See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287878526

An Investigation of the Rusbult Investment Model of Commitment in

Relationships with Pets

Article  in  Anthrozoos A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals · September 2015
DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1092732

CITATIONS READS
5 1,562

3 authors:

Zachary G Baker Whitney Petit

University of Minnesota Twin Cities University of Houston
13 PUBLICATIONS   101 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christina M Brown
Arcadia University
46 PUBLICATIONS   975 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zachary G Baker on 23 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 1

An Investigation of the Rusbult Investment Model of Commitment in Relationships with Pets

Zachary G. Baker1, Whitney E. Petit1, and Christina M. Brown2

1
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Texas, United States of America
2
Department of Psychology, Arcadia University, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Please direct all correspondence regarding this manuscript to Zachary Baker, Department of

Psychology, The University of Houston, 3695 Cullen Boulevard Room 126, Houston, Texas

77204-5022 E-mail: zbaker@uh.edu.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 2

Abstract

The present research examines relationships between humans and their pets through the lens of

the Rusbult Investment Model. The Rusbult Investment Model identifies important antecedents

to commitment in a relationship: satisfaction with the relationship, quality of alternatives to the

relationship, and investments in the relationship. In turn, commitment predicts enactment of

behaviors that involve forgoing one’s own needs to benefit one’s relationship. Among these

behaviors are forgiving transgressions, accommodating undesirable behaviors, and sacrificing for

the sake of one’s relationship partner. Recent research has revealed that pets benefit humans

through conferral of social support. By examining commitment processes in human-pet

relationships, relationship duration may be maximized, leading to greater benefits for both the

human and the pet. The present research surveyed pet owners about their relationship with their

pet (e.g., feelings of commitment, investment) and their willingness to engage in pro-relationship

behaviors (e.g., forgiveness, accommodation). Regression analyses revealed that human-pet

relationships operate in a similar fashion to human-human relationships in terms of both the

predictors and outcomes of commitment. This effect was observed across a range of behaviors,

among different types of pets (i.e., dogs, cats, and one fish), and in the context of both current

and former relationships. These results suggest that increasing satisfaction and investments and

decreasing the perceived quality of one’s alternatives, either individually or in concert with one

another, may benefit human-pet relationships. The findings are discussed in terms of the role

these factors may play in pet abandonment and its costs to animal well-being. This discourse

erects a call for experimental and intervention-focused research that might draw upon both the

present and past research on commitment to pets.

Keywords: Rusbult Investment Model, Pets, Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 3

An Investigation of the Rusbult Investment Model of Commitment in Relationships with Pets

Human commitment to animals has been measured and demonstrated in research (Staats

et al. 1996), but the consequences of commitment to pets are unknown. Given that people

perceive their pets as a source of social support similar to friends and family (McConnell et al.

2011), the same commitment processes that occur in human relationships might also occur in

relationships with pets. Commitment is important to understand because it predicts people’s

inclination to engage in pro-relationship behaviors, such as accommodation (Rusbult et al. 1991),

sacrifice, and forgiveness (Etcheverry and Le 2005). These pro-relationship behaviors have been

conceptualized in terms of human-human relationships, but they exist in human-animal

relationships as well (e.g., tolerating a pet’s disobedience, responding quickly to a pet’s needs).

The purpose of the current work is to test whether the same processes that predict commitment

and pro-relationship behaviors in human relationships also occur in relationships with pets,

which has yet to be explored. Investigating commitment to pets and pro-relationship behaviors

could help elucidate why certain human-animal relationships produce either positive or negative

(e.g., relinquishing a pet, abuse) outcomes for animal welfare.

Investment Model

The Rusbult Investment Model was developed to explain the antecedents and

consequences of commitment in romantic relationships (Rusbult, Martz and Agnew 1998).

However, it has been successfully applied to non-romantic interpersonal relationships and even

to non-interpersonal relationships (see Le and Agnew 2003 for a review), making it an ideal

candidate for understanding commitment to pets. The Investment Model states that individuals

should feel more committed to a relationship when they derive more satisfaction from the
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 4

relationship, believe they have few desirable alternatives to the relationship, and have invested

heavily in the relationship (Rusbult 1983; Rusbult, Martz and Agnew 1998).

