Received: 24 March 2019 | Accepted: 5 July 2019

DOI: 10.1111/ppc.12424

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Construction and validation of the Lebanese fear of

relationship commitment scale among a representative
sample of the Lebanese population

Sahar Obeid1,2,3,5 | Kassandra Fares4 | Chadia Haddad1 | Nathalie Lahoud5,6,7,8 |

Marwan Akel5,8 | Maha Zakhour9 | Nelly Kheir10 | Pascale Salameh5,6,11 |
Souheil Hallit5,12
1
Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib, Lebanon
2
Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon
3
Faculty of Pedagogy, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
4
Faculty of Science, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon
5
NSPECT‐LB: Institut National de Sante Publique, Epidemiologie Clinique et Toxicologie, Beirut, Lebanon
6
Faculty of Pharmacy, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
7
Faculty of Public Health, Lebanese University, Fanar, Lebanon
8
School of Pharmacy, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon
9
Faculty of Science, Lebanese University, Fanar, Lebanon
10
Faculty of Pedagogy, Université de la Sainte Famille, Batroun, Lebanon
11
Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
12
Faculty of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon

Correspondence
Sahar Obeid, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross,
PO Box 60096, Jall‐Eddib, Lebanon.
Email: saharobeid23@hotmail.com
Souheil Hallit, Building 560, Street 8,
1st floor, Biakout, Lebanon.
Email: souheilhallit@hotmail.com
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the generation and validation of the Lebanese fear of
relationship commitment scale (LFRC) and factors associated with FRC in a
representative sample of the Lebanese population.
Design and Methods: This cross‐sectional study, conducted between January and
May 2018, enrolled 568 single community dwelling participants.
Results: The scale items converged over a solution of four factors, explaining
50.46% of the variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.789). Higher social phobia (β = 0.073) and
higher general trust score (β = 0.393) were associated with higher FRC, whereas
higher self‐esteem (β = −0.275) was associated with lower FRC.
Practice Implications: The LFRC‐17 is a valid and reliable measure of fear of
relationship commitment and a highly efficient tool both for research and clinical
practice. It gathers social, physical, and psychological aspects related to gamophobia.

KEYWORDS
commitment, fear, gamophobia, relationship, scale, single

Pascale Salameh and Souheil Hallit are last co‐authors.

Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2019;1-10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ppc © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

