Factors Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships
Physical Attractiveness
1. Physical attractiveness
-> Walster’s matching hypothesis
2. Self-disclosure
-> Jourard + Taylor’s social penetration theory
3. Filter theory
-> Kerckhoff + Davis
-> social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
This section is about the start of a relationship/initial attraction aka the formation of a romantic
relationship
Buss’s research on partner preferences in different cultures (Buss, 1989) demonstrated that
men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate.
Physical appearance is an important cue to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and
reproductive value.
More recent research (e.g. Eastwick et al, 2011) suggests that it may be just as important to women
as it is to men when choosing a romantic partner. However, these researchers suggest that
whereas women rely on physical attractiveness when choosing males for short-term
relationships, physical attractiveness was less important in what they describe as ‘serious
relationships’. Men were more likely than women to rely on physical attractiveness in long-term
relationships.
Walster and her colleagues put forward a simple theory in 1966, which has become known as the
matching hypothesis. Walster suggested that rather than seeking the most physically attractive
partner, people tend to go for someone who is of a similar level of attractiveness to them. This
is thought to be because it reduces the chance of rejection.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a
prospective partner but, instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in
physical (i.e. facial) attractiveness. This implies that we take into account our own attractiveness
‘value’ to others when seeking romantic partners.
Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness
One promising explanation draws upon the evolutionary theory. Shackelford and Larsen found
that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive. This is because it may be an
honest signal of genetic fitness. People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face)
features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin, and a small nose – because
these trigger a protective or caring instinct (especially in males), a valuable resource for females
,wanting to reproduce (the mates they attract are likely to stay and provide car, increasing survival
chances of offspring).
The halo effect
Physical attractiveness may also matter because we have preconceived ideas about personality
traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. This is the physical
attractiveness stereotype, a widely accepted view of attractive people neatly summed up in a
phrase coined by Karen Dion and her colleagues: “What is beautiful is good.” Dion et al found
that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and
successful compared to unattractive people. Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe
how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness, in this case) tends to have a
disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their
personality.
A03
Point Evidence Conclusion
Murstein (1972) provides Murstein collected photos This therefore
support for the matching of 99 dating couples and demonstrates that rather
hypothesis. compared these with than seeking the most
photos of randomly paired physically attractive
males and females. The partner, people tend to go
real couples were for someone who is of a
consistently rated as more similar level of
alike in levels of attractiveness to them;
attractiveness than those thus supporting the
who had been randomly matching hypothesis.
paired.
Ironically, the original Walster paired male and These findings contradict
research study that female students randomly the idea of matching on the
attempted to confirm the for a dance date but told basis of physical
matching hypothesis failed them they had been attractiveness as it shows
to do so (Walster et al., matched via a computer. that individuals do not
1962) Walster measured which of consider their own level of
the couples met for a attractiveness when
second date after the making decisions about
dance. Walster found that who to date.
girls who were ‘pretty’
were asked out again by
, boys, even when the boys
were not all that
attractive.
Evidence from They found that female This supports the view that
Cunningham et al. features of large eyes, physical attractiveness is
supports the assumption prominent cheekbones, a factor that affects
that physical small nose and high attraction and what is
attractiveness is a factor eyebrows were rated as considered ‘physically
affecting attraction. highly attractive by white, attractive’ is consistent
Hispanic and Asian males. across cultures. This
means we can generalise
the findings across both
individualist and collectivist
cultures, thus increasing
the population validity of
the study.
Further evidence to support Feingold carried out a This finding indicates that
the matching hypothesis meta-analysis of 18 matching occurred as the
comes from Feingold studies with a total of 1644 hypothesis predicted, again
(1988). couples, some romantic confirming that people
and others pairs of friends. often choose someone who
He found a positive is ‘in their league’ in terms
correlation of 0.39 of physical attractiveness.
between the romantic
couples attractiveness,
which was statistically
significant.
Meta-analysis follow-up
point
Sprecher and Hatfield People come to a This evidence therefore
suggest a reason why relationship offering many contradicts the assumption
research often fails to find desirable characteristics, that physical attractiveness
evidence of matching in of which physical is a major factor in affecting
terms of physical attractiveness is only one. attraction, as clearly other
attractiveness. A person may compensate qualities (e.g. personality)
for a lack of physical are also desirable.
attractiveness with other
desirable qualities such as
a charming personality,
kindness, status, money
and so on. Sprecher and
Hatfield refer to this
tendency to compensate
Physical Attractiveness
1. Physical attractiveness
-> Walster’s matching hypothesis
2. Self-disclosure
-> Jourard + Taylor’s social penetration theory
3. Filter theory
-> Kerckhoff + Davis
-> social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
This section is about the start of a relationship/initial attraction aka the formation of a romantic
relationship
Buss’s research on partner preferences in different cultures (Buss, 1989) demonstrated that
men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate.