Satisfaction, the first component of the Investment Model, is a “function of the

comparison level and current relational outcomes” (Le and Agnew 2003, p. 38). Comparison

level refers to the individual’s past experiences. If the individual believes the current relationship

provides better outcomes than comparable past relationships, then the relationship is satisfying.

In other words, satisfaction is subjective to the individual (Le and Agnew 2003), and it is

determined by both relative perceptions and current feelings of enjoyment.

Quality of alternatives, on the other hand, refers to perceiving alternatives to the

relationship as appealing. Alternatives can be adopting a different pet, or alternative uses of

one’s time (e.g., being with family or friends). Alternatives also may refer to the perceived

attractiveness of no relationship at all (Impett, Beals and Peplau 2001).

The third component that contributes to relationship stability, investment, refers to

concrete or intangible resources that are attached to, and would be lost, if the relationship ended

(Le and Agnew 2003). Examples of investments include time, emotional effort, or money spent

on one’s pet.

The Investment Model, in summary, proposes that satisfaction, alternatives, and

investments each uniquely influence relationship commitment. That is, if an individual has high

satisfaction and investments while perceiving few alternatives, then the relationship will be

stable and will continue into the future. Put another way, individuals who are highly satisfied

with their relationship, see few appealing alternatives, and have invested a great deal into the

relationship are highly committed to their relationship (Impett, Beals and Peplau 2001).
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 5

Satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size are posited to contribute to

commitment in an additive (not interactive) manner (Rusbult, Martz and Agnew 1998).

Utility and robustness. The Investment Model has been employed in a range of studies,

including participants of diverse ethnicities (Davis and Strube 1993; Lin and Rusbult 1995),

homosexual and heterosexual partnerships (Duffy and Rusbult 1986; Kurdek 1991, 1995),

abusive relationships (Choice and Lamke 1999; Rusbult and Martz 1995), socially marginalized

relationships (Lehmiller and Agnew 2006; Lehmiller and Agnew 2007), and friendships

(Hirofumi 2003; Lin and Rusbult 1995; Rusbult 1980).

Although the majority of evidence supporting the investment model comes from studies

of interpersonal relationships, the model also has been employed in other contexts with non-

relational targets of commitment (see Le and Agnew 2003). For instance, organizational and job

commitment are predicted by satisfaction, alternatives, and investment (Farrell and Rusbult

1981; Oliver 1990). In addition, the model also describes business interactions (Ping 1993, 1997)

and commitment to one’s residential community (Lyons and Lowery 1989). Furthermore, the

investment model successfully predicts patients’ commitment to a medical regimen (Putnam et

al. 1994), college students’ commitment to their schools (Geyer, Brannon and Shearon 1987),

and commitment to participating in musical activities (Koslowsky and Kluger 1986). Despite this

extensive study, the Rusbult Investment Model has not yet been validated in human-pet

relationships.

Commitment

Commitment is a psychological phenomenon referring to a person’s concern for the

future and stability of a specific relationship, along with the desire for that relationship to

continue. The subjective experience of commitment is strongly related to actual relationship

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 6

persistence (Drigotas and Rusbult 1992; Drigotas, Rusbult and Verette 1999; Etcheverry and Le

2005), and it is the most powerful predictor of pro-relationship maintenance behaviors. For

instance, committed people are more likely to enact prosocial behaviors, including (a) tendencies

to accommodate rather than retaliate when a partner behaves poorly, (b) willingness to sacrifice

for the good of a partner and relationship, (c) forgiveness of a partner’s acts of betrayal, (d)

inclinations to derogate or reject tempting alternatives, and (e) positive illusions, or tendencies to

regard one’s relationship as better than (and not as bad as) other relationships (Rusbult and

Buunk 1993). Importantly, greater commitment also predicts the enactment of more constructive

behaviors and fewer destructive ones (Etcheverry and Le 2005; Rusbult et al. 1991; Rusbult,

Yovetich and Verette 1996; Weiselquist et al. 1999). For example, constructive behaviors

include seeking outside help, negotiation, changing one’s own behavior, hoping for conditions to

improve, or making benign attributions. Conversely, destructive behaviors include walking out,

being physically and/or emotionally abusive, ignoring and withdrawing from one’s partner, or

refusing to confront problems.

