theories of romantic relationships: rusbult's investment model Flashcards
what does 3 factors does commitment depend on? (rusbult et al. 2011)
- satisfaction
- comparison with alternatives
- investment
why did rusbult et al. develop the investment model?
- CL and CLalt derived from SET are not enough to explain commitment
- if they were, many more relationships would end as soon as costs outweighed rewards or more attractive alternatives presented themselves
- investment must influence commitment
what is an investment?
anything we would lose if the relationship were to end
what are 2 major types of investment?
- intrinsic investments
- extrinsic investments
what are intrinsic investments?
- any resources we put directly into the relationship
- tangible things eg. money, possessions
- intangible things which are less easy to quantify eg. energy, emotion, self-disclosures
what are extrinsic investments?
- resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it
- tangibles eg. possessions bought togehter, mutual friends, children
- intangibles eg. shared memories
how is commitment linked to satisfaction and alternatives?
if the partners in a relationship experience high levels of satisfaction, as they get many rewards with few costs, the alternatives are less attractive, and the sizes of their investment are increasing, we can predict that partners will be committmed to the relationship
what did rusbult et al. (2011) argue about commitment?
it is the main psychological factors that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction as a contributory factor
why might dissatisfied partners choose to stay in a relationship?
- because they are committed to their partner
- have made an investment that they don’t want to waste
- therefore, they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship
how does commitment express itself in everyday maintenance behaviours? (3)
- accomodation - not engaging in tit-for-tat retaliation, promoting the relationship
- willingness to sacrifice - put their partner’s interests first
- forgiveness - forgive them for serious transgressions
describe the cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair
- committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in specific and predictable ways
- unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions)
- committed partners are more negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives) than less committed partners
evaluation: research support (le and agnew 2003)
- meta-analysis of 52 studies from late 1970s to 1999
- 11,000 participants from 5 countries
- satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment
- relationships where commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longest
- outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexul couples
evaluation: research (le and agnew) is only correlational
- correlational studies don’t allow us to conclude that the factrs identified by the model cause commitment in the relationship
- could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship
- direction of causality may be reverse of what is suggested by the model
- unclear whether model has identified the cause of commitment or factors associated with it
evaluation: explains abusive relationships (rusbult and martz 1995)
- studied domestically abused women at a shelter
- those mostly likely to return to an abusive partner, presumably 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
- satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships; commitment and investment are also factors
evaluation: views investment in a simplistic one-dimensional way (goodfriend and agnew 2008)
- 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 eg. not live together
- G&A extended rusbult’s original model by including the investment partners make in their future plans
- motivated to commit to each other as they want to see their plans for the future work out
- original model is limited as it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planing for the future influences commitment
evaluation: perception vs. reality
- self-report methods influenced by biases and subjective beliefs of respondents may be appropriate methods to measure investment and CLalt because what determines commitment to a relationship is not the objective reality
- what matters more is what a person believes or perceives
- one partner may think they have made a big investment but that isn’t objectively the case
