Other theories have focused more into the actual social situation in which these relationships occur. One major factor that seems to play a part in the formation and attraction in relationships is the proximity, exposure and familiarity between two individuals. Proximity suggests that we are attracted to people that we are physically close to, and this would seem to fit in with our common sense and therefore has face validity. Festinger (1954) showed in his Dormitory Study that people became more friendly with close neighbors. He found that 41% had a close friendship with the person next door, had a not quite so friendly relationship with the person two doors away and a least friendly relationship with the people furthest away. Therefore the proximity they received to that person determined their attraction to form a social relationship. In terms of exposure, Zajonc (1968) put forward that the more we are exposed to anything, the more we like it. He gave evidence for this theory by showing American subjects unfamiliar symbols. Chinese hieroglyphs were shown frequently and Turkish symbols
were shown less frequently. The participants, when asked, preferred the Chinese hieroglyphs because they were more familiar. However, it is questionable as to how much of this affect can be transferred from this result to the attraction obtained in terms of social relationships, as the two situations are completely unrelated. Although exposure means that the more we are exposed to someone, the more we are supposed to like them, Argyle (1994) suggests that exposure leads to polarisation. This means that when we have become familiar with the person, we polarise towards liking or disliking them when we were first neutral to them. So in fact exposure can also lead to disliking as easily as it may lead to liking. Overall in this theory, even though there is a wealth of evidence, there seems to be a question over the direction of the effect. Do we like a person more because we spend time with them or do we spend time with them because we like them. Cause and effect is unclear.
In terms of similarity, it seems that 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 a person, the more we like that person. One very famous study into attraction and familiarity was devised by Byrne (1961) titles the ‘Bogus Stranger Study’ in which he gave each participant an attitude questionnaire and then showed them a completed questionnaire which they were told was filled in by a ‘stranger’, when in fact it had been completed in order to correlate with the participants own answers in varying degrees (20%, 65% and 80%). The participant liked the ‘stranger’ more when their views correlated. However, it seems that this similarity effect is not true if the stranger is someone whose approval we do not want (i.e. - someone mentally ill), in this case Byrne & Lambeth (1971) found that the more the participants views correlated with the mentally ill person, the less they like them. This research has an application in the real world in dating agencies where they couple customers by the similarities that they share. Rubin (1973) explains that the similarity effect occurs because it is easier to share activities with others like us and it confirms our own beliefs. It is also easier to communicated with them.However, it seems that most research into similarity as a factor in attraction is based upon artificial laboratory studies, for example the Bogus Stranger study. Byrne (1961) did find some support from real life studies: He found that bank managers offered larger loans to people who were like them and racists tended to make their views less strong towards a person if they believed that they shared some of their values with that person. Duck (1992) argues that lab studies of attraction are artificial and not like our experience of meeting strangers in the real world. We do not get a list of strangers values like we do in the lab experiments, we have to find them out. Studies such as Bryne’s (1961) Bogus Stranger Study is highly artificial and is not like attractions in the real world, and because of this, this study is said to lack ecological validity.
Reinforcement theories seem to suggest that the reason we find social relationships and people attractive is because we find them rewarding. Arglye (1992) suggests that individuals who are rewarding in ways such as friendly, cheerful, helpful etc. are liked most. However, Foa & Foa (1975) argues that reinforcements may be more than approval and may include other rewards such as love, sex, respect, status, information, help, money or goods. However, non-western collectivist cultures show little concern for the receipt of reinforcement. Hill (1970) suggests that kinship bonds are very influential and resilient and are not dependent upon reinforcement. Lott (1994) shows that in many cultures, women are socialised into being more attentive to the needs of others 9heusbands and children) rather than being concerned towards the gratification of their own needs. However, a criticism of this theory may be that seeing others needs met may be reinforcement in itself.
One factor which seems important in any relationship seems to be that of physical attractiveness. From a biological perspective, this preference for attractiveness seems to be innate. Langlois (1994) showed babies at the age of 2 months pictures of women of varying attractiveness. The babies showed a preference for the more attractive face. However, how was the level of attractiveness chosen as each person has a different idea of what physical attractiveness is.
Research has shown that physical attractive people are believed to have pleasanter personalities, are kinder, more popular, more intelligent and more likely to be offered jobs. However, Derner & Thiel (1975) showed that extremely attractive females are seen, by other females to be egotistic, vain, materialistic and snobbish. So in a way, you can be too attractive.