2 |
1 | INTRODUCTION
Gamophobia is a type of social phobia related to the fear of
getting married, being in a relationship, or commitment to a
partner. The person experiencing such a fear is capable of falling in
love as long as the other person does not show any signs of being
serious or demand any further engagement that might make
him panic.1,2
Psychologists have stated that, in the last 15 years, the number
of declared individuals with gamophobia increased worldwide.
Between 1965 and 1998, the percentage of unmarried women
in their early and late 20s, respectively, doubled and tripled.3
Young men usually express an escalating sensitivity to marriage
higher than woman.4 This fear among men is due to the load of
financial, personal tasks, and social responsibilities that he has
to fulfil.1,5
Previous findings found a correlation between women’s and
men’s increased economic status and marriage. The lower the
monthly salary, the higher the chances of escaping marriage. Low
income and unemployment deter union formation. Men who are not
employed or who have temporary jobs are more likely to choose
cohabitation rather than marriage (Kalmijn).6
One of the main reasons behind gamophobia is previous
distressful incidents. It may arise during early childhood from
watching parents fight or being unfaithful and going through a
frustrating divorce. Knowing, for example, that in the US, half the
marriages end up with divorce, individuals repeatedly hearing about
betrayed partners or unsuccessful marriages, not necessarily related
to them, start developing this phobia.7
Adults who have lived domestic violence with abusive parents
or have been abandoned as kids and mistreated by foster
guardians make them vulnerable to poor emotional adjustment.7,8
The number of young adults who are victims to intimate partner
violence (IPV) within their relationships is increasing. Women not
living with their partners experienced lower levels of IPV by
contrast to women who were cohabiting with a partner were at
increased risk of IPV,9 violent acts being divided into physical,
sexual, and emotional.10 Furthermore, sexual harassments by sex
offenders or rapists are more serious factors that constrain
traumatized victims to create distance with others; the child’s
severity of sexual abuse was generally associated with several
indicators of mental health and marital problems.11 Child abuse
and individuals with neglect histories may be more hesitant
than others to enter into the legal and emotional commitments.12
Trust issues, built due to these unsolved conflicts with partners,
parents, or relatives or even caused by a stranger’s assault are the
basics behind the development of an intimacy fear. Therefore,
individuals afraid of being naked and refusing intercourse usually
live a series of short‐term intimate partnerships.13
A review by Mikulincer and Shaver14 in 2012 clearly showed that
insecure attachment and fear of commitment are directly related to
psychopathology. Being anxious may scare a person willing to marry;
additional indicators of depression such as a low self‐esteem, a
OBEID ET AL.
negative self‐image evaluation, and/or lack of sexual confidence may
also push him away from commitment.1,15 This would have negative
consequences on the patient’s life, debilitating their capacity to
incorporate in a marital partnership.16
To the best of our knowledge, there is no validated scale for the
assessment of the fear of commitment. Consequently, it was
important to generate and validate a fear of commitment scale,
specifically designed for the Lebanese population, taking into
consideration cross‐cultural adaptation methods. In this manuscript,
our objective was to describe the generation and validation of the
Lebanese fear of relationship commitment scale (LFRC) in a
representative sample of the Lebanese population. Secondary
objectives were to assess factors associated with this fear of
commitment in our sample.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Sample 1
2.1.1 | Study design
This study is cross‐sectional, conducted between January and May
2018, which enrolled 568 community‐dwelling participants using a
proportionate random sample from all Lebanese Mohafazat (Beirut,
Mount Lebanon, North, South, and Bekaa). Each Mohafaza was divided
into Caza (stratum); two villages were randomly selected from the list of
villages provided by the Central Agency of Statistics in Lebanon.
Participants were randomly selected from each village. All participants
who were single and aged between 18 and 60 years were eligible to
participate. Excluded were married, divorced, or widowed individuals
and those who refused to fill out the questionnaire. Data collection was
performed through personal interviews with participants by trained,
study‐independent personnel.
2.1.2 | Minimal sample size calculation
We fixed our expected frequency of gamophobia among the general
population at 50% in the absence of previous studies in the country.
The Epi‐info software version 7.2 (population survey) calculated a
minimum sample size of 384 participants to ensure a confidence level
of 95% and a precision of ±5%.
2.1.3 | Ethical approval
The Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross Ethics and Research Commit-
tee, in compliance with the Hospital’s Regulatory Research Protocol,
approved this study protocol (HPC‐022‐2018) based on the fact that
the autonomy and confidentiality of participants were respected and
since it was an observational study, no harm will be prompted to
them. The purpose and requirement of the study was informed to
each participant. Consent was obtained as written approval on the
ethical consent form.
OBEID ET AL.
2.1.4 | Questionnaire details
The questionnaire used was in Arabic, the native language of the
country. The first part assessed the sociodemographic characteristics
of the participants, including age, sex, marital status, education level,
and monthly income. The second part of the questionnaire included
the following scales:
2.1.5 | Fear of commitment scale
This scale was created based on previous questions from tests and
articles that were found on the internet.10,17,18 The scale was
composed of a total of 17 questions that followed a Likert scale as
follows: 1 for strongly disagree and 4 for strongly agree. Items 1, 3,
and 4 were reversed. Higher scores indicated higher gamophobia
(higher fear of commitment).
2.1.6 | Rosenberg self‐esteem scale
This 10‐item scale measures both positive and negative feelings
about the self to evaluate self‐worth.19 The answers were rated 1
(strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and 4 (strongly disagree). Five
questions (3, 5, 8, 9, and 10) were reversed while doing the score
calculation. Higher scores indicated higher self‐esteem. In our study,
the Cronbach’s α was 0.733.
2.1.7 | Hamilton depression rating scale
The validated Arabic version of the Hamilton depression rating scale
(HDRS) was used in this study.20 The first 17 items of the HDRS are
scored and measure the severity of depressive symptoms.21 The total
depression score was calculated by summing the answers of these 17
items. The total HDRS score ranged from 0 to a maximum of 52
points. Higher scores indicated higher depression. In this study, the
Cronbach’s α was 0.864.
2.1.8 | Hamilton anxiety scale
The Hamilton anxiety scale,22 recently validated in Lebanon,23 is a
commonly used scale to measure anxiety in medical and research
sites. It consists of 14 items, rated as follows: 0 (symptoms not
present), 1 (mild symptoms), 2 (moderate symptoms), 3 (severe
symptoms), and 4 (very severe symptoms). The total score was
calculated by summation of the 14 items. Higher scores indicated
higher anxiety. In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.883.
2.1.9 | The relationship questionnaire
The relationship questionnaire consists of four short paragraphs,
each paragraph describes one of the four adult attachment style.24
Style A corresponds to the secure attachment, Style B to the
preoccupied attachment, Style C to the fearful attachment, and Style
| 3
D to the dismissing attachment 25. Each paragraph is rated on a
7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
2.1.10 | Liebowitz social anxiety scale
It is a small survey developed in 1987,25 to help identify a social
anxiety disorder in a person. The scale features 24 items graded in
a Likert scale from 0 to 3, which are divided into two subcategories
(13 questions relate to performance anxiety and 11 concern social
situations). The overall score is calculated by summing up the total
scores for the fear and avoidance parts. The maximum score is
144 points indicating a very severe social phobia. The Liebowitz
social anxiety scale has been validated as a self‐report scale.26 In this
study, the Cronbach’s α for the total score was 0.887.
2.1.11 | Young schema questionnaire‐S3
The questionnaire consists of 90 items with 18 subscales grouped
into five schema domains as follows: rejection, impaired autonomy
and performance, impaired limits, other‐directedness, overvigilance,
and inhibition.
The subscales are consecutively: abandonment/instability, mis-
trust/abuse, emotional deprivation, defectiveness/shame, social iso-
lation/alienation, dependence/incompetence, vulnerability to harm
and illness, enmeshment/undeveloped self, failure, entitlement/
grandiosity, insufficient self‐control/self‐discipline, subjugation,
self‐sacrifice, approval‐seeking/recognition seeking, negativity/pessi-
mism, emotional inhibition, unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness,
and punitiveness.
The questions are rated on a 6‐point Likert‐type scale (1 = en-
tirely untrue of me, 6 = describes me perfectly). As each subscale
consists of five items, the score obtained on the subscales varies
between 5 and 30. Cronbach’s α for the YSQ‐S3 scale was 0.956.
2.1.12 | Composite abuse scale
The composite abuse scale (CAS), initially developed in Australia, is
considered a preferred measure of intimate partner violence that has
been used as a criterion standard for assessing one’s self‐reported
experiences of abuse. The short form of the CAS (25 items) was used
in this study.27 The CAS total score should be created by summing all
answers to all questions. Higher scores indicate greater physical
abuse. Cronbach’s α was 0.972.
2.1.13 | General trust scale
It is a six‐item questionnaire that uses general statements to measure
participants’ beliefs about honesty and trustworthiness of others,
in general. The score for each item ranges between 1 (strongly
disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). The score for each item is averaged
together to form a continuous measure of generalized trust.28 Higher
scores indicate higher trust.
4 | OBEID ET AL.

2.1.14 | Test–retest reliability of the fear
of commitment scale
To assess test–retest reliability of the scale, 100 individuals of the
first sample answered the questionnaire twice. The time between
test and retest reproducibility examination averaged approximately
10 days.
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the goodness‐of‐fit
index (GFI), and the adjusted goodness‐of‐fit index (AGFI). The value
of χ2 divided by the degrees of freedom (χ2/df) has a low sensitivity to
sample size and may be used as an index of goodness‐of‐fit (cut‐off
values: <2‐5). The RMSEA tests the fit of the model to the covariance
matrix. As a guideline, values less than 0.05 indicate a close fit, and
values below 0.11, an acceptable fit. The GFI and AGFI are χ2‐based
calculations, independent of degrees of freedom. The recommended

2.2 | Sample 2 thresholds for acceptable values are ≥0.90.30

To ensure the validity of the results, the score that was created in
sample 1 was tested on another sample (sample 2), independent from 3 | RESULTS
the first one. We thus conducted another cross‐sectional study in
September 2018 on a sample of Lebanese participants different from 3.1 | Sociodemographic characteristics
sample 1. The latter were recruited from the same villages where
Sample 1 was recruited from. Patients filled out a questionnaire The sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants

through a face‐to‐face interview with a professional psychologist; are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of the participants was

here, we were able to compare the score of each patient with a 23.03 ± 4.99 years, with 51.3% females, 70.4% with a university level

healthcare professional assessment of the fear of commitment in the of education, and 70.3% with a low monthly income.

absence of international recommendations.

3.2 | Factor analysis

2.3 | Statistical analysis
Out of all the items of LFRC‐17 scale, none of the items was
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 23. removed. All items could be extracted from the list, since no items
Descriptive statistics, mainly mean values and standard deviation overcorrelated to each other (r > 0.9), had a low loading on factors
(SD), were presented for continuous quantitative variables, while (<0.3), or because of a low communality (<0.3). The factor analysis for
frequencies and percentages were used for nominal and ordinal the LFRC‐17 scale was run over the whole sample (total n = 568). The
variables. We checked the distribution normality for all variables LFRC‐17 scale items converged over a solution of four factors that
using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Student t test was conducted to had an eigenvalue over 1, explaining a total of 50.46% of the
examine differences between means in quantitative variables, variance. A Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of
while χ analyses were used to compare qualitatively and some
2 0.837 was found, with a significant Bartlett test of sphericity
categorical variables.
To confirm the LFRC‐17 questionnaire construct validity in the
T A B L E 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants
Lebanese population, a factor analysis was launched using the
principal component analysis technique, with a promax rotation Variable N (%)
since the extracted factors were found to be significantly correlated. Sex
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and the Male 273 (48.7)
Bartlett test of sphericity were ensured to be adequate. The retained Female 288 (51.3)
number of factors corresponded to eigenvalues higher than one. Educational level
Moreover, Cronbach’s α was recorded for reliability analysis for the
Illiterate 18 (3.2)
total score and for subscale factors. A stepwise linear regression was
Primary 6 (1.1)
conducted, taking the fear of commitment score as the dependent
Complementary 25 (4.5)
variable. All variables that showed a P < .1 in the bivariate analysis
Secondary 83 (14.9)
were taken as independent variables in the model. In all cases, a
P‐value less than .05 was considered significant. Moreover, Cron- University 393 (70.4)

bach’s α was recorded for reliability analysis for all the scales. Higher education 33 (5.9)
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were also used for reliability Monthly income
analysis between the anxiety scales and that of the test–retest. A Low (<1000 USD) 365 (70.3)
good reproducibility was noted when ICC was more than 0.7.29 Intermediate (1000‐2000 USD) 141 (27.2)
Second, a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out in sample High (>2000 USD) 13 (2.5)
2 using the maximum likelihood method for discrepancy function to
Mean ± SD
assess the structure of the instrument. We also reported several
Age, y 23.03 ± 4.99
goodness‐of‐fit indicators: the relative chi square (χ2/df), the root
OBEID ET AL. | 5

T A B L E 2 Promax rotated matrix of the Lebanese fear of relationship commitment scale items
Factor Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
I have a low self‐confidence and a low self‐esteem 13 0.710
I do not trust my partner and I am afraid to leave or be left 16 0.665
I’m afraid that I’m not good enough for my partner 12 0.568
I hate the idea of spending the rest of my life with only one person 17 0.552
I am afraid to lose someone better while I am committed to a relationship with a 15 0.501
particular partner
I am afraid that my emotional relationship will end with divorce and I am therefore 11 0.468
afraid that I will suffer as a result
I am afraid that my emotional commitment contradicts my freedom and my privacy 8 0.691
I am afraid that my partner will depend on me financially and emotionally 9 0.644
I am afraid of being financially and emotionally dependent on my partner 10 0.642
I fear the responsibilities of being emotionally committed 7 0.619
I am afraid of attachment 14 0.459
I feel uncomfortable at a wedding and when I see others get married 6 0.718
I feel uneasy, and even feel panic attacks when talking about marriage 5 0.688
I put my relationship as a priority 1 0.728
I am looking forward to marriage 4 0.680
I consider my partner as part of my future plans 3 0.661
I put myself and my family and friends as a priority before my partner 2 0.468
Cronbach’s α 0.749 0.704 0.570 0.523
Percentage of variances explained 25.68 10.48 7.44 6.86
Note: Factor 1: Negative perception of self, partner, and relationship; Factor 2: Fear of emotional commitment and financial dependence; Factor 3:
Tension related to the idea of marriage; Factor 4: Prioritization of personal (family/friends) life. Cronbach’s α for the LFRC‐17 scale =0.789.

