It has been suggested that this proximity effect is directly related to another determinant, familiarity. This is the concept that sheer exposure to people can cause a bond to appear over time. It seems that people tend to have an affinity for that which is familiar and therefore more comfortable to them. This is seen when a group is shown two prints of a photo of one member of the group (one normal photo, the other a mirror image) and asked which one they prefer. The friends always say the original whereas the subject will say the mirror image (as these are respectively the views they are both used to seeing). In 1968, Zajonc conducted an experiment into this, by showing a group of subjects a set of photographs and asking them which ones they believed they would like, and how much. Some of the pictures were only shown once, while others were shown up to 10 times. The more frequently a face had come up during the testing, the higher attractiveness rating it was given at the end (on average). On these grounds it is logical to theorise that the more exposure in everyday life two people have, the more they will become used to and even comfortable with each other.
The next quality that can often lead to attraction is that of similarity. This is the concept that friendships will be forged based on how many shared interests and how close the personality of two people are. Children in an American elementary school, for example, are seen to prefer to have friendships with other children who perform similarly in academics, sports and music. They also seem drawn to similar objective attributes such as race, ethnic origin, social level, family background and religion. This has been shown to continue throughout a human life, with 99% of married couples in the USA being of the same race and most of them of the same religion. This, however, is a matter of some contention. It has been argued, by some psychologists, that this similarity is merely a cause of situational circumstance (the fact that the two people will be in the same place at the same time) and not actually a reason for attraction in its own right. An example of this would be two people with similar intelligence and socio-economic status resultantly finding themselves at university together. If they then get together and form a couple, they will be similar in qualifications, age and professional aspirations.
In order to disprove this theory and re-establish the concept that similarity could be a founding principle in friendship, Newcomb carried out a study in 1961 at Michigan University. A large group of male students from the University were offered free board in top-rated accommodation in order to take part in a study. They were then personality tested and split accordingly into two groups, 50% were put in with roommates who were very similar to them in many ways, and the other 50% put in with people who were markedly different. During the course of the year they were questioned at regular intervals as to what they thought of their roommates and how well they got on with them. Apart from this they were left to go on as normal. The result of this was that those roommates who were very similar ended up as much closer friends in general than those who were dissimilar. This shows that there was a difference, which meant that similarity was a stronger determinant than both familiarity and proximity (which were present in both group dynamics).
The last of these conditions and by far the most superficial is the concept of physical attractiveness being important to attraction. This is the first thing we will notice about any other person and so will go a long way to forming our first impressions which will have a dramatic effect on how attractive someone is to us. The main point here is that beauty is linked with goodness and purity, and superficial attractiveness is often linked with beauty. For example, attractive children tend not to be blamed for things as much as those who are less so. Therefore we are make friends with physically attractive people for subliminal reasons of trust and comfort. Brehm exemplified the importance of physical attractiveness in 1992, when he set up a ‘computer dance’ at a University. The concept behind it was that the experimenters obtained several personality tests per participant as well as an independent estimate of their physical attractiveness. This info was then fed into a computer in order to match them up with their ‘perfect’ partner. In reality they were actually matched up so that some couples were far more compatible than others, and for a number of different reasons. At an interval in the dance, all participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate their date. The results made it apparent that only physical attractiveness was really an important factor in whether a person was liked by their partner. None of the other measures used (social skills, intelligence, personality etc.) were taken into account.
Another point made was that people are attracted to people who are thought of as physically attractive as social standing and self-esteem are both seen to be enhanced when they are with them. There is an argument, however, that while physical attractiveness is important, we are not necessarily drawn to the most attractive people. This is known as the matching hypothesis and it shows that people generally have a good idea of their own physical attractiveness and so will socialise with (and seek a partner of) someone comparable to themselves in order to avoid rejection or a feeling of inferiority. It has also been pointed out that the importance of physical attractiveness in attraction lessens over time, and declines greatly in importance when a permanent partner is being chosen.
As we can see, there are a number of important factors involved in the question “why are human beings attracted to one another”, and they can all be seen to work together and in some cases even interlink. For example similarity and physical attractiveness are both shown to be important, but neither could have be factors without a starting close proximity which leads to enough familiarity to be able to initially address someone. Therefore it seems that in order to fully explain why human beings are attracted to one another, the answer must be the combination of these four components.
References:
1)Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., Benn, D.J., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (Eds.) (1999) Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace
2)Priest, R.F. & Sawyer, J. (1967) Proximity and Peership, American Journal of Sociology 72.
3)Gleitman (1995) Gleitman Psychology. Norton publishing
4)Berscheid, E. & Walster, E.H. (1978) Interpersonal Attraction. Addison-Wesley
5)Mita, T.H., Dermer, M. & Knight, J. (1977) Reversed facial images and the mere exposure theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35
6)Zajonc, R.B. (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure, Journal of Personality and social Psychology, monograph supplement 9 (no.2)
7)Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984) Friendship Choice and Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46
8)Kandel, D. (1978) Similarity in Real Life Adolescent Friendship Pairs, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36
9)Newcomb, T.M. (1961) The Acquaintance Process. Rinehart and Winston
10)Brehm, S.S. (1992) Intimate Relationships. McGraw-Hill
11)Stroebe, W., Insko, C.A., Thompson, V.D., & Layton, B.D. (1971) Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Attitude Similarity and Sex on Various Aspects of Interpersonal Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18
1667- Priest & Sawyer (cited in Hilgard 1999)
!978- Berscheid & Walster (cited in Gleitman 1995)
1977- Mitta, Dermer & Knight (cited in Gleitman 1995)
1968- Zajonc (cited in Hilgard 1999)
1984- Tesser, Campbell and Smith (cited in Gleitman 1995)
1978- Kandel (cited in Gleitman 1995)
1961- Newcomb (cited in Hilgard 1999)
1992- Brehm (cited in Hilgard 1999)
1971- Strobe (cited in Hilgard 1999)