Commitment to pets has previously been studied using the Miller-Rada Commitment to

Pets Scale (Staats et al. 1996; Shore, Douglas and Riley 2005). This scale asks respondents to

consider what it would take to relinquish their pet (e.g., they rate how severe a pet’s behavioral

problems or illness would have to be to motivate them to get rid of the pet). Existing research

suggests that understanding the human-animal relationship through the lens of commitment is

important in promoting positive, mutually beneficial relationships between people and animals

(Mueller 2014a). However, qualities of this mutually beneficial relationship, including

commitment, may differ between pets. The scale has high internal consistency and construct

validity (Staats et al. 1996), but unlike measures of commitment derived from the Investment
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 7

Model, it only captures what people report they would give to an animal, and not what they think

the relationship provides to them. Past research suggests that commitment to pets predicts

attitudes about animals (Mueller 2014a) and that commitment to pets is greatest when the idea to

get a pet is a person’s own (Lane, McNicholas and Collis 1998). Furthermore, Mueller (2014b)

investigated the association between human-animal interaction and positive developmental

outcomes among youth, finding that commitment to pets positively predicted connection with

others, caring for others, and community contributions. It also negatively predicted depression in

youth. The relationship between commitment and connection and caring, she claims, could be

linked to social skills, communication, sympathy, and empathy in both human and animal

relationships. Such research shows the effect of commitment on the human but not the human-

animal relationship, such as through behaviors that are beneficial to the relationship.

Pro-relationship behaviors. As previously stated, commitment is a fundamental

component of relationships. However, simple commitment to a relationship may not guarantee

its continuation if the committed individual behaves destructively. He or she may want the

relationship to continue, but that person’s partner could still terminate the relationship if the

committed individual’s behavior is undesirable from the partner’s perspective. Pro-relationship

behaviors are actions a person can undertake to maintain the quality and pleasure of the

relationship for both parties, thereby increasing the likelihood that the relationship will last. For

example, forgiveness, which is defined as reduced avoidance motivation and revenge motivation

after a partner’s offense, is a pro-relationship behavior that can transform a relationship

constructively (Karremans et al 2003; Karremans and Van Lange 2004). Another behavior that

enhances relationships is accommodation, which is the inhibition of destructive responses and

the enactment of constructive responses following the destructive interpersonal behavior of a

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 8

relationship partner (Rusbult et al. 1991). Similarly, a relationship can be maintained through a

partner’s willingness to sacrifice. This is defined as “the propensity to forego immediate self-

interest to promote the wellbeing of a partner or relationship” (Van Lange et al. 1997, p. 1374).

What forgiveness, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice have in common is that a

relationship partner experiences a transformation that causes him or her to refrain from taking

actions that might be perceived as protective of his or her self-interests but ultimately destructive

for the relationship and, instead, to engage in actions that contribute to relational health

(McCullough, Worthington and Rachal 1997; Rusbult et al. 1991; Van Lange et al. 1997).

These pro-relationship behaviors (forgiveness, accommodation, and sacrifice) can be

applied to the human-animal relationship as well. There are instances over the course of a pet’s

life where he/she needs acts of forgiveness, accommodation, and sacrifice from the human. For

instance, imagine having a dog as a pet and coming home to find your new couch pillows

shredded. Your reaction could range from feeling upset with the pet for quite a while to forgiving

the pet relatively soon after the incident. Similarly, your response could vary from blindly

punishing the pet and considering getting rid of it to attempting to improve conditions (e.g.,

removing the pillows, enrolling in a dog training course). The first set of reactions reflects

whether a person forgives his/her pet whereas the second set of reactions illustrates

accommodative behavior. Willingness to sacrifice can also be exemplified in human-animal

relationships. For example, do you sleep in on Saturday morning when your pet obviously needs

to go outside? Or, do you wake up and sacrifice extra sleep so the animal can relieve itself? In

relationships with pets people often must forgive, accommodate, and sacrifice their own needs,

wants, desires, or property for the pet’s well-being. These acts are important in the human-

animal relationship because they minimize resentment and frustration, which should, in turn,
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 9

decrease dissatisfaction with the pet and increase the likelihood of the pet remaining in the home

rather than being taken to a shelter or abandoned.

