Introduction
It is the desire and inbuilt human nature to need other people in their lives. The zeal to form and engage in attachments and relationships is much promoted by the very basic human nature to desire love, passion, friendship, intimacy socialization and close relationships. The problem of association and need for others is demonstrated by the factor of the human being living together in the same homes, same villages and communities. Additionally, even I history and current trends, people tend to conglomerate together, a clear indication of the need for association and relationships. The paper focuses on the analysis and theories that have been coined and connected regarding need for association, Personal coupled with specific situational which trigger the initial attraction to other people, the various form of close relationships and what entails their rewarding properties and their differences. Additionally, the kind of love evoked and issues that keep them together or separate them
Types of close relationships
Three major types of close relationships have been able to receive attention from philosophers, social and behavioral psychologists. The first one which primary among the three is friendship. Blood does not relate the affiliates; they just know each other from social places such as church or school. This form of relationship is distanced from intimacy and entails daily life interactions and helping each other. The affiliates in this level trust and love each other with a kind of love called storge love. Trust and honor are the binding factors at this level. Secondly is a closer type of friendship which is the family. The members at this level are related by blood and include sibling, parents, children, and relatives. The bond here is stronger than friendship bond the love here is also Storge love, unyielding. The third which has the most substantial relationship and valued is marriage. The affiliates are not related by blood but by sworn vows, commitment to each other till death. The type of love here is the romantic love commonly referred to as Eros love (Leone, 2006).
The need for affiliation
At one moment or the other in the life of a person, one finds the need and desire to associate with others. Many things trigger the initial realization that one needs to affiliate with someone else or other people. Therefore, the individual tries to establish an affiliation, connection, relationship or friendship with another due to a given preoccupation or goal. One may just be lonely, bored, in need of a close friend, the need for an intimate affiliation among other desires (Blalock et al., 2015). Additional, the preexisting preoccupation such as the state of the mind concerning whether one has a compelling issue they need to discuss with someone or stressed fears, aspirations and anxiety may lead to someone trying to establish a connection with another. Different aspects of motivational preferences and use of style are engaged when one is trying to connect socially with others. Whether one achieves the connection desires is related to the self-discrepancy theory(SDT) focusing on self-guide ought self that tend to discourage one from establishing a relationship that may end up in rejection. Ideal self-focuses on desired results and reduces actual typical discrepancies. The SDT controls immensely to the applied attachment method and self-regulation (Blalock et al., 2015). Therefore, the need for affiliation is very critical to the survival of every human being and should be respected and promoted by everyone.
Attachment styles
According to the social psychology of attraction and close relationships, there is always the need to balance between individual aspects and the relational dimensions of a close relationship. The issue is achieved by observing the attachment style rules. The persons in a close relationship such as a romantic relationship must always strive to balance individual needs and preferences against the dyad situation (Monteoliva, 2012). The theory of optimal distinctiveness (ODT)provides a blueprint that guides and regulates individual perspectives in a close relationship versus dyad requirements. In dyad involving close and even romantic partners, there arise two forms of conflicts; the first entail a tension of conflict pertaining fulfilling needs of the self-versus those of the other partner. The second involves tension arising due to potential identities. In this case, the distinction between the unit versus parts of the unit come up. ODT exemplifies that if the close relationship is to sustain and improved, there must be a crucial balance between individual and dyad identities. The relationship must first satisfy itself for the individual satisfaction perceptions to be initiated. Additionally, theory suggests that although any fluctuations within the relationship do not necessarily impact the quality of the close relationship. In fact, the changes project an indication that the individual identities are being satisfied (Slotter, 2014). The situation nevertheless brings the two people closer together, making the dyad more fulfilling and rewarding.
