Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
AND
Abstract
Three studies evaluated the reliability and validity of the Investment Model Scale, an instrument designed to
measure four constructs, including commitment level and three bases of dependence-satisfaction level,
quality of alternatives, and investment size. In all three studies, reliability analyses revealed good internal
consistency among items designed to measure each construct. Also, principal components analyses performed
on scale items revealed evidence of four factors, with items designed to measure each construct loading on
independent factors. Studies 2 and 3 examined associations of model variables with instruments measuring
diverse qualities of relationships and assorted personal dispositions. As anticipated, Investment Model
variables were moderately associated with other measures reflecting superior couple functioning (e.g., dyadic
adjustment, trust level, inclusion of other in the self), and were essentially unrelated to measures assessing
personal dispositions (e.g., need for cognition, self-esteem). In addition, Study 3 demonstrated that earlier
measures of Investment Model variables predicted later levels of dyadic adjustment and later relationship
status (persisted vs ended). It is hoped that the existence of a reliable and valid Investment Model Scale will
promote further research regarding commitment and interdependence in ongoing close relationships.
357
358
Over the past two decades social scientists ries of commitment processes have been
have exerted considerable effort toward advanced (Brickman, Dunkel-Schetter, &
understanding why some relationships per- Abbey, 1987; Johnson, 1991; Kelley, 1983;
sist over time whereas others wither and Levinger, 1979; Rusbult, 1980a). These
die. Many researchers have assumed that theories share the assumption that committhe best route to understanding persistence ment is a key issue in understanding why
is to explore the determinants and conse- some relationships persist and others do
quences of positive affect-attraction, satis- not. Among these theories, Rusbults
faction, or love. For example, the goal of (1980a) Investment Model has been shown
many studies is to explain the causes of at- to be especially powerful in predicting comtraction or love, and measures of satisfac- mitment and persistence across many types
tion frequently are employed as indices of of romantic relationship (e.g., marital relacouple health (for reviews of the literature, tionships, lesbian and gay relationships) as
see Berscheid, 1994; Berscheid & Reis, well as in friendships and in organizational
1998). The implicit or explicit assumption is settings (for reviews of the literature, see
that if partners love each other and feel Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993;
happy with their relationship, they will be Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994).
Unfortunately, empirical research remore likely to persist in their relationship.
garding
the Investment Model has proIn some respects this point of view
ceeded
in
a somewhat haphazard manner, in
makes good sense: All things considered, it
that
no
published
instrument exists for
is easier to persist when a relationship feels
measuring
commitment
and its antecedents.
good than when it feels bad. But at the
This
article
presents
the
results of three
same time, it may be somewhat simplistic to
studies
demonstrating
the
reliability
and vaassume that happiness tells the whole story
lidity
of
the
Investment
Model
Scale,
an
in explaining persistence. Stripped to its esinstrument
designed
to
measure
four
key
sence, such a model of human persistence
suggests that as long as it feels good, Ill predictors of persistence, including commitstick with it. Importantly, this conventional ment level and three bases of dependfocus on the study of affective reactions ence-satisfaction level, quality of alternafails to answer three key questions: First, tives,and investment size.Tojustify the need
for such a scale, we begin by describing the
why do some relationships persist despite
Investment Model and reviewing existing
dissatisfaction; for example, why do unresearch regarding commitment processes.
happy partners sometimes remain together
due to inertia, or for the sake of the children? Second, why do some satisfying relationships end; for example, why do indi- Determinants of Commitment:
viduals sometimes abandon relatively Satisfaction, Alternatives, and Investments
happy relationships to pursue desirable al- The Investment Model emerged out of Internatives? And third, how can we account terdependence Theory and employs interfor persistence in the face of ordinary fluc- dependence constructs to analyze the tentuations in relationships; given that satisfac- dency to persist in a relationship (Kelley,
tion ebbs and flows even in the most grati- 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut &
fying involvements, and given that tempting Kelley, 1959). Interdependence Theory is a
alternatives threaten even the most smitten unique orientation in that its explanatory
partners, why do some relationships survive power rests on an analysis of the interdesuch fluctuations whereas others do not?
pendence structure characterizing a given
Recognizing that whether a relationship relationship, not on the personal disposiis satisfying and whether it persists to some tions of the involved persons. Dependegree may be separate issues, several theo- dence is a central feature of interdepen-
359
360
Satisfaction
Probability of
Investment
Size
sions to persist-that is, commitment mediates the effects on persistence of the three
bases of dependence (see Figure 1).
Consequences of Commitment:
Persistence and Relationship
Maintenance Mechanisms
361
362
together. For example, although dependence and commitment grow over time, the
mere passage of time is not sufficient to
cause increasing commitment (i.e., some relationships develop slowly whereas others
develop quickly). Moreover, assuming that
the Investment Model variables reflect differences between relationships rather than
differences between individuals, these variables should exhibit negligible associations
with personal dispositions such as self-esteem or need for cognition.
Method
Overview of the studies
Participants
Study 1. Participants in Study 1 were 415
undergraduates (243 women, 172 men) who
took part in the study in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for introductory psychology courses at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Sign-up sheets
listed a requirement for participation: To
participate, you must be involved in a dating relationship of at least one week in duration; volunteers who were not involved
in dating relationships were allowed to participate in an alternative project. Participants were 19.36 years old on average. Most
were freshmen or sophomores (39% fresh-
363
364
365
Q\
4.02
5.66
2.09
7.82
4.71
1.92
1.93
2.30
1.75
7.19
7.30
6.46
7.63
2.27
2.81
6.23
7.14
1.88
2.07
1.94
SD
7.59
7.53
7.42
~~~-
~~~~~~~~~~~
.70
.62
.82
.80
.66
.92
.80
.85
.84
.87
.73
.72
.91
.87
.85
.78
AlphdItem
Totalr
Study 1 ( n = 415)
2.17
7.69
2.43
2.39
2.18
4.77
4.01
5.73
2.10
2.11
2.40
1.99
1.85
2.84
6.23
7.04
7.23
6.52
7.38
7.62
1.95
2.20
2.14
SD
7.63
7.46
7.42
4.17
3.95
4.52
.85
.75
.65
.59
6.68
6.51
6.03
6.74
6.97
2.65
2.59
5.68
5.76
.95
.85
.87
.86
.91
34
1.88
6.85
.66
2.42
2.41
2.50
1.41
1.72
1.85
1.57
1.36
2.86
5.09
.72
1.75
1.89
1.95
SD
6.83
6.75
6.54
.64
.82
.88
.64
.94
.88
.83
.86
.85
.82
.89
.87
.87
.75
.95
.92
.90
.82
AlphaAtem
Total r
Study 3 ( n = 186)
.91
.84
.83
.84
Alpha/Item
Total r
Study 2 ( n = 313)
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, item-total correlations, and alphas f o r items designed to measure each investment model construct: Studies
I, 2, and 3
w
Q\
..
2.54
2.38
2.85
2.77
6.48
6.93
5.51
3.48
2.46
2.06
6.79
6.69
2.56
SD
4.62
.48
.62
.59
.80
.79
.84
.31
.64
Alphalltern
Totalr
Study 1 ( n = 415)
5.00
4.09
2.30
2.36
2.06
2.18
6.51
7.25
2.32
2.43
2.39
SD
6.30
5.19
3.77
.65
.44
.71
.74
.75
.84
55
-72
AlphdItem
Total r
Study 2 ( n = 313)
3.89
3.02
6.42
6.03
6.08
3.94
3.14
2.44
2.60
1.94
2.14
2.07
2.59
2.40
SD
.64
.47
.66
.70
.66
.82
.70
.75
Alpha/Item
Total r
Study 3 (n = 186)
Note: Items listed above are those that were retained based on preliminary examination of the data; items from Study 1 that were later deleted from the instrument are presented in italics. (-) Designates items that are reverse-scored. In the column labeled Alpha I Item-Total r, alpha coefficients are displayed in italics; item-total correlation coefficients are not displayed in italics.
Study 3 this item was worded in the affirmative (i.e., not was deleted).
Table 1. Continued
368
sible, (b) your partner was mainly responsible, or (c) you were equally responsible for
ending the relationship? If the participant
reported that he or she was still dating the
partner, the interviewer asked five followup questions that paralleled items from the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (e.g., How often
do you think things are going well between
you and your partner? Do you think things
are going well . . .,; 1 = all the time; 2 =
sometimes; 3 = rarely [reverse-scored]; alpha = .69). At the end of the interview, the
interviewer answered any questions and
thanked the participant for his or her assistance.
Results
Reliability analyses
Factor analyses
We performed factor analyses to determine
whether the items designed to measure
each construct (a) exhibited high factor
loadings on a single factor, and (b) did not
exhibit high factor loadings for factors tapping other constructs. The four Investment
Model variables were expected to be correlated, so the analyses employed oblique,
promax rotations. In all three studies, factor
analyses revealed four factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.OO, collectively accounting for 98% to 100% of the variance in
scale items. A summary of the results of
these analyses is displayed in Table 2, which
presents the factors in a fixed order across
the three studies. with the Commitment fac-
369
tor in the first column, the Satisfaction factor in the second column, and so on.
