The Matching Hypothesis Flashcards
What does this hypothesis state about who we form relationships with?
-Proposes that we don’t seek the most physically attractive person but that we are attracted to individuals who match us in terms of physical attraction.
-Walster proposed this hypothesis to explain why people who are similar end up together.
-The more social desireable a person is the more desirable they would expect a partner to be.
-Couples who are matched are more likely to have happy, enduring relationships than mismatched.
According to this hypothesis, what series of decisions do we go through when looking for a partner?
- Preferences - if issues of competition or rejection is not relevant, most people would prefer someone physically attractive. For those unattractive, desire conflicts with reality.
- Realistic choices - when an individual must approach someone, rejection is a real possibility, they will be more likely to approach someone on similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
- Reality - anything can influence our choice such as availability, in competitive market place where less people risk being rejected, most people must settle for ‘attainable’ relationships.
What makes a person socially desirable?
-Murstein (1972) argues initial attraction in formative stages of relationships depends on available cues that indicate their social desirability (physical attractiveness).
-This becomes the most important factor in partner desirability because it is an accessible way for each partner to rate the other as a possible mate.
-Their initial attraction therefore must be determined largely by comparison between attractiveness level of potential partner and their own attractiveness.
-Walster et al (1966) tested this by asking students to rate partners randomly selected in terms of interpersonal attraction - this did not find that attraction was related to matching. They preferred partners who were more physically attractive, not someone matching their attractiveness.
What is are 3 limitations of the Matching Hypothesis?
Walster’s Computer Dance Study challenges the Matching Hypothesis:
-1966 advertised for students during freshers week.
-The first 376 male and 376 female volunteers allowed in at $1 each, when arrived to sign up for dance, 4 independent judges assessed their physical attractiveness as a measure of social desire ability.
-They were seated upstairs and asked to fill in lengthy questionnaire, seemingly for use in computer pairing - in fact was for date about similarity and pairing was done randomly.
-Dance was 2 days later, students given ‘dates’ names, during were asked to fill questionnaire about dance and their dates.
-More physically attractive students were liked more by partners than less attractive, proved to be the most important factor in liking. It was not affected by how the other person felt towards the participant.
Challenges his theory, as students should have been happier with partners most similar in attractiveness as this would have represented best chances of reproductive success.
Complex Matching:
-Orginal hypothesis proposed people tend to pair up with others of similar desirability, and concept of this has become synonymous with physical attractiveness alone.
Very narrow definition of ‘desirability’, research suggests people come into relationship offering many desireable characteristics, perhaps compensating for lack of physical attractiveness, with attractive personality, status and money etc.
Subjectivity of attractiveness:
-Could be possible that level of physical attractiveness not objective.
-Students at dance were rated by 4 judges, based on their personal opinion so subjective.
Difficult to obtain scientific objective measure of attractiveness.
What is a strength of the Matching Hypothesis?
Amended Computer Dance Study Supports the Matching Hypothesis:
-Walster & Walster (1969) repeated study, with students met beforehand so more time to think about qualities looking for in a partner.
As predicted, students expressed most liking for those at same level of physical attractiveness as self.
-Murstein (1972) further support, physical attractiveness of engaged couples and those going out judged from photos.
Definite tendency for 2 people in each couple to be similar terms of physical attractiveness.
-Huston (1973) asked male participants to choose date from selection of women judged of high, medium and low looks. Men preferred a date of high level, but especially so when guaranteed acceptance from them.
As predicted, men not guaranteed acceptance tended to believe the better looking women would be more likely to reject.
