Abstract

Commitment in relationships as presented through the media of television is an important area of study. It is assumed that prime-time television has an enormous influence on people in our society, and the attitudes and beliefs of social reality are taken out of television by its viewers. The research examined how commitment in relationships is portrayed through an examination of five prime-time television programs. The overall results of the research concluded an average level of commitment. Results leaned neither toward commitment nor non commitment.

Theoretical Basis

The theoretical basis for the research conducted comes from Signorielli and Morgan’s (1990) Cultivation Analysis. They discuss the study of violence on television. Cultural indicators research investigates, "the institutional process underlying the production of media content, images in media content, and relationships between exposure to television’s messages and audience beliefs and behaviors". This research focuses primarily on the content of prime-time and weekend-daytime network dramatic programs (p.15). Content analysis (message systems) "identifies and assesses the most recurrent and stable patterns in television content, emphasizing the consistent images, portrayals, and values that cut across most program genres" (p.16). The research that was conducted used the same type of analysis, however commitment replaced violence as the target of the study.

Objective

Is there a high or low level of commitment portrayed in television programs that air from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday?

Defining Commitment

Kelley (1983) defines commitment in terms of a person expected to persist until the underlying goal is achieved (p.287). "A person committed to a relationship is expected to stay in that relationship, ‘through thick and thin,’ ‘for better and for worse,’ and so on" (p.287). Robert Sternberg (1988) uses the same definition of commitment in his work (p.46).

Types of Commitment

There are two types of commitment, short term and long term. Short term is the decision to love a certain other and long term is commitment to maintain that love (Sternberg,1988, p.46). Sternberg uses love as his basis for commitment. There are four types of love, all that involve commitment: Empty Love Commitment-people who have been married or together a long time, that lack the passion and intimacy they once had. Companionate Love- long term committed friendship, commitment without fear of attack or reprisal. Fatuous Love- passion and commitment without intimacy, an on-the-whim type relationship where a couple is married in a month or so. This is where the couple committed themselves to one another on the basis of passion without the stabilizing element of intimate involvement. Last, Consummate Love- passion equals intimacy plus commitment, where the couple is close , has great sex, and could not imagine being happy without each other (pp. 54-59).

Mark Knapp and Eric Taylor (1994) introduce their work by their perceptions on commitment. Sternberg discusses the types of love involving commitment where Knapp and Taylor use commitment on the basis of individual feelings. The first; "want to" type of commitment, where a personal choice, desire and positive feelings towards one’s partner can vary from weak to strong; "ought to"- which is obligation to commitment, i.e. marriage or verbal commitment and the anticipated guilt that accompanies a break up; "have to"- where there is no good alternative, where the constraints consist of financial needs, being able to find a new partner, letting go of investments in the relationship, social pressures from family and friends, and greater cost ending than staying in the relationship (p.155).

Pros and Cons of Relationships

Kelley focused on the pros and cons of the relationship as based through causal conditions. The pros being,

The cons are all the conditions that act to push or draw the individual out of the relationship,

Kelley states that we may assume that the individual stays in relationships as long as the pros outweigh the cons or vis versa (p.289).

Knapp and Taylor discuss the dimensions of commitment which can be directly related to what Kelley states. There are six discussed. First, future rewards, where to commit oneself to a relationship is to commit to its future. Also there is expectations of that person providing the relationship with benefits of a lucrative profession (p.156). Second, identification with the relationship which is shared values and goals, when "I" becomes "we". The third, alternatives to relationship where an increase in commitment means a decrease in relationship alternatives will be sought, meaning relationships with other people or jobs or career. Fourth, effort expended which is how we devote our time and energy to something of importance to us, etc. Five, investments in the relationship, where the amount of time spent in the relationship equals the investment. An increase in investment produces an increased commitment (p.157). They state that, "you may stick it out through an unhappy time with someone because you have put so many years already that you don’t want to lose it all by walking out on your investments" (p.158). Six, personal responsibility for commitment, which is how you take personal responsibility for your commitment affects the degree of involvement in a relationship (p.158).

