The ’reinforcement’ aspect can also be associated with classical conditioning; we like some individuals because they are associated with pleasant events. This is supported by Grifit and Guay (1969) who found that onlookers were also rated more highly when the experimenter had rates participants positively.
The affect of the classical and/or operant conditioning leads to feelings of either positive (if they make us feel happy) or negative (if they make us feel unhappy) evaluation of the individual concerned.
There are many limitations concerning The Reinforcement Affect Model. For example, this model only explores one factor that may affect liking (receiving reinforcement); whereas Hays (1985) found that, we gain satisfaction from giving as well as receiving. Furthermore, this model does not account for any cultural or gender differences there might be. Lott (1994) suggests that, in many cultures, woman focus more on the needs of others than on receiving reinforcement. Finally, a limitation is that The Reinforcement Affect Model is probably only relevant to certain kinds of relationship as, for example, family relationships are rarely based on rewards.
The Social Exchange Theory
The Social Exchange Theory, suggested by Thiabault and Kelley (1959) puts forward that the formation of a relationships is a two-way process, involving an interaction between two partners, each with their own needs and expectations.
Thiabault and Kelley believed there were four stages in the development of a relationship;
Sampling: in which people consider the potential costs and rewards of a new relationship and compare it with other relationships available at that time.
Bargaining: as the relationship develops, partners give and receive rewards; this tests whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.
Commitment: as predictability increases in the relationship, each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other and costs are lowered.
Institutionalisation: in which ‘norms’ are developed within the relationship, which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.
It was also proposed that in any relationship, individuals try to maximise their rewards (profit) and minimise their costs (loss). Social exchange, in line with other ‘economic’ theories of human behaviour, stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependant on the profitability of its outcome. This is supported by Rusbult and Martz (1995) who used this theory to explain why some women stay in abusive relationships. However, Aronson and Linder (1965) found that increases in a reward, rather than constant reward, are the crucial.
Another way to judge whether a relationship is worthwhile is if it exceeds our comparison level (CL). Our comparison levels are products of experience in other relationships together with what I might expect from this one. This is supported by Simpson et al (1990) who found that participants who were involved in a relationship gave lower attractiveness ratings of possible opposite sex alternatives (presumably to protect their own relationships).
Overall, the Social Exchange Theory has many strengths. For example, this theory is relevant to many different kinds of relationship, unlike the Reinforcement Affect Model. It can also explain individual differences between and within individuals, again unlike the Reinforcement Affect Model.
Yet, in contrast, this theory has many limitations. One limitation is that this theory ignores the social aspects of a relationship. This theory also ignores ‘fairness of exchange’ rather than simply seeking a profit. Finally, the main criticism, however, focuses on the selfish nature of the theory: are people motivated to maintain relationships only out of hedonistic concerns?
