AO3

• Who conducted a meta-analysis that supported Rustbult’s investment model?

  Le and Agnew
• What did Le and Agnew do?

  Reviewed 52 studies which included about 11,000 participants from 5 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. Outcomes were true for both genders, across all cultures and for o so equal and heterosexual couples
• What is a counter argument to Le and Agnew’s research as support?

  Most studies were correlational. It is not clear if the model has identified the causes of commitment
• Strength: what is the model an explanation for?

  Relationships that involve intimate partner violence (IPV also known as abusive relationships)
• Who studied domestically abused women?

  Rusbult and Martz
• What did Rusbult and Martz find?

  Found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner (ie those who presumably were the most committed) reported having made greater investments and having the fewest attractive alternatives. These women were dissatisfied with their relationships but still committed to them
• One limitation is that it views investment in a simplistic one dimensional way. Goodfriend and Agnew point out that there is more investment that just the resources you have already put into a relationship. In the early stages, partners will have made very few actual investments. They 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 tot see their cherished plans for the future work out.