Present Study

The present study extends previous research by investigating both predictors and

outcomes of commitment felt by humans toward their pets. Predictors were derived from the

Rusbult Investment Model, while outcomes were conceptualized as pro-relationship behaviors.

As such, our hypotheses were that (1) satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment would

be significant and unique predictors of commitment to pets, and (2) commitment to pets would

predict pro-relationship behaviors enacted by the human (i.e., accommodation, sacrifice, and

forgiveness) for the sake of the pet. We tested both hypotheses in the context of relationships

with current pets. To examine the scope of the model, we also asked participants to complete the

Investment Model questions (Hypothesis 1) in reference to a pet they owned in the past.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) website (see

Buhrmester, Kwang and Gosling 2011). MTurk is used by researchers to collect data from

respondents over the Internet. MTurk workers are more diverse than college subject pool

samples and other Internet samples, and data obtained through MTurk is as reliable as data

collected via traditional methods (Buhrmester, Kwang and Gosling 2011).

The study was advertised as an online survey about pets, and MTurk users had to be at

least eighteen years old and residents of the U.S. to participate. A total of 209 participants

completed the survey. However, 25 participants were excluded for providing incorrect answers

to two quality control questions embedded in the survey (e.g., “for quality control purposes,
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 10

please select answer 4), leaving a total sample of 184 participants (144 women and 40 men with

a mean age of 36.55, SD = 12.63; 85% Caucasian, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4% Black/African

American, and 8% Multi-Ethnic). Participants were compensated $0.25 for their time.

Procedure

After indicating their consent to participate, participants were asked to think of a

particular pet that they currently cared for and respond to the remaining questions with that pet in

mind. To ensure participants were not thinking about different pets, participants typed the name

of that pet on the first page of the survey, enabling the survey program to embed the pet’s name

in subsequent questions. For instance, if a participant indicated that their pet was named “Omar”

participants read, “When [Omar] behaves in an unpleasant manner, I forgive [Omar] and forget

about it.” The majority of participants reported their pet of choice was a dog (60%). The

remaining 40% wrote about a cat and one individual wrote about a fish. For those questions

pertaining to a past pet, the same procedure was followed, except that they were asked to name a

pet they no longer possessed.

Measures1

Rusbult Investment Model. The satisfaction, quality of alternatives, investment, and

commitment subscales of the Investment Model Scale (IMS; Rusbult, Martz and Agnew 1998)

were used in this study. The items were modified to apply to relationships with pets instead of

relationships with romantic partners. Participants indicated their agreement with each item from

1 (Do not agree at all) to 9 (Agree completely). The satisfaction (𝛼𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.90, 𝛼𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 = 0.94;

e.g., “My relationship with [pet] is close to ideal”), quality of alternatives (𝛼𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.84, 𝛼𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡

= 0.86; e.g., “If I didn’t have [pet] I would do fine – I would find another pet”), and investment
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 11

(𝛼𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.84, 𝛼𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 = 0.86; e.g., “Compared to other people I know, I have invested a great

deal in my relationship with [pet]”) subscales each contained five items. The commitment

subscale (𝛼𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.82, 𝛼𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 = 0.86; e.g., “It is likely that I will get a new pet to replace [pet]

within the next year,” reverse-coded) contained seven items.

Relationship-enhancing behaviors. Accommodation (α = 0.66) was measured with 16

items (e.g., “When I don’t like [pet]’s behavior, I avoid dealing with the situation,” reverse-

scored) from Rusbult et al.’s (1991) accommodation scale. Participants indicated their agreement

from 0 (Do not agree at all) to 8 (Agree completely).