Kelley goes into the reward-cost balance of membership, where each person learns ways and mannerisms and develops a preference for continuing to interact with the now predictable partner rather than new unfamiliar ones. This is where they learn the shared meaning and comfort no other relationship can provide (p.298). He states what the social cost of termination are, loss of good reputation between friends, family and work associates, once the individuals become defined by their social circle as a couple (p.300). Knapp and Taylor also discuss the factors on reporting commitment as circumstances that brought or kept people together, one factor was statements about how actions and evaluations by members of the couples social network (friends, family) were influential (p.172). Zick Rubin (1973) also identifies a couple as being in a committed stage when they participate in confirming activities and other people treat them as a couple and invitations to the couple are sent out instead of to the individual (p.178).

Understanding between partners occurs when clear intentions to continue the relationship, for instance, a person changing his or her behavior to suit the other’s desires, and adopting roles that mesh with the others. The two work out an understanding about what activities they do with or without each other, and what they should or should not do with outsiders, this equals dependence on one another, and this equals attachment to each other (Kelley, p.301). He concludes by tying the phenomenon of love into commitment. Love is, "the caring, needing, trusting, tolerance that are shown in behavior, thoughts, and feelings-reflect the positive factors that draw and keep two people together". The phenomenon of commitment is, the enduring adherence of persons to their close partners- reflect the stable causal conditions that draw and keep people together". These conditions include both positive factors that compromise part of love and stable extraneous conditions, such as social pressures, felt obligations, and investments, that keep a pair together whether or not they feel positively about their relationship (p.312). As discussed earlier in the types of commitment, by Knapp and Taylor, the "want to", "have to" and "ought to" all relate directly to what Kelley states involving extraneous conditions, social pressures, felt obligations, etc. (p.155).

Verbal Expression

Another way to demonstrate commitment is through verbal expression of affection. The Arons (1986) explain briefly the characteristics of a love relationship as: self-disclosure about oneself, tolerance for the less desirable traits of the other, and material evidence through financial support (p.57). Knapp and Taylor also discuss factors on reporting commitment: They are statements about luck, fate, God, the calender, job hiring and firings, and other circumstances which brought or kept people together. Also, statements about various interpersonal transactions including the revelation of important information, their ability to express affection, or their skill in management of conflict, statements comparing some aspect of self, other, or relationship to what ought to occur (p.172). Ruben agrees with the statement of self-disclosure being a risk of intimacy and commitment (p.100). He explains how agreeing to requests is a sign of commitment (p.178).

Confirming and Disconfirming Behaviors

Stewart Tubbs and Sylvia Moss (1977) discuss confirming and disconfirming behavior. They describe confirming behavior as "any behavior that causes another person to value himself more", or any agreeing type of statement. Disconfirming behavior is defined as "behavior that causes people to value themselves less; they reject both the speaker and what he or she has to say (p.130).

There are five types of confirming behavior: Direct Acknowledgment- the other person acknowledges what you have said and gives you a direct verbal response, positive feeling- he or she conveys his or her own positive feeling about what you have just said, clarifying responses- the other person tries to get you to clarify the content of your message, agreeing response- he or she reinforces or affirms what you have already said, supporting response- offers comfort, understanding or reassurance "I know how you feel"(type answer)(p.132).

Disconfirming responses are: Tangential response- Acknowledges your previous comment but quickly shifts the direction of the conversation, impersonal response- marked by intellectual speech and avoidance of the other person, impervious response- disregards you completely, offering neither verbal or nonverbal recognition, irrelevant response- he or she changes the subject as would be the case with tangential, but this time the person makes no attempt to relate that response to your previous comment, interrupting response- cuts you off before you have made your point and does not let you finish, disorganized or incomplete sentences, incongruous response- gives you conflicting verbal and nonverbal messages (p. 132).