(P < .001). According to the promax rotated matrix, the components
are summarized in Table 2. Moreover, a high Cronbach’s α was found
for the full scale (0.789).
3.3 | Multivariable analysis
Five stepwise linear regression models were developed taking the
four factor components of the LFRC‐17 and the total score as
dependent variables.
The results of a first linear regression, taking factor 1 (negative
perception of self, partner, and relationship) as the dependent
variable, showed that higher defectiveness schema (β = 0.089),
lower self‐esteem (β = −0.064), and higher composite abuse scale
(β = 0.037) were significantly associated with higher negative
perception of self, partner, and relationship (factor 1).
A second linear regression, taking factor 2 (fear of emotional
commitment and financial dependence) as the dependent variable,
showed that higher depression (β = 0.033), lower age (β = ‐0.056), and
higher general trust (β = 0.050) were significantly associated with
higher fear of emotional commitment and financial dependence
level (factor 2).
A third linear regression, taking factor 3 (tension related to the
idea of marriage) as the dependent variable, showed that higher fear
of intimacy (β = 0.014) and higher attachment dismissing style
(β = 0.066) were significantly associated with higher tension related
to the idea of marriage. However, higher self‐esteem (β = −0.043) and
university level of education (β = −0.395) were significantly asso-
ciated with a decrease in tension related to the idea of marriage.
A four linear regression, taking factor 4 (prioritization of personal
[family/friends] life) as the dependent variable, showed that higher
general trust score (β = 0.040), higher attachment secure style
(β = 0.091), and higher attachment preoccupied style (β = 0.080)
were significantly associated with an increase in prioritization of
personal (family/friends) life (factor 4). However, the composite
abuse scale (β = −0.008) was significantly associated with a decrease
in prioritization of personal (family/friends) life.
A fifth linear regression taking the fear of relationship commit-
ment scale as the dependent variable, showed that higher social
phobia (β = 0.073) and higher general trust score (β = 0.393) were
significantly associated with higher fear of relationship commitment,
whereas higher self‐esteem (β = −0.275) was associated with lower
fear of relationship commitment scale (Table 3).
3.4 | Stratification analysis
In the comparison between males and females, higher social phobia
and higher general trust score were associated with an increase in
the LFRC‐17 among both men and women. However, lower self‐
esteem (β = −0.23) was significantly associated with a higher fear of
commitment among men only while higher negativity pessimism
6 | OBEID ET AL.

T A B L E 3 Multivariable analysis
Model 1: Linear regression taking factor 1 (negative perception of self, partner, and relationship) as the dependent variable
Confidence interval

Unstandardized β Standardized β P‐value Lower bound Upper bound

Defectiveness schema 0.089 0.403 .001 0.036 0.141
Self‐esteem scale (Rosenberg scale) −0.064 −0.282 .018 −0.116 −0.012
Composite abuse scale 0.037 0.258 .032 0.003 0.071
Variable(s) entered: education level, self‐esteem score (Rosenberg), anxiety scale (HAMA), depression scale (HAMD), social phobia score, general
trust score, fear of intimacy score, emotional deprivation schema, abandonment schema, mistrust abuse schema, defectiveness schema, failure
schema, dependence schema, social isolation schema, vulnerability schema, enmeshment schema, subjugation schema, emotional inhibition
schema, negativity pessimism schema, composite abuse scale and adult attachment style.
Model 2: Linear regression taking factor 2 (fear of emotional commitment and financial dependence) as the dependent variable

Confidence interval

Unstandardized β Standardized β P‐value Lower bound Upper bound

Depression (HAMD) 0.033 0.269 .015 0.007 0.059
Age −0.056 −0.288 .008 −0.098 −0.015
General trust score 0.050 0.221 .045 0.001 0.100
Variable(s) entered: anxiety scale (HAMA), depression scale (HAMD), social phobia score, general trust score, fear of intimacy score, abandonment
schema, mistrust abuse schema, vulnerability schema, enmeshment schema, Negativity pessimism schema, composite abuse scale, age, number of
kids, monthly income and adult attachment style.
Model 3: Linear regression taking factor 3 (tension related to the idea of marriage) as the dependent variable

Confidence interval

Unstandardized β Standardized β P‐value Lower bound Upper bound

Self‐esteem scale (Rosenberg scale) −0.043 −0.212 .003 −0.071 −0.015
Fear of intimacy score 0.014 0.250 <.001 0.006 0.021
University level of education −0.395 −0.187 .005 −0.670 −0.120
Attachment (dismissing style) 0.066 0.147 .025 0.008 0.124

Variable(s) entered: anxiety scale (HAMA), depression scale (HAMD), social phobia score, general trust score, fear of intimacy score, emotional
deprivation schema, abandonment schema, mistrust abuse schema, defectiveness schema, failure schema, dependence schema, social isolation
schema, vulnerability schema, enmeshment schema, subjugation schema, emotional inhibition schema, composite abuse scale, education level,
self‐esteem score (Rosenberg) adult attachment style.
Model 4: Linear regression taking factor 4 (prioritization of personal (family/friends) life) as the dependent variable

