The Propinquity effect hypothesizes that people you see and interact with most are likely to become your friends or lover and it works because of mere exposure which suggest that the more one sees something the more likely they will like it. Familiarity/mere exposure plays an important role in choosing a potential partner as Festinger, Schacter, & Back (1950) argued that it is highly likely that with all factors the same but not living in the same place, a person living next door to someone is likely to get first preference, followed by one living two doors down and lastly one who lives opposite the ends hall which indicates the significant of familiarity in choosing a potential mate.
McKenna, Green, & Gleason (2002) studied propinquity effect with people who meet online via internet dating, social networks and so forth, they had people meet face-to-face or/and on the internet and they found out that those who met on the internet were more attracted to each other than those who met face-to-face and Chan and Cheng (2004) found out that online friendship are not different from the offline ones which dismiss the argument by McKenna et al (2002).
Researchers like (Byrne, 1997; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986) argue that “similarity causes attraction” (Weiten, 2008, p643) married people are likely to be of similar age, physical appearance, emotional intelligence, backgrounds, race, attitudes and etc (Kalimjn, 1998; Watson et al, 2004). Interpersonal style and communication skills also increase attraction (Burleson & Samter 1996). The classic study by Newcomb (1961) found out from college housing study that similarity in attitudes, interest and values increase the likelihood of friendship formation. It is evident that similarity does cause attraction but there is less evidence that opposite attracts, researchers as much as similarity causes attraction likewise attraction cause similarity (Anderson, Keltner & John, 2003) thus the more people are attracted to each other the higher the likelihood of similarity.
Reciprocal liking is also one of the most potent determinants of attraction as Sprecher (1998 as cited Weiten, 2008,p644) put it “liking breeds liking and loving promotes loving” which simply means people tend to love those who love them. As Gold et al (1984) proved in their study that males are likely to love females who nonverbally showed liking even though they do not agree with them in other things. As much as Bosson & Swann (2001) proved that people prefer positive responses from people which are abreast to their self concept. The determinants have led to a rise in attraction theories in the psychology discipline which have led to debates that within them the potential mate choosing determinants are incorporate.
For example the Social exchange theory in attraction states that; how people feel about a relationship depends on their perception of the rewards and cost of the relationship, people “evaluate relationships in terms of the rewards they offer and the cost they entail” (Swart,2008, p310).People's feelings toward a potential partner are dependent on their perception of rewards and costs, the kind of relationships they deserve or expect to have (comparison level), and their likelihood for having a better relationship with someone else (comparison level for alternatives). Rewards are the part of a relationship that makes it worthwhile and enjoyable. A cost is something that can cause irritation like a demanding partner or in-laws.
Comparison level is also taken into account during a relationship. People expect rewards or costs depending on the time invested in the relationship. If the levels of expected rewards are minimal and the level of costs is high, the relationship suffers and people involved may become dissatisfied and unhappy. The comparison of alternatives means that satisfaction is conditional on the chance that a person could replace the relationship with a more desirable one. Rewards must be more than cost for one to involve himself\herself in a relationship.
Culture as suggested by the sociocultural theory also plays a role in how people label their experiences and what they expect from a relationship but surprisingly researches prove that there are agreements across cultures of what is considered physical attractive as Buss ( 1989, 1994a as cited in Weiten, 2008,p646) proved in his findings that “all people all over the world value mutual attraction, kindness, intelligence, emotional stability, dependability and good health in a mate” and furthermore “ gender differences in mating priorities are universal, with males placing more emphasis on physical attractiveness and females putting a higher priority on social status and financial resources”.
These findings are repudiated by Dion and Dion (1988, 1993) who argues that romantic love is an important determiner of choosing a potential mate in an individualistic society but not in a collectivist society wherein family wishes are important. Shaver et al. (1992) found Differences in concepts of love cross-culturally in a concept-sorting task. Researches also suggest that love is important in marriage in western cultures compared to eastern cultures (for example see Levin et al. 1995)
The evolutionary theory states that men and women are attracted to different characteristic in each other with men attracted more by looks and women by men’s resources. The theory places much importance on physical appearance which is believed to be an indicator “of sound health, good genes, and high fertility, all of which can contribute to reproductive potential” ( sugiyama, 2005 as cited in Weiten, 2008,p647). As Vecchio et al. (1989) put it “Evolutionary Theory of human attraction provides that interpersonal attraction occurs when someone has physical features indicating that he or she is very fertile. It is a simple theory that relies on the premise that the sole purpose of relationships is reproduction. Because of this people invest in partners who appear to be very reproductive, which would naturally seem to increase the chance of their genes being passed down to the next generation”
Other evolutionary theories suggest that reproduction in a partner is of greater importance to men than to women. This theory supports the argument that women place more emphasis on a man's ability to provide. The theory suggests that these resources are the key to a woman successfully raising her children. This ability to provide may also be passed on to male offspring - an underlying genetic characteristic that females value in a mate (see Fellner & Marshall 1981). As Trivers (1985) argued “The sex that invests more in offspring should be choosier about potential mates than the sex that invests less in offspring.” The shortcoming of this theory is the emphases on sexual relationship and ignorance of voluntarily childless relationships but reproductive potential does play a role in choosing a potential mate.
The equity theory emphasis is more upon the notions of fairness & equity. Individuals are expecting to receive rewards proportional to what they put in. According to the theory, the relationship produces distress if there is inequity, both under-benefited and over-benefited should be motivated to restore equity but Walster et al (1978) suggested that the disadvantaged person is always trying harder to make the relationship more equitable than the advantaged.
In consideration of arguments and researches considered above and considering the arguments of the theories it is discernible that there are a variety of determinants in choosing a potential partner and one can conclude that regardless of culture physical attractiveness, propinquity, similarity all play a role in choosing a potential partner.
References
Festinger, L; Schachter, S and Back, K. (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups; a Study of Human Factors in Housing. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.
McKenna, KYA, Green, AS, Gleason MJ. (2002); Relationship formation: Cyber Psychology and Behaviour. 2:125.www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2007.0225.
Swart, L, Rey, D. L. C., Duncan, N, Townsend, L. (2008).Psychology an introduction (2nd Ed). South Africa: Oxford University Press South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Trivers, R. L. (1985) Social Evolution. Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park, CA.
Vecchio, Robert P., Griffeth, Rodger W., Logan, James W., Jr. (1989). Journal of Applied Psychology: American Psychological Association, Inc.
Weiten, W. (1995). Psychology: Themes & Variations (3rd Ed) United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth.
Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes & Variations (7th Ed) Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
