Chapter Summary
Chapter 5
Matchmaker, Matchmaker
The introductory section of this chapter notes that the number of registered matchmakers
in the United States is on the rise. It would be interesting to find out how students define
matchmaking services and how many would be willing to use these types of services. A
discussion of the types of matchmaking services might help students to reflect on their
belief systems about how relationships originate and develop.
This chapter focuses on how intimate relationships get started. This really boils
down to three questions: What is the attraction to someone such that we work to get to
know them better? Why are we romantically or sexually attracted to some of these
potential partners but not others? Lastly, how do we narrow down those potential partners
through mate selection to arrive at our committed relationships?
Attraction: The Basis for Liking Someone
Although physical qualities always rank first in the overall category of what students say
they are attracted to, personality traits are more likely to be reported if I asked, “What are
the top three things that attracted you to your partner?” Because there already exists a
relationship, students would be much more likely to provide personality descriptors as a
response. Obviously, we are attracted to those who demonstrate positive personality
traits and less inclined to be attracted to those that demonstrate negative personality traits.
Interestingly, there is a hierarchy in each of these categories as well. For example,
textbook Table 5.1, Most and Least Likable Traits, lists words that describe goodness as
higher than those that describe fun, despite both being positive personality traits.
The text also notes the pratfall effect, which is the tendency to like those who
have wonderful qualities but also possess a few endearing flaws. One reason for the
pratfall effect is because that is how most people view themselves, and it may be that the
similiarity we think we share with that person is at the root of their likability. The
importance of similarity in attraction and liking has been well-established through the use
of the phantom other technique. Researchers such as Byrne (1961) assessed the
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. relationship between similarity and liking by controlling the degree of agreement
between participants and a “phantom other’s” attitudes. The more things we share in
common, the more attracted we are to someone. Time and again research has
demonstrated that those we like the most are most similar to us, but this is limited to
similarity in positive characteristics. Couples who share unappealing qualities tend to be
less successful than those that share positive qualities, as discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6.
The text presents an alternative view that it is complementarity, not similarity,
that we find attractive in partners. Complementarity suggests that we are attracted to
people who possess characteristics that we wish we possessed, or that are complementary
to ours (for example, he’s spontaneous and she’s a planner; she’s social and he’s quiet).
Despite the anecdotal evidence that I am certain your students could relate to, research
has not supported the idea that opposites attract. One explanation is that, while the
individuals in a couple may act in complementary ways when around one another, they
are more similar than different when we compare them to others in general.
There are at least three valid reasons why we are attracted to those who are
similar to ourselves. First, sharing views, attitudes, characteristics, and likes is
validating; our partner confirms to us that what we find important is, indeed, important or
worthwhile. Second, we get along better with someone who is similar. We don’t need to
explain ourselves nearly as often, there is less conflict because we are more likely to see a
situation the same way, and there is more agreement on what types of activities to engage
in. Lastly, we are attracted to those that are similar to ourselves because we think they
are going to like us. The “Really? Me too!” moment in conversations is not only
validating but leads to more positive responses from persons who are like us, and we are
more attracted to those that respond positively to us in the first place. The only time
similarity does not work to increase liking is when the other person is suffering or is in
pain. Their vulnerability reminds us of our own and makes us uncomfortable.
Inherent in the arguments for why similarity is attractive is another aspect of
attraction—familiarity. The mere exposure effect suggests that just being exposed to
something can be reinforcing. Students may be able to relate this to when they first came
to college. What was it like when they felt surrounded by strangers but happened on
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. someone who was from their hometown or a nearby school? It doesn’t matter that they
didn’t know each other previously or didn’t really have anything else in common, simply
finding someone who is from a familiar place can lead to greater liking. Another
experience some of your students may be able to relate to is the bond that develops
between students who are studying abroad. When confronted with so much that is
unknown, students who share nationality and the experience of being abroad often cling
to one another, to that which is familiar.
Have students think about a time when they became aware of someone liking
them or being attracted to them. How did that make them feel? At the very least, we are
usually flattered by the attention of a potential partner because their affection indicates
that we are desirable, thus we like them more. We tend to like those that like us back, a
concept called reciprocity. Backman and Secord’s (1959) waiting-room study discussed
in the text provides evidence that individuals are likely to have more favorable opinions
of someone if they know that person likes them than they are of people who they know to
be critical of them. Many other studies have confirmed the original findings, but your
students are likely to have their own experiences. For example, how do people who like
us treat us compared to those that don’t? We are much more likely to get validating and
reinforcing reactions from those that like us, therefore we like them more.
As with many elements of intimate relationships, the process of liking is more
complex than merely who reciprocates our feelings. In a similar waiting-room study,
Aronsen and Linder (1965) evaluated attraction to the confederate based on evaluations
over time. The participants viewed the confederate who gradually improved the
assessment of the participant over time positively. These results demonstrate that when
the participants could infer that the improved evaluations were based on their behavior,
they increased the level of attraction to the confederate, rather than receiving consistently
positive feedback.
All of the reasons for being attracted to someone fit within the social exchange
theory discussed previously. We like others more when we derive more rewards from
our interactions and associations with them; validation, returned liking, and comfort with
familiarity are all rewarding to us.
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Romantic and Sexual Attraction
Previously, I noted that physical appearance is by far the most common response
when I ask my students what they find attractive. The general category of physical
appearance is comprised of a number of specific qualities such as eyes, height, personal
style, body type, hair, smile, and overall looks. These physical characteristics are often
listed because they are the easiest to determine, whether or not we have actually met the
person. As noted above, personality characteristics, similarities, and reciprocity require
meeting and getting to know the person. Of course, research supports this assumption.
In an early “computer dating” study, Walster and her associates (1966) gathered
data on personality, intelligence, and background. The students assumed that they were
matched based on these qualities but were in fact paired randomly. The only factor that
predicted whether or not the students were interested in a second date was whether or not
the people they were paired with were attractive.
The importance of similarity extends to physical appearance as well. Called the
matching phenomenon, we tend to be attracted to those that are similar in their level of
attractiveness. I explain this to my students by telling them that we generally date those
that are plus or minus 1 level of attractiveness. So, if you are a 7, you are likely to be
attracted to and date someone between a 6 and an 8. We know that we are most likely to
be liked by those that are of a similar level of attractiveness, therefore we don’t pursue
the best-looking person, but rather the best-looking person that we think will reciprocate
our attraction.
Berscheid and her colleagues (1971) and Montoya (2008) found there are limits to
the matching phenomenon. Berscheid and her colleagues’ (1971) research indicated that
college students were most likely to select potential partners that were very attractive
even when they knew there was a possibility of rejection if they didn’t actually have
interaction with these potential partners. Their research demonstrates that we are attracted
to those who are most attractive in “virtual” settings. Montoya’s (2008) results indicate
that perhaps these students knew they were going to be rejected, but just didn’t care
because they didn’t have anything to lose. Montoya’s (2008) participants were no more
invested in pursuing a relationship with the people whose photos they viewed than
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Bercheid’s were decades earlier, so they felt more freedom in choosing the most
attractive options.
But what about when we actually interact with potential partners? In a study in
which members uploaded pictures of themselves on HOTorNOT.com and rated each
other’s picture for “hotness,” researchers found that members requested dates from those
that matched themselves in attractiveness. Even more interesting, though, is researchers
also found that those who chose to date partners lower in attractiveness also rated those
individuals as not attractive. Thus we can see that physical attractiveness is important;
however, other factors such as avoiding rejection and the desire for successful
relationships play large roles in selecting partners.
The next logical question is why is attractiveness so important? If people look
good they are seen as more likeable and sociable as well as successful in life and love.
We often confuse good looks with talent, too. In short, what is beautiful is good.
Attractive people are more likely to be hired, less likely to be convicted of a crime, and
when convicted are given shorter sentences. When we make these assumptions about the
“goodness” of attractive people, we interact with them accordingly; thus they are given
more opportunity to practice their social skills. In a study where participants were shown
pictures of those they were supposedly talking to in a taped telephone conversation,
Snyder and his associates (1977) found that those who thought they were talking to an
attractive person were much more animated and friendly, prompting more sociable
responses from the person on the other end of the phone.
