Why do people stay in a relationship? Levinger's ⁽¹⁾ influential model of marriage posits that the likelihood that an individual will stay in a relationship varies directly with the net positive attractions found in the relationship and the strength of the barriers that surround the relationship. Positive attractions (such as common interests, activities, ideals, and goals; an enjoyment of companionship; an enjoyment of the family or kids; shared experiences and projects; or a trust or respect for the spouse) pull an individual toward the marriage. Attractions are stronger if they include many rewards; they are weaker when mitigated by many costs (such as energy, money, or time perceived as better spent on other things). Alternative attractions (such as a higher standard of living, a higher sense of independence, or an alternative partner) may pull individuals away from marriage.

According to Levinger, relationships are also surrounded by barriers, restraining forces that become particularly salient only when dissolution is contemplated. Barriers serve an important stabilizing function, for they prevent individuals from exiting a relationship when attractions temporarily fluctuate.

Michael P. Johnson ⁽²⁾ built upon the concept of attractions and barriers to create a new model of marital commitment. According to this viewpoint, people stay in a relationship because they want to stay (personal commitment), because they feel they ought to stay (moral commitment), and/or because they have to stay (structural commitment).

Want to stay - Personal commitment is built upon three major attractions in the marriage: love for the partner, marital satisfaction, and a sense of identity as a "husband," "wife," or "a member of a couple."

Ought to stay - Moral commitment is based upon three value-based barriers: attitudes toward divorce, a sense of contractual obligation to the partner, and general consistency values.

Have to stay - Structural commitment addresses other possible barriers: the likelihood of finding an alternative partner who would provide rewards equal to or exceeding the rewards from the current partner; the possibility of adverse social reaction from friends, relatives, and co-workers; the difficulty of termination procedures; and investments of time, money, and energy that would be lost if the marriage were terminated.

We felt Johnson's conceptualization of commitment would help us understand why some members of our sample remained married while others divorced. Based on Johnson's model, we developed eight scales of commitment (one for personal commitment, three for moral commitment, and four for structural commitment). Each scale was composed of several items, creating a forty-two item questionnaire.

Scores on each of the eight scales are on the Divorced Data Packet cover sheet. Individual responses are in the Benefits of Marriage section.

Name	Label	Min	Max	Mean	S.D.
Husbands' Personal Commitment (not included here is Braiker & Kelley's love scale and the MOQ)
HPIDENT4	partner identity	5.00	9.00	6.85	1.30
Wives' Personal Commitment
WPIDENT4	partner identity	1.50	8.50	5.65	2.13
Husbands' Moral Commitment
HMCONS4	consistency values	7.75	9.00	8.40	0.43
HMPART4	contract w partner	1.00	6.50	3.33	1.94
HMREL4	divorce attitudes	2.00	8.00	5.29	1.69
Wives' Moral Commitment
WMCONS4	consistency values	6.75	9.00	8.15	0.77
WMPART4	contract w partner	3.50	7.50	5.46	1.33
WMREL4	divorce attitudes	2.75	8.75	6.15	1.65
Husbands' Structural Commitment
HSALTAV4	available alternatives	1.17	6.83	4.82	1.78
HSINAV4	irretrievable investments	3.00	8.00	5.52	1.61
HSSOCAV4	social reaction	1.00	6.20	2.98	1.80
HSTPAV4	termination procedural difficulty	1.00	6.40	3.52	1.51
Wives' Structural Commitment
WSALTAV4	available alternatives	1.33	6.17	3.40	1.51
WSINAV4	irretrievable investments	2.00	8.75	6.21	2.08
WSSOCAV4	social reaction	2.00	7.50	3.82	1.61
WSTPAV4	termination procedural difficulty	1.60	8.80	4.47	1.98

Were there any barriers or attractions that appeared particularly strong? Why do you think they were not sufficient to keep the marriage afloat? Also look at any low barriers or attractions. Do you think the low levels were a function of personality, situation, or the couple's interaction?

If data is available for both partners, compare their responses. Do they agree or disagree? What do the divergences tell you about the couple? Can you get a picture of who might have initiated the divorce, and why?

(2)Johnson, M. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. In W. H. Jones and D. W. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol 3, pp 117 - 143). London: Jessica Kingsley.