Re-examining the Matching Re-examining the Matching HypothesisHypothesis

Danna Wolf

The Matching The Matching HypothesisHypothesis

People adjust their preference for physically attractive mates on the basis of their own attractiveness (a change in our aspiration level).

Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in Matching?in Matching?

Physical appearance affects how people view each other– People assume they share more attitude similarity

with more attractive people (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986)

Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in Matching? (cont.)in Matching? (cont.)

Physical attractiveness is valued in mate selection– Though there are other qualities that are valued in

potential mates, physical appearance seems to be the initial quality that needs to be satisfied before considering other qualities (Murstein, 1972)

– People generally tend to prefer more

attractive people (Kalick & Hamilton,

1986)

Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in Matching? (cont.)in Matching? (cont.)

People tend to match according to

similar levels of attractiveness– Repeated findings of attractiveness in intracouple

matching indicates some degree of motivation to match on this characteristic  (Feingold, 1988)

– Meta-analysis of 17 studies revealed high correlation (.49) for interpartner attractiveness, and even among pairs of friends. Correlations also found in self-ratings of attractiveness in partners (Feingold, 1988).

Why Does the Why Does the Matching Matching Phenomenon occur?Phenomenon occur?

 It's a type of positive assortative mating: Nonrandom matching between individuals

Unfolds that way naturally- initially, everyone approaches the most socially desirable dates, but eventually the attractive ones pair up and you have to settle (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986)

Equity Theory: Perceived interpartner equality is important for relationship formation and maintenance (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid)

People don’t adjust their preferences in line with feasibility. They change their motivation.

– People get a general idea of their own social value and aim for goals through which they can obtain the greatest reward at the least cost (rejection) (Straaten)

Importance of Physical Attractiveness Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior – Walster, in Dating Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966)Aronson, & Abrahams (1966)

Level of Aspiration Theory– Ideal choices: Ideal goals are based entirely on desirability

of goal (no consideration of possibility)– Realistic choices: Depends on desirability and perceived

possibility of attaining goal Attractiveness of a goal is negatively correlated with

probability of attaining the goal The goal that one would expect to attain is typically less attractive than what one desires. Therefore:

– One’s realistic social choices should be less attractive than one’s desired social choices.

– One’s aspiration should be affected by his own social attractiveness

Importance of Physical Attractiveness Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior – Walster, in Dating Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966) …Aronson, & Abrahams (1966) …ContinuedContinued

Hypotheses:1. Individuals who are more socially desirable will

have higher expectations of partners

2. When paired, couples who are similar in social desirability will most often attempt to date one another

3. Individuals will express the most liking for a partner with a similar level of desirability

Importance of Physical Attractiveness Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior – Walster, in Dating Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966) …Aronson, & Abrahams (1966) …ContinuedContinued

The Study– Computer Dance; randomly assigned to date– Attitudes measured during intermission– Follow-up

Results:– Hypothesis 1 confirmed (higher social desirability = higher

expectations)– Hypotheses II and III not supported. The only significant

predictor of liking the date or asking him/her out again was the attractiveness of the date.

– Intelligence and personality were not better predictors of liking than physical attractiveness

Replications & Modifications of Replications & Modifications of Walster et al. StudyWalster et al. Study

Walster & Walster (1971)– Hypothesis: The Matching  hypothesis will be supported under conditions of realistic choice

(when possible rejection is emphasized)– Experiment: Computer Dance.

Subjects’ looks are rated. They are asked to specify what kind of date they would prefer (attractiveness, personality, popularity). Rejection salience increased for some, minimized for others.

– Results: Rejection salience had no effect. However, subjects did generally operate on a Matching principle.

Berscheid & Dion (1971)– Hypothesis: The matching principle will operate more strongly under realistic conditions of dating

choice (possibility of rejection)– Experiment: Undergraduate Dating Study

Subjects’ looks are rated. They’re asked to choose from among 6 photos (also rated), for a date. Tested for interaction between attractiveness, condition of choice, gender. Manipulation: Realistic-Idealistic.

