Rusbult’s investment model | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 5
- 17 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Rusbult’s investment model explains why some romantic relationships remain stable, including relationships that are not highly satisfying. These Rusbult’s investment model A-Level Psychology revision notes examine four essential ideas: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment and commitment. You will learn how these factors work together, distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic investments and apply the model accurately to relationship scenarios. The model develops ideas introduced in the rewards-and-costs approach and helps explain why dissatisfaction does not always result in relationship breakdown.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define commitment within Rusbult’s investment model.
Explain satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.
Distinguish intrinsic investment from extrinsic investment.
Explain how the three predictors combine to influence commitment.
Apply each part of the model to an unfamiliar relationship scenario.
Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model as an explanation of relationship maintenance.
Revision Notes 📚
Rusbult’s investment model A-Level Psychology revision overview
Rusbult’s investment model explains commitment in romantic relationships.
The model proposes that commitment is the key factor sustaining a relationship. Commitment is influenced by:
Satisfaction
Comparison with alternatives
Investment
A person is predicted to show particularly strong commitment when:
They are highly satisfied with the relationship.
Available alternatives are poor or unattractive.
They have made substantial investments that would be lost if the relationship ended.
The model therefore explains why people may remain together even when the relationship is not completely satisfying.
The structure of the investment model
Component | Central question | Effect on commitment |
Satisfaction | “How rewarding and fulfilling is this relationship?” | Greater satisfaction usually increases commitment |
Comparison with alternatives | “Would another relationship or being single be better?” | Poor alternatives usually increase commitment |
Investment | “What would I lose if this relationship ended?” | Greater investment usually increases commitment |
Commitment | “How strongly do I intend to maintain this relationship?” | Predicts persistence and relationship stability |
The first three components influence the fourth.
High satisfaction + poor alternatives + high investment → strong commitment
This is a conceptual relationship, not a mathematical equation that students are expected to calculate.
Commitment
Commitment is the intention to maintain a relationship and continue it over time.
A committed partner is likely to:
Want the relationship to continue.
Feel psychologically attached to the relationship.
Take a long-term view of the partnership.
Resist opportunities to leave.
Consider the relationship an important part of their future.
Commitment is not exactly the same as satisfaction.
A person can be:
Satisfied and highly committed.
Satisfied but weakly committed because attractive alternatives exist.
Dissatisfied but committed because investment is high and alternatives are poor.
Dissatisfied and weakly committed because investments are low and alternatives are attractive.
This distinction is one of the model’s most important features.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction refers to the extent to which a person experiences the relationship positively and feels that it meets their needs.
Sources of satisfaction may include:
Affection.
Companionship.
Emotional support.
Enjoyable shared experiences.
Security.
Trust.
Intimacy.
Practical support.
Dissatisfaction may result when:
Costs become too high.
Rewards decline.
Important needs are not met.
Conflict becomes frequent.
The relationship is less positive than expected.
The concept develops ideas from rewards, costs and relationship outcomes.
Satisfaction and commitment
Higher satisfaction will usually increase commitment.
For example:
Kai enjoys spending time with Rowan, receives emotional support and believes that the relationship meets important needs.
The relationship is likely to have a high satisfaction level. This contributes to Kai’s willingness to maintain it.
However, satisfaction alone does not determine commitment.
A highly satisfied person may still show limited commitment if:
A very attractive alternative is available.
Little has been invested.
Leaving would involve few losses.
Similarly, a dissatisfied person may remain committed because they have invested heavily and see no preferable alternative.
📌 Exam tip: Never use satisfaction and commitment as if they mean the same thing. Satisfaction is one predictor of commitment.
Comparison with alternatives
Comparison with alternatives involves evaluating the current relationship against other possible options.
Alternatives may include:
A relationship with another person.
A potential new partner.
Being single.
Greater personal independence.
A different lifestyle.
The person considers whether an alternative could provide a better outcome than the current relationship.
Poor alternatives
An alternative is poor when it appears less rewarding than the current relationship.
For example:
The person believes no other partner would understand them as well.
Being single would involve losing valued companionship.
Starting again with another person seems difficult.
Potential alternatives do not appear trustworthy or compatible.
Poor alternatives increase dependence on the current relationship and are likely to strengthen commitment.
