Discuss Theories about the Formation of Relationships (8 and 16 marks)

One theory of the formation of relationships is Byrne and Clore’s Reward/Need Satisfaction theory which says that we look for a relationship with someone who meets our needs and whom we can get the biggest reward from. We are also said to like people who we associate with pleasant events and who we met when happy as we are much more inclined to like someone we meet when happy rather than when sad.

Griffit and Guay (1996) conducted a study to support the reward/need satisfaction theory by having an experimenter evaluate participants carrying out a task and then asking them to rate how much they liked the experimenter. They found the rating was highest when the experimenter had evaluated the participant positively on their performance. This would support the reward need satisfaction theory as the participants liked the experimenter more when they were feeling good and associated them with a pleasant experience.

Cate et al (1982) carried out a study to look into how important rewards are in a relationship, and therefore whether the reward/need satisfaction theory is right in saying we look for someone who can give us reward, by asking 337 individuals to assess their current relationships in terms of reward level and satisfaction. Results showed that reward level was superior to all other factors in relationship satisfaction. This supports the reward/need satisfaction theory as a theory for the formation of relationships as it shows that we value rewards in a relationship and therefore will seek someone who can give us this when forming a relationship.

Cate’s study however is lacking in internal validity as it was carried out using a self-report method. This means that participants could have given answers which they thought were socially desirable rather than totally truthful ones and this should be taken into account when using these results to draw conclusions about theories of the formation of relationships and should be looked at alongside other studies to make wrong conclusions are not drawn.

Most studies carried out into the reward/need satisfaction theory are lab studies and therefore cannot show that the principles of need, reward and satisfaction apply to relationships in real life. This would cause the studies to lack mundane realism and means that these studies along with studies carried out not in a lab should be looked at together when conclusions are drawn about the formation of relationships.

The reward/need satisfaction theory also has some problems with cultural bias as it does not account for differences in relationships in different cultures which will change the way in which relationships are formed. This means it cannot therefore be fully generalised to the whole population meaning it is lacking in population validity. 

Another theory of formation of relationships is Byrne, Clore and Smeaton’s Similarity theory. This says that we are attracted to people similar to ourselves in personality and attitude. This is said to stop as many arguments and disagreements occurring as you and your partner are more likely to have the same views and this is said to make for a longer healthier relationship.

Newcomb (1961) conducted a study which supported the Similarity theory by randomly allocating 17 male students into shared rooms while they studied at Michigan University. He found that by the end of the year 58% of those who had been paired with someone who was similar to themselves had formed friendships with their room-mate compared to only 25% of those with different attitudes and personalities. This would support the Similarity theory of formation of relationships as It showed those who were similar were willing and more likely to form relationship that those with different personalities and attitudes who didn’t get on so well.

It has been suggested that both the reward/need satisfaction theory and the similarity theory have evolved from our ancestors drive to focus their efforts on the right relationships and this suggests an evolutionary basis to both of these theories.  Because of this it can be argued that they are speculative and based on little or no evidence. Hayes argued that evolutionary psychology has a tendency to ignore ‘null findings’ and facts that do not fit the theory that is being proposed. However it can be argued that all science does this to some extent not just evolutionary psychology.