rusbults investment model of commitment

• This model states that commitment is based on 3 factors: 

  -Satisfaction

   - comparison with alternatives

   - investment.
• Rusbult argued that these concepts were not enough to explain commitment; relationships do not just end as soon as the costs get too high.
• An investment can be anything we might be set to lose if the relationship ends.it refers to the extent and the importance of the resources linked to the relationship.
• Intrinsic investment: 

  any resources you put directly into the relationship. 

  tangible: money/possessions

  • intangible: energy, emotions, self disclosure
• Extrinsic investments:

  Things that are now closely associated with the relationship, that previously did not exist. 

  Eg friends made through the relationship

  Shared home

  Children

  Shared memories.
• Partners who are committed to a relationship will have high levels of satisfaction (with many rewards and few costs) with less attractive alternative) and a large investment.
• Rusbult argues that the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in a relationship is commitment.
• Maintenance mechanism:

  Partners have everyday behaviours that show commitment and maintain the relationship. 

  Accommodation- don’t keep a tally chart of mistakes. Don’t engage in tit for tat realisation. 

  Willingness to sacrifice- try to put partners interests first, make’s sacrifices.

  Forgiveness-forgive any mistakes, big or small

  Positive illusions- unrealistically positive about partners quality. 

  Ridiculing alternatives- minimising the advantages of alternatives, viewing them in a negative light.
• strength is research support from meta analysis. Le and Agnew reviewed 52 studies, from the late 1970s to 1999, included about 11,000 pps from 5 countries. 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 longer. outcomes were true for men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual and heterosexual couples. suggests there is validity to Rusbults claim that factors are universally important of romantic relationships.  
• weakness is research is correlational. Strong correlation been found between important factors predicted by investment model. most studies in Le and Agnew’s meta analysis were correlational. correlational studies don’t allow us to conclude that factors identified by model cause commitment in a relationship. could be the more committed you feel towards your partner, more investment youre willing to make in the relationship, direction of causality may be reverse of that suggested by the model. not clear that model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors associated with it. 
• weakness it oversimplifies investment. Goodfriend and Agnew point out there is more to investment than just resources you have already put into a relationship. In the early stages, partners have made very few actual investments (they may not even live together). Goodfriend/Agnew extended Rusbults original model by including the investment partners make in future plans. Theyre motivated to commit to each other as they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out. suggests its a limited model as it doesn’t consider how complex investment can be, esp in planning for the future. 
• A strength is that this theory can explain abusive relationships. Rusbult and Martz studied domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abusive relationship (e.g those who presumably were the most committed) reported having made the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives. These women were dissatisfied with their relationship but still committed to them. Therefore the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships- commitment and investment are also factors.