rusbult's investment model

• the investment model

  Rusbult (1980) suggested a way of explaining relationship stability that emphasises the importance of three factors:

  1. Satisfaction
  2. Investment size
  3. Quality of alternatives

  These determine relationship commitment and in turn, stability.
• satisfaction level

  • This refers to the positive versus negative emotions experienced within a relationship.
  • It is influenced by the extent to which the other person fulfils the individual's most important needs
  • For example, a partner may feel satisfied to the degree that the other partner gratifies their domestic, companionate and sexual needs.
• quality of alternatives

  • This refers to the extent which an individual's most important needs might be better fulfilled outside the current relationship
  • The perception of an attractive alternative (new relationship or no relationship) may cause the individual to turn away from the current relationship and towards the alternative.
  • However, the lack of viable alternatives may cause an individual to persist with their current relationship
• investment size

  • This is a measure of all the resources that are attached to the relationship. These would diminish or be lost if the relationship were to end.
  • Partners make these investments expecting that it will create a strong foundation for a lasting future together.
  • Investments increase dependence on the relationship, given how costly it would be to end the relationship.
  • They create a powerful psychological inducement to persist with a relationship.
• commitment level

  • This term is used to describe the likelihood that a relationship will persist.
  • Commitment is high in romantic partners who are happy with their relationships.
  • If the relationship were to end they would anticipate very little gain and heavy losses.
  • Conversely, those less satisfied with their relationship are likely to have much lower commitment.
  • This is also predicted by low investment size and a high quality of alternatives
• two types of investment size

  1. instristic: any resources we put directly into relationship like money + possessions. but also energy, emotion + self disclosure
  2. extrinsic: resources that previously did not feature in the relationship but now are important, possessions bought together (Eg, a car, mutual friends, children, memories)
• rubsult 2011 = main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships is committment not satisfaction

  • this is an important distinction
• commitment level (continued)

  relationship maintenance rehearsal:

  • commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours
  • model says enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation (accomodation)
  • willing to sacrifice
  • forgiveness
  • commited partners think of each other and potential alternatives inspective ways
  • may are unrealisistically positive + their partner (illusions)
• eval: model can help to explain a wider range of relationships than SET or equity theory

  • for example it can explain abusive relationships
  • Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied women at a domestic violence centre.
  • They found that those most likely to return reported making the greatest investments and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
• supporting research

  • There is also research support for the importance of the three factors in the theory
  • Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies, featuring 11,000 participants in total
• methodological difficulties

  • methodological difficulties with measuring concepts in the investment model
  • Rewards and costs are difficult to quantify.
  • They can be entirely subjective/emotional
  • They have often been defined superficially in order to measure them e.g. money
  • This makes it very difficult to accurately quantify levels of 'satisfaction' or 'investment’
• reductionism

  • Also Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) suggested that the model oversimplifies investment
  • Investment is not just the resources you have already put into the relationship.
  • They extend the model to include investment made for future plans
• eval: incomplete model

  • One criticism of the original model was that it was incomplete
  • Duck acknowledged that his original 1982 model failed to account for personal growth after a relationship ends.
  • In 2006, he introduced a stage after 'Grave Dressing' to suggest how people move beyond the distress caused by the break-up.
  • He called this stage the Resurrection Process.
• supporting evidence

  • A strength of the expanded model that that there is supporting evidence for grave dressing and resurrection phases
  • Tashiro and Frazier (2003) Surveyed 92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner.
  • It was found that they reported both emotional distress and personal growth.
  • The findings suggested that the breakdown of romantic relationships can involve both grave dressing and resurrection processes, as Duck's revised theory suggests
• ethical issues

  • One criticism is that research into relationship breakdown (dealing with vulnerable individuals attempting to deal with the trauma of a break-up) can raise ethical issues
  • HOWEVER without it, there will be no real life application
  • As a result the costs of the research could outweigh the benefits of carrying it out.
  • SUCH AS able to apply this by providing support like therapy or counselling
• stages are oversimplistic

  • Another criticism is that stage theories are often oversimplistic, and cannot be applied to all relationships
  • Relationships are never linear and are likely to be affected by a number of different (and often unexpected) individual differences.
  • For example, age will make a big difference to the experience of relationship breakdown, and to behaviour in the various stages