The Dual-Pathway Model of Respect in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Respect has been shown to be an important aspect of romantic relationships. The current research explored whether the associations that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with romantic commitment would be mediated by satisfaction, investment, and the perceived quality of alternative romantic partners. Study 1 examined these associations with an undergraduate sample (N = 200), whereas Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 using a community sample (N = 264). Study 3 (N = 187) extended these results by focusing on a specific situation in which participants felt either disrespected or respected by their romantic partners. Across these studies, status-based respect and inclusion-based respect were associated with romantic commitment. For example, status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had associations with commitment that were mediated by satisfaction in each study. The findings of the current studies indicate that people who experience disrespect in their relationships tend to be less satisfied, which, in turn, may lead to them being less committed to maintaining their relationships. In our discussion, we explore how status-based respect and inclusion-based respect can offer insights into understanding commitment to romantic relationships.

1. Introduction

The term respect refers to feelings of esteem for an individual [1,2,3,4,5]. Respect has been examined in contexts such as employment [6], familial relationships [7], friendships [8], and romantic relationships [1]. Although respect is often considered to be essential for the successful functioning of interpersonal relationships, it has received far less empirical attention than other characteristics such as commitment, intimacy, and forgiveness. By using the Dual-Pathway Model of Respect [9,10]—which distinguishes between status-based respect (esteem and admiration by others) and inclusion-based respect (liking and acceptance by others)—the current studies aimed to further our knowledge of how respect functions in romantic relationships. More specifically, the present research examined whether perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect from one’s romantic partner have indirect associations with romantic commitment through satisfaction, investment, and the quality of alternative partners.

There has been much discussion about how to understand respect [1]. For example, respect has sometimes been viewed as an emotion [11], but it is most often considered to be an attitude that has affective, behavioral, and cognitive components [2,3,12]. Despite this debate, there is at least limited agreement that respect involves the extent to which an individual is valued by others [3]. Respect has been found to be important for a wide array of social relationships ranging from those that are highly personal (e.g., relationships with friends and family member) to those that are more formal in nature (e.g., relationships with coworkers or supervisors) [2]. For example, perceived respect in the workplace has been found to be at least as important as factors such as salary or job security [13] and employees who feel respected are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and stay with their current employer [6].

A consistent pattern across contexts is that individuals tend to feel valued when others provide them with respect [2,7,14]. This pattern aligns with the argument that respect is often reliant on the extent to which an individual is perceived to have worth or value [12]. A clear example of this is the fact that respect in the workplace tends to be extended to individuals who possess valuable skills, experience, knowledge, and abilities [14]. In essence, respect reflects something akin to a form of “social currency” such that more highly respected individuals are often perceived to have greater value than those individuals who receive less respect. Further, individuals who feel respected by others tend to be more socially engaged [9] and more likely to perform prosocial behaviors [15] which are behaviors that may further enhance their respect.

In romantic contexts, respect is often defined as “regard, admiration, and appreciation of the worthiness of another person” [16] (p. 317). Respect has been found to be crucial to romantic relationships because it is associated with features such as satisfaction with the relationship [1], desire to continue the relationship [17], adoption of particular love styles [2], and general relationship functioning [18]. Broadly speaking, romantic relationships that are characterized by respect tend to function more effectively than those that involve a lack of respect [1,2,16]. In fact, respect has been found to be an even stronger predictor of relationship satisfaction than other constructs such as loving or liking [1]. Further, behaviors that are indicative of disrespect for romantic partners—such as betrayal or demonstrations of contempt—have been shown to be particularly detrimental for relationships [17]. These patterns are consistent with clinical observations such as the idea that most individuals want “just two things from their marriage—love and respect” [19] (p. 18).

One reason that respect may be so beneficial for romantic relationships is that it may foster feelings of security and trust [1]. A model of reciprocity that is referred to as a “mutual cyclical growth model” has been developed for other features of romantic relationships [20]. For example, individuals who feel trusted by their partners tend to be more committed to their relationships and engage in more positive relationship behaviors which further deepens the level of trust experienced by their partners. It has been argued that respect should have similar consequences for romantic relationships such that individuals who feel respected by their partners should be more committed to the relationships, which, in turn, may elicit an even deeper sense of respect from their partners [1]. In addition, individuals who perceive respect from their partners may experience other benefits (e.g., increased levels of happiness and self-esteem) [5]. Although the existing body of research has shown that respect is associated with various romantic benefits, those studies have relied on a unidimensional view of respect that does not account for potential differences between status-based respect and inclusion-based respect.

1.1. Romantic Commitment

A great deal of research has focused on understanding which features of romantic relationships are indicative of success and stability, or may lead to failure and dissolution [2]. One feature that has emerged as being extremely important for understanding the long-term outcomes of romantic relationships is romantic commitment, which refers to the inclination to continue a relationship and to feel psychologically attached to another person [21,22,23]. Although respect is regarded as a key component of commitment [24], there has been conflicting empirical evidence to support this association. For example, some studies have found a positive association between respect and romantic commitment [17], whereas other studies have not [25]. The inconsistency regarding the association between respect and commitment may be due, at least in part, to the fact that previous studies have often neglected to account for other factors that are associated with commitment (e.g., satisfaction).

The Investment Model was developed to better understand commitment [21,22]. The foundational claim made by the Investment Model is that romantic commitment is largely a result of satisfaction, investment, and the quality of alternatives. Satisfaction refers to the positive feelings a person has about their relationship which tends to be influenced by factors such as the fulfillment of needs, perceived rewards, and the degree to which the relationship meets or exceeds expectations. The more satisfied someone is with the relationship, the more committed they tend to be to its continuation. Investment refers to all the resources that a person has put into the relationship (e.g., time, emotional energy, money, shared experiences, mutual friends). The more invested someone is in the relationship, the more committed they are likely to be, as they have more to lose if the relationship ends. The quality of alternative partners refers to how a person perceives other options outside their current relationship. If the perceived quality of alternatives is low (i.e., there are no better romantic options available), a person is more likely to stay committed to their current relationship. In contrast, if the perceived quality of alternatives is high (i.e., there are better romantic options available), they might consider leaving the current relationship to pursue other possibilities. The Investment Model has been extensively supported by empirical data over the years [23,26,27,28,29,30]. These findings show that people are more committed to their romantic relationships if they feel they have a reasonable level of satisfaction, feel like they have more resources invested in the relationship, and perceive that there are not many other attractive options available to them. Although investment and the perceived quality of alternative partners are consistently associated with commitment, it is relationship satisfaction that often has the strongest association with commitment [31].

1.2. Dual-Pathway Model of Respect

Despite claims that respect may actually be multidimensional in nature [2,7], previous studies that considered the connection between respect and romantic commitment have often conceptualized respect as a unidimensional construct [17,25]. We employed the Dual-Pathway Model of Respect [9] in an effort to address this limitation. According to this model, there are two pathways for deriving respect which stem from the desire for status and the desire to feel included. Status-based respect refers to perceptions of one’s value or worth as a member of a group [4,9], whereas inclusion-based respect refers to perceptions of liking and acceptance from the group [9]. Although status-based respect and inclusion-based respect are positively correlated with each other, these are distinct constructs that are able to occur separately [10]. For example, a person does not have to be included in order to be afforded status. Similarly, it is possible for someone to be included without being granted status. Previous research concerning respect in romantic relationships has focused almost exclusively on issues surrounding status [17], so our decision to consider both status-based respect and inclusion-based respect has the potential to extend our understanding of how respect operates in romantic relationships. For example, status-based respect in the context of a romantic relationship reflects the extent to which an individual believes their partner admires or values them, whereas inclusion-based respect reflects the extent to which an individual believes their partner likes or accepts them.

1.3. Hypotheses

The objective of this research was to ascertain whether status-based respect and inclusion-based respect were associated with romantic commitment. We were particularly interested in examining whether people’s commitment to maintaining their relationships depended on the extent to which they believed their romantic partners provided them with status-based respect and inclusion-based respect. We were also intrigued by the idea that indicators of relationship functioning would mediate the associations that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with commitment. More specifically, we predicted that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect would be positively associated with satisfaction and investment as well as negatively associated with the quality of alternatives, which would then be associated with romantic commitment. This research is important because previous studies have focused on the role that respect plays in romantic relationships but no studies have applied the Dual-Pathway Model of Respect to romantic contexts. For these studies, we developed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. 

We anticipated that status-based respect would be positively associated with romantic commitment. The reasoning for this prediction was that individuals would be more willing to commit to their relationships if they felt their romantic partners provided them with status-based respect. This prediction is in line with earlier research showing that employees are more devoted to their jobs when they feel that their supervisors respect them [32].

Hypothesis 2. 

We expected the association between status-based respect and romantic commitment to be mediated by satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives. This prediction was based on the idea that status-based respect would promote positive views of the relationship, which, in turn, should be associated with romantic commitment. This prediction aligns with other research which indicates that workers who feel respected by their employers typically have more positive attitudes toward their jobs [33].

Hypothesis 3. 

We predicted that inclusion-based respect would be positively associated with romantic commitment. The basis for this prediction was that individuals should be more inclined to continue their relationships when they feel included by their partners. This prediction is in line with previous studies showing that employees who feel included in organizations tend to be more committed to their jobs [34].

Hypothesis 4. 

We expected satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives to mediate the association that inclusion-based respect had with romantic commitment. This prediction was based on the grounds that inclusion-based respect should promote favorable views of the relationship, which, in turn, ought to be connected with romantic commitment. This anticipated pattern aligns with previous research showing that employees who feel included in organizations tend to be more content with their jobs and have more favorable opinions of their employers [35,36].

2. Study 1

We examined whether perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect from romantic partners were associated with romantic commitment in a sample of undergraduate students. In addition, we examined whether status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had associations with romantic commitment that were mediated by satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives.

