Dion et al (72) study provides support for the matching hypothesis. In this study participants were shown photographs of people and were asked to make judgments about their personal qualities. It was found that people who were more attractive were also the people who were regarded as having positive psychological characteristics. A halo effect was formed.
Formulation of Aims:
The aim of the investigation is to see whether participants give a similar level of rating for each individual in a couple. This will be based on Murstein’s original study on the matching hypothesis. The prediction is that people will be attracted to others of an approximately identical level of attractiveness. Seeing as the research that has been carried out by psychologists concerning the matching hypothesis has proved this to be true, in this case it is suitable to use a one tailed hypothesis.
Alternative hypothesis:
A positive correlation will be found, when each participant will rate the photographs of individuals in a romantic relationship
Null hypothesis:
No correlation will be found when each participant will rate the photographs of individuals in a romantic relationship.
The level of statistical significance used will be 5% or 0.05. 5% is the most frequently used significant level in psychological research, because if the significant level is too widespread, such as 10% one can only accept the null hypothesis of a study even if the results state that it is incorrect, leading to type 1 errors occurring. On the other hand if the significant level is something like 1% it is too rigid. Type 2 errors occur, as the null hypothesis must be rejected despite it being correct. Therefore the best level of statistical significance to use is in between these, a 5% level of statistical significance.
Methodology
Design:
This study used a correlational analysis, enabling me to assess the data that was produced from the findings.
Researchers:
There were 4 A Level students who collected the data.
Target population and sample:
An opportunity sample was used which involved sixteen to eighteen year olds, there were 20 participants involved in the study.
Materials:
Photographs of white couples in a romantic relationship were used (appendix 1), which were cut and then stuck on cardboard so the photographs were of an individual. An instruction sheet (appendix 2) was used informed the participant about what their role was as a participant. The participants had an answer sheet (appendix 3) to write down their ratings.
Standardized Procedure:
1. Photographs of white couples were collected from sources such as the internet, magazines and newspapers. The couple’s photos were cut so that one could not identify which couples were together. Each individual was labeled so that for our benefit we new which couples were together.
2. Twenty participants were selected using an opportunity sample between two year groups. As the group of population chosen to take part in the experiment was under the age of eighteen, letters of consent were sent home to parents to receive permission for participants to take part in the experiment.
3. Before the experiment took place participants were given information on the date, time and place the experiment would be held.
4. An explanation was given before on what the participant’s involvement would be in the experiment and then any questions that the participants asked were answered.
5. The first participant was sent into the experimental room at random. There they were given an instruction sheet (appendix2 ). They were shown twenty pictures of couples and had to rate their level of attractiveness on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 was unattractive and ten 10 was attractive.
6. There were two tables in a classroom where the pictures were and each participant spent 2 minutes on a table. Participants rated the pictures by declaring their score on a piece of paper (appendix 3).
7. After each participant had finished making their decision they put their sheet of paper in a box and their decisions were kept anonymous.
8. When all participants finished they were given a debriefing session and were informed that they were taking part in an experiment concerning physical attraction where the aim was to find out if it is true, that couples in a romantic relationship hold a similar level of physical attractiveness
towards each other.
Ethics:
The problem of consent was dealt with by sending a letter home to the parents of the participants, as they were under 18, (appendix 4) asking for permission as to whether it was acceptable for them to take part in the investigation or not. When all participants had finished giving their ratings a debriefing session took place, where participants were told that the experiment that they took part in was to do with the idea that the matching hypothesis proposed.
Results:
Descriptive statistics
Inferential statistics
From the scatter graph it can be seen that there was a weak positive correlation. A Spearman’s rank correlation test was used because we needed t test the correlation between the two variables. As the data involved rating, this meant that it was ordinal. When the calculations were made (appendix 5) to find the value of Spearman’ correlation coefficient, it was found that the null hypothesis was accepted. The coefficient was compared with the level of significance (5%) for a one tailed test as the critical value or r being N = 10. The value of r was 0.42 which was less than 0.56, the critical value, therefore the null hypothesis, which stated that no correlation will be found when each participant will rate the photographs of individuals in a romantic relationship was accepted and the hypothesis rejected.
Discussion
Explanation of findings:
Just as the null hypothesis had predicted no correlation was found when each participant rated the photographs of individuals in a romantic relationship, as can be seen in the scatter graph. When the inferential test was carried out, there was no significance at a level of 5%. When looking at the mean of some couples, such as couples in photograph B, H and especially C, the means were very similar, proving the directional hypothesis right. Nevertheless these results were outweighed by those of the remaining couples, as there was not only small differences in the mean, but quite large ones, such as couples in photograph A, E, F, J. When looking at the results as a whole it is obvious that not every couple that is in a romantic relationship have the same level of physical attractiveness as each other.
Relationship to background research:
When Murstein’s study carried out in 1972, investigating the Matching hypothesis, he concluded that real couples that are together in a romantic relationship do have a similar level of physical attractiveness as each other, compared to couples who were randomly paired. Murstein’s results go against the results found in this study. Th reason for this could be that as time has gone by, how physically attractive a person is not as important as it used to be, when one forms a relationship with someone. For instance it may be that personality is now more significant, so qualities such as how intelligent, humorous, patient, and warm hearted a person is might overshadow how physically attractive one is. Also, apart from what the norm is in society changing, another reason why these results were not similar to Murstein’s could be that in this investigation participants who rated the photographs were all adolescents, in Murstein’s study this was not the case. Therefore the age of the participants rating, could have influenced the results turning out different, as different age groups presumably do not have the same idea as to what physical attractiveness actually is.
Disproving Walster’s matching hypothesis was research carried out by Newcomb (61). He found that similarity where beliefs and attitudes were concerned was most important rather that physical attractiveness. Other theories such as the Sociobiological argues that when looking for a partner, for women the most important is resources, or a man’s health, as this ensures that her genes will carry on this was and that her offspring will be provided for.
Limitations and Modifications
One of the limitations of the study was that as the photographs had been taken from magazines, newspapers and internet, there was no guarantee that the couples were actually couple in real life. Also, the qualities of the photographs should be taken into account; it may be that because they had been cut out, and were in black and white, this did not help the participants when they rated the photographs. Another problem with the study was that the participants who were sixteen – eighteen year olds might perceive physical attractiveness differently to members of couples.
Implications and suggestions for future research:
These findings imply that an investigation concerning the matching hypothesis should be carried using a particular method. Therefore when deciding what participants should be used, if the study was to be carried out again it would be better if individuals who were in a couple rated each other and themselves to see whether couples have the same level of physical attractiveness to each other. Also a longitudinal study could be carried out looking at individual and the relationship they have over a long period of time, then seeing whether they continue to form relationship with those who are similar to them where physical attractiveness is concerned.
References:
A – Z Psychology coursework Handbook 2nd edition
Mike Cardwell Hugh Coolican
Hodder & Stoughton
Psychology A2 the complete companion guide
Cara Flanagan and Mike Cardwell
Nelson Thornes
Psychology for A2 level, 3rd edition
Mike Cardwell, Liz Clark, Claire Meldrum
Collins
Research methods and statistics in psychology 3rd edition
Hugh Coolican
Hodder and Stoughton.
