Do Gender and Relationship Length Jointly Moderate the Effects of Marital Dysfunctional Beliefs and Expectations on Marital Commitment Among Rwandan Married Couples?

Abstract

This study investigates how gender and relationship length independently and jointly influence the effects of marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs on marital commitment. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected from 426 married individuals through standardized measures of dysfunctional beliefs, marital expectations, and commitment. Moderation analysis was performed using Process Macro for SPSS. Results revealed that unmet expectations and dysfunctional beliefs were linked to reduced commitment, with men showing a greater decline than women in these conditions. Longer relationships were also associated with a greater decline in commitment. However, no significant interaction between gender and relationship length was found. The findings underscore the critical roles of gender and relationship duration in marital commitment, suggesting gender-specific interventions, particularly for men, and the importance of addressing unrealistic expectations and beliefs early in the relationship to maintain commitment over time.

Keywords

gender differences marital dysfunctional beliefs marital expectations marital commitment relationship duration Rwanda

Introduction

Marital commitment has traditionally been viewed as a foundational pillar of long-term relationship stability and satisfaction (Stanley et al., 2002). However, recent literature emphasizes that commitment is not a static construct but a dynamic process that evolves over time. Studies have explored the role of personal commitment (individual desire to remain married), moral commitment (perceived obligation to the partner), and structural commitment (external factors like shared finances or children), (Adams & Jones, 1997; Stanley & Markman, 2020). These dimensions of commitment reflect how psychological attachment to the partner fluctuates in response to changes in personal and relational contexts.

One critical aspect that significantly shapes marital commitment is marital expectations. Marital expectations, defined as beliefs about what marriage should provide emotionally, financially, and personally, have been found to affect marital outcomes significantly (Casad et al., 2015; McNulty & Karney, 2004). Research suggests that when partners have high or unrealistic expectations, they may experience more conflict, leading to lower marital satisfaction and commitment (Casad et al., 2015; Fowers & Olson, 1992; McNulty et al., 2018; Willoughby et al., 2021). However, few studies have explicitly focused on the role of gender in moderating this relationship. Recent research has shown that not only do expectations vary by gender, but they are also influenced by socio-economic status, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences (Doss et al., 2019; Karney, 2021).

Research consistently shows that men and women approach marriage with different sets of expectations, often shaped by cultural norms surrounding gender roles (Karney, 2021; Rhoades et al., 2010; Waller & McLanahan, 2005). While men may prioritize practical aspects of the marriage, such as financial stability or traditional role divisions, women are more likely to value emotional closeness and shared responsibilities (Karney, 2021; Leonhardt et al., 2022; Rhoades et al., 2010; Waller & McLanahan, 2005). Men have traditionally been expected to fulfill the role of the breadwinner, while women were expected to manage the household and provide emotional support (Doss et al., 2013; Kagaba, 2015; Kowalewska & Vitali, 2024; Manchester et al., 2019). These traditional expectations have been challenged in recent decades, with more couples adopting a collaborative approach to marriage. Nonetheless, some studies continue to find gender differences in marital expectations, particularly in areas related to emotional support and household responsibilities (Kagaba, 2015; Kowalewska & Vitali, 2024; Leonhardt et al., 2022; Manchester et al., 2019). Moreover, the shift toward egalitarian relationships, in which responsibilities are shared more evenly, adds complexity to these traditional gender roles, affecting how satisfaction and commitment develop over time (Arpino et al., 2015; Kulik, 2018; Lamont, 2017). This shift may particularly be evident in younger couples and those in urban settings, where gender equality is more actively pursued.

In addition to gendered expectations, dysfunctional beliefs about marriage—such as the expectation that “true love means no conflict” or that “partners should know each other’s needs without verbal communication”—also undermine marital satisfaction and commitment (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Both unrealistic expectations and dysfunctional beliefs stem from societal myths about romantic relationships and can lead to dissatisfaction when normal, inevitable challenges arise (Zagefka & Bahul, 2021). The literature demonstrates that these dysfunctional beliefs are harmful because they set couples up for failure when faced with the everyday realities of marriage, reinforcing unmet expectations (McNulty & Karney, 2004).