Confidence interval

Unstandardized β Standardized β P‐value Lower bound Upper bound

Attachment (secure style) 0.091 0.211 .003 0.032 0.151
General trust score 0.040 0.190 .005 0.012 0.068
Attachment (preoccupied style) 0.080 0.157 .021 0.012 0.147
Composite abuse scale −0.008 −0.143 .044 −0.015 0.0001
Variable(s) entered: anxiety scale (HAMA), depression scale (HAMD), social phobia score, general trust score, fear of intimacy score, emotional
deprivation schema, abandonment schema, mistrust abuse schema, defectiveness schema, failure schema, dependence schema, social isolation
schema, vulnerability schema, enmeshment schema, emotional inhibition schema, unrelenting schema, composite abuse scale, education level
and Self‐esteem score (Rosenberg) and adult attachment style.
Model 5: Linear regression taking the LFRC‐17 as the dependent variable

Confidence interval

Unstandardized β Standardized β P‐value Lower bound Upper bound

Social phobia score 0.073 0.271 <.001 0.050 0.096
General trust score 0.393 0.262 <.001 0.266 0.520
Self‐esteem score (Rosenberg) −0.275 −0.191 <.001 −0.397 −0.154
Variable(s) entered: age, adult attachment style, self‐esteem score (Rosenberg), anxiety scale (HAMA), depression scale (HAMD), social phobia score,
general trust score, emotional deprivation schema, abandonment schema, defectiveness schema, vulnerability schema, enmeshment schema,
subjugation schema, unrelenting schema, entitlement schema, approval seeking schema, negativity pessimism schema, composite abuse scale.
OBEID ET AL.
T A B L E 4 Multivariable analysis: linear regression taking the fear of commitment scale (LFRC‐17) as the dependent variable with a
stratification over sex
Men
Predictor factors β (95% CI)
Social phobia score 0.08 (0.03‐0.12)
General trust score 0.43 (0.19‐0.67)
Self‐esteem score (Rosenberg) −0.23 (−0.45 to −0.02)
Negativity pessimism schema ‐ ‐
schema (β = 0.14) was associated with higher fear of commitment
among women only (Table 4).
3.5 | Test–retest reliability
The results of the test–retest reliability assessment demonstrated
strong reproducibility of the fear of commitment scale (intraclass
correlation [95% CI]: ICC =0.92 (0.83‐0.96), P < .001).
3.6 | Sample 2
A confirmatory factor analysis was run on sample 2, using the
structure obtained in sample 1. The mean age of the participants was
26.74 ± 3.28 years, with 56.7% females; 66.9% with a university level
of education and 65.2% with a low monthly income. The following
results was obtained: the maximum likelihood χ = 64.69 and degrees
2
of freedom =34, which gave an χ /df =1.82. For noncentrality fit
2
indices, the Steiger‐Lind RMSEA was 0.077 (0.040‐0.101). Moreover,
the Joreskog GFI equaled 0.92 and AGFI equaled 0.9.
4 | D IS C U S S IO N
The LFRC‐17 is a comprehensive brief instrument developed using
the principal component analysis approach; it mainly captures
negative perception of self and relationship, and fear of emotional
and financial commitment. Items have been chosen based on
previous tests and studies,31,32 and after considering the opinion of
experts in the field. However, relevant literature is still scarce and
few papers addressed fear of relationship commitment not any fear
of commitment (ie, work). The scale is composed of 17 items divided
over four components, with an average time for completion and
evaluation of less than 10 minutes and an acceptable reliability
measured by a Cronbach’s α of 0.789.
The LFRC‐17 contributes to the measurement of the complex
concept of gamophobia and helps identify its etiology. The scale has
been developed to answer the increasing trend in the percentage of
single adults and the age of marriage, all of which giving the low rates of
fertility seen in many parts of the world.33 Dyadic stress related to
financial issues and responsibilities held by the couple is one major
34
factor related to gamophobia and delayed marriage. Financial
problems are particularly challenging for Lebanese young adults and
| 7
Women
P‐value β (95% CI) P‐value
.001 0.07 (0.03‐0.10) <.001
<.001 0.31 (0.12‐0.50) .001
.030 ‐ ‐
0.14 (0.001‐0.28) .048
this was reflected in the scale’s second component (ie, fear of emotional
commitment and financial dependence). Furthermore, Lebanese wed-
ding traditions are particularly stressful for couples and this could be
linked to the scale’s components 2 and 3, namely financial dependence
and tension related to the idea of marriage. In fact, Lebanese weddings
are money and time‐consuming, requiring great location and food,
plenty of partying and parades, and expensive gowns. Family, neighbors,
colleagues, and friends are usually invited to the wedding ceremony,
which further increase the social stress felt by the couple. However,
wedding traditions significantly differ between countries probably
affecting the level and extent of gamophobia. Prioritization of family
was found to be a significant component (factor 4) of the LFRC‐17 and
this as well might be a particular feature of gamophobia in Lebanon. In
fact, familial bonds are still strong in the country and adults live with
their families until they get married. Close relationships between
children and parents throughout adolescence and adulthood affect as
well the financial dependence among the family members, probably
adding to gamophobia.
In addition to socioeconomic factors, some personality disorders
(PDs) and schemas have been found to correlate with decreased
marriage such as avoidance.35 The current definition of an early
maladaptive schema is “a broad, pervasive theme or pattern,
comprised of memories, emotions, cognitions, and bodily sensations,
regarding oneself and one’s relationships with others, developed
during childhood or adolescence, elaborated throughout one’s
lifetime and dysfunctional to a significant degree.”36,37 Early
maladaptive schemas operate on the deepest level of cognition,
usually outside of awareness, and make the individual psychologically
vulnerable to develop depression, anxiety, dysfunctional relation-
ships, addiction, and psychosomatic disorders.37,38 When a schema is
triggered, the individual may respond to it with a maladaptive coping
style (eg, overcompensation, avoidance, surrender) that perpetuates
the schema.39 In this study, the abandonment schema was associated
with higher fear of relationship commitment. The perceived
instability or unreliability of significant others for emotional support
and connection during childhood might be reflected as a fear of
