The attraction theory states that people form relationships based on five principles of attraction: similarity, proximity, reinforcement, physical attractiveness and personality, socioeconomic and educational status, and reciprocity of liking (DeVito, 2016). The key concept is that people generally feel attracted to individuals who look, act, and think similarly and live or work in close proximity. Physical appeal, giving or receiving reinforcement, and reciprocity intensify the attraction. Higher socioeconomic and educational status tends to lower attraction for men but heightens it for women. The two most significant strengths of this theory are that it provides a framework for understanding the underlying reasons for attraction and has been confirmed by numerous studies (DeVito, 2016). However, it underestimates the roles of other factors such as self-concept, economic forces, media influence, and physical conditions in shaping attraction. Moreover, it presents attraction as an individual choice rather than the product of biology and culture. For example, it does not explain how attraction evolves between couples in arranged marriages.
Relationship Rules Theory
The relationship rules theory states that interpersonal relationships are maintained by adherence to certain rules and deteriorate if those rules are broken. Friendship rules include trust, emotional support, sharing information and feelings about one’s life, and standing up for each other in the other’s absence (DeVito, 2016). Romantic rules involve expressing similar attitudes and interests, reinforcing self-esteem, being faithful, and spending substantial time together (DeVito, 2016). Workplace relationships are maintained by working hard, being cooperative, and keeping company secrets from competitors. The relationship rules theory is advantageous because it identifies healthy and destructive relationship behavior and allows people to pinpoint what social skills they need to master in order to repair them. However, this theory assumes that there is a universal standard of friendship or romance that everyone strives toward. It does not account for individual differences or varying degrees of attachment that dictate their own set of rules. Furthermore, it underestimates the role of culture in forming interpersonal expectations.
Relationship Dialectics Theory
Relationship dialectics theory claims that people in relationships experience internal tension because of contradicting motives and desires. The tension between autonomy and connection involves the desire to remain independent but also connect to a partner (DeVito, 2016). The contradiction between novelty and predictability centers on the simultaneous desire for adventurous newness and comfortable predictability. Finally, the tension between closeness and openness concerns the conflicting desire to be both in an exclusive and open relationship. There are three main ways to resolve these tensions: accepting them, exiting the relationship, or rebalancing through negotiation.
The strengths of this theory are acknowledging the complexity of human nature and validating people’s contradictory desires even if they seem to be in a happy, healthy relationship. However, it does not address the connection between these internal tensions and heteronormative gender roles. For example, it ignores the fact that women tend to feel a desire for autonomy more often than men because they are socially pressured to be subordinate. Moreover, it explains young men’s shifts between closeness and distancing messages as a manifestation of internal tension, disregarding the possibility of intentional manipulation.
Social Penetration Theory
Social penetration theory represents relationships in terms of the breadth and depth of the conversational topics between two people. The breath constitutes the number of topics discussed, while the depth is the degree to which the inner personality is penetrated (DeVito, 2016). The more intense the relationship, the more topics are penetrated and to a deeper level. If a relationship deteriorates, the process reverses in a phenomenon called depenetration (DeVito, 2016). This theory acknowledges that relationships are not static and is useful for couples seeking to improve their communication skills and increase intimacy levels.
However, this explanation views relationships through the lens of individualist cultures and does not describe other behaviors that foster connection, such as acts of service or spending time together. Different cultures might interpret the same information as either a casual remark or overt familiarity. Furthermore, not every relationship follows a sequential order, and numerous other variables might affect the outcome, such as the context and length of interactions.
Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory claims that people seek relationships that demand the least effort and result in the most rewards, such as money, status, love, information, goods, and services (DeVito, 2016). It is based on the economic theory of profits and losses. When entering a relationship, people have a “comparison level” of what rewards and profits they expect to receive, and their satisfaction depends on whether that level is met. If the profits from the current relationships are below the comparison level, an individual might leave and seek a new, more profitable relationship (DeVito, 2016).
The social exchange theory is simple and explains why relationships fail and how they might be balanced. However, it assumes that people are innately selfish, and their only goal in a relationship is maximizing personal benefits. Presenting love as a mathematical model can be viewed as a heartless interpretation of human interaction (Creel, 2011). It does not explain why people in unhealthy or abusive relationships simply do not leave if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Reference
Creel, A. (2011). Social exchange theory: Strengths & weaknesses. Communication Theories. Web.
DeVito, J. A. (2016). The interpersonal communication book (14th ed). Pearson.