Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model
Satisfaction Says commitment depends on these three factors. Developed from SET so
satisfaction/comparison with alternatives refer to very similar concepts.
Comparison with
Factor 1: Satisfaction: based on concept of comparison level, satisfaction refers to whether
alternatives
a partner feels that rewards (companionship, sex) outweigh the cost (conflict, domestic
work) of the relationship, happy with the position they are in. Generally happy when
Investment
getting more than expected, based on past relationships + social norms.
Factor 2: Comparison with alternatives: assessing whether alternative positions such as
Commitment being single or searching for a new partner, would be more beneficial (generate more
reward) than remaining in the current relationship.
Relationship Factor 3: Investment: vital third factor added to describe why partners remain in
maintenance relationships even when costs outweigh rewards (which SET couldn’t do). This
mechanisms refers to anything we would lose if the relationship were to end….
-Forgiveness
Intrinsic Investment: resources put directly into relationship, physical things like
Ridicule money and valuable possessions or intangible like energy, emotions, and things
alternatives we’ve self-disclosed.
Extrinsic Investment: Things that did not associate with the relationship, but now
are e.g., shared car, mutual friends, children, projects, shared memories.
Another strength is that the model explains relationships that involve partner violence, known as ‘abusive relationships. Other
Satisfaction
explanationsVSsuchCommitment:
as SETs basicRusbult
cost v says commitment
rewards is the main
concept would not bepsychological factor
able to explain whythat keepspeople
rational peoplewhoin relationships, that
are fully aware of
people
abuse byprioritise a feeling
a partner, wouldofremain
commitment over feeling
in a relationship. satisfied.
Martz (1995) This may explain
studied abusedwhy
womenpeople
at astay in relationships
shelter where
and found those the
most
costs
likelygreatly outweigh
to return the reward.
to an abusive partnerRusbult
were concludes
reported tothis is due
have the to the investment
greatest they’ve
investment, they made,
reportedwhich they do
to return not wantoftotheir
regardless see
‘go to waste’. Therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships and
dissatisfaction.
addresses sensitive topics much better than other explanations.
This results in Relationship maintenance mechanisms to express commitment e.g., putting partners interests first (willing to
sacrifice) unrealistically
One limitation positive
of the model about
is that their partner the
it oversimplifies (positive
concept illusions) and ridicule
of investment. Oneother
way isrelationships
that it showstoinvestment
feel better as
about
Onetheir
own situation as
dimensional, (ridiculing alternative).only accounts for current properties within the relationship that would be a loss, however
though investment
as Agnew points out, Investment can happen in early stages of relationships, as they invest their future plans with the partner,
Evaluation
commitment +/-
will likely be high from the beginning in a sense that the partner wishes to see their future ideals come true. This
suggests that the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, an how future as well
Research support: One strength of the investment model is the wide research support it has, for example an established meta-
as the present can influence commitment.
analysis by Agnew (2003). This was a review of 52 studies from late 70s to 1999 and consisted of over 11,000 participants
over 5 countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison to alternatives and Rusbults investment size all predicted
relationship commitment, which in turn predicted success of relationships. (Most stable). These findings were true to men and
women, regardless of sexuality or culture. This suggests there is validity to Results claim that these factors are important
features in romantic relationships, especially that they are universal and can be applied to most relationships.
Counterpoint: The research that claims to support Rusbults investment model is based on correlational studies. These do not
allow us to reach conclusions that the factors are directly responsible for commitment in a relationship. It is equally likely that
the causation presented in the model could be reversed, that feeling more committed towards a partner makes us invest
more. Suggesting if the studies that support it lack validity, perhaps the model itself is invalid. Therefore, it is not clear that the
model has identified the causes of commitment, but more so merely factors associated with commitment, this reduces the
credibility of the model.
Satisfaction Says commitment depends on these three factors. Developed from SET so
satisfaction/comparison with alternatives refer to very similar concepts.
Comparison with
Factor 1: Satisfaction: based on concept of comparison level, satisfaction refers to whether
alternatives
a partner feels that rewards (companionship, sex) outweigh the cost (conflict, domestic
work) of the relationship, happy with the position they are in. Generally happy when
Investment
getting more than expected, based on past relationships + social norms.
Factor 2: Comparison with alternatives: assessing whether alternative positions such as
Commitment being single or searching for a new partner, would be more beneficial (generate more
reward) than remaining in the current relationship.
Relationship Factor 3: Investment: vital third factor added to describe why partners remain in
maintenance relationships even when costs outweigh rewards (which SET couldn’t do). This
mechanisms refers to anything we would lose if the relationship were to end….
-Forgiveness
Intrinsic Investment: resources put directly into relationship, physical things like
Ridicule money and valuable possessions or intangible like energy, emotions, and things
alternatives we’ve self-disclosed.
Extrinsic Investment: Things that did not associate with the relationship, but now
are e.g., shared car, mutual friends, children, projects, shared memories.
Another strength is that the model explains relationships that involve partner violence, known as ‘abusive relationships. Other
Satisfaction
explanationsVSsuchCommitment:
as SETs basicRusbult
cost v says commitment
rewards is the main
concept would not bepsychological factor
able to explain whythat keepspeople
rational peoplewhoin relationships, that
are fully aware of
people
abuse byprioritise a feeling
a partner, wouldofremain
commitment over feeling
in a relationship. satisfied.
Martz (1995) This may explain
studied abusedwhy
womenpeople
at astay in relationships
shelter where
and found those the
most
costs
likelygreatly outweigh
to return the reward.
to an abusive partnerRusbult
were concludes
reported tothis is due
have the to the investment
greatest they’ve
investment, they made,
reportedwhich they do
to return not wantoftotheir
regardless see
‘go to waste’. Therefore, the model shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in relationships and
dissatisfaction.
addresses sensitive topics much better than other explanations.
This results in Relationship maintenance mechanisms to express commitment e.g., putting partners interests first (willing to
sacrifice) unrealistically
One limitation positive
of the model about
is that their partner the
it oversimplifies (positive
concept illusions) and ridicule
of investment. Oneother
way isrelationships
that it showstoinvestment
feel better as
about
Onetheir
own situation as
dimensional, (ridiculing alternative).only accounts for current properties within the relationship that would be a loss, however
though investment
as Agnew points out, Investment can happen in early stages of relationships, as they invest their future plans with the partner,
Evaluation
commitment +/-
will likely be high from the beginning in a sense that the partner wishes to see their future ideals come true. This
suggests that the original model is limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, an how future as well
Research support: One strength of the investment model is the wide research support it has, for example an established meta-
as the present can influence commitment.
analysis by Agnew (2003). This was a review of 52 studies from late 70s to 1999 and consisted of over 11,000 participants
over 5 countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison to alternatives and Rusbults investment size all predicted
relationship commitment, which in turn predicted success of relationships. (Most stable). These findings were true to men and
women, regardless of sexuality or culture. This suggests there is validity to Results claim that these factors are important
features in romantic relationships, especially that they are universal and can be applied to most relationships.
Counterpoint: The research that claims to support Rusbults investment model is based on correlational studies. These do not
allow us to reach conclusions that the factors are directly responsible for commitment in a relationship. It is equally likely that
the causation presented in the model could be reversed, that feeling more committed towards a partner makes us invest
more. Suggesting if the studies that support it lack validity, perhaps the model itself is invalid. Therefore, it is not clear that the
model has identified the causes of commitment, but more so merely factors associated with commitment, this reduces the
credibility of the model.