relationship commitment in later stages of life. Ambivalence about
involvement for young adults from divorced families might result
from two opposing forces experienced when parents’ divorce. A need
for attention and affection, combined with a fear of betrayal or
abandonment, can occur when parents become less available during
the divorce process.40
8 |
Our results showed that higher social phobia was associated with
41
higher fear of commitment, in line with previous findings. In
addition, higher trust and higher self‐esteem was associated with
lower fear of commitment. People monitor the degree to which they
are valued and accepted by significant others and that one important
output of this monitoring is the sense of self‐esteem. Specifically,
high self‐esteem connotes a feeling of being accepted and valued by
others, whereas low self‐esteem is derived from social rejection and
the failure to maintain close bonds. In support of this view, research
has shown that self‐esteem was significantly reduced when partici-
42
pants were socially excluded on the basis of a meaningful reason.
The four most important concepts in a relationship are trust,
assurance, commitment and social uncertainty.43 When there is very
little social uncertainty, partners do not need to infer each other’s
intentions to be assured of the partner’s benign behavior. In other
words, trust is needed less to the degree that commitment reduces
social uncertainty. Knowledge alone can never cause us to trust and
trust begins where simple prediction ends.44,45
People with avoidant PD exhibit a low self‐esteem along with
social inhibition and self‐isolation. Low self‐esteem and social phobia
have been both found to increase the LFRC‐17, particularly
components 1 and 3, that is, negative perception of self, partner,
and relationship and tension related to the idea of marriage. The
aforementioned PDs in addition to antisocial, schizoid, paranoid, and
obsessive‐compulsive disorders have been also associated with
increased early marriage and marital disruption7. Fear of intimacy,
a particular type of social phobia, has not been included in the final
model explaining the LFRC‐17. However, it was associated with
components 2 and 3, namely fear of emotional commitment and
tension related to the idea of marriage. Intimacy problems and sexual
disorders such as vaginal penetration phobia are common in Middle
Eastern Arab countries and neighboring Muslim or partly Muslim
countries due to cultural taboos and inherited beliefs regarding sex
education and practices.46 Other traits such as age, education, and
intimate partner violence further correlated with gamophobia and
causal imputations are a priority for future research.
Moreover, higher self‐esteem was associated with lower fear of
commitment, showing that person’s self‐esteem is linked to the
quality of his or her romantic relationship. In a study conducted by
Murray et al (2000), authors suggested that people with low self‐
esteem thought their partners saw them as negatively as they
presented themselves; and as a result, they tend to distance
themselves in order to avoid disappointment, which reduces the
relational satisfaction of the two partners and generates in return a
fear of commitment in a romantic relationship. In return, this
negative correlation between these two factors emphasizes that
low self‐esteem contributes to avoidance of attachment, people with
low self‐esteem may tend to reduce interpersonal proximity with the
partner in order to protect themselves from rejection experi-
ments.47,48 In addition, several studies found an association between
fear of commitment and men’s sex, speculating that it was the result
of traditional gender roles in which men are supposed to initiate
relationships and therefore run an increased risk of rejection more
OBEID ET AL.
than women.49,50 For their part, several researchers believe that low
self‐esteem among men increases the chances of being single and not
to participate in serious meetings (McClure et al).48,51
In addition, multivariate analysis showed that the schema of
negative pessimism was associated with fear of commitment in
women only. Regarding this correlation, there are no previous studies
that have focused on the association between these two variables.
Practically, as women express their feelings, positive or negative,
more freely than men, studies showed that women had higher death
anxiety scores than men.52-54 This significant difference corroborates
a number of previous reports that showed that fear of death was
more expressed by women than by men. This study also pointed out
that loneliness, fear of commitment in a relationship, and death
anxiety were positively correlated in women.
Finally, the association between attachment styles (secure,
preoccupied, and dismissing) with factors 3 (tension related to the
idea of marriage) and 4 (prioritization of personal (family/friends) life)
has not been studied in previous research. But we can analyze that
people with an insecure attachment style (preoccupied and dismiss-
ing) generally fear rejection and loneliness in romantic relation-
ships.55-57 Likewise, lack of self‐confidence in stressful situations
would be able to create psychological stress for insecure individuals,
and as a result, they may feel inferior compared to others, humbled
and anxious.58,59 They also have low expectations for their future.
These problems create a fear of engaging in a romantic relationship, a
tension related to the idea of marriage and an attitude of priority
given to family and friends as a means to distance oneself from loving
affects.55,60 Moreover, extreme attachment or detachment (physical
and mental) and adverse reactions in case of crisis and failure are
considered characteristics of insecure individuals. These individuals
may feel restless or anxious when they experience intimacy. They
may not respond or be slightly sensitive to meeting the needs of
others, preferring loneliness and nonengagement in a romantic
relationship.
4.1 | Limitations
We conducted the research in a middle‐income country of the Middle
Eastern Arab region, and the generalizability of this measure for
adults living in different areas is unknown. Additional testing is
needed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the LFRC‐17 in other
contexts and cultures. If used in other countries, especially where
cultural understandings of commitment, family, financial dependence,
