Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Examining Different Types of Investment in Close Relationship
Examining Different Types of Investment in Close Relationship
1177/0146167208323743
Christopher R. Agnew
Purdue University
Although the concept of investments in romantic rela- purpose of the present work is to examine intensively one
tionships has featured prominently in close relationships factor known to promote relationship stability, invest-
research, there have been no empirical analyses of dif- ments, and to offer a new conceptualization of investments
ferent types of investments and their possible differen- focusing on their timing and materiality.
tial predictive power regarding relationship state or fate.
With data from five independent samples, the authors Investments in Relationships
offer and examine investments that differ in terms of
The concept of investments in a romantic relationship
their timing (past vs. planned) and materiality (tangible
is a cornerstone of one of the most researched theories
vs. intangible). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of
of relationship stability, Rusbult’s (1980a, 1983)
hypotheses regarding these investment types provide
Investment Model. In this model, based on concepts
evidence for the utility of considering specific types of
from interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978;
investments in predicting a variety of important rela-
Rusbult, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2001; Thibaut & Kelley,
tionship factors, including commitment, stability, and
1959), the level of one’s commitment to a relationship
the impact of breakup on relationship partners.
influences relationship stability. Commitment is the sub-
Intangible investments and planned investments were
jective state of dependence that individuals experience
found to be particularly robust predictors of key rela-
daily regarding their relationship (Agnew, Van Lange,
tional states and outcomes.
Rusbult, & Langston, 1998). Commitment is hypothe-
sized to be a function of three interrelated factors: (a) the
Keywords: investments; commitment; relationship stability;
close relationships level of satisfaction with the relationship (or the degree
to which relationship outcomes are experienced as grat-
ifying); (b) the quality of a relationship’s alternatives (or
the perceived desirability of the best available alternative
W hat makes a person stay in a romantic relationship?
This seemingly simple question has been the focus
of social psychological research for decades. Numerous
to the current relationship); and (c) the size of invest-
ments in the relationship. Investment size is defined as
theories and constructs have been offered concerning both
initial interpersonal attraction and ongoing romantic rela- Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Wind Goodfriend, Buena
tionship maintenance (e.g., Agnew, Arriaga, & Wilson, Vista University, Department of Psychology, 610 W. 4th Street, Box
2915, Storm Lake, IA 50588; e-mail: goodfriend@bvu.edu; or
2008; Altman & Becker, 1973; Arriaga, Agnew, Capezza, Christopher R. Agnew, Purdue University, Department of Psychological
& Lehmiller, 2008; Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Canary & Sciences, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2081; e-mail:
Stafford, 1994; Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986; Simpson, agnew@purdue.edu
1987). However, beyond broad theories and constructs, PSPB, Vol. X No. X, Month XXXX xx-xx
there have been fewer detailed attempts to examine spe- DOI: 10.1177/0146167208323743
cific factors that tend to keep romances intact. The major © 2008 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
“the magnitude and importance of the resources that are For example, Simpson (1987) suggested that intrinsic
attached to a relationship—resources that would decline investments should characterize stable relationships;
in value or be lost if the relationship were to end” however, investments were only indirectly assessed
(Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998, p. 359). Thus, from using other constructs such as closeness and the sexual
this perspective, investments can be viewed as one type nature of the relationship. Furthermore, existing mea-
of barrier to ending a relationship—if the relationship sures of investments do not attempt to separate these
were dissolved, partners would lose all the investments two types of investment (e.g., the Investment Model
they had sunk into their partner and their relationship. Scale by Rusbult et al., 1998).
