Describe and evaluate two or more theories of the formation of romantic relationships (24 marks)
There are many different ways that romantic relationships can be formed. Two examples of this are the reward/ need theory suggested by Byrne and Claw as well as the filter theory suggested by Kerchkoff and Davies. In this essay, I will be expanding on these two theories and evaluating them.
The first of the two theories is the filter theory suggested by Kerchkoff and Davies. They suggested that there are different factors that affect the choice of who we choose to form a relationship with; these being: proximity, similarity and psychological factors. By proximity, Kerchkoff and Davies said that compared to the amount of people in the world, we only meet a small amount of people and the chance of forming a relationship is greater if the distance between a couple is minimal. By similarity, the two say that the chances of forming a relationship is greater if the significant other has a similar social or cultural background and educational level. Psychological factors that may affect the formation of relationships are said to include whether both people share similar beliefs and values, and personality traits. The more similar people are, Kerchkoff and Davies said that they are more likely to form a relationshiop. Kerchkoff and Davies conducted a study themselves in 1962 to see what students felt were the most important factor in maintaining a relationship. To do so, they studied students in both short term (under 18 months) and long term (over 18 months) relationships. They used self-report questionnaires and were able to find that those in short term relationships believed attitude similarities were the most important factor, whilst compliments were the most important for those in long term relationships.
This evidence may work for students, however, it has one methodological flaw; this being that there is a sample bias. Because of this, results can only be generalised to those similar to those who took part in the initial study and therefore can’t be generalised to the whole population in the way that relationships are formed. It can also be seen as deterministic as it suggests all relationships are formed in the same stages, ignoring the fact that humans have free will and that all people are different so form relationships differently. This theory has also been criticised for its ability to be applied to everyday life. This is because different relationships form differently; through different factors and speeds, suggesting that the filter theory restricts how it can explain romantic relationships. This study also has cultural bias due to it being conducted in western culture where interaction is higher than other parts of the world. However, evidence to support this is by Festinger et al who studied friendships formed in a block of apartments for married students. Students lived across 17 buildings and were 10 times more likely to from friendships with people in their own building. Therefore this supports the fact that proximity is a factor in forming relationships.
The second theory, suggested by Byrne and Claw, is the Reward/ Need satisfaction theory. Their study was based on classical and operant conditioning similar to the study by Pavlov on dogs. In this study, it was found that if the unconditioned stimulus is provided with a pleasant experience, then they are more likely to want the conditioned stimulus. The response would be happiness, hence why a person would more likely be attracted to another if there is a pleasant experience given. Examples of positive reinforcement includes financial security, sex, attractiveness and company.
There is both support and criticisms to this study. Support being by Cate et al who found that rewards outweighed other factors that provide satisfaction. They studied 337 participants in their current relationship between reward levels and satisfaction to find these results. More support is by Aron et al who found that romantic attraction activates the brain’s reward circuits, showing that attraction is linked to rewards. On the other hand, criticisms include that this theory only considers the receiving of rewards rather than the possibility that satisfaction can come from giving rewards as well as receiving. Lehr and Geher also say that relationships aren’t just formed from rewards, but reciprocal attraction instead. This means that people are likely to be attracted to another if they find out that the other likes them too. There is also a cultural bias with this study since it fails to account for how different cultures form relationships. Many cultures do, in fact, focus on the needs of others rather than receiving rewards.
In conclusion, there are different ways to explain how romantic relationships are formed. However, with each theory, it has its weaknesses which creates a dilemma to whether the theory can completely explain how romantic relationships are formed.