and wedding habits differ from those in Lebanon, it will be important
to reconsider wording of items and a careful cultural or linguistic
translations as needed. Causal sequential relationships with gamo-
phobia need to be investigated in prospective studies while
considering other confounding factors. Furthermore, as with all
observational studies, there are possibilities of a selection and an
information biases, since the study was conducted on a sample and
relied on participants’ answers. Larger scale studies would be
necessary to confirm our findings.
OBEID ET AL.
5 | CONC LU SION
The LFRC‐17 is a valid and reliable measure of fear of relationship
commitment and a highly efficient tool both for research and clinical
practice. It gathers social, physical, and psychological aspects related
to gamophobia such as negative perception of self, partner and
relationship, fear of emotional commitment and financial depen-
dence, tension related to the idea of marriage, and prioritization of
family and personal life. While further testing is required in diverse
settings, this 17‐item scale will help diagnose and understand factors
and personality traits associated with gamophobia.
CO NFLICT OF I NTERE STS
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
OR CID
Souheil Hallit http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6918-5689
REFERENC ES
1. Aronson SM. Those esoteric, exoteric and fantabulous diagnoses.
Rhode Island Med J. 2010;93(5):163.
2. Ghita C, Beshara R, eds. Fear and Anxiety in the 21st Century.
The European Context and Beyond. Oxford, UK: Inter‐Disciplinary
Press; 2015.
3. Livingston G (2018). The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents. Pew
Research Center.
4. Tach L, Edin K. The compositional and institutional sources of
union dissolution for married and unmarried parents in the United
States. Demography. 2013;50(5):1789‐1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13524‐013‐0203‐7
5. Liezel Alsemgeest CG. Spouses’ views of gender roles: financial
management in marriage. J Econ Financ Sci. 2015;8(3):843‐860.
6. Kalmijn M. The influence of men’s Income and employment on
marriage and cohabitation: testing Oppenheimer’s theory in Europe.
Eur J Popul. 2011;27:269‐293.
7. Bastaits K, Pasteels I, Mortelmans D. How do post‐divorce paternal
and maternal family trajectories relate to adolescents’ subjective
well‐being? J Adolesc. 2018;64:98‐108.
8. Kleinsorge C, Covitz LM. Impact of divorce on children: develop-
mental considerations. Pediatr Rev. 2012;33(4):147‐154. quiz
154‐145.
9. Cheng TC, Lo CC. Health of women surviving intimate partner
violence: impact of injury and fear. Health Soc Work. 2019;44:87‐94.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlz003
10. Breiding M, Basile KC, Smith SG, Black MC, Mahendra RR. Intimate
partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended
data elements, version 2.0. 2. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control; 2015.
11. Labadie C, Godbout N, Vaillancourt‐Morel MP, Sabourin S. Adult profiles
of child sexual abuse survivors: attachment insecurity, sexual compul-
sivity, and sexual avoidance. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;44(4):354‐369.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2017.1405302
12. Petersen AC, Joseph J, Feit M, eds. Consequences of Child Abuse
and Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK195987/
| 9
13. Kalra G, Subramanyam A, Pinto C. Sexuality: desire, activity and
intimacy in the elderly. Indian J Psychiatr. 2011;53:300‐306.
14. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. An attachment perspective on psycho-
pathology. World Psychiatr. 2012;11(1):11‐15.
15. Luciano EC, Orth U. Transitions in romantic relationships and
development of self‐esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;112(2):307‐
328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109
16. Breslau J, Miller E, Jin R, et al. A multinational study of mental disorders,
marriage, and divorce. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;124(6):474‐486.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600‐0447.2011.01712.x
17. Martin EK, Taft CT, Resick PA. A review of marital rape. Aggress
Violent Behav. 2007;12(3):329‐347.
18. Straus MA. Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male
and female university students in 32 nations. Child Youth Serv Rev.
2008;30(3):252‐275.
19. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press; 1965.
20. Obeid S, Abi Elias Hallit C, Haddad C, Hany Z, Hallit S. Validation
of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and sociodemographic
factors associated with Lebanese depressed patients. Encephale.
2018;44:397‐402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2017.10.010
21. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatr. 1960;23:56‐62.
22. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med
Psychol. 1959;32(1):50‐55.
23. Halit S., Haddad C, Hallit R, et al. Validation of the Hamilton anxiety
rating scale and state trait anxiety inventory A and B in arabic among
the Lebanese population. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health.
2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2019.02.002
24. Tryjarska B. Style przywiązania partnerów a tworzenie bliskich związków
w dorosłości. Bliskość w rodzinie. Więzi w dzieciństwie a zaburzenia
w dorosłości. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar;
2012:185‐217.
25. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatr. 1987;22:
141‐173.
26. Rytwinski NK, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG, et al. Screening for social
anxiety disorder with the self‐report version of the Liebowitz Social
Anxiety Scale. Depress Anxiety. 2009;26(1):34‐38. https://doi.org/10.
1002/da.20503
27. Ford‐Gilboe M, Wathen CN, Varcoe C, et al. Development of a brief
measure of intimate partner violence experiences: the Composite Abuse
Scale (Revised)‐Short Form (CASR‐SF). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e012824.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2016‐012824
28. Yamagishi T, Yamagishi M. Trust and commitment in the United
States and Japan. Motiv Emot. 1994;18(2):129‐166.
29. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed
for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34‐42.
30. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on
hypothesis‐testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes
and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings.
