A03 - Rusbult's Investment Model

• Evaluating Rusbult's Investment Model (Theories of Romantic Relationships)?

  + Supporting Research

  + Explains why people stay in abusive relationships

  Correlations

  Self Report Methods

  - Oversimplifies Investment
• Explains abusive relationships - PART 1

  P = The investment model is a particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving intimate partner violence (IPV) (Rusbult & Martz 1995).

  E = Rusbult & Martz (1995) studied abused women staying at a shelter. Those reporting the greatest investment and fewest alternatives were the most likely to return to abusive partners - women in study were dissatisfied with their relationships but returned to their partners because they were committed to them. 
• Explains abusive relationships - PART 2

  E = R & M found women more likely to return to abusive partner if they felt they invested in relationship & they didn't have any appealing alternatives.

  L = Model better explanation than SET theory coz recognises that victim of IPV doesn't have to be satisfied with relationship to stay (people in IPV can't be satisfied with being hit etc). Thus model shows satisfaction on its own can't explain why people stay in relationships - commitment & investment also factors. Strengthening model (also used in real life to explain to victims & try prevent).
• Supporting Research - PART 1

  P = Some of the strongest support for the investment model comes from a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew (2003).

  E = They reviewed 52 studies from 1970-1999 (including 11,000 participants from 5 countries).

  E = L & A review found that satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment - commitment linked with greater stability and longevity. The outcomes were true for both men & women across all cultures and for homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
• Supporting Research - PART 2


  L = This suggests there is some validity to Rusbult's claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships. Suggesting that the model’s claim that these factors are universally important in relationships is valid.

  COUNTERPOINT:

  Research studies show strong correlations between factors. But it does not follow that these factors cause commitment (e.g. perhaps commitment comes before investment).

  Thus it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
• Oversimplifies investment - PART 1

  P = Godfred & Agnew suggest the investment model is oversimplified as there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship.

  E = After all, early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments, they may not even live together at this point.

  E = G & A extended Rusbult's original model by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans - these motivate partners to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out.
• Oversimplified Investment - PART 2


  L = The original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise and consider the true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for the future influences commitment.
• Self Report Methods - PART 1

  P = The investment model is supported by many studies using self-report methods like questionnaires & interviews - these are affected by subjective biases and beliefs. 

  E = But these are appropriate methods because it is not the objective reality of factors like investment size which matters - what matters more in the study is a person’s perception about how much investment they have made or how attractive their alternatives are since this will influence their commitment.
• Self Report Methods - PART 2


  E = Whether this belief matches the objective reality of the situation is neither here nor there.

  L = Thus the use of self-report measures is appropriate because they assess partners’ subjective perceptions about relationships, which are the most important influences on commitment.
• Correlations:


  • P = Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model.
  • E = BUT even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation. Most studies do not allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship.
  • L = 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 predicted by the model.
• Evaluating Rusbult's Investment Model (Theories of Romantic Relationships)?



  + Supporting Research

  + Explains why people stay in abusive relationships

  Correlations

  Self Report Methods

  -Oversimplifies Investment