Active sacrifice (α = 0.72) and passive sacrifice (α = 0.72) were each measured with four

items designed to assess inclination to either engage in (e.g., wake up early on the weekend;

active sacrifice) or give up (e.g., spend money on an unplanned medical procedure; passive

sacrifice) something for the sake of one’s pet. These items were derived from Righetti,

Finkenauer and Finkel (2013) and were rated from 0 (Definitely I would not engage in/give up

this activity) to 6 (I would engage in/give up this activity).

General Forgiveness (α = 0.72) was measured with 15 items assessing general

inclinations to forgive one’s pet (e.g., “I feel upset with my pet for quite a while”; Rusbult 2000;

Rusbult 2010), which were rated on a scale from 0 (I never do this) to 8 (I constantly do this).

Transgression-Specific Forgiveness (α = 0.91) was measured with the Transgression

Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-12; Finkel et al. 2002). This scale asks

participants to describe a specific time their pet violated their expectations and then answer a

series of questions related to that incident, such as, “I’m going to make [pet] pay.” Participants

responded to each item from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Results
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 12

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations for all relationship

variables. All variables were significantly related in the predicted directions, with the exception

of a non-significant association between passive sacrifice and transgression-specific forgiveness.

Additionally, transgression-specific forgiveness’ was marginally significantly correlated with

investment in the predicted direction.

Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment will be significant and unique

predictors of commitment to pets.

To test hypothesis 1 with current pets, we simultaneously regressed commitment onto

satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investments, R2 = 0.522, F(3, 180) = 65.53, p < 0.001.

Supporting our first hypothesis, satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investments each

significantly and uniquely predicted commitment in the expected direction. (See Table 2 for

estimates of the regression coefficients for both these analyses and analyses with former pets.)

We also tested hypothesis 1, performing the same regression, with former pets, R2 =

0.686, F(3, 180) = 130.99, p < 0.001. Supporting the hypothesis, satisfaction, quality of

alternatives, and investments each significantly and uniquely predicted investment in the

expected direction.

Hypothesis 2: Commitment to pets will predict pro-relationship behaviors enacted on behalf of

pets.

To evaluate this hypothesis, we ran a series of regressions with commitment as the

predictor of interest and accommodation, active sacrifice, passive sacrifice, general forgiveness,

and transgression-specific forgiveness as criterion variables. In accordance with research that

found satisfaction to be a predictor of constructive and destructive relationship behavior (e.g.,

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 13

Rusbult et al. 1991) and to rule out a positive bias as the driver of our results (e.g., relationships

with few conflicts may necessitate fewer pro-relationship behaviors), our analyses also

controlled for satisfaction.2 As shown in Table 3, commitment significantly and uniquely

predicted each of these behaviors beyond the effects of satisfaction with one’s pet. Additionally,

each of the estimates were in the predicted direction (i.e., commitment predicted more enactment

of behaviors that benefit the relationship).

Discussion

The investment model (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult and Farrell 1983) provides a useful

framework for predicting the state of being committed to someone or something, and for

understanding the underlying causes of commitment. The investment model holds that

commitment to a target is influenced by three independent factors: satisfaction level, quality of

alternatives, and investment size. Commitment, in turn, is posited to mediate the effects of these

three bases of dependence on relationship behaviors. A major premise of the investment model is

that relationships persist not only because of the positive qualities that attract partners to one

another (their satisfaction), but also because of the ties that bind partners to each other (their

investments) and the absence of a better option beyond the relationship with the current partner

(lack of alternatives); all of these factors matter in understanding commitment. Beyond

explaining the antecedents of commitment, the investment model has generated a large body of

research to account for what differentiates lasting relationships from those that end.

