A research from University of California conducted by Folkes (1982) suggests that people are

more attracted to those who are similar to themselves in aspects such as personality, religious
beliefs or physical appearance. Similarly, in another study, participants reported being most
attracted to morphed versions of their own faces (Fraley et al., 2010). Although there are
advantages to genetic diversity, there may be social and practical disadvantages. The more
similar a couple looks, the easier it could be for the father to recognize if a child is not his own,
which could support an evolutionary argument for attraction to physically similar others
(Psychologytoday.com, 2014). This combination of findings provides some support for the
premise that there is a correlation between the main explanations of interpersonal attraction. The
purpose of this assignment is to discuss the main theories of love and their interdependence.
After first reviewing evolutionary explanations, physical attractiveness and personality, the essay
will evaluate them in turn in order to shine a new light on these explanations.
Numerous factors are involved in the formation of interpersonal relationships. Reber et al.,
(2009) define interpersonal relationship as a long-lasting relationship founded upon strong
emotional ties and a reciprocal sense of commitment. The two most obvious characteristics
which influence the individuals choice of romantic partners are personality and physical
attractiveness. These can act as initial filters before being replaced by more important
characteristics as the relationship develops. First of all, physical attractiveness acts as a
mediating factor in the initial stages of the relationship formation. Namely, it may affect initial
attraction though a positive stereotype (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004). The halo effect was
described by Feingold(in Marshall, 2006) who suggests that positive characteristics such as
sociability or sexual warm are attributed to physically attractive individuals. With this in mind,
Kenrick and Trost (in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004) claim that physical attractiveness is
important because of its evolutionary significance. To explain, people who are regarded as
physically attractive, characteristics that indicate breeding success.
On the other hand, not everyone is equally beautiful and Walster et al. (1996) in the matching
hypothesis suggested that people are attracted to those who closely match their self perception of
attractiveness (Jackson-Dwyer et al., 2003). Thus, although they are attracted to physically
attractive individuals as potential partners a compromise is necessary to avoid rejection from
their more attractive choices (Marshall, 2006). This hypothesis have been tested in a computer
dance study at a college(Jackson-Dwyer et al., 2003: 5). When the students signed up for the
dance, four judges assessed each students physical attractiveness. Participants were asked to fill
in questionnaires so that they could be paired with a similar partner, but the pairing was is fact
done randomly (Haralambos and Rice, 2002). After the computer dance, the students were asked
to evaluate their date and say whether they would be interested in further meetings. The
overriding factor in whether the dates liked each other was physical attractiveness rather than
matching (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004).

Later on, Walster and Walster (Berscheid and Dion, 1971) ran a follow up to the Computer
Dance, but instead allowed participants to meet beforehand in order to give them greater chance
to interact and think about their ideal qualities in a partner. The study had greater ecological
validity and the finding as predicted by the matching hypothesis was that partners that were
similar in terms of physical attractiveness expressed the most liking for each other (JacksonDwyer et al., 2003). Murstein (in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004) obtained further support for the
matching hypothesis finding that real-life couples are more similar in terms of physical
attractiveness than randomly paired couples. Must be remembered that Taylor et al. (2011)
performed a series of studies involving the matching hypothesis in online dating. The findings
were different from the original construct of matching. People contacted others who were
significantly more attractive than they were. However, it was found that the person was more
likely to reply if they were closer to the same level of attractiveness.
There is research evidence supporting that physical attractiveness is an advantage. Stewart
(1985) has found that attractive people usually get lighter criminal sentences (Tesser, 1995).
Additionally, Landy and Siegall (1974) have compared the essay grades given to attractive or
unattractive females assessed by male participants. The same essay supposedly written by an
attractive student was rated as being better (Marshall, 2006). Students have also been found by
Hunsberger and Cavanagh (1988) to rate attractive teachers as nicer and less punitive than
unattractive ones (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004).However, not all research has found that
physically attractive people are perceived better. Firstly, Dermer and Thiel (1975) found that
attractive women were judged egocentric and materialistic (Marshall, 2006). Secondly, Sigall
and Ostrive (1975) concluded that female criminals whose crime was related to their
attractiveness got longer sentences (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004).
More compelling evidence is that the halo effect is cross-cultural. Wheeler and Kim (1997)
found that American, Korean and Canadian rated physically attractive people as being more
sociable, extroverted, friendly, happy and mature. Important to realize not every culture attaches
the same positive traits to attractive people. According to Markus et al., (in Cardwell and
Flanagan, 2004: 5) students from individualist cultures such as America or Canada included
traits such as strong and assertive alongside physically attractive, whereas Korean students
coming from a collectivist society thought physically attractive people would be generous and
sensitive. In contrast, Towhey (in Jackson-Dwyer et al., 2003) found that some people scoring
high on a Macho Scale are much more affected by physical attractiveness than others. Moreover,
the importance of attractiveness may diminish in time. Murestein and Christie (in Marshall,
2006) found that in a marriage husbands satisfaction was correlated with the attractiveness of
their wives. In contrast, wives did not attribute their satisfaction to their husbands attractiveness
or how attractive their husband found them.
Often used by partners to excuse their beloved lack of physical attractiveness, a good
personality is another key aspect of initial attraction. Duck (in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004)