As couples progress through their relationship, these beliefs and expectations may become more entrenched, particularly if communication and conflict resolution strategies are not developed. Recent research highlights how couples who actively engage in communication and conflict resolution strategies are more likely to adjust their dysfunctional beliefs and adapt to the evolving dynamics of their relationship (Lavner et al., 2016). However, when such beliefs go unchallenged, they exacerbate relational dissatisfaction, especially in the later stages of marriage when unmet expectations have accumulated (Fincham et al., 2007)

The length of the marriage also plays a significant role in shaping marital commitment, as it may moderate the impact of both expectations and dysfunctional beliefs. The early years of marriage are typically marked by higher satisfaction and strong commitment, but as time goes on, couples often experience a decline in satisfaction as they face the realities of long-term cohabitation (Abreu-Afonso et al., 2022; Karney & Bradbury, 2020; Schoebi et al., 2012). However, this decline is not uniform across couples. Longitudinal studies suggest that couples with more realistic expectations and effective communication strategies may experience less of a decline in satisfaction, while those holding rigid or dysfunctional beliefs tend to see a sharper drop in commitment over time (Lavner et al., 2014; Lemay & Venaglia, 2016).

The duration of a relationship is thus crucial in understanding how commitment evolves. Longer relationships may see entrenched dysfunction and dissatisfaction if expectations remain unmet and communication fails to develop, making it more likely that commitment will erode (Lundberg & Pollak, 2015). This suggests that relationship duration moderates the effects of marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs, with longer marriages potentially suffering more from these negative influences if they are not addressed early on.

While extensive research has explored the relationships between marital dysfunctional beliefs, expectations, and marital commitment, the moderating effects of gender and relationship duration remain under-explored (Casad et al., 2015; Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fowers & Olson, 1992; Karney, 2021; Lundberg & Pollak, 2015; McNulty et al., 2018; McNulty & Karney, 2004; Willoughby et al., 2021; Zagefka & Bahul, 2021). Specifically, there is a lack of studies investigating the moderating effects of gender and years in the marital relationship on the associations between marital expectations or dysfunctional beliefs, and commitment, particularly in contemporary marriages where gender roles and relationship dynamics are evolving. The present study aims to fill this gap by exploring the moderating roles of gender and years in the marital relationship on the relationships between marital expectations, marital dysfunctional beliefs, and marital commitment.

We hypothesized that marital expectations will negatively predict marital commitment, and gender and relationship length would independently or jointly moderate this relationship. Evidence shows that longer relationships compared to short and males compared to females Click or tap here to enter text. have a greater decline in commitment due to unmet expectations (Bühler et al., 2021; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). We further postulated that marital dysfunction beliefs will negatively predict marital commitment, with gender and relationship length independently or jointly moderating this relationship. Males are expected to show a steeper decline in commitment in response to dysfunction beliefs compared to females (Amato, 2010; Bühler et al., 2021). Furthermore, longer relationships show a greater decline in commitment due to unmet expectations (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).

This study is crucial for understanding the dynamics of marital commitment in the context of evolving gender roles and changing expectations in long-term relationships. As gender roles continue to shift, particularly with increasing egalitarian marriages, it becomes vital to examine how these changes affect marital expectations and perceptions of dysfunction, and how they influence commitment (Bianchi et al., 2012; Karney & Bradbury, 2020; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). Furthermore, relationship length has been shown to amplify the effects of expectations and dysfunction, yet little is known about how this plays out across different genders (Abreu-Afonso et al., 2022; Karney & Bradbury, 2020; Schoebi et al., 2012). The findings from this study could have practical implications for marriage counseling and relationship interventions by highlighting critical periods and gender-specific approaches to fostering marital commitment.

Methods and Materials

Study Design and Procedure

This study employed a cross-sectional design to investigate gender differences in marital beliefs, expectations, and commitment among married individuals. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of …… (blinded for peer review). Participants were recruited through a combination of online platforms and community centers, ensuring a diverse sample in terms of age, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. The recruitment strategy included targeted outreach in both urban and suburban areas to achieve a broad representation of the married population. After providing informed consent, participants completed a series of validated and structured questionnaires, including the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI), Marital Expectation Scale (MES), and Marital Commitment Questionnaire (MCQ). Data collection was conducted anonymously to reduce social desirability bias, with participants completing the questionnaires individually in a controlled environment. The study’s design and procedures adhered strictly to ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects, as approved by the IRB, and included a debriefing process at the conclusion of data collection.

Participants

The study sample consisted of 426 married individuals, with an equal distribution of men and women (213 each). Participants were sourced through community notices and social media advertisements, which directed them to sign up at the Wellness and Family Centre. This centralized enrollment method allowed for uniform screening of all interested participants against eligibility criteria, including legal marriage status, age between 25 to 45 years, and no ongoing marital therapy or counseling. The study aimed to ensure representation across various demographic groups, including age, gender, length of marriage, and cultural background, through stratified random sampling. Initially, the target sample size was set at 438 participants, based on Krejcie & Morgan's (1970) guidelines for determining sample size, with adjustments made for potential non-responses or incomplete surveys. Ultimately, 426 participants were included in the final analysis after excluding 12 individuals due to incomplete questionnaires or ongoing marital counseling (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the study participant.

