Attraction and the matching hypothesis

• From an evolutionary perspective, Shackleford and Larsen (1997) suggested there are certain physical traits which we are pre-disposed to find attractive. For example, females with neotenous (child-like) faces are more likely to be viewed as attractive by males because their facial features (eg - a soft chin and large eyes) trigger an aggressive and protective trait in men, which gives the female an evolutionary advantage (increasing their risk of survival and reproduction). This, alongside facial symmetry, signifies a high-quality mate due to their displayed genetic fitness.
• The halo effect suggests that we have a tendency to associate highly attractive people with pre conceived disproportionately positive characteristics, including personality and wealth, even though these factors may not be linked. Dion suggested we are therefore more likely to view attractive people as trustworthy, honest, successful and more sociable compared to their unattractive counterparts. These beliefs increase the likelihood that such attractive people develop these traits, and so displays the process of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• According to the matching hypothesis, the key to a successful relationship is striking a balance between the attractiveness of a mate and the realistic chances of attaining such a mate. This relies on an accurate assessment of one’s own attractiveness and ‘value’, meaning that we are more likely to have a mate who is of a similar attractiveness level to us. Such a method reduces the likelihood of rejection by a seemingly unattainable individual (in terms of attraction) and the potential disappointment of a disproportionately less attractive mate.
• The idea of physical attractiveness being important to a relationship is not restricted to the ‘early’ stages. For example, McNully found that physical attractiveness was still an important determinant of a successful relationship, even after marriage
• The computer dance study - Walster (1966):

  • 752 students bought tickets for a dance and were told that information they gave about themselves would be fed into a computer, which would provide an ‘ideal match’ date, when in fact, they were randomly assigned any partner. While giving their data, an unseen observer marked them on attractiveness. After spending two hours with their dates, students were asked how much they liked their partner. Those who were physically attractive were liked the most. Men asked out a partner if they found her attractive, regardless of how attractive they were.
• Strengths of the physical attraction theory:

  • Supporting research for the halo effect - Palmer & Peterson said physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This halo effect persisted even when participants were told the ‘knowledgeable’ people actually had no expertise. This suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
• Strengths of the physical attractiveness theory:

  • Although physical attraction is a relatively broad term, it is not affected by cultural relativism, with both individualist and collectivist cultures finding similar features attractive, as suggested by Cunningham. These features include large eyes, high eyebrows and sharp cheekbones, and this is applicable across both Asian and Western male respondents, as demonstrated by Wheeler and Kim. This means that although the influence of physical attractiveness varies between individuals, what is considered ‘attractive’ is relatively consistent.
• Limitations of the physical attractiveness theory:

  • The halo effect and physical attractiveness may vary in importance as a predictor of quality of relationships depending on the individual. Towhey found that participants with low scores on the MAHCO scale (measuring underlying sexist beliefs about others) were less likely to be attracted to an individual based on their physical attractiveness, suggesting that from an evolutionary perspective, it does not provide the same selection pressure for all individuals, and may explain the couples were one is more attractive than the other.
• Limitations of the physical attraction theory:

  • Lacks realism - Real world research does not support matching hypothesis. Taylor studied online dating activity logs, which measured actual dating choices and not fantasy preferences. This real-world test of the hypothesis suggested people sought dates with partners who were more physically attractive than themselves., which contradicts the matching hypothesis theory.