A Factor Analytic Investigation of the Investment Construct in Romantic Relationships

Wind Goodfriend & Christopher R. Agnew, Purdue University

Abstract: Investments in relationships have been used to reliably predict relationship functioning (e.g., commitment) and outcomes (e.g., dissolution; for a review, see the meta-analysis by Le & Agnew, 2002). However, no research to date has explored types of investments – extant studies measure only a global, general level of investment. This project presents the results of a factor-analysis which suggests that four types of investment exist: (1) past tangible; (2) past intangible, (3) planned tangible, and (4) planned intangible. Implications for measurement of investments within relationships and implications for relational theories are discussed, as well as other work by the authors that is aimed at exploring how specific investment types may be differentially related to relationship outcomes, such as stability versus dissolution of the relationship over time.

Summary:

Investments in relationships have been used to reliably predict relationship functioning (e.g., commitment) and outcomes (e.g., dissolution; for a review, see the meta-analysis by Le & Agnew, 2002). Traditionally, investments have been defined as resources attached to a relationship that would decline in value or be lost if the relationship were to end (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).  Despite the popularity of the Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980), no published research to date has empirically examined different types of investment. Theoretically, investments have been divided into two types: extrinsic (extraneous resources indirectly linked to the relationship; e.g., a house) and intrinsic (resources put directly into the relationship; e.g., effort). However, some investments might be considered both extrinsic and intrinsic (e.g., having children), thus questioning the utility of this distinction. Moreover, although this distinction has been discussed in theory, no studies have focused on delineating types of investment within romantic relationships. Thus, the purpose of this research was twofold: (1) to establish new distinctions among types of investments that will be both theoretically and empirically valid, and (2) to validate these distinctions via factor analysis.   

Two new distinctions regarding investment types are proposed. The material dimension is composed of tangible and intangible investments. Tangible investments are resources that physically exist and are either directly or indirectly tied to the relationship. Examples of tangible investments are objects the couple members purchase together, shared debts, and pets. Intangible investments, conversely, are resources without material being that are either directly or indirectly tied to the relationship. Examples of intangible investments include self-disclosures, effort put into the relationship, and time.

The temporal dimension is composed of past and planned investments. Consistent with current views of the concept, past investments are those that have been sunk into the relationship and either currently exist or cannot be retrieved. In the extant literature, all investments have been considered to be of this type. However, planned investments also undeniably exist—investments that a person consciously intends to put into his/her relationship in the future. Although these planned investments have not yet come to fruition, if the relationship were to end, these plans would be lost (in addition to any past investments).

In order to test the discriminant validity of these new dimensions, 324 participants (136 males, 188 females) who were currently involved in romantic relationships completed a questionnaire. Sixteen specific examples of investments were presented as statements two times each; first, in past tense (e.g., “My partner and I have many major shared possessions”), and second, in future tense (e.g., “In the future, I plan to have many major shared possessions with my current partner”). Participants indicated how much they agreed with each statement, using a response scale that ranged from 0 (“do not agree at all”) to 8 (“agree completely”).

            An exploratory factor analysis (with oblique rotation) was conducted on all 32 items. Examination of the resulting scree plot and Eigenvalues suggested a 4-factor solution that accounted for 96% of the variance. All items had a primary factor loading between .36 and .89. A review of the items led to Factor 1 being labeled Past Intangible (Eigenvalue = 84.53, 72.40% variance), Factor 2 being labeled Planned Intangible (Eigenvalue = 12.54; 10.74% variance), Factor 3 being labeled Planned Tangible (Eigenvalue = 11.37, 9.74% variance), and Factor 4 being labeled Past Tangible (Eigenvalue = 3.31, 2.83% variance). See Table 1.

            These results suggest that there are separate types of romantic investment. Although these are not the only possible distinctions, differentiating between tangible/intangible and between past/planned investments promises important theoretical insights. Future research will benefit greatly from an examination of how these types of investment will be useful in terms of making differential predictions regarding relationship outcomes. In addition, measurement of romantic investments would be strengthened by including a more detailed and specific scale regarding one’s level of investments of different types. Specific ideas regarding future work, limitations, and theoretical implications will be discussed.


 

 

Back to Family Studies

 Family Studies Home
Family Studies Minor

See who's involved!


Advisory Board


BSU Links

Community Links