Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Duty toward Whom?

Reconsidering Attractions and Barriers as Determinants of Commitment in a Relationship

  • Chapter
Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability

Part of the book series: Perspectives on Individual Differences ((PIDF))

Abstract

The eminent German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, postulated the existence of two contrasting forms of commitment to an action or to a relationship. One form is the commitment of desire, or of affection or devotion, which he considered changeable or evanescent, and therefore untrustworthy. The second is the commitment of duty, or obligation, which Kant saw as more stable and far better morally (Kant, 1785/1964).

A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate inclination—still less because it is done from self-interest—but because it is done for the sake of duty. (Paton, 1964, pp. 18–19, summarizing a key proposition ofImmanuel Kant, 1785)

[pair commitment] pertains to the net sum of the attractions and barriers inside a relationship minus the net attractions to and barriers around the most salient outside alternative. (Levinger, 1976, p. 28)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1177–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attridge, M., & Berscheid, E. (1994). Entitlement in romantic relationships in the United States: A social-exchange perspective. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond (pp. 117–147). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bane, M. J. (1979). Marital disruption and the lives of children. In G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation: Context, causes, and consequences (pp. 276–286). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., & Campbell, B. (1981). The changing longevity of heterosexual close relationships: A commentary and forecast. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 209–234). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., & Lopes, J. A temporal view of satisfaction, stability, and the environmental context of relationships. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blood, R. O. (1967). Love match and arranged marriage. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, C. D. (1961). Mate selection as the development of a relationship. Marriage and Family Living, 23, 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, P. (1987). Commitment, conflict, and caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degler, C. N. (1980). At odds: Women in America from the Revolution to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dizard, J., & Gadlin, H. (1990). The minimal family. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espenshade, T. J. (1985). The recent decline of American marriage. In K. Davis (Ed.), Contemporary marriage: Comparative perspectives on a changing institution (pp. 53–90). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadlin, H. (1977). Private lives and public order: A critical view of the history of intimate relations in the United States. In G. Levinger & H.L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 33–72). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Pres

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuter marriage: A study of work and family. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D. (1991). The recent trend in marital success in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1988). The changing relationship of marital status to reported happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. M. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: 2. Developing personal relationships (pp. 53–88). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 117–143). London: J. Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1964). H. J. Paton (Ed.), Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Harper Torchbooks. (Original published 1785)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. C. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265–314). NewYork: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711–720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1977). Re-viewing the close relationship. In G. Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 137–162). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 510–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. C. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson. Close relationships (pp. 315–359). New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G., & Snoek, J. D. (1972). Attraction in relationship: A new look at interpersonal attraction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. R., (1986). Three corners: Exploring marriage and the self. Lexington, MA: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1974). The pleasure bond: A new look at sexuality and commitment. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S., & Kellogg, S. (1988). Domestic revolutions: A social history of American family life. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitterauer, M., & Sieder, R. (1982). The European family: Patriarchy to partnership from the Middle Ages to the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murstein, B. I. (1974). Love, sex, and marriage through the ages. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, H. J. (1964). Analysis of the argument. In I. Kant (H. J. Paton, Ed.), Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest: Family change and decline in modern societies. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1929). Marriage and morals. New York: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J. (1979). A historical perspective on husband-wife bargaining power and marital dissolution. In G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation: Context, causes, and consequences (pp. 20–36). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, L. (1990). Road to divorce: England 1530–1987. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, L. (1992). Uncertain unions: Marriage in England 1660–1753. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, E. (1921). The history of human marriage (3 vols.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, D. (1981). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, 01003, USA

    George Levinger

Authors
  1. George Levinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA

    Jeffrey M. Adams

  2. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

    Warren H. Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Levinger, G. (1999). Duty toward Whom?. In: Adams, J.M., Jones, W.H. (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability. Perspectives on Individual Differences. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4773-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4773-0_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7161-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4773-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation