See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369510938

Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship)

Chapter · March 2023

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_321-1

CITATIONS READS

0 536

2 authors, including:

N .Büşra Akçabozan Kayabol

Bahçeşehir University
42 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by N .Büşra Akçabozan Kayabol on 06 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

I

Investment Model (Investing end; in other words, how relationships are

in a Relationship) persisted and partners stay committed to each
other. In this sense, the investment model has
Selen Ilgen and Nazli Busra Akcabozan Kayabol become one of the most prominent and empiri-
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of cally tested models in the romantic relationship
Psychological Counseling and Guidance, literature and a large body of research has been
Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey accumulated investigating the underlying mecha-
nisms predicting persistence and commitment in
relationships.
Synonyms The investment model proposed that individ-
uals’ dependence on their relationships increase
Commitment; Rusbult’s investment model their commitment level, therefore dependence to
partners and relationships is essential to under-
stand the commitment level. Commitment differs
Definition from dependence which is more likely related to
the need of being in the relationship. Commitment
“The investment model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983) emerges from dependency and dependent people
provides a useful framework for predicting the experience commitment in their lives by being
state of being committed to someone or some- aware of their feelings of commitment while
thing, and for understanding the underlying they may not realize their dependence (Drigotas
causes of commitment” (Rusbult et al., 2011: 3). et al., 1999). Commitment, explained as the desire
to maintain the current relationship (Rusbult,
1983), is a long-term orientation including feel-
The Investment Model ings of attachment to the partner and the relation-
ship and a subjective state including both
The investment model is a social psychological cognitive and emotional processes. Commitment
model that serves as an extension of the has three interrelated components as psychologi-
interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, cal attachment to the relationship (affective),
1978) which utilizes the principles of the social long-term orientation regarding the relationship
exchange theory. On the basis of several princi- (cognitive), and intention to persist in the relation-
ples of interdependence theory and by extending ship (conative) (Rusbult et al., 2004). Individuals
it, the investment model was developed to find out with high levels of commitment are connected to
why some relationships are long-lasting but others their partners with the need of long-term existence
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
T. K. Shackelford (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_321-1
2 Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship)

of their current relationship in their lives (Rusbult sexual gratification, partner’s physical attractive-
& Buunk, 1993). The level of commitment con- ness, and partner’s intelligence while costs are
sists of the combination of three interrelated aspects of the partner or relationship that the per-
dimensions, namely satisfaction, quality of alter- son dislikes or annoys such as conflict,
natives, and investment size. In a nutshell, as the relationship-related financial costs, and partner’s
relationship becomes more satisfying, the quality embarrassing habits (Bui et al., 1996). Outcome
of the alternatives decreases, and the degree of value for an individual’s relationship indicates the
investments increases, the individual’s level of difference between rewards and costs (Rusbult,
commitment and probability of persisting the rela- 1980) and individuals’ evaluation of their out-
tionship increase (Rusbult, 1980). Accordingly, it comes in a relationship and their satisfaction
is expected that the changes in the level of com- level can be affected by their comparison level
mitment to maintain the relationship directly (CL). CL is the standard used to evaluate the
mediate the decision of staying in or leaving the attractiveness or satisfaction of a relationship
relationship (Rusbult, 1983) (Fig. 1). and the average relationship outcome value that
an individual expects. CL can be influenced by the
previous relationship experiences, observations of
Satisfaction other couple’s relationships, and comparison of
the partner’s outcomes (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult
Satisfaction has attracted the first and most atten- & Buunk, 1993). Individuals are likely to feel
tion in explaining the feelings of commitment. more satisfied in their relationships especially
Satisfaction is described as the degree of positivity when the outcomes they have obtained is above
of affect or attraction toward a relationship their CL whereas they are more likely to feel
(Rusbult, 1983) and positive evaluation of the dissatisfied when the outcomes obtained in the
relationship in terms of meeting important needs relationship fall below their CL (Rusbult &
and feeling valued and rewarded (Drigotas & Arriaga, 1997). From another perspective, equity
Rusbult, 1992). According to the principles of theory asserts that individuals feel more satisfied
interdependence theory, individuals generally when the ratios of inputs and outcomes are equal
tend to maximize rewards and minimize costs. (Hatfield et al., 1985). Overall, it is not surprising
Rewards are the features of the relationship and that individuals with higher levels of satisfaction
partner that the person likes or enjoys such as feel more committed to their relationships.

Satisfaction Level

Quality of Probability
Commitment of
Alternatives Level Persistence

Investment Size

Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship), Martz, 1995, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Fig. 1 The investment model of commitment. Note. This 21(6), p. 561 (https://doi.org/10.1177/
figure shows the investment model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983) 0146167295216002); “The Investment Model Scale: Mea-
of commitment processes and the direction (positive and suring Commitment Level, Satisfaction Level, Quality of
negative) of relationships between each component and Alternatives, and Investment Size” by C. E. Rusbult, J. M.
commitment level as well as commitment level and prob- Martz, and C. R. Agnew, 1998, Personal Relationships,
ability of persistence. Adapted from “Remaining in an 5(4), p. 360 (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.
Abusive Relationship: An Investment Model Analysis of tb00177.x)
Nonvoluntary Dependence” by C. E. Rusbult and J. M.
Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship) 3

