illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5,
159-181.

Miller, R. (1997). lnattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and
attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
758-766.

Murray, 8. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the
transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Joumal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707-722.

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict:
A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory.
Communication Research, 30, 599-624.

Rusbult, C. E. (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 -1 17.

Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close
relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale:

Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

44

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner
interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 18, 804-820.

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The
role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in
appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,
795-816.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F., & Steemers, G. (1997). From
game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to
sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1330-1344.

Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. (2002). Investigating the behavioral indicators

of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
1 9, 403-423.

45