Overall, the reward/need satisfaction model doesn’t take into account that giving may provide people with pleasure rather than just receiving. Hays (1985) found when examining student friendships as much value was given to rewarding the other person than as being rewarded oneself. Participants in relationships are often more concerned with equity and fairness in rewards and demands than with the desire to maximise their own benefits. Furthermore, this model tends to focus on western cultures hence lacks ecological validity. In non –western cultures you tend to be rewarded for being like everyone else rather than individualistic so being in a relationship wouldn’t be rewarding in these cultures. Hill (1972) showed that kinship bonds are very influential resilient not dependent on reinforcement. Indicating social relationships are more commonly found in these countries and show little concern for the receipt of reinforcements. In addition this theory doesn’t take into account gender differences as women are more focused on the needs of others, with men it is against their ‘machismo’ and ‘manliness’, who are orientated towards the gratification of their own needs, (Lott, 1994). However it could be argued that ‘meeting the needs of others’ might be reinforcing in itself.
Moreover, the matching hypothesis (Walster et al, 1966) suggests that physical attractiveness is the main thing we look for in a mate and that we are attracted to those that are similar to us. Further research lead to the following main theories: socially desirable individuals seek out other socially desirable individuals and matched couples tend to be more successful than unmatched couples. When we are choosing a mate we are influenced by desirability and the probability of the person saying yes (realistic choice). Murstein (1972) supports the theory that physical attractiveness is the main factor when forming a relationship (the matching hypothesis). Murstein argues that individuals’ initial attraction towards each other in the formative stages of a relationship depends on available costs that indicate their social desirability (e.g. physical attractiveness). Data collected in the real world shows strong evidence for the matching effect in correlational studies conducted with actual couples (e.g. Murstein 1972, Silverman 1971). In these studies the attractiveness level is measured for each partner for actual couples. This supported the matching hypothesis showing significantly similarity between partner’s levels of physical attractiveness. Also it was found that long-term couples tend to be better matched than short-term couples (Caviar and Boblett 1972). Walster et al (1966) tested the matching hypothesis in a dance study. In this study, 752 first-year undergraduates at the University of Minnesota were invited to attend a ‘get acquainted’ dance. They believe they had been ‘matched’ with their ‘date’ when in fact they were randomly assigned with partners. The success of these random matches was assessed using a questionnaire distributed in an interval during the dance and in a six-month follow up. They found that the more attractive the student, the most attractive their date would be. However once participants had met their matches, and regardless of their own level of physical attractiveness, they reacted more positively to physical attractive dates, and were more likely to try to arrange subsequent attempts to see them again. Even when researchers manipulated the physical attractiveness of a date and presented false information about how likely the date would be to enter a relationship with the participant, the physical attractiveness effect (i.e. liking someone more the more attractive he or she was) predominating over a matching effect or any concern about rejection.
Although the original matching hypothesis proposed; people would pair up with someone of similar ‘social desirability’ (in all its different forms), over time it has come to be associated with matching in terms of physical attractiveness alone. This idea that; individuals can sometimes compensate for their lack of attractiveness by offering their other desirable traits (e.g. status and money) has been termed ‘complex matching’ (Hatfield and Sprecher. 2009). This hypothesis doesn’t take into account gender differences and Takeuchi (2006) has shown that a gender difference does exist in the degree to which physical attractiveness is valued by an opposite sex partner. Physical attractiveness of women is valued more heavily by men than that by women of men. So it has less impact on the perception of men’s social desirability. In other words, women tend to be more picky than men and take high social status e.g. money and power, also certain personality traits such as kindness and generosity into account. On a good note, the matching hypothesis takes into account the roles of third parties which may form relationships such as friends, family or even dating sites. Hatfield and Sprecher (2009) suggest it is likely that these third parties would consider compatibility because they determine who would make suitable matches. For example, in traditional arranged marriages, parents may be in a better position to judge compatibility in the long term than are their children, those decisions maybe swayed be emotions or hormones (Xiaohe and Whyte 1990). In contrast, it doesn’t take into account individual differences for e.g. those with low self-esteem will go for a mate who is less attractive than them because they consider themselves to be less attractive than they actually are also doesn’t include individuals who have same – sex preferences. Although it highlights the benefits of say ‘arranged marriages’ it doesn’t take into account cultural differences. In western cultures individuals are more likely to fall in love and are loose with their emotions where as in non-western cultures this is not the case. Hence, in western cultures more partners have eloped when part of an arranged marriage. Also in these cultures arranged marriages are more based on status and whether the partner can provide stability and security.
In conclusion the matching hypothesis is reductionist as it only focuses on physical attractiveness rather than forms of social desirability such as status and both theories are deterministic as they simplify a very complex process. In addition the theories don’t take into account free will as they make out we form relationships due to social factors and pre determined characteristics not because we like the person or turn them down because we don’t like them but its more to do with that they are not good looking enough for us!
Manpreet Kaur (SC2006010821)
Psychology Page