As with most things, there is a down side to being attractive as well. We tend to
believe attractive people to be more vain and more likely to be promiscuous. Attractive
individuals are lied to more often, and they know this, which leads to the long-term effect
of attractive people being distrustful of others. Despite all of this, attractive people tend
to express greater happiness and satisfaction in their lives.
From an evolutionary psychology perspective, attractiveness is linked to markers
that indicate health and fertility. Even though physical markers can give us clues as to a
potential partner’s genetic makeup, evidence would suggest that they are no longer linked
to health outcomes as has been an assumption of the evolutionary perspective for some
time. For example, in Kalick and his associates’ (1998) study, participants rated pictures
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. of adolescents on their level of attractiveness and beliefs about the person in the pictures’
health. Attractiveness ratings did not predict the adolescents’ health, nor their later health
outcomes.
Establishing a relationship isn’t just about how good someone looks. I refer back
to the data I have been gathering for years about what my students find attractive in a
potential partner. After the general category of looks, sense of humor is a close second.
What does this suggest about the importance of personality in making something out of
initial attraction?
As mentioned previously, men and women prioritize attractiveness differently
when looking for a partner. Evolutionary psychologists call the tendency for men and
women to report different preferences for different types of relationships strategic
pluralism. Sexual strategies theory attempts to explain and predict the characteristics
men and women look for when they are pursuing short- and long-term relationships.
Again, sex differences in the propensity to have short-term sexual relationships have been
discussed already. However, it is important to highlight that this trend is apparent across
cultures, which reinforces the idea that it is innately driven.
It is well established that men have more short-term sexual encounters than
women do and are willing to lower their standards for potential partners if it is for a
hookup as opposed to a long-term relationship. However, the text asks the question I
have often posed to my students. So, if men have more casual sexual encounters than
women do, who are they having sex with? Sexual strategies theory explains this
discrepancy by noting that women use short-term strategies, however, for different
reasons than men do. Women, in contrast to men’s lowered standards, are more likely to
have higher standards for short-term relationships since this gives them access to men
who have greater resources, are more attractive, or have higher status. These same sexual
strategies can be seen in long-term relationship-seeking as well. Women are more likely
to trade attractiveness for an increased likelihood that their partner will generate and
invest future resources in their relationship and its offspring. Although a trade-off exists
for men, they trade other short-term sexual relationships in order to attract more desirable
long-term partners; the “high-quality” women will want a sexually monogamous longterm relationship.
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Another key aspect to our attraction to others is the situation in which we
encounter them. The text uses one of my favorite examples of misattribution of
arousal: the classic Dutton and Aron (1974) shaky bridge study. The researchers had an
attractive lab assistant show pictures to men walking across a bridge, ask them to make
up a story, and then give the men her telephone number. They did this same study on two
different bridges, testing the men’s responses to the lab assistant in two different
situations. One was a shaky suspension bridge and one was a sturdy concrete bridge
nearby. Those who encountered the attractive lab assistant on the shaky bridge were
much more likely to call her. The analysis of this difference led to the understanding that
we can overlook the cause for our arousal and attribute it to another person. In the Dutton
and Aron (1974) study, the men crossing the shaky bridge were already physiologically
aroused yet attributed their physical state to the lab assistant and not to the conditions
under which they met.
Several other examples of this phenomenon exist. The text references beer
goggles, or what I dub the “closing-time effect,” when patrons’ standards are lowered
significantly as closing time approaches and the pressure to pair off increases. In
addition, those on the treadmill are more likely to be attracted to others at the gym. This
theory also goes a long way toward explaining the Stockholm Syndrome, where
kidnapping victims are inclined to fall in love with their captors. Clearly, context is
important in determining who we will find attractive, whether we are looking for a shortor long-term partner, and what other elements influence our attraction. We are attracted
to whatever is most rewarding for that context.
To test this idea, Montoya (2005) evaluated standards of women and men
regarding with whom they were more likely to hook up in different contexts representing
locations that are more or less likely to promote one-night stands, such as a fraternity
party, a bar, a church, a café, the library, etc. Demonstrating the sexual strategies theory
described above, men were more likely to lower their standards in the locations such as
the party or the bar, whereas women were more likely to raise their standards in these
environments. A similar pattern emerged for the non-hook up-related environments such
as the church or the library: women were more likely to lower their standards in church or
the library, whereas men were likely to raise them in these locations.