mentions that some types of personality are perceived as more attractive than others within
cultures. For example, extroversion is preferred over introversion in Western society because
sociability is valued more than shyness. Similarly, Rubin(in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004) states
that people who are perceived as warm and competent are liked far more than others. Such
general descriptions of individuals appear to be influential only in the initial stage of a
relationship provided that in time individuals become more concerned whether their partners
traits mesh together in a mutually acceptable way.
There is evidence that human being are attracted to competent peers. Aranson et al. (1996) asked
participants to rate audiotapes of supposedly male students auditioning for a college quiz team.
They heard either a mediocre or a very competent applicant. In the quiz, the mediocre applicant
scored less than the competent applicant who described himself as an honours student and a
member of the athletics. When other groups heard the same tapes with added sounds of chairs
being moved and the applicant exclaiming, Oh, Ive split my coffee all over my new suit the
liking rating went in opposite directions (Marshall, 2006 :6).While for the competent applicant
there was an increase of 50% for the mediocre applicant decreased the liking decreased by 100%.
This lead to the conclusion that some human frailty is desirable for competent people (Marshall,
2006).
At the same time, the amount of value accorded to competence as a characteristic may depend on
our own personality. Helmreich et al. (in Marshall, 2006: 6) repeated the Aranson study with
participants who have been rated for self-esteem. Those with high or self-esteem downgraded the
competent facing the accident, perhaps because he seemed less like themselves and respectively
because he was no longer theirs perfect hero. Those with medium self-esteem judged the same
way as the original participants. Attractive personality may become less important over time. For
example, Felmlee (in Cardwell and Flanagan) found that predictability is attractive during the
early stages of a relationship since it indicates dependability, but later it may become unattractive
because it is boring (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004: 5).
One other theory for the formation of relationships is the evolutionary explanation. It has been
claimed hat men and women originally face quite different adaptive problems. As a result, they
evolved different mechanisms that are still active today, unconsciously guiding the mate-choice
of men and women (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004). According to Darwin these choices are
guided by cues indicating a survival advantage for their offspring (Haralambos and Rice, 2002).
Because parental investment in reproduction is different for genders, the factors that motivate
mate choice would be different for them. Human females are dependent on external support and
resources when raising their offspring. As a result, they can have relatively few babies over their
lifetime and is imperative for them to search for a partner who is willing and able to provide
resources for them and the children(Cardwell et al., 2000) .Consequently, they should be
attracted to males who have economic and social advantages, and who are humorous
presumably indicating their willingness to share these resources .On the other hand, men whose

