Discuss Two Explanations For The Formation Of Romantic Relationships (SET)

High temporal validity is a strength to this study because it was conducted recently. This means the couples used in the experiment have a higher ability to reflect modern day relationships therefore the findings are more generalisable to modern relationships. Along with that the study is strong physical, empirical evidence because of the use of MRI scans. Brain scans produce reliable, physical, solid evidence therefore have scientific proof for the link between relationships and rewards.

Another theory is the Filter Model proposed by Kerchoff and Davis; they say that relationships develop through three ‘filters’. It starts with the ‘field of availables’ which are people available for a relationship where we then filter out different partners for different reasons, so it narrows down to a ‘field of desirables’ who are the people we consider as a potential partner. The first filter involves the social model where we choose people without being aware by where they live, work, have been educated or their social class. With individual characteristics not being important at this point. Then there is similarity of attitudes and values, where a partner’s beliefs and ideas come into effect. This is where communication is easier and the relationship can progress, however if beliefs and views are very different then the relationship may not move from its current position. The final filter is the emotional needs, which is whether the people fit as a couple and can meet each other’s needs.

People constantly evaluate the rewards and costs of their relationship as well as the rewards and costs of interaction with another individual. Rewards and costs can be tangible, such as money or gifts, or psychological, such as social support or intellectual stimulation (Unger & Johnson 604). According to Unger and Johnson, “if the reward/cost balance is more favorable than that of other potential relationships, the person will remain in the relationship, if the costs outweigh the rewards and an alternative relationship with more favorable outcomes is available, the person will leave the existing relationship in favor of the alternative” (604). Yet each reward and cost is different to each individual. To better understand reward and costs is to better understand each individual.

In exchange theory, a human being’s behavior has been perceived as a logical decision where one tries to optimize benefits while minimizing cost or pain. According to different sociologists, when someone engages in a social interaction they tend to weigh the reaction of other people about what they are doing or saying and their behaviour will be dictated by the behaviour of others. This, somehow, is similar to what we are seeing in Canadian marriage where a man’s or woman’s involvement in marriage is determined by economic factors (Hou & Myles,

In this theory people act to increase their advantages and decrease their disadvantages in a situation. The exchange theory is a micro theory and it focuses on an individual, family, or group of people. Families need to realize that things are in their best interests when they make compromises, when they do they will see improvements. The family systems theory is used when the family as a whole is more than the sum of its parts.

According to Thibauilt and Kelley (1959), people weigh their costs and benefits of their relationship to determine satisfaction and commitment. Essentially meaning people form relationships in which the incentive is more significant than the action. George Homans summarizes his proposition into three sections: (1) rewards

Social exchange process is romantic and long term love relationships involve social exchange in the sense that they provide rewards and costs for each partner. If the initial interaction are reciprocal and mutually satisfied the relationship will continue or if they are mismatched then our interests

According to the interdependence theory, there are four kinds of relationships that are based on our comparison level, comparison level for alternatives, and outcomes. This means that our judgments of what we feel like we deserve from our partners, what we believe we can get from other potential partners, and the subjective net reward of our relationship all affect which type of relationship that we are in. When our outcomes outweigh our comparison level and comparison level for alternatives, we feel that there are more rewards to our relationship and we do not think that we will get more benefits from another potential partner; as a result, we would be in a happy, stable relationship. An example is a couple that do each others' chores and

Social-exchange analysis helps define how people socially interact with each other based on cost and benefits associated with interactions. Therefore if the benefits are higher than the cost individuals will likely continue interacting.

Caron, A., Lafontaine, M., Bureau, J., Levesque, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 44(4), 245-256. doi:10.1037/a0028013

Base on my marriage of six-years, my previous marriage and witnessing how my close friends interact in their relationships, I can conclude that I agree and relate to most of the author’s description on Social Exchange Theory. Just like explained in the comparison level, we all believe that we have outcomes that we are entitled to in any relationship we have. (Miller, 2015, p. 177) For example, in my friendships, if I put ‘X’ amount of effort in a friendship, I expect my friend to put the at least the equal amount of effort. I would not consider my happy and successful six-year marriage to have had costs. We have invested so much into our relationship though. Maybe I feel this way due to the fact that I know my wife and I are such a great fit

The measure that we developed for our study goes together with our construct. In our scale, we are assessing if the variables coincide with the items on the scale. The items we came up with each reflect a particular attachment style. The IV is attachment style and the DV is the effects of the styles. These variables are included in the scale to accurately measure what we are looking for, which are the effects. Each question reflects how either negative attachments or positive attachments affects the way people get engage in romantic relationships. Questions such as “It helps to turn to my romantic pattern in times of need, ” “I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance,” “I do not often worry about being abandoned,” and “I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner,” would help us explain why negative attachments will lead

Why do we form relationships? In chapter 8 we find out that in relationships one aspect can be related to the appearance of someone. As well how proximity to an individual can have a great impact on the way a relationship will develop. One must also take into consideration how one's similarities will make a relationship stronger and last longer. It also goes to how one may eventually terminate a relationship that is no longer working.

The self is defined in reference to the larger group, and the outcomes for the group are seen as more important than individual achievements. Individuals in a collectivist culture generally make decisions with the larger community in mind, often putting their family or community’s interests and well-being over their own personal gain. Individuals in collectivist cultures generally tend to prefer conformity to originality, and seek to not stick out from the rest of the group. They generally greatly value humility and see themselves as less important as individuals, gaining their merit from belonging to the larger community. They have great respect for their superiors, regarding them as greater than themselves, and are very careful to preserve the harmony of the group. Values include humility, preserving the peace, and a desire to

The social exchange theory is prevalent in the three main characters in Road Ends by Mary Lawon. The exchange theory is the idea that an individual makes a choice by weighing out the costs and benefits of a situation (Families in Canada, 2007. Pg. 42). Megan, Edward, and Tom all find themselves in very troubling situations, where they must examine what they have to offer and make a decision according to the pro’s and con’s. Megan often finds herself putting the benefit of others above what is best for her. Her Father, Edward, tries to shelter others from himself, but he only ends up hurting them more, instead of contributing all of his affection to them. Tom has a more selfish view on the world, which impacts his ability to properly examine all the factors that affect his situation. Occasionally, people misjudge their costs and benefits, and end up make the wrong choice; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the outcome is unsatisfactory.