Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, proposed by psychologist Caryl Rusbult in the 1980s, has become an influential framework for understanding the factors that affect commitment in intimate relationships. This model posits that commitment is determined by three key variables – relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. The higher the satisfaction and investment, and the lower the quality of alternatives, the greater the commitment. In the decades since its introduction, Rusbult’s investment model has received substantial empirical support and has been widely applied in research on relationships. In this article, we will take a close look at Rusbult’s model, analyze the factors affecting commitment according to this framework, and also discuss some extensions and criticisms of the model in recent years.
Relationship Satisfaction Is the Primary Predictor of Commitment in Rusbult’s Model
A central tenet of Rusbult’s investment model is that relationship satisfaction is the most proximal predictor of commitment. Relationship satisfaction refers to the positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship. It is influenced by the degree to which a partner fulfills the individual’s most important needs. Research shows that relationship satisfaction has the strongest association with commitment compared to other factors in the model. Individuals who are highly satisfied with their relationship perceive greater rewards from it and thus tend to be more committed. In contrast, those who are dissatisfied and frustrated have lower commitment. For example, partners who frequently argue, cannot resolve conflicts effectively, or have mismatched sex drives often have lower satisfaction and commitment. Boosting relationship satisfaction, through better communication, increased intimacy, and fulfilling each other’s needs, is an effective way to strengthen commitment based on Rusbult’s model.
Quality of Alternatives Negatively Predicts Commitment in Rusbult’s Model
The quality of alternatives refers to the perceived desirability and availability of alternative partners or relationships outside of one’s current relationship. Rusbult’s model proposes that the higher the quality of alternatives, the lower the commitment to the current relationship, because attractive alternatives provide incentives to leave. Research generally supports this hypothesis. For instance, people who believe they have many alternative dating prospects have lower commitment to their current partner. Factors like social status, financial resources, emotional stability, and physical attractiveness increase one’s quality of alternatives. Those who are older, less socially active, or live in areas with a skewed gender ratio often have fewer alternative options. To maintain high commitment, partners should purposefully avoid tempting alternatives that could threaten the relationship, and also prevent each other from developing interest in alternatives.
Investment Size Positively Affects Commitment
Besides satisfaction and quality of alternatives, Rusbult’s model also emphasizes investment size, defined as the resources attached to a relationship that would be lost or decline in value if the relationship were to end. Investments can be concrete, such as shared property, joint finances, years spent together, or mutual friends. They can also be more psychological, like self-disclosure, memories, secrets kept, and emotions invested. The more investments made in a relationship, the higher the costs of ending it, and thus the greater the commitment. Partners can actively make investments to strengthen interdependence and increase commitment. For example, buying a house together, having children, combining friend groups, and disclosing innermost feelings all represent investments. Making large investments early on, however, may sometimes lead to unhealthy relationships out of feeling “stuck”.
Extensions of Rusbult’s Model Consider Additional Factors
While Rusbult’s original investment model emphasized satisfaction, alternatives, and investments, later researchers have suggested additional variables that may impact commitment. For example, some studies found that relationship stability goals, meaning the desire to maintain a relationship over time, predicted commitment over and above the three Rusbult factors. Other research shows that feeling morally obligated to continue a relationship, for the partner’s benefit or the good of the family, also positively affects commitment. Personality differences may matter as well. Secure individuals may commit more readily because they trust partners’ care and availability. Overall, Rusbult’s model provides a parsimonious foundation, while additional factors can augment its predictive ability.
In conclusion, Rusbult’s investment model highlights satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size as key predictors of commitment in intimate relationships. This elegant model has received substantial empirical backing over decades of research. Extensions to the model have considered other variables like moral obligation and relationship stability goals. Boosting satisfaction and investment while minimizing alternative options are effective methods to increase commitment according to the framework. The investment model remains highly influential in the study of relationship dynamics and decisions to persist or dissolve romantic partnerships.