1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Example items are “I want

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Example items are “I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we encounter” and “I like to think of my partner and me more in terms of `us’ and `we’ than `me’ and `him/her.'” A mean score was used in the analyses and higher scores are indicative of more dedication. Scores could range from 1 to 7. In this sample, the measure was internally consistent with a Cronbach’s alpha () of .88. Constraints–To measure potential constraints, we used several items and scales. First, we assessed whether participants were living with their partners using the item, “Are you and your partner living together? That is, do you share a single address without either of you having a separate place? (no = 0, yes = 1). Second, we asked whether participants had biological children with their current partner (no = 0, yes = 1) and/or by previous partners (no = 0, yes = 1). Third, we used six GGTI298 web subscales from the Commitment Inventory (Stanley Markman, 1992) to assess perceived constraints. These subscales measure social pressure (4 items, = .77, e.g., “It would be difficult for my friends to accept it if I ended the relationship with my partner”), concern for partner’s welfare (3 items, = .48, e.g., “I could not bear the pain it would cause my partner to leave him/her even if I really wanted to”), alternative quality of life (5 items, = .66, e.g., “I would not have trouble supporting myself should this relationship end (reverse-coded)”), structural investments (4 items, = .68, e.g., “I have put a number of tangible, valuable resources into this relationship”), termination procedures (3 items, = .79, e.g., “The steps I would need to take to end this relationship would require a great deal of time and effort”), and availability of alternative partners (4 items, = .63, e.g., “I believe there are many people who would be happy with me as their spouse or partner (reverse-coded)”). The reliability and validity of these subscales have recently been demonstrated in unmarried samples (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, Markman, in press). In the same study, a confirmatory factor analysis supported the validity of measuring each area of constraint commitment separately. Fourth, to measure material constraints, we used The Joint Activities Checklist (Rhoades, Stanley, Markman, 2010). It includes 25 external factors that may serve to reinforce individuals staying together, such as owning a house together, paying for each other’s credit cards, having a pet, having paid for future vacation plans, making home improvementsJ Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 1.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author get Tariquidar ManuscriptRhoades et al.Pagetogether, signing a lease, or having a joint bank account. It was designed as an objective measure of constraints and Pearson correlations demonstrated high within-couple reliability (r = .82) in previous research (Rhoades et al., 2010). Internal consistency was high in the current sample, = .85. A sum of the items checked was used in the analyses, thus scores could range from 0 to 25. Lastly, we measured felt constraint using three items that measure how constrained one feels in a relationship: “I feel trapped in this relationship but I stay because I have too much to lose if I leave,” “I would leave my partner if it was not so difficult to do,” and “I feel stuck in this relationship.” Each was measured on a 1 (strongly disagree) t.1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Example items are “I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we encounter” and “I like to think of my partner and me more in terms of `us’ and `we’ than `me’ and `him/her.'” A mean score was used in the analyses and higher scores are indicative of more dedication. Scores could range from 1 to 7. In this sample, the measure was internally consistent with a Cronbach’s alpha () of .88. Constraints–To measure potential constraints, we used several items and scales. First, we assessed whether participants were living with their partners using the item, “Are you and your partner living together? That is, do you share a single address without either of you having a separate place? (no = 0, yes = 1). Second, we asked whether participants had biological children with their current partner (no = 0, yes = 1) and/or by previous partners (no = 0, yes = 1). Third, we used six subscales from the Commitment Inventory (Stanley Markman, 1992) to assess perceived constraints. These subscales measure social pressure (4 items, = .77, e.g., “It would be difficult for my friends to accept it if I ended the relationship with my partner”), concern for partner’s welfare (3 items, = .48, e.g., “I could not bear the pain it would cause my partner to leave him/her even if I really wanted to”), alternative quality of life (5 items, = .66, e.g., “I would not have trouble supporting myself should this relationship end (reverse-coded)”), structural investments (4 items, = .68, e.g., “I have put a number of tangible, valuable resources into this relationship”), termination procedures (3 items, = .79, e.g., “The steps I would need to take to end this relationship would require a great deal of time and effort”), and availability of alternative partners (4 items, = .63, e.g., “I believe there are many people who would be happy with me as their spouse or partner (reverse-coded)”). The reliability and validity of these subscales have recently been demonstrated in unmarried samples (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, Markman, in press). In the same study, a confirmatory factor analysis supported the validity of measuring each area of constraint commitment separately. Fourth, to measure material constraints, we used The Joint Activities Checklist (Rhoades, Stanley, Markman, 2010). It includes 25 external factors that may serve to reinforce individuals staying together, such as owning a house together, paying for each other’s credit cards, having a pet, having paid for future vacation plans, making home improvementsJ Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 1.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRhoades et al.Pagetogether, signing a lease, or having a joint bank account. It was designed as an objective measure of constraints and Pearson correlations demonstrated high within-couple reliability (r = .82) in previous research (Rhoades et al., 2010). Internal consistency was high in the current sample, = .85. A sum of the items checked was used in the analyses, thus scores could range from 0 to 25. Lastly, we measured felt constraint using three items that measure how constrained one feels in a relationship: “I feel trapped in this relationship but I stay because I have too much to lose if I leave,” “I would leave my partner if it was not so difficult to do,” and “I feel stuck in this relationship.” Each was measured on a 1 (strongly disagree) t.