Extant research on the Investment Model has shown One possible reason why the intrinsic–extrinsic dis-
that it reliably predicts commitment level in a variety of tinction has not been examined in depth may be because
relationship types and across a range of important mod- the distinction between the two types is not always
erators (see Le & Agnew, 2003, for meta-analytic sup- clear. Indeed, these types, as defined, are not necessarily
port). For example, in the friendship realm, Rusbult mutually exclusive. That is, a specific investment may
(1980b) found that while satisfaction with friendships be seen as either type, depending on the dynamics of a
was a simple function of the rewards and costs associ- given relationship. Consider, for example, children, an
ated with the relationship, commitment to friendships investment integral to many couples and one that may
was best described by a combination of satisfaction, be central to decisions about maintaining or ending a
alternatives, and investments. Job commitment has also relationship. For some couples, having children might
been predicted by a combination of rewards and costs be considered an intrinsic investment—one completed
(i.e., satisfaction), alternatives, and investment size in the hopes of directly improving the relationship
(Farrell & Rusbult, 1981). Most research on the between partners. However, other couples may have
Investment Model, however, has focused on romantic children as a goal in and of itself, without the motive of
relationships (e.g., Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996; affecting the quality of their relationship. Here, children
Etcheverry & Agnew, 2004; Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006; might be considered an extrinsic investment—a
Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1998; Rusbult & Martz, resource tied to the relationship, but only indirectly.
1995) and how investments predict romantic relation- Because of the potential ambiguities involved with
ship functioning and duration over and above satisfac- the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction, we propose an alter-
tion level and quality of alternatives. nate division of the investment construct that we believe
makes sense theoretically, practically, and empirically.
Types of Investment Specifically, we propose four types of investments that
can be specified at any point in a given relationship: (a)
According to Rusbult (1980a), investments can
past tangible, (b) past intangible, (c) planned tangible,
become “attached” to a relationship in two ways, result-
and (d) planned intangible. Below, we describe how
ing in two types of investments: extrinsic and intrinsic.
investments can differ based on their materiality and on
Rusbult defines extrinsic investments as those that
when they occur (i.e., their timing).
For example, research on subjective well-being suggests Consistent with current views of the concept, past
that the origins of individual happiness are rooted more investments are those that have been sunk into the rela-
in nonmaterial than in material resources (cf. Diener, tionship and either currently exist or cannot be
Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Within the realm of per- retrieved. In the extant literature, all investments have
sonal goals, research by Kasser and Ryan (1993, 1996) been considered to be of this type. However, planned
has found that valuing intrinsic aspirations (such as per- investments also undeniably exist—investments that a
sonal growth) is positively associated with higher sub- person consciously intends to put into his or her rela-
jective well-being. The opposite pattern has been found tionship in the future. Although planned investments
for extrinsic aspirations such as wealth (Kasser & Ryan, have not yet come to fruition, if the relationship were to
1993, 1996). In the relationship science literature, end, these plans would be lost, in addition to any past
research has repeatedly shown that increased self- investments.
disclosure, a nonmaterial process, promotes relationship Recent developments in the psychology of goals and
development (e.g., Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & in evolutionary psychology highlight the importance of
Margulis, 1993), whereas material exchanges are most considering future possibilities in current decision
often seen as characterizing nonclose relationships (e.g., making and behavior. For example, Gollwitzer’s (1999)
Clark et al., 1986). Finally, one could argue that unlike concept of implementation intentions emphasizes the
intangible investments, tangible investments are subject theoretical and empirical advantages of elaborated
to potential retrieval, thus stemming any loss incurred. plans that one develops to see one’s goals to fruition.
For example, partners involved in a divorce might sell Generally speaking, the more elaborated the plan, the
their dream house and split the profits upon breakup. As more likely is goal completion. Furthermore, in describ-
such, tangible investments might serve as less potent pre- ing altruism from an evolutionary perspective, Tooby
dictors of relationship stability than intangible ones. and Cosmides (1996) highlight the importance of decid-
Taken together, these points suggest that the distinction ing in whom one chooses to invest. As they put it,
between intangible and tangible is an important one and “Individuals need to decide who they will invest in, and
also support the following hypothesis: how much they will invest. Just as some economic
investments are more attractive than others, some
Hypothesis 1: Although tangible and intangible invest- people should be more attractive as objects of invest-
ments will each be significantly associated with com- ment than others” (p. 132).
mitment, when tested simultaneously, intangible
Individuals with greater commitment to their romantic
investments will account for variation in commitment
above and beyond tangible investments. relationship are more likely to think in terms of the future
of the relationship. For example, in their research on the
Investment Timing progression of romantic relationships, King and
Christensen (1983) found that a major step in a relation-
Previous theorizing and research on the Investment ship is when “participants begin to project their relation-
Model has viewed investments as resources that have ship into the future and consider pursuing maximum
already become linked to the relationship. This is not levels of interdependence and commitment” (p. 676).
