Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult's investment model Flashcards
who proposed the investment model?
Rusbult (2011)
what did Rusbult propose?
According to Rusbult et al (2011), commitment depends on three factors – satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment.
factor 1: satisfaction
Satisfaction is based on the concept of the comparison level. A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs, and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards and few costs. Each partner is generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experiences and social norms.
factor 2: comparison with alternatives
A comparison with alternatives results in romantic partners asking themselves if their needs can be met outside the relationship. Alternatives include not just relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all.
factor 3: investment
Rusbult et al realised that the CL and CLalt derived from SET are not enough to explain commitment if they were, then many more relationships would end as soon as either the costs outweigh the rewards or more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Therefore a crucial third factor was introduced that influences commitment – investment.
An investment is anything we would lose if the relationship were to end. Rusbult argues that there are two major types of investment:
intrinsic investments
extrinsic investments
intrinsic investments
any resources we put directly into the relationship.
Can be tangible things – money, possessions
Can be intangibles (less easy to quantify) - energy, emotion, self-disclosures
extrinsic investments
resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but now are closely associated with it.
Tangibles – possessions bought together (e.g. a car), mutual friends, children
Intangibles – shared memories
Satisfaction vs commitment
Rusbult et al argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction a contributory factor. It can help explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship – because they are committed to their partner. They are committed because they’ve made an investment that they don’t want to see go to waste.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
Commitment is displayed through maintenance mechanisms.
Accommodation
Willingness to sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive illusions
Ridiculing alternatives
Positive illusions and ridiculing alternatives are cognitive elements to relationship maintenance and repair.
accommodation
acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
Willingness to sacrifice
putting partner’s interests first
Forgiveness
willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes
Positive illusions
being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities
Ridiculing alternatives
minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light
Evaluation of Rusbult’s investment model (brief)
strength - support, le + Agnew, however doesn’t show cause
strength - explains intimate partner violence
weakness - oversimplifies investment
strengths of Rusbult’s investment model
there is research support for the investment model from a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew. They reviewed 52 studies, from the late 1970s to 1999, which altogether included about 11,000 participants from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest. These outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. This suggests there is validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships. Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model. However, correlational studies do not allow us to conclude that the factors identified by the model cause commitment in the relationship. Therefore it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
another strength is that the model is an explanation of relationships that involve intimate partner violence. Rusbult and Martz 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 this model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships – commitment and investment are also factors.
weakness of Rusbult’s investment model
this model oversimplifies investment and views it in a one-dimensional way. Goodfriend and Agnew point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. In the early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments. Goodfriend and Agnew 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 plans for the future work out. This means that the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment.
