Cues to commitment
Abstract
I put forward an evolutionary psychological model of commitment in
heterosexual dating relationships. Tracking the commitment intentions of dating
partners was a recurrent adaptive problem faced by human ancestors. Humans are
hypothesized to possess psychological adaptations designed to perceive certain
classes of information as being diagnostic of dating partners’ commitment intentions.
Study 1 (N = 129) identified a large and diverse set of naturally occurring specific
cues to dating partners’ commitment intentions. In Study 2 (N = 251), participants
rated how diagnostic each cue was of an imagined dating partner’s interest in
developing a committed and exclusive long-term romantic relationship with them.
Imagined dating partners were either lower, equal, or higher in mate value than the
participants. Cues rated as being most diagnostic of the presence of male and female
dating partners’ commitment intentions included telling their parents they loved you,
telling you they wanted children with you, and telling you things they wouldn’t tell
anyone else. Cues rated as being most diagnostic of male and female dating partners’
lack of commitment intentions included not letting others know that the two of you
were a couple, referring to you as a “friend,” and not wanting to introduce you to their
family. Study 2 also identified which cues the sexes find to be differentially
diagnostic of dating partners’ commitment intentions. The majority of cues were rated
as more diagnostic of men’s than women’s commitment intentions. Exploratory
factor analysis revealed six factors to commitment: Kin Oriented, Publicly Displayed
Involvement, Thoughtful; Expedited Sexual Access; Avoided Publicly Displaying
Involvement; Uninterested in You/Interested in Others; Future-Oriented, and
Tolerated Minimal Resource Allocation. The same factors of commitment differ in
diagnosticity when performed by dating partners of relatively high, low, or equal
mate value compared to self.
Department
Description
text