surprising, considering the economic roots of the con- Indeed, commitment itself has been defined as the indi-
cept of investments (Becker, 1960) and the manner in vidual’s desire or intent to continue the relationship
which investments are generally defined. However, the (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Berscheid & Reis, 1998). When
general definition of investments offered by Rusbult and individuals are considering a future with their partner,
her colleagues, as quoted above, notes that investments they are likely to make plans regarding the investments
include anything that might be lost if the relationship they would like to see occur. Conversely, if an individual
were to end. It seems reasonable to suggest that this is not particularly committed to his or her partner, he or
includes not only things that have already been invested she is less likely to be thinking in terms of future plans
but also any investments that partners plan to make, with that partner. Moreover, unlike past investments that
either individually or with one another regarding their require time to accrue, planned investments can begin to
relationship. For example, if an individual has made form upon relationship initiation. Thus, we see them as
plans with his or her partner to have children, move to particularly powerful predictors of commitment:
Florida, or buy a house in the suburbs in the coming
years, these future plans would all be lost if the rela-
Hypothesis 2: Although past and planned investments will
tionship were to end. The potential loss of future invest- each be significantly associated with commitment, when
ments might influence an individual’s decision to tested simultaneously, planned investments will account
remain in a relationship, beyond the loss of resources for variation in commitment above and beyond past
already invested. investments.
TABLE 1: Factor Loadings From Confirmatory Analyses of Investment Items (Four-Factor Models, Study 1)
NOTE: S1 = Sample 1 (unmarried), S2 = Sample 2 (married/cohabiting). See text for model fit statistics. Factor loadings are unstandardized LIS-
REL estimates. All loadings p < .01.
driven by two latent constructs defined along temporal χ2(392) = 2,300.56, GFI = .72; chi-square to degree-of-
lines: past and planned (collapsing across our hypothe- freedom ratio = 5.86; χ2 difference between four-factor
sized material distinction). A chi-square difference test and two-factor material model (5) = 1,632.40, p < .01.
indicated that the four-factor model provided a better
fit to the data than did this two-factor temporal model— Sample 2. The models tested above were then rerun
two-factor temporal model: χ2(392) = 1,456.45, GFI = .80; using the data obtained from the second sample of mar-
chi-square to degree-of-freedom ratio = 3.71; χ2 difference ried and/or cohabitating participants. Results paralleled
between four-factor and two-factor temporal model (5) = those obtained for Sample 1. All 13 items hypothesized
788.29, p < .01. A second two-factor model assumed the to load on a Past Intangible factor loaded significantly
investment items were driven by two latent constructs on that factor (with t values ranging from 4.00 to
defined along material lines: tangible and intangible (col- 15.11, all paths significant at the .01 level). All 8 items
lapsing across our hypothesized temporal distinction). A thought to load on a Planned Intangible factor loaded
chi-square difference test indicated that the four-factor significantly on that factor (with t values ranging from
model provided a better fit to the data than did this two- 9.89 to 16.00, all paths significant at the .01 level). All
factor material model—two-factor material model: 5 items thought to load on a Past Tangible factor
loaded significantly on that factor (with t values ranging age of 23.7 years (SD = 7.22) and were mostly White
from 5.08 to 13.58, all paths significant at the .01 (87% White, 6% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Black, 1%
level). Finally, all 5 items thought to load on a Planned unspecified). Mean relationship duration was 45.77
Tangible factor loaded significantly on that factor (with months (SD = 65.76; Median = 23). Fifty-three percent
t values ranging from 8.12 to 17.57, all paths significant of participants indicated they were “dating exclusively,”
at the .01 level). See Table 1 for factor loadings. 8% described their relationship as “casual,” and 38%
As for overall model fit, results indicated that a four- were engaged or married.
factor model provided a satisfactory fit to the data:
χ2(387) = 726.93, GFI = .88, with a desirable chi-square Measures
to degrees-of-freedom ratio of 1.87 (Loehlin, 1992).