Examination of the factor loadings for
items measuring Satisfaction, Alternatives,
and Investments revealed that for each variable (a) all items loaded on a single factor
with coefficients exceeding .40 (see coefficients displayed in italics); and (b) no items
exhibited cross-factor loadings exceeding
an absolute value of .4O.The scale items used
in Study 1 were refined a bit for use in Studies 2 and 3 by deleting, adding, or modifying
items so as to develop an increasingly suitable instrument (e.g., we developed Investment items that better represented the variety of possible investments in relationships).
In Study 1, results for the Commitment
items were not as orderly. Three of the five
Commitment items loaded on a single, independent factor with coefficients exceeding .40, but all five Commitment items exhibited sizable cross-loadings on the
Satisfaction factor. However, as a consequence of a few deletions and additions to
the overall scale, the analyses for Studies 2
and 3 revealed factor structures for Commitment that were as orderly as were those
for Satisfaction, Alternatives, and Investments. To ensure that the items measuring
Commitment and Satisfaction were empirically distinguishable, we performed separate factor analyses of the items tapping
these two constructs. Once again, the analyses employed oblique, promax rotations.
Across all three studies, the analyses revealed two factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00, collectively accounting for 100%
of the variance in scale items. In Study 1,all
five Commitment items loaded on a single
factor, and four of the five Satisfaction
items loaded on a single factor; one Satisfaction item exhibited a cross-loading on
the Commitment factor. In Studies 2 and 3,
for both Commitment and Satisfaction (a)
all items loaded on a single factor, and (b)
no items exhibited cross-factor loadings.
Thus, our factor-analytic findings provide good evidence regarding the independence of items designed to measure
each Investment Model construct. In addition. the inter-factor correlations reveal
F1
F3
F2
F4
.89
.94
.92
.91
.58
.21
.62
SO
.65
.67
.66
.03
-.19
-.18
.08
.09
.49
.46
.41
.10
-.01
-.06
-.03
-.04
.01
.91
.76
.57
.43
.44
F3
.02 -.11
-.11 -.05
.22
-.05
.02
-.16
-.14
.13
F2
F2
.92
.86
.83
.79
.75
.94
.ll
.06
.96
.29
.44
.43
.15
.79
.21
.66
.01
.64 -.01
F1
F4
-.09 b.06
.01
.06
.06
.20
.02 - .19
-.03 -.01
.03 -.07
.05 -.02
.23
-.07
.06
-.32
.06 . .03
.17
-.18
-.22
.13
F3
Study 3 (n = 186)
.87
.05 -.12 -.02
.85
.04
.16 -.05
.86 -.01
.10 -.04
.82 -.02
.01
.30
.86 -.01
.OO
.13
.15
.15
.21
.28
.10
F1
Study 2 (n = 313)
.03 -.06
.15
.07
.08 -.04
-.02
.08 -.05
.05
.OO
.16
.01
.03
.20
-.17
-.05
-.01
-.01
-.32
F4
Study 1 ( n = 415)
Table 2. Factor analysis of Global Investment Model scale items: Studies 1,2, and 3
.33
.97
.62
.61
.46
.94
-.44
-.49
.38
.34
- .21
.65
2.24 38.95
.04
.02
.16 -.13
.12
.22
.09
-.I2
.06
-.14
.04
-.04
.Q2
.OO -.01
.02
-.02
.05
.07
.03 -.23
.03 -.18
.07
-.03
4.13 13.77
Inter-Factor Correlations
1.78 34.21
Eigenvalues
-.04
.13
.01
-.02
.05 -.07
.OO .10
-.08
.02
-.12
.05
.45
-.03
.ll
.89
.73
.63
.65
.OO
.05
.03
.05 -.08
.03 -.14
-.07
.04
-.03 -.15
.oo
-.56
-.42
5.24
-.08
-.02
-.01
.07
.84
.73
.67
.55
.71
.57
.53
- .43
3.61 65.27
.69
6.74
.03
.75
.ll
.04
.88
.12
.16
.67
.19
.03
.63 -.03
.49 -.07 -.08
-.02 -.03
.02
.04
-.05
.12
.03
.10 -.23 -.02
-.06 -.06 -.lo
-.01
-.02
- .42
-.58
4.35
-.15
.04
.07
-.15
.02
.63
.53
-.48
3.26
.56
.78
.65
.54
.57
.91
.08
.75
.04
.69 -.17
.03
.62
.69 -.06
Note: Items listed above are those that were retained based on preliminary examination of the data; items from Study 1 that were later deleted from the instrument are presented in italics. (-) Designates items that are reverse-scored. F1 = Factor 1 from the analysis, F2 = Factor 2, F3 = Factor 3, and F4 = Factor 4.All coefficients exceeding an absolute value of .40 are displayed in italics.