Data Collection Procedure

Participants were briefed on the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of their responses before completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately 30–45 minutes to complete, with participants encouraged to reflect on each statement carefully before responding. The data collection was conducted over a two-month period, ensuring that all participants had sufficient time to respond, particularly those participating online. The collected data were then cleaned and entered into a secure database for analysis.

Data Collection and Measurements

Data collection involved the use of three primary instruments to measure marital beliefs, expectations, and commitment among the participants: the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI), the Marital Expectation Scale (MES), and the Marital Commitment Questionnaire (MCQ). These instruments were chosen for their established validity and reliability in assessing the respective constructs within marital contexts. The measurements were administered through a structured questionnaire, which was distributed to participants either in paper format during in-person sessions at the Wellness and Family Centre or electronically for those who preferred online participation.

The Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)

The Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI) was utilized to assess the participants’ core beliefs and assumptions about marital relationships (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). The RBI consists of 40 items, with participants responding on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“I strongly believe that the statement is false”) to 5 (“I strongly believe that the statement is true”). This scale allows for a detailed assessment of the extent to which participants hold certain beliefs about relationships. The total score for the RBI can range from 0 to 200, with higher scores indicating more unrealistic views of relationships, which may promote greater instability.

Marriage Expectation Scale (MES)

The Marital Expectation Scale (MES) was employed to gauge the expectations that participants held regarding various aspects of their marital relationship (Jones & Nelson, 1997). The MES items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“I strongly believe that the statement is false”) to 5 (“I strongly believe that the statement is true”). This tool is particularly useful for understanding the balance between realism and a certain degree of idealization about marriage improvements. The total score for the MES can range from 0 to 200, with higher scores reflecting an unbalance between these elements.

Marital Commitment Questionnaire (MCQ)

The Marital Commitment Questionnaire (MCQ) was used to assess the level of commitment participants felt towards their marriage, focusing on both emotional attachment and the willingness to invest in the longevity of the relationship (Adams & Jones, 1997). Click or tap here to enter text. The MCQ includes 44 items, each evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The overall score can vary between 44 and 220, with higher scores signifying a stronger commitment to the marriage.

Demographic Information

In addition to the three main instruments, a demographic section was included to collect essential background information on participants. This section gathered data on variables such as age, gender, education level, number of children, years in a committed relationship, and family background. The demographic information was crucial for contextualizing the findings and for facilitating subgroup analyses based on these variables. By including a comprehensive set of demographic data, the study was able to ensure that the sample was representative and to examine how demographic factors might influence marital beliefs, expectations, and commitment. This data also enabled the study to explore whether observed gender differences were consistent across different demographic groups.

Statistical Analysis

The data analysis began with the calculation of descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation for each variable, to provide an overview of the distribution and central tendencies within the dataset. Following this, Pearson correlation was conducted to examine zero-order correlation between all study variables including gender, length of marital relationship, marital dysfunctional beliefs (RBI), Marital Expectation (MES), and Marital Commitment (MCQ).

Building on the initial findings, moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Version 4.0) to explore the moderating roles of gender and years in the marital relationship on the associations between marital beliefs, expectations, and commitment. Model 1 was used to test two-way interaction effects, while Model 3 was employed to assess three-way interactions. Specifically, we investigated whether gender and relationship duration independently or jointly moderated the relationships between RBI, MES, and MCQ. These moderation analyses provided deeper insights into how these variables interact to influence marital commitment. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29 and the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Version 4.0). Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and multicollinearity were checked and met where applicable, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the findings.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

As shown in Table 1, the sample consisted of 426 participants, with 54.93% falling within the 26–35 age range and 45.07% between 36–44 years. Gender distribution was equal, with 50% female and 50% male. In terms of education, the majority had a bachelor’s degree (53.99%), followed by high school graduates (22.30%), those with a master’s degree or higher (22.07%), and a small proportion with elementary education (1.64%). Regarding family background, participants were nearly evenly split between those in unhappy marriages (29.81%) and happily married individuals (28.87%), with others reporting single parenthood (24.88%) or being divorced (16.43%). Most participants had two children (46.95%), followed by one child (22.30%), three children (19.25%), no children (7.04%), and four children (4.46%).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