Much research has been conducted into this area of physical attractiveness determining attraction and one famous study was that by Walster (1966) labeled the ‘Computer Dance’ study. He invited new students to take part in a dance in which a computer would find their ideal partners. Each individual was rated for attractiveness and the partners were matched randomly unbeknown to the participants. After 2 and a half hours, they were given questionnaires about what they thought of their partner. It turned out that physical attractiveness determined whether they liked their partner and whether they would ask them out for further dates. This research suggests that there is a certain amount of determinism in our behaviour when choosing a partner and suggests that we would always judge on physical attractiveness. However, the free will in choosing a partner for long term relationships seems less dependent upon physical attractiveness.
The Matching Hypothesis suggests that we are attracted to people who have a similar level if attractiveness. Therefore, this would predict that the only computer dance partners who would be attracted to one another would be those who by chance were matched with someone of equal attractiveness. Walster found that this did explain which relationships survived. Silverman (1971) gave evidence for this Matching Hypothesis in his observational study of couples. In a natural setting 2 male and 2 female observers rated the attractiveness of unmarried couple between the ages of 188 and 22 on a 5 point scale. It turned out that the each individual in the couples scored very similarly in attractiveness to one another and the more similar they were , the more contented they seemed with their partner. Again however, the 5 point scale might have been biased with the observers ratings and it may be impossible to rate contentness.
Winch (1958) combated the question as to whether opposites attract
(complementarily). In his study of marriage partners, he found that caring, nurturing women often paired with men needing care. Critics argue that complementarily is something that may develop in a relationship and its not important in initial attraction.
In evaluation of the research into attraction through physical factors, it seems that Duck (1995) explained that most research is limited because most of it only looks at very first meetings between two people and does not take a longitudinal viewpoint at a relationship. The research that has been discussed has little follow up of the later progress of relationships and therefore anything could have happened in response to the variables first manipulated in the experiment Most of the research also seems to be based around college students and this means that the evidence can only be generalized to the college student population and has very little implication into the relationship attraction of the rest of the population. There also seems to be no research into the relationships of the elderly, and in what ways these differ from the relationships from other groups of people. It may well be that elderly people find different factors important in the attraction towards a person. For future research it may be important to analyse situations that are becoming more popular now such as Internet relationships where many of the variables such as proximity, physical attractiveness and intimacy are absent.
Therefore it is very difficult to evaluate as to why people find other people attractiveness, and it may be a mix of the factors discussed here. One thing is very clear though, as social animals, humans are very dependent upon social relationships and as Blau (1964) suggests, can become very ‘expensive’.
References:
Argyle, M. (1992) The Social Psychology Of Everyday Life, London: Routledge
Argyle, M (1994) The Psychology Of Interpersonal Behaviour, Harmondsworth: Penguin
Blau, P,M. (1964) Exchange And Power In Social Life, New York, Wiley.
Brehm, S,S. (1985) Intimate Relationships, New York: Random House
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity, JAbSP, 62, 713-715.
Duck, S,W. (1995) Repelling the study of attraction: Some recent advances in the study of [heterosexual] relationships, The Psychologist, 8, 60-63
Dunbar, R. (1995) Are You Lonesome Tonight, New Scientist, 11 February 1995, 26-31
Festinger, L. (1950) Social Pressures In Informal Groups, New York:Harper
Foa, U.G. and Foa, E.B (1975) Resource Theory Of Social Exchange, Morristown, USA :General Learning Press
Hill, R. (1970) Family Development In Three Generations, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman
Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5, 214-220
Lott, B.E. (1994) Womens Lives : Themes and Variations In Gender Learning, Pacific Grove, USA: Brooks Cole
Ridley, M. (1993) The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Macmillan
Rubin, Z. (1973) Liking And Loving, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Schachter, S. (1959) The Psychology of Affiliation, Stanford: Stanford UP
Silverman, I. (1971) Physical Attractiveness And Courtship. Sexual Behaviour, I, 22-25
Walster, E. (1966) Importance Of Physical Attractiveness In Dating Behaviour. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 4, 508-516
Wilson, G. (1983) QED:The Science Of Sexual Attraction, BBC Television.
Winch, P. (1958) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Zajonc, R.B. (1986) Attitude Effects Of Mere Exposure. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 9, 1-27
© Kim Louise Leggett 2003