parental investment is generally lower have an infinite reproductive capacity. Yet, this is limited
by womens fertility and willingness to reproduce (Marshall, 2006). For this reason, men are
attracted by females with reproductive potential, indicated by physical characteristics such as
glossy hair or white teeth and by cues of sexual faithfulness that can prevent them of being
cuckolded, in other words, being tricked into rising another mans child as his own (Cardwell
and Flanagan, 2004: 4). Both partners are also interested in genetic quality in order to help the
survival of their offspring. There are represented by an athletic build, healthy complexion and
symmetry that have been shown to be important in perceived attractiveness (Marshall, 2006).
There is evidence supporting various assumptions made in evolutionary explanations. Waynforth
et al. (1995) analysed personal adverts in US newspapers and found that compared with females
a larger proportion of males wanted younger partners. They also advertised two times more for
physically attractive partners compared to females. Also, females advertised their attractiveness
while males advertised their economic resources (Cardwell et al., 2000) . By measuring the
galvanic skin response Buss et al. (1992) found that men showed greater psychological distress
compared to women when imagined scenes of sexual infidelity that involved their partner
(Marshall, 2006).Another explication for our attraction to beautiful people is that the traits we
find beautiful are linked to successful reproduction. For this reason, people all over the world can
be expected to share ideas of beauty. As Cunningham (1986) has found, distinctive features such
as large eyes, high eyebrows, small nose and chin, a big smile and prominent cheekbones were
associated with female beauty when men rated photographs of women. It was proposed that
these facial characteristics are also associated with baby features for which a preference might
have been developed to ensure that people care for their young (Marshall, 2006) On the negative
side these evolutionary explanations can be subject to a common set of criticisms. First, such
explanations are post hoc, offered to account for the continuance of observed behaviours. To put
it differently, the assumption is made that any observed behaviour must be adaptive (Cardwell
and Flanagan, 2004). Secondly, besides Darwins assumption that human mate choices would be
guided by the same cues that motivate animal mate choices, human behaviour is also influenced
by cultural and cognitive factors (Marshall, 2006). Thirdly, Sterbberg and Grajek (in JacksonDwyer and Charles, 2003) argued that such tehories do not explain why women love teir best
friend as much as their lover, and like their best friend more.
To summarize, we are attracted to features that are linked to successful procreation and the safe
rearing of children, and such features are universally perceived as physically attractive. If,
however, people are attracted only to those most physically attractive, it would be very difficult
to find a mate. This may explain why the matching hypothesis operates. It is also possible that
factors other than those explored on this spread affect interpersonal attraction. A conclusion can
be drawn that although the defining qualities of a desirable personality and physical
attractiveness are largely determined by the culture in which we live, these characteristics have
an important evolutionary significance when used to assess a potential partner. It is important to
note however, that much research in this area is rather artificial. As interpersonal relationships

are formed over time the process involved have rarely been studied in the laboratory. Moreover,
individual differences have been largely ignored.

References
Berscheid, E. and Dion, K. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the
matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(2), pp.173189.

Cardwell, M., Clark, L. and Meldrum, C. (2000). Psychology for A2. 1st ed. Harper Collins.
Cardwell, M. and Flanagan, C. (2004). Psychology A2. 1st ed. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Folkes, V. (1982). Forming Relationships and the Matching Hypothesis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, [online] 8(4), pp.631-636. Available at:
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/8/4/631.short [Accessed 11 Apr. 2014].
Fraley, R. and Marks, M. (2010). Westermarck, Freud, and the Incest Taboo: Does Familial
Resemblance Activate Sexual Attraction?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
[online] 36(9), pp.1202-1212. Available at: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/9/1202.
Haralambos, M. and Rice, D. (2002). Psychology in focus. 1st ed. Ormskirk: Causeway Press.
Jackson-Dwyer, D. and Charles, C. (2003). Key topics in A2 psychology. 1st ed. Hove, East
Sussex: Psychology Press.
Marshall, M. (2006). AQA (A) A2 Psychology. 1st ed. London: Philip Allan.
Psychologytoday.com, (2014). My Favorite Unromantic Theories of Love. [online] Available at:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201208/my-favorite-unromantictheories-love [Accessed 10 Apr. 2014].
Reber, A., Allen, R. and Reber, E. (2009). The Penguin dictionary of psychology. 4th ed. London:
Penguin.
Taylor, L., Fiore, A., Mendelsohn, G. and Cheshire, C. (2011). Out of My League: A RealWorld Test of the Matching Hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
[online] 37(7), pp.942-954. Available at: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/7/942
[Accessed 27 Apr. 2014].
Tesser, A. (1995). Advanced social psychology. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.