2.1. Materials and Methods

2.1.1. Participants and Procedure

This sample consisted of 254 undergraduates. These participants needed to have been in a committed heterosexual relationship for at least three months. We conducted a power analysis for indirect effects using Monte Carlo simulations to calculate the necessary sample size for this study [37]. We assumed that the associations between the variables would be medium-to-large in magnitude. The results of the power analysis revealed that we required a sample of at least 190 participants in order to test our hypotheses with a power of at least 0.80 and α = 0.05. However, we decided to oversample in order to increase the statistical power of the study. More specifically, we used a time-based stopping rule such that we collected data from as many participants as possible during the course of two consecutive academic semesters. Data were excluded for 54 participants for issues such as failing two or more attention checks, having missing data, or being univariate outliers. The final 200 participants (53 men and 147 women) had a mean age of 20.44 years (SD = 3.86 [range = 18–48 years]). The final participants were in relationships for an average of 2.42 years (SD = 2.50 [range: 3 months–21 years]); 82% of them were dating, 12% were cohabiting, 4% were married, and 2% were engaged.

2.1.2. Measures

We assessed the Dual-Pathway Model of Respect by utilizing a modified version of the Social Relations Scale [10,38]. Our modifications to the Social Relations Scale involved slightly rewording each item so that the focus was on the participant’s perception of their romantic partner’s respect for them rather than perceived respect from others in general. The modified version of the Social Relations Scale captured status-based respect (8 items; e.g., “Most of the time I feel that my partner thinks highly of my abilities and talents” [α = 0.95]) and inclusion-based respect (9 items; e.g., “Most of the time I feel that my partner feels warmly towards me” [α = 0.94]). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item using scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The results of a confirmatory factor analysis provided support for the two-dimensional structure of the modified version of the Social Relations Scale.

To measure the perceptions of romantic relationships, we employed the Investment Model Scale [23] which captures four dimensions: satisfaction (5 items; e.g., “My relationship is close to ideal” [α = 0.91]), investment (5 items; e.g., “I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose” [α = 0.71]), quality of alternatives (5 items; e.g., “People other than my partner are very appealing” [α = 0.83]), and commitment (7 items; e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner” [α = 0.92]). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item using scales that ranged from 0 (do not agree at all) to 8 (agree completely).

2.2. Data Analysis

We conducted parallel multiple mediation analyses because we expected indicators of relationship functioning to mediate the associations that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with commitment. Because of their overlap, we were concerned that including status-based respect and inclusion-based respect in the same analysis might make it difficult to understand how they were associated with commitment. This prompted us to conduct separate parallel multiple mediation analyses in which status-based respect and inclusion-based respect served as the predictor in their own models. We used model 4 of the PROCESS macro [39] in conjunction with SPSS version 29 [40] to conduct these parallel multiple mediation analyses. All of the variables were standardized to enhance the interpretability of the coefficients. We verified that the basic assumptions for these analyses were met prior to conducting these analyses (e.g., normally distributed residuals, homoscedasticity of the residuals, the absence of multicollinearity). For example, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were less than 2.17, which suggests that multicollinearity was not a concern. It is important to note that although we used mediational analyses to conceptualize the associations between these variables, we do not intend to infer causality because we are dealing with cross-sectional data that are correlational in nature.

2.3. Results

The correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics can be found in

Table 1. Study 1: intercorrelations and descriptive statistics.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Status-based respect	—
2. Inclusion-based respect	0.89 ***	—
3. Satisfaction	0.71 ***	0.73 ***	—
4. Investment	0.37 ***	0.41 ***	0.40 ***	—
5. Quality of alternatives	−0.31 ***	−0.31 ***	−0.36 ***	−0.20 **	—
6. Commitment	0.65 ***	0.69 ***	0.77 ***	0.44 ***	−0.40 ***	—
Mean	5.90	5.85	7.08	6.02	2.91	7.31
Standard deviation	1.12	1.04	1.14	1.43	2.09	1.22
Skewness	−1.02	−1.22	−1.49	−0.61	0.31	−1.85
Kurtosis	0.27	0.51	1.57	0.17	−0.90	2.27

** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

. The results of the parallel multiple mediation analyses are presented in Figure 1. Status-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (a₁ = 0.71, SE = 0.05, t = 14.12, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.61,0.81], f² = 1.01) and a medium positive association with investment (a₂ = 0.37, SE = 0.07, t = 5.67, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.24,0.50], f² = 0.16), whereas it had a small negative association with the quality of alternatives (a₃ = −0.31, SE = 0.07, t = −4.65, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.45,−0.18], f² = 0.11). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, status-based respect had a positive total association with commitment that was large in magnitude (c_1′ = 0.65, SE = 0.05, t = 11.98, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.54,0.76], f² = 0.72) and this association persisted when the mediators were included in the model even though it was reduced in magnitude (c₁ = 0.16, SE = 0.06, t = 2.66, p = 0.009, CI_95%[0.04,0.28], f² = 0.03). There was also support for Hypothesis 2 such that status-based respect had positive indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction (a₁b₁ = 0.40, SE = 0.05, z = 7.56, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.27,0.56]), investment (a₂b₂ = 0.05, SE = 0.02, z = 2.53, p = 0.012, CI_95%[0.01,0.10]), and quality of alternatives (a₃b₃ = 0.04, SE = 0.02, z = 2.21, p = 0.027, CI_95%[0.01,0.07]).