Investment Model Scale. All participants completed
The overall fit of this four-factor model was then com-
the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998). This
pared to plausible alternatives. A chi-square difference
scale includes four parts: (a) five global questions assess-
test indicated that the four-factor model provided a
ing the individual’s satisfaction with his or her relation-
better fit to the data than did a one-factor model—one-
ship (e.g., “My relationship is close to ideal”; α = .94);
factor model: χ2(393) = 1,779.10, GFI = .66; chi-square
(b) five global questions assessing the individual’s per-
to degree-of-freedom ratio = 4.52; χ2 difference between
ceived level of alternatives to the present relationship
four-factor and one-factor model (6) = 1,052.17, p < .01.
(e.g., “The people other than my partner with whom I
Moreover, a chi-square difference test indicated that the
might become involved are very appealing”; α = .87);
four-factor model provided a better fit to the data than
(c) five global questions assessing the individual’s level of
did a two-factor temporal model—two-factor temporal
investments in general (e.g., “I have put a great deal into
model: χ2(392) = 1,108.71, GFI = .76; chi-square to
our relationship that I would lose if the relationship were
degree-of-freedom ratio = 2.82; χ2 difference between
to end”; α = .78); and (d) seven global questions assessing
four-factor and two-factor temporal model (5) = 381.78,
the individual’s commitment to his or her current rela-
p < .01 or a two-factor material model—two-factor
tionship (e.g., “I want our relationship to last forever”;
material model: χ2(392) = 1,577.09, GFI = .69; chi-
α = .93). All items use a 9-point response scale ranging
square to degree-of-freedom ratio = 4.02, χ2 difference
from 0 (do not agree at all) to 8 (agree completely).
between four-factor and two-factor material model (5) =
850.16, p < .01.
Past and planned investments measure. Participants
In summary, Study 1 results confirm the factor struc-
also completed the items derived from the preliminary
ture of items used to assess investments in romantic
study and confirmed in Study 1 assessing the degree to
relationships. LISREL analyses, using data obtained
which they (a) had already invested each of 13 specific
from individuals involved in nonmarital (Sample 1) and
resources into their relationship and (b) planned to
marital/cohabitating relationships (Sample 2), support
invest each of these 13 specific resources into their rela-
the conclusion that the 31 investment items measure
tionship. The 26 investments were presented as state-
four separate factors, which we have labeled Past
ments (e.g., “My partner and I have many major shared
Intangible, Planned Intangible, Past Tangible, and
possessions”), and participants indicated how much
Planned Tangible. Furthermore, model comparisons
they agreed with each statement. The response scale for
indicate the superiority of a four-factor versus various
all of these items ranged from 0 (do not agree at all) to
alternative factor structures.
8 (agree completely).
Past and planned intangible investment measures
were composed of eight items each (with alphas of .90
STUDY 2: CROSS-SECTIONAL
and .95, respectively). Past and planned tangible invest-
TEST OF HYPOTHESES
ment measures were composed of five items each (with
alphas of .89 and .94, respectively). Correlations
Study 2 provides a cross-sectional test of Hypotheses
between the Rusbult et al. (1998) items measuring
1 and 2, using the investment items validated in Study 1.
global investments and between the four new types of
investments were also computed. These correlations
Method
ranged from .47 (between the global items and planned
Participants. Participants were 173 students (112 tangible investments) to .70 (between the global items
women, 61 men) at a midsized western university who and past intangible investments). It is logical that the
participated in partial fulfillment of the requirements for highest correlation between types of investment would
an introductory psychology course. All participants were occur between the Rusbult et al. items and the past
required to be in heterosexual romantic relationships at intangible items because these items all load on the
the time of their participation. Participants had a mean same factor (see Table 1).
