Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult's investment model Flashcards
(12 cards)
who proposed the investment model?
Rusbult (2011)
what did Rusbult propose?
commitment depends on three factors – satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment.
factor 1: satisfaction
based on the concept of the comparison level.
A satisfying relationship is 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 experiences and social norms.
factor 2: comparison with alternatives
A comparison with alternatives results in romantic partners asking themselves if their needs can be met outside the relationship. Alternatives include not just relationships with other people, but the possibility of having no romantic relationship at all.
factor 3: investment
An investment is anything we would lose if the relationship were to end. Rusbult argues that there are two major types of investment:
intrinsic investments
extrinsic investments
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 outweigh the rewards or more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Therefore a crucial third factor was introduced that influences commitment – investment.
intrinsic investments
any resources we put directly into the relationship.
Can be tangible things – money, possessions
Can be intangibles (less easy to quantify) - energy, emotion, self-disclosures
extrinsic investments
resources that previously did not feature in the relationship, but now are closely associated with it.
Tangibles – possessions bought together (e.g. a car), mutual friends, children
Intangibles – shared memories
Satisfaction vs commitment
Rusbult et al argued that commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, and satisfaction is a contributory factor.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
Commitment is displayed through maintenance mechanisms.
Accommodation
Willingness to sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive illusions
Ridiculing alternatives
Positive illusions and ridiculing alternatives are cognitive elements to relationship maintenance.
Always Wait For Pizza Rolls
Evaluation of Rusbult’s investment model (brief)
strength - support meta-analysis, le + Agnew
strength - explains abusive relationships
weakness - oversimplifies investment
strengths of Rusbult’s investment model
there is research support for the investment model from a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew. They reviewed 52 studies, which altogether 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.
another strength is that the model is an explanation of abusive relationships. 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. Therefore this model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships – commitment and investment are also factors.
weakness of Rusbult’s investment model
The original investment model is limited as it oversimplifies investment, viewing it as only past contributions to a relationship. Goodfriend and Agnew argued that investment also includes future plans and the motivation to see them succeed. In early stages, partners may have made few actual investments, but commitment can still be strong due to shared future goals. This highlights that the original model doesn’t fully capture the complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment.
