Thank you
, , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.The basics of this talk come from my Essential Read on Marriage, Dating, and Romantic Love just launched today in Psychology Today Magazine:
For those who want access to these livestreams regularly as they happen, become an Upgraded member:
SHOW NOTES:
The Investment Model, proposed by Rusbult et al. (2001), builds upon Social Exchange Theory. The motivation behind further developing SET arose from observations that many couples remain together even when the costs surpass the benefits, indicating that additional factors must contribute to their commitment. Rusbult's Investment Model explores what these factors might be.
In this brief talk, Dr. Paul and Jeremy engage in a discussion about a psychological principle regarding relationships, particularly focusing on Rusbult's model of commitment, introduced in 2001. Dr. Paul expresses surprise at discovering this concept after so many years, highlighting its practical and solid nature. He reflects on the enduring question of why some couples remain together despite facing more disadvantages than advantages in their relationship.
The conversation touches on attachment styles, suggesting that factors like anxious attachment may lead individuals to stay in unfulfilling relationships due to codependency. Dr. Paul also connects this discussion to cultural references, mentioning a film, “Serendipity,” that, despite poor critical reception, offers a light-hearted yet thought-provoking take on love and hopefulness. Overall, the discussion sets the stage for exploring the complexities of commitment in romantic relationships.
Investment in Romantic Relationships
Rusbult identified three key elements that uphold relationship commitment: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, and investment size.
The concepts of satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives draw upon the comparison levels established in Social Exchange Theory. Individuals experience higher satisfaction in their relationships when they perceive greater rewards (such as companionship, attention, and emotional support) and fewer drawbacks (like conflicts and time constraints).
They are also more likely to remain committed if they determine that no better options are available to meet their needs. Alternatives might include remaining single or pursuing a new partner.
Nonetheless, according to Rusbult et al., investment is the primary factor underpinning relationship commitment. Investment encompasses the array of resources—both tangible (such as money or property) and intangible (such as joyful memories)—that individuals risk losing if they leave a relationship.
The model distinguishes between two forms of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investment includes the resources directly contributed to the relationship, such as effort, finances, belongings, and personal openness.
In contrast, extrinsic investment consists of benefits from the relationship, like children, friendships, and shared experiences.
Because intrinsic and extrinsic investments are at stake if a relationship terminates, Rusbult et al. concluded that a more significant investment increases the likelihood of individuals remaining in their relationships. Thus, the size of the investment significantly affects commitment rather than merely satisfaction levels or the availability of alternative options.
Again, to sign up for these regular lessons, become an Ugraded Member:
Share this post