theories of romantic relationships - rusbults model

Question 1

what is rusbult’s investment model?

Answer 1

Works on the notion that the more you invest in something (i.e., money, time, effort etc.)…

… the more likely you are to commit and continue
	and
… the less likely you are to walk away.

The theory is very similar to SET, but largely influenced by investment.

Overall, it centres on the idea of…

Commitment - the likelihood that an individual will persist in the current relationship. This is influenced by high satisfaction and investment, and low quality of alternatives.

Question 2

what is the model of this theory?

Answer 2

satisfaction + alternatives + investments = commitment level = future decision if stay or leave relationship

Question 3

explain the s

Question 4

What is the comparison with alternatives level of the model?

Answer 4

Again similar to previous theories, i.e., comparison level for alternatives within SET.

Does the relationship stand up to other possible alternatives? Could your needs be better met outside the current relationship? Are alternatives more rewarding and less costly?

Commitment to the relationship is stronger if needs are adequately met

Question 5

What is the investment size level of the model?

Answer 5

Refers to how much resources the relationship has.

The longer the relationship continues, the more the partners have invested into it (such as emotional care, shared kids etc).

The more that is invested, the stronger the commitment.

Ending the relationship at this point would make all that investment useless.

Intrinsic investments:
Any resources we put directly into the relationship

Tangibles: money and possessions

Intangibles: energy, emotion and self-disclosures

Extrinsic investments:
Resources that became a part of the relationship

Tangibles: possessions bought together, mutual friends acquired during the relationship and children

Intangibles: shared memories

Question 6

What are the 5 other factors of the theory which show how commitment may be expressed to maintain a relationship?

Answer 6

1) Accommodation

Partners should not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation, but instead act to promote the relationship.

E.g., if your partner says something hurtful to you, you don’t say something hurtful back to them.

2) Willingness to Sacrifice

Partners should also put their partner’s interests first.

E.g., if your partner is offered a promotion the other side of the country and you quit your job and move with them.

3) Forgiveness

Partners should forgive them for any serious transgressions.

E.g., if your partner has an affair, but you agree to put it behind you and move forward in your relationship.

(4) Positive Illusions

Partners should be unrealistically positive about their partner’s qualities.

E.g., when you exaggerate their best qualities whilst ignoring their negative qualities, and boast about them to others.

(5) Ridiculing Alternatives

Partners should be negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships.

E.g., if a couple you know are having relationship difficulties, you will joke about the problems they’re having.

Question 7

What are the positive evaluations of the Rusbults theory??

Answer 7

• supporting research
• Rusbult’s investment model of relationships has got some real world applications. For instance, it can be used to explain why people stay in abusive relationships.
  Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (i.e., those who presumably were the most committed) reported having made the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
  These women were dissatisfied with their relationships but still committed to them.
  Therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships - commitment and investment are also factor
• Rusbult’s investment model of commitment has got wide application in society, e.g., across countries and sexual orientations.
  For instance, Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis reviewed the results of 52 different studies that used participants from five different countries (US, UK, Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan). They also included both hetersexual and homosexual couples; couples that were married and unmarried; romantic relationships, abusive relationships and friendships.
  This suggests that the results are highly generalisable cross culturally and across various types of relationships, increasing the credibility and usefulness of the theory

Question 8

What are the negative evaluations of the Rusbults model?

Answer 8

• measurement issues
• The theory has some theoretical issues and it has been said that the model oversimplifies the idea of investment.
  Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment that just the resources you have already put into a relationship.
  In the early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments (they may not even live together). They extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment partners make in their future plans. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out, e.g., house and children.
  This suggests the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment