Justin J. Lehmiller

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.

The present research examined how perceived marginalization of one’s romantic relationship is associated with level of future commitment to and stability of that involvement. Results from a 7‐month longitudinal study of romantically involved individuals (N= 215) revealed that perceived social network marginalization at Time 1 predicted breakup status at Time 2, with commitment level at Time 1 fully mediating this association. Among those individuals whose relationships remained intact, social network marginalization predicted Time 2 commitment above and beyond satisfaction, alternatives, and investments. Additional analyses revealed that perceived general societal marginalization was a less robust predictor of relationship commitment and stability compared to social network marginalization. These findings highlight the important consequences of perceived social disapproval on relationship outcomes.

Both social dominance orientation (SDO) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) are assumed to be general and relatively stable psychological orientations that individuals ‘carry with them’ from context to context, influencing responses to salient forms of intergroup inequality and domination. In two experimental studies we tested the relative stability of SDO (Studies 1 and 2) and RWA (Study 1). That is, we examined whether people who score relatively high on SDO/RWA in one context tend to support intergroup hierarchy and domination in other contexts. To do so, we manipulated the salience of different intergroup relationships before measuring SDO and RWA, and then observed the associations among these constructs and attitudes toward specific intergroup relationships and legitimizing ideologies (support for war, conservatism, heterosexism, and religious fundamentalism). Contrary to the assumption of relative stability, the extent to which SDO and RWA were related to these specific attitudes and ideologies varied markedly depending on the experimental context. These results highlight the contextual basis and meaning of individuals' expressed support for group‐based dominance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.