Social exchange theory
The psychology of attraction and close relationships further exemplifies and sheds light to close relationships mostly of romantic nature and marriage. The view is a critical and fundamental analysis to tenets and facts that build, improve or create loopholes for instability and doom to families, marriage and close relationship with regard to social exchange approach. Many situations can be interpreted as dyadic, intimate, romantic relationships and marriage subscribes as one of them (Nakonezny, 2008). Marital and close relationship solidarity are rooted within the facets of the social exchange involving respect, value, and appreciation for the ones close to us. The social exchange theory demystifies the predicament by stating that there are costs and benefits that lead to either growth and flourishment of a marriage and relationship or the gradual decay and demise of the same.
Once a person subscribes and commits to a relationship, the costs involve factors and aspects that deter or inhibit the performance and successive behaviors in the commitment. The benefits compose various aspects such as the pleasures, gratifications and subsequent satisfaction emanating from being in the marriage. Marriage on the social exchange theory calls for commitment and rewarding members to ensure constant love and care. If the factors keeping them together are abated, then the situation begins to decay and collapse (Ting, 2010).
Equity theory
Behavioral psychologists suggest that one of the most influential and manipulative social theories is the equity theory. The desire of people to get as much as they give or put to a particular situation as a workplace, friendships, relationships and marriages (Fiske, 1992). In the psychology of attraction and close relationships, equity in the engagement is mandatory. The question of love arises as an ambivalent or parallel topic on equity. If both parties love each other, then why do marriages and relationships still decay and collapse or rather stay in continuous shambles and problems? There is a fundamental difference between loving each other and being able to treat each other equally. Psychologists advocate for equity if a mutual collaboration is to last and work (Hendrick, 2004). The theory stands as a collaborative approach to the social exchange theory that also calls for love, commitments, rewards and care for each other. The tenets of caring equally for each other is vital in solidifying a relationship and making it work and last. Failure to observe the laws and facts of the equity and social exchange theories is disastrous to any relationship, marriage and affiliation (Ting, 2010).
Triangular theory
The concept to love and direct satisfaction in relationships and further attempts at keeping relationships afloat evoke the question of what makes them work. What is the fabric that ensures that there are love and satisfaction in an intimate relationship? Stenberg, a behavioral and social psychologist, was the proponent of the triangular theory of love which demystifies love and satisfaction in a relationship. The argument points out to secure attachment, intimacy, passion and stern commitment (Madey, 2009). It states that for everything to work, there must be mediating factors that interplay and intertwine others, in this case, a secure attachment coupled with satisfaction in the relationship have commitment and intimacy as the mediating forces (Sternberg, 1986). Therefore, the triangular theory is keen to note that love alone cannot sustain a relationship. It is important though that love be the key element but it requires other factors such as satisfaction, intimacy and passion for it to work. Therefore, the elements intimacy, and passion and commitment are the basic fabric through which love and satisfaction in the relationship are achieved. When these elements lack their basic fabric of connection, then the relationship will begin to experience waves that will eventually shatter the whole thing apart (Madey, 2009).
Conclusion
References
Blalock, D. V., Franzese, A. T., Machell, K. A., & Strauman, T. J. (2015). Attachment style and self-regulation: How our patterns in relationships reflect broader motivational styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 8790-98. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.024
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological review, 99(4), 689.
Hendrick, S. (2004). Understanding close relationships. Boston: Pearson.
Leone, C., & Hawkins, L. B. (2006). Self‐Monitoring and Close Relationships. Journal of personality, 74(3), 739-778.
Nakonezny, P., & Denton, W. (2008). Marital relationships: a social exchange theory perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(5), 402-412 11p.
Madey, S. F., & Rodgers, L. (2009). The Effect of Attachment and Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love on Relationship Satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 7(2), 76-84.
Monteoliva, A., García-Martínez, J. A., Calvo-Salguero, A., & Aguilar-Luzón, M. (2012). Differences between men and women with a dismissing attachment style regarding their attitudes and behavior in romantic relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 335-345.
Slotter, E. B., Duffy, C. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me” with the need to be “we”: Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the understanding of multiple motives within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5271-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.001
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135
Ting kin, N., & Cheng, C. K. (2010). The Effects of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment on Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships Among Hong Kong Chinese People. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 11(2), 123-146.
