Society may kick us to the curb, but we’ve got commitment down!

(Posted by Maya Sokolovski)

Today’s review deals with the article titled “Marginalized Relationships: The Impact of Social Disapproval on Romantic Relationship Commitment” by Justin J. Lehmiller and Christopher R. Agnew. It was published in 2006 in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. The article deals with marginalized relationships, composed of gay, lesbian, interracial, and, of course, age-gap. My focus will naturally be on the effects of social disapproval on age-gap unions, but much of what applies to them applies to the other marginalized relationships.

In the paragraphs that detail previous research on the topic, the following point was made:

  • Prejudice against non-traditional relationships exists. This is a fact. The authors, in talking about age-gap relationships, actually mention the last article I reviewed as proof.
  • The article states that there is little research on how social prejudice affects marginalized relationships; the authors attempt to address this problem with their own research.

It is important to note exactly what is meant by the term ‘marginalized relationship.’  The authors define it as follows:

  • they are “non-traditional, romantic involvements in which couple members experience social disapproval as a result of their union.”

They also provide a general definition for an age-gap relationship:

  • it is defined as any union “where one partner is significantly older than the other,” and later in the article, as couples where the age difference is ten years or more.

Age-gap couples, as well as other marginalized couples, receive less support, acceptance, and approval – as well as encountering more social biases – from society than traditional, equal-age unions.

Commitment, the authors state, is influenced by three factors:

  • the level of satisfaction with the relationship,
  • the quality of alternatives to the relationship,
  • and investments in the relationship.

Satisfaction is based on…

  • whether each partners’ needs are met, while quality of alternatives refers to whether each partners’ needs would be best met within their current relationship or in some other, perhaps more traditional, relationship.

The authors define investments as…

  • tangible and intangible resources – such as children, joint friendships, effort, and time – that would be lost or diminished in value if the relationship ended. These investments serve almost as incentives to continue the relationship, and the more incentives there are, the more likely are individuals to stay in the relationship, if only for the sake of these investments.

Strangely enough, out of all the non-traditional relationships, age-gap couples experienced the most marginalization. They invested significantly less in their relationships. When there was higher perception of social disapproval, couples tended toward a lower level of commitment.  Oddly, there was a higher level of commitment in relationships marginalized by society than in non-marginalized relationships. The secret appears to be in the perception of the couple. The authors write that some sort of counter-balance occurs for the low level of investments. Levels of satisfaction in age-gap couples were the same as for equal-age couples, while the quality of relationship alternatives – i.e., other people to date – was perceived as much worse than in equal-age unions. Also, happily, the authors write: “only age-gap partners were significantly more committed to each other than partners in non-marginalized relationships”.  Age gappers also tended to report higher satisfaction in their relationships than other unions, traditional or not.

In conclusion, the researchers found that, despite investing significantly less in their relationships, marginalized couples make up for it with greater commitment, which is affected by perceiving the quality of alternatives as much worse.

Maya’s Commentary:

This article counts as good news. It offers some proof that, despite being viewed negatively, age-gap relationships continue to flourish. Of course it is sad to hear that there is less emotional and physical investment in age-gap relationships, but it is heartening to know that there is greater commitment in them.The sample size, unlike the one in the previous article I reviewed, was quite large, numbering 812, where 712 were polled online, while 100 were queried in person. This means the results are more reliable.

However, the authors excluded individuals younger than 18 in their research. This, I think, is unfortunate, as including them would have shed light on adolescent relationships, and would have given us a broader view of age-gap unions. This article counts as a point in favour of age-gap relationships. Hopefully, with time, age-gap relationships will stop being marginalized and will enter the mainstream!