From the interpersonal to the international: understanding commitment to the "war on terror".

Applying constructs from the investment model used traditionally to understand interpersonal commitment, the present investigation seeks to elucidate social cognitive antecedents of commitment to the war on terror waged by the United States. In Study 1, satisfaction with, investments in, and alternatives to the war on terror predict levels of commitment to the war beyond several important control variables. In Study 2, levels of satisfaction with, investments in, and alternatives to the war are experimentally manipulated. The highest levels of commitment to the war are observed among participants exposed to a high satisfaction, high investment, and low alternatives scenario, and the lowest levels are among those exposed to a low satisfaction, low investment, and high alternatives scenario. These results support broadening the targets of commitment normally considered within the context of the investment model and suggest applying relational models to understanding broader societal concerns.