Relationships: Rusbult's investment model Flashcards
Outline Rusbult’s investment model.
It is also an economic theory on romantic relationships, and it develops ideas from social exchange theory. Maintaining commitment- the determining factor on whether a person decides to continue or end a relationship, depends on three factors: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.
Satisfaction is based on comparison level (CL).Rewards (sex, companionship, support etc) – costs (conflicts, anxiety etc) = profit/satisfaction. Partners are satisfied when they get more out the relationship than their expectations which are based on previous relationships and social norms.
CLalt – partner makes a judgement as to whether a relationship with another partner/being on their own would bring more rewards and fewer costs
Investment refers to what a person might lose if the relationship ended. The larger the investment – the more likely people are to stay in a relationship
1. Intrinsic investments is anything we put directly into a relationship
Tangible resources – money, possessions etc
Intangible resources – emotion, self disclosure etc
2. Extrinsic investments anything that becomes closely associated with the relationship and could be lost
Tangible resources – house, car, mutual friends, children etc
Intangible resources – shared memories
Define the difference between satisfaction and commitment in this context.
It is commitment that keeps people in the relationship (satisfaction is a contributory factor).Dissatisfied partners might stay in a relationship with a high level of investment and also will be more likely to try to repair a damaged relationship.
Outline relationship maintenance mechanisms.
Behavioral mechanisms:
Accommodation – acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs & rewards.
Willingness to sacrifice – put partners interests first
Forgiveness – for partners mistakes
Cognitive mechanisms:
Positive illusions – unrealistically positive about their partner’s qualities
Ridiculing alternatives – negative about potential alternatives
What are the strengths of the investment model?
+Research support: Le and Agnew (2003)’s meta study of 52 ACROSS CULTURES studies found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment. This supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, and thereby increases the reliability of the model.
+Evolutionary origins: the fact that the evidence for the Investment Model 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 investment model is rooted in evolutionary adaptations and it has a sociological/biological explanation.
+Explains why people remain in abusive relationships, increases ecological validity: 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 Investment Model can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain, thus increasing the Investment Model’s application to everyday relationships.
What are the weaknesses of the investment model?
- No cause-effect established: the majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships. This limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment and how much investment will lead to long-term commitment to a relationship. Lack of predictive validity also makes the Investment Model less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people’s behavior, in this case, whether or not they will stay committed to the relationship, is one of the main goals of psychology as a science.
- Oversimplifies investment: Goodfried and Agnew(2008) argue that at the start of a relationship, there are limited tangible investments. They extended the model by suggesting that partners also possess investment in their future plans, something which also equates to more commitment. Means that the original model is limited as it fails to recognize the complexities of investment.
- Lacks validity- most of the supporting research is retained through self-report methods such as questionnaires. These can be biased and subjective, weakening the internal validity of the model.
