The Investment Model
Simply speaking, what makes relationships last?
This article is a quick summary of the Investment Model — An Interdependence Analysis of Commitment Processes and Relationship Maintenance Phenomena, Caryl E. Rusbult, Stephen M. Drigotas, and Julie Verette, 1980; 1983
Social scientists have put in considerable effort in their attempts to understand why some relationships grow stronger with time, while others wither and die. Many researchers working in the relationship field assumed that the best route to understanding this is to explore satisfaction.
This point of view makes perfect sense; if you are happy with your relationship, surely you should be more likely to remain with your partner.
However, understanding what makes people feel satisfied with their relationships is not sufficient to explain how and why some relationships persist and thrive, whereas others do not.
The study examines the following components:
Variables for relationship stability (why we become and stay committed)
- Satisfaction level
- Perceived quality of alternatives
- Quantity of investments
Relationship maintenance behavior
- Accommodative behavior
- Tendencies to downplay or ignore attractive alternatives
- Willingness to sacrifice for the good of the relationship
- Tendencies toward perceived relationship superiority
The Interdependence Orientation
Satisfaction level refers to the positive versus negative emotions an individual experiences concerning a relationship, based on the sense that a given partner and relationship gratify one’s most essential needs. (Reward-cost/comparison level)
Satisfaction level constructs examples are the degree of love for partner, self-reported satisfaction, and marital comparison level index, a measure of the degree to which marriage outcomes exceed expectations.
Dependence level refers to the extent to which an individual “needs” a relationship and relies primarily on a given partner and relationship to fulfill essential needs.
The comparison level is the standard against which the member evaluates the relationship’s attractiveness or how satisfactory it is. When the outcome is better than what is expected, the individual is more likely to feel satisfied.
The comparison level for alternatives is when outcomes obtained in the current relationship is compared to anticipated outcomes in the best alternative option.
Commitment level represents long term orientation toward a relationship and includes intentions to remain in the relationship and feelings of attachment.
Rewards are defined as “the pleasures, satisfaction, and gratifications that a person enjoys.”
Costs are when a significant physical or mental effort is required when embarrassment or anxiety accompanies the action or conflicting forces or competing for response tendencies.
Dependence is strong when the satisfaction level is high compared to the best alternative option’s anticipated satisfaction level. When individuals believe that they are obtaining the best possible “deal” in their relationship, however flawed that relationship may be in an absolute sense-they are more dependent on the relationship and likely to remain together.
The Investment Model
Some relationships survive when attractive alternatives are available, and even when the relationship falls below what partners feel they deserve. How can we explain such persistence in the face of tempting alternatives and fluctuating satisfaction?
The investment model asserts that commitment is influenced not only by satisfaction level and perceived quality of alternatives but also by a third factor, investment size. Investments are the resources that become attached to the relationship and would decline in value or be lost if the relationship were to end.
Investments
- Time spent is the most basic investment in a relationship
- Self-disclosure
- Effort expenditure
- Identity bindings
- Mutual children, friends
- Material possessions
In summary, the investment model suggests that dependence on a relationship is subjectively experienced as a sense of commitment. That commitment is enhanced when individuals feel satisfied, perceive their alternatives as low quality, and invest in the relationship.
Relationship Maintenance Processes
Commitment is a central macro motive to
- Subjectively summarize the nature of an individuals dependence on a relationship
- Direct reactions to both familiar and novel interdependent situations
- Shape tendencies to engage in relationship maintenance behaviors, even when such actions may be costly, effortful, or otherwise contrary to the individual’s immediate self-interest
When people behave against immediate self-interest, they provide their partners with relatively unambiguous evidence of their feelings and intentions.
Potential reactions to dissatisfaction align into two dimensions. Responses that are either active or passive concerning the problem at hand and actions are either destructive or constructive for the broader relationship.
The exit category includes behavior that is actively destructive to a relationship, moving, threatening to leave, screaming.
Neglect behaviors passively allow conditions in a relationship to deteriorate through avoidance reactions.
Voice responses are active attempts to improve a relationship’s conditions and include behaviors such as discussing the problems.
Loyalty reactions are essentially a matter of optimistically waiting for positive change.
Tendencies to Accommodate
When one individual in a relationship engaged in either of the two destructive reactions, relationship distress was reduced when the individual’s partner was inclined to inhibit inclinations to react with voice or loyalty. This interdependent pattern of responding is termed accommodation.
Accommodation is perceived as a costly or effortful reaction. However, it is clearly the best interest of the relationship. Commitment to a relationship appears to determine the outcome of such an accommodative dilemma. (Game Theory, Prisoners Dilemma)
Derogation of Alternatives
Although alternatives may sometimes be quite tempting, enjoyment of the alternative may pose a severe threat to an ongoing relationship’s stability. To deal with such danger and reduce the perceived costs of preceding alternative involvements, committed individuals to exhibit a tendency to derogate attractive alternatives — to convince themselves that the alternative is really not so attractive after all. Some research also suggests that the presence of threatening options can sometimes yield bolstering of the current relationship.
Willingness to Sacrifice
In essence, sacrifice represents the willingness to solving dilemmas of non-correspondent outcomes by sacrificing self-interest for the good of a relationship. Studies show that personal commitment accounts for tendencies to exert effort for a relationship’s well-being.
Perceived Relationship Superiority (Relationship-Enhancing Illusion)
One of the more important determinants of how individuals experience and evaluate their lives comes from social comparison. When faced with uncertainty in evaluating their marriages, participants exhibited an enhanced desire to interact with others, especially with individuals in high-functioning unions.
Studies show that subjects exhibit self-serving biases. Positive information dominated participants’ thoughts and beliefs about their own relationships, whereas negative information dominated thoughts and ideas about other relationships. Collectively, these tendencies are termed perceived relationship superiority.
