Learning Table 1 The formation of romantic relationships
Formation of relationships
Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory
(Byrne & Clore, 1970)
 This theory see’s conditioning as an explanation for
relationship formation. A person may reward us directly
(operant conditioning) by meeting psychological needs for
love and sex, or indirectly (classical conditioning) because
they become associated with pleasant circumstances;
therefore we are more likely to form a relationship.
Classical Conditioning:
 If we associate a person with being in a good mood, or
helping to remove a negative mood, we will find that person
attractive, increasing the chances of relationship formation.
 We also like people who are associated with pleasant
events. If we meet someone when we are feeling happy
(positive mood), we are much more inclined to like them
than if we meet them when we are unhappy. In this way, a
neutral stimulus (someone who we had not previously met)
can become positively valued because of their association
with a pleasant event, representing classical conditioning.
 For example, flirting (UCS) makes a girl feel happy (UCR).
When paired with a NS e.g a specific guy, this still makes a
girl feel happy. Then if this continues, it is repeated over
time, the girl will begin to associate this particular guy with
her happiness. So eventually, the guy (now the CS) leads to
her happiness (CR), which increases the chances of a
relationship forming between the two of them.
Operant Conditioning:
• Rewarding stimuli produce positive feelings in us (happy)
and punishing stimuli produce negative feelings (unhappy)
• This theory suggests that we enter relationships because the
presence of some individuals is directly associated with
reinforcement (e.g. that person creates positive feelings in
us) which makes them more attractive to us.
Satisfying needs:
 Argyle (1994) outlined how forming relationships can satisfy
needs on several levels: biological needs (eating),
dependency (comforted), affiliation (belonging), dominance
(decisions for others), sex (flirting), aggression (letting off
steam), self-esteem (respected). (You can apply these to CC
or OC in your examples of relationship formation).
Similarity Theory
(Byrne & Clore & Smeaton 1986)

This theory suggests that similarity promotes liking.
According to this model there are 2 stages in the formation
of relationships. 1) People first sort potential partners for
dissimilarity avoiding those whose personality or attitudes
appear too different from their own. 2) From those
remaining, they are likely to choose somebody similar to
themselves. It emphasizes:
Personality
 People are more likely to be attracted to others who have
similar personality traits than those who are dissimilar e.g. 2
people who are serious and hardworking are more likely to
be attracted to each other than someone who is serious and
hardworking and someone who is interested in having fun
and avoids responsibility.
Attitudes
 Research suggests that a process of ‘attitude alignment’
often occurs, with partners modifying their attitudes so they
become more similar. E.g. one person may like beach
holidays, and the other activity holidays. In order for the
relationship to develop, one or both partners may modify
their attitudes to reach a compromise.
Research Support / commentary
Contradictory evidence/theories
Evaluation/Synopticity
Operant Conditioning
P: There is empirical evidence to support
the role of operant conditioning in the
role of formation of relationships.
E: For example, Griffitt & Guay (1969)
evaluated patricipants based on a
creative task by the experimenter and
then asked them to rate how much they
liked the experimenter. The rating was
highest when the experimenter had
positively evaluated (i.e. rewarded) the
participant’s performance on the task.
E: This supports the role of operant
conditioning and in turn the R/NS theory
because it suggest we grow to feel
fonder of those who provide us with
reward and positive feelings than those
who do not provide us with positive
feelings, or potentially those who
provide punishment in the place of
reward.
L: This provides the reward/need
satisfaction theory with good
explanatory power overall.
P: Nevertheless, there is evidence
that contradicts the theory.
E: For example, Hays (1985)
investigated student friendships and
found that rather than just being
focused on rewards received,
individuals favoured equity, giving
priority to rewarding the other
person too.
E: This means that individuals were
forming relationships because they
enjoyed giving as well as receiving
rewards, which refutes the ideas
that relationships are purely based
on receiving rewards from the other
person.
