Theories of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model

Question 1

who proposed the investment model of commitment

Answer 1

Rusbult’s (1980)

Question 2

Outline Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as TRR
- intro

Answer 2

Rusbult’s (1980) investment model of commitment (extension of SET) = exp of RS stability

emphasises importance of 3 factors:
• satisfaction
• comparison with alternatives
• investment
in determining relationship commitment:

Question 3

Outline Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as TRR
- 3 factors

Answer 3

satisfaction = extent to which romantic partners feel the rewards of the relationship outweigh the costs.

comparison with alternatives = individuals assessing whether a relationship with a different partner (or no partner) would bring more rewards and less costs.

investment = resources contributed towards the RS which would be lost if RS were to end (eg. shared friendships, time, energy, possessions, self-disclosures) -> give strong motivation to maintain RS.

Question 4

Outline Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as TRR
- commitment

Answer 4

commitment = main psychological factor that causes people to stay together

commitment = high in romantic partners who have:
• high levels of satisfaction
• little to gain from a new RS (quality of alternatives is low)
• lot to lose from ending current relationship (investment is high)

commitment = low when:
• satisfaction levels
• quality of alternatives is high
• investment in RS is low

Even if satisfaction is low, may choose to stay in the RS / work at it, due to high investment which they don’t want to be wasted.

Question 5

Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as TRR
STRENGTHS

Answer 5

P) Support from Le and Agnew (2003)
E) meta-analysis of 52 studies over 30 years including 11,000 participants from 5 countries
E) satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment all predicted RS commitment, most committed RS most stable and long-lasting.
L) supports predictions of RIM
E) universal

P) explain why some women stay in abusive relationships
E) Rusbult and Martz (1995) when high investment (eg children), low alternative (eg relationships and place to live) -> commitment can remain high, despite low satisfaction
L) can explain RS which seem hard to explain on the face of it
E) explain infidelity; low satisfaction with current RS and high satisfaction with an alternative RS, therefore lowering commitment.
E) explain real life issues in RS

Question 6

Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as TRR
LIMITATIONS

Answer 6

P) oversimplifies investment
E) Goodfriend and Agnew (2008): investment more than resources, eg. future plans
E) more motivated to commit bc they want to see their cherished plans come to fruition
L) limited - ignores complexity of investment

P) TRR cultural bias
E) proposed by Western researchers in an individualist culture eg US (individual over the group), rather than collectivist cultures eg India or China (group over individuals), -> only explain romantic relationships in certain type of culture.
E) eg. how the individual views equity may be less important in collectivist cultures - more focused on the needs of partner rather than their own satisfaction.
L) TRR limited as they are not universal

P) TRR based on flawed research.
E) studies into rewards and costs/ satisfaction in RS rely on Self-report measures
E) wish to present themselves in a positive light (social desirability bias).
L) TRR based on biased/invalid findings
E) BUT, would difficult to measure feelings abt Rs any other way as subjective by nature