From the ‘colour wheel theory’ to ‘attachment styles’, we’re exploring four fascinating relationship theories that teach us about the intimate workings of ourselves and others

The inner workings of other people’s minds can often feel like a mystery, as can the things that make one relationship flourish while another flops. It, therefore, makes sense that, throughout the history of psychology, researchers have been drawn to developing theories to help us understand each other a little better – to fill in those gaps that can cause so much tension and misunderstanding.

The idea that we could come up with a theory that perfectly explains someone’s behaviour is appealing – like finding a cheat code for our relationships. The reality is that theories are just that: theories. Some may land while others don’t quite hit the mark. Human behaviour is complicated, afterall.

That said, opening ourselves up to ideas about the inner workings of relationships has its benefits. We might stumble across a school of thought that instantly resonates with our experiences, leaving us feeling seen and understood. Or we could discover a theory that sparks a fresh idea of our own.

Here, we’re rounding up four relationship theories, and exploring what each of them can teach us about the people we’re close to and the ways we connect.

1. Social exchange theory

This theory is all about the assessments we make about a relationship before entering it – and it can be applied to everything from work relationships up to romantic ones. The idea is that people will weigh up the benefits and risks of a relationship, and when the risks outweigh the benefits, they will end it. You could liken this theory to writing a ‘pros and cons’ list when entering a new relationship.

Take going on a date as an example. The risk might be that you will spend money on the activity without enjoying it, but the benefit could be that you have a really pleasant time with a fun and interesting person that you go on to build a loving relationship with. In that basic scenario, the rewards outweigh the risks, so the decision is made.

It all sounds pretty straightforward, but social exchange theory does have some more complicated elements. The diversity of human relationships and behaviour means that we go may go through phases of needing more or less from others – with this analytic (though often unconscious) mindset, it’s easy to see how someone might begin to feel resentful if they are ‘giving’ more than they are receiving, or could feel guilty if they are on the other side.

2. Filter theory

Proposed by psychologists Kerckhoff and Davis in the 1960s, filter theory is the idea that there are three ‘filters’ that we apply to people when choosing romantic partners. Those filters are:

  • Sociodemographic characteristics (for example, our age, gender, education, income, or ethnicity).
  • Similarity in attitudes (do we share the same values and life philosophies?)
  • Complementarity (do we improve each other or emphasise each other's best traits?)

The key conclusion in filter theory is that we look for people who are similar to us, be that in the ways that we think or our social backgrounds. The extent to which you may see this theory playing out varies across cultures. For some, similarities between two partners is of the utmost importance, particularly in terms of background and culture. For others, these elements are of less importance, but the similarity in attitudes would be further up the list.

3. Attachment theory

This theory, developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, has grown in popularity in recent years, and centres on the idea that our early relationships with our caregivers shape our emotional needs in adulthood.

‘Attachment styles’ are a key element of this theory. The phrasing around each of them can vary from source to source, but the most common way of expressing them is:

  • Secure attachment. This is the ideal. People with secure attachment styles feel safe in relationships and are able to express their feelings openly.
  • Anxious attachment. These people worry often about being abandoned and can become very sensitive to their partner’s emotions and actions.
  • Avoidant attachment. Those with avoidant attachment tend to be emotionally distant in order to protect themselves from harm.
  • Disorganised attachment. This describes a mix of behaviours. A person with disorganised attachment may sometimes seek to be close to others, and other times pull away.

The categories of attachment styles can be very appealing, as they give a clear outline of common behaviours, as well as a broad look at why these behaviours might exist in the first place. While not everyone will resonate with the categories, that can be an interesting starting point for understanding the ways we behave in relationships.

4. The colour wheel theory

First explored in his 1973 book The Colors of Love, psychologist John Lee proposes that we can compare styles of love to the colour wheel. To begin with, there are three primary colours – blue, red, and yellow. Likewise, Lee points to three primary styles of love:

  • Eros. This is the Greek word for ‘passionate’ or ‘erotic’, therefore this type of love embodies both physical and emotional passion.
  • Ludus. From the Greek word meaning ‘game’, this is a playful type of love. Generally, ludus is for people who may not be ready to commit, and instead are having fun and seeing love as a game.
  • Storge. This comes from the Greek term meaning ‘natural affection’, and this type of love includes familial love and friendship.

Just like primary colours, Lee believed that the primary styles of love could be combined to create new, secondary styles:

  • Eros and ludus come together to make ‘mania’. An obsessive love.
  • Ludus and storge mix to make ‘pragma’. Realistic, practical love.
  • Eros and storge result in ‘agape’. Selfless love.

Opening ourselves up to new ideas and ways of understanding ourselves and others can be a fascinating, fulfilling experience. So, those are the theories, but what do they look like in practice? That’s for you to discover.