**Results and Analyses** -------------------- **Participant Characteristics** We recruited 105 students from Loyola University Maryland to participate in this study. After removing participants who failed to following instructions (*n* = 4), the final sample (*n* = 101) consisted largely of women (*n* = 83, *M*age = 19.35 [*SD* = 1.14]). Participants were freshmen (*n* = 22), sophomores (*n* = 43), juniors (*n* = 11), and seniors (*n* = 22), with 3 students selecting "other" (e.g., graduate student). Most participants described their current relationship as "dating seriously" (*n* = 81) and exclusive (*n* = 97), and relationship length was on average 19.40 (*SD* = 16.33) months. Approximately half of the sample reported being in a long-distance relationship (*n* = 55). **Main Analysis.** **Manipulation Check.** Participants indicated their subjective feelings of commitment after experiencing either the high commitment or low commitment prime. An independent sample *t*-test showed that subjective commitment did not differ between experimental conditions, *t*(98) = 0.72, *p* = .706. When gender was integrated into the analysis of reported feelings of commitment using a 2x2 ANOVA (gender x condition), no main effects were observed. A significant interaction, *F*(1, 96) = 13.62, *p* = .0003, revealed that males reported more commitment when primed with low commitment (*M*= 7.65) than high commitment (*M*= 5.79), while the reverse pattern was observed for women (*M* = 6.70 for low commitment; *M* = 7.30 for high commitment). In sum, the manipulation did not appear to work for this sample; if anything, the males reported more commitment after completing the low commitment prime relative to the high commitment prime. **Tests of Main Hypotheses.** Analyses were then conducted examining the effect of commitment on exit forgiveness, neglect forgiveness, voice forgiveness, loyolty forgiveness, and overall forgiveness. 2(condition) x 2(gender) ANOVA were used to test the effects on each type of forgiveness. No main or interaction effects were observed for exit forgiveness, *F*s < 3.66. For neglect, a main effect of gender was observed, *F*(1, 96) = 7.70, *p* = .007, such that men reported more neglect forgiveness when primed with the high commitment (*M* = 3.09) relative to low commitment (*M* = 2.50). No other effects were observed for neglect, *F*s < 1.76. A test of the hypothesis that commitment would affect voice forgiveness showed no difference by gender or condition or their interaction, *F*s < 1. This pattern held consistent for loyalty, , *F*s < 3.32, and for the test of overall forgiveness, , *F*s < 3.07.