		Count	Percentages
Age category	26–35 years	234	54.93%
Age category	36–44 years	192	45.07%
Gender	Female	213	50.00%
Gender	Male	213	50.00%
Education level	Bachelor degree	230	53.99%
	Elementary	7	1.64%
	High school	95	22.30%
	Master degree +	94	22.07%
Family background	Divorced	70	16.43%
	Happily married	123	28.87%
	Single parent	106	24.88%
	Unhappily married	127	29.81%
Number of children	No child	30	7.04%
	One child	95	22.30%
	Two children	200	46.95%
	Three children	82	19.25%
	Four children	19	4.46%

Zero-Order Correlation Between Variables

The Pearson correlation analysis revealed significant negative relationships between marital commitment and marital expectations (r = −.67, p < .001), marital dysfunction beliefs (r = −.63, p < .001), length of the marital relationship (r = −.49, p < .001), and gender (r = −.132, p = .007). Higher expectations, dysfunction beliefs, and longer relationships were associated with lower marital commitment. Other variables were also intercorrelated, highlighting complex interrelations between these variables (Table 2).

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlation Between Variables.

	M(SD)	MCQ	Gender	YMR	MES	RBI
Marital commitment (MCQ)	169.86 (29.29)	--
Gender	-	−.13**	--
Years in marital relationship (YMR)	6.36 (3.83)	−.49**	−.073	--
Marital expectation (MES)	80.47 (37.74)	−.67**	.111*	.49**	--
Marital dysfunctional beliefs (RBI)	117.47 (25.38)	−.63**	.123*	.47**	.54**	--

The Moderating Effects of Gender on the Relationship Between Marital Dysfunction Beliefs and Marital Commitment (MCQ)

This analysis examined the moderating role of gender (with 1 = female and 2 = male) in the relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs (RBI) and marital commitment. The overall model was significant (F (3, 422) = 103.74, p < .001), explaining 42.44% of the variance in marital commitment. While the direct effect of RBI on marital commitment was not significant (b = −0.067, p = .47), gender (b = 18.23, p < .001) had a significant positive influence on marital commitment.

The interaction between RBI and gender was significant (b = −0.27, p < .001), indicating that the effect of marital dysfunction beliefs on marital commitment is moderated by gender. For females, the effect of RBI on marital commitment was (b = −0.33, p < .001), showing a significant negative relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment. This negative effect was even stronger for males, where the effect was (b = −0.60, p < .001). This suggests that while both genders experience a decrease in marital commitment as marital dysfunction beliefs increase, males show a steeper decline compared to females. These results highlight the need for gender-specific interventions, with particular attention to males, who appear to be more negatively impacted by marital dysfunction beliefs in terms of their commitment to marriage (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The moderating effects of gender on the relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment (MCQ).

The Moderating Effects of Gender on the Relationship Between Marital Expectation and Marital Commitment

This analysis explored the moderating role of gender in the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (model number 1). The overall model was statistically significant (F (3, 42) = 128.38, p < .001), explaining 47.72% of the variance in marital commitment. Although the direct effect of marital expectations on marital commitment was not significant (b = −0.23, p = .08), gender had a significant positive effect on marital commitment (b = 36.49, p = .0003), indicating that gender differences influence marital commitment.

The interaction between marital expectations and gender was significant (b = −0.34, p < .001), suggesting that the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment is moderated by gender. The conditional effects analysis showed that for females (coded as 1), marital expectations had a significant negative effect on marital commitment (b = −0.57, p < .001). For males, this negative effect was even stronger (b = −0.91, p < .001), indicating that increasing marital expectations leads to a more pronounced decline in marital commitment for males compared to females.

This interaction explained an additional 2.1% of the variance in marital commitment, further emphasizing that gender plays a critical role in moderating the impact of marital expectations on commitment. Overall, these findings suggest that males experience a greater decrease in marital commitment as their marital expectations increase, compared to females, highlighting the need for gender-specific interventions to address marital expectations and their effects on marital commitment (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The moderating effects of gender on the relationship between marital expectation and marital commitment.

The Number of Years in the Marital Relationship Moderates the Relationship Between Marital Expectations and Marital Commitment

This analysis explored whether the number of years in the marital relationship moderates the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment. The overall model was significant (F (3, 422) = 219.15, p < .001), explaining 60.91% of the variance in marital commitment. The direct effect of marital expectations on marital commitment was significant (b = −0.45, p < .001), showing a strong negative relationship. Additionally, the number of years in the marital relationship had a significant negative effect on marital commitment (b = −1.36, p < .001).