Attractive alternatives
An alternative is attractive when it appears more rewarding than the current relationship.
For example:
Another potential partner appears more supportive.
Being single would provide desired freedom.
A different lifestyle would involve fewer costs.
The person believes another relationship would meet their needs more effectively.
Attractive alternatives are likely to reduce commitment.
However, they do not automatically cause a relationship to end. High investment may still make leaving difficult.
Comparison with alternatives is subjective
The model concerns the alternatives that the person perceives, not necessarily those that objectively exist.
Two partners may view the same situation differently.
For example:
One partner may value being single and view independence as an attractive alternative.
The other may place greater value on companionship and view single life as unrewarding.
The same external options can therefore have different effects on commitment.
Investment
Investment refers to resources connected to a relationship that would be lost, reduced in value or disrupted if the relationship ended.
Investments increase the cost of leaving.
The larger the investment, the more a person has to lose from relationship breakdown.
Investments may include:
Time.
Emotional effort.
Shared experiences.
Mutual friendships.
Children.
Pets.
Shared possessions.
A jointly owned home.
Plans made for the future.
Rusbult’s model distinguishes intrinsic and extrinsic investment.
Intrinsic investment
Intrinsic investment consists of resources put directly into the relationship.
Examples include:
Time spent developing the relationship.
Emotional effort.
Personal energy.
Support given to the partner.
Compromises made.
Experiences shared as a couple.
The resource is invested within the relationship itself.
For example:
Two partners have spent ten years supporting one another and building a shared history.
The time and emotional effort are intrinsic investments.
Extrinsic investment
Extrinsic investment consists of resources that arise from, become connected to or are shared because of the relationship.
Examples include:
Children.
Pets.
Mutual friends.
A jointly owned home.
Shared savings.
Possessions bought together.
Membership of a shared social group.
These resources may not be feelings or efforts directed towards the partner, but ending the relationship could cause them to be lost, divided or disrupted.
For example:
Two partners own a home together, share a friendship group and care for two cats.
The home, mutual friendships and pets are extrinsic investments.
Intrinsic and extrinsic investment compared
Intrinsic investment | Extrinsic investment |
Put directly into the relationship | Develops around or becomes linked to the relationship |
Time | Children |
Emotional effort | Mutual friends |
Energy | Pets |
Support | Shared home |
Compromise | Joint savings or possessions |
Shared personal history | Shared social connections |
A single scenario may contain both types.
Investment as a barrier to leaving
Investments act as a deterrent to relationship breakdown because leaving could mean losing resources that cannot easily be recovered.
For example, a person may think:
“I have spent years building this relationship.”
“We have created a home together.”
“Our friendship groups are completely connected.”
“I do not want our children’s arrangements disrupted.”
“I would lose the future we planned.”
The person is not simply evaluating whether the relationship is satisfying. They are also considering the cost of losing what has been invested.
The relationship between investment and commitment
Greater investment generally increases commitment because:
Resources have been placed into or connected with the relationship.
These resources could be lost if the relationship ended.
Ending the relationship therefore becomes more costly.
The person becomes more motivated to preserve it.
This helps explain why relationship duration can strengthen commitment. Over time, partners may accumulate:
More shared experiences.
Greater emotional investment.
More mutual friends.
Additional shared possessions.
Increasingly connected future plans.
However, duration is not itself identical to investment. A long relationship may contain significant investment, but students should identify the specific resources involved.
How the components combine
The investment model should be understood as a complete explanation rather than four isolated definitions.
High satisfaction, high investment and poor alternatives
This combination predicts very high commitment.
The person:
Enjoys the relationship.
Has a great deal to lose.
Does not perceive a better option.
Relationship persistence is therefore likely.
Low satisfaction, high investment and poor alternatives
Commitment may remain high.
The person:
Is not particularly happy.
Has invested substantial resources.
Does not perceive a preferable alternative.
This is one of the most important predictions of the model. Satisfaction is not required for commitment when the other forces are sufficiently strong.
High satisfaction, low investment and attractive alternatives
Commitment may be weaker than expected.
The person:
Enjoys the current relationship.
Has relatively little to lose by leaving.
Believes a more attractive alternative exists.
