Understanding and managing the lure of alternatives

Recognize when comparison to alternatives is inflating their apparent quality — and how to recalibrate.

Why it works

Rusbult found that committed people spontaneously derogate alternatives — they downgrade the perceived quality of potential alternatives — which functions as a protective mechanism for commitment. When commitment is weakening, this protection fails and alternatives seem more appealing (often inaccurately, due to comparison-set bias). Awareness of this mechanism allows you to evaluate alternatives more honestly rather than from a distorted pull toward the novel.

How to do it

1. When you notice yourself comparing your relationship to an alternative (real or imagined), name what is driving the comparison: is it a genuine unmet need, or a temporary dissatisfaction amplified by negativity bias?
2. Assess the alternative on its realistic full picture — not just the appealing aspects but the whole life it would entail.
3. Ask: "What would I lose from leaving that I am not currently counting?"
4. If a specific need is driving the pull to alternatives, bring that need into the relationship directly rather than through the comparison.
5. Distinguish between low alternatives (genuinely no good options) and high investment (high cost of leaving) as reasons for staying — the latter without satisfaction is trapped, not committed.

Evidence

Rusbult and colleagues demonstrated that committed individuals derogated the appeal of attractive alternatives compared to less committed individuals — a spontaneous cognitive process that protects relationship commitment. Miller (1997) extended this by showing that more committed people pay less visual attention to attractive alternatives in the first place, indicating the protection operates at the level of attention, not only after-the-fact evaluation. (observational)

Alternative derogation is observed and associated with commitment, but whether actively practicing it (as opposed to it being spontaneous) strengthens commitment is not directly tested.

Sources

• Johnson & Rusbult (1989), Resisting temptation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 967–980.
• Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766.

Common mistake

Suppressing thoughts of alternatives through willpower rather than honestly evaluating what need is generating them — suppression increases intrusive thoughts; evaluation and targeted action on the underlying need reduces them.