Rusbult's investment model

• What is Rusbult's investment model of commitment?

  • Development of social exchange theory to address its' gaps
  • Suggests individuals are more focused on commitment rather than costs and rewards when judging the satisfaction of their relationship
  • Based on 3 factors: satisfaction, comparison level with alternatives, investment
  • Believes commitment is the main psychological factor causing people to stay in a relationship - satisfaction is contributory
• What is the first factor of Rusbult's investment model of commitment?

  • Satisfaction - a satisfying relationship is judged by whether or not the rewards outweigh the costs
  • Most people are satisfied when they get more than their minimum expectations (comparison levels)
• What is the second factor of Rusbult's investment model of commitment?

  • Comparison with alternatives: comparing the costs and rewards of our current relationship status to other potential alternatives
• What is the third factor of Rusbult's investment model of commitment?

  • Investment: resources associated with a romantic relationship that can be lost if the relationship ends
  • Intrinsic: what we put directly into the relationship e.g. money, possessions, energy, time
  • Extrinsic: resources that weren't previously a part of the relationship but are now directly associated with it e.g. shared money, friends, memories, children
• How are maintenance mechanisms and cognitive elements used to maintain a committed relationship?

  • Accommodation: aim to promote the relationship
  • Willingness to sacrifice: can put their partners interests first
  • Forgiveness for any serious offences
  • Positive illusions: unrealistically positive about their partner
  • Ridiculing alternatives: negative about tempting positives and other people's relationships
• What research support is there for Rusbult's investment model?

  • Le and Agnew (2013): meta-analysis of 52 studies from 5 countries found satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size were good predictors of relationship commitment
  • Most stable and long-lasting relationships had the greatest commitment and were true for men, women, homo and heterosexual relationships
  • Suggests Rusbult's claim has validity and universality
• How does the model explain why rational people stay in abusive relationships?

  • Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that domestically abused women at a shelter were most likely to return to an abusive partner if they reported having greater investments and having the fewest alternatives
  • Despite dissatisfaction women still stayed, showing satisfaction is not a sole explanation for relationship maintenance and that other factors like investment exist
• Is Rusbult's investment model too simplistic?

  • Goodfriend and Agnew (2008): said there is more to investment than just the resources already put in e.g. early stage relationships may have made few investments like not living together
  • Extended the model to include future investments - people may be motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their plans work out
  • Shows the original model is limited as it fails to recognise the complexity of investment and how the future influences commitment
• Can cause and effect be established for Rusbult's model?

  • Correlational studies like Le and Agnew's meta-analysis don't let us conclude that these factors actually cause commitment e.g. it could be the more committed you feel the more investment you are willing to make - direction of causality may be reversed
  • Not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than the factors associated with it