Physical appearance is an important cue to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and
reproductive value.
More recent research (e.g. Eastwick et al, 2011) suggests that it may be just as important to women
as it is to men when choosing a romantic partner. However, these researchers suggest that
whereas women rely on physical attractiveness when choosing males for short-term
relationships, physical attractiveness was less important in what they describe as ‘serious
relationships’. Men were more likely than women to rely on physical attractiveness in long-term
relationships.
Walster and her colleagues put forward a simple theory in 1966, which has become known as the
matching hypothesis. Walster suggested that rather than seeking the most physically attractive
partner, people tend to go for someone who is of a similar level of attractiveness to them. This
is thought to be because it reduces the chance of rejection.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a
prospective partner but, instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in
physical (i.e. facial) attractiveness. This implies that we take into account our own attractiveness
‘value’ to others when seeking romantic partners.
Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness
One promising explanation draws upon the evolutionary theory. Shackelford and Larsen found
that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive. This is because it may be an
honest signal of genetic fitness. People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face)
features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin, and a small nose – because
these trigger a protective or caring instinct (especially in males), a valuable resource for females
,wanting to reproduce (the mates they attract are likely to stay and provide car, increasing survival
chances of offspring).
The halo effect
Physical attractiveness may also matter because we have preconceived ideas about personality
traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. This is the physical
attractiveness stereotype, a widely accepted view of attractive people neatly summed up in a
phrase coined by Karen Dion and her colleagues: “What is beautiful is good.” Dion et al found
that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and
successful compared to unattractive people. Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe
how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness, in this case) tends to have a
disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their
personality.
A03
Point Evidence Conclusion
Murstein (1972) provides Murstein collected photos This therefore
support for the matching of 99 dating couples and demonstrates that rather
hypothesis. compared these with than seeking the most
photos of randomly paired physically attractive
males and females. The partner, people tend to go
real couples were for someone who is of a
consistently rated as more similar level of
alike in levels of attractiveness to them;
attractiveness than those thus supporting the
who had been randomly matching hypothesis.
paired.
Ironically, the original Walster paired male and These findings contradict
research study that female students randomly the idea of matching on the
attempted to confirm the for a dance date but told basis of physical
matching hypothesis failed them they had been attractiveness as it shows
to do so (Walster et al., matched via a computer. that individuals do not
1962) Walster measured which of consider their own level of
the couples met for a attractiveness when
second date after the making decisions about
dance. Walster found that who to date.
girls who were ‘pretty’
were asked out again by
, boys, even when the boys
were not all that
attractive.
Evidence from They found that female This supports the view that
Cunningham et al. features of large eyes, physical attractiveness is
supports the assumption prominent cheekbones, a factor that affects
that physical small nose and high attraction and what is
attractiveness is a factor eyebrows were rated as considered ‘physically
affecting attraction. highly attractive by white, attractive’ is consistent
Hispanic and Asian males. across cultures. This
means we can generalise
the findings across both
individualist and collectivist
cultures, thus increasing
the population validity of
the study.
Further evidence to support Feingold carried out a This finding indicates that
the matching hypothesis meta-analysis of 18 matching occurred as the
comes from Feingold studies with a total of 1644 hypothesis predicted, again
(1988). couples, some romantic confirming that people
and others pairs of friends. often choose someone who
He found a positive is ‘in their league’ in terms
correlation of 0.39 of physical attractiveness.
between the romantic
couples attractiveness,
which was statistically
significant.
Meta-analysis follow-up
point
Sprecher and Hatfield People come to a This evidence therefore
suggest a reason why relationship offering many contradicts the assumption
research often fails to find desirable characteristics, that physical attractiveness
evidence of matching in of which physical is a major factor in affecting
terms of physical attractiveness is only one. attraction, as clearly other
attractiveness. A person may compensate qualities (e.g. personality)
for a lack of physical are also desirable.
attractiveness with other
desirable qualities such as
a charming personality,
kindness, status, money
and so on. Sprecher and
Hatfield refer to this
tendency to compensate
