Several studies in the 1960s particularly illustrated the zeitgeist of social psychological research into attraction. Walster et al. (1966) did a study where the participants were asked how much they liked their allocated partner and how much they wanted to go out with them again. It was found that physical attractiveness was the single biggest predictor of how much each partner has been liked. A follow up to this study was done by Walster and Walster (1969) that followed the same format but instead the participants were able to meet one another first and state what they wanted from a partner. It was this interaction that made the critical difference as it was found that the participants chose a partner of similar physical attractiveness to themselves.
Much of the research into friendship and attraction has shown that a dominant factor into predicting our likely choice of friends and partners is proximity or frequency of interaction. Bossard (1932) found a clear tendency for those couples getting married to live close to one another whilst Festinger et al. (1950) found that close friends who lived in the same building were twice as likely to live on the same floor. However, frequency of interaction has been shown to not always lead to greater liking; Warr (1965) demonstrated it could prove to lead to greater disliking and Ebbesen, Kjos and Konechi (1976) found that most of the enemies of residents in apartment blocks in California lived near by.
There is considerable evidence to support the view that similarity of values, attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking are common indicators of strong friendship and attraction. It is thought that the more similar attitudes are between people, the greater the likelihood of their friendship or romance, and demographic factors such as religion, social class, age and ethnic background are also important as people tend to prefer those who are demographically similar to themselves. Caspi and Herbener (1990) found that the more similar a husband and wife were, the most satisfied they tended to be with their marriage. However, Kerckhoff and Davis’s filter theory of mate selection (1962) has put forward the idea that although similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, for a long-term relationship to develop, complementarity of needs is of greater importance.
- Evaluate the research studies relating to interpersonal attraction that you described in Part A. (12 marks)
When evaluating attraction and the formation of platonic and romantic relationships, one must consider and variety of factors. Where the research on the importance of physical attraction is concerned, although Walster et al.’s “blind date” study demonstrates strong support for the significance of physical attractiveness in the formation of relationships, Towhey’s (1979) study showed that some people are more influenced by physical attractiveness than others.
Where the factor of proximity is concerned, it is conceivable to the majority that it is an obvious determinant of the formation of relationships, as we cannot get to know people unless we meet them. It has been argued that instead of actual proximity, is it the amount of contact that is the crucial determinant. Bossard’s (1932) study is arguably not applicable to today’s world as people are a lot more mobile and can travel greater distances. The invention of such things as the Internet has meant that the factor of proximity may become less important in some relationships. As mentioned before, it has been found that proximity does not always lead to liking. Ebbesen, Kjos and Konechi (1976) found that if people have enemies, they are also likely to live nearby, indicating that a lot of contact results in intense emotions that can be either positive or negative.
In terms of evaluating the importance of similarity in the formation of relationships (attitude similarity, demographic similarity and similarity in personality) one must recognise that the association between factors such as age, sex, religion, social class and ethnic background is correlational and therefore, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. What the research does not take into account is individual differences, since some couples may be happier in a relationship where the individual has a personality that contrasts their own, whereas some may be happier with a partner similar to themselves.
It is arguable that a lot of the research into interpersonal relationships has been over-generalised as by focusing upon the individual or the couple, a lot of the earlier research failed to take into account third parties. Family and friends have an enormous influence upon those with whom we form friendships and relationships. Similarly, much of the research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s focused too heavily on snapshots of relationships and therefore doesn’t take the change and variability of a relationship into account. One could argue that there has too much of an emphasis on romantic relationships at the expense of cross-sex and same-sex platonic friendships, which play a large part in the people’s everyday lives. One could also conceive that no characteristics or attributes of certain person are absolute; they are relative. For example, something you may find attractive in someone at the beginning of a relationship may later be viewed as negative.
Ultimately, although all of the factors mentioned above play a large part in attraction and the formation of relationships, there will always be exceptions to the rule and things such as individual differences mean that research cannot always be applied universally.