Eigenvalues =
372
that the four factors exhibit the predicted ous regression analyses to examine the
pattern of association with one another (see unique contribution of each basis of debottom of Table 2). The Commitment factor pendence in predicting commitment. For
was positively correlated with the Satisfac- Study 3, we performed these analyses for
tion factor and the Investments factor, and both the full Time 1 sample and for the
was negatively correlated with the Alterna- subset of Time 1relationships that persisted
tives factor. Also, the three bases of de- through Time 2. All four analyses revealed
pendence relate to one another as would be that the three factors collectively predicted
expected-the
Satisfaction factor was Commitment Level (R2s ranged from .69 to
negatively correlated with the Alternatives .77; all ps < .01). Examination of the coeffifactor and was positively correlated with cients for each of the three predictor varithe Investments factor, and the Alterna- ables revealed that 11of 12 regression coeftives factor was negatively correlated with ficients were significant. Satisfaction Level
was positively predictive of Commitment (4
the Investments factor.
of 4 effects were significant; betas ranged
from -47 to .69),and Quality of Alternatives
Associations among measures
was negatively predictive of Commitment
The results of the above analyses revealed (4 of 4 effects were significant;betas ranged
evidence of generally good reliability and from -.29 to -.32). The coefficient for Invalidity for the set of items designed to vestment Size was nonsignificant in Study 1,
measure each Investment Model construct. but in the remaining instances, Investment
Accordingly, a single measure of each con- Size was positively predictive of Commitstruct was formed by averaging the items ment (3 of 4 effects were significant; the
associated with each variable. Separately significant betas ranged from .19 to .27).
for Studies 1,2, and 3, correlational analy- These analyses provide good support for
ses were performed to ensure that these the Investment Model hypothesis that Satvariables exhibited the anticipated pattern isfaction, Alternatives, and Investments acof associations. Results of these analyses count for independent variance in commitment.
are displayed in Table 3.
Three features of these results are noteworthy. First, the analyses revealed eviCorrelations with other features of
dence of acceptable convergent and disrelationships and with personal dispositions
criminant validity: Correlations of the facet
measures with the global measures re- To explore broader issues of validity, we
vealed that each facet measure was more performed correlational analyses to exampowerfully correlated with its correspond- ine the associations of Investment Model
ing global measure than with global meas- variables with measures of six additional
ures of other constructs (see values in ital- features of relationships, with the duration
ics)-this was true for the facet and global of the relationship, and with measures of six
measures of Satisfaction (rs for Studies 1,2, personal dispositions (along with subscales
and 3 = .87, .90, .83), Alternatives (rs = -73, for each instrument). Results of these
.76, .62), and Investments (TS = .67,.85, .78). analyses are displayed in Table 4.
Second, and consistent with Investment
Model hypotheses, Commitment Level was Correlations with other features of ongoing
significantly positively correlated with Sat- relationships. First, we reviewed correlaisfaction, negatively correlated with Alter- tions of Investment Model variables with
natives, and positively correlated with In- other features of ongoing relationships. Asvestments. And third, the analyses revealed suming that the Investment Model varionly moderate collinearity among the three ables support persistence and other pro-relationship behaviors, we anticipated that
Investment Model bases of dependence.
We performed three-factor simultane- these variables would exhibit moderate as-
4
W
.84**
SAT
,63** .87**
-.61** -.53**
.56** .61**
COM
.73**
-.32**
-.40**
-.62**
-.46**
ALT
Study 1 ( n = 415)
.33**
-.26**
.67**
.33**
.35**
-.17**
INV
.75**
SAT
.67** .90**
-.62** -.54**
.62**
.68**
COM
.60**
.55**
-.41**
INV
-.38**
.SO**
.76** -.45**
.85**
-.46**
-.60**
-.42**
ALT
Study 2 ( n = 313)
Table 3. Correlations among all Global and Facet Investment Model Scales: Studies 1,2, and 3
ALT
-.66**
-.45**
SAT
.75**
.73**
-.57**
.68**
.54**
-.49**
INV
.58**
-.42**
-.43**
.62** -.42**
.78**
.65** -.48**
.a** .83**
COM
Study 3 (n = 186)
rl
Dyadic Adjustment
Total Adjustment Score
Satisfaction- and Commitment-Purged Score
Dyadic Consensus
Affective Expression
Dyadic Satisfaction
Dyadic Cohesion
Time 2 Dyadic Adjustment
Relationship Closeness
Total Closeness Score
Frequency of Contact
Diversity of Contact
Strength of Influence
Inclusion of Other in the Self
Trust Level
Total Trust Score
Predictability
Dependability
Faith
Liking and Loving
Liking for Partner
Love for Partner
Equity in Relationship
Duration of Relationship
COM
~
SAT
ALT
INV
.28**
.07
.18**
.34**
.29**
.65**
- .04
.26**
-.19**
-.20**
-.19**
-.35**
-.26**
-.46**
-.02
- .05
.64**
.71**
.15*
.09
.51**
.75**
-.07
.15**
-.16**
-.33**
- .46**
- .12*
.61**
.47**
.58**
.71**
.36**
.14*
.20**
.54**
.55**
.24**
.21**
.18**
.16**
.33**
.27**
.43* *
.35**
.39**
.57**
-.25**
-.31**
-.27**
-.23**
-.23**
-.41**
-.22**
.29**
.10
.18**
.46**
.69**
.79**
.51**
so**
.68**
.60**
.36**
.30**
.08
.19**
.51**
.67**
.37**
.38**
.63* *
.38**
so**
.56**
Study 2 ( n = 313)
.23**
.69**
.63**
.45**
.40**
.76**
.48**
.40**
COM
.04
.52**
so**
.71**
.66**
.49**
.44**
.78**
SAT
-.lo
-.46**
-.41**
-.25**
-.31**
-.51**
-.26**
-.34**
ALT
Study 3 (n = 186)
Table 4. Correlations of Global Investment Model Scales with measures of other features of ongoing relationships and with measures of
personal dispositions: Studies 2 and 3
.36**
.32**
.28**
.15*
.10
.45**
.31**
.22*
INV
*p<.05. **p<.Ol.
