- Aronson (1976)
- it is better to have at least one glaring fault in order to appear at least human
- Averill & Boothroyd (1977)
- found the more you believe in such a thing as 'love at first sight', the more likely it is to happen
- Buss (1989)
- proposes that men prefer younger women because they are more likely to be fertile women look for older, succesful men who can support them and their childrenboth prefer attractive partners because this indicates health and conseq
- Byrne (1964)
- manipulated seating arrangements in a classroomfound that those randomly placed in the centre became more popularthis suggests that proximity is influential
- Cameron et al (1977)
- Personal Advertisment researchfound that men tended to sell themselves on status characteristics, whereas women tended to use physical appearance
- Cash and Derlega (1978)
- found that matching occurs in same-sex friendships
- Characteristics of a Collectivist Culture
- interdependencygroup is the basic unit of concernindividual happiness is sacrificed for group happiness
- Characteristics of Individualistic Cultures
- individual goals and interests are highly regardedimportance is placed upon individual happinessrights and freedoms of the individual are emphasiedachievement orientated
- Cunningham (1988)
- found that men who watched a happy film rather than a sad one later interacted more positively with a female confederate afterwards
- Dunbar and McGuiness
- Personal Advertisement researchfound similar outcomes to Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) when analysing 600 ads in London papers
- Dutton and Aron (1974)
- love on a suspension bridgeparticipants were interviewed about scienic attractions when they visited a parkinterviewer was an attractive female and she approached the men on either a high or low suspension bridge
- Ebbeson et al (1976)
- found that the most disliked people lived nearbythis is because those in close proximity have a greater potential to annoy us (with inconsiderate behaviour - e.g. loud noice etc)
- Evaluation of Dutton and Aron (1974)
- who decided the female interviewer was attractive?individual differences were not accounted for (fear of heights, sexual orientation)
- Evaluation of Walster et al (1966)
- who judged the attractiveness of the participants?lacks ecological validitytold that the woman was their ideal partner, so they may believe that they had something in common - therefore the results may not be due to attraction on
- Evaluation of Wilson (1975)
- this has sinister implications for rapeprosecution may not be possible if it can be argued that the defendent was genetically driven to rape
- Festinger et al (1950)
- studied married graduate students who had been randomly assigned to flats in 17 different two-storey buildingsfound that 2/3 of close friends lived in the same bulding and that if this was the case, they were twice as likely to be on the
- Filter Model of Attraction
- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)states that we rely on social and personal factors to 'filter' potential friends and romantic partnersdifferent criteria are used at different times
- Filter Model
Competence
- tend to be attracted to people who appear to be intelligent and competentAronson (1976)
- Filter Model
Complementarity of Needs
- although similarity is initially an important filter, characteristics that complement each other are important
- Filter Model
Physical Attractiveness
- physical attraction gives an increased desire to interact with the attractive personWalster et al (1966)Walster and Walster (1969)Murstein (1972)Wheeler
- Filter Model
Proximity
- physical proximity makes it easier to get to know peoplefrequently interaction leads to increased non-verbal feedback which reaffirms attractionEbbeson et al (1976)Byrne (1964)
- Filter Model
Similarity
- more likely to come into contact with others of the same background, interests etc.Newcombe (1961)Kerkchoff (1974)
- General Evaluation of the Filter Model
- it is difficult to seperate the effects of proximity and similarity (physical proximity may predict attraction only in as much as similar people gather in the same place)research does not focus on the influence of family and friends
- General Evaluation of the Matching Hypothesis
- - supporting research is artifical (Murstein etc)
- too much emphasis on physical attractiveness
- too much emphasis on romantic relationships and little on friendships
- society has changed since the research began - no lo - Hofstede (1980-94)
- analysed data from employees from 50 different countriesarugued that over half of the differences between cultures was accounted for by four dimensions, the most important being individualism/collectivism
- Kerkchoff (1974)
- Kerkchoff observed that married couples usually come from the same:
social
economicreligiousintelligenceand educational backgrounds
- Kin Selection
- states that we are innately programmed to form close family relationships as these help pass on our genesthe closer the genetic relationship is, the more we will sacrifice in order to protect out familysurvivial of an individual&
- Matching Hypothesis
Mismatched Relationships
- having an attractive parner may boost self-esteem, but may also lead to jealousyless attractive partners may feel insecure and jealous of the attention given to attractive partnersthis can place a strain on the relationship and m
- May and Hamilton (1980)
- asked female students to look at photos of male strangersdivided into 3 groupsGroup 1 listened to pleasant musicGroup 2 listened to unpleasant musicGroup 3 did not listen to any musicIt was group 1 that
- Murstein (1972)
- used couples who were engaged or going steadycouples asked to rate their own partners attractiveness on a 5-point scaleindependent judges rated the couples of attractiveness from photographsratings were compared with tho
- Murstein and Christy (1976)
- studied married couplesfound that they were more similar than dating couples in terms of physical attractivenesssupports the matching hypothesisvery strong evidence as the couples studied were those who were commited and
- Newcombe (1961)
- studied first-year male undergraduates who did not know each othermeasured their attitude to various thingsfound they were more likely to form relationships with students who shared their attitudes
- Relationships from Individualistic Cultures Tend to Be...
