Furthermore, Sprecher (1998) found that those matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop a long term relationship. This also supports the study because in the second stage we filter out those who are very different to us. If one partner is very physically attractive but the other isn’t, then this person will feel insecure because they think they shouldn’t be together and they their partner should be with someone of their ‘standards’. Also if they are very different, they won’t have much to talk about as their shared values and attitudes are very limited. Both these things could then lead to dissatisfaction in the relationship, and thus the breakdown of it all.
However, in order to come up with this theory, participants would have had to be used to test it. There are some methodological issues in the way it was tested, for example it was a longitudinal study. This means that the study could be subject to attrition. Therefore the results may have been biased as participant would have had the right to withdraw. Those who withdrew were probably those who didn’t last in the relationship or those who simply didn’t want to go through with it. Due to this the remaining couples could have been better in relationship, maybe for reasons such as they were securely attached, whereas those who withdrew may have been insecurely attached.
There is another element of bias as questionnaires were used. As it was an opportunity sample the students may have responded in a way that they thought would benefit the researcher and in a way that was regarded by social norms. Therefore all these factors show that there was social desirability bias, demand characteristics and population validity.
The second theory is the reward/need satisfaction (RNS) theory, which states that we form friendships and relationships to receive rewards or reinforcement from others. In order for a relationship to progress, both partners must be motivated to continue getting to know each other. The theory also stated that a relationship is more likely to be formed if a person meets the needs of the partner and they provide rewards. Relationships provide rewards such as sex, love, money etc which satisfy our social needs, e.g. self-esteem, dependency etc. So in terms of operant conditioning, the relationship is being positively reinforced because it’s rewarding. Both needs and rewards need to be fulfilled for a relationship to work.
This theory agrees with the FM as both stresses the importance of satisfying each other’s needs. However, they have different views on when they should be met. For example, the FM states it should be during filter 3, once they have already met those who are similar to them in terms of attitudes and values, and where they have filtered out those who are very different. The RNS theory states it should be throughout the relationship. This is because you need to satisfy your partner’s needs in order to get your rewards, which in essence is what keeps the relationship going if there is a balance.
Moreover, there is physiological evidence to support the role of rewards in the formation of relationships. Aron et al. found that romantic attraction activates the brain’s rewards circuit, demonstrating the role of condition in the formation of relationships. If your partner rewards you in any way then this area in the brain will be activated. The person will want to feel this sense of pleasure again so in order to receive the reward they will have to satisfy their partner’s needs. Therefore it does support the role of rewards because it shows how relationships can be formed though positive reinforcement.
Smith and Mackie (2002) argued that long term happy relationships are those in which couple’s needs are met so it supports the idea that needs are important for the survival of a long term relationship. This shows that the RNS model does offer a plausible explanation for the formation of relationships because we can understand what we have to do in order to maintain this relationship. If in a relationship one person is always satisfying their partner and this partner is only being rewarded then the relationship will inevitably breakdown before it is properly formed. This is because there is no balance in the relationship.
Both these theories have something in common. Students were used in order to test the model. The use of student couples increases the bias, i.e. social economic bias as all the participants were in the same age group and culture therefore lacks population validity. This is further reinforced as only one generation was used. If a few generations would have been used then there may have been another trend in the results, for example older generations would have found filter 2 more important than filter 3 in the FM, whereas in the RNS the balance would have been different as men were always the dominant gender, so women may have been brought up to believe that they needed to reward their husband.
In conjunction with this, both theories are too reductions. They have put complex terms such as the formation of relationships and deconstructed them into 2 filters or rewards and needs. There are many other factors which will cause a relationship to form. Their personality isn’t all that is considered, women will seek for economic security at an early stage to ensure they will have financial support whilst bringing up their children. Men on the other hand will look for physical attractiveness and women who are young, which indicated they are healthy and fertile.
We can also see that a criticism of research on similarity is that is has only dealt with similarities of personality and attitudes. This may represent a narrow view of factors important in forming a relationship, with other factors for example economic level or physical condition. However, both the FM and RNS have ignored individual differences. In the FM there are some couples who have nothing in common but their relationship is as strong as others who have everything in common. Sometimes it’s better to have fewer things in common than everything because couples can get bored of each other when everything they do is the same. In the RNS model there are some individuals who don’t like being rewarded but like satisfying their partner’s needs, so there is no need to have a balance in needs and rewards as they will be happy in their relationship.
This leads us to the last point of cultural bias. Both these theories are culturally specific as it has been researched in a particular culture and country. The psychologists haven’t taken into account cultural relativism as they have only studied one culture and disregarded the idea that all cultures are different but they are equally worth studying. There is an element of ethnocentrism as the findings from the research has been generalised to all other cultures. In the RNS model this is greatly criticised as many cultures focus on the needs rather than receiving rewards, so in these relationships there won’t be a balance.