Distinguishing Rusbult's Investment Model from Social Exchange Theory
Rusbult's Investment Model builds upon the principles of social exchange theory but shifts the focus to the impact of investments on relationship commitment. While social exchange theory suggests that individuals seek relationships that provide the greatest rewards at the lowest costs, Rusbult's model emphasizes the importance of investments in maintaining relationships. It suggests that investments create a form of psychological attachment that can keep individuals committed to a relationship, even when it may not be immediately rewarding or when the costs seem to outweigh the benefits. This perspective provides a more comprehensive understanding of why people may choose to stay in relationships that are not optimally beneficial.Research Evidence Supporting Rusbult's Investment Model
Empirical research has provided substantial support for Rusbult's Investment Model. A notable meta-analysis by Le and Agnew in 2003, which synthesized data from 52 studies involving over 11,000 participants, confirmed that satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size are significant predictors of commitment. Longitudinal studies, such as those conducted by Impett, Beals, and Peplau, have demonstrated a strong association between these factors and relationship stability in married couples. Additional research by Rhatigan and Axsom, and Bui, Peplau, and Hill, has validated the model's applicability in various relationship contexts, including those that are abusive, highlighting its relevance in understanding the complexities of relationship commitment.Assessing the Merits and Limitations of Rusbult's Investment Model
Rusbult's Investment Model is characterized by both strengths and limitations. Its empirical support and explanatory power, particularly in the context of relationships with an imbalance between rewards and costs, are significant strengths. The model's cross-cultural applicability and its enhancement of social exchange theory through the inclusion of investment considerations are also notable. However, the model's reliance on correlational data limits its ability to establish causality, and some critics argue that it may oversimplify the intricate nature of relationship dynamics. Despite these limitations, the model's practical implications and its contributions to our understanding of commitment in relationships are invaluable for educational purposes.