That definition seems pretty straight forward, so why do people compare levels of commitment based on ANYTHING other than the history of our accomplishments in any given context? I would think that if someone is doing their job efficiently, and to the best of their ability, they would be considered committed to their responsibilities. If you have an agreement as to shared responsibilities, (such as in a marriage or business arrangement) and each of you are meeting those obligations to the best of your respective abilities, would that not be considered reputation for commitment?
I wonder if the human race has become so jaded and suspicious of each other that we are no longer able to see past our fearmongering ways and evaluate each other as the individuals we are - warts and all, based on what we have done in the past. I think it is a sad day when finger pointing, assumptions and misunderstandings override individual levels of commitment to each other and to society as a whole. We have learned from our Governments that promises are made to be broken, that the value of money isn't appreciated unless it's your own and that trust is the most abused 5 letter word in the English language.
The proof is in the pudding people. Let reputation and past performance be your guide in deciding who is committed and who is just blowing sugar up your ass. That is as straight forward as it gets.