Struct Equ Model. 2004;11(3):320‐341.
31. Curtis JM, Susman VM. Factors related to fear of marriage. Psychol
Rep. 1994;74(3 Pt 1):859‐863. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.
3.859
32. Serling DA, Betz NE. Development and evaluation of a measure of
fear of commitment. J Counsel Psychol. 1990;37(1):91‐97.
33. Gietel‐Basten S, Verropoulou G. The changing relationship between
marriage and childbearing in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):
e0194948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194948
34. Gagliardi S, Bodenmann G, Heinrichs N, Maria AB, Iafrate R, Donato
S. Differences in relationship quality and dyadic coping for attach-
ment‐related couple types. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2013;
63(5):185‐192.
10 | OBEID
35. Whisman MA, Tolejko N, Chatav Y. Social consequences of
personality disorders: probability and timing of marriage and
probability of marital disruption. J Pers Disord. 2007;21(6):690‐695.
36. Abbas SP. Investigating the relationship between the early maladap-
tive schema & marital satisfaction among 25 to 45 years‐old couples.
Int J Humanit Cult Stud. 2016:2356‐5926.
37. Taylor CDJ, Bee P, Haddock G. Does schema therapy change schemas
and symptoms? A systematic review across mental health disorders.
Psychol Psychother. 2017;90(3):456‐479. https://doi.org/10.1111/
papt.12112. Epub 2016 Dec 30.
38. Thimm JC. Personality and early maladaptive schemas: a five‐factor
model perspective. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatr. 2010;41(4):373‐380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.03.009. Epub 2010 Apr 7.
39. Bayrami M, Bakhshipor A, Esmaeili A. The relationship between
coping styles and early maladaptive schemas in disconnection‐
rejection and over vigilance ‐ inhibition in young’s schema model.
J Life Sci Biomed. 2012;2(4):178‐181.
40. Pantelis K, Bonotis K, Kandri T. It attacked my change: An
exploratory study with young adults on the impact of divorce and
their adjustment processes during adolescence. J Divorce Remarriage.
2015;56(8):634‐656.
41. Craske MG, Niles AN, Burklund LJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial
of cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment
therapy for social phobia: outcomes and moderators. J Consult Clin
Psychol. 2014;82(6):1034‐1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037212.
Epub 2014 Jul 7.
42. Kleiman EM, Riskind JH. Utilized social support and self‐esteem
mediate the relationship between perceived social support and
suicide ideation. A test of a multiple mediator model. Crisis.
2013;34(1):42‐49. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227‐5910/a000159
43. Ishiguro I, Okamoto Y. Two ways to overcome social uncertainty in
social support networks: A test of the emancipation theory of trust
by comparing kin/nonkin relationships. Japan Psychol Res. 2013;55(5):
1‐11.
44. Durante M. What is the model of trust for multi‐agent systems?
Whether or not E‐trust applies to autonomous agents. Knowl Technol
Policy. 2010;23(3‐4):347‐366.
45. Huang J, van den Brink HM, Groot W. College education and social
trust: an evidence‐based study on the causal mechanisms. Soc Indic
Res. 2011;104:287‐310.
46. Muammar T, McWalter P, Alkhenizan A, Shoukri M, Gabr A, Bin A.
Management of vaginal penetration phobia in Arab women: a
retrospective study. Annals Saudi Med. 2015;35(2):120‐126.
47. Ford MB, Collins NL. Self‐esteem moderates neuroendocrine and
psychological responses to interpersonal rejection. J Pers Soc Psychol.
2010;98(3):405‐419. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017345
48. Ruth Yasemin UO. Self‐esteem and the quality of romantic relation-
ships. Eur Psychol. 2016;21:274‐283.
49. Curran MA, McDaniel BT, Pollitt AM, Totenhagen CJ. Gender,
emotion work, and relationship quality: a daily diary study. Sex
ET AL.
Roles. 2015;73(3‐4):157‐173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199‐015‐
0495‐8
50. Azmoude E, Firoozi M, Sadeghi Sahebzad E, Asgharipour N.
Relationship between gender roles and sexual assertiveness in
married women. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2016;4:
363‐373.
51. McClure AC, Tanski SE, Kingsbury J, Gerrard M, Sargent JD.
Characteristics associated with low self‐esteem among U.S. adoles-
cents. Acad Pediatr. 2010;10(4):238‐244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
acap.2010.03.007 e232
52. Chuin CL, Choo YC. Age, gender, and religiosity as related to death
anxiety. Sunway Acad J. 2010;6(6):1‐16.
53. Dadfar M, Lester D, Bahrami F. Death anxiety, reliability, validity, and
factorial structure of the Farsi form of the Arabic scale of death
anxiety in Iranian old‐aged persons. J Aging Res. 2016;2016:2906857.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2906857
54. Assari S, Moghani Lankarani M. Race and gender differences in
correlates of death anxiety among elderly in the United States.
Iran J Psychiatr Behav Sci. 2016;10(2):e2024. https://doi.org/10.
17795/ijpbs‐2024
55. Marshall TC, Bejanyan K, Ferenczi N. Attachment styles and
personal growth following romantic breakups: The mediating roles
of distress, rumination, and tendency to rebound. PLoS One.
2013;8(9):e75161.
56. Pietromonaco PR, Uchino B, Dunkel Schetter C. Close relationship
processes and health: implications of attachment theory for health
and disease. Health Psychol. 2013;32(5):499‐513.
57. Beck LA, Pietromonaco PR, DeBuse CJ, Powers SI, Sayer AG.
Spouses’ attachment pairings predict neuroendocrine, behavioral,
and psychological responses to marital conflict. J Pers Social Psychol.
2013;105(3):388‐424.
58. Farmer AS, Kashdan TB. Stress sensitivity and stress generation in
social anxiety disorder: a temporal process approach. J Abnorm
Psychol. 2015;124(1):102‐114. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000036
59. Imam AJE. The impact of psychological stress on self‐esteem of
sudanese secondary school students. bilimname XXVI. 2014;1:
121‐132.
60. Stanton SC, Campbell L. Perceived social support moderates the link
between attachment anxiety and health outcomes. PLoS One.
2014;9(4):e95358. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095358
How to cite this article: Obeid S, Fares K, Haddad C, et al.
Construction and validation of the Lebanese fear of
relationship commitment scale among a representative
sample of the Lebanese population. Perspect Psychiatr Care.
2019;1‐10. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12424