rusbult's investment model Flashcards
investment model
rusbult (2011) proposed that the best predictor of whether a couple will stay together is not satisfaction alone but commitment, which is made up of 3 factors:
- satisfaction within the relationship
- the relationship is more rewarding than alternatives
- substantial investments have been made
satisfaction
based on concept of comparison level
judge satisfaction by comparing rewards and costs. probitable if has many rewards (e.g. support, sex) and few costs (e.g. conflicts)
satisfying relationships seen as more profitable than expected based on previous experiences and social norms
comparison with alternatives
comparing the rewards and costs of current relationships with other possible relationships and the possibility of no relationship
will stay in relationship if we think it is better than the other options
investment
the extent and importance of resources associated with relationship and anything that will be lost if the relationship ends
intrinsic and extrinsic, both can be tangible or intangible
intrinsic investments
any resource that is put directly into a relationship
tangible- money and possessions
intangible- energy, emotion and self-disclosures
extrinsic investments
resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it
tangible- possessions bought together e.g. house, mutual friends, children
intangible- shared memories
committed partners
if partners in a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction (many rewards with few costs), the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investment are increasing, then we can confidently predict that they will be committed to the relationship
commitment vs satisfaction
commitment is the main factor in maintaining a romantic relationship. satisfaction is a contributing factor, which explains why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship (committed to partner)
commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours
maintenance behaviours
- accomodation (acting to promote the relationship)
- willingness to sacrifice (putting partner’s interests first)
- forgiveness (forgiving them for serious transgressions)
- positive illusions (being unrealistically positive about their partner)
- ridiculing alternatives (being negative about alternatives and other people’s relationships)
research support
le and agnew (2003) meta-analysis
52 studies 70s-1999. 11,000 participants 5 countries.
satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted commitment
most committed were most stable and lasted longest
true for men and women, across all cultures in analysis, homo and hetero.
validity to rusbult’s claim that these factors universally important features of relationships
counterpoint
most studies in meta-analysis correlational. can’t conclude that factors identified cause commitment. could be that the more committed you feel, more investment you are willing to make. direction of causality reverse.
not clear that model has identified causes of commitment rather than factors associated
strength
explains abusive relationships
can explain why people stay in relationships involving intimate partner violence
rusbult and martz (1995). domestically abused women at shelter. those most likely to return (presumably most committed) reported having made greatest investment and having fewest attractive alternatives. dissatisfied but still committed.
model demonstrates how satisfaction alone cant explain why people stay. commitment and investment also factors.
limitation
views investment in simplistic and one-dimensional way
goodfriend and agnew (2008) more to investment than resources already put in. partners make investments in future plans. motivated to commit to see future plans work out.
model limited. fails to recognise true complexity of investment, e.g. how planning for future influences
