RELATIONSHIPS- theories of formation Flashcards
(40 cards)
what are the 2 theories that explain formation?
the reward/need satisfaction model
the matching hypothesis
who thought of the reward/need satisfaction model?
byrne et al
who thought of the matching hypothesis?
walster et al
what is the reward/need satisfaction model based on?
principles of operant & classical conditiong
what is the reward/need satisfaction model in depth?
we fund relationships in some form rewarding/that we may find life unpleasant and unrewarding when alone
how is reward/need satisfaction model done?
through operant c people may reward us directly by metting psychological needs e.g love, sex. individs that helpful,cheerful and supportive may provide this direct reinforcement and liked more.
how could we be rewarded indirectly?
through classical c as relationships with some individs may provide pleasant event around them e.g compliments they provide= pleasant feelings in association with person thermselves.
rewarded indirectly part 2?
positive moods associated with person with them too - according to they increase likelihood of attraction
what does the reward/need satisfaction model propose?
we are attracted to individ who meet needs/expectations and people who meet =induce + feelings increase attraction also.
what does byrne et al say in relation to reward/need satisfaction model?
believed banlance of positive and neg feelings= crucial in relationships where positive = outweighed= more likely successful
what is the matching hypothesis in depth?
people who were similar in levels of atrtaction intelligence & social standing = more inclined to form rels w eachother.
what does the matching hypothesis propose?
people pair themselves with others based on own sense of value and look for similar qual. more social desirbale individ is in physical attrac/social staning/intell etc = more desirable expect partner
what did matching hypothesis also propose?
people who matched well = happier than those not based on social desirability. those look influenced by what they want and what they think gonna get .
what did walster call when individs look for things they want to what they gonna get?
realistic choices because individ influenced by choices of feelings recip.
who did supporting research for reward/need?
hays et al
griffitt et al
lotter et al
what did hays et al say?
found students in frienships gave as much value to rewarding the other as rewarding selves
what did hays et al study suggest about r/n?
flawed
what did hays et al also find as to why its flawed?
friendships & relation more around equity and fairness - so people not so self centred like r/n suggests- people like giving than recieving
evaluation of hays et al?
suggest more complicated dynamic of relationships and r/n = reductionist & oversimplyfying complex process e.g oc & cc
evaluation of hays et al? (2)
- r/n dont factor role of free will-portraying ind as simple stimuli than complex
- samply only students= lack ecol valid to wider gen
what did griffit et al say?
p evaluated on creative task and asked how much like experimenter/ rating = high qho qwew wvaluated suggesting some credibility in theory.
criticism of griffit?
lack eco valid in real word settings & real word formation of rels. although liked exp doesnt say whether sufficient enough for rels to be formed
what did lotter et al say?
many cultures women more attentive to others than own rewards e.g husband/children. some say this may be rewarding in itself (difficult to prove/disprove)
what is also said in attachment to lotter et al?
in cultures rels ar arranged m r/n & matching dont apply as choice taken away so suffers cultural bias to western society and limit application to other cultures and society