matching hypothesis

• Matching hypothesis-

  the matching hypothesis proposes that we are attracted to individuals who match us in terms of physical attraction. This compromise is necessary because of a fear of rejection (a more attractive person may reject your advances) and/or to achieve a balance between partners.
• Physical attractiveness


  according to walster people assess their own attractiveness value and then make ‘realistic choices’ by selecting the best available potential partners with this same level

  We will also seek other similar attributes like IQ, athleticism
• reasons

  • to maximise out chance of forminga relationship as there are potential costs of rejection from someone who doesn't see us as physically attractive
  • self esteem also influences this process : low self esteem people may target someone who is less likely to reject them whereas high self esteem they could believe no one will reject them and may target those out of their league
• why date a physically attractive person

  • The halo effect is the idea that people who are judged to be attractive are typically perceived to have positive personality traits so people react more positively towards them
  • People desire to date a physically attractive person because they want the best genes possible for their offspring (also prestige gained in dating a physically attractive person)
  • however we settle for someone at the same level because...
• • however there has been contradicatory reserach which questions the validity of this theory. For example, Walster's study failed to support the hypothesis
  • PPs invited to a dance, first filled in a questionnares and are matched with an ideal partner, but they were unaware that it was randomly allocated and some were mismatched.
  • pps responded more positively to those more attractive regardless of their own attractiveness and were more likely to organise dates
  • similarity in attractiveness doesn't always affect the likelihood of forming relationships.
  • multiple research has failed to show conclusive evidence
  • on the other hand when they had to choose their own partner they went for someone similar supports matching hypothesis- when potential costs fear of rejection is high it does follow the matching hypothesis
• • One strength is that there is supporting evidence for matching hypothesis which suggests couples tend to go for those on a similar physical attraction level .
  • Murstein took photographs half of engaged couples, and secondly random people that posed as couples .
  • independent judges rated the photographs for physical attractiveness Engaged couples received very similar ratings, these were significantly more alike than ‘random couples’.
  • This supports matching hypothesis as were able to guess who was together purely based on physical looks.
  • This indicates that similiarity fo physicial attraction is a key factor in the formation of relationships,
  • supporting the validity of mathcing hypothesis
• PT2 contradicting research

  Futhermore taylor et al (randomly selected pps on a dating site )found no evidence that dater's decisions were driven by a similarity between own and potential partners phys. attract. instead found an overall pref. for phys attract. ppl

  but those individuals who targeted similarly attractive other were more likely to recieve messages back from the individuals. This suggests in terms of physical attraction, matching were potentially more successful
• P: fails to acknowledge individual differencesE: Towhey asked ppts to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some bio info. also completed questionnaire measuring sexist attitudes and behaviours. ppts who scored highly were more influenced when making judgements/likeability.E: demonstrated that there are ind. diffs. as some are more influenced than others. can't be generalised to allCA: study can be criticised for lacking mundane realism. rating individuals is not reflective of forming r.s irl. other confounding factors i.e lighting that could affect images. lack int val. questions if we can use this to contradict.