Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 312–326 | Cite as

Testing the investment model of relationship commitment and stability in a longitudinal study of married couples

  • Emily A. ImpettEmail author
  • Kristin P. Beals
  • Letitia A. Peplau
Article

Abstract

This study tested Rusbult’s (1980, 1983) investment model of relationship commitment and stability using data from both partners of 3,627 married couples. As pre-dicted, spouses’ satisfaction, investments, and quality of alternatives were unique predictors of their commitment to the marital relationship. Additionally, commitment assessed at the initial testing predicted marital termination or stability 18 months later. Multiple-group path analyses showed that the investment model provided an adequate fit to the data and that the associations among variables were similar for husbands and wives. Limitations of the model as well as directions for future research are consid-ered.

Keywords

Romantic Relationship Married Couple Current Psychology Unique Predictor Relationship Stability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1177–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beals, K. P., Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (In press). Lesbians in love: Why some relationships endure and others end. The Journal of Lesbian Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  6. Bradbury, T. N. (In press). Research on relationships as a prelude to action. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Google Scholar
  7. Bui, K. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Lin, Y. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to dating relationships and cross-sex friendships in America and China. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Center for Health Statistics. (1990). Advance report of final marriage statistics. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 38, (Suppl), 1111–1112.Google Scholar
  16. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy,45, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements. Social Psychology Quarterly, 39(1), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for statistics in covariance structure analysis. Los Angeles: UCLA Statistics Series, No. 2.Google Scholar
  22. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  23. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily A. Impett
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristin P. Beals
    • 1
  • Letitia A. Peplau
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations