Rusbult's Investment Model Flashcards
What is Rusbult’s investment model?
-Developed as a way of understanding why people persist in some relationships but not in others.
-Persist not just because of positive qualities that attract one another, but also ties that bind partners and the absence of a better option.
-These 3 factors provide explanatory framework by which we might predict the chances of someone being committed to the relationship.
What does this say about satisfaction?
-Refers to positive vs negative emotions experienced by extent to which other person fulfils the individual’s most important needs.
-e.g. a partner may feel satisfied to the degree the other person gratifies their domestic, companionate + sexual needs.
What does it say about comparison of alternatives?
-Refers to extent to which an individual’s most important needs might be better fulfilled outside current relationship.
-Perceiving that an attractive alternative might provide superior outcomes might lad an individual away from the current relationship.
-If alternatives are not present, they may persist with a relationship because of a lack of better options.
-Not always more attractive individuals, no relationship may be seen as more attractive.
What does it say about investment size?
-Proposed that this also contributes to the stability of a relationship.
-Measure of all resources attached, and which would diminish in value or be lost completely if it were to end.
-Partners make investments expecting that in doing so it will create a strong foundation for lasting future together.
-These increase dependence on the relationship because they increase connections with partner that would be costly to break.
What does it say about commitment level?
-To describe the likelihood that an involvement will persist.
-High in romantic partners who are happy with relationships + anticipate very little gain + high levels of loss if they were to leave.
-Low when satisfaction levels + investment are low + quality of alternatives are high.
-When people are satisfied they feel tied because of their investment or have no suitable alternatives, they become dependent.
-Therefore commitment is a consequence of increasing dependence.
What are 2 strengths of Rusbult’s Investment Model?
Research Support:
-Meta-analysis by Le + Agnew (2003) - reviewed 52 studies over 33 yrs, including 11,000 participants from 5 countries (USA, UK, Netherlands, Israel, Taiwan).
-Found satisfaction, comparison with alternatives + investment size all predicted commitment.
-Relationships in which commitment was greatest were most stable, lasted longer.
-Outcomes were both true for men + women across all cultures and for homosexual + heterosexual couples.
Suggests there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important.
Practical applications: Can explain abusive relationships:
-Victims experience low satisfaction which would lead us to predict they would leave the partner.
-Caryl Rusbult + John Martz (1995) studied women at a shelter + found those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making greatest investment + having fewest alternatives.
Therefore model recognises that a victim of abuse does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it as long as investment is sufficiently high.
What are 2 limitations of Rusbult’s Investment Model?
Problems in measuring variables of investment model:
-Difficult to measure commitment + other variables that lead to commitment - developed ‘investment model scale’ to overcome this problem.
-Scale is both high in validity + reliability, suitable for a wide variety of different populations.
-One problem is that the scale relies on self-report measures - problems with respondents wishing to present in a good light.
Raises possibility of biased findings from use of such methods, difficult to measure such a subjective state as commitment in any other way.
Original investment model doesn’t include future investment:
-Goodfriend + Agnew (2008) - suggest notion of investment should not include only things that have already been invested, but also plans partners have made regarding relationship.
-In ending a relationship they would not only lose investments made to date but also possibility of achieving any future plans.
-Claim that some relationships may persist not because of current balance of investments but because of motivation to see future plans.
Provided evidence that future plans were strongly predictive of commitment in romantic relationships, over and above past investments.
