Theories Of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult's Investment Model

What do Rusbult et al. argue?

That commitment depends on three factors.

According to Rusbult et al., what are the three factors commitment depends on?

Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment.

What is the investment model a development of?

Social exchange theory, so satisfaction and comparison with alternatives are very similar to elements of SET.

What is satisfaction based on?

The concepts of comparison level (CL).

What is a satisfying relationship 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 experience and social norms.

What does a comparison with alternatives result in?

Romantic partners asking themselves ‘could my needs be met outside my current relationship? are the alternatives more rewarding and less costly?‘.

What do alternatives include?

Not just relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all.

What did Rusbult et al. release about the CL and CLalt derived from SET?

That they are not enough to explain commitment. If there were, then many more relationships would end as either the costs outweighed the rewards or more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Therefore a crucial third factor was introduced that influences commitment - investment.

What can an investment be understood as?

Anything we lose if the relationship were to end.

What does Rusbult argue about investment?

That there are two major types.

According to Rusbult, what are the two major types of investment?

• Intrinsic investments.

• Extrinsic investments.

What are intrinsic investments?

Any resources we put directly into the relationship. They can be tangible things such as money and possessions. They can also be resources less easy to quantify, such as energy, emotion, and self-disclosures.

What are extrinsic investments?

Resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it. Tangibles include possessions brought together, like a car, mutual friends, and children. A good example is shared memories.

Putting all three elements together, when can we confidently predict that partners will be committed to the relationship?

If the partners experience high levels of satisfaction (because they are getting many rewards with few costs) and the alternatives are less attractive and the sizes of their investments are increasing.

What did Rusbult et al argue about commitment?

That it is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction a contributory factor.

Why is the distinciton between satisfaction and commitment important?

Because it can help to explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship - it is because they are committed to their partner. But why are they so committed? That’s because they have made an investment that they do not want to see go to waste. Therefore, they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationships especially when it hits a rough patch.

How does commitment express itself?

In everyday maintenance behaviours.

According to the investment model, do enduring partners engage in tit-for-tat retaliation?

No, instead, they promote the relationship (accommodation). They also put their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice) and forgive them for serious transgressions (forgiveness).

What is the cognitive elemtnt to relationship maintenance and repair?

Committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in specific (and predictable) ways. They are unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions) and negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives), much more so than less committed partners.

What are the strengths of the investment model?

• Research support.

• Explains abusive relationships.

How is research support a strength of the investment model?

Support from a meta-analysis by Le and ]Agnew: They reviewed 52 studies, from the late 1970s to 1999, which together 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.

What does the research support mean for the investment model?

It suggests there is validity to Rusbult's claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.

What is the counterpoint to the research support?

Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the Investment model. For example most of the studies in Le and Agnew's meta-analysis were correlational. However, correlational studies do not allow us to conclude that the factors identified by the model cause commitment in a relationship. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model.

What does the counterpoint to the research support mean for the investment model?

Therefore, it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.

How does the investment model explaining abusive relationshipsa strength?

The model is an explanation of relationships that involve Intimate partner vlolence (IPV, commonly known as abusive relationships). Why does any rational person subjected to IPV stay in such a relationship? 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.

What does the investment model explaining abusive relationships mean?

That, therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships - commitment and investment are also factors.

What is the limitation of the investment model?

• Oversimplifies investment.

How is the investment model oversimplifying investment a limitation?

It views investment in a simplistic 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 (they may not even live together). 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 cherished plans for the future work out.

What does the investment model oversimplifying investment mean?

That the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment.