Rusbults investment model Flashcards
(9 cards)
introduction
According to Rusbult et al. (2011), commitment depends on three factors (see diagram, bottom left). Because the investment model is a development of social exchange theory (SET), two of these factors - satisfaction and comparison with alternatives - are very similar to elements of that earlier theory discussed on page 126.
factor 1:satisfaction
Satisfaction is based on the concept of the comparison level (CL). A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs, and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards (e.g. support, sex, companionship) and few costs (e.g. conflicts, anxiety). 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
As we ve already seen in social exchange theory, a comparison with alternatives (CLalt) results in romantic partners asking themselves, ‘Could my needs be better met outside my current relationship? Are the alternatives more rewarding and less costly? 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 outweighed the rewards (representing a loss) or more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Therefore a crucial third factor was introduced that influences commitment - investment.
An investment can be understood as anything we would lose if the relationship were to end. Rusbult argues that there are two major types of investment:
• Intrinsic investments are 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 (intangibles) such as energy, emotion and self-disclosures (see page 120).
• Extrinsic investments are resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated with it. Tangibles include possessions bought together (for example, a car), mutual friends and children. A good example of an intangible is shared memories.
So putting these all together - if the partners in a relationship 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 investment are increasing, then we can confidently predict that partners will be committed to the relationship.
satisfaction vs commitment
Rusbult et al. (2011) argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, with satisfaction a contributory factor. This is an important distinction, because it can help to explain why dissatisfied partners may choose to stay in a relationship - it’s 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 relationship, especially when it hits a rough patch.
relationship maintenance mechanisms
Commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours. According to the model, enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation but instead promote the relationship (accommodation). They also put their partner’s interests first (willingness to sacrifice), and forgive them for serious transgressions (forgiveness.
There is also a cognitive element 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.
s-research support
One strength of the investment model is support from a meta-analysis by Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003).
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.
This suggests there is validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.
Counterpoint 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.
Therefore it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of
commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
strength-the model can explain abusive relationships
Another strength is that the model is an explanation of relationships that involve intimate partner violence (IPV, commonly known as ‘abusive relationships).
Why does any rational person subjected to IPV stay in such a relationship?
Caryl Rusbult and John Martz (1995) 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 the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships - commitment and investment are also factors.
limitation-oversimplified view of investments
One limitation of the model is that it views investment in a simplistic one-dimensional way.
Wind Goodfriend and Christopher Agnew (2008) 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.
This means the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment.
