What are attraction theories?

Introduction

Relationships are central to human social existence. Personal accounts by people who have been forced to endure long periods of isolation serve as reminders of people’s dependence on others, and research suggests that close relationships are the most vital ingredient in a happy and meaningful life. In short, questions dealing with attraction are among the most fundamental in social psychology.

The major theories addressing interpersonal attraction have a common theme: reinforcement. The principle of reinforcement is one of the most basic notions in all of psychology. Put simply, it states that behaviors that are followed by desirable consequences, often in the form of rewards, tend to be repeated. Applied to interpersonal relations, this principle suggests that when one person finds something rewarding in an interaction with another person (or if that person anticipates some reward in a relationship that has not yet been established), then the person should desire further interaction with that other individual. In behavioral terms, this is what is meant by the term “interpersonal attraction,” which emerges in everyday language in such terms as “liking” or, in the case of deep romantic involvement, “loving.” Appropriately, these theories, based on the notion that individuals are drawn to relationships that are rewarding and avoid those that are not, are known as reinforcement or reward models of interpersonal attraction.

The first and most basic theory of this type was proposed in the early 1970s by Donn Byrne and Gerald Clore. Known as the reinforcement-affect model of attraction (“affect” meaning “feeling” or “emotion”), this theory proposes that people will be attracted not only to other people who reward them but also to those people with whom they associate rewards. In other words, a person can learn to like others through their connections to experiences that are positive for that individual. It is important to recognize that a major implication here is that it is possible to like someone not so much for him- or herself but rather as a consequence of that person’s merely being part of a rewarding situation; positive feelings toward the experience itself get transferred to that other person. It also follows that a person associated with something unpleasant will tend to be disliked. This is called indirect reinforcement.

For example, in one experiment done during the summer, people who evaluated new acquaintances in a cool and comfortable room liked them better than when in a hot and uncomfortable room. In another study, subjects rating photographs of strangers gave more favorable evaluations when in a nicely furnished room than when they were in a dirty room with shabby furniture. These findings provide some insight into why married couples may find that their relationship benefits from a weekend trip away from the children or a romantic dinner at a favorite restaurant; the pleasant event enhances their feelings for each other.

There are other models of interpersonal attraction that involve the notion of reward but consider the degree to which rewards are offset by the costs associated with a relationship. Social exchange theory
suggests that people tend to evaluate social situations. In the context of a relationship, a person will compare the costs and benefits of beginning or continuing that relationship. Imagine, for example, that Karen is considering a date with Dave, who is kind, attractive, and financially stable but fifteen years older. Karen may decide that this relationship is not worth pursuing because of the disapproval of her mother and father, who believe strongly that their daughter should be dating a man her own age. Karen’s decision will be influenced by how much she values the approval of her parents and by whether she has other dating options available.

A third model of attraction, equity theory, extends social exchange theory. This approach suggests that it is essential to take into account how both parties involved in a relationship assess the costs and benefits. When each person believes that his or her own ratio of costs to benefits is fair (equitable), then attraction between the two tends to be promoted. On the other hand, a relationship may be placed in jeopardy if one person thinks that the time, effort, and other resources being invested are justified but the other person does not.

Considering the rewards involved in the process of interpersonal attraction provides a useful model, but one that is rather general. To understand attraction fully, one must look more specifically at what people find rewarding in relationships. Social psychological research has established some definite principles governing attraction that can be applied nicely within the reward framework.

Factors of Attraction

The first determinant of attraction, reciprocity, is probably fairly obvious, since it most directly reflects the reinforcement process. Reciprocity is a powerful force; people tend to like others who like them back. There are few things more rewarding than genuine affection, support, concern, and other indicators that one is liked by another person.

The second principle, proximity, suggests that simple physical closeness tends to promote attraction. Research has confirmed what many people probably already know: people are most likely to become friends (or romantic partners) with others with whom they have worked, grown up, or gone to school. Other studies have shown that people living in dormitories or apartments tend to become friends with the neighbors who live closest to them. Simply being around people gives an individual a chance to interact with them, which in turn provides the opportunity to learn who is capable of providing the rewards sought in a relationship.

There is, however, yet another force at work, a very basic psychological process known as the mere exposure effect. Research has demonstrated consistently that repeated exposure to something new tends to increase one’s liking for it, and examples of the process are quite common in everyday life. It is not uncommon, for example, for a person to buy a new compact disc by a favorite musical artist without actually having heard the new material, only to be disappointed on listening to it. The listener soon discovers, however, that the album “grows” on him or her and finds that he or she likes it quite a bit after hearing it a few times. Such occurrences probably involve the mere exposure phenomenon. In short, familiarity breeds liking, and physical closeness makes it possible for that familiarity to develop.

Beauty and Romance

Generally speaking, the same factors that promote the development of friendships also foster romantic attraction. The third principle of attraction, physical attractiveness, is somewhat of an exception, however, since it is more powerful in the romantic context.

In a classic study published by Elaine Walster and her associates in 1966, first-year men and women at the University of Minnesota were randomly paired for dates to a dance. Prior to the date, these students had provided considerable information about themselves, some of it through personality tests. During the evening, each person individually completed a questionnaire that focused primarily on how much the person liked his or her date, and the participants were contacted for follow-up six months later. Despite the opportunity to discover complex facts about attraction, such as what kinds of personality traits link up within a couple to promote it, the only important factor in this study was physical appearance. For both sexes, the better-looking the partner, the more the person liked his or her date, the stronger was the desire to date the person again, and the more likely the individual was to do so during the next six months.

The potent effect of physical attractiveness in this study sparked much interest in this variable on the part of researchers over the next decade or so. The earliest studies determined rather quickly that both men and women, given the opportunity to select a date from a group of several members of the opposite sex representing a range of attractiveness levels, almost invariably would select the most attractive one. Dating in real life, however, is seldom without the chance that the person asking another out might be turned down. When later experiments began building the possibility of rejection into their procedures, an interesting effect emerged, one that has been termed the matching phenomenon: people tend to select romantic partners whose degree of attractiveness is very similar to their own.

Other research revealed that physically attractive people are often judged favorably on qualities other than their appearance. Even when nothing is known besides what the person looks like, the physically attractive individual is thought to be happier, more intelligent, and more successful than someone who is less attractive. This finding is referred to as the physical attractiveness stereotype, and it has implications that extend the role of appearance well beyond the matter of dating. Studies have shown, for example, that work (such as a writing sample) will be assessed more favorably when produced by an attractive person than when produced by someone less attractive, and that a cute child who misbehaves will be treated more leniently than a homely one. What is beautiful is also good, so to speak. Finally, physical attractiveness fits well with the reward model: it is pleasant and reinforcing both to look at an attractive person and to be seen with him or her, particularly if that person is one’s date.

The last principle of attraction, similarity, is the most important one in long-term relationships, regardless of whether they are friendships or romances. An extremely large body of research has demonstrated consistently that the more similar two people are, especially attitudinally, the more they will like each other. It turns out that the adage “opposites attract” is simply false. (Note that the matching phenomenon also reflects similarity.) A friend or spouse who holds attitudes similar to one’s own will provide rewards by confirming that one’s own feelings and beliefs are correct; it is indeed reinforcing when someone else agrees.

Evolutionary Theories of Attraction

Evolutionary psychologists have provided an important new way to look at why individuals are attracted to others. Borrowing from the basic theorizing of the English biologist Charles Darwin, psychologists are paying increasing attention to the information provided by both physical and social features of living creatures. Everyone is influenced by what people look like, in that they form impressions of others before they even hear them speak. People often use the appearance and behavior of others to make a variety of judgments about them; these judgments are made quickly and unconsciously and are fairly resistant to change. What sort of impressions are formed? What aspects of a person are focused on? Evolutionary psychology has some answers to these questions.

Specifically, evolutionary psychologists suggest that the attractiveness of a person’s body serves as a valuable and subtle indicator of social behavior, social relationship potential, fitness, quality, reproductive value, and health. Evolutionary psychologists place heavy emphasis on clearly observable features of human bodies and do not focus as much on internal, unobservable aspects of personality, such as kindness or trustworthiness. There is a growing body of research that supports these ideas. For example, significant relationships were found between attractiveness and measures of mental health, social anxiety, and popularity, so the idea behind evolutionary theory does seem to be relevant.

Much of the work studying how body characteristics relate to attractiveness has focused on a single factor, such as the face, although many features of the body can influence attractiveness. Faces are often the first part of a person that is observed, and the face is almost always clearly visible (except in certain cultures). Social psychologists have shown that people often make quick judgments about others based on their faces, and more than 80 percent of studies on judging attractiveness have focused on the face alone. The sex, age, culture, and past experiences of the perceiver; specific facial features, such as large lips for women and strong jaws for men; body and facial symmetry; and specific body ratios, such as the waist-to-hip ratio (the number attained by dividing the waist measurement by the circumference of the hips), all influence judgments of attractiveness. Consistent with this idea are findings that some standards of attractiveness are consistent across time and cultures. For example, people who have symmetrical faces—those with eyes and ears of equal size and equal distances from the center line of the face—are preferred over people who do not.

Female Shapeliness

Another example of a body characteristic that is tied to attractiveness from an evolutionary perspective is women’s waist-to-hip ratio. Around the world, men prefer women with lower waist-to-hip ratios (between 0.7 and 0.8). Evolutionary psychology research emphasizes the importance of waist-to-hip ratios as a major force in social perception and attraction because shape is a visible sign of the location of fat stores, which consequently signals reproductive potential and health. Low waist-to-hip ratios do indeed directly map onto higher fertility, lower stress levels, and resistance to major diseases. For example, women with waist-to-hip ratios of 0.8 are almost 10 percent more likely to get pregnant than women with waist-to-hip ratios around 0.9.

Although not as much research has focused on female breasts as a signaler of reproductive fitness, a variety of studies suggest that it is also an important factor, although the evidence is mixed. Some studies support the commonly held stereotype that men prefer larger breasts, although others seem to show no such preference, and some have shown that small and medium breasts are preferred. Much of this work has focused either on the bust or on waist-to-hip ratios, not both together. The appeal of breast size should depend on overall body fat, waist, and hips, and both bust size and waist-to-hip ratio should interact to influence ratings of attractiveness. In support of this idea, research now suggests women with lower waist-to-hip ratios and larger breasts are the ones considered most attractive. Unfortunately, methodological restrictions and poor stimulus materials limit the generalizability of most previous work using waist-to-hip ratios and other bodily features. For example, many studies used line drawings or verbal descriptions of figures instead of pictures of real people. Research continues on ways to provide clearer tests of evolutionary psychology theories of attraction.

The most consistently documented finding on the evolutionary basis of attraction relates to gender differences in human mate choice. Consistent with Darwin’s ideas that humans are naturally programmed to behave in ways to ensure that their genes will be passed on to future generations, thus ensuring survival, evidence indicates that men tend to prefer young, healthy-looking mates, as these characteristics are associated with the delivery of healthy babies. An examination of the content of more than eight hundred personal advertisements found that men stressed attractiveness and youth in mates more than did women, a finding supported by marriage statistics. Women have been shown to place more emphasis on a prospective mate’s social and financial status, because these traits are often related to being able to take good care of children. The fact that women in Western societies are achieving higher economic positions, however, would suggest that this pattern of preferences may change in time.

Historical Development

Although it would seem to be of obvious importance, physical appearance as a determinant of romantic attraction was simply neglected by researchers until the mid-1960s. Perhaps researchers mistakenly assumed the widespread existence of an old ideal that one should judge someone on the basis of the person’s intrinsic worth, not on the basis of a superficial characteristic. Nevertheless, when the Minnesota study discussed earlier showed the effect of physical attractiveness to be so strong as to eliminate or at least obscure any other factors related to attraction in the context of dating, social psychologists took notice. In any science, surprising or otherwise remarkable findings tend to stimulate additional research, and such a pattern definitely describes the course of events in this area of inquiry.

By around 1980, social psychology had achieved a rather solid understanding of the determinants of attraction to strangers, and the field began turning more of its attention to the nature of continuing relationships. Social psychologist Zick Rubin had first proposed a theory of love in 1970, and research in that area flourished in the 1980s as investigators examined such topics as the components of love, different types of love, the nature of love in different kinds of relationships, and the characteristics of interaction in successful long-term relationships. Still other lines of research explored how people end relationships or attempt to repair those that are in trouble.

People view relationships with family, friends, and lovers as central to their happiness, a research finding that is totally consistent with common experience. A quick look at the content of motion pictures, television programs, songs, novels, and poetry, where relationships, particularly romantic ones, are so commonly a theme, provides evidence for that point. Yet nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, and the lack of love in the relationship is usually a precipitating factor. Whatever social psychology can teach people about what determines and maintains attraction can help improve the human condition.

Bibliography

Berscheid, Ellen, and Harry T. Reis. “Attraction and Close Relationships.” The Handbook of Social Psychology. Ed. Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey. 4th ed. Vol. 2. Boston: McGraw, 1998. 193–281. Print.

Berscheid, Ellen, and Elaine Walster. Interpersonal Attraction. 2nd ed. Reading: Addison, 1978. Print.

Berscheid, Ellen, and Elaine Walster. “Physical Attractiveness.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 7. Ed. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic, 1974. 157–215. Print.

Buss, David M. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2008. Print.

Duck, Steve. Relating to Others. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Open UP, 1999. Print.

Hatfield, Elaine, and Susan Sprecher. Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany: State U of New York P, 1986. Print.

Langlois, Judith H., et al. “Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 126.3 (2000): 390–423. Print.

Menadier, Veronica Hernández. "How Personality and Physical Attraction Lead to Possible Dating: A Reflection." Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 4.2 (2012): 111–19. Print.

Myers, David G. Social Psychology. 11th ed. New York: McGraw, 2013. Print.

Prokop, P., and Peter Fedor. "Physical Attractiveness Influences Reproductive Success of Modern Men." Journal of Ethology 29.3 (2011): 453–58. Print.

Quist, Michelle C., et al. "Integrating Social Knowledge and Physical Cues When Judging the Attractiveness of Potential Mates." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48.3 (2012): 770–73. Print.