.oo
.17**
.13*
.12*
- .06
-.17**
- .08
-.14*
.06
.19**
.17*
.07
.16*
.12*
.12
.09
.07
- .06
.08
.03
.oo
.03
.01
.oo
.02
.06
.ll
.03
.06
.15*
.01
.02
-.11*
.09
.08
.06
.04
.05
.02
-.02
-.03
.08
.ll
.02
.04
.04
.10
- .10
.oo
-.07
.06
- .06
.03
- .09
- .01
.oo
-.01
-.13*
.08
.oo
-.lo
.06
.15*
.24**
.05
.14*
.17*
-.17*
.13*
.15*
.02
.17*
.04
-.15*
- .03
.oo
.10
.27**
.08
.04
.21**
.15*
.09
.07
.21**
.01
.05
-.12
-.11
- .05
-
-.07
.08
.07
.06
.12
.oo
- .09
.04
.03
.14*
.25**
.20**
376
377
2
137.33
118.99
58.91
12.57
45.24
20.38
4.65
5.56
4.56
4.02
41.76**
29.61**
5.56"
19.90**
149.87
128.88
63.09
13.75
50.75
22.07
16.34**
14.41**
8.16**
6.61**
21.49**
7.93**
6.79
6.96
3.84
5.43
136.90
118.78
58.86
12.45
45.21
20.10
4.36
5.61
4.67
4.00
n = 30
Leavers
140.90
120.40
58.90
13.40
47.40
21.20
6.97
5.86
3.40
4.78
n=6
Abandoned
149.87
128.88
63.09
13.75
50.75
22.07
6.79
6.96
3.84
5.43
n = 101
Stayers
Note: For analyses contrasting persisted versus ended relationships, df = 1,133:for analyses contrasting stayers, abandoned, and voluntary leaven, df = 2,131.
+p<.lO. *p<.05. **p<.Ol.
Commitment Level
Satisfaction Level
Quality of Alternatives
Investment Size
= 101
n = 36
Persisted
Ended
7.51""
7.17**
4.19*
3.88*
9.40**
3.81*
24.87**
12.07**
2.48'
9.71**
Table 5. Means and inferential statistics for the Investment Model Scales and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale as a function of persisted versus
ended status: Study 3
379
.O9); the coefficient for Alternatives was Only six individuals described themselves
significant but positive (beta = .19; this ef- as abandoned, so analyses based on this
fect was opposite in direction to that which distinction are somewhat tenuous in the
would be predicted, presumably due to a present research. Nevertheless, two-way
suppressor effect). Thus, and consistent analyses of variance (stayer vs. abandoned
with Investment Model predictions, Com- vs. leaver, women vs. men) revealed findmitment is a powerful predictor of persisted ings that paralleled those reported above.
versus ended status, plausibly mediating the Results of these analyses are summarized in
effects on breakup of the three bases of Table 5 (see columns labeled Leavers,
dependence (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Abandoned, and Stayers, along with
We also performed two additional two- accompanying Fs).
