The matching hypothesis suggests that a person’s choice of partner is a balance between a desire to have the most physically attractive partner possible and their wish to avoid being rejected by someone who is 'way out of their league'.
Palmer and Peterson (2012) asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be, and found that attractive people were consistently rated higher on these characteristics compared to unattractive ones.
The matching hypothesis is based on a nomothetic approach to studying human behavior, but there are significant individual differences in the importance of physical attractiveness.
Taylor et al (2011) found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them, contradicting the matching hypothesis.
The matching hypothesis mainly applies to short-term relationships, while long-term relationships focus more on similarity of values and needs satisfaction.
They invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party, secretly judging them in terms of attractiveness when they picked up their tickets.
During the intervals at the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them.
Feingold (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples, establishing a strong correlation between the partners’ ratings of attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis.