Human Relationships And The Social Psychological Theories That Have Been Linked With This Conflicting Topic

The reward/ need satisfaction theory (RNS) was devised by Byron & Clore (1970) to explain the formation of romantic relationships, based on the principles of behavioral psychology. According to the theory, people form relationships with those who are most rewarding/ satisfying to be with which happens through conditioning. The elements of Skinner's operant conditioning proposes that we repeat behaviors with positive outcomes (rewards) and avoid those with negative outcomes (punishments). Relationships positively reinforce by our partner satisfying our needs/rewarding us (through love or attention), but negative reinforcement also plays a part in the likelihood of formation as a relationship avoid us feeling lonely which both result in us

Relational theory is built on the assumption that there is an inherent tendency for people to maintain relationships with others (Hutchinson, 2015). Relational theory is the integration of several psychodynamic theories, such as object-relations theory, self-psychology, and interpersonal psychoanalysis, into a larger perspective which acknowledges that the mind exist in relation to others (Segal, 2013). This theory’s origins in psychodynamic theory can be seen in key concepts such as the assertion that human behavior is significantly impacted by past relational patterns (Segal, 2013). Although past relationships are viewed as influential, relational theorist maintain individuals’ can exercise agency and that actions can be influenced but

In chapter 4 of The Sociologically Examined Life, Michael Schwalbe discusses “Relationships, Groups, and Interdependence.” This chapter covers several topics in-depth of relationships and why we categorize things the way we do.

The social exchange theory controls our behavior as well as the reinforcement for our actions because before we act in most circumstances, we will weigh the rewards and costs of the behaviors. The behavior that we use is the one believed to produce the highest reward and the lowest cost. What we may perceive to be acceptable or unacceptable in the relationship is our comparison level that we weigh the rewards and costs against. The comparison level of alternatives is when we weigh the rewards and costs relative to the perceived alternatives. People also have a comparison level for the alternative relationships. With a high comparison level, we may believe the world is full of lovely people just waiting to meet us. When this level is low, we may stay in a high-cost relationship simply because we believe we could not find any better elsewhere. Molm (1991) shows that in recent research on individual judgments losses have a greater effect on people then gains.

3.1 Process involved in the development, maintenance and breakdown of relationships – development - Reward/need satisfaction model direct reinforcement may encourage the formation of a relationship between individuals. Operant conditioning could occur where an individual is positively reinforced with the potential partner offering pleasant stimulus such as smiling. Additionally social needs may be provided for by this potential partner such as friendship and sex, furthering the likelihood of a relationship developing. Alternatively negative reinforcement may be involved where a negative stimulus is removed by the potential partner e.g. If a woman helps a man through a troubled time in his life he may find her more attractive as she has helped to alleviate his negative stimuli. Liking through association – Classical conditioning The potential partner may be associated with pleasant circumstances. If someone was to meet another individual while they are in a good mood, they may then associate such individual with the positive mood, finding them more

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,

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

The book is structured around the Relationship Attachment Model, which was created by the author 20 years ago. It “portrays the different forces that create bonds in relationship” and it consists of “five fundamental dynamics, which are the depth to which you know, trust, rely on, have a commitment to and have sexual involvement with” (22). Each of these dynamics provides a unique contribution to the development of a relationship. According to the author, the key of building relationships (by using RAM) is to “keep a balance among the five relationship dynamics”. Whenever the dynamics shift, a person might experiences the feelings of being “unsafe in a relationship, hurt, mistrust and confusion” (24). This model was clearly based on some of the core relational communication theories such as Uncertainty Reduction (URT) and Social Penetration (SPT), as well as it follows Knapp’s staircase model in advising at how one should progress on the staircase and implications of going too fast.

The Social Exchange theory proposes that we make decisions with the goal to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Newman, 2009, p.64). The choices we make require social approval and self-sufficiency. A family will make sacrifices if they perceive the action will equal rewards. Basically the theory refers to a give and take relationship where there needs to be balance for the relationship to be satisfying.

Relationships of all sorts are important to a healthy lifestyle. Whether it is close friends, family, or a significant other, humans physically need the benefits of a relationship to survive. All relationships are different and unique, but in order to have a successful and rewarding relationship, it must be a healthy one. Throughout the duration of Psychology of Close Relationship class and outside research, I have gathered what a good relationship consists of and how to improve within that relationship. Luckily, I have a great boyfriend and believe we have an excellent relationship, but of course there is always room for improvement.

“No relationship is ever a waste of your time. If it didn’t bring you what you want, it taught you what you don’t want”. Primarily, the individuals in our life shape and mould our personality to construct who we are known as in the most challenging situations of our existence. These situations symbolise moments of sincerity and in some instances, demonstrate hatred and regret. This essay will highlight why relationships mould who we are, though, on the other hand, this essay will also highlight how individuality outlines social experience. Furthermore, it will also express the similarities between these two stances to illustrate ‘who we are’.

Mark Knapp developed a theoretical model to which identifies the stages of interpersonal relationships which explains how relationships begin and grow, as well as how they deteriorate and end. This model defines ten separate stages of relational development under three different interrelating categories; Coming Together, Relational Maintenance, and Coming Apart. An analysis of a personal relationship through the use of Knapp’s stages of relational development leads to a better understanding of that relationship and our role within it. In this essay I will be analyzing a personal relationship of my own using Knapp’s stages as a guide. However, these stages are subjective to each individual’s unique situation. Therefore, I will only be examining my relationship in the “coming together” stages. Furthermore, it is possible to pass over or amalgamate stages, as these stages are closer to a guide rather than set rules. For this analysis I will be breaking the “coming together” stages into initiating, experimentation and intensifying, integration, and bonding.

For years the formation of friendship has been evaluated through the eyes of psychology on how friendships actual form. There