Quality of Alternatives relationship is not very satisfying. Therefore, the

investment model argues that commitment is also
Commitment is also a function of the quality of affected by another component: investment size.
alternatives which address more preferable and
attractive potential to the current or an option of
another partner or relationship, dating with others Investment Size
and/or other alternatives except the option of
being in a relationship like being single, spending Investments to the relationships can be formed as
time with friends and family, etc. The investment extrinsic and intrinsic (Rusbult, 1980). Extrinsic
model proposes that individuals evaluate alterna- investments generally include previous extrane-
tives more positively as the rewards increase and ous resources (e.g., children, mutual friends,
the costs decrease for the best alternatives shared memories, material possessions, activities,
(Rusbult, 1980). On the other hand, the tendency persons, objects, events, etc.) that are inextricably
to reject and devalue alternatives is greater in linked with the current relationship (Rusbult,
individuals with higher commitment (Johnson & 1980, 1983; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Intrinsic
Rusbult, 1989). Moreover, individuals with low investments are the resources directly involved
comparison level of alternatives (CLalt), which is in the relationship such as time, emotional
described as the lowest level of outcomes that can involvement, self-disclosure, money,
be accepted in an alternative option (Thibaut & etc. (Rusbult, 1980). The resources invested to
Kelley, 1959), feel higher commitment to their the relationship can be considered either as a
relationships with a conclusion that it is better to reward or a cost. For example, shared memories
stay with their partners because they have few or mutual friends may serve as rewards while
attractive alternatives outside of their relation- emotional effort or monetary investments may
ships (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). The possible serve as costs (Rusbult, 1983). Since both types
relationships of CL and CLalt with the outcome of investments would be lost when relationships
value can occur in four ways. If the balance of end, individuals who invested more to their rela-
rewards relative to costs in a relationship tionships are less likely to terminate their relation-
(outcome value) is ships (Rusbult, 1980). The degree of investments
has been found to be positively related with per-
• Above both CL and CLalt, both satisfaction ceived commitment level and decision of staying
and commitment will be high in the relationship. In other words, deciding to
• Below the CL but above the CLalt, satisfaction leave a relationship means to be willing to sacri-
will be low but commitment will be high fice the invested resources (Rusbult, 1983).
• Above the CL but below the CLalt, satisfaction As indicated above, the investment model has
will be high but commitment will be low provided a theoretical rationale to explain the state
• Below both CL and CLalt, both satisfaction of being committed and become one of the pio-
and commitment will be low. neer models in understanding relationship dynam-
This type of relationship is unlikely to con- ics in various samples including different
tinue (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). relationship types (e.g., dating, cohabitation, and
marriage) and sexual orientations (e.g., heterosex-
Rusbult et al. (1998) stated that if the commit- ual and same-sex relationships). Moreover, the
ment level was based solely on the perceived level model has provided a useful framework in exam-
of satisfaction and/or the quality of alternatives, ining the associations among its components
few relationships would last and most relation- (satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
ships would be shaken. However, the researchers investment size) and various relational variables
suggested that some relationships can last even (e.g., dyadic adjustment, relationship mainte-
when an attractive alternative is available or the nance behaviors, trust, conflict resolution, stress
management, forgiveness, infidelity, and
4 Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship)

attachment). The increased number of research in References

this field even allowed researchers to conduct
meta-analysis studies. The results of the first Bui, K. V. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing
meta-analysis study conducted by Le and Agnew the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and
stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples.
(2003) with 52 studies and 11,582 participants Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12),
provided support for the model by revealing that 1244–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/
three components of commitment accounted for 01461672962212005
61% of the variance in explaining commitment. Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or
should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal
Moreover, commitment was found to predict indi- of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 62–87.
viduals’ stay and leave decisions in relationships. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.62
It was also revealed that women reported higher Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (1999). Level
satisfaction, higher investment, and higher com- of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple
well-being. Personal Relationships, 6(3), 389–409.
mitment levels than men whereas men perceived https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x
more alternatives to their relationships than Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay,
women. Accordingly, Tran et al. (2019) provided J. (1985). Equity and intimate relations: Recent
further evidence in their recent meta-analysis research. In D. W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incom-
patible relationships (pp. 91–117). Springer.
study which was conducted with 50,427 partici- Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting tempta-
pants from 161 studies and showed that three tion: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of
components of commitment explained 54% of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Jour-
the variance in predicting commitment. Satisfac- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6),
967–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967
tion was found to be the strongest predictor of Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal
commitment followed by the investment size relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
and quality of alternatives. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its
theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the invest-
ment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035
Conclusion Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in
romantic associations: A test of the investment model.
According to Rusbult’s investment model, having Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2),
172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)
a great amount of investments and poor quality of 90007-4
alternatives could make the individuals feel Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment
trapped in an unhappy and unsatisfying relation- model: The development (and deterioration) of satis-
ship. In other words, despite the perception of faction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1),
lower levels of satisfaction one could feel higher 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
level of commitment because of the high invest- Rusbult, C. E., & Arriaga, X. B. (1997). Interdependence
ment size and low alternative quality (Rusbult, theory. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal rela-
1980). Also, one may leave a relatively satisfying tionships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed.,
pp. 221–250). Wiley.
relationship because of the existence of an attrac- Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment pro-
tive alternative and low investment size (Rusbult, cesses in close relationships: An interdependence anal-
1983). ysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
1 0 ( 2 ) , 1 7 5 – 2 0 4 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
026540759301000202
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an
Cross-References abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of
nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psy-
▶ Rusbult’s Investment Model chology Bulletin, 21(6), 558–571. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167295216002
▶ Emotional Commitment Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The
▶ Relationship Satisfaction investment model scale: Measuring commitment level,
▶ Relationship Commitment satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
Investment Model (Investing in a Relationship) 5

investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), (Department of Psychological Sciences Faculty Publi-
357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998. cations, Paper 26). http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/
tb00177.x psychpubs/26
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychol-
(2004). Commitment and relationship maintenance ogy of groups. Wiley.
mechanisms. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in
Close relationships: Key readings (pp. 287–303). Psy- relationships: An updated meta-analysis of the invest-
chology Press. ment model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158–180.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C., & Arriaga, X. (2011). The https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268
investment model of commitment processes

View publication stats