matched Flashcards
Physical attractiveness.
Buss’ research on partner preferences in different cultures (Buss, 1989) demonstrated that men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate.
Physical appearance is an important cue to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and reproductive value.
Despite the long-standing belief that partner physical attractiveness is more important to men, more recent research (e.g. Eastwick et al., 2011) suggests that it may be just as important to women as it is to men when choosing a romantic partner.
However, these researchers suggest that whereas women may rely on physical attractiveness when choosing males for short-term relationships (i.e. for ‘one-night stands), physical attractiveness was less important in what they describe as ‘serious relationships.
Men were more likely than women to rely on physical attractiveness in long-term relationships.
The ‘matching hypothesis’:
The matching hypothesis (Walster and Walster, 1969) claims that, when initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek out partners whose social desirability approximately equals their own.
According to this view, when choosing a partner, individuals must first assess their own ‘value in the eyes of a potential romantic partner and then select the best available candidates who would be most likely to be attracted to them.
Although both individuals would theoretically be attracted to the most socially desirable potential partners, by opting for partners of similar social desirability to themselves (i.e. who are in their league) they can maximise their chances of a successful outcome.
Matching and physical attractiveness:
Although the matching hypothesis initially proposed that people would pair up with someone as socially desirable as themselves in terms of a wide range of assets, over time it has come to be associated specifically with matching on physical attractiveness alone.
We would expect, therefore, to find that people tend to pair up with those who are similar in terms of physical attractiveness.
Walster et al. referred to these mating choices as ‘realistic’ choices, because each individual is influenced by the chances of having their affection reciprocated.
Realistic choices must consider a number of different factors, including what the person desires (i.e. their ideal choice), whether the other person wants him or her in return, and whether other desirable alternatives are available for one or both of them.
In real life, therefore, people have to settle for mating ‘within their league’ whether they want to or not.
Key study: Walster et al. (1966):
Procedure:
In order to test the matching hypothesis, Walster et al. advertised a computer dance for new students at the University of Minnesota.
From the large number of students who purchased tickets, 177 males and 170 females were randomly selected to take part in the study.
When they came to pick up their tickets, four student accomplices surreptitiously rated each of them for physical attractiveness.
The participants were then asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire (e.g. to assess personality, intelligence, etc.) and told that the data gathered from these questionnaires would be used to allocate their ideal partner for the evening of the dance.
In fact the pairing was done completely randomly.
During the intermission part of the dance, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates, with a follow-up questionnaire distributed six months after the dance.
Key study: Walster et al. (1966): Findings:
The findings from this study did not support the matching hypothesis.
Once participants had met their dates, and regardless of their own physical attractiveness, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were more likely to subsequently try to arrange dates with them if they were physically attractive.
Other factors, such as personality and intelligence, did not affect liking the dates or any subsequent attempts to date them.
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION of Physical attractiveness.
Complex matching
Research support for sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness
Implications of sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION of Physical attractiveness - Complex matching
Sprecher and Hatfield (2009) offer an explanation as to why research often fails to find evidence of matching in terms of physical attractiveness.
People come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics, of which physical attractiveness is only one.
A person may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities such as a charming personality, kindness, status, money and so on.
Sprecher and Hatfield refer to this tendency to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness by offering other desirable traits as ‘complex matching.
This suggests that people are able to attract partners far more physically attractive than themselves by offering compensatory assets, for example an older, wealthy man may pair with a younger, attractive woman.
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION of Physical attractiveness - Research support for sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness:
If physical attractiveness in long-term partners is more important for males, then research should show that males with physically attractive partners are more satisfied with their relationship.
Meltzer et al. (2014) provided support for this claim.
They found that objective ratings of wives’ attractiveness were positively related to levels of husbands satisfaction at the beginning of the marriage and remained that way over at least the first four years of marriage.
In contrast, and supporting the lower importance that females attach to physical attractiveness in a mate, objective ratings of husbands’ physical attractiveness were not related to wives’ marital satisfaction, either initially or over time
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION of Physical attractiveness - Implications of sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness
Meltzer et al. (2014) claim that if physical attractiveness plays a stronger role in men’s long-term relationship satisfaction than in women’s, then women may experience increased pressures to maintain their physical attractiveness in order to successfully maintain a long-term relationship.
However, physical attractiveness is not the only predictor of marital satisfaction for a man.
Both men and women also desire partners who are supportive, trustworthy and warm, and those with partners who demonstrate these qualities tend to be more satisfied with their relationships (Pasch and Bradbury, 1998).
As a result, less physically attractive women who possess these other qualities tend to have partners who are every bit as satisfied as those with more physically attractive mates.
