Rusbult's investment model

• developed as a way of understanding why people persist in some romantic relationships but not others

  emphasises the central importance of commitment in relationships

  rusbult devised the model to address the limitations of social exchange theory
• commitment 3 factors 


  1.satisfaction level

  2.comparison with alternatives (CL alt)

  3.investment size
• satisfying relationships 


  Satisfaction is based on the concept of comparison level (CL)​

  A satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs​

  A relationship is seen as profitable if it has many rewards and few costs. ​

  People will be satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect (higher profit than CL) based on previous experience and social norms. ​
• CL alt 


  same as with SET

  people will compare their current relationship with potential alternatives

  Alternatives could be relationships with other people or no romantic relationship at all. ​
• investment size 


  a measure of the resources attached to a relationship​

  In other words, what would be lost if the relationship were to end. ​
• making the decision

  
• two types of investments

  intrinsic and extrinsic investments
• intrinsic investments 


  Intrinsic investments: resources we put directly into a relationship​

  They can be tangible (concrete) e.g. our own personal money and possessions​

  Or intangible (resources that are harder to quantify) e.g. energy or effort​
• extrinsic investments 


  Extrinsic investments: resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but are now associated with it​

  Tangible: e.g. resources bought together like a car​Intangible: e.g. mutual friends or shared memories​
• when will relationship continue

  They have large investments or investments are increasing

  A high level of satisfaction (lots of rewards & low costs),​The alternatives are less attractive​

  We can then confidently predict they will be committed to the relationship​
• strength, supporting evidence 


  meta-analysis

  52 studies analysed, included 1100 p's from 5 countries to discover key variables in relationship maintenance

  found = satisfaction, CL alt and investment size all predicted relationship commitment

  relationship in which commitment was highest were the most stable and lasted longest

  and findings applied to both males and females, across all cultures and hetro and homosexual
• explaining why people stay in abusive relationships

  Rusbuldt studied abused women at a shelter

  found = those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported having the greatest investments and fewest attractive alternatives = investment model recognises satisfaction/alternatives are not only important factors in a relationship (which SET would claim)
• what other ways do you invest in a relationship

  There is more to investment than the resources you have already put into a relationship. ​

  Good friend and Agnew (2008) extended Rusbult’s original model…​

  by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans​ E.g. marriage and children ​

  This shows the original model fails to recognise the true complexity of investment & how future plans influence commitment​
• weakness - methodological issues

  based on correlational data - cause and effect cant be inferred = the more committed you feel towards your partner the more investment you are willing to make in a relationship so direction of causality could be the reverse of that prediction by the model

  and it relies on self-report questionnaires , have problems with participants wishing to present themselves in a good light (social desirability bias)

  so theory may lack internal validity