Desire to stay in a relationship, reflecting the belief the relationship is viable in the long-term.
1 of 26
Define satisfaction.
The extent to which partners feel rewards meet or exceed the costs
2 of 26
Define comparison with alternatives.
Whether it would be more beneficial to be in a different relationship or none at all in comparison to the current relationship.
3 of 26
Define investment.
The resources attached to the romantic relationship, of which would be lost if the relationship was to end.
4 of 26
What is Rusbult's investment model developed from?
SET.
5 of 26
How is Rusbult' investment model similar to another theory?
It is similar to SET in its usage of satisfaction levels (comparitive to rewards/costs) and comparison with alternatives.
6 of 26
What are the relationship maintence mechanisms?
Accommodation, willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness, posititive illusions and ridiculing alternatives.
7 of 26
Acoording to Rusbult's model, how do people work out how satisfying a relationship is?
By considering the three factors of satisfaction level, investment size and comparing with alternatives to determine the level of commitment.
8 of 26
What are the two types of investment?
Intrinsic and extrinsic.
9 of 26
What is intrinsic investment?
Resources we put directly into a relationship. Can be tangible things such as money or intangible things such as energy.
10 of 26
What is extrinsic investment?
Resources closely associated with the relationship. Tangibles such as shared possessions and children. Intangibles such as shared memories.
11 of 26
Why is the distinction between satisfaction and commitment important?
Commitment is more important than satisfaction, as it is the main factor that maintains romantic relationships. It helps explain why people who are not satisfied stay in relationships.
What do the findings of the Le & Agnew study show in support of investment theory?
All three variables are important, with satisfaction as the most important.
14 of 26
How is SET simplistic when compared to investment theory's greater predictive power?
Wealth of evidence that investment size makes an independent contribution to commitment- commitment cannot just be prediction using satisfaction levels and CLalt alone.
15 of 26
What is the issue with Le & Agnew's results?
The factors all correlate moderately with one another, so we are unsure to what causes what.
16 of 26
What do the standardised regression coefficents from the Le & Agnew study tell us in terms of relative independent contribution?
3 variables predict 61% of variance in commitment. Satisfcation predicts about half of this, and lack of alternatives and investment size a quarter each.
17 of 26
What can we determine from the relative independent contribution of the Le & Agnew study?
The 2 factors identified by SET explain 45% of total variance, with the investment model adding another 15%, however 40% of variance is left unexplained.
18 of 26
What else did Le & Agnew unveil?
(+0.47) shows commitment is a strong predictor of 'stay-leave' behaviours.
19 of 26
What does the unknown 40% show in Le & Agnew's study?
this shows that the study likely excluded other possible factors such as individual differences that affects each relationship individually.
20 of 26
What are the findings of Rusbult and Martz in relation to abusive relationships?
The abused women who were the most commited reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.
21 of 26
How is Rusbult and Martz' study a strength of investment theory?
Model recognises that a victim of IPV (intimate partner violence) does not have to be satisfied with a relationship to be in it, confirming commitment as a more important factor.
22 of 26
What is the issue with victms of IPV?
They may exaggarate 'investment' and 'few alternatives' as a reason for staying as a form of self-deception or social desirability.
23 of 26
How might the model be amended?
Including investment made in future plans, as it explains commitment in the early stages of the relationship.
24 of 26
What are the methodological strengths of Le and Agnew's study?
s high sample size, includes different cultures and homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples, this increases its generalisation, and it’s got higher population validity.
25 of 26
What are the methodological weaknesses of Le and Agnew's study?
correlational and relies on mathematical assumptions in its statistical analysis, this means we cannot draw causal conclusions and cannot assume the 3 factors (satisfaction, alternatives and investment) are the direct cause of commitment.
26 of 26
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Define satisfaction.
Back
The extent to which partners feel rewards meet or exceed the costs
Card 3
Front
Define comparison with alternatives.
Back
Card 4
Front
Define investment.
Back
Card 5
Front
What is Rusbult's investment model developed from?
Comments
No comments have yet been made