Relationships- Rusbult’s Investment Model (Theories Of Romantic RS)

Question 1

Investment theory:

Answer 1

Developing SET. When deciding on continuing a relationship, more has to be considered than just the current level of satisfaction. Potential alternative relationships and how much has already been invested are also important.
Commitment = Satisfaction - Alternatives + Investment

Question 2

Investment Size:

Answer 2

What distinguishes investments from rewards/costs is once invested into a relationship, they cannot be easily recovered in a break up or may be difficult to divide.

Question 3

Categories of investment:

Answer 3

Intrinsic and extrinsic

Question 4

intrinsic:

Answer 4

these are resources put directly into the relationship, emotional work, time spent and self disclosures.

Question 5

Extrinsic:

Answer 5

resources that used to be outside of a relationship but become strongly connected to the relationship. Such as shared friendships, memories, material possessions, activities/events that become associated, children

Question 6

Investments:

Answer 6

Can be rewarding or costly, such as shared friendships would be rewarding and investments in money would be costly.

Question 7

Commitment:

Answer 7

is increased by the amount of investment as the person feels locked into the connection, ending the relationship would mean sacrificing the resources.

Question 8

Investment model is an ____ theory

Answer 8

Economic theory

Question 9

Investment model of relationships
Rusbult (1983)
• Suggests that

Answer 9

the maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment
• In this context commitment refers to the likelihood that the relationship will persist.

Question 10

• Commitment can be strengthened by:

Answer 10

• Satisfaction
• Investment

Question 11

• Commitment is weakened by:

Answer 11

• Presence of alternatives to the relationship

Question 12

Satisfaction=

Answer 12

Comparison level

Question 13

Satisfaction=

Answer 13

Comparison level

Question 14

Quality of alternatives

Answer 14

• Attractive alternative = they may leave the relationship.

• No alternative exists = they may maintain the relationship.(Increases satisfaction)

However, sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one.

Question 15

Supporting research evidence
Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew

Answer 15

Some of the strongest support for the investment model comes from a meta-analysis by Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003).

They reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1999, studies which together included some 11,000 participants from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest.

An especially supportive finding was that these outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.

This suggests there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.

Question 16

A03
Explains abusive rs

Answer 16

The investment model is thought to be a particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving intimate partner violence (IPV, commonly known as ‘abusive relationships’). On the face of it, it seems surprising that any rational person subjected to violence by a partner should continue to be committed to the relationship. Why do they not simply leave? The key factor is clearly not satisfaction.

Cary Rusbult and John Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (i.e. were most committed) reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives. The model recognises that a victim of IPV does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.

Question 17

A03
Oversimplifies investment

Answer 17

Wind Goodfriend and Christopher Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. After all, in the early stages of a romantic relationship the partners will have made very few actual investments. They may not even live together at this point. Goodfriend and Agnew extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out.

The original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for the future influences commitment.

Question 18

A03
Methodological strengths

Answer 18

it is striking that so much of the evidence supporting the investment model relies on self-report measures such as questionnaires and interviews.
However, these are appropriate methods because it is not the objective reality of factors such as investment size that matters.
What matters is the individual partners’ perceptions of these factors. It is your belief that you have made a big investment in your current relationship, or your belief that you have no attractive alternatives, that will influence your commitment. Whether this belief matches the objective reality of the situation is really neither here nor there.

Question 19

A03
Based on correlational research

Answer 19

Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model. However, even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation.
Most studies do not allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the model.