Inclusion-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (a₄ = 0.73, SE = 0.05, t = 15.03, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.63,0.83], f² = 1.14) and a medium positive association with investment (a₅ = 0.41, SE = 0.06, t = 6.34, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.28,0.54], f² = 0.20), whereas it had a small negative association with the quality of alternatives (a₆ = −0.31, SE = 0.07, t = −4.56, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.44,−0.18], f² = 0.10). Consistent with Hypothesis 3, inclusion-based respect had a positive total association with commitment that was large in magnitude (c_2′ = 0.69, SE = 0.05, t = 13.51, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.59,0.79], f² = 0.92) and this association persisted when the mediators were included in the model, even though it was reduced in magnitude (c₂ = 0.23, SE = 0.06, t = 3.69, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.11,0.35], f² = 0.07). There was also support for Hypothesis 4 such that inclusion-based respect had positive indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction (a₄b₄ = 0.38, SE = 0.05, z = 7.15, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.25,0.51]), investment (a₅b₅ = 0.04, SE = 0.02, z = 2.23, p = 0.026, CI_95%[0.01,0.07]), and the quality of alternatives (a₆b₆ = 0.05, SE = 0.02, z = 2.35, p = 0.019, CI_95%[0.01,0.09]).

2.4. Discussion

These outcomes were consistent with what we had predicted. Status-based respect and inclusion-based respect were positively associated with commitment which provided support for Hypotheses 1 and 3. There was also support for Hypotheses 2 and 4 because status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had positive indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction, investment, and quality of alternatives.

3. Study 2

We examined whether the perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect from romantic partners would have similar associations with romantic commitment for community members. This was important because it allowed us to examine whether the findings from Study 1 would apply to somewhat older individuals who tended to be involved in romantic relationships of longer duration compared to undergraduates.

3.1. Materials and Methods

3.1.1. Participants and Procedure

This sample consisted of 312 community members recruited through Prolific. These participants needed to have been in a committed heterosexual relationship for at least three months. As in Study 1, we conducted a power analysis for indirect effects using Monte Carlo simulations to calculate the necessary sample size for this study [37]. Based on the associations between the variables that were observed in Study 1, the results of the power analysis revealed that we required a sample of at least 205 participants in order to test our hypotheses with a power of at least 0.80 and α = 0.05. However, we decided to oversample in order to increase the statistical power of the study. More specifically, we used a financially based stopping rule such that we collected data in small batches until we exhausted the funds that had been allocated for this study. Data were excluded for 48 participants using the same criteria as Study 1. The final 264 participants (108 men and 156 women) had a mean age of 32.38 years (SD = 10.18 [range = 18–77 years]). The final participants were in relationships for an average of 6.81 years (SD = 7.44 [range: 3 months–59 years]); 51% of them were married, 26% were dating, 16% were cohabiting, and 7% were engaged.

3.1.2. Measures

As in Study 1, we used a modified version of the Social Relations Scale to capture status-based respect (α = 0.88) and inclusion-based respect (α = 0.86) as well as the Investment Model Scale to capture satisfaction (α = 0.89), investment (α = 0.72), the quality of alternatives (α = 0.82), and commitment (α = 0.85).

3.2. Data Analysis

As in Study 1, we used model 4 of the PROCESS macro [39] in conjunction with SPSS version 29 [40] to conduct parallel multiple mediation analyses because we expected the indicators of relationship functioning to mediate the associations that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with commitment. We verified that the basic assumptions for these analyses were met prior to conducting these analyses. For example, the VIF values were less than 1.44, which suggests that multicollinearity was not a concern. It is important to reiterate that although we used mediational analyses to conceptualize the associations between these variables, we do not intend to infer causality because we are dealing with cross-sectional data that are correlational in nature.

3.3. Results

The correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics can be found in

Table 2. Study 2: intercorrelations and descriptive statistics.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Status-based respect	—
2. Inclusion-based respect	0.68 ***	—
3. Satisfaction	0.52 ***	0.61 ***	—
4. Investment	0.07	0.11	0.17 **	—
5. Quality of alternatives	−0.12 *	−0.19 **	−0.21 ***	−0.21 ***	—
6. Commitment	0.30 ***	0.45 ***	0.44 ***	0.29 ***	−0.58 ***	—
Mean	5.84	5.81	6.67	6.05	3.24	7.35
Standard deviation	0.77	0.73	1.11	1.33	1.93	0.89
Skewness	−0.74	−0.93	−1.14	−0.75	0.37	−1.45
Kurtosis	0.66	0.86	1.45	−0.02	−0.75	1.17

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

. The results of the parallel multiple mediation analyses are presented in Figure 2. Status-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (a₁ = 0.52, SE = 0.05, t = 9.94, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.42,0.63], f² = 0.38), whereas it had a small negative association with the quality of alternatives (a₃ = −0.12, SE = 0.06, t = −1.97, p = 0.049, CI_95%[−0.24,0.00], f² = 0.02). Status-based respect was not associated with investment (a₂ = 0.07, SE = 0.06, t = 1.11, p = 0.269, CI_95%[−0.05,0.19], f² = 0.01). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, status-based respect had a small positive total association with commitment (c_1′ = 0.30, SE = 0.06, t = 5.14, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.19,0.42], f² = 0.10), but this association did not persist when the mediators were included in the model (c₁ = 0.09, SE = 0.05, t = 1.71, p = 0.088, CI_95%[−0.01,0.20], f² = 0.01). There was also partial support for Hypothesis 2 such that status-based respect had a positive indirect association with commitment through satisfaction (a₁b₁ = 0.14, SE = 0.03, z = 4.48, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.08,0.22]). However, status-based respect did not have the expected indirect associations with commitment through investment (a₂b₂ = 0.01, SE = 0.01, z = 0.99, p = 0.324, CI_95%[−0.01,0.03]) or the quality of alternatives (a₃b₃ = 0.06, SE = 0.03, z = 1.93, p = 0.054, CI_95%[0.00,0.12]).

