To try and counter-act this study Duck (1995) explained that the research into matching hypothesis theory is limited because it only looks at the initial meeting between two people and does not take into consideration a studies over a long period of time. There is a lack of research into how the relationships have progressed after this study, with little or no follow up. The research is based around college students so fails to take into account how relationships formed in different cultures or age ranges.
We perceive physical attractiveness with more positive personality traits (Dion et al 1972 the attractiveness stereotype) when showing male participants photographs of attractive people, compared with unattractive people, the subjects were consistently credited with more desirable qualities like responsive, kind, warm and professionally successful. However (Dermer and Theil, 1975) found that extremely attractive women were judged by female participants to be egotistic, vain, materialistic and less likely to succeed professionally. This could suggest that males value physical attractiveness as being intrinsic in selecting a partner, and females value it less. A study done by (Speed & Gangestad, 1997) contradicts this argument by suggesting female’s value physical attraction more than males. From a young age we value physical attraction, as beautiful people tend to receive more social attention. Images in the media also confirm this, by using more attractive people as actors or actresses therefore we use them as role models. To hypothesise this we can refer to the self-fulfilling prophecy. The way we treat people affects how they behave and ultimately how they perceive themselves but can a normal person behave like an attractive one through the self-fulfilling prophecy?.
An important determinant of interpersonal attraction is similarity. We are attracted to people with whom we share the same point of view. And research has shown that the more we have in common with someone the more successful our relationships with people will be. If we show any dissimilarity it can cause conflict within that relationship, the dissimilar-repulsion effect (Rosenbaum, 1986). This could also be common with reciprocal liking Aronson (1980) stated that attraction is based on similarities or a shared interest or beliefs. This is attributed to the belief that when a person is in agreement with us, they are providing us with the reward of reinforcement, therefore leading to self-confidence, vanity and reciprocal liking.
A famous study to determine this was devised by (Byrne 1961) titled the “Bogus Stranger Study. This study tested the hypothesis from the self-expansion model that the usual effect of greater attraction to a similar (vs. dissimilar) stranger will be reduced or reversed when a person is given information that a relationship would be likely to develop. He gave each participant an attitude questionnaire, and then showed them one that had been completed by a stranger. The questionnaire filled out by the stranger was correlated in varying degrees with the participant’s answers (20%, 65%, & 80%). The participants liked the stranger more when their views were correlated to fit theirs. However Aronson and Worchel (1966) found the usual similarity effect in the Byrne experiment was eliminated when participants were led to believe that the other person liked them before completing the questionnaire. Therefore increasing the anticipation of forming a relationship, so that similarity provided little, or any additional reason to expect that a relationship was possible.
As human beings we all have similar interests however, Rosenbaum (1986b) proposed a repulsion interpretation for this well –established relationship. According to Rosenbaum, attitude similarity does not lead to liking, but attitude dis-similarity does indeed lead to repulsion. Attraction toward a person described by the individual’s personality alone differs when paired with a photograph or political affiliation. With the popularity of social networking and the internet it might be useful to research the subjects of physical attractiveness and similarity when the intimacy factor is absent.
Although 94% of internet daters deny that their profile contains any fibs (Gibbs et al,.2006), psychologists Toma et al.(2008) decided to measure the heights and weights of 80 internet daters, as well as checking their driving licences for real age. When this data was checked against their profiles, it was found at least nine out of ten had lied on at least one of the attributes measured. The most frequent anomaly was in regards to weight. Women tended to shave pounds off, while men gave themselves a boost in height. Even though the vast majority fibbed on their profile it was only by a small amount as most people want to meet up eventually. Toma and Hancock (2010) took photographs of the internet daters and compared them to their online profile pictures. Although less physically attractive people were the most likely to choose a self-enhancing photo, overall the differences were minimal towards the lab photo. Scholars say a certain amount of fibbing is socially even necessary to compete in the online dating world. By boosting one’s attributes, they can increase their chances of a relationship developing in the future. So this would point to the fact that we value goods looks not just in other people but also in ourselves.
Opposites attract, well this is not the case when it comes to internet dating. Fiore and Donarth (2005) examined data from 65,000 online daters, the found that people were choosing based on similarities to themselves. That includes ethnicity and religion. Of all the data analysed 80% of the contacts initiated by white members were to other white members, and only 3% were made to black members. Online dating agencies have taken advantage of this fact by setting up dating websites to caterer to this for example JustChristian.com, or Afrointrodution.com.
Although researching internet dating is a good way of examining interpersonal relationships, there is only limited data on how well it works. Most of the research is based on heterosexual daters therefore ignores the comparison with homosexual daters. Most people think of it in consumerist terms (Heino et al, .2010) users are “Relation shopping”, looking at other people’s features weighing them up, then choosing potential partners, as though from a catalogue, its human relationships reduced to check boxes.
Social psychological studies have not so much influenced our opinion on interpersonal attraction, but reinforced the reasons why we find people attractive for example; physical attraction, proximity, familiarity or reciprocal liking. Most of the research is potentially artificial focusing on forced social settings or attitude surveys. It can ignore ecological or cultural relationship criteria. What is prevalent though is the need to form relationships with other people maybe for romantic reasons or friendship.
References
-
: Walster et al. - 1966. (N/A). Matching hypothesis. Available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/matching_hypothesis. Last accessed 28th Jan 2012.
-
Duck S. (1995). Repelling the study of attraction. The Psychologist, N/A (8), 60-63.
- http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/app/amberdigital/aronson/content/10.pdf. (accessed on 28/01/2013)
- Arthur Aron, Jodie L Steele, Todd b Kashdan, & Max Perez (2006)When similars do not attract: Test of a prediction from the self- expansion model, personal relationships 13, 387-39
- P H Aronson Interpersonal attraction from first impressions to close relationships chapter 10 http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/app/amberdigital/aronson/content/10.pdf
-
- http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/09/online-dating-10-psychological-insights.php