- voluntarybased on lovetemporary - many relationships before commitment
- Relationships in a Collectivist Culture Tend to Be...
- involuntarypermenantseen as a union between families
- Schachter and Singer (1962)
- found that in certain circumstances emotions are determined by a general arousal state which the individual then interprets by referring to external factors
- Segal (1974)
- assigned trainees alphabetically to seats in classrooms and dormitories on the basis of surnamefound that the closer together in the alphabet (and thus the closer they were to each other), the more likely they were to be friends
- Silverman (1971)
- conducted a field study in bars and similar public placescouples were unmarried and between the ages of 18-22they were observed and rated by an independent party on a 5-point scale for attractivenesscouples had similar r
- Sociobiological Theory
- states that we are driven by our genesattempts to explain human relationships purely in genetic termsWilson (1975)Buss (1989)Cameron et al (1977)
- Sternberg (2000)
- challenges the view that love can be analysed purely in terms of different constituent factorssuggests love between two people follows a story and these stories need to matchcontrasts Hatfield and Walster's s
- Studies for the Matching Hypothesis
- Walster et al (1966)Walster and Walster (1969)Silverman (1971)Murstein (1972)Murstein and Christy (1976)Cash and Derlega
- Tesser and Paulhus (1976)
- found that the more you think about love the more likely you are to fall in love
- The Matching Hypothesis
- The Matching Hypothesis states that people are attracted to others who have similar levels of attractiveness to themselves
- The Three Factors for Romantic Love
- Physiological ArousalAppropriate Love ObjectCultural Exposure
- Three Factor Theory of Love
- Hatfield and Walster (1981)love is a physiological state of arousal that is labelled as love when an appropriate love object is present and cultural cues tell you it is loverelated to the cognitive labelling theo
- Walster and Walster (1969)
- supports matching hypothesissecond computer dance studythe participants could meet first and state how attractive they wanted their partner to bethey tended to choose someone of comparable attractiveness to themselves
- Walster et al (1966)
- does not support matching hypothesiscomputer dance study752 American Fresher studentspaired randomly but believed they were with their ideal partner (based upon a previous questionnaire)unknown to them, they had
- Wheeler and Kim (1997)
- found that Korean, American and Canadian students rated physically attractive people as being more sociable, friendly, extroverted, happy and maturethis is called the Halo Effect
- Why We Enter Into a Relationship
(Reinforcement-Affect Model)
- the presence of some individuals is associated with positive feelings which makes them more attractiveif we meet someone when we are feeling happy we are more inclined to like them (neutral stimuli + positive event = positive value)
- Wilson (1975)
- argued that human sexual behaviour can be explained through an understanding of survival efficencystates that it is in the interests of males to impregnante as many women as possible. This ensures the passing on of the genesWomen
- Yela and Sangrador (2001)
- found that despite the matching effect, people tend to have a biased perception of their partner as being slightly more attractive than themselves
