physical attractiveness and the matching hypothesis

Importance of Physical Attractiveness

• Physical attractiveness refers to how visually appealing a person is perceived to be.

  Research suggests:

  • Physical attractiveness is one of the strongest predictors of initial attraction

  • It plays a particularly important role in the early stages of romantic relationships

  Evolutionary and social explanations both emphasise its importance.

• Evolutionary explanations of attractiveness state that traits associated with attractiveness act as indicators of good genetic information and health

• By choosing an attractive partner, you are ensuring a healthy partner and child

• perceived health important: the partner is going to be able to bear children ( women ) or provide for the family (men)

• It also means that there is a good chance that the genes that they carry will produce healthy offspring

it is believed that physical attractiveness is more important to men. Females look for emotional security from men, whilst men place emphasis on younger, attractive females.

The halo effect

• People who are deemed to be attractive tend to benefit from favourable perceptions from society.

• For example, an attractive person is more likely to be acquitted of a crime and is deemed more trustworthy and sociable than less attractive individuals.

This is important as while physical attractiveness is typically the first thing we see in a partner, their personality then has to be suitable for us. It could be argued that attractive people make their personalities more attractive.

The halo effect is a cognitive bias where:

• Attractive individuals are assumed to possess other positive traits

For example:

• Kind

• Intelligent

• Trustworthy

• Sociable

As a result, attractive people are:

• Judged more positively

• More likely to be approached

• More likely to form relationships

research support - Halo effect

Dion et al - participants rate attractive people as having more socially desirable personality traits, as being more likely to achieve successful lives

( good marriage, better careers)

concluded that attractiveness leads to positive stereotypes forming the basis of the halo effect

halo effect explains why attractiveness matters in initial attraction. The matching hypothesis explains that people often settle for partners of similar attractiveness to avoid rejection

Gunnell & Ceci –

found that less attractive individuals were 22% more likely to be convicted in court. They were also likely to get a prison sentence that was (on average) 22 months longer than that of an attractive person – supporting the halo effect of attractive people.

The matching hypothesis

• theory that people will seek partners of similar attractiveness to themselves

• This means we need to have a realistic judgment of how attractive we are in the first instance

• attempting to punch above your weight - carries the increased risk of rejection that could damage self-esteem

• if one feels their partner is more attractive, there is likely to be fears that the partner will leave for more attractive partners

• we dont simply select the most attractive people to form relationships with - it implies that our choice of partner is a compromise

The matching hypothesis suggests that:

• People are most likely to form relationships with others who are similar in physical attractiveness

Why?

• Fear of rejection

• Desire for equity and balance

• Social norms encourage “matching”

People tend to:

• Avoid approaching someone far more attractive

• Feel more secure with someone of similar attractiveness

Research support for physical attractiveness

• WALSTER & WALSTER

  Told students that they had been paired with an ideal partner for a dance (it had been completely random).

• Couples who were of similar attractiveness to each other tended to rate their partner higher, again supporting the matching hypothesis.

 MURSTEIN

Asked participants to judge the attractiveness of real and fake couples in photographs. Murstein found that the couples ratings of attractiveness were significantly closer than that of the fake couples, supporting the idea that individuals seek out people of similar attractiveness to themselves

evaluations for physical attractiveness and matching hypothesis

Research Support (Strength – PEEL)

Point:
A strength of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction is that it is supported by empirical research.

Evidence:
For example, Walser et al. (1966) found that participants were more likely to want a second date with partners who were physically attractive, regardless of personality similarity.

Elaborate:
This suggests that physical attractiveness plays a key role in initial attraction and supports the idea that individuals are motivated by appearance when forming romantic relationships.

Link back:
This strengthens the explanation that physical attractiveness is a significant factor affecting attraction.

Halo Effect Increases Explanatory Power (Strength – PEEL)

Point:
The halo effect strengthens explanations of physical attractiveness by explaining why attractive individuals are more desirable.

Evidence:
Dion et al. (1972) found that physically attractive individuals were consistently rated as more sociable, successful, and competent.

Elaborate:
This suggests that attractiveness leads to positive trait attribution, increasing the likelihood of attraction even before meaningful interaction occurs.

Link back:
This supports the role of physical attractiveness in romantic attraction by explaining how appearance influences social judgement.

Real-Life Applicability & Face Validity (Strength – PEEL)

Point:
Physical attractiveness has high face validity and real-life applicability.

