Endorsement of relationship rituals is associated with greater romantic relationship satisfaction, and increased commitment to the relationship mediates this positive association

Rituals and Nuptials: Relationship Rituals Predict Relationship Satisfaction. Ximena Garcia-Rada, Ovul Sezer, Michael I. Norton. In European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, eds. Maggie Geuens, Mario Pandelaere, and Michel Tuan Pham, Iris. Vermeir, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1700122/volumes/v11e/E-1

ABSTRACT
Across three studies, we show that endorsement of relationship rituals is associated with greater romantic relationship satisfaction, and that increased commitment to the relationship mediates this positive association. Additionally, we document a critical facet that predicts the psychological impact of relationship rituals: that they are held consensually.

Rituals are pervasive in a myriad of social relationships: from religious gatherings to business meetings, rituals are central to social connection (Durkheim, 1912; Goffman, 1967). In sports, fans may engage in pregame rituals to send good vibes to their teams. In business, group members may develop their ritualistic activities to empower themselves before a long day at work. Whether through weddings or funerals, families also engage in rituals to wish happiness to newlyweds, or to pay their respects to lost ones. We empirically explore the potential benefits of rituals in another important social context: romantic relationships. We propose that couples who enact relationship rituals – from weekly date nights to cooking together to bedroom activities – experience greater relationship satisfaction, in part because commitment to enacting rituals manifests in commitment to the relationship. We test this prediction in three studies that examine the relationship between rituals and relationship satisfaction and find that rituals boost commitment in turn leading to greater relationship satisfaction (Studies 1-3). Additionally, we show that consensual endorsement between partners about their rituals predicts relationship satisfaction (Study 2) and distinguish rituals from routines (Study 3).

In Study 1, we examine whether engaging in relationship rituals is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (N=201; Mage=37.18 years, SD=12.10; 59% male). Participants completed a questionnaire that had two sections: a section asking them to report whether they engaged in a relationship ritual with their current/ most recent partner, and a section with a series of relationship quality measures (investment model scale - Rusbult; Martz & Agnew 1998; gratitude –Algoe et al. 2010; perceived partner responsiveness –Caprariello and Reis 2011; closeness – Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992). Because asking about rituals could lead participants with relationship rituals to recall positive memories or feel regret if they do not have rituals, we randomly assigned participants to either describe their rituals first and then report relationship satisfaction, or the reverse.

We observe that rituals in romantic relationships are ubiquitous: 57% of participants reported engaging in rituals. More importantly, we find that participants with rituals reported greater relationship satisfaction (M=6.98, SD=1.80) than those without a ritual (M=5.93, SD=2.28; b=1.05, SE=.29, t(199)=3.64, p<.001). There was no effect of order of the sections nor was an effect of type of ritual, suggesting that having a ritual may be more important than the specific form that ritual takes. We also observe that participants with relationship rituals reported having fewer alternatives to the relationship, being more invested, more committed, more grateful, feeling closer to their partner, and perceiving that their partners were more responsive (all ps<.05); all effects hold when controlling for relationship length and marital status and when re-running analyses only with participants who were currently in a romantic relationship. Finally, we find that commitment mediates the relationship between rituals and satisfaction (ab=1.08, SE=.25, CI [.59, 1.59]).

Study 2 was identical to Study 1 with one key difference: we recruited one hundred and eight romantic dyads using Qualtrics panel data (N=216; Mage=56.48 years; SD=13.13; 48% male). We replicate findings from Study 1 and show that individuals who engaged in relationship rituals are more satisfied and that the relationship is mediated by commitment (all analyses involved actor-partner interdependence models: ps<.10). We then analyzed responses within-dyads and assessed partners’ agreement on whether they had a ritual: both members of the dyad reported having a ritual (n=55), both members of the dyad reported not having a ritual (n=33), and members of the dyad disagreed on whether they have a ritual (n=20). We created a score of dyad satisfaction by averaging relationship satisfaction ratings provided by both members; agreement within the dyad had a significant effect on relationship satisfaction (F(2, 105)= 3.97, p=.022). Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that couples that reported having a ritual were marginally more satisfied in their relationship (M=8.05, SD=1.23) than couples that reported not having a ritual (M=7.32, SD=2.06, p=.092) or couples that disagreed (M=7.11, SD=1.18, p=.058); the latter two groups did not differ (p>.250). These results suggest that the benefits of relationship rituals emerge only when both members of the couple agree on that ritual.

In Study 3, we investigate differences between relationship rituals and routines and show that rituals are conceptually distinct, and lead to psychologically different outcomes. Participants were asked to report whether they had a relationship ritual and a relationship routine, and after answered the same relationship quality measures (N=404; Mage=37.40 years, SD=11.36; 47% male). We observe that participants engaged in both activities: 74% reported having a relationship ritual and 81% reported having a relationship routine. We replicate our previous findings showing that participants who engage in rituals were more satisfied with their relationship (b=1.24, SE=.22, t(402)=5.76, p<.001), but found only a marginal effect for routines (b=.41, SE=.25, t(402)=1.66, p=.099). We then entered rituals and routines in the same model simultaneously predicting relationship satisfaction and found that rituals were significantly associated greater satisfaction (b=1.22, SE=.22, t(401)=5.51, p<.001) but routines were not (b=.11, SE=.25, t(401)=.44, p=.658).

Taken together, our results suggest that couples that adhere to relationship rituals – are more satisfied. Our work makes several contributions to research on shared experiences and interpersonal rituals. First, our findings contribute to prior research that demonstrates that shared experiences lead to greater satisfaction (Boothby, Clark, & Bargh, 2014), enhance social relationships (Gilovich, Kumar, & Jampol, 2015) and drive more coherent and positive retrospection of experiences (Ramanathan & McGill, 2007). We show that relationship rituals are associated with greater relationship satisfaction, especially when partners agree on their ritual, suggesting that sharing an experience (Belk, 2009; Caprariello & Reis, 2013; Kumar & Gilovich, 2015) is particularly important in making interpersonal rituals an effective social cohesion tool.  Second, we identify the psychological mechanism that underlies the association between relationship rituals and relationship satisfaction by shedding light on the importance of greater commitment in relationships. Relationship rituals are effective because they amplify partners’ commitment to relationships, as with other research suggesting that rituals foster feelings of bonding with group members (Durkheim, 1912; Spoor & Kelly, 2004; Xygalatas et al., 2013).