TABLE 2: Correlation of Each Investment Type With Time 1 Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 1, both forms of
Commitment (Studies 2 and 3)
intangible investment (past and planned) were significant
Time 1 Commitment predictors of commitment, above and beyond past tangi-
ble investments. However, planned tangible investments
Study 2 Study 3
also remained significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was
Investment Type r(173) r(324)
not completely supported. It was, however, supported in
Past Tangible .36** .23** a manner consistent with Hypothesis 2: Both forms of
Past Intangible .69** .69** planned investment (tangible and intangible) were signif-
Planned Tangible .71** .72**
icant predictors of commitment, above and beyond past
Planned Intangible .79** .73**
tangible investments but not above and beyond past
**p < .001. intangible investments. In short, planned investments of
any type proved to be particularly robust predictors of
concurrent level of relationship commitment, with intan-
All individuals were given the survey, then debriefed gible past investments also proving to be a strong predic-
and thanked for their participation. tor. Past tangible investments were found to be relatively
weak predictors of commitment and only in bivariate
Results and Discussion analyses.
TABLE 3: Multiple Regression Analyses: Four Types of Investment Predicting Level of Commitment (Studies 2 and 3)
Study 2
.688 92.61 4, 168 .001
Past Tangible Investments .019 0.36 .72
Past Intangible Investments .197 2.90 .01
Planned Tangible Investments .258 3.61 .01
Planned Intangible Investments .456 5.83 .01
Study 3
.661 155.78 4, 319 .001
Past Tangible Investments –.020 –0.58 .56
Past Intangible Investments .293 6.46 .01
Planned Tangible Investments .314 6.37 .01
Planned Intangible Investments .324 6.64 .01
back together). The median estimated likelihood of get- TABLE 4: Mean Levels of Time 1 Investment Types by Time 2
Relationship Fate (Study 3)
ting back together was 20% (SD = 27.68). Based on this
median, two groups were formed to allow a comparison Time 2 Relationship Fate
of participants who perceived that they were relatively
Dissolved Together
more (chance of reuniting is 20% or greater; n = 40;
(n = 87) (n = 166)
Mean = 49.02) versus relatively less (chance of reuniting
is less than 20% chance; n = 41; Mean = 3.07) likely to Time 1 Investment Type M SD M SD
get back together. These groups were significantly dif-
Past Tangible 0.59a 1.21 0.93a 1.49
ferent from each other, p < .01. Past Intangible 5.86a 1.59 6.72b 1.12
Participants who were no longer involved in a rela- Planned Tangible 4.42a 2.88 5.84b 2.54
tionship with their Time 1 partners were also asked if Planned Intangible 6.54a 1.66 7.28b 1.06
they were in a new dating relationship. Thirty-four par- NOTE: Means for investment types can range from 0 to 8. Across
ticipants reported that they were involved in a relation- rows, means that share superscripts are not significantly different
ship with a new partner by Time 2, and 50 indicated from each other at p < .05.
that they were currently single. All individuals were
then debriefed and thanked for their participation.
be associated with (a) greater perceived likelihood of
Results and Discussion reuniting with one’s partner in the future and with (b)
Testing Hypotheses 1 and 2. Tables 2 and 3 present lower probability of being involved with a new partner
bivariate associations and multiple regression analyses rel- by Time 2. Table 5 displays the mean levels of Time 1
evant to retesting the first two hypotheses. Consistent investments for each of these outcomes for the two
with the findings obtained in Study 2, planned invest- groups. With respect to perceived likelihood of reunit-
ments of any type and intangible past investments were ing with Time 1 partner, ANOVAs revealed that mean
the strongest predictors of commitment level. Once again, levels of Time 1 investment were significantly different
past tangible investments failed to account for variance in (and in the predicted direction) for both types of
commitment level when assessed along with the other planned investments between the high-chance and low-
types of commitment (see bottom half of Table 3). chance groups: F(1, 84) = 4.94, p < .05, for planned tan-
gible and F(1, 84) = 7.97, p < .01, for planned
Testing Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 proposed intangible. With respect to being involved with a new
that higher levels of planned investments in a relationship partner by Time 2, ANOVAs revealed that new rela-
would be associated with decreased likelihood of rela- tionship status was predicted by Time 1 levels of both
tionship dissolution. Using Time 2 follow-up fate as a cri- types of planned investments: F(1, 82) = 8.20, p < .01,
terion (2 level: still together versus not together), a simple for planned tangible and F(1, 82) = 3.72, p = .05, for
regression test established that level of planned tangible planned intangible.