Methodology

One episode of each of the following programs: 1) Beverly Hills 90210, 2) Dawson’s Creek, 3)Dharma and Gregg, 4) Party of Five, 5) Felicity, were examined to identify confirming and disconfirming behaviors. A list of these behaviors were taken from Joseph Devito’s (1992) work The Interpersonal Communication Book (p.174), and used to prepare a data sheet(see appendix). The data sheet was used during the viewing of these programs. Each data sheet consisted of eight behaviors ranging from confirming to disconfirming. The measurement was a scale of 1-8, 1 being the highest level of confirming behavior and 8 being the lowest level of commitment behavior. The scores were averaged together meaning the lower the average the more confirming the behavior indicating a higher commitment level.

Each program was then viewed using the data sheet for every couple that appeared in that particular episode. All the couples analyzed are all intimate with one another on some level.

The averages of all the confirming and disconfirming behaviors for every couple in each program were configured (see Results p.12). From these numbers a show average was taken to determine which program had the highest, and lowest, average overall (p.13).

Discussion

The results gathered from the evaluation of the selected programs are related to research conducted on the subject of commitment. What is meant by this is confirming and disconfirming behaviors are the basis of the analysis. Confirming behaviors are assumed to indicate a commitment of some kind between the two individuals involved. As disconfirming behaviors would suggest a non-committal situation.

Signorielli and Morgan’s violence study can be similar in the fact that, their research views the values, portrayals, and images that are cut across television genres. In this study commitment is looked at through the portrayal of the characters in each program.

Prior to doing research, it was expected that the so called "mean world syndrome" of Cultivation Analysis would come across in these programs as being the "non-committal syndrome". It was the assumption of the researcher that television is not a place to find positive images of relationships. Out of the five programs analyzed the results indicated that there is no true lenience to whether television portrays a strong or weak view of commitment.

The scores from the couples in all the shows ranged from 1.25 being highly committed to 6.25 which is virtually non-committed. The overall shows average is around 4, which can be considered neutral in support of commitment.

The work of the Arons, Knapp, Taylor, Tubbs and Moss (see p.7 Verbal Expression & Confirming and Disconfirming Behaviors), can be directly related to the types of characteristics used in the data sheet. All are similar behaviors involving speech, expression of feelings and acknowledgment of the other individual involved, which is considered to be committing to a relationship. Virtually all authors used the same aspects to show commitment. Although none of the literature read used any figures of whether television portrayed a highly committed world or not, all this information was needed to understand what commitment is and how it is examined.

Explanation

To explain why these results were produced is simple. It was an opinion of a single researcher whose assumptions of a non committed world as portrayed through television was expected. Through using the data sheet it in turn resulted in an overall mixed number, leaning neither toward committed or non-committed (confirming or disconfirming), due to the inability of distinguishing a true tendency toward one or the other. The majority of these behaviors were difficult to distinguish in most cases although there were cases where these were easily measurable.

Conclusion

The most important concept to take away from this is that maybe television really is not the violent or infidelity prone medium we all think it is. We all control our lives and what we do: it is how we take the images seen on television and use or not use them, that shapes our values in life.

Commitment has become an obsolete word in the world today, although conducting this research and collecting these data has encouraged the researcher to continue this research or pass it on to someone else to further analyze the true nature of commitment in relationships.

One aspect that might have been added to this study is to gather test results from actual couples. Each couple would take the same data sheet and separately fill it out. The results would be compared and an overall assessment would be made as compared to televisions portrayal in the programs acknowledged. What would also be asked in the questionnaire is whether these shows were viewed by the couples. The purpose of this would be to see if television has any influence at all over our values and true committal behaviors.

References

Aron, Arthur & Elaine N.(1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing.

Devito, Joseph. (1992). The interpersonal communication book. New York; Harper Collins.

Kelley, H.H.(1983). Love and commitment in, Close Relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Knapp, M.L., & Taylor, E.H.(Eds.).(1994). Commitment and its communication in romantic relationships; in, Perspectives on close relationships. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Moss, S., & Tubbs, S. (1977). Human communications. (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Rubin, Zick.(1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc.

Signorielli, N, & Morgan, M. (Eds). (1990). Cultivations analysis: New directions in media effects research. London: Sage Publications.

Sternberg, Robert J. (1988). The triangle of love: Intimacy passion and commitment. New York: Basic Books, Inc.