In spite of this, there is an ethical concern that the sociobiological theory may be seen as supporting gender stereotypes and endorsing behaviours which perpetuate the so-called double standard, allowing men sexual privileges and freedoms which women are denied.
Another theory of the formation of relationships is the reinforcement effect model put forward by Byrne and Clore. They stated that we spend time in social relationships is because we might find them positively rewarding order to find life along unpleasant and unrewarding. This model tries to explain the social relationships in terms of the influence that reinforcing behaviour has over us, using conditioning as its basis. Other people may reward us directly (preconditioning), perhaps by meeting psychological needs, such as the need for friendship, love and sex. Or perhaps their reward us is indirectly (classical conditioning), in debt, they are associated with pleasant circumstances. Because some individuals are directly associated with reinforcement. We like them or and more likely to entail relationship with them. If we meet someone when we are in a good mood. We may associate that person would good mood and therefore find it more attractive. If we meet someone when we are in a negative emotional state, however, and they had not escaped that state, we may associate them with a negative reinforcement, which also increases both are likely for them and the likelihood is that we could form a relationship with that person.
There are problems with this model. Many social relationships which are more commonly found in nonwestern, collectivist cultures shall little concern for the receipt of reinforcements. For example, Hill told that kinship bonds are very influential, resilient and not dependant upon reinforcement.
There is evidence of gender as well as cultural differences with this morning. It has been shown that in many cultures women of socialised into being more attentive to the needs of others, rather than being oriented towards the gratification of their own needs.
Maintenance of a relationship
There are two main theories relating to relationship maintenance. These are social exchange theory proposed by Thibaut and Kelly and the equity theory.
Thibaut and Kelly were behaviourist and believed that relationships are based on social exchange. According to this theory we view our feelings for others in terms of profit and loss. The greater the reward and the lower the cost, the greater the profit will be hence the attraction of staying in the relationship. This theory sees relationships similar to a business deal where a minimax strategy is used which suggests minimum investment and maximum profit will get the best deal. However both partners cannot adopt this strategy solely and therefore compromise is needed. Homan’s being a behaviourist believes that the law of effect is also applicable to relationships in terms that behaviours will be repeated if they reward us i.e. we are happy to stay in that relationship if it is rewarding. According to this theory there are two main factors that determine feelings in a relationship. These are our comparison levels and also our comparison levels for alternatives. Comparison level is concerned with the past and the present, that is, the comparison between the rewards and costs of the reference relationship and what we have been used to in the past. If the reference relationship compares favourably, we are motivated to stay in the relationship. Comparison level alternative, on the other hand, is concerned with possible alternative relationships. Here, we compared the reference relationship with others which we could be in. If we you that we could do better in another relationship, we may be motivated to finish the current one.
The equity theory on the other hand is more concerned with fairness. As well as reward, cost and profit this theory is also interested in how much investment is put into a relationship and how this must be balanced. This theory does not suggest that relationships must be equal, instead it sees that in order for the relationship to be maintained that it must be equitable. What you put into the relationship must balance with what you gain from it or this will result in feeling under and even over benefited. Buunk and Van Yperen gave couples questionnaires about how they felt about their relationship. The study found that couples were happiest when there was equity, unhappy when over benefited and least happy when under benefited. They suggest that these results support the theory that when under benefited the person feels they are not getting back what they are putting into a relationship and no longer associates it with reward hence no longer maintaining the relationship. When over benefited the person may become insecure with the feelings that the other person will realise they are giving more than they receive and leave. Caryl Rusbult found that when people were deciding whether to end a relationship, not only did their way up the rewards and costs of the relationship and a possible alternative relationships available to them, but they also considered how much they had invested in the relationship. She defines investment as anything a person put into a relationship that would be lost if they leave it. This may include such things as possession, children's welfare and emotional energy. To test this hypothesis, Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a seven-month period. They kept notes about how satisfactory the relation was, how we compare with possible alternative is and how much they had invested in it. She found that people who were committed to the relationship had high satisfaction with the relationship, high level of investment and very long comparison level for alternatives. One limitation, associated with exchange theories is that there had been characterised by a rather contrived methodologies, which have little ecological validity.
Another weakness is that the theories only focus on short-term relationships. The majority of techniques that have been used to test exchange theories have been short-term and did not examine the dynamics of relationships through time.
Further criticism includes lack of consistent empirical support. For example, Clark and Mills have identified two different styles of couples, the communal couple and the exchange couple. In the former, giving is motivated by concern and positive regard for the other wearers the other one is a kind of school keeping predicted by exchange theory. People in communal relationships to have some concerns over equity, but they are more relaxed over what it comprises. They tend to think that in the relationship, rewards and costs eventually balance out the equity is achieved.
There is also a limited application of equity theory. The example, Hatfield showed that equity might be more important for females than for males and Murstein also assured that equity is an issue of concern only in problematic marriages.
Another limitation is that it is culturally bias. Work carried out incited other than North America tend to give little support for equity theory. For example Mikula found no equity effects upon romantic relationships in Austria, while it was found that American students preferred equity, whereas European students preferred in quality. Moghaddam argue that the emphasis on exchange and equity is a reflection of the dominant values of North America, where these theories of social relationships were developed. They claimed that these theories reflect the highly individualistic, capitalist and Protestant work ethic of North America.