investments at Time 1 was a significant predictor of rela-
tionship stability at Time 2 (standardized beta = .25, p < Ancillary analyses: Testing extant measure of global
.01). Similar results were found for planned intangible investments. We were also interested in examining the
investments (standardized beta = .26, p < .01). Mean dif- associations between a global measure of investments
ferences between those who reported they were still used in a great deal of past research (from the
together versus those who reported they had broken up Investment Model Scale; Rusbult et al., 1998) and the
are displayed in Table 4. As can be seen, mean levels of three longitudinal outcome variables (still together at
planned tangible investments at Time 1 were 5.84 (SD = Time 2, perceived likelihood of reuniting if not still
2.54) for participants still in the same relationship at together, and new relationship status at Time 2). As
Time 2 versus 4.42 (SD = 2.88) for participants who were previously noted, Rusbult et al.’s (1998) global invest-
no longer in their relationship at Time 2, F(1, 251) = ment scale taps past intangible investments (see Table 1).
16.25, p < .01. Similarly, mean levels of planned intangi- Correlational analyses showed that the global invest-
ble investments at Time 1 were 7.28 (SD = 1.06) for par- ment items were only significantly associated with one
ticipants still in the same relationship at Time 2 versus of the three outcome variables—if the partners were still
6.54 (SD = 1.66) for participants who were no longer in together at Time 2 (r = .25, p < .01). For participants
their relationship at Time 2, F(1, 251) = 18.47, p < .01. who had broken up by Time 2, the association between
Taken together, these findings support Hypothesis 3. the global items and perceived chance of reuniting with
Next, we tested Hypothesis 4, which held that that partner was not significant (r = .15, p = .16), and
among those for whom the relationship ended by Time the association between global investments and new
2, higher levels of planned investments at Time 1 would relationship status was also not significant (r = –.05,
analyses also examined the theoretical and empirical status at Time 2 was predicted only by levels of planned
importance of the timing of investments. Tests of investments at Time 1 and not by past investments at
Hypothesis 1 showed that higher commitment to a par- Time 1 (see right side of Table 5). Thus, traditional
ticular relationship is associated with a greater number methods of measuring investments would not have pro-
of plans regarding future possibilities with that rela- vided this predictive insight. In sum, consideration of
tionship partner. This finding is concordant with both the materiality and the timing of investments offers
research that has shown high relationship commitment predictive power and theoretical insight that were not
levels associated with a long-term orientation regarding possible with a global view of investments.
a relationship (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Berscheid & In the past, the Investment Model has been applied to
Reis, 1998). Consistent with this finding, tests of nonromantic relationships, such as friendships (Rusbult,
Hypothesis 3 demonstrated that individuals with more 1980b), and to job commitment (Farrell & Rusbult,
plans for investing future resources seem to be less will- 1981). Are the investment types offered here relevant
ing to dissolve their relationship, which would result in within these contexts? Although the specific investment
the loss of both their past and planned investments. examples would have to be altered, we see these types as
The importance of planned investments is also high- relevant in these contexts as well. For example, from an
lighted by the results obtained for Hypothesis 4. With industrial/organizational perspective, consider an indi-
respect to relationship involvement, breakup aftermath vidual who is trying to decide whether to remain in or
is decidedly worse for individuals if they had greater leave a job. She will reflect on everything she would lose
plans to invest in the future. Not only do these individ- upon leaving, including intangible past investments (e.g.,
uals perceive a greater likelihood of getting back efforts to understand specific company policies), tangible
together with their estranged partner, they are also less past investments (e.g., money invested in a nonportable
likely to be dating a new partner months later. We spec- retirement plan), and future investments (e.g., desired
ulate that these individuals could, at least on some level, promotions and attendant rise in status).
be refusing to give up these plans for the future, hoping With respect to potential practical applications of the
to achieve them by reuniting with their partner. One present findings, the particularly strong findings
provocative topic for future research is to determine to obtained for future plans may present an avenue for
what extent relationship plans are conceived as linked improving relationship commitment. The current
to a given partner as opposed to seen as achievable with results suggest that couple members who wish to
any partner. There are likely plans that one partner enhance their relationship commitment may want to
forms in connection with a specific other partner, plans purposely delineate future plans with respect to their
that a given individual might not have formed other- partnership. Recent experimental work featuring the
wise. The extent to which such plans would remain of manipulation of different types of investments demon-
interest as well as the extent to which they can be strates the causal influence of forming relationship
“transported” for achievement with another partner plans on nonmarital romantic relationship commitment
remain provocative areas for inquiry. (Agnew, Lehmiller, & Goodfriend, 2008).
