Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model
Psychology: AQA A Level, topic 9.2.6
Support for Rusbult’s Investment Model
Studies conducted by other researchers support many of the claims made by Rusbult et al. (2011).
Le and Agnew (2003)
- __Le and Agnew (2003)__conducted a meta-analysis where they reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970’s to 1999.
- These studies collectively included more than 11,000 participants from five countries.
Le and Agnew (2003) findings
- They found three things that all predicted commitment to a relationship:
- Satisfaction,
- Comparison with alternatives,
- Investment size.
- The relationships with higher levels of commitment were more stable and lasted longer.
Validity
- These finding were true for both men and women across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.
- This suggests there is some validity to the investment model and that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.
Different relationships
- The investment model can also explain abusive relationships.
- It is thought to be particularly useful in explaining intimate partner violence (IPV).
Rusbult and Marz (1995)
- Rusbult and Marz (1995) studied ‘battered’ women at a shelter.
- They found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
- The model therefore recognises that the victim of intimate partner violence does not have to be satisfied with the relationship to stay in it.
Limitations of Rusbult’s Investment Model
Investment theory might over-simplify the concept of investment. It is also limited due to the choice of research methods used in supporting studies.
Goodfriend and Agnew (2008)
- They suggest that there is more to investment than the the resources you have already put into a relationship.
- They extended Rusbult’s original model by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans.
Future
- Partners are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their future plans reach fruition.
- They concluded that the model is a limited because it fails to recognise the true complexity of investment, specifically how planning for the future influences commitment.
Self report
- Much of the evidence supporting the investment model relies on self-report measures such as questionnaires and interviews.
- These are appropriate methods because it is not the objective reality of factors such as investment size that matters but the individual partners perceptions of these factors.
Correlation
- Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model. However even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation.
- It is possible that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality maybe the reverse of that predicted by the model.
Test yourself on Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model
Which of the following is NOT a proposed limitation of Rusbult’s Investment Model?