Inclusion-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (a₄ = 0.61, SE = 0.05, t = 12.36, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.51,0.70], f² = 0.58), whereas it had a small negative association with the quality of alternatives (a₆ = −0.19, SE = 0.06, t = −3.14, p = 0.002, CI_95%[−0.31,−0.07], f² = 0.04). Inclusion-based respect was not associated with investment (a₅ = 0.11, SE = 0.06, t = 1.81, p = 0.072, CI_95%[−0.01,0.23], f² = 0.01). Consistent with Hypothesis 3, inclusion-based respect had a medium positive total association with commitment (c_2′ = 0.45, SE = 0.06, t = 8.16, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.34,0.56], f² = 0.25) and this association persisted when the mediators were included in the model even though it was reduced in magnitude (c₂ = 0.24, SE = 0.06, t = 4.22, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.13,0.35], f² = 0.07). There was also partial support for Hypothesis 4 such that inclusion-based respect had positive indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction (a₄b₄ = 0.11, SE = 0.04, z = 3.14, p = 0.002, CI_95%[0.03,0.19]) and the quality of alternatives (a₆b₆ = 0.09, SE = 0.03, z = 2.99, p = 0.003, CI_95%[0.03,0.15]). However, inclusion-based respect did not have the expected indirect association with commitment through investment (a₅b₅ = 0.01, SE = 0.01, z = 1.48, p = 0.139, CI_95%[0.00,0.04]).

3.4. Discussion

The results were largely in line with what we had predicted. Status-based respect was related to commitment (Hypothesis 1). However, this association did not emerge when the mediators were included in the model. There was partial support for Hypothesis 2. Satisfaction mediated the association that status-based respect had with commitment, whereas investment and the quality of alternatives did not mediate this association. The limited role that status-based respect has in romantic relationships may be consistent with previous literature. That is, the communal nature of many romantic relationships may limit the influence of status-based respect in these relationships.

Similarly to Study 1, inclusion-based respect was linked with commitment (Hypothesis 3). Inclusion-based respect had indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction and quality of alternatives but not through investment, providing some support for Hypothesis 4. The influence that inclusion-based respect has in romantic relationships may align with the previous literature, suggesting that inclusion-based respect is especially important for communal relationships such as romantic relationships.

4. Study 3

Our goal was to build on the previous findings by examining whether particular situations where individuals felt disrespected by their romantic partner would influence their perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect. For example, this would allow us to determine whether individuals tend to think of issues surrounding disrespect in romantic relationships as primarily impacting their perceptions of status-based respect or inclusion-based respect.

4.1. Materials and Methods

4.1.1. Participants and Procedure

This sample consisted of 242 undergraduates. These participants needed to have been in a committed heterosexual relationship for at least three months. There are no clear strategies for estimating the necessary sample size for serial parallel multiple mediation analyses, so we relied on a time-based stopping rule to determine the sample size such that we collected data from as many participants as possible during the course of two consecutive academic semesters. Participants were randomly assigned to recall a time when they felt either disrespected by their romantic partner (i.e., “Please recall a particular situation in which you felt highly disrespected by your romantic partner”) or respected by their romantic partner (i.e., “Please recall a particular situation in which you felt highly respected by your romantic partner”). While focusing on the recalled situation, participants provided a brief description of the situation and their reactions to this situation. Data were excluded for 55 participants using the same criteria as Studies 1 and 2. The final 187 participants (34 men and 153 women) had a mean age of 20.47 years (SD = 3.84 [range = 18–40 years]). The final participants were in relationships for an average of 2.31 years (SD = 2.32 [range: 3 months–17 years]); 84% of them were dating, 7% were married, 7% were cohabiting, and 2% were engaged.

4.1.2. Measures

A modified version of the Social Relations Scale was used to capture the perceptions of status-based respect (α = 0.97) and inclusion-based respect (α = 0.94) during the recalled situation (e.g., “During the situation, I felt that my partner valued my opinions and ideas”). We also used a modified version of the Investment Model Scale to capture satisfaction (α = 0.97), investment (α = 0.79), the quality of alternatives (α = 0.87), and commitment (α = 0.95) during the recalled situation (e.g., “During the situation, I felt that I was committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner”).

4.2. Data Analysis

We expected the recalled situation (disrespectful vs. respectful) to influence perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect. Then, we expected the perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect to have associations with commitment that would be mediated by satisfaction, investment, and the quality of alternatives. As a result, we used serial parallel multiple mediation to analyze these data. More specifically, we included condition (disrespect vs. respect) as our predictor, and perceived respect (status-based respect or inclusion-based respect) as our primary mediator, indicators of romantic relationship functioning as our secondary mediators, and commitment as our outcome. We used a custom model for the PROCESS macro [39] in conjunction with SPSS version 29 [40] to conduct these serial parallel multiple mediation analyses. As in the previous studies, we verified that the basic assumptions for these analyses were met prior to conducting these analyses. For example, the VIF values were less than 3.10, which suggests that multicollinearity was not a concern.

4.3. Results

Table 3. Study 3: intercorrelations and descriptive statistics.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Status-based respect	—	0.79 **	0.67 **	0.19	−0.18	0.66 **
2. Inclusion-based respect	0.88 **	—	0.70 **	0.25 *	−0.14	0.57 **
3. Satisfaction	0.60 **	0.66 **	—	0.36 **	−0.24 *	0.77 **
4. Investment	0.23 *	0.25 *	0.44 **	—	−0.10	0.36 **
5. Quality of alternatives	−0.04	−0.14	−0.42 **	−0.11	—	−0.37 **
6. Commitment	0.46 **	0.53 **	0.80 **	0.44 **	−0.57 **	—
Mean disrespect	3.26	3.50	3.63	4.94	2.62	5.00
Standard deviation disrespect	1.71	1.63	2.70	1.92	2.24	2.46
Skewness disrespect	0.40	0.48	0.21	−0.23	0.58	−0.44
Kurtosis disrespect	−0.73	−0.64	−1.28	−0.58	−0.64	−0.86
Mean respect	5.81	5.56	6.65	5.25	1.79	7.05
Standard deviation respect	1.26	1.17	1.83	1.82	2.05	1.50
Skewness respect	−0.82	−0.73	−1.57	−0.27	1.26	−1.68
Kurtosis respect	−0.71	−0.73	1.71	−0.61	0.88	1.77

Note. The values below the diagonal are taken from participants in the disrespect condition, whereas the values above the diagonal are taken from participants in the respect condition. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

shows the correlations and descriptive statistics. Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 3, status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had very large positive correlations with commitment. These associations emerged in the disrespect condition as well as the respect condition.

As shown in

Table 4. Study 3: comparisons of the disrespect and respect conditions.

	Disrespect Condition		Respect Condition
	M	SD	M	SD	t
Status-based respect	3.26	1.71	5.81	1.26	−11.60 **
Inclusion-based respect	3.50	1.63	5.56	1.17	−9.90 **
Satisfaction	3.63	2.70	6.65	1.83	−8.93 **
Investment	4.94	1.92	5.25	1.82	−1.13
Quality of alternatives	2.62	2.24	1.79	2.05	2.63 *
Commitment	5.00	2.46	7.05	1.50	−6.87 **

* p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.

, participants in the disrespect condition reported lower levels of status-based respect, inclusion-based respect, satisfaction, and commitment as well as higher levels of quality of alternatives compared with those in the respect condition. Participants in the disrespect condition were no different than those in the respect condition in terms of investment.

The results of the serial parallel multiple mediation analyses are presented in Figure 3. The manipulation of disrespect had a large negative association with status-based respect (a₁ = −0.65, SE = 0.06, t = −11.60, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.76,−0.54], f² = 0.73), but it was not associated with satisfaction (a₂ = −0.10, SE = 0.06, t = −1.65, p = 0.101, CI_95%[−0.23,0.02], f² = 0.01), investment (a₃ = 0.09, SE = 0.09, t = 1.00, p = 0.318, CI_95%[−0.09,0.28], f² = 0.01), or the quality of alternatives (a₄ = −0.12, SE = 0.09, t = −1.30, p = 0.197, CI_95%[−0.31,0.06], f² = 0.01). Status-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (d₁ = 0.69, SE = 0.06, t = 10.82, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.56,0.81], f² = 0.64) and a small positive association with investment (d₂ = 0.27, SE = 0.09, t = 2.89, p = 0.004, CI_95%[0.09,0.46], f² = 0.05), but it was not associated with the quality of alternatives (d₃ = −0.12, SE = 0.09, t = −1.30, p = 0.197, CI_95%[−0.31,0.06], f² = 0.01). There was partial support for Hypothesis 2 such that the manipulation of disrespect had an indirect association with commitment through satisfaction via status-based respect (a₁d₁b₂ = −0.28, SE = 0.05, z = −6.17, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.40,−0.19]). However, the manipulation of disrespect did not have indirect associations with commitment through investment (a₁d₂b₃ = −0.02, SE = 0.01, z = −1.58, p = 0.057, CI_95%[−0.04,0.00]) or the quality of alternatives (a₁d₃b₄ = −0.02, SE = 0.02, z = −1.25, p = 0.106, CI_95%[−0.05,0.01]) via status-based respect.

The manipulation of disrespect had a large negative association with inclusion-based respect (a₅ = −0.59, SE = 0.06, t = −9.90, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.70,−0.47], f² = 0.53) and a small negative association with satisfaction (a₆ = −0.14, SE = 0.06, t = −2.46, p = 0.015, CI_95%[−0.25,−0.03], f² = 0.03), but it was not associated with investment (a₇ = 0.10, SE = 0.09, t = 1.11, p = 0.270, CI_95%[−0.08,0.27], f² = 0.01) or the quality of alternatives (a₈ = 0.09, SE = 0.09, t = 1.04, p = 0.302, CI_95%[−0.08,0.27], f² = 0.01). Inclusion-based respect had a large positive association with satisfaction (d₄ = 0.70, SE = 0.06, t = 12.40, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.59,0.81], f² = 0.83) and a small positive association with investment (d₅ = 0.31, SE = 0.09, t = 3.48, p < 0.001, CI_95%[0.13,0.48], f² = 0.07), but it was not associated with the quality of alternatives (d₆ = −0.17, SE = 0.09, t = −1.88, p = 0.062, CI_95%[−0.34,0.01], f² = 0.02). There was partial support for Hypothesis 4 such that the manipulation of disrespect had an indirect association with commitment through satisfaction via inclusion-based respect (a₅d₄b₆ = −0.27, SE = 0.05, z = −6.09, p < 0.001, CI_95%[−0.39,−0.18]). However, the manipulation of disrespect did not have indirect associations with commitment through investment (a₅d₅b₇ = −0.02, SE = 0.01, z = −1.64, p = 0.051, CI_95%[−0.04,0.00]) or the quality of alternatives (a₅d₆b₈ = −0.02, SE = 0.01, z = −1.63, p = 0.052, CI_95%[−0.05,0.00]) via inclusion-based respect.

4.4. Discussion

Study 3 revealed that disrespect had important implications for romantic relationship functioning. As expected, individuals reported that disrespectful interactions with their romantic partners reduced the extent to which they perceived status-based respect and inclusion-based respect from their partners. The only indirect associations that emerged revealed that the manipulation of disrespect had serial indirect associations with commitment through satisfaction via status-based respect and inclusion-based respect. That is, the manipulation of disrespect impacted perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect, which, in turn, were associated with commitment through satisfaction.

5. General Discussion

These studies considered the roles of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect in romantic relationships. The results were largely consistent with our predictions. For example, status-based respect was positively associated with commitment in each study (Hypothesis 1). In addition, status-based respect had an association with commitment that was mediated by satisfaction across the present studies which provides partial support for Hypothesis 2. This pattern may be consistent with previous research showing that status-based respect tends to be influential in contexts where there is greater differentiation between individuals in terms of power and authority (e.g., teacher–student relationships) [9]. However, romantic relationships are often relatively communal in nature which may limit the importance of status-based respect for the functioning of these particular relationships.

Inclusion-based respect had the expected positive association with commitment across the present studies, which provides clear support for Hypothesis 3. In addition, there was partial support for Hypothesis 4 because satisfaction mediated the association that inclusion-based respect had with commitment. This pattern suggests that experiencing inclusion-based respect from one’s partner may promote positive views of the relationship, which, in turn, lead to greater commitment. The importance of inclusion-based respect for romantic commitment may be due, at least in part, to the communal nature of romantic relationships. This fits with earlier research showing that inclusion-based respect tends to be highly influential in the functioning of communal relationships such as peer relationships [10].

An intriguing pattern that emerged from these studies is that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had somewhat stronger zero-order correlations with commitment among undergraduate students (Studies 1 and 3) than community members (Study 2). One potential reason for these particularly strong associations for the undergraduate students may be that respect is particularly important for commitment during the earliest stages of relationships since the relationships for the undergraduate students tended to be shorter in duration and less committed than those of the community members. For example, the mean relationship length was less than 2.5 years in Studies 1 and 3, whereas it was nearly 7 years in Study 2. Additionally, fewer than 7% of participants were married in Studies 1 and 3, whereas more than 50% of participants were married in Study 2. It is possible that individuals in relationships that are longer in duration and involve greater commitment may not be as impacted by their perceptions of status-based respect or inclusion-based respect. Another possibility is that the relative youth of the participants in Studies 1 and 3 could be a factor in the stronger connections that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with romantic relationship functioning (i.e., the average age was 20 years in Studies 1 and 3, whereas it was 32 years in Study 2). For example, it is possible that relatively young participants may have been particularly attuned to indicators of respect which may explain the inconsistent associations that emerged with the indicators of romantic functioning across studies (e.g., respect was not associated with investment in Study 2 or the quality of alternatives in Study 3). Future studies could benefit from looking at the kinds of cues that indicate status-based respect and inclusion-based respect in romantic relationships across the life span.

It is also important to acknowledge the consistent role that satisfaction played in mediating the associations that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect had with romantic commitment. This may be due to individuals who feel respected by their partners experiencing greater safety, trust, and emotional security within the relationship. When respect is consistently expressed within the relationship, it may foster a climate of mutual appreciation and understanding that makes individuals more inclined to prioritize the partnership and engage in behaviors that promote commitment, such as long-term planning and a willingness to work through challenges. In contrast, respect had weaker and less consistent indirect associations with commitment through investment and quality of alternatives. This suggests that perceptions of respect may have particularly important repercussions for the positive feelings a person has about their relationship. In contrast, perceptions of respect—or disrespect—from one’s partner may not influence how much an individual believes they have already invested in the relationship or the quality of other potential romantic partners in their immediate social environment. Thus, satisfaction may serve as an especially important channel that helps explain why respect is positively linked to romantic commitment, as it reflects the quality of the relationship and the emotional connection that underlies the commitment itself. This extends previous research concerning the Investment Model by suggesting that perceived respect may serve as an input into the factors that promote romantic commitment with this connection being particularly strong and consistent for satisfaction.

