Rusbult's model: Theories of romantic relationships

• Rusbult's investment model further developed SET, suggesting that commitment depends on satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and the investment size
• A satisfying relationship is one where the partners are getting more out of the relationship than they expect, given social norms and their previous experiences
• What determines commitment?

  Investment, satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives (CLalt)
• Investment:

  The resources associated with a romantic relationship which would be lost if the relationship ended
• Satisfaction level:

  The extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs
• Comparison with alternatives (CLalt):

  A judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would reduce costs and increase rewards
• What are the two types of investment?

  Intrinsic and extrinsic
• Intrinsic investment:

  Any resources put directly into the relationship (e.g. money, energy and self-disclosures)
• Extrinsic investments:

  Investments that previously did not feature in the relationship (i.e. were external to it) which are now closely associated with it (e.g. a jointly purchased house, children, shared memories)
• If investments are increasing and satisfaction is high, then the relationship is likely to continue
• High levels of satisfaction (more rewards with few costs) + the alternatives are less attractive + the sizes of their investment are increasing = partners will be committed to the relationship
• Satisfaction versus commitment:

  Commitment matters more than satisfaction.

  This explains why, for example, a dissatisfied partners stays in a relationship when their level of investment is high. They will be willing to work hard to repair problems in the relationship so their investment is not wasted
• Does commitment or satisfaction matter more?

  Commitment
• When are maintenance behaviours used?

  When partners are committed
• What are relationship maintenance mechanisms?

  Used by committed partners to keep the relationship going
• Examples of relationship maintenance mechanisms:

  • Promoting the relationship (accommodation)
  • Putting their partner's interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
  • Forgiving the for any serious transgressions (forgiveness)
  • A partner may be unrealistically positive about their partner (positive illusions)
  • A partner may be negative about tempting alternatives/other people's relationships (derogation of alternatives)
• Strength: supporting evidence based on self-report techniques

  Self-report techniques are an appropriate research method since the model is based on subjective judgements about size of investment and alternatives. This is a good approach because what matters is the partners' subjective perceptions of their investments. This is a strength because it is a more valid test of the model than, for example, experimental research
• Limitation: research uses correlation

  Strong correlations have been established between the factors within the model. But no matter how strong the correlation it does not follow that one variable causes the other. As such we cannot conclude from this which factors, if any, might cause commitment
• Strength: explains why people stay in abusive relationships

  Rusbult and Martz found that women who reported making the greatest investment and who had the fewest attractive alternatives were the most likely to return to the partners who had abused them. The concept of satisfaction as important to relationship duration cannot explain this tendency but the level of commitment can. This is a strength because it explains the apparently inexplicable behaviour of staying in an abusive relationship
• Limitation: oversimplifies investment

  Goodfriend and Agnew argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. Early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in future plans. It is future plans that motivate partners to commit so that the plans can become reality. This means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to consider the true complexity of the investment