Thories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model

Factor 1: satisfaction

According to Rusbult commitment depends on 3 factors:

• satisfaction is based on the concept of the comparison level

• A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs and it seem 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

Factor 2: comparison with alternatives

• This is when partners ask themselves if there are better alternatives outside of the relationship relationship

• Alternative include not just relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all

Factor 3: investment

• Rusbult realised that the comparison level and comparison level for alternatives derived from the social exchange theory are not enough to explain commitment. If they were many more relationship relationships would end as soon as the cost outweigh the rewards or more attractive alternatives present themselves - to the factor of investment was put forward

• An investment can be understood as anything we would lose if the relationship were to end. Rusbult there are two types of investment.

  • Intrinsic investment are any resources we put directly into the relationship, they can be tangible things such as many possessions. They can also be intangible things such as energy, emotion and self disclosure.

  • Extrinsic investments are resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with, tangibles include possessions brought together, mutual friends and children, intangibles include shared memories

Satisfaction vs commitment

• Rusbult argue that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction in a contributory factor

• Disconnect why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in their relationship - it’s because they have made an investment that they do not want to go to waste therefore they will work hard to maintain and repair the damaged relationship

relationship maintenance mechanisms

• commitment expresses itself in every day maintenance behaviours, according to the model enduring partners do not engage in tit for tat retaliation but instead promote the relationship, they also put their partners interest first and learn to forgive

• There was also a cognitive element for relationship maintenance and repair - committed partners think about each other and potential alternative and specific ways, they are unrealistically positive about their partner and negative about tempting alternatives, much more so than noncommitted partners

strengths

• One strength of the investment model is 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 to both men and women across all cultures in the analysis and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. This suggests there is validity to claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.

• Another strength is that the model is an explanation of relationships that involve intimate partner violence - Rusbult and Martz studied domestically abused women at the shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported having made the greatest investment and having a few attractive alternatives. These women were dissatisfied with the relationship was still committed to them. Therefore the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in a relationship, commitment and investment are also factors

Limitations

• One limitation of the model is that it views investment in a simplistic one dimensional way - Goodfriend and Agnew point out that there is more to investment than just a resources you have already put into the relationship. In the early stages partners will have made very few actual investments. These two researchers extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment partners make their future plans. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future workout. This means the original model one is reductionist because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment especially for the future influences commitment

• Rusbult’s model may be culturally biased as it is based on Western, individualistic values that prioritise personal satisfaction and choice. In collectivist cultures, commitment may be influenced more by family expectations or social obligations than by individual investments or alternatives. This suggests that the model may not be universally applicable, reducing its cultural validity.