The interaction between marital expectations and years in the relationship was also significant (b = −0.11, p < .001), indicating that the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment is moderated by how long the couple has been married. Specifically, as the number of years in the relationship increases, the negative impact of marital expectations on marital commitment becomes more pronounced.

The conditional effects analysis revealed that for shorter relationships (-1SD), the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment was non-significant (b = −0.026, p = .70). However, for longer relationships (+1SD), the effect of marital expectations on commitment was much stronger and significantly negative (b = −0.87, p < .001). This suggests that in longer marriages, higher marital expectations are associated with a greater decline in marital commitment compared to shorter marriages.

Overall, these findings highlight the moderating role of relationship duration, suggesting that as the years in the marital relationship increase, marital expectations have a progressively more negative impact on commitment. This underlines the importance of addressing marital expectations, particularly in long-term marriages, where the effect on commitment is most severe (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The number of years in the marital relationship moderates the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment.

The Number of Years in the Marital Relationship Moderates the Relationship Between Marital Dysfunctional Beliefs and Marital Commitment

This analysis examined the moderating effect of the number of years in the marital relationship on the relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. The overall model was significant (F (3, 422) = 167.94, p < .001), explaining 54.42% of the variance in marital commitment. The direct effect of marital dysfunction beliefs on marital commitment was significant (b = −0.28, p < .001), indicating that higher levels of marital dysfunction beliefs are associated with lower levels of marital commitment. Additionally, the number of years in the marital relationship had a significant negative effect on marital commitment (b = −1.71, p < .001).

The interaction between marital dysfunction beliefs and years in the relationship was also significant (b = −0.065, p < .001), suggesting that the relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment is moderated by the length of the marital relationship. As the number of years in the relationship increases, the negative impact of marital dysfunction beliefs on marital commitment becomes more pronounced.

The conditional effects analysis showed that for shorter relationships (at -1SD), the relationship between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment was non-significant (b = −0.025, p = .59). However, for longer relationships (at +SD), the effect of marital dysfunction beliefs on commitment was much stronger and significantly negative (b = −0.53, p < .001). This suggests that in longer marriages, marital dysfunction beliefs have a more substantial negative impact on marital commitment. These findings underscore the importance of considering the duration of the marital relationship when addressing the effects of marital dysfunction beliefs on commitment. As relationships endure, the negative effects of marital dysfunction beliefs on commitment intensify, indicating a need for tailored interventions to address these challenges in long-term marriage (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

The number of years in the marital relationship moderates the relationship between marital dysfunctional beliefs and marital commitment.

Three-Way Moderating Effects of the Length Marital Relationship and Gender on the Association Between Marital Expectations and Marital Commitment

Inspired by the two-way moderation effects found in previous analyses, we explored the three-way interaction effect of gender and years in the marital relationship on the association between marital expectations and marital commitment (MCQ). The overall model was significant (F (7, 418) = 107.41, p < .001), explaining 64.27% of the variance in marital commitment.

The results indicated that the direct effect of marital expectations on marital commitment was non-significant (b = −0.09, p = .50). Gender also did not have a significant direct effect on marital commitment (b = −1.87, p = .35), nor did years in the marital relationship (b = 0.28, p = .72).

However, the interaction terms revealed important insights. The two-way interaction between marital expectations and gender (b = −0.20, p = .022) was significant, suggesting that the effect of marital expectations on marital commitment is moderated by gender. Similarly, the two-way interaction between marital expectations and years in the marital relationship (b = −0.065, p = .021) was significant, indicating that the relationship between marital expectations and marital commitment changes based on the length of the marital relationship. Moreover, the interaction between gender and years in the marital relationship (b = −1.23, p = .037) was also significant, suggesting that the combined effect of gender and years in the relationship influences marital commitment.

Despite these findings, the three-way interaction among marital expectations, gender, and years in the marital relationship (b = −0.032, p = .10) was not statistically significant. This suggests that although gender and years in the relationship each independently moderate the effect of marital expectations on marital commitment, their combined moderating influence does not significantly alter the relationship.

These findings highlight that gender and relationship duration both independently affect the association between marital expectations and marital commitment. Specifically, the effect of marital expectations on marital commitment is more pronounced when considering either gender or years in the marital relationship, but their combined influence does not significantly impact the relationship. As a result, interventions aimed at improving marital commitment may need to consider these factors separately (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Three-way moderating effects of the length of marital relationship and gender on the association between marital expectations and marital commitment.

Three-Way Moderating Effects of the Length Marital Relationship and Gender on the Association Between Marital Dysfunctional Beliefs and Marital Commitment

Inspired by the two-way moderation effects, we explored the three-way interaction effect of gender and years in the marital relationship on the association between marital dysfunction beliefs and marital commitment (MCQ). The overall model was significant (F (7, 418) = 88.74, p < .001), explaining 59.78% of the variance in marital commitment.

The results showed that marital dysfunction beliefs had a significant positive effect on marital commitment (b = 0.44, p = .018), meaning higher marital dysfunction beliefs were associated with greater marital commitment. Gender also had a significant direct effect on marital commitment (b = 18.61, p = .046), suggesting gender differences in commitment. Years in the marital relationship also positively predicted marital commitment (b = 4.72, p = .01), indicating that longer relationships were associated with higher levels of commitment.

However, the interaction terms yielded mixed results. The two-way interaction between marital dysfunction beliefs and gender (b = −0.17, p = .14) was not significant. In contrast, the two-way interaction between marital dysfunction beliefs and years in the relationship (b = −0.055, p = .004) was significant, suggesting that the effect of marital dysfunction beliefs on marital commitment diminishes as the length of the marital relationship increases. The interaction between gender and years in the relationship (b = −0.94, p = .48) was non-significant.

The three-way interaction among marital dysfunction beliefs, gender, and years in the marital relationship (b = −0.0071, p = .59) was also non-significant. This result indicates that while years in the marital relationship moderate the effect of marital dysfunction beliefs on marital commitment, this moderation is not further influenced by gender. The test for the highest-order interaction yielded an R²-change of 0.0003, which was not significant (F (1, 42) = 0.28, p = .59).

Overall, the findings suggest that marital dysfunction beliefs, gender, and years in the relationship each have some effect on marital commitment, but the combined moderating influence of gender and years in the relationship on the effect of marital dysfunction beliefs is not significant. This indicates that while the length of the marital relationship affects how marital dysfunction beliefs relate to commitment, the interaction between gender and relationship duration does not add additional predictive power (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Three-way moderating effects of the length marital relationship and gender on the association between marital dysfunctional beliefs and marital commitment.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between marital expectations, dysfunctional beliefs, and marital commitment, focusing on how gender and relationship duration moderate these effects. Specifically, this study sought to test three hypotheses: (1) the moderating effects of gender on the relationship between marital expectations, dysfunctional beliefs, and marital commitment, (2) the moderating effects of relationship duration on these relationships, and (3) the combined moderating effects of gender and relationship duration. The results support the first two hypotheses but provided mixed support for the third. First, marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs negatively predicted marital commitment, and gender significantly moderated these relationships, with males showing a steeper decline in commitment compared to females. Second, relationship duration moderated the effects of marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs on commitment, with longer marriages experiencing greater declines in commitment due to unmet expectations and entrenched dysfunctional beliefs. However, the combined moderating effects of gender and relationship duration were not significant, suggesting that while these factors independently influence marital commitment, their interaction may be less impactful than previously anticipated.

The findings regarding the negative relationship between marital expectations and commitment are consistent with prior research. Studies have shown that unrealistic marital expectations often lead to dissatisfaction when reality falls short of these ideals (Fowers & Olson, 1992; McNulty & Karney, 2004). The current study extends these findings by emphasizing that men are more adversely affected by unmet expectations than women, potentially due to their adherence to more traditional marital roles, as previously suggested by scholars (Goldscheider et al., 2015). This gender difference aligns with the literature indicating that men may struggle more with evolving marital dynamics as gender roles shift toward greater egalitarianism (Schrodt et al., 2014).

Similarly, the negative impact of dysfunctional beliefs on commitment aligns with the findings of (Fincham & Beach, 2010), who noted that dysfunctional beliefs create unrealistic relational standards. This study adds nuance by showing that men are particularly vulnerable to these beliefs, which reinforces Click or tap here to enter text. Scholar’s suggestion that men may exhibit a steeper decline in emotional investment when relational conflicts arise (Amato, 2010). This gender-specific finding is novel, as much of the previous literature has focused on the generalized effects of these beliefs, without considering how they differentially impact men and women.

The study’s findings on relationship duration confirm the well-documented trajectory of marital satisfaction over time. Consistent with previous research (Huston et al., 2001; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010), the results show that longer relationships experience a greater decline in commitment, especially when expectations are unmet or dysfunctional beliefs become entrenched (Huston et al., 2001; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). However, the lack of significant three-way interactions (gender, relationship duration, and expectations or beliefs) diverges from the suggestion by (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007) that these factors would interact more strongly to influence marital commitment. This suggests that while relationship length and gender independently moderate these relationships, their combined influence may be less significant than initially hypothesized.

