This model is probably the simplest way of describing relationship formation. Because it is based on the social learning theory, it allows us to show the causes of formation and variables are highly controlled, making such research supporting it accurate. However, it only looks into one factor that could affect formation when Hays found in 1985 that we get satisfaction not only from receiving but from giving as well. It is as well only relevant to certain types of relationship, for example it does not explain family relationships. Also, it does not take gender and cultural differences into account, making the explanation ethnocentric, as in many cultures women are more focused on meeting the needs of other than receiving reward, as was shown by Lott in 1994.
An alternative explanation is by Thibaut and Kelley, 1959 – the social exchange theory. This is more advanced that the reinforcement-affect model because recognises that relationships are formed as part of a two-way process. It Thibaut and Kelley believed that relationships, like all social behaviour, are largely made up of exchanges in which individuals attempt to maximise their rewards whilst minimising their costs, in the hope that they will earn a profit. Such rewards consist of, in a relationship, love, care and sex, whilst there are costs of effort and finances. The more profit that an individual gets, the more commitment they will put into the relationship. We develop a comparison level so as to judge which person offers the most, which is created through evaluation of our past relationship experiences and expectations, and the individual who is seen as exceeding our comparison the most is that who we will want to form a relationship with. It was also proposed that there are four stages in a relationship developing. The first is sampling, when people consider the potential costs and rewards of a relationship and compare it to others available, followed by bargaining, in which the partners give costs and receive rewards, throughout which they are testing whether it will be advantageous to develop a deeper bond. Next is commitment, when the partner learns how to minimise their costs and get most rewards as they get to know their partner and become more predictable. Lastly, in institutionalisation, where norms are developed within the relationship so patterns for the giving and receiving of each individual are established.
This theory, unlike the reinforcement-affect model, helps to explain situations in minority relationship such as those that are abusive – there is high investment and few alternatives so the woman will remain in the relationship because she is still making a profit (Rusbult and Martz, 1995). Although this theory can help show how relationships can be maintained if they are becoming difficult- by increasing rewards being given, it does not offer an explanation for why some people stay in a relationship even if there are better alternatives available to them. Perhaps this is part of why the theory has been called unrealistic by Aronson (1999) who argued that just the idea of profit and loss is unrealistic and that increases in reward are needed rather than a constant amount, as supported by Aronson and Linder. The social exchange theory is stronger than the reinforcement-affect model in that it explains many kinds of relationship such as those within the family and with work colleagues whereas the social exchange theories explains only that of lovers. It also takes into account individual differences as we all perceive profits and losses differently. However, the theory has been negatively criticised by Duck and Sants in 1983 as having limitations regarding focusing too much on an individual’s point of view and ignoring the social aspects of a relationship. Also, the theory claims we are very selfish in that we only stay in a relationship depending on how much we are getting from it and how much of a profit we are making. Therefore, if this is true, it may only be so in an individualist culture, making the theory, like the reinforcement-affect model, culturally relative. Also, unlike the previous theory, it does not take into account fairness and balance in a relationship, simply highlighting only hedonistic concerns.
Both of the explanations discussed – the reinforcement-affect model and the social exchange theory, have strengths and limitations, therefore we cannot say that either is better than the other. However, one conclusion that they both come to is that relationships have reward as an important factor that encourages an individual to continue in a relationship and that they will not want to persevere if they are gaining nothing from it.