Satisfaction alone may therefore be insufficient to maintain the relationship.
Low satisfaction, low investment and attractive alternatives
Commitment is predicted to be low.
The current relationship:
Is not rewarding.
Contains little that would be lost.
Compares poorly with other options.
Relationship breakdown is more likely.
Summary table of predicted commitment
Satisfaction | Investment | Alternatives | Predicted commitment |
High | High | Poor | Very high |
Low | High | Poor | May remain high |
High | Low | Attractive | May be limited |
Low | Low | Attractive | Low |
These predictions allow the model to explain more relationship outcomes than an account based only on satisfaction.
Applying the model to a relationship scenario
Consider the following scenario:
Aisha and Beth have been together for eight years. They enjoy travelling together and support each other through difficulties. They jointly own their flat and have saved money to renovate it. Most of their friends know them as a couple, and they care for a dog together. Aisha says that starting again with someone else would never provide the same shared history.
A developed application could explain:
Satisfaction
Enjoyable travel is a rewarding shared experience.
Mutual support indicates that the relationship meets emotional needs.
These positive outcomes increase satisfaction.
Intrinsic investment
Eight years of time have been invested.
Supporting each other involves emotional effort.
Their shared history is an intrinsic investment.
Extrinsic investment
Their jointly owned flat is an extrinsic investment.
Shared savings are an extrinsic investment.
Their mutual friendship group and dog are also extrinsic investments.
Comparison with alternatives
Aisha believes that starting again with someone new would not provide the same history.
The current relationship therefore compares favourably with alternatives.
Alternative relationships appear less rewarding.
Commitment
High satisfaction, substantial investment and poor alternatives combine to predict strong commitment.
Aisha and Beth are therefore likely to maintain the relationship.
AQA’s 2025 mark scheme used the same application structure: shared enjoyment indicated satisfaction, time and possessions indicated investment, unfavourable new relationships indicated poor alternatives, and these factors combined to produce commitment.
A systematic method for application questions
When applying Rusbult’s model, use five steps.
Find evidence of satisfaction.
What does the person enjoy or value?
Identify intrinsic investments.
What time, effort or emotion has been put directly into the relationship?
Identify extrinsic investments.
What shared possessions, social connections or responsibilities have developed?
Identify the alternative.
Does another partner, being single or a different lifestyle appear better or worse?
Reach a commitment prediction.
Explain how the factors combine to increase or reduce the intention to stay.
Use the structure:
Scenario detail → model component → effect on commitment
Applying the model when satisfaction is low
Consider another scenario:
Charlie frequently argues with Drew and no longer enjoys spending much time together. However, they have two children, share a mortgage and have built a business together. Charlie also believes that being single would be financially and socially difficult.
The model predicts that:
Frequent arguments and limited enjoyment indicate low satisfaction.
The children, mortgage and shared business represent substantial extrinsic investments.
Being single appears to be a poor alternative.
Charlie may therefore remain highly committed despite dissatisfaction.
This is different from stating that the relationship is satisfying. The model explains persistence, not necessarily happiness.
Investment and sunk resources
The model proposes that previously invested resources can affect present commitment.
A person may remain partly because ending the relationship would mean that:
Time and effort appear to have been wasted.
Shared resources must be divided.
Important social relationships may change.
Long-term plans must be abandoned.
The essential examination point is that investment increases what could be lost.
Avoid introducing unrelated financial terminology when a straightforward explanation of investment will answer the question.
Rusbult’s model and social exchange theory
Rusbult’s model develops social exchange theory.
Both approaches consider:
Satisfaction.
Relationship outcomes.
Comparison with alternatives.
Why someone may remain or leave.
However, the investment model adds investment and makes commitment central.
Social exchange theory | Rusbult’s investment model |
Focuses on rewards, costs and comparisons | Focuses on satisfaction, alternatives, investment and commitment |
A profitable relationship should be satisfying | Satisfaction is only one predictor of commitment |
Attractive alternatives may encourage leaving | Alternatives combine with satisfaction and investment |
Does not fully explain persistence in an unrewarding relationship | High investment may maintain commitment despite low satisfaction |
The investment model can therefore explain why someone remains even when the current relationship provides relatively few rewards.
