Relationships and Attraction
Introduction: What attraction is and what people look for
The lecture examines how people think about romantic partners, what attracts them, and how life experiences shape their preferences.
An in-class example contrasts what one young woman says she looks for in a partner (physical descriptors, lifestyle cues) with the idea that attraction is broader than surface traits.
The speaker notes that some criteria are superficial or material (e.g., physical appearance, specific job, height, ethnicity, name traits), while other criteria reflect deeper values, goals, and daily habits.
Life experiences and aging can shift what we want in a partner; goals can change as new priorities emerge.
A key idea: attraction can be framed as a desire to approach someone, analogous to magnets pulling toward each other.
Core concepts of attraction
Direct rewards: immediate, real-time benefits from being with someone (e.g., they’re attractive to look at, sexual chemistry, humor, affection, validation).
Indirect rewards: rewards that accrue through alignment with personal goals, values, and long-term satisfaction (instrumentality: how well someone helps meet your goals).
Context matters: attraction is not just about the other person; it’s about how they fit your values, goals, preferences, and the situation.
Direct rewards can feed into indirect rewards (e.g., charisma expands social networks, which can become an indirect reward).
Some rewards accumulate over time and through interaction; others depend on whether a person aligns with one’s broader life aims.
The “word cloud” exercise: what people say makes someone attractive
The exercise yields a distribution of words describing attractiveness, with bigger words appearing more often in the group.
Observations from the activity:
Many words reflect character and how someone treats others (e.g., funny, kind, loyal, caring).
Some words are still physical (e.g., natural beauty, eyes), indicating that physical traits remain a factor for some people.
There are also mentions of values and daily habits (e.g., family-oriented, hardworking, good with kids).
Some responses include niche or less universal preferences (e.g., a single-syllable name, stance on polyamory).
Takeaway: there is a wide variety of qualities that people find attractive; different people optimize different combinations of traits.
Concept connected to the idea of a “desire to approach”: what draws you toward someone—emotionally, cognitively, or physically.
The filter theory and homogamy
Filter theory explains how people sort through potential partners to end up with a chosen partner.
Core idea: homogamy – the tendency to affiliate with people who are similar to us in key areas.
The theory is not strictly linear; it provides a useful organizing framework rather than a guaranteed step-by-step path.
Major filters (as described in the lecture, with some terminology variations):
Proximity (nearness in space and time): people near us in daily life, work, school, etc. Technology has expanded proximity by enabling contact beyond physical closeness.
Social characteristics: age, race/ethnicity, faith, social class, and marital status tendencies (e.g., never married vs. previously married).
Abstract dimensions: values, goals, and habits that shape day-to-day life compatibility.
Roles: beliefs about traditional vs. egalitarian roles, including parenting goals and expectations.
Daily habits: whether we share similar routines (morning person vs. night owl, cleanliness, organization).
Balance sheet (reciprocity): the perceived symmetry of commitment and benefits; uneven commitment can hinder attraction.
Note: these filters are tools to understand partner selection, not rigid rules.
Proximity: why being nearby matters
Proximity is defined as nearness in space or time.
Physical location and the choices about where we live or work shape who we meet and have access to.
Proximity increases opportunities for exposure to potential partners and tends to amplify positive feelings when interactions are rewarding.
Near exposure: seeing someone regularly leads to positive impressions unless there are negative experiences that negate them.
Saturation: overexposure to an unpleasant person can strengthen negative feelings, reducing attraction.
Proximity can operate through in-room interactions (classmates, coworkers) or through technology enabling contact with non-local people.
Hall-pass scenario (celebrity crush) is used to illustrate proximity’s limits: even if someone is not physically proximate, feelings can form, but feasibility depends on context and commitment.
Long-distance relationships (LDRs): rewards, costs, and dynamics
Rewards in LDRs rely more on conversation and emotional connection since physical presence is limited.
Physical touch and in-person presence provide powerful rewards; their absence changes the reward structure of the relationship.
LDRs tend to emphasize conflict avoidance; couples may discuss pleasant topics more than difficult issues due to time/communication constraints.
Reunions as transition points create higher stress and potential disappointment if idealized images of the partner clash with reality.
Idealization risk: partners may project an idealized version of the other when apart, which may not match day-to-day reality upon reunion.
Interdependence is often limited in LDRs due to reduced daily shared routines and decision-making.
Tangible costs of maintaining distance: travel costs, WiFi/communication costs, flight/gas expenses, time, and scheduling challenges.
Overall pattern (from multiple studies): on average, long-distance relationships tend to be less satisfying and less stable than close-distance relationships, but there are important exceptions.
Key moderating factors:
Commitment level prior to the distance: higher pre-distance commitment tends to yield greater satisfaction and persistence.
Context and reasons for distance: goal-driven, value-consistent reasons (e.g., military deployment) are more tolerable than casual, future-unknown reasons.
Timing and end in sight: a clear endpoint or achievable plan makes distance easier to cope with.
Online dating and meeting patterns
Meeting patterns differ by relationship type (straight couples vs. same-sex couples), but trends show similar shifts.
Two graphs (from the lecture) illustrate:
A pronounced rise in online meeting as technology becomes available and popular (early 2000s).
A decline in meeting through family/friends as the primary channel, with online dating increasing.
Proximity-based introductions (in-person meetups through existing networks) still occur but represent a smaller share compared to the online era.
Across both straight and same-sex couples, online meeting rises, while traditional proximity-based routes (family networks) decline.
The data discussed start around 1985, with notable changes in the early 2000s and a caveat about continuing patterns beyond 2009.
Interpretation: technology expands access to potential partners beyond one’s immediate environment, shifting the landscape of how people meet.
Practical implications for understanding attraction and relationships
When studying attraction, consider both surface traits and deeper alignment with personal values, goals, and daily habits.
Proximity remains a powerful driver of partner choice, but technology reshapes what counts as proximity.
Long-distance relationships can work, especially with high commitment and clear contextual reasons, but they come with specific emotional and logistical costs.
Online dating introduces new dynamics: online interaction can substitute or supplement in-person exposure, changing the demand on other filters (e.g., proximity, similar values).
People’s preferences are dynamic; life-stage changes, career paths, and family plans can shift what they value in a partner.
Summary takeaways
Attraction is multi-dimensional and context-dependent: direct rewards (immediate interactions) and indirect rewards (alignment with goals and values) both matter.
Filter theory provides a framework to understand how proximity, demographic traits, values, roles, daily habits, and reciprocity shape partner choice.
Proximity increases opportunities for exposure and can intensify both positive and negative feelings, depending on interactions.
Long-distance relationships involve trade-offs between the rewards of communication and the costs of distance, with outcomes highly dependent on commitment and context.
Online dating has transformed how couples meet, with online platforms rising in prominence since the early 2000s and reshaping proximity-based dynamics across populations.