factor simultaneous regression analyses, reVoluntary leavers, the abandoned, and
gressing breakup status onto (a) Commit- voluntary stayers differed with respect to
ment and Total Dyadic Adjustment, as well Time 1 Commitment, Satisfaction, Alternaas onto (b) Commitment and the Satisfac- tives, and Investments (the effect for Altertion- and Commitment-Purged measure of natives was marginal). Once again, ComAdjustment. In these analyses, the coeffi- mitment was particularly robust in
cients for Commitment were significant differentiating between voluntary leavers
(betas = S O and .49), but the coefficients and voluntary stayers. Compared to volunfor the respective measures of Adjustment tary leavers and voluntary stayers, the
were not (betas = .OO and .02). In addition, abandoned exhibited a pattern that might
we performed tests of the significance of be termed entrapment-they
experidifference between dependent effects to di- enced low satisfaction, but had invested at
rectly compare the strength of the Commit- a moderate level and possessed very poor
ment-breakup association to the strength of alternatives, and accordingly exhibited
association between breakup and each of commitment that was as strong or stronger
the measures of Dyadic Adjustment (Co- than that of voluntary stayers. These findhen & Cohen, 1983). These tests revealed ings replicate previous results regarding
that the association of Commitment with the relationship between breakup responbreakup was significantly stronger than any sibility and Investment Model variables
of the associations of Dyadic Adjustment (Rusbult, 1983). As was observed for perwith breakup (for the strongest challenger, sisted versus ended status, leavers, the
Dyadic Satisfaction, t = 2.14, p<.Ol).Thus, abandoned, and stayers differed signifiCommitment Level appears to be a more cantly with respect to Time 1 Dyadic Adpowerful predictor of breakup status than justment (all six effects were significant;
dyadic adjustment.
see Table 5).2 But importantly, although the
relationships of leavers, the abandoned, and
Predicting responsibility for breakup. In ad- stayers differed, the individuals involved in
dition to ascertaining persisted versus those relationships did not differ: Out of 10
ended status, for relationships that ended analyses examining personal dispositions,
we assessed responsibility for the
breakup-whether the breakup was voluntary (leaver; the participant was mainly 2. We do not report follow-up regression analyses,
mediation analyses, and effect size comparisons for
responsible or it was mutual) or nonvolunthe stayer versus abandoned versus leaver distinctary (abandoned; the partner was mainly
tion because (a) the sample size was small for the
responsible). Investment Model variables
abandoned category, and (b) the results largely
parallel those reported above for persisted versus
should predict breakup status more effecended status (e.g., in comparing the effect size for
tively for voluntary leavers than for
Commitment to that of the strongest Dyadic Adnonvoluntary leavers, or for individuals
justment predictor, the predictive power of Comwho were abandoned by their partners
mitment was significantly 5tronger; t = 2.86,
(Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992; Rusbult, 1983).
pc.01).
380
women tend to exhibit stronger commitment and greater dependence (higher satisfaction, poorer alternatives, greater investments) than do men.4
Discussion
381
tionships that persisted over time, relationships that ended exhibited the predicted
pattern of Time 1 scores-relationships that
ended by Time 2 exhibited lower Time 1
satisfaction, superior Time 1 alternatives,
and lower Time 1 investment size. Importantly, individuals in relationships that
ended by Time 2 reported substantially
weaker Time 1commitment. Indeed, model
comparison analyses and effect size comparisons revealed that, in predicting later
relationship status, commitment not only
outperformed the three investment model
variables, but also exceeded the predictive
power of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(Spanier, 1976), a frequently-employed criterion for assessing quality of couple functioning. Parallel results were obtained when
we examined responsibility for breakup, in
analyses comparing voluntary stayers, the
abandoned (individuals whose partners
ended the relationship), and voluntary leavers (individuals who themselves ended the
relationship).
We also examined sex differences in levels of Investment Model variables. Sex differences were inconsistently observed, but
we obtained some evidence that, in comparison to men, women reported higher satisfaction, poorer alternatives, greater investments, and stronger commitment. As
noted earlier, some previous tests of the
investment model have revealed sex differences; most such studies have not. The studies obtaining evidence of sex differences
consistently have revealed findings such as
those uncovered in the present research
(e.g., Duffy & Rusbult, 1986;Lin & Rusbult,
1995; Rusbult et al., 1998). Thus, to the extent that women and men differ in mean
levels of model variables, women are likely
to exhibit greater dependence and stronger
commitment than are men.
It is appropriate to comment on three
specific findings from analyses examining
the convergent and discriminant validity of
our subscales: First, it is interesting that
commitment and the bases of dependence
by and large were unrelated to a measure of
equity in the relationship (Walster et al.,
1978). Satisfaction was weakly associated
382
with equity level, but commitment, alterna- tions for definitions of closeness based on
tives, and investments were virtually unre- such concrete, behaviorally based features
lated to the equity in a relationship. These of involvement (cf. Berscheid et al., 1989;
findings suggest that considerations of fair- Kelley et al., 1983). We believe that such
ness-or at least, considerations of equity definitions constitute an overly literal repper se-may be largely irrelevant to the de- resentation of interdependence constructs.
velopment of dependence and commitment At the very least, in conceptualizing closein an ongoing relationship. It might be fruit- ness it seems important to take into account
ful to explore such issues in future research, such qualities as the degree to which shared
especially in light of the fact that the inter- activities occur in life domains that are imdependence and equity orientations fre- portant to the involved partners, or the exquently are (incorrectly) perceived to ad- tent to which long-duration involvements
effectively gratify partners needs (cf. Drigvance parallel hypotheses.
