The Formation, Maintenance, and Breakdown of Romantic Relationships

THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS To read up on the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships, refer to pages 115–124 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.

Ask yourself  Think of three close friends you had at primary and secondary school. What attracted you to those particular people? List as many factors as you can.  Were the same friendships maintained from primary to secondary school? If not, think about the reasons why they did not continue.  Consider any friendships you have outside school or college. How did you meet these friends? Are these friendships the same or different from the ones at school or college?  With respect to romantic relationships, what features attract you to a particular person? Do you think your friends find the same features attractive or are they looking for different ones?

What you need to know THEORIES OF THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS  Reward/need satisfaction theory  Economic theories: Social exchange theory; equity theory

THEORIES OF THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory This theory (see A2 Level Psychology page 116) is based on learning theory and states that we form relationships that provide rewards (reinforcement) and satisfy our needs. Rewards include companionship, being loved, sex, status, money, help, and agreement with our opinions, as shown by Foa and Foa (1975, see A2 Level Psychology page 117). Both operant and classical conditioning are influential.  Classical conditioning—Byrne (1971) pointed out that by classical conditioning we come to like people with whom we associate enjoyment and satisfaction even if they are not directly responsible for the positive experiences. When we experience enjoyable shared activities with people, they create in us a positive emotional feeling, known as a positive affect.  Operant conditioning—we like those who provide us with rewards and dislike those whose presence is unpleasant (i.e. punishing) because they are, for example, tedious, boring, or argumentative.

Interactive exercise: Factors in the formation of relationships RESEARCH EVIDENCE  A study on humans was reported by Griffit and Guay (1969, see A2 Level Psychology page 117). They had someone give a reward or a punishment to several participants in the presence of an uninvolved bystander (the bogus stranger). The bystander was liked more by participants who were rewarded than by those who were punished.  Veitch and Griffitt (1976, see A2 Level Psychology page 117) demonstrated that people who interact with a stranger against a background broadcast of good news rate them more positively than when they meet a stranger while listening to a broadcast full of depressing news items.  Rabbie and Horowitz (1960, see A2 Level Psychology page 117) found that strangers preferred those whom they met while winning a game rather than when losing it.

EVALUATION  Accounts for research findings. The theory explains why factors such as proximity, similarity, and physical attractiveness are important factors in relationship formation and maintenance. They all provide easily obtainable, significant positive reinforcement with the minimum of effort.  The theory is supported by everyday experiences. Argyle (1988, see A2 Level Psychology page 118) found that people who are friendly, co-operative, and warm, i.e. are rewarding, are consistently liked better than those who are not.  It only accounts for the initial formation of relationships. The theory does not explain why relationships sometimes continue even when they become quite unsatisfactory.  It does not account for the strength of some “unrewarding” relationships. Child–parent relationships are enormously strong, yet the actual rewards are not always great. Argyle (1988) stated that rewards are out of all proportion to the strength of the relationship (just ask your mum and dad!).  Underestimation of altruism. The theory assumes that we are all motivated by a selfish desire to get as much as possible out of a relationship. It does not account for truly altruistic relationships such as regularly helping an elderly neighbour with no expectation of reward.  Individualistic bias. The theory is more relevant to Western individualistic cultures than to non-Western collectivist cultures. Lott (1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 118) speculates that they are also more relevant to men than to women.  Weakness of methodology. The research on which these theories are based depends heavily on “bogus stranger” studies, because the strangers the participants are being asked to rate are confederates of the experimenter. This is highly artificial and is unlikely to represent the way we meet people in real life and so the research lacks external validity as it may not generalise well to real-life relationships. Economic Theories: Social Exchange Theory (SET) The basic assumptions of social exchange theory (SET) are that relationships provide both rewards (e.g. affection, sex, emotional support) and costs (e.g. providing support, not always having your own way). Everyone tries to maximise rewards while minimising costs. Thibaut and Kelley (1959, see A2 Level Psychology page 118) argued that long-term friendships and relationships go through four stages: sampling, bargaining, negotiation, and institutionalisation, when rewards and costs are established and entrenched. How satisfied individuals are with the rewards and costs of a relationship will depend on what they have come to expect from previous relationships. In other words, they have a comparison level (CL) (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), representing the outcomes they believe they deserve on the basis of past experiences—so if in the past they have had very poor relationships they may expect very little from subsequent ones. In addition, their level of satisfaction will depend on the rewards and costs that would be involved if they formed a relationship with someone else; this is known as the “comparison level for alternatives” (CLalt). All of this makes sense—if you are a very attractive and popular person, you can afford to be very choosy in your friendships and relationships.

