The investment model proposed by Rusbult and van Lange in 1996 can also be used to explain the maintenance and breakdown of a relationship. Rusbult and van Lange say that we need to consider account investments when looking at why some people stay or leave relationships. The model argues that commitment is the best predictor of whether or not a couple will stay together. Commitment is made up of factors such as the satisfaction with the relationship, a belief that the relationship offers better rewards compared with any alternatives and investments in the relationships. These factors act as barriers to dissolution.
The investment model helps us to understand why some people stay in a relationship that is unrewarding. For example, some people may stay in an abusive relationship because they may have invested a lot in the relationship and it would be rather pointless if they left that relationship.
Another positive thing about this model is the fact there are many studies carried out based on this model. For example, a study carried out by Impett, Beals and Peplau in 2003 looked at a large sample of married couples over an 18 month period and it was found that commitment to marriage by both partners predicted relationship stability. This study suggests the idea that commitment is important as it will determine whether or not a couple will stay together. However, although the study does provide some support for the investment theory, it only looked at married couples. The study lacks population validity because not every couple in a relationship are married, so there may be differences in the way married couples and unmarried couples behave. For example, married couples may be more likely to show commitment in their relationship as they may plan to spend the rest of their lives with their partner.
Another study that supports the investment model was done by Rhahgan and Axsom in 2006 which looked at a group of women living in a refuge. They found that each of the three factors (satisfaction, investment and comparison levels for alternatives) contributed to the women’s commitment to stay with their partners.
The investment model however, fails to explain why some people who not committed in their relationship stay together, so there may be other factors, other than commitment, which determine whether or not a couple will stay together.
Another economic theory is Walster’s equity theory. According to this, couples keep an eye on what both they and their partners are putting in and getting out. If it is roughly equal, they are likely to feel satisfied with their relationship. However, if it is unequal, the relationship will be inequitable and will cause problems. This feeling of inequity will lead to the ‘loser’ in the relationship to feel dissatisfied and the ‘winner’ to feel guilty. If it is a short term relationship, one partner may just end it and if it is a long term relationship and both partners have invested in the relationship in terms of time and money, they may repair the relationship.
Van Yperen and Buunk’s longitudinal study carried out in 1990 provides support for the equity theory. They used 259 couples recruited by an advert in a newspaper. 86% were married couples and the rest were cohabiting. It was found that 65% of the men and women felt that their relationship was equitable and a year later, they were the most satisfied. 25% of the women felt under benefited and a year later they were the least satisfied. This study supports the equity theory because it suggests that equity may be important in determining whether or not a couple will stay together in a relationship.
However, the study has got its problems. For example, the participants used were recruited using a newspaper advert and this is a problem as you only tend to get one type of person and usually those who self-select themselves to take part in a study are confident. The study, therefore, lacks population validity because not everyone is confident, so it cannot assumed that everyone will act in the same way. For example, it cannot be assumed that everyone who thinks their relationship is equitable will be satisfied and those who think their relationship is inequitable will be dissatisfied.
Another weakness of the equity theory is that it argues that relationships are more likely to break down when they are inequitable. This can be seen as reflecting the views of individualistic, western cultures. The theory is, therefore, cultural bias because it assumes that in every culture, equity in a relationship will determine whether or not a couple will stay together.
Also other critics have challenged the equity theory. They argue that truly intimate relationships do not involve counting inputs and outputs.
In addition to this, relationship is an extremely personal area and requires the fully consent of those who take part. This can be an issue because it may take a rather long time for the participant to give their full consent and even if consent is given, the researcher has to be sensitive, so this may prevent them from, for example, asking certain questions which may help them to get the information that they are looking for.
An alternative approach to economic explanations is Duck’s four stage model dissolution which demonstrates how relationships end. Duck argues that the decision to move from one phase into the next is made when the individual reaches a threshold or decision point. The first stage is the intra-psychic phase. It involves the unhappiness of at least one of the members of the couple. The unhappy party may talk to their friends about their relationship. The second stage is the dyadic phase and it is where the unhappiness is out in the open. The couple may talk about their relationship and talk through possible changes to resolve the difficulties. If the problems are not resolved, the next threshold is reached. The third stage is the social phase where the relationship problems are aired publicly as the couple start to tell their friends and family about the problems and the possibility of a split. The last stage is the grave-dressing phase. This takes place after the couple have officially split up, and both parties try to get their side of the story of the break up across to people they want to think well of them. Each partner creates their own version of what went wrong and who was to blame.
One strength of this model is the fact that it is realistic. For example, some people’s first break up stage is the intra-psychic phase because they tend to discuss with their friends the problems that they are having in their relationship before actually discussing them with their partner. Also they their last stage tends to be the grave-dressing phase as they tend to tell people who was to blame for their break-up. Another strength is the fact that Duck argues that relationships are better studied as process rather than states. This suggests that his model is good and can be used as a marriage guidance to identify the stage of dissolution reached, and also to identify which strategy is appropriate to be used when people reach certain stages.
However, the problem with this model is the fact that it assumes that everyone will reach all the stages during their break up. This is a problem because it fails to explain why some people who break up do not go through all the stages. For example, it fails to explain why some people break up with their partner without letting their partner know why they are breaking up, or without actually discussing their problems first.
Also this model assumes that everyone will reach each threshold in order. This is a problem because it might not always be the case. For example, some people may first break up with their partner and then tell them that they were not satisfied with their relationship, or some people may tell people that they have broken up with their partner before actually letting know their partner know they have broken up. In addition to this, the model fails to explain why the breakdown occurs- it only describes what happens when people reach each threshold.