Investment Model Flashcards
Investment Model
Rusbult et al - Investigates other factors affecting maintenance of relationships.
Maintenance
Three major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.
Investment
Resources that would be lost if maintenance fails.
Intrinsic
Direct (money, effort, possessions ect)
Extrinsic
Indirect (children, friends, memories)
Theory
Higher investment, higher likelihood of maintenance. Not just satisfaction or CLA.
Accommodation
Acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
Willingness to sacrifice
Putting partner’s interests first.
Forgiveness
WIllingness to forgive partner’s mistakes, both minor and serious.
Positive illusions
Being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities.
Ridiculing alternatives
Minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.
Supporting Research Impett
Impett, Beals and Peplau longitudinal study using a large sample of married couples over an 18 months period. They found that stability of the relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners.
Supporting Research Rhahgan
Rhahgan and Axsom studied a group of women and found that all three factors identified by Rusbult et al. (satisfaction, CTA, and investment) featured in participants’ decision to stay with their partner.
Supporting Research Le and Agnew
Conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies, featuring 11,000 participants and discovered that satisfaction, CTA and investment greatly contributed to commitment; and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships.
PEEL - SR
Strength of IM is lots of support. Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, CTA and investment greatly contributed to commitment. supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, increases the reliability of the model.
PEEL - Explanations for things unexplained by other models/theories
IM explains why people stay in abusive relationships. if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (phy or emo abuse) and rewards are few. Research into abusive relationships supports this idea. Rusbult and Maltz, in their study of ‘battered’ women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn’t have any appealing alternatives. This shows that the IM can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and ET fail to explain, increasing the IM’s application to everyday relationships.
Issues and Debates - Reductionism
Goodfriend and Agnew argue things brought into relationship aren’t the only factor, but also a couple’s plans for their future. Suggesting that partners will be committed to staying in the relationships because they want to see these plans realised. showing complexity in relationships which the IM doesn’t consider.
Issues and Debates - Culture
Culture bias doesn’t seem to be an issue for the IM. Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the IM across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (IC) and in Taiwan (CC). Furthermore, the IM, as an explanation of relationship maintenance, is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples, etc. This suggests the universality of the IM, making it applicable to wide range of relationships.
Issue and Debates - Nature
The fact that the evidence for the IM is found across cultures may suggest that the human need for investment and commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive and reproduce. For example, parents who are committed to their relationship and invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children’s survival and therefore of passing on their genes. This means that the IM supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate.
