Rusbult's investment model

• What is Duck's phase model?

  • Duck (2007) suggests the ending of a relationship is a series of phases where both partners reach a threshold, each one changing the perception of a relationship
  • Some reasons for relationship breakdown: pre-existing doom (incompatible from the start), mechanical failure (compatible from the start but no longer function together), sudden death (traumatic event, cheating, etc.)
• What is the intra-psychic phase?

  • When partners begin to feel dissatisfied with their relationship, they enter a cognitive process thinking about their feelings and problems
  • Alternatives are considered as well as solutions, but issues are discussed and if problems are great enough then they move onto the next stage
  • "I can't stand this anymore"
• What is the dyadic phase?

  • When the other partner becomes involved and they have confrontations about complaints characterised by anger and hostility
  • With more self-disclosure, repressed emotions are expressed and if this dissatisfaction is not resolved they move onto the next stage
  • "Id be justified in leaving"
• What is the social phase?

  • Break-up is made public to friends and family and some may choose sides - social implications are negotiated like assets, childcare, responsibilities, etc.
  • "I really mean it"
• What is the grave dressing phase?

  • Ex-partners organise their post-relationship lives publicising their own account - employ self-serving attribution bias and creating their own positive narrative of the story that they can live with
  • Can involve gossip, which is important to retain social credit
  • "It's now inevitable"
• Why is Rusbult's model of investment incomplete?

  • Rollie and Duck (2006) suggested the original model is oversimplified, adding the "resurrection phase" - ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences from the relationship that just ended
  • Make it clear that progression from one phase to another is not inevitable and people can return to earlier stages - any order not linear
  • Shows model does not account for dynamic nature of breakups
• Why is Rusbult's model descriptive rather than explanatory?

  • Only focuses on the breakdown of a relationship without how or why it got to that point which other hypothesis' acknowledge
  • Felmlee's Fatal Attraction Hypothesis argued the cause of breakdown can be the attractive qualities that brought the couple together e.g. being funny can be seen as never serious later
  • Original model lacks depth in explaining the root dissatisfaction
• How is Rusbult's model culturally biased?

  • Moghaddam (1993) - relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and come to ends quite frequently
  • In collectivist cultures they tend to be obligatory, less easy to end, involve wider family, and can even be arranged with little involvement of the partners
  • Weakens generalisability of Duck's model as it isn't widely applicable beyond Western and individualistic cultures
• What are some methodological issues with Rusbult's model?

  • Research is retrospective - participants give their experiences after the relationship has ended, meaning recall may not be accurate or reliable and earlier stages can be distorted
  • Researchers are reluctant to study early stages fearing it may hasten the end of a relationship that otherwise could've been rescued
  • Incomplete description of how relationships end