Second, although the strength of influ- otas & Rusbult, 1992). More generally, we
ence subscale of the Relationship Close- suspect that, rather than devoting our enness Inventory (Berscheid et al., 1989) ergy to examining the concrete features of
exhibited a moderate association with com- interaction, it may be more fruitful to focus
mitment and the bases of dependence, on the stable motives that reliably emerge
these variables were only weakly associated out of circumstances of interdependence,
with the diversity of contact subscale, and including phenomena such as commitment
were unrelated to the frequency of contact and trust (cf. Holmes & Rempel, 1989;Russubscale. It appears that although commit- bult et al., 1994; Rusbult, Wieselquist, Fosted partners exert fairly strong influence ter, & Witcher, in press-b).
over one anothers lives, they do not necessarily engage in a wide range of activities
Tests of Investment Model predictions
together, nor do they necessarily spend
enormous amounts of time together. Such Consistent with previous research examinfindings suggest that the experience of ing the validity of Investment Model hycommitment and the state of dependence potheses, commitment exhibited the prehave a good deal to do with the broad ef- dicted associations with both global and
fects that partners exert on one anothers facet measures of three bases of dependlives, and have much less to do with their ence (for reviews of this literature, see Rusday-to-day behavioral togetherness.
bult, 1987;Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Rusbult
Third, commitment and investment size et al., 1994): Commitment was positively
were weakly positively associated with the associated with satisfaction level, negaduration of relationships. Thus, commit- tively associated with quality of alternament and investments unfold over time in tives, and positively associated with investthe expected manner-roughly speaking, ment size. Indeed, all three bases of
these variables exhibit a broad tendency to- dependence accounted for unique variance
ward cumulative accrual. At the same time, in commitment level. Thus, once again we
satisfaction level and quality of alternatives find that commitment is strengthened to
were unrelated to the duration of relation- the degree that an individual more powerships. Consistent with our findings for fre- fully depends on a relationship-to the exquency of contact, these variables are tent that the individual wants to persist with
largely unrelated to purely temporal fea- a partner (experiences high satisfaction),
tures of relationships-the mere passage of feels bound to persist (has invested a good
time is not sufficient to cause increasing deal), and has no choice but to persist (possatisfaction or declining alternatives.
sesses poor alternatives).
Also, analyses predicting breakup status
Our findings for duration of involvement, frequency of contact, and diversity of revealed that the three bases of dependshared activities have important implica- ence were significantly predictive of
383
384
385
References
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, F? A. M., Rusbult, C. E., &
Langston, C. A. (1997).Cognitive interdependence:
Commitment and the mental representation of
close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992).Inclusion
of other in the self-scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,596-612.
Baron, R. M.,& Kenny, D. A. (1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51,1173-1182.
Becker, H. S. (1960).Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,3240.
Berscheid, E.(1994).Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,79-129.
Berscheid, E.,& Reis,H.T. (1998).Attraction and close
relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds) Handbook of socialpsychology (4th
ed.;Vol.2,pp. 193-281).New York:Random House.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989).The
relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the
closeness of interpersonal relationships.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57,792-807.
Brickman, I?, Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Abbey, A. (1987).
The development of commitment. In P.Brickman
(Ed.), Commitment, conflict, and caring (pp.
145-221). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bui,K. T., Peplau, L. A,, & Hill, C. T. (1996).Testing the
Rusbult model of relationship commitment and
stability in a 15-yearstudy of heterosexual couples.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
12441257.
Buunk, B. (1987).Conditions that promote breakups as
a consequence of extradyadic involvements Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology,5,271-284.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P.(1983).Applied multiple regressiodcorrelation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., & Gaines,
S. O., Jr. (1997).Prescriptive support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60,79-90.
Cramer, E. M. (1972). Significance tests and tests of
models in multiple regression. American Statistician, 26,2630.
Drigotas, S. M.,
& Rusbult, C. E. (1992).Should I stay
or should I go?: A deDendence model of breakuus.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
62-87.
Duffy, S., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and
.,
386
J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (Eds.) (1983).
Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal
relations: A theory of interdependence. New York:
Wiley.
Kurdek, L. A. (1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: Integration of contextual, investment, and problemsolving models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61,910-922.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A
five-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,221-242.