Rusbult’s model and equity theory
Equity theory explains satisfaction through fairness between partners.
Rusbult’s model asks a different question:
What creates commitment and makes a person continue the relationship?
A relationship may be inequitable and unsatisfying, but commitment could remain strong when:
Investment is high.
Alternatives are poor.
Leaving would involve major losses.
The investment model therefore provides a possible explanation for why inequity does not always cause relationship breakdown.
Rusbult’s model and relationship breakdown
The investment model predicts conditions that make maintenance or breakdown more likely.
Breakdown becomes more likely when:
Satisfaction falls.
Attractive alternatives become available.
Investment is limited.
Commitment declines.
However, the model does not describe the sequence of communication and social events involved once a relationship begins to end.
This process is examined in the stages of relationship breakdown.
Evaluating Rusbult’s investment model
Strength: evidence supports the model’s main components
Evidence recognised in AQA mark schemes supports the importance of:
Satisfaction.
Comparison with alternatives.
Investment.
These factors have been found to relate to commitment, as the model predicts.
This is an important strength because commitment is not explained through one variable alone. Evidence supporting all three predictors provides broader support for the structure of the model.
Strength: the model explains apparently unrewarding relationships
Rusbult’s model can explain why people remain in relationships that appear to offer relatively few rewards.
A person may remain because:
They have invested substantial time and effort.
Important shared resources would be lost.
No preferable alternative appears available.
This improves on explanations that predict a person should leave whenever costs outweigh rewards.
The model distinguishes being satisfied from being committed, which allows it to explain a wider range of relationship behaviour.
Strength: it improves earlier economic theories
The investment model develops ideas from social exchange theory and equity theory.
Its key improvement is the addition of investment.
Earlier theories can explain why someone might be:
Satisfied.
Dissatisfied.
Fairly or unfairly treated.
They are less able to explain why dissatisfaction or inequity may continue without relationship breakdown.
Investment provides the missing link by identifying resources that would be lost if the relationship ended.
Strength: support is not restricted to one narrow type of couple
AQA mark-scheme guidance recognises evidence supporting the model across different romantic relationships.
This is valuable because the processes of satisfaction, investment, alternatives and commitment are not assumed to apply only to one specific type of couple.
Evidence across different couple types increases confidence in the model’s wider usefulness.
Limitation: investment is often measured using self-report
Investment may be investigated using questionnaires or rating scales.
For example, a participant might rate:
How much time they have invested.
The importance of shared possessions.
The quality of available alternatives.
Their level of commitment.
Self-reports can be affected by:
Social desirability.
Inaccurate recall.
Different interpretations of questions.
Difficulty assigning numerical values to emotional investments.
The AQA specimen materials identify questionable validity and limited objectivity as possible limitations of a self-report Investment Scale.
This means that an investment score may not perfectly represent the person’s genuine investment.
Limitation: investments are difficult to compare
Different resources may have different values for different people.
For example:
One person may view shared friendships as a major investment.
Another may view them as easily replaceable.
A jointly owned home may be highly important to one partner but mainly a financial arrangement to the other.
Time invested may be experienced as valuable history or as time already lost.
This makes it difficult to create a single objective measure of investment.
The model depends on the person’s perception of what would be lost.
Limitation: high commitment does not mean a relationship is satisfying
The model predicts that someone may remain committed despite low satisfaction.
This makes the model useful, but it also means commitment should not be interpreted as evidence of relationship quality.
A relationship may persist because:
Investments are high.
Alternatives are poor.
Leaving appears costly.
An examiner may therefore ask why a person stays, not whether their relationship is happy or successful.
Limitation: it explains persistence more clearly than the process of
breakdown
Rusbult’s model identifies factors that strengthen or weaken commitment.
It does not describe:
How dissatisfaction is communicated.
How partners negotiate their difficulties.
When friends and family become involved.
How partners explain the breakdown afterwards.
Duck’s phase model provides a more detailed explanation of these processes.
The two models therefore address related but different questions.
Overall conclusion
Rusbult’s investment model provides a detailed explanation of relationship commitment.
It predicts strong commitment when:
Satisfaction is high.
Alternatives are poor.
Investment is substantial.
Its most valuable contribution is explaining why commitment can remain high even when satisfaction is low. A person may have too much to lose and perceive no better option.
