Predicting Satisfaction and Commitment in Adult Romantic Involvements: An Assessment of the Generalizability of the Investment Model

Abstract

Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cog-nitive versus rhetorical style hypothesis." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:979-90. United States House of Representatives. 1974. Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States from George Washington 1789 to Richard Milhous Nixon 1973. House Document 93-208, 93rd Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Winter, David and Abigail J. Stewart. 1977. "Content analysis as a technique for assessing political leaders." Pp. 27-61 in The Psychological Examination of Political Leaders, edited by Margaret Herman. New York: Free Press.

Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships.

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that (a) commitment level is significantly associated with the bases of dependence, being positively associated with satisfaction level, negatively associated with quality of alternatives, and positively associated with investment size; (b) the three bases of dependence collectively account for 40% to 80% of the variance in commitment (e.g., Rusbult, 1983;Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986;Simpson, 1987); and (c) each of the three bases of dependence accounts for unique variance in commitment (e.g., Cox, Wexler, Rusbult, & Gaines, 1997;Rusbult, 1983;Rusbult et al, in press). At the same time, the three bases of dependence do not necessarily exhibit associations with commitment that are equivalent in magnitude.…”

Broadening the investment model

“…The investment model (Rusbult, 1980) suggests that commitment is the subjective manifestation of the dependence that builds between romantic partners (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986). As people become more attached to their partners, their relationship orientation shifts from the short term to the long term, and their willingness to maintain the relationship increases.…”

Experiencing and Communicating Romantic Jealousy: Questioning the Investment Model

“…80), is enhanced by three variables: (a) satisfaction, defined as ''positivity of affect or attraction to one's relationship'' (Rusbult, 1983, p. 102); (b) perceived quality of alternatives, conceptualized as ''perceived desirability and availability of alternatives'' (Cox et al,p. 80), including other romantic partners, time with friends, or being alone; and (c) investment size, characterized as both resources that improve the relationship and that are originally extraneous (such as children or shared memories) but become linked to the very nature of the relationship Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986). According to the investment model, high-satisfaction levels, low perceived quality of alternatives, and high amounts of investment in the relationship predict high relational commitment, which then motivates individuals to maintain and to continue the relationship (e.g., Rusbult et al, 1986).…”