Evidence:
For example, dating apps and online profiles place strong emphasis on photographs and visual appeal.

Elaborate:
This reflects the idea that people often make rapid judgments based on appearance, supporting the importance of physical attractiveness in attraction.

Link back:
This increases the credibility of physical attractiveness as a key factor in romantic relationships.

Cultural & Temporal Validity (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
A limitation of physical attractiveness explanations is that beauty standards vary across cultures and time.

Evidence:
Traits considered attractive differ between societies and historical periods.

Elaborate:
If attractiveness were a fixed determinant of attraction, standards would be universal. Instead, they are shaped by culture and media.

Link back:
This challenges the idea that physical attractiveness alone can fully explain attraction.

Matching Hypothesis: Reductionism (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
A limitation of the matching hypothesis is that it is reductionist.

Evidence:
It focuses almost exclusively on physical attractiveness.

Elaborate:
This ignores other important factors such as personality, shared values, humour, and emotional compatibility, which play major roles in long-term relationships.

Link back:
This limits the explanatory power of the matching hypothesis.

Interaction with Other Factors (A* Level Evaluation)

Point:
Physical attractiveness interacts with other factors rather than acting alone.

Evidence:
Attraction often begins with physical appeal but develops through self-disclosure and emotional intimacy.

Elaborate:
This suggests that attraction is multi-factorial rather than determined by a single variable.

Link back:
Therefore, physical attractiveness is important but not sufficient on its own to explain romantic attraction.

Real-World Examples of Mismatched Couples (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
A limitation of the matching hypothesis is that it does not always reflect real-world romantic relationships.

Evidence:
In everyday life, there are many examples of couples who appear mismatched in terms of physical attractiveness.

Elaborate:
These relationships suggest that factors other than physical attractiveness, such as wealth, status, personality, humour, or emotional support, may compensate for differences in physical appearance. This indicates that partner choice is influenced by a range of social and psychological factors rather than appearance alone.

Link back:
As a result, the matching hypothesis oversimplifies attraction and has reduced explanatory power in explaining real-life romantic relationships.

Other Factors May Override Physical Attractiveness (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
Physical attractiveness may be outweighed by other factors when selecting a romantic partner.

Evidence:
For example, individuals with high wealth, status, or power may attract partners who are more physically attractive than themselves.

Elaborate:
This suggests that people may prioritise resources, security, or social status over physical appearance, particularly in long-term relationships. This aligns with evolutionary explanations that emphasise the importance of resource provision.

Link back:
Therefore, physical attractiveness alone cannot fully explain attraction, limiting the usefulness of the matching hypothesis.

. Socially Sensitive Nature of the Explanation (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
Explanations based on physical attractiveness can be considered socially sensitive.

Evidence:
The theory implies that individuals who are less physically attractive may be less likely to form romantic relationships.

Elaborate:
This could be damaging to self-esteem and may lead to the belief that people who lack physical beauty are less worthy of romantic interest. As a result, the theory may be taken less seriously or viewed as ethically problematic.

Link back:
These ethical concerns weaken the credibility of physical attractiveness as a standalone explanation of attraction.

filter theory

• Filter theory (Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962) suggests that romantic attraction does not occur randomly.
  Instead, potential partners are gradually filtered out at different stages of relationship development based on specific criteria.

• The theory argues that as relationships progress, different factors become important at different times.

• Key Assumptions of Filter Theory

  • We do not consider all potential partners equally

  • Certain characteristics act as filters

  • Only individuals who pass through each filter are likely to form long-term relationships

  • Attraction becomes increasingly selective over time

• the first filter revolves around the fact that we only meet a small fraction of people living on our area - proximity filter

• most of those were to be of a similar social class , education level and ethnicity or racial group

• The third filter is based on psychological factors ( internal ) factors

• The chances of a short-term relationship becoming more permanent depend most on shared beliefs and values and personality variables

Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) — Key Study

Aim

To investigate how partner preferences change as relationships develop over time.