An important pragmatic contribution of the planned Although this research provided general support for
investment construct is that it allows one to examine the our hypotheses across several samples, one limitation is
concept and role of investments in brand new relation- that it only addressed investment patterns in traditional,
ships. The traditional conception of investments heterosexual relationships. Future work might investi-
(including only those investments already sunk) is lim- gate whether these results replicate in other types of
ited in its application to newer relationships because relationships (e.g., homosexual relationships). Although
partners have had less time and opportunity to accrue we suspect that the processes are similar, it is possible
any investments. However, planned investments can that nontraditional relationships have different oppor-
begin to accrue at any point in a relationship, even at tunities or restrictions that affect both past and planned
partners’ first meeting. The current research demon- investments. For example, perhaps homosexual rela-
strates that even in relatively new relationships, planned tionships are less likely to feature tangible investments
investments vary in their intensity and elaboration. due to fears of provoking social disapproval. The same
Planned investments predict relationship commitment, might be true of relationships involving people of dif-
chance of dissolution, and how an individual is affected ferent races or of very different ages (Lehmiller &
by breakup—more lost plans are associated with an Agnew, 2006, 2008). Future research could explore
individual seeming to cling to the past, perceiving a such potential limits of generalizability.
higher likelihood of reuniting with a past partner and of While we have focused on material and temporal dis-
remaining single (perhaps until a desired reunion tinctions in investments, we do not mean to imply that
occurs). Moreover, we found that new relationship these are the only investment categories worthy of
consideration. The construct of investments could be research base supporting the importance of the invest-
broken down in other interesting ways. For instance, ment construct and suggests refinements that promise to
there might be a difference between those resources increase our understanding of pivotal relationship
people are consciously aware of investing and those they processes.
are not (e.g., sacrifices vs. an established routine which
slowly becomes automatic over time). In addition to
APPENDIX A
awareness of past investments, it is possible that pos-
DEFINITIONS OF INVESTMENTS PROVIDED TO
sessing conscious versus nonconscious plans for the
PRELIMINARY STUDY PARTICIPANTS
future may affect how an individual goes about attempt-
ing to achieve those plans or how controlled those In psychological research about romantic relationships,
attempts are (cf. Kawada, Oettingen, Gollwitzer, & “investments” refer to resources that are attached to a rela-
Bargh, 2004). Moreover, although we have emphasized tionship which would decline in value or be lost if the rela-
the distinction between past and future investments, a tionship were to end.
distinction can also be made between past, completed Tangible investments are all the material resources that are
investments and those that are ongoing or chronic (such attached to a relationship that would decline in value or be
as recurring house payments or regular physical inti- lost if the relationship were to end. Tangible investments can
macy between partners). Future work might fruitfully be physically touched. One example of a tangible investment
examine possible distinctions between such ongoing, is a house.
dynamic investments and those that no longer occur. Intangible investments are all the resources that do not
physically exist that are attached to a relationship that would
Granting that investment types could be described in
decline in value or be lost if the relationship were to end.
many ways, the types presented in the current work are Intangible investments cannot be physically touched. One
basic distinctions that have intuitive, practical, and the- example of an intangible investment is love.
oretical appeal. The present work adds to the robust
APPENDIX B
MEASURE OF PAST INVESTMENTS
The following questions refer to your relationship with your current romantic partner. Read each statement carefully before
giving your response.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Do Not Agree Agree Agree
at All Somewhat Completely
NOTE: The bracketed label following each item corresponds with the labeling used in the tables and Results section and was
not presented to participants. To measure planned investments, items were put in future tense, referenced the current relation-
ship, and began with the phrase “In the future . . .” (e.g., “In the future, I will invest a great deal of time into my current rela-
tionship”). Items 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are intangible; Items 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 are tangible.