Little research has addressed age-gap romantic relationships (romantic involvements characterized by substantial age differences between partners). Drawing on evolutionary and socio-cultural perspectives, the present study examined normative beliefs and commitment processes among heterosexual women involved in age-gap and age-concordant relationships. Results indicated that woman-older partners were the most satisfied with and committed to their relationships, relative to woman-younger and similarly aged partners, consistent with socio-cultural predictions. Additional analyses revealed that satisfaction, alternatives, investments, and normative beliefs accounted for differing degrees of variance in the prediction of commitment among age-gap and similarly aged partners, with greater explained variance among partners of similar ages. Thus, among female heterosexual age-gap partners, factors beyond traditional predictors of commitment may be important in understanding the maintenance of these relationships.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgnewC. R.LovingT. J.DrigotasS. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057.
2.
ArriagaX. B.AgnewC. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203.
3.
BanksC. A.ArnoldP. (2001). Opinions towards sexual partners with a large age difference. Marriage & Family Review, 33 (4), 5–18.
4.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CowanG. (1984). The double standard in age-discrepant relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 17–23.
7.
DonaghueN.FallonB. J. (2003). Gender-role self-stereotyping and the relationship between equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Sex Roles, 48, 217–230.
8.
DriscollR.DavisK. E.LipetzM. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 1–10.
9.
EtcheverryP. E.AgnewC. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409–428.
10.
GoldE. B.BrombergJ.CrawfordS.SamuelsS.GreendaleG. A.HarlowS. D. (2001). Factors associated with age at natural menopause in a multiethnic sample of midlife women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153, 865–874.
11.
GoodfriendW.AgnewC. R. (2006). Sunken costs and thwarted plans: Clarifying and expanding the investment construct in close relationships. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
12.
GoslingS. D.VazireS.SrivastavaS.JohnO. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
13.
GrootW.Van Den BrinkH. M. (2002). Age and education differences in marriages and their effects on life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 153–165.
14.
KaslowF. (1989). Sexuality in May-December marriages. In KantorD.OkunB. (Eds.), Intimate environments: Sex, intimacy, and gender in families (pp. 321–345). New York: Guilford.
15.
KenrickD. T.GabrielidisC.KeefeR. C.CorneliusJ. S. (1996). Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 1499–1511.
16.
KenrickD. T.KeefeR. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.
17.
KrautR.OlsonJ.BanajiM.BruckmanA.CohenJ.CouperM. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs' advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117.
18.
KurdekL. A. (1995). Assessing multiple determinants of relationship commitment in cohabiting gay, cohabiting lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Family Relations, 44, 261–266.
19.
LeB.AgnewC. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.
20.
LehmillerJ. J.AgnewC. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51.
21.
LehmillerJ. J.AgnewC. R. (2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049.
22.
McWherterP. R. (1993). A phenomenology of communication in age-gap marital relationships. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Speech Communication, Southern Illinois University.
23.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
24.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An Investment Model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.
25.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
26.
ShibazakiK.BrennanK. A. (1998). When birds of different feathers flock together: A preliminary comparison of intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 248–256.
27.
SprecherS. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 318–328.
28.
WalsterE.WalsterG. W.BerscheidE. (1978). Equity: Theory and research, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
WinnK. I.CrawfordD. W.FischerJ. L. (1991). Equity and commitment in romance versus friendship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 301–314.
