1. What You Need to Know

2. L.O: Outline & Evaluate 2 models of Relationship Formation
 Reward/Need Satisfaction model (Byrne and Clore 1970) – [WHY?]
 The Matching Hypothesis – [WHO?]

3. How could classical and operant conditioning influence attraction and formation (hint: think of ‘REINFORCERS’ or leaders to positive ‘ASSOCIATIONS’ in a relationship)

4. Classical Conditioning
- Learning by association - We like people who are merely nearby when we feel good - Even if they were not involved in making us feel good, after a while we will associate them with the good feeling - E.g. Holiday romances- more prone to be attracted to and to form a relationship- Why?

5. Operant Conditioning
- Learning by consequences - Leads us to like people who directly reward us - Rewards can include being friendly towards us, smiling & generally acting positively towards us

6. Reward/Need Satisfaction – through conditioning: the how...
Byrne & Clore (1970)
Reward/Need Satisfaction –
through conditioning: the how...
Learning Theory account of relationship formation, based on reinforcement.
-Direct rewards e.g. Sex, gifts = operant conditioning
-Indirect rewards, eg. being associated with pleasant circumstances such as ‘fun dates’ = classical conditioning

7. Research on Reward/Need Satisfaction
Griffitt & Guay (1969)- Participants were evaluated on a creative task by an experimenter and after asked to rate how much they liked the experimenter. Ratings were highest when the experimenter positively evaluated (i.e. rewarded) the participants performance Griffith & Veitch (1971)- Statements by strangers were presented to participants who were in either physically comfortable or uncomfortable surroundings. Results suggested that the more uncomfortable the environment the less liked the stranger was

8. Research on Reward/Need Satisfaction
Veitch and Griffitt (1976) placed participants in a waiting room where they listened to either good or bad news with a stranger present. When they were asked to rate the stranger the degree of liking was related to the kind of news they had been listening to. May and Hamilton (1980) females rate photos of males, while nice or unpleasant music played – nice music rated males as more attractive

9. Progression of ‘reward’
Clark and Mills (1979) : Relationships provide different types of rewards
‘exchange relationship’ = New r’ship, exchange rewards on a ‘tit for tat’ basis
‘communal relationships’ = As r’ship progresses, rewards given as desire to please rather than the desire for payback

10. BADD ASS *Gotta meet that need (ideally hummed to Pokémon theme music)
Argyle (1994)
Direct reinforcement

11. How relationships help meet needs
Argyle(1994)
Needs/motives
How relationships help meet needs
Biological needs
Affiliation
Dependency
Dominance
Aggression
Sex
Self esteem

12. Collective eating and drinking behaviours; safety in numbers
Argyle(1994)
Needs/motives
How relationships help meet needs
Biological needs
Affiliation
Dependency
Dominance
Aggression
Sex
Self esteem
Collective eating and drinking behaviours; safety in numbers
Seeking the company and approval of others
Being comforted of nurtured
Making decisions for other people – being bossy
An ‘acceptable’ target for frustration
Flirting, making love
Being valued by others

13. Evaluation of the model (AO2)
Deterministic- theory assumes that people are selfish and only concerned about the reinforcements they receive. Hays (1995) found that in student relationships as much value was attached to rewarding others as gaining rewards.
Gender differences; there is evidence of gender differences as well as cultural differences. It has been shown that in may cultures, women are socialized into being more attentive to the needs of others than their own (Lott 1994)

14. Evaluation of the model (AO2)
Most supporting research is Lab based, raising issues of Ecological Validity , such as …

15. Evaluation of the model (AO2)
Cate et al (1982) asked 337 individuals to assess their current relationships in terms of reward level and satisfaction. Results showed that reward level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction. Only explores receiving of rewards
The theory has face validity: is supported by everyday experiences - i.e. happy, warm people with a good sense of humour have more friends because their company is rewarding

16. L.O: Outline & Evaluate 2 models of Relationship Formation
 Reward/Need Satisfaction model
(Byrne and Clore 1970) – [WHY?]
 The Matching Hypothesis – [WHO?]

17. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS:
- People who become romantic partners tend to be on a similar level of ‘social attractiveness’.
- When choosing a partner we are influenced by what we can realistically get (our realistic choices) and what we desire.
- The ‘more socially desirable’ a person is the more they expect that of their partner.
- Matched couples are more likely to be happier.

18. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS:
This matching can be in relation to a large number of criteria (appearance, monetary, social status, beliefs, etc), BUT Murstein (1972) suggests that physical attractiveness has a primary function.
He argues that appearance is one of the (if not THE) first things we notice in others, so usually has a huge role in who we ‘filter out’ before other criteria of ‘matching’ are even considered.

19. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS Research:
Murstein (1972) - photographs of the faces of 'steady or engaged' couples were compared with random couples (i.e. pairs of individuals who were only put together for the purpose of the photograph). - Real couples were consistently judged to be more similar to each other in physical attractiveness than the random pairs. - “Individuals with equal market value for physical attractiveness are more likely to associate in an intimate relationship such as engagement, than individuals with disparate values"

20. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS:
Now, read through the Walster (1966) study and answer the following:
What happened in the study?
What were the findings and the conclusion?
What issue does this raise regarding what people might PREFER and what they think they can REALISTICALLY get?
What other social factors might be relevant to partner choice and r’ship formation?

21. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS Research:
Huston (1976) Argued that it is our fear of rejection by someone more attractive than us that leads us to who we choose rather than “the need to be matched”.
So he conducted where participants were shown photos of people who had already agreed to be their partner and it was found that participants chose the person rated most attractive not most matching.
AO2 of study : potential rejection is an important part of ‘real life’ selection, so this study does NOT prove that what is ‘desired’ is more important than ‘realistic expectations’

22. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS Evaluation:
Hatfield and Sprecher (2009)- Matching Hypothesis only takes into account physical attractiveness, when in real life personality etc also affect the formation of relationships (along with other factors such as third party intervention) BUT perhaps these others become more important after ‘initial’ attraction (esp. true for long term relationships)

23. MATCHING HYPOTHESIS Evaluation:
CULTURAL BIAS - It is in support of western cultures where attractiveness is the basis on which relationships are formed; ‘third party influence’ in many non western cultures not taken into account by the matching hypothesis
Takeuchi (2006) – gender bias in theory; found differences between men and women with males viewing physical attractiveness more important than females (Buss, 1989)