Well now, wasn’t that video sweet? Sadly, we’re about to suffocate the concept of ‘love‘ by applying principles of Communications to it. While the video expounded on a boy-meets-girl logic, Relational formation & development suggests that ‘love’ is ignited by a series of underlying principles. I thought the notion of Relational formation & development that I studied in COM101 was rather inaccurate, maybe even lacking in depth. So I’d like to hear about what you think of the theories regarding Relational formation & development, listed below.
- Physical appearance – Suggests that physical appearance exerts consistent positive impacts during the formation of the relationship, and is most impactful in the early stages of relationship. The impact diminishes over time. The attractiveness of a person is influenced by cultural norms and society. This aspect is like how Tom (the guy in the video) gawked at Summer (the girl) in the lift.
- Similarity – The tendency to form relationships with those similar to you (e.g. beliefs, values, activities). Suggests that in forming such relationships, risks and uncertainty are diminished. Kind of how Summer liked the same music as Tom (in the lift).
- Dissimilarities/Complementaries – Tendency to form relationship with those different from you. The idea is that such people function better together than seperately. As you can well guess by now, this is really flawed and highly inaccurate…
- Exchange – Form relationship based on cost & reward (what you can gain). This really ticked me. It made love seem a game.
- Proximity - Form relationship with people around you. The idea is that there’s greater opportunity to interact with those that are closer (in distance). In the movie (above), Tom worked in the same firm as Summer, so perhaps this notion was reinforced in the show?
- Reciprocity & Liking - Easy, if she likes you, you like her too. Not quite the case in the movie though, yet Tom was all out for her. Does that mean this theory is inaccurate then?
- Competency - This means that if he’s more competent, she’ll like him more. This irked me as much as the Exchange concept.
- Filtering Theory – Great. Now love is further dissected into 4 filters that people use to ‘screen’ potential mates: (1) sociological cues, which is akin to Proximity theory. (2) Pre-interactional cues, which looks at the physical attributions of the person. (3) Interactional cues, which looks at whether is it a rewarding relationship. (4) Cognitive cues, which looks into similarities of the person.
Well that sums it up. I’m pretty sure some of these theories are flawed. I’d like to hear what you think on this dissection of ‘love’, and how much you agree to it. 
I believe there is no the ONE, but many ones. It all depends on the chance and moment. (Somewhat proximity.)
First first impressions are usually based on physical appearance, if they do not pass your filter, the chance/opportunity’s gone.
So grab every opportunity by the balls cos it may not pass you by again.
Haha wow so you’re really convinced eh? But what about character and slow bonding? Do you subscribe to that? Anyway interesting kind of comment thanks!
i kinda believe in the defining moment of attraction is different for everyone. take that video for example, i think similarity (love for same song) IGNITED the guy’s interest in the girl because before that, he didnt really took notice in her.
it seems to me that the ‘relational formation and development’ concept applies differently to everybody.
hey hey you may be right! Didn’t really see it that way. Thanks for reminding me that individuals differ from one another.
I also kind of disagree with the idea that a relationship is an exchange. I mean, it should happen naturally along the course of the relationship, but I don’t think it should be a basis for relationships to be formed. As for the ‘Competency’ factor, I think that it is pretty true. Think back of crushes we had, or people we admire.. most of them started because of reasons such as these ‘she did well in class’, ‘wow, he’s such a good basketball player’, etc. So, it is kind of true that we often take interest in people who are competent (not exactly MORE competent).
haha I actually have to disagree with you here. I think, for guys, crushes are started mainly (or even only) because of things like ‘wow she’s pretty’. Superficial as it may sound, please note I’m commenting only on CRUSHES. Real love and relationship might be very different. Also, I’m not generalising all men; it’s just opinion in general. In any case, our differences in percieving ‘competency’ may be due to gender difference. Maybe.
Two very different can also be together. While it may sound conflicting, but it could probably be a kind of supporting and leveling away each other weakness. It is a deeper form of give and take in a relationship.
This does not mean exchange because there is probably little benefit in going out of the way in correcting your other half weakness.
It was taught wasn’t it? Dissimilarities are also a means of bonding, as both parties gain what they cannot have as individuals (in a way, it becomes like exchange).
HEY CHERVIN!
Honestly, as much as communication lists theories and analysis of how attraction occurs, no one in this world has yet come to a complete understanding of how this thing called love works.
Attraction over the globe has shown that love crosses all boundaries. Love that sparked between friends, enemies, people of similar and even different backgrounds, teacher-student(although it isn’t common), etc. is a testimony to how attraction is a more complex occurrence.
Reasons why people love may be an endless permutation of the above theories, in combination with the physical, emotional and chemical reactions a person experiences.
Yes Chervin, people actually engage in the “exchange.”(whether it irks you or not!)
huh? Now that you mention, it does seem that real relationships aren’t so one-dimensional. I think the question to ask, however, is whether are there MORE theories undefined at the moment. Be that as it may, you will probably still be right to say that not one theory could encapsulate the notion of love single-handedly.
