Relationship Initiation: Fall 2025 Lecture Review
Review of Last Session: Relationship Initiation
Process Model of Mate Selection
: This comprehensive model outlines the sequential stages individuals typically navigate when identifying and choosing a romantic partner. It begins with broad pools of eligibles and progresses through various filtering mechanisms (e.g., initial attraction, shared values, role compatibility) that gradually narrow down the potential partners, leading to relationship development and establishment.
Universal Appeal of Physical Characteristics
: We examined the underlying reasons for the cross-cultural consensus on certain attractive physical traits in humans.
One prominent perspective suggests evolutionary pressures, positing that traits like facial symmetry, average facial features, and indicators of clear skin are perceived as honest signals of health, genetic fitness, and reproductive viability, thereby increasing their appeal as adaptive preferences.
An alternative, more cognitive view suggests that traits considered beautiful are often those that are easy for the brain to process. For instance, symmetry and averageness require less cognitive effort to interpret, making them inherently more pleasing to perceive.
"Beauty is Good" Stereotype
: This pervasive stereotype posits that physically attractive individuals are also assumed to possess other positive traits, such as intelligence, kindness, and social competence, even in the absence of evidence. We discussed its accuracy, which is often limited in reality, and its various manifestations in social judgments, employment opportunities, and legal outcomes.
Assortative Mating / Matching Hypothesis
: Physical attractiveness is consistently identified as a primary and powerful factor in the process of matching partners. The matching hypothesis specifically suggests that people tend to form relationships with partners who are similar to them in terms of physical attractiveness. This helps to maximize the likelihood of reciprocated interest while minimizing the risk of rejection.
Mate Value
: This concept is defined as the combined perceived value of all characteristics (e.g., resources, personality, appearance, social status) that contribute to one's overall desirability as a romantic partner. A class demonstration illustrated how individuals learn and adjust their self-perception of mate value from the reactions and feedback of those around them. Furthermore, the estimation of someone else's mate value is not static; it can significantly change as people get to know each other better, as deeper qualities become apparent.
Attractiveness Matching
: We explored the various conditions under which partners are more and less likely to match in terms of physical attractiveness. Factors such as the stage of the relationship (initial attraction vs. long-term commitment), the presence of other compensating assets (e.g., wealth, humor), and differential self-perceptions of attractiveness can all influence the degree of matching observed.
Beauty versus Status Trade / Gender Differences in Basis for Attraction
: We discussed the dynamics of how beauty and status might be traded in relationships, particularly in heterosexual pairings where historically, men may prioritize physical attractiveness while women may prioritize resources and status. We also observed and analyzed general gender-specific bases for attraction, acknowledging that these are broad trends and individual preferences vary.
Today's Focus: Factors Influencing Attraction
Concluding the discussion on gender differences and similarities in attraction
: We will finalize our examination of how men and women may differ or align in what they find attractive, considering both evolutionary and sociocultural influences, and how these preferences translate into relationship initiation.
Exploring the roles of:
Proximity: This refers to physical closeness, both geographical and functional (e.g., living in the same dorm, working in the same office). Repeated exposure to someone (the mere exposure effect) due to proximity often leads to increased liking, as familiarity fosters comfort and reduces uncertainty. Practical opportunities for interaction and the perception of shared experiences also contribute significantly to attraction.
Similarity: The old adage "birds of a feather flock together" holds significant truth in attraction. People are generally more attracted to those who share similar attitudes, values, interests, personality traits, and even physical attractiveness levels. This similarity-attraction hypothesis suggests that shared characteristics provide validation of one's own beliefs, facilitate communication, and predict greater relationship satisfaction and stability.
Fear of rejection: The psychological impact of the fear of rejection plays a crucial role in who individuals choose to pursue. People often opt to initiate relationships with those they perceive as being within their league or more likely to reciprocate interest, thereby minimizing the painful experience of being turned down. This fear can lead individuals to overlook potentially desirable partners who seem "out of reach."
Reciprocity: One of the most powerful determinants of attraction is the belief that someone likes you back. Reciprocal liking acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy: when we believe someone likes us, we tend to like them more, act warmer towards them, and increase our own openness, which often encourages them to genuinely like us in return. This mutual positive regard creates a reinforcing cycle that strongly enhances attraction.
The effectiveness of playing hard to get: This strategy involves appearing less available or interested to increase one's perceived value and desirability. While it can sometimes create a sense of challenge or pique interest, it carries significant risks. If overdone, it can lead to frustration, disinterest, or the perception of arrogance, pushing potential partners away. Its effectiveness often depends on a delicate balance, where a person is seen as selectively hard to get (i.e., challenging to others but potentially attainable), rather than universally unavailable or aloof.