The model is supported by evidence and improves on earlier economic explanations by adding investment. However, its variables are subjective and are often measured through self-report. It therefore explains relationship persistence effectively, but commitment should not be confused with happiness or relationship quality.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Apply the whole model. The 2025 examiner report noted that many students used satisfaction, alternatives, investment and commitment effectively, but weaker answers discussed only investment.
Examiner hint: Do not treat the word “investment” in the question as permission to ignore the other components. Look for evidence of enjoyment, possible alternatives and an intention to remain.
Examiner hint: Distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic investment. Time and emotional effort are intrinsic. A shared home, possessions, friends or pets are extrinsic.
Examiner hint: Integrate knowledge and application. Describing the model first and applying it afterwards can receive credit, but linking each scenario detail to the relevant concept immediately is clearer and more economical.
Examiner hint: Use specialist terminology. A statement such as “they have lots together” is weaker than identifying shared possessions as extrinsic investments that would be lost or divided.
Examiner hint: Reach a commitment conclusion. Explain that satisfaction, substantial investment and poor alternatives combine to increase commitment.
Examiner hint: Avoid speculative application. Use information that is actually stated or clearly implied by the scenario rather than inventing additional relationship details.
Examiner hint: In an application-only question, evaluation is not required. The 2022 mark scheme limited answers without explicit application, showing that accurate knowledge alone cannot replace direct links to the scenario.
Examiner hint: Make sure you answer about Rusbult’s model. The 2020 report noted that a substantial minority either did not attempt the Rusbult question or answered using the wrong theory.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating investment as the entire model
Why this is incorrect:
Investment is only one predictor of commitment. Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives must also be considered.
How to improve:
Use the checklist:
Satisfaction, alternatives, investment, commitment.
Mistake: Using satisfaction and commitment interchangeably
Why this is incorrect:
Satisfaction is one factor influencing commitment. A person can be dissatisfied but remain committed.
How to improve:
State what makes the relationship rewarding, then separately predict the person’s intention to remain.
Mistake: Saying that poor alternatives reduce commitment
Why this is incorrect:
Poor alternatives make the current relationship appear comparatively more valuable and therefore usually increase commitment.
How to improve:
Remember:
Better alternative = lower commitment.
Poorer alternative = higher commitment.
Mistake: Assuming an alternative must be another romantic partner
Why this is incorrect:
Being single or adopting a different lifestyle can also be an alternative.
How to improve:
Look for references to freedom, independence or starting life alone.
Mistake: Confusing intrinsic and extrinsic investment
Why this is incorrect:
Intrinsic investment is put directly into the relationship. Extrinsic investment consists of resources that arise from or become linked to it.
How to improve:
Ask:
“Was this time, emotion or effort put directly into the relationship?” If yes, it is intrinsic.
“Is this a shared resource or connection that developed around the relationship?” If yes, it is extrinsic.
Mistake: Calling a jointly owned house an intrinsic investment
Why this is incorrect:
A shared home is a possession arising from the relationship, so it is an extrinsic investment.
How to improve:
Reserve intrinsic investment for resources such as time, effort and emotion.
Mistake: Assuming high commitment proves high satisfaction
Why this is incorrect:
Investment and poor alternatives may sustain commitment even when satisfaction is low.
How to improve:
Assess all three predictors before reaching a conclusion.
Mistake: Listing scenario details without explaining their effect
Why this is incorrect:
Identifying “a house and children” does not fully apply the model.
How to improve:
Explain that these are extrinsic investments that could be lost or disrupted, increasing the cost of leaving and therefore commitment.
Mistake: Describing relationship breakdown rather than commitment
Why this is incorrect:
Rusbult’s model explains why a person maintains or leaves a relationship through commitment. It does not describe the phases through which breakdown occurs.
How to improve:
Use Duck’s model only when the question asks about the process or stages of breakdown.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. Name the three factors that determine commitment in Rusbult’s investment model.[3 marks]
2. What is meant by commitment in the investment model?[2 marks]
3. Explain one difference between intrinsic and extrinsic investment.[4 marks]
4. A person is dissatisfied with their relationship but has invested considerable time and emotional effort. They share a home and several close friendships with their partner. They also believe that being single would be less rewarding.