Furthermore, the investment model is remarkably generalizable across a range of

commitment targets, including commitment toward both interpersonal (e.g., abusive

relationships, friendships) and non-interpersonal (e.g., job, sports participation, support for

public policies) targets. In short, the investment model has provided an extremely practical
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 14

theoretical framework for understanding and explaining the causes and consequences of

commitment. It originated as a model to understand why people remain in romantic

relationships. Subsequently, it has been used to examine commitment in all kinds of relationships

and to all types of targets.

Commitment to an individual, object, or organization is a psychological state that predicts

relationship duration and willingness to endure unpleasant experiences for the sake of the

relationship (e.g., Etcheverry and Le 2005). The current work found that the same factors that

predict commitment in human-human relationships also predict commitment to pets.

Specifically, satisfaction with the pet, quality of alternatives to the relationship, and investment

in the pet each significantly and uniquely predicted commitment. In addition, commitment

significantly predicted relationship-enhancing behaviors (i.e., sacrifice, accommodation, and

forgiveness) above and beyond satisfaction with one’s pet. Human-animal relationships, unlike

human-human relationships, are entirely under the control of one party: the human (pet owner).

This means that if the person’s commitment to the relationship diminishes, the person can sever

the relation regardlesss of the cost to or desires of the animal. In other words, if the pet requires

expensive medical treatment or behaves unpleasantly, the pet owner can terminate the

relationship with considerably less effort and resistance than it would take to terminate a

friendship or romantic relationship.

Indeed, millions of animals are abandoned by their owners every year (ASPCA 2015).

The most common reason owners relinquish their pets to shelters is because they are not allowed

to have pets in their place of residence (ASPCA 2015). Other common reasons people give their

pets to shelters are that their lifestyle cannot accommodate the responsibilities of pet ownership

or the animal’s behavior is undesirable (e.g., aggressive toward people or other animals, difficult
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 15

to train; Salman et al. 1998). In one study tracking newly adopted pets and their owners, over

10% of those pets were gone within six months (American Humane Association 2013).

Approximately half of these pets had been returned to the shelter, and the remaining were either

lost, dead, or given to another individual. Because the decision to maintain the relationship is

under the pet owner’s control, the commitment an individual feels toward his or her pet may be

the most important determinant of whether the relationship will last.

The current research is not without limitations. The investment model is about the

individual’s subjective experience of commitment, satisfaction, alternatives, and investment. A

limitation, shared by other research using the investment model, is that we only captured natural

variation in commitment, its antecedents, and its consequences instead of manipulating these

variables. Preexisting personality traits may make some individuals prone to enjoying the

company of their pet and perceiving few alternatives, even if pet ownership comes with objective

costs that would reduce satisfaction and increase alternatives in the eyes of other people. We are

not overly concerned by this limitation, however, because meta-analytic work shows that

personality traits play, at best, a minor role in essential relationship outcomes (Le et al. 2010).

Our participants also chose to complete a survey about their pets, making our sample

self-selected. It is possible our participants are more committed to their pets than the average pet

owner. However, we still observed variation in commitment to pets that was explained by

investment model factors, and this variation predicted similar variation in willingness to sacrifice

for, accommodate, and forgive one’s pet. An important question for future research, and one of

interest to animal shelters (e.g., American Human Society 2013), is how to change people’s

commitment to pets and thereby reduce relinquishment of pets to shelters. Like the current work,

research on support for animal welfare has identified predictive factors that vary naturally,
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 16

including dispositional empathy (Brown and McLean 2015) and tendency to anthropomorphize

animals (Wuensch, Poteat and Jernigan 1991). However, that does not mean concern about

animal welfare cannot be changed. Indeed, support for animal rights has been found to increase

as a result of simple manipulations, such as asking if animals should suffer needlessly (Prunty

and Apple 2013) or having someone think about an animal’s mental state (Brown and McLean

2015). Therefore, it is plausible that situational manipulations may increase satisfaction, reduce

alternatives, and increase investment, thereby increasing commitment to one’s pet and the

relationship. Given the success of past research manipulating investment model variables (e.g.,

Agnew et al. 2007; Rusbult 1980), we view this as a promising future direction for interventions

to increase commitment to pets.

