Studies, which conclude similarity is important, were done by Buss in 1985, and Byrne in 1971. Buss studied married and engaged couples, and found them to be similar in attitudes, habits, and social class. These findings supported Byrnes’ ‘Law of Attraction’, which states that there is a direct linear relationship between the level of attraction and proportion of similar attitudes. Byrne based the law of attraction on studies called the ‘bogus stranger’ studies. He assessed attitude questionnaires completed by participants, then gave them bogus questionnaires, which he said had been completed by others, and asked them how much they thought they might like the others if they were to meet them in real life. The greater the similarity in attitudes between the real and bogus questionnaires, the more the participants thought they might like the strangers. These studies of course, don’t reflect how ‘real life’ relationships are formed. They lack ecological validity, even though they appear to be significant to some extent. Duck points out, that you cannot obtain a comprehensive list of attitudes when you meet a person for the first time. The enjoyment of developing a friendship is based on both parties gradually revealing their true personality.
Physical attractiveness – this is the single most important factor in who we are attracted to. Physical attractiveness appears to be more important to men, than it is to women, although some studies how this isn’t always the case. We like to be ‘seen’ with attractive individuals because we gain instant prestige by being with them, and we get pleasure from their appearance. Also, would either partner be happy, if there wasn’t any similarity in attractiveness? Would one person always feel inferior?
Research into physical attractiveness – one theory by Dion et all (1972), revealed that people believed that physically attractive individuals, were also more sociable, intelligent, outgoing, sexual, happy, and assertive, than others. This stereotyping applies to all cultures, although what is seen as physical attractiveness often varies across cultures. Walster et all (1966), conducted the pioneering ‘computer dance’ study, where students were told that they were going to be matched to their ideal partner, who would accompany them to a dance. In fact, students were rated by researchers for their physical attractiveness, and then partners were picked completely at random. When the dance was over, the students were asked how much they enjoyed their date, and if they wanted to see them again. The overriding determinant as to whether they wanted to see their dance partner again was physical attractiveness. The study was criticised for its lack of ecological validity, the artificiality of the situation, and the narrow focus of the questions asked, and so, two years later, it was repeated. It was modified, so that the students actually got to meet each other before the dance. The notable difference in the studies was that, in the second, the students picked to attend the dance, with someone of similar physical attractiveness to themselves, thus supporting the matching hypothesis.
We expect to see couples together that are similar in age, and physical attractiveness. Our expectations are so strong, that when we see a miss-matched couple, we are often shocked or amused.
The matching hypothesis was tested by Murstein, who asked people to rate the physical attractiveness of members of married or dating couples. He found significant similarities in the values of physical attractiveness between the rated couples. The matching hypothesis also applies to friendships (including same sex friendships). McMillan et al (1973), observed couples in bars and rated their attractiveness. They found, upon questioning the couples, that the matching hypothesis also applied to those couples that turned out to be friends, as well as those who were couples.
Reciprocal liking – we are often attracted to people whom we believe, ‘like us back’. These are those people, who pay us complements, use positive body language such as smiling, and do things for us which generally indicate they are paying attention to us in an affirmative way. This in turn, boosts our self-esteem.
Research into reciprocal liking – studies have shown that, when placed in group situations, participants who had been told that some of others in the group like them, appeared more positively inclined towards those people. A study that looked at the importance of reciprocal liking and similarity was conducted by Gold et al (1984). Gold arranged for male participants to have a discussion with a female confederate, who they were told had opposing views to their own. In some instances, the confederate used positive body language towards the participant to indicate that she liked him. The participants in these conditions expressed a liking for her, even though they didn’t necessarily agree with her views.
Evaluation of research
Many of the above experiments into interpersonal attraction can be criticised for their lack of ecological validity. Most of the conditions created by the researchers would not transfer themselves to real life situations. Some of the experiments only used a very narrow sample of participants, when it would have probably resulted in different outcomes if the participants had been randomly sampled. Many of the studies also only showed Correlational relationships, rather than causal relationships. This is a limitation of many of the earlier studies. It is clear that more cross-cultural studies should be done in the area of attraction, to steer the focus of research away from the young ‘American college student’ view of relationships.
Theories in the formation of relationships – these include the sociobiological theory (see below), and the learning theory.
The sociobiological theory focuses on our need to pass our genes on through generations, and our innate survival instincts. Sociobiologists believe our behaviour is embedded in our genes, and has evolved with us as a species over thousands of years.
The basic theory here, is that men and women have both evolved in ways which best ensure that their genes are passed on to their offspring, and that those offspring go on to grow into healthy adults, who in turn can pass on the family gene to their own offspring, and so on. Men, according to Sociobiologists, have a very different way of successfully reproducing to women. Males are more likely to be promiscuous in order to impregnate as many women as possible. They are less selective over personality when it comes to choosing a mate, and mainly concern themselves with meeting a female who has all the outward signs of good physical health, such as attractive facial features. Men are also more likely to choose a women who is younger than themselves, because they know she is more fertile, and likely to have a healthy pregnancy, and therefore a healthy child.
Women think completely differently when selecting a partner. Women according to this theory, have to be more selective, as (unlike men) they are limited as to how many children they are able to have in a lifetime, and when during that lifetime they are able to conceive. Also, once pregnant, they have at least nine months in which they cannot conceive again, whereas the amount of women a man can get pregnant in that time is more or less limitless. Women tend to choose men who are older than them, and who have a good job, and financial stability. Women are choosier when it comes to emotional and financial stability, because their main drive is to find someone who will be around to protect and provide for the child until it is independent enough to look after itself.
Sociobiological theory has been criticised for oversimplifying complex human behaviour. It doesn’t take into account cultural differences. For example, it may be possible that men desire attractive women because they are surrounded by media images of such women, and because they learn from an early age that they should be aiming to get into a relationship with that sort of women. Also, sociobiological theory uses hindsight to explain current behaviour patterns, and has no predictive power. You could easily explain any type of behaviour using this theory because it is so broad. If men were more faithful, then you could easily modify the theory, and say that this was the case because men knew that their offspring wouldn’t survive, without them around to help take care of it.