Method

• Studied 94 heterosexual couples

• Relationship lengths ranged from less than 18 months to over 18 months

• Measured:

  • Social background

  • Attitudes

  • Personality traits

Key Findings

• Early relationships prioritised similarity in social background

• Longer relationships prioritised similarity in attitudes and values

• Complementarity became more important in established relationships

Filter Theory Explained

First Level of Filter: Social Demography

Social demography refers to:

Age

• Gender

• Ethnicity

• Social class

• Education

• Geographical location

Explanation

• We are more likely to meet and interact with people who are socially and geographically similar

• This filter limits the pool of potential partners before attraction even develops

➡ This is largely due to opportunity, not choice

• were more likely to be attracted to individuals with similar demographics to us: where we live, where we work, the same place of education, and any religious groups

Second Level of Filter: Similarity in Attitudes

Similarity of attitudes includes:

• Political beliefs

• Religious views

• Moral values

• Views on relationships and family

• more likely to meet people with similar attitudes and beliefs: church, protest march

Explanation

• Similar attitudes increase:

  • Validation of beliefs

  • Communication ease

  • Relationship satisfaction

Kirchhoff & Davis found:

• Attitude similarity was most important in relationships lasting less than 18 months

Third Level of Filter: Complementarity

Complementarity refers to partners completing or balancing each other’s traits.

focus here is on how the individuals meet their partner’s needs , especially emotional ones

moves from the initial stage into deeper commitment

Examples:

• Dominant + submissive

• Caregiver + cared-for

• Organised + spontaneous

Explanation

• Complementary traits help relationships function smoothly

• Becomes more important in long-term relationships

Kerckhoff & Davis found:

• Complementarity was more predictive of success in relationships lasting over 18 months

research into filter theory

• FESTINGER

  Found that people who lived nearer the stairwells in apartment blocks knew the most people in the block. This suggests that familiarity is an important element of relationships and supports the filter theory, in particular the idea that social demographics play a role.

TAYLOR ET AL

Found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 were married to someone of their own ethnicities. This further supports the idea of our social demographics being important in relationships.

evaluations for filter theory

Lacking Temporal Validity (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
A limitation of filter theory is that it may lack temporal validity.

Evidence:
Kerckhoff and Davis developed the theory in the 1960s, before the emergence of online dating and dating apps.

Elaborate:
Modern dating apps allow individuals to apply multiple filters simultaneously, such as age, location, education, interests, and attitudes, giving people greater control over their dating pool. This means the filtering process may no longer occur in the fixed, linear stages proposed by filter theory.

Link back:
As relationship formation has changed over time, filter theory may be less applicable to contemporary romantic relationships.

Question of Whether All Filters Are Equally Important (Limitation – PEEL)

Point:
Another limitation of filter theory is that it assumes all filters are equally important for everyone.

Evidence:
Some individuals may prioritise physical attractiveness or shared interests over social demography or complementarity.

Elaborate:
This suggests that the importance of each filter may vary depending on individual differences, culture, or relationship goals. As a result, the theory may oversimplify the process of partner selection by imposing a universal sequence of filters.

Link back:
This reduces the explanatory power of filter theory, as it cannot account for variation in how people choose partners.

Face Validity (Strength – PEEL)

Point:
A strength of filter theory is that it has high face validity.

Evidence:
It seems logical that individuals do not consider all possible partners equally and instead narrow down potential mates based on certain criteria.

Elaborate:
People are more likely to form relationships with others who are socially similar, share attitudes, and complement their personality, which reflects everyday experiences of dating and relationship formation.

Link back:
This common-sense appeal increases the credibility of filter theory as an explanation of romantic attraction.

Practical Usefulness & Predictive Value (Strength – PEEL)

Point:
A strength of filter theory is that it has practical usefulness by helping to predict how romantic relationships are likely to develop.

Evidence:
The theory suggests that as relationships progress, individuals become more selective, moving from broad social filters to more specific psychological criteria such as shared attitudes and complementary traits.

Elaborate:
This framework can be applied in real-life contexts such as dating advice, relationship counselling, and matchmaking services, as it helps explain why some relationships fail early while others develop into long-term partnerships.

Link back:
Therefore, filter theory is valuable because it offers a structured and realistic explanation of how attraction develops over time, increasing its usefulness as a theory of romantic relationships.

Reductionist Explanation (Optional Extra AO3)

Point:
Filter theory can be criticised for being reductionist.

Evidence:
It focuses on a limited number of factors, such as social demography and attitude similarity.

Elaborate:
This ignores the influence of emotions, chance encounters, and individual agency in relationship formation.

Link back:
Therefore, filter theory may not provide a complete explanation of attraction.