It is also important to note that the present studies provided additional support for the Investment Model. That is, satisfaction and investment were positively associated with commitment across each study, whereas the quality of alternatives was negatively associated with commitment in each study. This pattern aligns with previous studies providing support for the Investment Model [23,26,27,28,29,30]. Further, the present results align with the observation that, although the investment and the quality of alternatives are consistently associated with commitment, satisfaction often has a particularly strong association with commitment [31].

The results of these studies may have practical implications for romantic couples who are experiencing difficulties in their relationships. For example, therapists who are working with couples may be able to leverage these findings to encourage partners to actively cultivate mutual respect, both in terms of valuing each other’s achievements and contributions (status-based respect) and fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion within the relationship (inclusion-based respect). By addressing the deficits in these areas, therapists may be able to enhance satisfaction, which, in turn, may strengthen their overall commitment. This approach offers a practical framework for helping couples who are experiencing difficulties by emphasizing the importance of respect—in its various forms—as a foundational element for building and sustaining a satisfying and committed relationship.

5.1. Limitations

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current studies. The sole reliance on self-report measures is one limitation of the present studies. This is an important limitation because individuals may have limited insights into their own experiences of respect or be unwilling to provide truthful information regarding the extent to which they feel respected by their partner. It is also possible that the perceptions offered by the participants in the present studies may have differed from the perceptions of their romantic partners. For example, some individuals may have perceived less respect from their partners than their partners actually experienced. It would be informative in future research to collect information from both partners in order to understand the connections that expressed respect and perceived respect have with romantic relationship functioning.

Another limitation involves the uncertain causality between perceptions of respect and romantic relationship functioning. For example, it is possible that other causal sequences could be responsible for the connections that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect have with romantic outcomes. One possibility is that individuals who are satisfied in their relationships may experience greater commitment, which, in turn, could influence the amount of respect they perceive from their partners. That is, individuals who are content with their relationship may interpret ambiguous behaviors by their partner as more indicative of respect compared to individuals who are dissatisfied with their relationship.

5.2. Future Directions

The current research has shed light on the roles that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect have in relationships. Future research could improve the understanding of these types of respect in the romantic context. For example, the present results suggest that inclusion-based respect may have particularly strong associations with long-term romantic relationship functioning. However, it is possible that status-based respect could play an important role in other types of romantic relationships (e.g., short-term romantic relationships). It would be helpful for future studies to consider the roles that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect have with outcomes in an even wider array of romantic contexts.

Future studies could also take a look at a broader range of populations. The present research was limited to heterosexual individuals from the United States. Therefore, it would be useful for future research to examine whether similar patterns would emerge in more diverse samples. For example, it would be intriguing to investigate whether similar patterns would arise in interactions amongst LGBTQ+ individuals because those relationships are often less reliant on gender-based stereotypes for making decisions (e.g., which member of the couple will be primarily responsible for doing certain tasks around the house) than heterosexual relationships. It would also be informative to extend this research to a broader array of ages. This is important because Studies 1 and 3 focused exclusively on college students, which resulted in those samples being relatively young (i.e., the average age of participants in those studies was 20 years) and involved in relationships that were relatively new (i.e., the average duration of those relationships was two years). Although Study 2 focused on a sample of community members, it would still be beneficial for future research to gain a better understanding of the connection that respect has with romantic relationship outcomes in adults beyond emerging adulthood and from a wider array of socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, would status-based respect and inclusion-based respect differ in their connections with commitment for middle-aged adults without college degrees? It would also be informative for future studies to examine these associations in cultures outside of the United States. It is also quite possible that the connections between perceived respect and romantic outcomes may differ between cultures. For example, it could be the case that status-based respect may have a stronger connection with commitment in cultures with especially strong patriarchal structures.

Another direction for future research would be to consider what role–if any—gender plays in the associations between perceived respect and commitment. We did not examine gender as a moderator in the present studies due to concerns that our samples would not be large enough to detect any interactions involving gender based on previous observations that moderation effects are often quite small in magnitude [41]. As a result, it would be helpful for future research to take into account the potential role of gender in the connections that status-based respect and inclusion-based respect have with romantic relationship functioning. It is possible that men and women may respond somewhat differently to indicators of respect—or disrespect—from their romantic partners. For example, the association between perceived status-based respect and commitment could be stronger for men than it is for women. It would be beneficial for future studies concerning this topic to include even larger samples with a more even balance of men and women in order to gain an understanding of whether gender plays a role in the connections between perceived respect and commitment in romantic relationships.

6. Conclusions

The current studies are the first to examine the connections between a multidimensional conceptualization of respect with commitment in romantic relationships. Across three studies, we evaluated the associations that the perceptions of status-based respect and inclusion-based respect from the romantic partner had with romantic commitment. Both status-based respect and inclusion-based respect were associated with commitment. When combined, the findings of the current studies indicate that people who feel disrespected in their romantic relationships tend to be less satisfied with these relationships, which, in turn, may lead to them being less committed to maintaining their relationships. This suggests that respect—whether those feelings of respect are based on status or inclusion—may serve as an important foundation for the development of romantic commitment.