Rusbult's investment model. Flashcards
What is Rusbult’s Investment Model:
- The investment model was put forward by Rusbult et al (2001) as a development of the social exchange theory.
- The rationale for developing SET further was that many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards, so there must be other factors that keep them together.
- Rusbult’s investment model investigate what these other factors might be.
Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives:
- Satisfaction based on concept of the comparison level, a satisfying is judged by comparing rewards and costs. If it’s seem profitable and has many rewards and few costs, then we are less likely to stay.
- Each partner is generally satisfied if they’re getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms.
- Alternatives don’t just include relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship and staying on their own.
Investment size:
- Rusbult realised the comparison levels weren’t enough to explain commitment, if they were, then many more relationships would end as soon as costs started outweighing rewards or if more attractive alternatives presented themselves - so she introduced a crucial third factor influencing commitment: investment.
- Investment refers to extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship, these can be tangible like money of possessions or intangible like happy memories.
- An investment can be understood as anything we would lose if the relationship were to end. Rusbult argues there’s two major types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic.
What are intrinsic investments?
- Any resources we put directly into the relationship. They can be tangible things such as money and possessions.
- They can also be resources less easy to quantity (intangibles) such as energy, emotion and self-disclosures.
- Examples: time, effort, energy, self-disclosures, money.
What are extrinsic investments?
- Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it.
- Tangibles includes possessions brought together (car, house, mortgage). Intangible examples could be shared memories.
- Examples: friends, children, house, car, memories.
Intrinsic and extrinsic - to summarise:
- High satisfaction in relationships = rewards outweighing costs.
- Alternatives are less attractive.
- Sizes of investment increase.
- If a relationship has these 3 factors, we can confidently predict that partners will be in a committed relationship.
Limitation of the investment model - investment oversimplified.
P: A limitation of the investment model is that the investment factor appears
to be oversimplified.
E: Goodfriend & Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. In the early stages most couples make very few investments. The researchers extended
the model by including the investment of future plans, explaining that this
motivates commitment.
C: The original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships
because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment.
Investment model: Maintenance.
In addition to factors influencing commitment, Rusbult also identified maintenance mechanisms partners use to keep the relationships going.
1. Accommodation: acting in a way that promotes the relationship rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
2. Willingness to sacrifice: putting a partners interests first.
3. Forgiveness: willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes, both minor and serious ones.
4. Positive illusions: being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities.
5. Ridiculing alternatives: minimising advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.
Strength of investment model - research support.
P: A strength of the investment model is that there is strong support
through meta-analysis research.
E: Agnew (2003) reviewed 52 studies (1970-1999) that included 11,000 participants from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Greater commitment = longer lasting relationship which was true for men, women, homosexual and heterosexual couples.
C: This suggests that there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.
Counterarguments:
- Based on self-report = social desirability bias, reduces validity.
- Correlational research, causality cannot be established = it could be that
the more committed you are to your partner, the more investment you are willing to make – so any direction of causality proposed by the model may not be as predicted.
Satisfaction vs commitment:
- Main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships is not satisfaction, but commitment.
- Important distinction, because it can help to explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship - because they are committed.
- Usually because they have made an investment they do not want to see go to waste. Therefore, they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship.
Satisfaction vs commitment: Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter.
- They found those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
- Recognising that a person does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.
- Can be used as strength of the model.
What others factors effect commitment in a relationship?
- Equity: the degree of fairness, if there is perceived inequity in the relationship that could lead to less commitment, where a person would feel relieved by ending the relationship.
- Social support: the degree of care and assistance available from other such as family and friends. If such others approve of a relationship it produces a positive influence that increases commitment.
Strength of investment model - research support.
P: One strength is that there is research support for the
investment model.
E: Le and Agnew’s (2003) review found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted commitment in a relationship. The results were true for men and woman in either heterosexual or homosexual relationships.
C: This suggests that the claim that these facts are universally important in relationships is not valid.
Strength of investment model - explain why people stay in abusive relationships.
P: Another strength is it can explain why people may stay in abusive relationships.
E: Rusbult and Martz (`995) found that women who reported making the greatest investment and who had fewer attractive alternatives were likely to return to partners who had abused
them. This means satisfaction is important but cannot explain commitment at this level.
C: This is a strength because it explains the apparently
inexplicable behaviour of staying in an abusive relationship.
Limitation of investment model - oversimplifies investment.
P: One limitation of the model is that it oversimplifies investment.
E: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that is more to investment than just resources you have already put in to the relationship.
They argue it is future plans than may motivate partners to stay in a relationship.
C: This means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to
consider the true complexity of investment.