– Results: No interaction was found with idealistic vs. realistic. However, subjects did generally operate on a Matching principle.

Straaten, Engels, Finkenauer, & Holland (2009)– Purpose: Investigate approach behavior toward opposite-sex individuals of similar vs. dissimilar

attractiveness– Experiment: Single participants interacted with confederates varying in attractiveness, and

observers recorded behavior in terms of relational investment– Results: Men showed more relational investment if the confederate was similarly attractive. The

same did not apply for women.

Problems with Previous Problems with Previous StudiesStudies

Measurement of attractiveness not reliable Mixed results Matching hypothesis never garnered

sufficient support Lack of salience of social rejection Studies have been done under “idealistic”

settings

HypothesesHypotheses

Past studies have been unable to find conclusive evidence of the Matching Hypothesis. This study will reexamine the Matching Hypothesis to verify its' validity.

It is hypothesized that the results of the study will support the idea of the Matching Hypothesis- that is, that people adjust their preference for physically attractive mates on the basis of their own attractiveness

Proposed StudyProposed Study

Method Participants

– 100 Participants will be recruited from among the TCNJ student population. Advertising will be placed around the campus to participate in a free matchmaking experiment, for heterosexual men only. Participants will be randomly placed into one of three groups: One will be told that their choice of date will have to reciprocate their interest in order to be matched; one will be told that they are guaranteed a date with their pick; and the control group will simply be asked to pick their choice.

Procedure – The participants will first fill out a questionnaire about their core beliefs and personality. They will

have their photo taken. Then, they will proceed to a waiting room, where there will be 2 male confederates pretending to be waiting as well. Half of the participants will be placed with confederates who rate very high on physical attractiveness, and half with ones who rate low on the scale. He will then be ushered into the room, where he will be shown 5 photos of different females. These photos will have been rated by a separate panel of judges on an 5-point scale, and there will be one of each approximate rating. He will be told that these women all match him on his core beliefs. Additionally, there will be a one-way mirror in this room, through which a judge panel will be able to view and rate the participant on a 5-point scale. The participant will be told about the likelihood of getting his pick, depending on the variable group that he was placed into. Then, he will be asked to pick which one he would be interested in being matched with.

– 2x3 ANOVA Independent Variables: Confederate Attractiveness X Rejection Salience Dependent Variable: Level of Matching, as operationalized by (Attractiveness rating of date

picked) – (Attractiveness rating of participant)

Results

Guaranteed Control Rejection salience

High attractiveness 1.275 1.105 .988

Low attractiveness 1.342 1.202 1.063

Note. Scores potentially range from -4 to 4, and represent deviance from ideal Matching Hypothesis, set at zero.

Probability of Rejection

Confederate Attractiveness

Hypothesized Results1. Participants will overall prefer more attractive women over less attractive women2. There will be a positive correlation between the attractiveness of the participant and the attractiveness

of the date chosen3. There will be a main effect for probability of rejection. A post-hoc test will reveal that there is a

statistically significant difference between Guaranteed and Rejection Salience.4. There will a main effect for Confederate Attractiveness5. No interactions6. The participants that are in the rejection salience group and the attractive confederate group are

hyothesized to represent the most realistic results, because there are two variables that are likely to remind them of their own social status. This group will depict the matching hypothesis to the greatest extent (have an average score closest to zero).

Table 1

Discussion

Limitations– Still possible that idealistic came into play– Controlled setting– Does not take into account personality, other factors– Limited population

Future direction– Study more realistic situations– Study older population, more varied– Look at long-term partners– Take other factors into account

References

Bailey, R. C., & Price, J. P. (1978). Perceived physical attractiveness in married partners of long and short duration. The Journal of Psychology, 99, 155-161.

Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: a test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: a meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226-235.

Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton III, T. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 673-682.

Murstein, B. I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 8-12.

Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: how attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 685-697.

Walster, E., Aronson, V., & Abrahams, D. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508-516.