Human existences are societal animate beings by their intrinsic nature who cooperate with each other in run intoing their day-to-day demands. There are assorted grounds why people choose to seek meaningful relationship with others and all the grounds differ harmonizing to each person ‘s personality and outlooks since Darwin ( 1859, cited in Mayr, 1964 ) argued in his theory of development that fluctuations exist within persons and their behaviors. For illustration, some people seek meaningful relationships in hunt for romantic and sexual pleasances, while others go for relationships for societal association. For whatever ground each person might make up one’s mind to seek any sort of relationship, the obvious point is that people do non wish to be entirely.
Experts in different academic Fieldss have devoted tremendous sum of clip analyzing the demand for relationships, the mechanisms involved for worlds to acquire into relationships and the ways human relationships could be improved ( Duck, 1988 ) . The writer noted that personal relationships with fellow human existences in our day-to-day lives is one of the greatest beginnings of our felicity. Fischer ( 1982 ) made the undermentioned averment about relationship:
‘Our twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours lives are preoccupied with people, with seeking blessing, supplying fondness, interchanging chitchat, falling in love, beging advice, giving sentiments, comforting choler, learning manners, supplying AIDSs, doing feelings, maintaining in touch-or badgering about why we are non making these things ‘ ( p.2 ) .
We are driven into relationship by the natural human demand to be loved. This demand, harmonizing to Moxon ( 2001 ) is explained by the motive theory which ‘assumed that we all possess instinctual thrusts which allow us to carry through cardinal demands ( p.2 ) . When we are driven by this demand for love, so we try to choose a mate to enable us carry through this really need. Several things are normally considered whilst choosing this mate. A good known factor that precipitates relationship formation harmonizing to Franzoi ( 2000 ) is interpersonal attractive force. The above writer divides this chief factor into four different subheadings based on the portion each plays viz. ; similarity, physical attraction, acquaintance and propinquity.
One might desire a mate who is similar to him/her or one whom he/she is familiar with. Another serious factor that is normally considered is propinquity, this is regarded as a ‘fixed distance between a brace of persons at a point in clip and is measured by finding the additive distance between the two individuals ‘ ( Monge & A ; Kirste, 1980, p.110 ) . Whilst some people do non mind going within a set geographic distance in run intoing a spouse, others might happen if really nerve-racking. Physical propinquity might use to one life in a nearby small town of about 20 stat mis, it could be a different metropolis, state or even a continent. It all depends on how far one wants to go for the relationship to be practical.
Peoples would usually presume that feelings for person is something that first comes of course before the desire to acquire into relationship with that individual ( Duck, 1988 ) . Although this natural feeling is known to be influenced by human demands, societal state of affairss at any given clip ( Wright, 1984 ) and besides our personality types ( McAdams, 1988 ) and this is apparent in the popular proverb that the ‘birds of a plume flock together ‘ . Peoples normally prefer to remain together or associate with those who look similar to them in a assortment of ways, such as holding the same attitude, cultural and spiritual backgrounds and other characteristics ( Duck, 1988 ; Fischer ; 1982, Moxon, 2001 ) . Kerckhoff ( 1974 ) stated that married spouses normally select each other from the same cultural, spiritual, educational and socio-economic backgrounds. Similarity is known to further relationships in a assortment of ways, harmonizing to Duck ( 1994 ) . The writer argued that spouses who are similar in a peculiar topic may happen it easier to understand that peculiar topic when they dwell on it because of the background cognition which both of them have in common sing the subject.
Peoples make friends with others harmonizing to how similar they are with them. Due to the lifting societal stratification, people choose those in the same category with them for friendly relationship or matrimony to enable them stay and keep their position quo. An grounds for this similarity impression is the Atkinson and Atkinsons ‘ ( 2000 ) survey on the similarity of married twosomes in the USA. Their statistical information shows that more than 99 per centum of the US successfully married twosomes are of the same race and faith. Rubin ( 1973 ) argues that the good consequence of similarity stems from the demand for successful cooperation, avouchment which can better ego assurance, smooth interaction and reciprocality.
Although it is questionable the extent which ‘birds of a plume [ who ] all flock together ‘ are similar. For illustration Duck ( 1994 ) argued that ‘no two individuals are of all time psychologically indistinguishable even when they belong to the same civilization or utilize the same linguistic communication ‘ ( p.64 ) . Kerckhoff ‘s ( 1974 ) statement that spouses choose each other from the same cultural and spiritual backgrounds might be valid in a multicultural society but so invalid in a society where everybody belongs to the same cultural and spiritual groups. Even at the multicultural societies, acquiring into relationship or get marrieding one from the same cultural and spiritual backgrounds does non connote that they are the same or similar types of persons. On the contrary, antonyms do besides pull which is apparent in inter-culturally matrimonial personal businesss which people engage in all over the universe.
Physical attraction has proved to be one of the factors precipitating friendly relationship and relationship. For illustration, Sigall and Ostrove after their probe on the ‘interpersonal effects of physical attraction ‘ argue that ‘good-looking people have enormous advantages over their unattractive opposite numbers in many ways ‘ ( 1975, 410 ) . One of these ‘trememdous advantages ‘ in beautiful people could be their nature of pulling more friends than their non-attractive opposite numbers as people normally view them holding the likeliness of possessing the kinds of properties necessary for a societal life ( Dion et al, 1972 ) ( cited in Sigall and Ostrove, 1975, p.410 ) .
In farther probe of the physical attraction stereotype, Welster et al. , ( 1966 ) carried out a ‘computer dance ‘ survey in which 752 pupils were handed out questionnaires to bespeak their grounds for taking dance spouses. The participants were subsequently indiscriminately assigned dance spouses. On reaching to the dance hall, the physical attraction of each spouse was in secret assessed. When the dance was over, the topics were interviewed on how much they liked their assigned spouses and their volitions to run into them once more. The consequence showed that the pupils whose spouses were more physically attractive preferred to host another dance in order to see their spouses once more and frailty versa. The consequence of this survey is a clear presentation of how physical attraction could bring on people into relationship. However, the unfavorable judgment of this factor is that merely as physical attraction enables the good looking 1s to pull more friends, the same physical attraction discourages some possible friends who by their feeling of lower status are repelled from nearing such amazing figures ( Sigall and Ostrove, 1975 ) .
Familiarity is normally considered, prior to organizing relationships. In look intoing this as a relationship factor, Zajonc ( 1968 ) carried out a survey in which participants were shown peculiar face images more frequently than other types of images. When the participants were subsequently interviewed on the faces they liked more, the topics all liked the often seen images and thought they would in existent life like such people in the familiar images than those in the non-familiar 1s. This survey suggests the power of physical attraction as an inducer of friendship formation.
Proximity has been found to be another inducer of relationship seeking. Festinger et Al ( 1950, cited in Franzoi, 2000 ) carried out a survey to look into this phenomenon in a university inn in the United States. In this survey, the pupil inmates were indiscriminately assigned to different flats and when they were subsequently assessed, the research worker found that those populating at the entryway and Centre of the flats have more friends than those living outside these strategic locations. Proximity is seen as one of the factors precipitating friendly relationship, this is normally understood as the more we come across people, the more open we are to them and the better opportunities of interaction which is the get downing point of friendly relationship. Students who sit in the same row in a schoolroom are more likely to interact with each other and likely go friends than those sitting far off from each other.
Although relationships and matrimonies appear in different signifiers, nevertheless, this research is focused on confidant and sexual relationships. On the other manus, the so called confidant and sexual relationships appear in different signifiers excessively. For illustration both monogamous and polygamous matrimonies exist. However, this research is focused on the one-to-one intimate relationships and matrimonies since this is the commonest type of relationships we see on a day-to-day footing. Besides, there is grounds to propose that these kind of relationships are more intimate than threesome relationship and polygamous matrimony. For illustration, Moxon ( 2001 ) depicting monogamousness as one of the matrimony types, argued that this kind of relationship brings a really close bond and fond regard between the two parties, makes one feel particular in appreciating 1s self-worth and importance to the other spouse.
Moxon ( 2001 ) argued that polygamy as a matrimony type is more concerned with the evolutionary footing of human relationships. Evolutionary theory supports the thought that human behaviors are rooted in their familial make-up which is straight transferred to their progeny after a successful reproduction ( Darwin, 1859 ) ( reprinted in Mayr, 1964 ) . This theory is fundamentally concerned with sexual and romantic relationships by which two parties ( male and female ) involved have the purpose of reproducing offspring. Evolutionary psychologists argue that the parties involved in this sort of relationship is concerned chiefly with reproduction and to guarantee that each of the party gets the best out of it. Therefore this thesis will disregard every other types of relationships and matrimonies and concentrate on one-to-one spouses in either relationships or matrimonies.