Cog explanations

• cognitive theory to explain human behaviour? What is the theories?

  Having the same interests, traits, and opinions as another person.

  
  

  Similarity attraction - Markey and Makey 2007

  - we are attracted to those similar to us, with similar age, culture, and ethnicity. We choose people who think the same as us as it boosts our self-esteem and validates ourselves.

  
  

  Matching hypothesis - Walster 1966

  - You will only be attracted to someone who has the same level of attractiveness as you. If you think you are a 6 you will go for someone who is also a 6 or a 7 if you are lucky. Making realistic choices in order to not face rejection by being attracted to those in a similar league as you.
• Markey and Markey 2007 aim, procedure, findings, conclusion

  aim - Investigate whether similarity influences romantic partners.

  
  

  procedure - Volunteer sample of 103 females and 66 male undergrad students who were all single and looking for a partner.

  1) Completed a questionnaire on ranking their personality, values, and attitudes as well as what their ideal person would be like. These had filler questions.

  
  

  Findings - Participants described themselves similar to their ideal partner. Warm people were attracted to warm, the same for dominance.

  
  

  Conclusion - Supports the similarity-attraction theory as people were attracted to those who had similar attitudes, beliefs and values to themselves.

  
  

  
  

  -> Follow up study:

  - confirmed that people want partners who are similar to themselves, but not all characteristics. For example if one person was more dominant the other usually was submissive.
• Critical thinking for Markey and Markey 2007

  +

  Used filler questions = increase validity and reduce demand characteristics.

  Were actively looking for a relationship therefore made it more valid and had high ecological validity.

  Temporal valid = 2007.

  
  

  -

  Students = YAVIS (young, affluent, verbal, intelligent, social).

  Questionnaire = social desirability bias as people may lie.

  Volunteer sample = more women than men.

  2nd study discredited the findings.
• Extra research into the similarity attraction hypothesis

  Dimond and Butterworth 2008 = evidence which supports this in same-sex relationships.
• Discussion para for similarity attraction hypothesis?

  Implications to politics - politicians want your vote to get in control and be elected.

  
  

  Dating apps - technology, you can sort through candidates and find the best one.
• Walster 1966 aim, procedure, findings, conclusions

  Aim - investigate how important attractiveness is, and if individuals with a high physical attractiveness have harsher judgements.

  
  

  Procedure - Computer dance, freshers week at an American university. 376 males and 376 females who all volunteered. 4 independent judges voted on all physical attractiveness. They all filled in a questionnaire that they were told would allocate them a partner however it was random. After the dance, they were asked if they enjoyed the date and if they would go out with them again.

  
  

  Findings - Those who had a higher physical attractiveness had harsher judgments, with physical attraction being the most significant factor when compared to intelligence and personality.

  
  

  Conclusion - Findings supported to matching hypothesis and showed how important physical attractiveness is.
• Critical thinking ?

  +

  A big sample size of 365 of each sex.

  Students didn't know it was research as they were only told it was a dance = high validity.

  Randomly paired = no researcher bias.

  
  

  -

  American students = YAVIS + WEIRD (Westernised, educated, intelligent)

  Only look at young individuals - old people may perceive attractiveness differently

  Self-reported questionnaire = social desirability bias and demand characteristics.
• Extra research which contradicts Waltser 1966

  Taylor 2011 = online dating, found that physical attraction showed no correlation as people would contact people who had a higher rating to them.

  
  

  Therefore the matching hypothesis cannot account for real-life decisions determining the matching hypothesis.
• Discussion para for matching hypothesis?

  Attraction is perceived differently to everyone which could be a western bias.

  
  

  Individuals may be ranked differently to others - someone might think of them as a 10 but another may say they are a 7.

  
  

  Young, attractive females have been seen to be attracted to older, richer, ugly men in the past therefore ignores the matching hypothesis.