1. Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model
What the spec says: Theories of romantic relationships: Resbult’s Investment Model
See Sheldon and Penny’s Christmas present exchange on big bang
Describe the main features of Resbult’s model of romantic relationships
Explain how relationships form, are maintained, and breakdown according to Resbult’s model
Evaluate evidence to support and contradict Resbult’s model

2. The Investment Model Relationships
The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, including the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships.
Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.

3. “The glue that holds our relationships together”
COMMITMENT
“The glue that holds our relationships together”
What is the ‘glue’ that holds our relationship together?

4. Investment model of relationships Rusbult (1983)
Ribbit
Suggests that the maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment.
In this context commitment refers to the likelihood that the relationship will persist.
Commitment can be strengthened by:
Satisfaction
Investment
Commitment is weakened by:
Presence of alternatives to the relationship
Just like SET and EqT this is an ECONOMIC theory

5. Misleading The name of the model is a bit misleading
Remember Investment is only one part of this model
But it’s so called as its the only part that researchers hadn’t considered previously, so it’s her contribution to the model

6. The Investment Model of Relationships (Rusbult, 1983)
Rusbult was interested in studying the factors that contributed to a committed relationship versus relationship breakdown.
3 things influence commitment;
Satisfaction
Quality of Alternatives
Investment

7. Satisfaction
Satisfaction is felt when a person feels the rewards from their own relationship surpasses their Comparison Level
(Rewards – C)
Notice any of this terminology?
Rusbult used a lot of SET in her model.

8. Quality of alternatives (Clalt)
If there is an attractive alternative they may leave the relationship.
If no alternative exists they may maintain the relationship.(Increases satisfaction)
NB: sometimes having no
relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one.

9. Investment
Investment is anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends.
Intrinsic Investments:
Time , personal information – i.e. self disclosure
Extrinsic Investments: Shared things that may be lost: Shared pets, network of friends, children

10. The Investment Model of Relationships
‘SAIC it off ‘

11. The Investment Model
Rusbult suggested that the CL and the CLalt from the Social Exchange Theory are not enough to explain commitment to a relationship. i.e. that the theory was limited. (this is an evaluation point for SET)
Rusbult found that when people were deciding whether to end a relationship, they weighed up
the rewards and the costs of the relationship
possible alternatives available to them,
AND ALSO how much they had invested in the relationship.
She defines investment as ‘anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it’.
Investments can be financial (like a house), temporal (such as time spend together) or emotional (such as in the welfare of the children).
Sometimes a person stays in a relationship simply because they have already invested significantly in it.

13. Should I stay or should I go?
Christy remains in the relationship because she has made a big investment, which she stands to lose if it ends.
Her experience of previous relationships tells her that she probably has more attractive alternatives available to her. Living on her own is not one of these options, however, because she dislikes the idea. She is clearly unsatisfied because she is unhappy: the costs of her relationship are outweighing the rewards. So these two factors do not explain why Christy continues to maintain the relationship.
Rusbult argues that the size of Christy’s investment will predict whether or not she stays. This investment must be sizeable because she brought many material possessions with her (a tangible intrinsic investment) and has memories of the good times she once had (an intangible extrinsic investment).
Therefore, because she is committed, Christy will act to repair and maintain the relationship to avoid losing her investment. She will forgive and accommodate her partner and put his or her interests before her own. She will think negatively about tempting alternatives and paint her partner in unrealistically positive terms.

14. Evaluation of The Investment Model
Research Support
To test this hypothesis, Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period.
They kept notes about how satisfactory their relationship was, how it compared with others, and how much they had invested in it.
Students also noted how committed they felt to the relationship and whether it had ended.
Potential issues with this study?

15. The Investment Model of Relationships (Rusbult, 1983)
These results demonstrate the factors that are important in commitment to a relationship

16. Further supporting evidence Le & Agnew (2003)
They Conducted a meta–analysis of Rusbult's Investment Model of commitment.
They looked at 52 studies which represented 11,582 participants.
Satisfaction with the relationship
Alternatives to the relationship
Investments in the relationship
Each correlated significantly with commitment to the relationship.
Commitment, in turn, was found to be a significant predictor of relationship breakup.

17. Evaluation of The Investment Model
Explaining Abusive Relationships
The investment model is thought to be a particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the investment model to abusive relationships.
They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began.
As predicted by the model,
women felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great.

18. Evaluation of The Investment Model
Methodology
Much of the evidence supporting the Investment model relies on self-report measures such as interviews and questionnaires.
Generally these methods would be seen as a weakness but in this instance they are the most appropriate methods to use because it’s not the objective reality of factors that matter.
What matters is the individual partner’s perception of these factors. It is your belief that you have made a big investment in your current relationship, or your belief that you have no attractive alternatives, that will influence your commitment. Whether the belief matches the objective reality of the situation is really neither her not there.

19. Evaluation of The Investment Model
Whaaaaaaaa
Correlation nightmare
NO CAUSALITY
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Based on Correlational Research
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.
Most studies don’t actually allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship.
It could be the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that predicted by the model.

20. So have you done the work?
PHG – apply it questions ?
Checked your own understanding?
Made a revision card ?
Other ideas include…………

23. Additional evaluation It oversimplifies investment