Formation of Romantic Relationships

Page 1

Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory

AO1:

Rewards and Punishments:

We are most likely to form a relationship with people who we find rewarding, for example people who make us laugh and produce a positive feeling within us. Other rewards might include the physical attractiveness and financial stability of a partner. This is a form of operant conditioning, as they are a source of reinforcement and so we will want to spend more time with them, making relationship formation more likely. This theory also states we are motivated to avoid punishing stimuli.

Attraction through Association:

Furthermore, the theory uses the concept of classical conditioning, as it claims we are likely to be attracted to and so more likely to form a relationship with someone we associate with reward pr pleasant events. If we meet potential partner when we are feeling happy we are more likely to like them than if we were to meet them when feeling sad. In this way, a previously neutral stimuli (an unknown person who we could not have had any real feelings for) becomes positively valued due to their association with a pleasant event.

Similarity:

There are two distinct stages in relationship formation. People first sort through potential partners for dissimilarity, avoiding those who are too different to themselves. Then from those remaining, they are likely to choose someone who is similar to themselves.

AO2:

Cate et al:

Asked 337 individuals who had recently formed a relationship to asses it in terms of reward level and relationship satisfaction. Results showed that reward level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction. This shows that reinforcement is a key factor in terms of the formation of romantic relationships.

Aron et al:

Has provided physiological support. It was found that participants who measured very high on a self-report questionnaire about romantic love also showed increases activity in particular areas of the brain. Early stage, intense romantic love was associated with elevated levels of activity in subcortical regions of the brain, rich in the neurotransmitter dopamine. This therefore suggests that rewards are crucial when forming relationships. This research is also very valid because it uses empirical evidence.

Social Exchange Theory

AO1:

According to social exchange theory, the underlying principle in the formation of romantic relationships is that humans are fundamentally selfish. We view our feelings for others in terms of profits (the amount of rewards obtained from the relationship minus the costs). The greater the rewards and the lower the costs the more likely we are to form a romantic relationship. Examples of rewards include physical attractiveness, money, love, attention and examples of costs include time, disappointment and embarrassment.

Comparison Level:

Thibault and Kelly argue that our assessment of the potential rewards and costs involved when forming a romantic relationship will depend on what an individual has come to expect from previous relationships. In other words, we have a comparison level (CL), which represents the outcomes we believe we deserve on the basis of past experiences. In addition to this, we also weigh up the costs and rewards that would be expected if we were to form a relationship with someone else, known as the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt).

AO2:

Murstein:

His matching hypothesis states that ideally, we would all like to have the perfect partner, because as SET states, we are all fundamentally selfish. But since this is impossible, we try to find a compromise, i.e. we settle for the best general bargain that can be struck; a subjective view that the person we are forming a relationship with is the most rewarding we could possibly hope for.

Walster:

Carried out a study whereby he gave a questionnaire to people and asked what kind of partners they would like to take to a dance. He found that in general, people tended to request a participant who was of a similar attraction level as themselves. This clearly supports the matching hypothesis as it suggests that people are attracted to those who they see as having a similar level of physical attraction, and the matching hypothesis in turn supports SET.