Economic Theories: Equity Theory Equity theory is an extension of social exchange theory. The basic assumption is that people only consider a relationship to be satisfactory if what they gain from it reflects what they give to it. This means that if one person contributes more, they feel they should get more out of it. Equity is especially important at the beginning of a relationship rather than when it is firmly established. Walster, Walster, and Berscheid (1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 120) expressed key assumptions of equity theory, such as: individuals try to maximise the rewards they receive and minimise the costs; there is negotiation to produce fairness; distress and relationship breakdown may follow when the relationship is unfair or inequitable.

RESEARCH EVIDENCE  Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann (1979, see A2 Level Psychology page 120) looked at people who felt under-benefited (got less than they should) or over-benefited (got more than they should) in a relationship. They found that the under-benefited people felt angry, resentful, and deprived. Those who were over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.  Argyle (1988, see A2 Level Psychology page 120) explored gender differences and found that over-benefited women are less satisfied that those in equitable marriages, whereas with men, over-benefit brings little dissatisfaction. Under-benefited men feel more aggrieved than women in the same situation.  Buunk and VanYperen (1991, see A2 Level Psychology page120) found that those in marriages perceived to be equitable were found to be the happiest, whereas those who perceived themselves as under-benefited were the unhappiest. But this applied only in relationships high in exchange orientation, i.e. where rewards given by one partner are expected to be reciprocated by the other partner.

EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC THEORIES  Explanation of individual differences. Levinger’s theory takes account of at least some of the complex reasons why people either remain in marriages or leave them. By doing this, it explains why there is not a strong relationship between levels of satisfaction and likelihood of leaving the marriage. People in very unsatisfactory marriages often do not dissolve them, yet those in mediocre marriages sometimes do. If the barriers to leaving are high and the alternatives not very attractive, then people tend to stay  Underestimation of altruism. SET assumes that people are self-centred whereas many relationships are not based on this principle (see Evaluation of reinforcement and need satisfaction theories, in the previous section).  Cross-cultural criticism. These principles apply more to individualistic than to collectivist cultures, due to the focus on individual gain.  Explains influences on relationships. The equity theory takes account of rewards and costs and thereby explains the matching hypothesis, i.e. it explains why people are usually equally physically attractive as well as equal in other ways, but also why, for example, a rich, unattractive man can attract a younger, far more attractive woman.  Supported by research studies. There is considerable research evidence in support of equity theory, see above.  Does not account for change over time. Because equity is more important at the beginning of a relationship and people are quite tolerant of some inequity once the relationship is well established, it has limited value in explaining the maintenance and dissolution of relationships.  Some research contradicts the theory. Not all research evidence supports equity theory. Some research (e.g. Buunck, 1996) indicates that there is no association between the degree of equity and the future quality of the relationship.  Not all marriages are based on equity. Clark and Mills (1979, see A2 Level Psychology page 121) contend that most marriages are not based on exchange principles. They believe that in many marriages people gain satisfaction by responding to each other’s needs.  Artificiality of research. Much of the research on economic theories is based on very artificial experiments and so may not reflect real-life relationships.  Quantifying rewards and costs. The relevance of the economic theories to real life is questioned by how well rewards and costs can be quantified. Although this criticism can be challenged as one can know if one is under- or over-benefited without knowing the precise amount of costs and rewards.  Equality. The economic theories ignore equality, which is a key omission as relationships may well be based more on this than exchange and equity.  Miller’s criticisms. Miller (2005, see A2 Level Psychology page 122) has criticised the theories because economic principles do not account for the emotional nature of relationships. She also links the theories to the zeitgeist of the 1970s in that they reflect the openness and freedom that was developing at the time and so may not be as relevant to the current time period; this means they are era-dependent (lack temporal validity). SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Researchers and theorists of interpersonal relationships face many problems. There are an enormous number and type of relationships and many theories are not specific about the type of relationship to which they apply. Of course we cannot expect one theory to account for all relationships. Relationships form and evolve over a very long period of time, making the processes involved difficult to research and not very amenable to the typical methods used. The artificial nature of the studies can be criticised, especially the “bogus stranger” studies, in which people have little other than a questionnaire on which to base their opinions. Thus, the research provides only a “snapshot” of relationships because when we interact with people in real life there are a host of other influences that affect our judgement. Furthermore, the research fails to contextualise because it treats relationships as if they “stand alone” when of course family and friends do have influence over our real-life relationships. Nevertheless, the research has revealed useful pointers to the most important influences on the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships, and has formed the basis on which more realistic research can be founded. OVER TO YOU 1. Outline and evaluate theories of formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships. (25 marks)