⭐️ theories - Rusbults investment theory ✅ Flashcards
what is this based on?
commitment
what are the 3 factors commitment depends on?
1️⃣ satisfaction level
2️⃣ comparison with alternatives
3️⃣ investment size
what are the 5 relationship maintanence mechanisms’?
ways to save a relationship
1- forgiveness
2- accomidation
3- positive illusions
4- ridiculing alternatives
5- willingness to sacrifice
putting the partners needs before there own, forgiving for transgressions, being unrealistically positive about your partner and negative abut tempting alternatives
satisfaction and comparison with alternatives:
what is satisfaction?
what is comp with alt.?
- when the rewards exceed costs. ppl are generally mire satisfied if they get more then their previous relationship or their expectations
- a diff. partner may bring them more rewards then costs or being single may be more appealing
investment size:
what is it?
what is an investment?
- the extent and importance of the resources associated with the
relationship - anything you’d loose if the relationship ended
what are the 2 types of investments?
what can you predict if the investment size keeps increasing and alternatives become less attractive?
1️⃣ intrinsic = resources put directly into the rship such as money or energy
2️⃣ excentric = things brought to pals life bc of a rship.
- partners are more likely to be committed `and satisfied
satisfaction V commitment:
which of the 2 of the main psychological factor why ppl stay in ships?
what does this explain?
what dont they want to happen to their investments?
- commitment
- can explain why dissatisfied ppl stay in ships
- dont want them to go to waste bc they’ve put alot of time and effort into it
how does the investment model explain abusive rships?
Rusbult and Martz studied battered women at a shelter and found those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making the greatest investments and having the fewest attractive atenrtives
AO3:
✅ strength
❌ 2 weakness
✅ practical application, model is valid and useful explanation of relationships involving intimate partner violence (IPV - ‘abusive relationships’). seem surprising that any rational person subjected to violence by a partner should continue to be committed to the relationship. The key factor is clearly not satisfaction. Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (i.e. were most committed) reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives. recognises that a victim of IPV does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.
CA: people don’t leave rships bc there scared
❌ oversimplifies investment - Goodfriend and Agnew point out theres more to investment than just resources you have already put into a rship. In the early stages of a rship, the partners will have made very few investments. They may not even live together at this point. Rusbult’s original model was extended by including the investment romantic 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. The model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for the future influence’s commitment.
❌ culturally biased. Moghaddam says that theories associated with a profit system are only applicable to western cultures, and short term relationships. People who are more mobile and experience shorter romantic relationships are more likely to be concerned with rewards and costs, whereas long term relationships seem to be based on equity. As well as this, western cultures involve more short term relationships, whereas collectivist cultures are concerned with long term relationships. Thus, they value security more than over-benefitting. This suggests investment model can only apply to western cultures, and lack universality.
