Trust Heals, Commitment Hurts: Disentangling Predictors of Coping with Interpersonal Betrayal

Abstract

In the forgiveness literature, trust and commitment have each emerged as important predictors of outcomes following transgressions. However, their effects are usually estimated separately. Given that these variables tend to be highly correlated, and more importantly given the strong theoretical links between trust and commitment, one contribution that can still be made to the forgiveness literature is disentangling their effects. There has also been less investigation concerning the way in which these predictors affect short-term distress—using variables such as rumination and negative emotion as outcomes in their own right. In particular, detrimental associations of commitment with these variables were hypothesised. Here, I investigate the effects of trust and commitment simultaneously, on both forgiveness and forgiveness-related negative emotions, in the wake of an interpersonal transgression. The research had two primary goals. Firstly, to concurrently examine the effects of trust and commitment on emotional reactions to an interpersonal transgression, examining the effects each had while statistically controlling for the other. A second goal was the investigation of mediating variables, to support or refute several proposed explanations for the effects which emerged. Study 1 used a hypothetical design, where participants imagined a transgression being committed by their actual partner. Study 2 employed a recall approach, investigating the effects of trust and commitment using actual transgressions. Study 2 also broadened the context to include non-romantic relationships. Study 3 used a prospective design where trust and commitment were measured before the hurtful event occurred, to reduce the possibility of bi-directional associations. Across these three studies I found that, when controlling for commitment, higher trust was associated with less distress. However, when controlling for trust, higher commitment was associated with increased distress. Notably, these opposing effects did not occur when forgiveness was used as the outcome variable. The unique effects of trust on forgiveness were consistently beneficial. However, the unique effects of commitment on forgiveness were less consistent, including a mix of non-significant and beneficial associations. Several related explanations for these effects were proposed and tested. The beneficial effects of trust were found to be mediated by exploitation risk and responsibility/blame attributions. For the detrimental effects of commitment on distress, evidence refuted the suggestion that the observed effects were mediated by an increase in the value of the relationship. However, evidence provided partial support for the idea that, after controlling for trust, more committed individuals tended to be in relationships characterised by non-mutual dependence, and that this was able to explain the detrimental effects observed. The primary limitations of the research are the need for further experimental investigation, and slight power concerns due to a high drop-out rate in Study 3. The research has useful implications for understanding the process and experience of betrayal and forgiveness, and accordingly is primarily of interest to forgiveness researchers and theorists. However, the work may also have some relevance for the broader literatures on conflict, trust, commitment, and adult attachment. Finally, it suggests avenues for better integrating the largely independent work on trust and commitment within the forgiveness literature.