Things generally happen according to what the theories say, but as with all things in life, there are exceptions to the rules
haha like? I guess the idea you are presenting is that no matter how science tries to explain things, there’s always room for error.
HI! Oh mann my post is dealing with the exact same movie as you!!
Anyway, regarding Proximity, this notion was not really reinforced into the show as in the end Tom and Summer did not end up together despite their colleage status. Summer instead got married to someone she met at a deli. While the idea of proximity can still explain Summer’s accidental lunch meeting with her husband to be, the fact that she and Tom did not work out says one thing: proximity can help in the formation of a relationship, but whether that relationship lasts is dependent on other factors.
I think it was really sad that Summer only started to notice Tom after Tom’s drunken friend helped him confess his obsession of her. Is this considered counterfeit liking? What redeems Summer though, from what we expect out of their seemingly good chemistry, is that she is honest about what she wanted out of the relationship. “I’m not looking for anything serious” (Ikea Scene)So i think the theory of reciprocity and liking is only true for some couples.
I agree that the idea of exchange and competency can be annoying, but it does happen in reality and i think we all exemplify this trait, subconsiously or not. Such costs and benefits though need not be as explicit as status or wealth, but it may even be in the form of emotions. Example: My boyfriend my feel happy with me but I’m not all elated when I’m with him. In such a case is it not acceptable to use such a theory to decide if I should end the relationship?
In the movie, Tom felt betrayed when Summer who once professed that she loved individuality actually tied the knot. Her reason for choosing to marry someone else?
(Summer: “I just knew”
Tom: “Knew what?”
Summer: “Something I was never sure of with you”.)
Tom liked the way he felt when he was with Summer, but he could not give Summer that same feelings of love and security.
wow spoiler! thanks for your lengthy comment anyway. Appreciated.
Anyway it seems you’ve got a few misconceptions! First, Proximity does not mean close distance = long lasting relationship. It just means that the closer someone is to you, the higher the chances of you two starting an interpersonal relationship.
Next, I think Summer may be a very insecure person. I think she may have depended on the confession of Tom’s obsession to start the ball rolling. This behavior is more inclined towards reciprocity & liking, not counterfeit liking.
And regarding your example, it was during the course of a relationship, thus it would no longer be the exchange theory but more of the equity theory.
Anyway I think Summer shouldn’t lead poor Tom on in the first place. That’s very, very wrong. Thanks for your lengthy commetn Rachel
I really love this movie a lot! Something different from your typical from your romantic comedy drama. It follow’s Knapps model of interpersonal relationship, only that the typical guy-girl responses and mindset is being reversed; and Cody’s dissolution strategies of behavioral de-escalation when Summer tried to gave excuses to Tom.
Also the dissimilarity of what they expect from the relationship caused a strain. Summer wants a non-comital relationship while Tom wants more from this, however she agreed to Summer’s “terms” which she did clarify from the start.
Also how Summer began the relationship with Tom might simply be based on an act of reciprocation since she later learnt out that he had feelings for her when he got drunk. Initially she didn’t seem interested in him at all (I think the possibility of her doing that was higher than her trying to play hard to get.) Maybe that is why she was not so committed in this relationship because she didn’t have true hard feelings for Tom to begin with.
Wow seems like a cruel show, the way you put it. Thanks for your comment anyway! I wonder were there subtle cues that hinted Summer really liked Tom…
Hello. Interesting movie I must say! =)
I would feel that the most accurate theory would be the proximity. Due to proximity, two parties are able to interact on a regular basis and through understanding; they have higher chances of engaging in interpersonal relationship. The least accurate would be dissimilarities as it assumes that the differences between two parties can be suitably complemented. However, in reality, this is not the case. People with ideological differences often ended up in arguments and tend to terminate the relationship rather than forming and maintaining the relationship.
haha really? COM101 taught us that dissimilarities actually results in a greater need for the couple to hold on to one another because they would benefit more being together than seperate. But I think what you mentioned really confronts the theory, that in reality in may not work out well after all. Good
These theories do make sense, but they don’t necessarily apply to everyone every time. Physical attractiveness makes sense, considering how early man used physical cues to assess potential mates that were genetically superior. Similarities, exchange and reciprocity make it easier to form relationships and makes them more fruitful. Proximity comes into play every time during the dating process, considering how you start to like the person the more you go out with them.
Yeah you got that right. I liked the part where you commented that similarities, exchange and reciprocity bulids on relationships.
Didn’t catch this movie, but I will soon when I’m less busy! Personally, I feel that there is no right or wrong in a relationship. It is quite subjective. Yes, most often people would tend to form relationship with those who are similiar to themselves so as to minimize risk. Self-disclosure is as important as it will show the level of commitment that you are willing to put into the relationship. What for get into a relationship for the ‘fun’ of it? You will just end up wasting time.
Yes it’s not right to lead someone on! And yes I suppose you are very much right in stating there is no right or wrong theory to a relationship (just inaccurate ones, I feel). Thanks Breda!