INVESTMENT MODEL Flashcards
INVESTMENT MODEL
According to Rusbult (2011) commitment to a relationship
depends on three different factors.
Satisfaction Level
Comparison with Alternatives
Investment Size
Satisfaction
We develop a standard which we compare all our relationships against.
It is formed based on all of our experiences plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange.
If we judge the potential profit of a new relationship to exceed our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile. If the outcome is negative (profit less than CL) we will be dissatisfied in the relationship.
Similarly we have a ‘Comparison Level for Alternatives’ where we weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a potential partner, minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship.
Investment size
Rusbult suggested that the CL and the CLalt from the SET are not enough to explain commitment to a relationship.
Rusbult (1983) found that when people were deciding whether to end a relationship, not only did they weigh up the rewards and the costs of the relationship and possible alternatives available to them, but they also considered how much they had invested in the relationship.
Investment size (2)
She defines investment as ‘anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it’. This may include things such as possessions, children’s welfare and emotional energy.
Rusbult argues that there are major types of investment
Intrinsic Investment – any resources put directly into a relationship
E.g. money, possessions, energy, emotion, self disclosure
Extrinsic Investment – and resources that didn’t feature before but are now closely associated with the relationship
E.g. mutual friends, memories, children
So if the partners in the relationship experience high levels of satisfaction (because they are getting high levels of rewards and low costs), and the alternatives are less attractive and their investment
in the relationship is increasing, then we can confidently predict that the partners will be committed to the relationship.
Satisfaction vs commitment
Rusbult argues that the main psychological factors that causes people to stay in a relationship is not satisfaction but commitment.
This is an important distinction because it can help explain why dissatisfied partners will stay in a relationship – because they are committed to their partner.
But why are they so committed?
That’s because they have made an investment that they do not want to see go to waste. Therefore they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship, especially when it hits a rough patch.
Commitment
The likelihood that involvement will persist
Commitment is high with high levels of satisfaction and anticipation of high levels of loss (investments high and quality of alternatives low)
Commitment is a consequence of increasing dependence.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
There are number of mechanisms used to promote relationship maintenance when a partner is dissatisfied but it all depends on how committed the partners are.
Accommodation
Willingness to Sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive Illusions
Ridiculing Alternatives
Enduring partners act in a way to promote the relationship (accommodation). They will put their partners interests first (willingness to sacrifice), and forgive them for any serious
offences (forgiveness).
There is also a cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair.
Committed partners think about other and potential alternatives in a specific and predictable way. They are unrealistically positive about their partner to their face and to others (positive illusions), and negative about tempting positives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives), much more so than less committed partners.
A03 – Explains abusive relationships
The investment model is thought to be particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the investment model to abusive
relationships.
They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began.
As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.
Investments (time and effort) were the most important predictor of
whether to stay with a violent partner.
A03 – Oversimplifies investment
There is more to investment than the resources you have put in.
Investments can be made to future plans.
The model fails to recognise the true complexity of investment.
A03 – Supporting evidence
Le and Agnew
Procedure: Le and Agnew carried out a meta-analysis of 52 studies conducted between the late 1970s and the late 1990s. Each of these studies had explored the different components of the investment model and the relation between them. This produced a total of over 11,000 ppts (54% male and 46% female) from five countries (US, UK, Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan).
Findings: Across all the studies, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment size were highly correlated with relationship commitment. The correlation between satisfaction level and commitment (.68) was found to be significantly stronger than either quality of alternatives (-.48) and investment size (.46) and commitment. The correlation between commitment and stay or leave behaviours was also significant at .47, with individuals showing higher levels of commitment being more likely to stay in a relationship and those with lower levels more likely to leave.
