Rusbult’s Investment Model

Question 1

Explain satisfaction in Rusbult’s Investment Model

Answer 1

Satisfaction based on concept of comparison level
Satisfying relationship judged by comparing rewards & costs & seen as profitable if it has many rewards & few costs
Each partner generally satisfied if they’re getting more out of relationship than they expect based on previous experience & social norms

Question 2

Explain investment size as a feature of Rusbult’s investment model for romantic relationships

Answer 2

Two major types of investment:

Intrinsic investments = resources we put directly into relationship, they can be tangible things like money & possessions or less easy to quantify, like energy & emotion

Extrinsic investments = resources previously didn’t feature in relationship, but now closely associated with it. Tangibles include possessions bought together, mutual friends acquired since start of relationship & children. Intangible could be memories

Question 3

What is investment?

Answer 3

Refers to extent & importance of resources associated with relationship
Anything we could lose if relationship ended

Question 4

Outline the difference between satisfaction vs commitment

Answer 4

Rusbult et al (2011) argue main psychological factor causing people to stay in romantic relationships isn’t satisfaction but commitment
Can help explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay - they’re committed to partner as they’ve made investment & don’t want to waste it
They’ll work to maintain & repair damaged relationship

Question 5

Explain relationship maintenance mechanisms

Answer 5

MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOUR:
According to model, enduring partners don’t engage tit-for-tat retaliation but promote relationship
They’ll put partner’s interests first & forgive them

COGNITIVE MAINTENANCE:
Committed partners unrealistically positive about partner & negative about tempting alternatives & other relationships, much less than less committed partners

Question 6

Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of romantic relationship

Answer 6

SUPPORTING RESEARCH
-Le & Agnew (2003) conducted met-analysis on 52 studies from late 70s-1999 (11,000 p & 5 countries)
-Found satisfaction, comparison with alternatives & investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Greater commitment = most stable & lasted longest
-Results were true for men & women across all cultures & homosexual couples
-Suggests some validity to Rusbult’s claim these factors universally important features of romantic relationships

EXPLAINS ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
-On face of it, surprising any rational person subjected to violence by partner continue relationship ‘Why don’t they leave?’
-Rusbult & Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at shelter & found most likely return to abusive partner reported making greatest investment & having few attractive alternatives
-Model recognises victim of IPV doesn’t have to be satisfied with relationship to stay

OVERSIMPLIFIES INVESTMENT
- Goodfriend & Agnew (2008) extended Rusbult’s original model by including investment romantic partners make in future plans
-They’re motivated to commit to each other bc they want to see plans work out
-Original model limited explanation of romantic relationships bc it fails to recognise true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for future influences commitment