Intimate Relationships and Commitment

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

Social psychologists are interested in determining which factors help partners stay committed to one another. Intimate relationships progress when two people come together and are fully committed to making their relationship work (Sprecher, 1998). Commitment is defined as and individual’s intent to maintain the relationship and to remain psychologically attached to it (Rusbult, 1980). The individual wants to sustain a relationship with their partner over time. Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment identifies determinants in relationship commitment. This model consists of three processes that are positively associated with commitment, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

Satisfaction level “refers to positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship” (Rusbult, Martz, Agnew, 1998). A person whose needs are met by his or her partner will enjoy a higher level of satisfaction. Quality of alternatives is defined as the attractiveness of the best obtainable alternative to a relationship (Rusbult et .al, 1988). For example if someone's need for intimacy could be met elsewhere, their quality of alternatives would be high. Investment size is the amount and significance of the resources that are attached to a relationship, and if the relationship were to end the resources would decline in value (Rusbult et. al, 1988). Resources of investment can be family such as mutual friends and time or shared material possessions such as a house and cars. Rusbult also found two variables which were linked to commitment. The first variable is equity, the ability to be fair. Equity in a relationship is highly important because inequity, or being unfair, causes distress. Rusbult’s proposition suggests a partner in a inequitable relationship would be less committed to the relationship and want to omit the distress, ending the relationship. The second variable is social support such as family and friends. This variable is external. If family and friends commend the relationship it produces a positive influence causing the couple to stay together longer.

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment is supported by Rusbult’s empirical research. Three studies utilizing various methods calculated the consistency and strength of the Investment Model Scale. The studies administered scales to a sample of individuals who were involved in ongoing romantic relationships utilizing items that have been exploited in previous research on the investment model. In the first study she managed scale items to a sample of individuals who were involved in ongoing romantic relationships, utilizing items that have been exploited in previous research on the Investment Model (Rusbult et. al, 1988). The second study was modified based on the results of the first, (Rusbult et. al, 1988). The third study Rusbult made alterations to the previous ones and followed up with a telephone interview. The scale is intended to measure commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. The Model of Investment Scale revealed good consistency to measure each process, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment model.

Rusbult also conducted another study to support her findings of determinants for relationship commitment using the Investment Model. Her research complies with her prediction. “According to the investment model, satisfaction with a relationship should be greater to the extent that a relationship provides high rewards and low costs, whereas commitment increases not only due to greater relationship satisfaction but also to increases in the investment of resources in relationships and declines in the quality if available alternative partners”(Rusbult, 1980). Satisfaction and quality of alternatives drive the commitment in a relationship with high rewards and low costs. Susan Sprecher also conducted a study which supports Rusbult's findings. Sprecher (1988) found all of the predicting variables except investments were related to relationship commitment.

The consistency of these studies were examined on both martial relationships and gay and lesbian relationships (Rusbult et. al, 1988). Rusbult’s second study and Sprecher's study both support Rusbults Investment Model of commitment. Commitment has three processes of dependence-satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. The items all had high correlations with commitment level, but satisfaction level and quality of alternatives are positively associated with commitment level, were investment size is negatively associated. Rusbutl's Investment Model will produce further research to understanding the process in ongoing intimate relationships.

References

Agnew, Christopher R., Martz, John M., and Rusbult, Caryl. E. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size, Journal of Personal Relationships , 5: 357-391.

Rusbult, Caryl E. 1980."Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A Test of The Investment Model, "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 172-186.

Sprecher, Susan (1988). Investment Model, Equity, and Social Support Determinants of Relationship Commitment, Journal of Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, No. 4: 318-328.