Theories of romantic relationships: Investment Model Flashcards
The Investment Model
The Investment Model suggests that when people decide whether to end a relationship, not only do they weight up the costs and rewards of the relationship as well as the possible alternative relationships available to them, but they also consider how much they have invested in the relationship.
Who proposed the Investment Model?
Rusbult
What is the Investment Model built upon?
The Social Exchange Theory
According to Rusbult et al., what is the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship?
Investment.
What does ‘Investment’ refer to?
Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave their relationship.
What are the 2 types of Investment proposed by the model?
- Intrinsic
- Extrinsic
Intrinsic Investment
Intrinsic investment comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure.
Extrinsic Investment
Extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people’s life though the relationship, such as children, friends and shared memories.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Investment
Both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can be potentially lost if a relationship ends. Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people will be to stay in a relationship. Therefore, it is the size of the investment that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.
(see image).
Maintenance Mechanisms
Maintenance mechanisms, as proposed by Rusbult et al., are behaviours and strategies that partners used to sustain and strengthen their relationship, particularly in the face of challenges. They are used as a result of investment and despite satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives.
What are these 5 Maintenance Mechanisms?
- Accommodation
- Willingness to sacrifice
- Forgiveness
- Positive illusions
- Ridiculing alternatives
Accommodation
Acting in a way that promotes relationship, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
Willingness to sacrifice
Putting partner’s interest first.
Forgiveness
Willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes, both minor and serious ones.
Ridiculing alternatives
Minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.
What theories do the Investment Model contradict?
- The Social Exchange Theory
- The Equity Theory
Strength
point: A strength of Rusbult’s Investment Model is that it provides a plausible explanation for why individuals may remain in abusive relationships, even when the costs outweigh the rewards.
evidence: Jerstad studied both men and women in abusive relationships and found that investment factors, such as the amount of time and effort put into the relationship, were the strongest predictors of whether a person would stay with a violent partner. Notably, those who had experienced the highest levels of violence were also the most committed, suggesting that they viewed their negative experiences as investments rather than reasons to leave.
justification: This increases the theoretical value and credibility of this theory as it supports the Investment Model’s claim that commitment is not just based on costs and reward but also on the investments that a person has made. Furthermore, the practicality of this theory allows for effective support organisations and tailored interventions to help victims seek alternative sources of investment and break free from destructive relationships.
Strength
point: A strength of Rusbult’s Investment Model is that it does not suffer from culture bias.
evidence: Le and Agnew conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies that featured 11,000 participants in total. They discovered that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment; and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships. This was seen amongst both individualist and collectivist cultures, such as the USA (individualist) and Taiwan (collectivist). Moreover, this applied to various relationship types, including friendships, heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships and co-habiting couples.
justification: Consequently, the universality of this model implies that it is highly generalisable as it can account for relationship maintenance across diverse cultures and varying relationship types.
Weakness
point: A limitation of Rusbult’s Investment Model is that it may be overly simplistic.
evidence: Goodfriend and Agnew argue that investment is not limited to past contributions but also includes a couple’s plans and aspirations for their future. They suggested that partners remain committed not just because of what they have already invested, but because they wish to see their shared goals and dreams manifest into reality.
justification: As a result, this demonstrates that this theory lacks explanatory power as it does not capture the complexity of commitment that occurs not only through past investments, but also through a couple’s shared ambitions for their future together.
Weakness
point: A limitation of the Investment Model is that much of supporting research is correlational, making it difficult to establish cause and effect between investment and commitment.
evidence: Many studies examining the relationship between investment size and commitment levels, such as Le ang Agnew’s meta-analysis only demonstrate an association between the two variables and not direct causation. This means that while higher investment may be linked to stronger commitment, it does not necessarily cause it.
justification: This lack of causality reduces the predictive validity of the Investment Model because it cannot reliably determine whether investment is the factor that leads to a long-term relationship commitment or another factor, such as satisfaction levels. Consequently, this leads to this theory lacking scientific rigour as the ability to predict behaviour is a fundamental goal of psychology as a science.