This study contributes to the literature by providing a more nuanced understanding of how gender and relationship duration influence marital commitment. First, it highlights the stronger negative impact of both unmet expectations and dysfunctional beliefs on men compared to women, a finding that has not been as explicitly examined in previous research. Second, the study emphasizes the role of relationship duration, showing that longer marriages are more vulnerable to declines in commitment when expectations and dysfunctional beliefs are not addressed. This adds depth to previous studies (Karney & Bradbury, 2020; Lavner et al., 2020), which focused on how expectations change over time. The current study shows that entrenched beliefs and unmet expectations are particularly harmful to longer term relationships, which underscores the importance of early intervention.

The findings should be interpreted in light of the evolving gender roles and expectations in modern marriages. As gender roles become more fluid and shared responsibilities in marriage increase, the traditional expectations held by men may increasingly conflict with these evolving dynamics, contributing to the greater decline in commitment observed in men. This is consistent with the shift toward egalitarian relationships observed (Hohmann-Marriott, 2006; Kornrich et al., 2013), where women are more likely to prioritize emotional closeness and shared responsibilities, while men may still adhere to older models of marital roles. The findings suggest that men may need more support in adapting to these changes, particularly in the context of long-term marriages.

The moderating effect of relationship duration also reinforces the need for early intervention. Couples who enter marriage with unrealistic expectations or dysfunctional beliefs are more likely to see these issues intensify over time if left unaddressed. This supports the need for counseling or educational interventions early in the marital relationship, particularly around communication and conflict resolution skills, which have been shown to mitigate the negative effects of dysfunctional beliefs (Lavner et al., 2020).

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths. First, the inclusion of both gender and relationship duration as moderators provides a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing marital commitment, allowing for greater insight into how these variables interact. Second, the use of a large sample size increases the robustness and generalizability of the findings. Finally, the study’s focus on both marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs provides a comprehensive examination of two key factors that influence marital satisfaction and commitment.

Study Strengths and Limitations

However, there are also limitations. The study relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce bias, particularly when assessing sensitive topics such as commitment and satisfaction are subject to social desirability bias, possibly leading participants to align their responses with perceived gender norms rather than their true beliefs. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study limits the ability to draw causal conclusions about how marital expectations and dysfunctional beliefs evolve over time and their long-term effects on commitment. Longitudinal studies would be necessary to assess these dynamics more fully. Furthermore, the study focused on heterosexual couples, and the findings may not be generalizable to same-sex relationships, which may have different dynamics in terms of expectations, beliefs, and commitment.

Conclusion

In overall, this study sheds light on the complex dynamics of marital commitment, highlighting the important roles played by marital expectations, dysfunctional beliefs, gender, and relationship duration. The findings suggest that men are more vulnerable to declines in commitment when their expectations are unmet or when dysfunctional beliefs are present, particularly in long-term marriages. These results underscore the need for gender-specific interventions and early support in addressing unrealistic expectations and dysfunctional beliefs, especially in the context of evolving gender roles in marriage. Future research should explore these dynamics longitudinally and across more diverse populations to further understand how commitment evolves over time and in different relationship contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the couples who participated in this study, whose commitment and openness were invaluable. We are especially thankful to the Wellness and Family Centre in Kigali, Rwanda, for facilitating participant recruitment and providing a supportive environment for the workshops. Special thanks go to the Mental Health & Behaviour Research Group at the University of Rwanda, for their insightful contributions to the study design and implementation.

Author Contributions

A.N. led the study design, conducted the data analysis, and drafted the initial manuscript. As the principal investigator, A.N. also coordinated the overall research project. J.N. contributed to the study design, assisted with data analysis, and provided significant revisions to the manuscript. C.M. managed participant recruitment and data collection, and reviewed the manuscript. J.M., as the main supervisor, and J.M.N., as co-supervisor, oversaw the conception and execution of the project, contributed to data interpretation, and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript submitted.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Alphonse Nkurunziza

Japhet Niyonsenga

Data Availability Statement

Datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

References

Abreu-Afonso

Ramos

M. M.

Queiroz-Garcia

Leal

(2022). How couple’s relationship lasts over time? A model for marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 125(3), 1601–1627. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211000651

Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1177–1196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1177

Amato

P. R.

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Arpino

Esping-Andersen

Pessin

(2015). How do changes in gender role attitudes towards female employment influence fertility? A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv002