Explain why the person may remain committed according to Rusbult’s investment model.[6 marks]
5. Four participants completed measures of relationship satisfaction, investment and the quality of alternatives.
Participant | Satisfaction | Investment | Quality of alternatives |
A | High | High | Poor |
B | Low | Low | Attractive |
C | Low | High | Poor |
D | High | Low | Attractive |
a) Which participant is predicted to show the strongest commitment?[1 mark]
b) Which participant is predicted to show the weakest commitment?[1 mark]
c) Explain why Participant C may remain committed despite low satisfaction.[3 marks]
6. Zara and Frankie have been together for twelve years. They enjoy holidays and regularly support each other through work problems. They have two children, jointly own their home and share most of their friends. Zara says, “I cannot imagine starting again with someone else.”
Explain how Rusbult’s investment model can be applied to Zara and Frankie’s relationship.[4 marks]
7. Explain one strength and one limitation of using self-report scales to investigate Rusbult’s investment model.[4 marks]
8. Discuss Rusbult’s investment model as an explanation of romantic relationships.[8 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Award one mark for each:
Satisfaction.
Comparison with alternatives.
Investment.
Do not award a separate mark for commitment because commitment is the outcome influenced by the three factors.
Question 2
Award up to two marks:
Commitment is the intention or motivation to maintain the relationship.
It involves psychological attachment, persistence or taking a long-term view of the relationship.
Question 3
Award up to four marks:
Intrinsic investment consists of resources put directly into the relationship.
An appropriate example, such as time, emotional effort or energy.
Extrinsic investment consists of resources that arise from or become connected to the relationship.
An appropriate example, such as children, mutual friends, pets, a shared home or joint possessions.
Question 4
Award one mark for each developed application point, up to six marks.
Possible content:
The person’s dissatisfaction would tend to reduce commitment.
Time is an intrinsic investment.
Emotional effort is an intrinsic investment.
The shared home is an extrinsic investment.
Mutual friendships are extrinsic investments.
These resources could be lost or disrupted if the relationship ended.
Being single is viewed as a poor alternative.
High investment and poor alternatives may therefore maintain commitment despite low satisfaction.
Question 5a
One mark for:
Participant A
Participant A has high satisfaction, high investment and poor alternatives.
Question 5b
One mark for:
Participant B
Participant B has low satisfaction, low investment and attractive alternatives.
Question 5c
Award up to three marks:
Participant C has high investment.
Participant C perceives alternatives as poor.
These factors increase the cost of leaving and dependence on the current relationship, so commitment may remain high despite low satisfaction.
Question 6
Award one mark for each developed application point, up to four marks.
Possible content:
Holidays and mutual support indicate satisfaction.
Twelve years together represents intrinsic investment of time.
The children, home and mutual friends are extrinsic investments.
Starting again with someone else appears to be an unattractive alternative.
High satisfaction, substantial investments and poor alternatives combine to predict strong commitment.
A response may receive full marks through four well-developed links rather than mentioning every detail.
Question 7
Award up to two marks for the strength and two marks for the limitation.
Possible strength:
A standardised self-report scale allows satisfaction, investment, alternatives or commitment to be measured consistently across participants. This makes scores easier to compare.
Possible limitation:
Participants may give socially desirable answers or interpret emotional investment differently. The resulting score may therefore lack validity and may not represent their true level of investment.
Question 8
A strong response should include:
Knowledge and understanding
Commitment as the central outcome.
Satisfaction.
Comparison with alternatives.
Investment.
Intrinsic investment.
Extrinsic investment.
The way the predictors combine.
The possibility of commitment despite dissatisfaction.
Evaluation
Evidence supports the importance of satisfaction, alternatives and investment.
The model applies across different romantic relationships.
It explains why people remain in relationships offering relatively few rewards.
It improves social exchange theory and equity theory by including investment.
Investment and commitment are often measured through subjective self-reports.
Different people may value investments differently.
High commitment should not be confused with satisfaction.
The model explains persistence more effectively than the stages of breakdown.
Higher-level answers will explain the complete model, use specialist terminology accurately and develop each evaluative point by linking it directly to the model’s ability to explain relationship commitment.
Comments