Conclusion

Supporting our hypotheses, the results demonstrate that satisfaction, quality of

alternatives, and investment predict commitment to pets. Additionally, commitment to pets

predicts enactment of behaviors that benefit human-pet relationships. These important

psychological experiences have tremendous consequences for the relationship between pet and

pet owner, and, by extension, the well-being of the pet. It is our hope that all parties both within

and outside of human-pet relationships may reap benefits through these theorectical

developments and increased understanding of the cognitive processes related to this unique bond.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 17

References

Agnew, C. R., Hoffman, A. M., Lehmiller, J. J., and Duncan, N. T. 2007. From the interpersonal

to the international: Understanding commitment to the “War on Terror”. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 33(11): 1559-1571.

American Humane Association. 2013. Phase II: Descriptive study of post-adoption retention in

six shelters in three U.S. cities. Keeping pets (dogs and cats) in homes: A three-phase retention

study. <http://www.americanhumane.org/petsmart-keeping-pets-phase-ii.pdf> Accessed on May

16, 2015.

ASPCA. 2015. Pet statistics. <https://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics> Accessed on

May 16, 2015.

Brown, C. M., and McLean, J. L. 2015. Anthropomorphizing dogs: Projecting one’s own

personality and consequences for supporting animal rights. Anthrozoös, 28: 73-86.

Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new

source of inexpensive, yet high quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1): 3-5.

Choice, P., and Lamke, L. 1999. Stay/leave decision-making in abusive dating relationships.

Personal Relationships, 6: 351-368.

Davis, L., and Strube, M. J. 1993. An assessment of romantic commitment among black and

white dating couples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23: 212-225.

Drigotas, S. M., and Rusbult, C. E. 1992. Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of

breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 62–87.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 18

Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., and Verette, J. 1999. Level of commitment, mutuality of

commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships, 6: 389–409.

Duffy, S. M, and Rusbult, C. E., 1986 Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and

heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12: 1-23.

Etcheverry, P. E., and Le, B. 2005. Thinking about commitment: Accessibility of commitment

and prediction of relationship persistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice. Personal

Relationships, 12: 103-123.

Farrell, D., and Rusbult, C. E. 1981. Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job

commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28: 78-95.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., and Hannon, P. A. 2002. Dealing with betrayal in

close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82: 956-974.

Geyer, P. D., Brannon, Y. S., and Shearon, R. W. 1987. The prediction of students’ satisfaction

with community college vocational training. The Journal of Psychology, 121: 591-597.

Hirofumi, A. 2003. Closeness and interpersonal outcomes in same-sex friendships: An

improvement of the investment model and explanation of closeness. Japanese Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 131-145.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 19

Impett, E. A., Beals, K. P., and Peplau, L. A. 2001. Testing the investment model of relationship

commitment and stability in a longitudinal study of married couples. Current Psychology, 20(4):

312-326.

Karremans, J. C., and Van Lange, P. A. 2004. Back to caring after being hurt: The role of

forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34: 207-227.

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A., Ouwerkerk, J. W., and Kluwer, E. S. 2003. When forgiving

enhances psychological well-being: the role of interpersonal commitment. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 84: 1011-1026.

Koslowsky, M., and Kluger, A. 1986. Commitment to participation in musical activities: An

extension and application of the investment model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16:

831-844.

Kurdek, L. A. 1991. Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples:

Integration of contextual, investment, and problem-solving models. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61: 910-922.

Kurdek, L. A. 1995. Assessing multiple determinants of relationship commitment in cohabiting

gay, cohabiting lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Family

Relations, 44: 261-266.

Lane, D. R., McNicholas, J., and Collis, G. M. 1998. Dogs for the disabled: benefits to recipients

and welfare of the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 59: 49-60.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 20

Le, B., and Agnew, C. R. 2003. Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of

the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10(1): 37-57.

Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., and Mutso, A. A. 2010. Predicting nonmarital

romantic relationship dissolution: A meta‐analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17: 377-

390.

Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. 2006. Marginalized relationships: The impact of social

disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

32: 40-51.

