Outline and Evaluate One Theory of the Formation of Romantic Relationships (4+8 Marks) Essay

The reciprocate/ need mirth system (RNS) was devised by Byron & Clore (1970) to explain the constitution of sentimentalist kinds, based on the principles of behavioral psychology. According to the theory, hatful form kinships with those who atomic number 18 most recogniseing/ satisfying to be with which happens through conditioning. The elements of Skinners operant conditioning proposes that we repeat behaviors with positive outcomes (rewards) and avoid those with negative outcomes (punishments). Relationships positively reinforce by our coadjutor satisfying our needs/rewarding us (through love or attention), but negative reinforcement also plays a part in the likelihood of formation as a relationship avoid us touch sensation lonely which both result in us seeking further contact with them thus forming a relationship.The theory also suggests that we may associate a person with positive feelings delinquent to the even in which they meet this is called classical conditioni ng. This form of conditioning involves brotherhood a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to develop a conditioned response, for example being at a party (NS) and feeling happy (UCR), whence meeting a person (UCS) and associating this stimuli (now CS)with the happy feelings to create a CR of happiness whenever in their presence and we want to be with the person that makes us most happy, thus forming a relationship.An issue raise surrounding the RNS theory is that it fails to consider free go forth. It suggests that without rewards a relationship will not form however evidence from modern relationships argues otherwise, for example a rewards and rapture is given in one night stands, yet no relationship is formed, plus no association can be make through cyber relationships because the couple have not met, yet a relationship still manages to form. This evidence goes a meetst the theory suggesting that other factors such as similarity, luck and our own choices play a ro le in relationship formation thus proposing the theory is deterministic as well as simplistic.On the contrary, query evidence has supported the RNS, one study conducted by Aron et al (2005). To begin the examine, participants answered a questionnaire rating how intensely in love they were then they were shown photos of their ally during an MRI scan. It was found that dophamine-richareas of the brain (area associated with rewards) had higher activity when shown their partner than when shown an image of their friend. These findings show that we form relationships with those who are rewarding.High temporal harshness is a strength to this study because it was conducted recently. This means the couples used in the experiment have a higher ability to chew over modern mean solar day relationships therefore the findings are more generalisable to modern relationships. Along with that the study is significant physical, empirical evidence because of the use of MRI scans. Brain scans pro duce reliable, physical, unscathed evidence therefore have scientific proof for the link mingled with relationships and rewards.The importance of reward level in determining relationship satisfaction was also demonstrated by Carte et al (1982) in which he asked 337 participants to asses their current relationship in terms of reward level and satisfaction and found that reward level was superior to all other factors in determining relationship satisfaction concluding that rewards are a greater factor than any when it comes to relationship formation. However a criticism of these findings is that the reward/need satisfaction theory only explores the receiving of rewards, whereas Hays (1985) found that we gain satisfaction from giving as well as receiving.Most of the research into RNS theory has been conducted in the US with US participants, making it difficult to generalise to different cultures. The theory, as well as the research, has an ethnocentric bias in the fact that it is ba sed on relationships in western cultures, therefore reflect relationships of western societies, but these are very different to other cultures were people may not get a choice in their partner e.g. arranged marriages. Lott (1994) found that women in other cultures focused more on the needs of others than rewards, suggesting that there are differences in the value of rewards which this theory emphasizes so much about. As a result of this cultural bias, the RNS theory is not a universal explanation of relationship formation.