L: Therefore the explanatory power
of the reward/need satisfaction
theory is weakened as it does not
offer a full account as to why
relationships form.
Behaviourist Approach
P: The reward/need satisfaction theory is supported by the behavioural paradigm within Psychology.
E: This is because according to the principles of operant conditioning, we are likely to repeat any behaviour that leads to a desirable outcome and avoid
behaviours that lead to an undesirable outcome. For example, Byrne & Clore’s (1970) theory suggests that we enter into relationships because the presence
of some individuals is directly associated with positive reinforcement (creating happy feelings in us) which makes them more attractive and more likely for a
relationship to form.
E: In addition, we also like people who are associated with pleasant events. If we meet someone when we are feeling happy (positive mood), we are much
more inclined to like them than if we meet them when we are unhappy. In this way, a neutral stimulus (someone who we had not previously met) can
become positively valued because of their association with a pleasant event, representing classical conditioning.
L: Therefore the behaviourist approach provides good explanatory power as to why individuals form relationships in the first place.
Reductionism Vs Holism
P: Nevertheless, this explanation is reductionist because it reduces the formation of relationships down to rewards and needs satisfaction only.
E: Although a positive aspect of this is that it allows researchers to study the formation of relationships in depth, it does however, raise the issues that it
automatically assumes that people are fundamentally selfish, taking what they need and not giving anything back.
E: Therefore, this explanation ignores the holistic aspect as to why relationships form. For example, Hays (1985) suggest that we gain positive effects from
giving as well as receiving rewards. Furthermore, it does not consider that relationships form because individuals fall in love.
L: Therefore as an explanation as to why relationships form, the reward/need satisfaction theory can said to be inadequate. This is because it does not offer a
full explanation. It therefore has weak explanatory power.
Determinism Vs Free Will
P: Another issue with the reward/needs satisfaction theory is that it is deterministic.
E: This is because it views the formation of relationships as a process based on learned associations (Classical Conditioning) and stimulus/response (Operant
Conditioning).
E: Although on the one hand, it provides us with a simplistic explanation that has face validity, it is nevertheless, too oversimplified because it does not
account for free will. For example, it does not account for personal choices that people make when forming relationships, in terms of wanting to be with that
person because they love them, or forming a relationship with someone who looks as though they have nothing to offer them in terms of rewards.
Additionally, it does not consider why individuals choose to form a relationship with someone if they know they have been previous abusers in relationships.
This explanation ignores the cognitive processes that individuals make when forming relationships.
L: Consequently, this theory assumes individuals are pre-determined to form relationships based purely on the rewards they will receive, or associations they
make. It is therefore an inadequate explanation because it does not fully consider why relationships form generally. It has weak explanatory power.
Operant Conditioning
P: There is empirical evidence to support
operant conditioning in the role of
forming relationships.
E: For example, Cate et al (1982) asked
337 individuals to assess their current
relationships in terms of reward level
and satisfaction. They found that reward
level was superior to all other factors in
forming relationships.
E: This supports R/NST because it
suggests that people form relationships
based on positive reinforcement, that
any behavior will be repeated if it leads
to a desirable outcome e.g. love and sex.
L: Consequently, this provides credible
support for the reward/need satisfaction
theory overall.
Personality
P: There is empirical support to suggest that people form relationships based on
similar personalities.
E: For example, Caspi (1990) found that married couples with similar personalities
tend to be happier than couples with less similar personalities
E: This supports the theory because it emphasizes that individuals are likely to
choose someone similar to themselves based on personality.
L: Consequently, providing credible support for similarity theory overall.
P: Additionally, there is empirical evidence to suggest that dissimilarity is more
prominent when looking at the formation of relationships.
E: For example, Rosenbaum (1986) suggested that dissimilarity rather than
similarity was more important in determining whether relationships will form in
the first place.
E: This supports similarity theory to an extent because according to the model, we
sort potential partners for dissimilarity first then choose someone similar from
those remaining.
