Psya3 R - Formation Of Romantic Relationships

Front 1

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO1 Key Feature 1
Social Exchange Theory applied to formation

Back 1

Social exchange theory (SET) is the assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges; individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs.
When applied to the formation of romantic relationships (FORR), SET posits that we will form relationships with individuals in order to earn a ‘profit’. The benefits we gain from forming the relationship exceed the costs of forming that relationship. Rewards we may look for in forming relationships include status, companionship and sex. Costs we might incur when forming a relationship include effort, financial investment and time wasted.

Front 2

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO1 Key Feature 2
SET Comparison Levels applied to formation

Back 2

Thibaut and Kelley proposed that as a result of our experiences of relationships we develop a comparison level (CL), a standard against which potential relationships are judged. If the potential profit of forming a relationship exceeds our CL then we will see the partner as attractive and form a relationship. Although, if a potential relationship does not compare favourably with our CL, we will not form a a relationship with that person, as they will be perceived as being a less attractive prospect to us.

Front 3

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO2 Criticism 1
Supportive'ish research

Back 3

+ Rusbult and van Lange (1996) claimed that rewards are important in determining how a relationship will develop.

+ Argyle (1988) found that we are more attracted to those who are high on rewardingness (i.e., friendly, co-operative, smiling, warm) than individuals who are low on rewardingness. Argyle also claimed that people enter into relationships with their own set of needs and are looking for someone who can meet these BUT he also claimed that most research that supports SET has little ecological validity, he claims that it “has led mainly to very artificial experiments…Research on real life relationships has been hampered by the different scaling of rewards”. If SET is based on invalid research, we therefore have to question the validity of its explanations of FORR.

Front 4

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO2 Criticism 2
Contradictory comments + research

Back 4

+ Can explain individual differences in partner preference as individuals have different CLs.
- SET assumes people are selfish and only concerned about the rewards they receive. In fact, people are often concerned about other people, and about the rewards that they provide for other people. People in relationships are normally concerned with equity rather than self gain. HOWEVER, just because SET suggests something we might not like about ourselves, it doesn't mean that SET is an inaccurate theory of relationship formation.

Front 5

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
IDA Criticism of SET

Back 5

SET is culturally biased. Moghaddam (1993) claimed that SET reflects the capitalistic views of Western societies. He claimed that all cultures do not have such individualistic view of the FORR. Therefore SET may have limited validity as it may only explain FORR in certain parts of the world.

Front 6

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO1 Key Feature 1
Evolutionary explanations applied to formation

Back 6

Wilson (1986) claims ‘survival efficiency’ directs our relationships. Behaviours that lead to the successful FORR are adaptive if they ultimately lead to reproduction. Sociobiology posits men and women maximise their reproductive potential by seeking different attributes in potential mates. Males should focus on forming relationship with young and healthy women (due to restrictions on female fertility), whereas females should be more selective and only aim to form relationships with males who are capable of providing resources (as this will improve the survival rates of her and any offspring). Also because of sex differences in gamete production and pregnancy, when concerning FORR males should focus on the quantity of mates, whilst females should focus on the quality of mates.

Front 7

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO2 Criticism 1
Supportive research

Back 7

Dunbar & Waynforth (1995) analysed the content of nearly 900 ‘lonely hearts’ adverts from 4 US newspapers. They found when describing their ‘ideal’ partner, 42% of males requested a youthful mate (compared to 25% of women) and 44% of males requested a physically attractive partner (compared to 22% of women). Differences were also apparent in the ways that males and females promoted themselves. 50% of women used terms such as ‘pretty’, ‘gorgeous’ and ‘curvaceous’ compared to only 34% of men who used terms such as ‘handsome’. Men were also more likely to report their economic status and/or earning power. D&W concluded these findings support the sociobiological explanation of FORR. IMPORTANT support because these individuals are actually looking to FRR - which is much more valid than research which poses a more hypothetical situation.

Front 8

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
AO2 Criticism 2
Contradictory commentary

Back 8

- Although D&W's use of content analysis gets around the problems of social desirability bias that might have affected other research studies in this area (like Buss), but are the findings really that supportive of Sociobiological explanations? For example, MOST males did NOT request either a youthful or physically attractive mate. These findings, at best, suggest that evolutionary factors may influence the FORR, but they by no means determine it.

Front 9

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
IDA criticism of Sociobiological
Is this theory sexist?

Back 9

Does the sociobiological theory of FORR just perpetuate a double standard? Some claim that this sort of theory just legitimises behaviour that allows males more sexual freedom than females.

-It could also be described as being a very deterministic theory. It assumes that evolutionary drives are the only motivator for FORR, and they ignore other viable explanations for sex differences such as the historical and cultural differences that exist in the ability of men and women to access resources. Sigall & Landy (1983) also argue that women are regarded by men as property, and that therefore a young, attractive wife will increase a man’s status.

Front 10

Theories of the FORMATION, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships
IDA criticism of Sociobiological
Is this theory sexist?

Back 10

Is the sociobiological explanation out of date? In technologically advanced cultures, females and males can amass resources and feed infants. This explanation may have been suited to male/female relationships thousands of years ago or even in cultures which are not as technologically advanced, but is it really suited to male/female relationships in Britain in the 21st Century?