Lehmiller, J. J., and Agnew, C. R. 2007. Perceived marginalization and the prediction of

romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69: 1036-1049.

Lin, Y. W., and 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.

Lyons, W. E., and Lowery, D. 1989. Citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities:

A partial test of a general model. Journal of Politics, 51: 841-868.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., and Rachal, K. C. 1997. Interpersonal forgiving in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 321-336.

McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., and Martin, C. E. 2011. Friends

with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 101: 1239-1252.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 21

Mueller, M. K. 2014a. The Relationship between Types of Human–Animal Interaction and

Attitudes about Animals: An Exploratory Study. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The

Interactions of People and Animals, 27: 295-308.

Mueller, M. K. 2014b. Is human-animal interaction (HAI) linked to positive youth development?

Initial answers. Applied Developmental Science, 18: 5-16.

Oliver, N. 1990. Rewards, investments, alternatives and organizational commitment: Empirical

and evidence and theoretical development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 19-31.

Ping, R. A., Jr. 1993. The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting,

voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69: 320-352.

Ping, R. A., Jr. 1997. Voice in business-to-business relationships: Cost-of-exit and demographic

antecedents. Journal of Retailing, 73: 261-281.

Prunty, J. and Apple, K. J. 2013. Painfully aware: The effects of dissonance on attitudes toward

factory farming. Anthrozoös 26: 265–278.

Putnam, D. E., Finney, J. W., Barkley, P. L., and Bonner, M. J. 1994. Enhancing commitment

improves adherence to a medical regimen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62:

191-194.

Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., and Finkel, E. J. 2013. Low self-control promotes the willingness to

sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24(8): 1533-1540. 0956797613475457.

Rusbult, C. E. 1980. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the

investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 172-186.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 22

Rusbult, C. E. 2000. Measuring perpetrator amends and victim forgiveness in marital

interactions. Unpublished instrument, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,

NC.

Rusbult, C. E. (2010, February 04). Forgiveness Scales.

<http://www.carylrusbult.com/documents/ForgivenessScales.doc> Accessed on April 17, 2015.

Rusbult, C. E., and Buunk, B. P. 1993. Commitment processes in close relationships: An

interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10: 175-204.

Rusbult, C. E., and Farrell, D. 1983. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on

job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and

investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 429-438.

Rusbult, C. E., and Martz, J. M. 1995. Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment

model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

21: 558-571.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., and Agnew, C. R. 1998. The investment model scale: Measuring

commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal

relationships, 5(4): 357-387.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., and Lipkus, I. 1991. Accommodation

processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 53-78.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 23

Rusbult, C. E., Yovetich, N. A., and Verette, J. 1996. An interdependence analysis of

accommodation processes. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close

relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 63-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Salman, M. D., New, J. G., Scarlett, J. M., and Kris, P. H., Ruch-Gallie, R., and Hetts, S. 1998.

Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal

shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Sciences, 1(3): 207-226.

Shore, E. R., Douglas, D. K., and Riley, M. L. 2005. What's in it for the companion animal? Pet

attachment and college students' behaviors toward pets. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare

Science, 8: 1-11.

Staats, S., Miller, D., Carnot, M. J., Rada, K., and Turnes, J. 1996. The Miller-Rada commitment

to pets scale. Anthrozoös, 9: 88-94.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X.B., Witcher, B. S., and Cox, C.

L. 1997. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72: 1373-1395.

Weiselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., and Agnew, C. R. 1999. Commitment, pro-

relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 77: 942–966.

Wuensch, K. L., Poteat, G. M. and Jernigan, L. M. 1991. Support for animal rights and perceived

similarity between humans and other animals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Animal Behavior Society, Wilmington, NC, USA, June, 1991.

http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/Animals/ABS91.htm. Accessed on September 29, 2013.

 RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS 24

Footnotes

1. To acquire study materials, please contact the first author.

2. Analyses controlled for satisfaction by including it as a predictor variable in all regressions.

When satisfaction was not controlled for, commitment became a stronger predictor of each pro-

relationship behavior.

View publication stats