Leik, R. K., & Leik, S. K. (1976). Transition to interpersonal commitment. In R. L. Hamblin & J. H.
Kenkel (Eds.), Behavioral theory in sociology (pp.
299-322). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt
(Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct
(Vol. 1, pp. 15-63). New York: Academic Press.
Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the
dissolution of pair relationships. In R. L. Burgess &
T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing
relationships (pp. 169-193). New York: Academic
Press.
Lin, Y. H. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to
dating relationships and cross-sex friendships in
America and China: The impact of centrality of
relationship, normative support, and investment
model variables. Journal of Social and Personal Rulationships, 12,7-26.
Luhtanen, R.. & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of ones social identity.
Personulity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
302-318.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and
commitment scales for predicting continuity of
personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2,3-23.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet
theory of organizational commitment: Some
methodological considerations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69,372-378.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers. R. M. (1982).
Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New
York: Academic Press.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in
faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,707-722.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of
response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, &
L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality
and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp.
17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985).
Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49,95-112.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brockner, J. (1975). Factors affecting
entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31.1054-1063.
Rubin, 2.(1970). Measurement of romantic love. Jour-
387
leave an abusive relationship: Economic dependence and psychological commitment. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45,785-793.
Tanaka. J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. C. (1988).
Dimensions of the need for cognition: Subscales
and gender differences. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 23,35-50.
Teger, A. 1. (1980). Too much invested to quit. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Tropper, R. (1972). The consequences of investment in
the process of conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16,97-98.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, S., &
Steemers, G. (1997). From game theory to real life:
How social value orientation affects willingness to
sacrifice in ongoing relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,133C-1344.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My
relationship is better than-and
not as bad
as-yours is: The perception of superiority in close
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 2 1 , 3 2 4 .
Van Lange, I? A. M., Rusbult, C . E., Drigotas, S. M..
Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, 3. S.. & Cox, C. L. (1997).
Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,13731395.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Traupmann, J. (1978).
Equity and premarital sex. Journal o,f Personality
and Social Psychology, 36,82-92.
White, G. L. (1980). Physical attractiveness and courtship progress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39,660-668.
Wieselquist, J.. Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew,
C. R. (1998). Commitment and trust in close relationships. Unpublished manuscript. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, NC.
388
Appendix
Satisfaction Level Facet and Global Items
1. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding
your current relationship (circle an answer for each item).
Agree
Agree
Dont Agree Agree
At All
Slightly Moderately Completely
Agree
Agree
Dont Agree Agree
At All
Slightly Moderately Completely
Dont Agree
At All
Dont Agree
At All
Agree
Agree
Agree
Slightly Moderately Completely
Agree
Agree
Agree
Slightly Moderately Completely
Agree
Agree
Dont Agree Agree
At All
Slightly Moderately Completely
8
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
4
Agree
Somewhat
6. Our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy, companionship, etc.
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
389
2. The people other than my partner with whom I might become involved are very appealing
(please circle a number).
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
3. My alternatives to our relationship are close to ideal (dating another, spending time with friends
or on my own, etc.).
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
Agree
Somewhat
2
8
Agree
Completely
4
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
5. My alternatives are attractive to me (dating another, spending time with friends or on my own,
etc.).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Do Not Agree
Agree
Agree
At All
Somewhat
Completely
6. My needs for intimacy, companionship, etc., could easily be fulfilled in an alternative relationship.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Do Not Agree
Agree
Agree
At All
Somewhat
Completely
Dont Agree
At All
Dont Agree
At All
Agree
Agree
Agree
Slightly Moderately Completely
Agree
Agree
Agree
Slightly Moderately Completely
390
(c) My partner and I have an intellectual
life together that would be difficult to
replace
(d) My sense of personal identity
(who I am) is linked to my partner
and our relationship
(e) My partner and I share many
memories
2. I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if the relationship were to end
(please circle a number).
0
1
D o Not Agree
At All
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
3. Many aspects of my life have become linked to my partner (recreational activities, etc.), and I
would lose all of this if we were to break up.
0
1
D o Not Agree
At All
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
Agree
Somewhat
5. My relationships with friends and family members would be complicated if my partner and I
were to break up (e.g., partner is friends with people I care about).
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Completely
6. Compared to other people I know, I have invested a great deal in my relationship with my
partner.
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Completely
0
1
Do Not Agree
At All
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
8
Agree
Completely
Agree
Somewhat
3. I would not feel very upset if our relationship were to end in the near future.
0
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
391
4. It is likely that I will date someone other than my partner within the next year.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Do Not Agree
At All
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely
4
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Completely
7. I am oriented toward the long-term future of my relationship (for example, I imagine being with
my partner several years from now).
0
Do Not Agree
At All
4
Agree
Somewhat
8
Agree
Completely