L: Consequently, gives the theory credibility to some extent.
Culture/Gender Bias
P: One issue with the R/NS theory as an explanation for the formation of relationships is that it does not account for cultural and gender differences in the
formation of relationships.
E: For example, Lott (1994) suggests that in many cultures women are more focused on the needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement.
E: This is an issue because it suggests that this theory is not a universal explanation of relationship formation as it does not account for cultures where this
relationship behaviour differs, for example where the women may consider their needs more important than those of others around them, including a
romantic partner.
L: As a result of not being able to generalise the theory to all cultures, the explanatory power of the R/NS theory of the formation of romantic relationships
on the whole is reduced.
Physiological Support
P: One strength of this theory is that it has physiological evidence to support it.
E: For example, Aron (2005) found that Pp who measured high on a self-report Q’naire of romantic love also showed high strong activity in areas of the brain
including the ventral tegmental area. Furthermore, it was associated that early stage, intense romantic love displayed elevated levels of activity in the subcortical reward regions of the brain, rich in the neurotransmitter dopamine.
E: Therefore, this suggests that during the formation of relationships the individuals may associate the arousal of dopamine with the other individual, thus
obtaining the reward of excitement.
L: As a result, this provides credible biological support for the Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory (a behavioural explanation for the formation of
relationships) providing it with wide applicability and explanatory power.
Methodological Issues
P: One of the main issues into studying the formation of relationships is that the stimuli used in the research to support the theory lack mundane realism.
E: This is because most of the studies carried out in this area are laboratory studies, where researchers will use tasks that are artificial, not similar to real-life
and are not that representative of why or how relationships form in the first place. For example, some studies have used evaluations of a stranger, some
have used questionnaires on student friendships or computer simulated images and asked Pps to ‘rate’ how attractive these images are and whether they
would like to form a relationship with them based on their look).
E: This is an issue because it means that Pps would not necessarily act or say what they normally would if they were not taking part in this task. They may lie
about what they really seek for when forming a relationship because they do not want to come across as a shallow person (e.g. they might purely base their
decision on looks not personality) and therefore these types of artificial studies are also subjected to demands characteristics too.
L: As a consequence, the studies may not necessarily show that the principles of need satisfaction and similarity theories can be apply to real life formations.
This in turn reduces the credibility of these theories because the internal validity of the studies used to support them are bought into question.
Lacks Construct Validity
P: One issue with similarity theory as an explanation for the formation of relationships is the research to support it lacks construct validity.
E: This is because the research has only dealt with attitude and personality similarities.
E: Yoshida (1972) pointed out that this represents only a very narrow view of factors important in relationship formation, with factors such as similarity of
self- concept, economic level and physical condition being equally important in the formation of romantic relationships. Speakman et al further highlights the
importance of looking at similarities of a more wide range of factors when he found that people often choose partners with similar levels of body fat.
L: As a consequence, this reduces the overall explanatory power of the similarity theory as an explanation of formation of relationships it does not
encompass the importance of similarities between other factors other than attitude and personality.
1) Describe and evaluate two theories of the formation of relationships (8 + 16 marks)
2) Evaluate two theories that explain the formation of relationships (16 marks).
3) Discuss one theory that explains the formation of relationships (4 + 8 marks)
MAKE SURE YOU LINK IN APPROPRIATE ISSUES/ DEBATES THROUGHOUT YOUR A02 EFFECTIVELY. YOU MUST CONTEXTUALISE YOUR ANSWERS AND
FULLY ELABORATE WHY THE THEORY IS SUPPORTED OR CONTRADICTED (second E of your PEEL). USE YOUR A01 TO HELP YOU ELABORATE YOUR POINTS.
YOU MUST DO THIS IN ALL PEELS TO GET INTO TOP A02 BAND.
Make sure you link ALL your points to the FORMATION of relationships.
Further reading Cardwell & Flanagan: Folens - A2 Psychology (pp 42 – 43)