Evaluation of the Investment Model
Supporting Research
Le and Agnew conducted a meta-analysis that provides strong support for Rusbult's Investment Model.
Highlight: The meta-analysis reviewed 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1999, including participants from five countries.
Key findings:
- Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size all predicted relationship commitment.
- Relationships with the greatest commitment were the most stable.
- Results were consistent across genders, cultures, and sexual orientations.
This research suggests validity in Rusbult's claims and highlights the model's universality.
Correlation vs. Causation
One limitation of the Investment Model is the correlational nature of its supporting research.
Definition: Correlational research demonstrates a relationship between variables but cannot prove causation.
This limitation raises questions about the direction of the relationship between investments and commitment:
- Does greater investment lead to more commitment?
- Or does higher commitment lead to more willingness to invest?
The model may identify factors associated with commitment rather than its direct causes.
Reductionism
Critics argue that Rusbult's concept of relationship investment is oversimplified.
Example: Goodfriend and Agnew suggest that future plans, not just past investments, significantly influence commitment.
The original model may be limited in recognizing the true complexity of investment, particularly how planning for the future affects commitment in relationships.
Vocabulary: Reductionism refers to the practice of analyzing complex phenomena by breaking them down into simpler, more fundamental parts.
Understanding these evaluations helps in appreciating both the strengths and limitations of the Investment Model in relationships psychology, providing a more comprehensive view of its application and implications in understanding commitment and relationship stability.