Bianchi

S. M.

Sayer

L. C.

Milkie

M. A.

Robinson

J. P.

(2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social forces; a scientific medium of social study and interpretation, 91(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos120

Bühler

J. L.

Krauss

Orth

(2021). Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1012–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342

Casad

B. J.

Salazar

M. M.

Macina

(2015). The real versus the ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314528304

Doss

B. D.

Benson

L. A.

Georgia

E. J.

Christensen

(2013). Translation of integrative behavioral couple therapy to a web‐based intervention. Family Process, 52(1), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12020

Doss

B. D.

Roddy

M. K.

Nowlan

K. M.

Rothman

Christensen

(2019). Maintenance of gains in relationship and individual functioning following the online OurRelationship program. Behavior Therapy, 50(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2018.03.011

10.

Eidelson

R. J.

Epstein

(1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.50.5.715

11.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 630–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x

12.

Fincham

F. D.

Stanley

S. M.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x

13.

Fowers

B. J.

Olson

D. H.

(1992). Four types of premarital couples: An empirical typology based on PREPARE. Journal of Family Psychology, 6(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.10

14.

Goldscheider

Bernhardt

Lappegård

(2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x

15.

Hohmann‐Marriott

B. E.

(2006). Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00310.x

16.

Huston

T. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

Houts

R. M.

Smith

S. E.

George

L. J.

(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237

17.

Jones

G. D.

Nelson

E. S.

(1997). Expectations of marriage among College students from intact and non-intact homes. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 26(1-2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v26n01_09

18.

Kagaba

(2015). Women’s experiences of gender equality laws in rural Rwanda: The case of kamonyi district. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 9(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2015.1112934

19.

Karney

B. R.

(2021). Socioeconomic status and intimate relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-051920-013658

20.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12635

21.

Kornrich

Brines

Leupp

(2013). Egalitarianism, housework, and sexual frequency in marriage. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412472340

22.

Kowalewska

Vitali

(2024). The female-breadwinner well-being ‘penalty’: Differences by men’s (un)employment and country. European Sociological Review, 40(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad034

23.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

24.

Kulik

(2018). Explaining egalitarianism in gender-role attitudes. Asian Women, 34(2), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.14431/aw.2018.06.34.2.61

25.

Lamont

(2017). “We can write the scripts ourselves”: Queer challenges to heteronormative courtship practices. Gender & Society, 31(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217723883

26.

Lavner

J. A.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1171–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00757.x

27.

Lavner

J. A.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2014). Relationship problems over the early years of marriage: Stability or change? Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 28(6), 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037752

28.

Lavner

J. A.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2016). Does couples’ communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301

29.

Lavner

J. A.

Williamson

H. C.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2020). Premarital parenthood and newlyweds’ marital trajectories. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 34(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000596

30.

Lemay

E. P.

Venaglia

R. B.

(2016). Relationship expectations and relationship quality. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000066

31.

Leonhardt

N. D.

Willoughby

B. J.

Carroll

J. S.

Astle

Powner

(2022). ‘We want to be married on our own terms’: Non-university emerging adults’ marital beliefs and differences between men and women. Journal of Family Studies, 28(2), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1747520

32.

Lundberg

Pollak

R. A.

(2015). The evolving role of marriage: 1950–2010. The Future of Children, 25(2), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2015.0011

33.

Manchester

C. F.

Leslie

L. M.

Dahm

P. C.

(2019). Bringing home the bacon: The relationships among breadwinner role, performance, and pay. Industrial Relations, 58(1), 46–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12225

34.

McNulty

J. K.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729

35.

McNulty

J. K.

Meltzer

A. L.

Makhanova

Maner

J. K.

(2018). Attentional and evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000127

36.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 24(5), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021008

37.

Schoebi

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2012). Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026290

38.

Schrodt

Witt

P. L.

Shimkowski

J. R.

(2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632

39.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2020). Helping couples in the shadow of COVID‐19. Family Process, 59(3), 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12575

40.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Whitton

S. W.

(2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x

41.

Stevenson

Wolfers

(2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.27

42.

Waller

M. R.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2005). “His” and “her” marriage expectations: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00005.x

43.

Willoughby

B. J.

Yorgason

James

Kramer Holmes

(2021). What does marriage mean to us? Marital centrality among newlywed couples. Journal of Family Issues, 42(7), 1631–1654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20949905

44.

Zagefka

Bahul

(2021). Beliefs that contribute to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships. The Family Journal, 29(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720956638