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. What we have failed to cover thus far are the times when people clearly pursue
relationships that are one-sided. Unrequited love is when we are romantically attracted
to someone who doesn’t return those feelings. Perhaps there are hidden rewards in these
situations. Aron, Aron, and Allen (1998) found that unrequited love was rewarding
because the object was highly desirable, there was hope of the love being returned
eventually, and simply loving them was rewarding enough. This profile fits with the
study discussed earlier in which participants positively evaluated those confederates that
rated them negatively initially but gradually increased to positive assessments of them
over time. Those who experience unrequited love may believe themselves to be in exactly
that most attractive condition: If they love well enough and long enough, the other person
will eventually evaluate them positively.
As good as it might sound, being the object of someone’s affection (that you don’t
return) isn’t a positive experience either. Most objects of unrequited love find that the
cost of rejecting someone far outweighs any rewards of being desired. The result is that
objects send disingenuous messages that can easily lead the individuals pursuing them to
feel they have a chance to make the object love them. Furthermore, based on research
summarized in the text, “playing hard to get” is the most effective when you want
someone who is very choosy about their partners to express an interest in you, thus
increasing your rewards by indicating that you are “better” than the others by nature of
their attention.
Mate Selection: From Chemistry to Connection
If we have such clear preferences for our partners, our intimate partners should reflect
these preferences. The Eastwick and Finkle (2008) article referenced in Recommended
Film, Reading, and Web Resources confirms sex differences in preferences for partners.
The authors also discover that whom we prefer isn’t always who we end up with as a
partner. Eastwick and Finkel (2008) evaluated participants’ stated preferences before the
speed-dating event and then their choices on whom they would actually date after the
event. There was no relationship between initial preferences and who the participants
identified wanting to date after the event. The authors’ postulated that speed dating was a
“safer” environment and might lead participants to make choices that they wouldn’t
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. otherwise make, therefore mate selection must demonstrate a better match between
articulated preferences and actual selections.
A twin study, using both fraternal and identical twins, examined the partners of
the twins to determine if more similarity existed between partners of identical twins than
between those of fraternal twins (Lykken & Tellegen, 1993). This would indicate that our
preferences for our mates have some basis in genetics, rather than environment.
Interestingly, none of the researchers’ predictions were confirmed, meaning that the
partners of identical twins were no more alike than were the partners of fraternal twins
despite identical twins showing similar preferences in other areas of their lives. Thus our
preferences have little to do with the people we end up with as mates. Interesting, since
our general belief system is that we choose our partners based on “type” and “chemistry”
with a certain person, or that we are any better judge of a good match for ourselves than
someone else. At this point, you can refer back to the start of this chapter. Knowing that
whom we end up with is fairly random, does this change anyone’s opinion about whether
or not to use a matchmaking service?
Why is it we believe mate selection is driven by deep personal experience when
the research tells us it is fairly random? The text suggests that it is because selecting a
partner is a dynamic dyadic process between two people. We don’t go to the “partner
store” and pick out someone who matches our criteria. Unfortunately, researchers have
typically measured the stable traits of potential partners rather than the interaction
between both people.
In order to interact with potential partners we need to be in proximity of them, or
near them. To love someone, we must first meet them; to meet them they need to be
close. I always cover the classic Festinger et al. (1950) study of college students’
proximity in living quarters because it was related to the likelihood of the students being
friends with each other. Not surprisingly, those who lived the closest (units and
buildings) to one another were more likely to be attracted and be friends with one
another. Why? It is much more convenient to get to know and to hang out with those
that live close; it is intrinsically rewarding. Inherent in proximity is more frequent
contact, which we have already established is related to more liking.
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. In order to demonstrate the power of proximity, I use a story about a colleague of
mine. While discussing the expensive private school she chose for her children, I
commented that I had heard about their excellent college acceptance rate and the prestige
of the colleges their graduates attended. She noted that these were great but, more
importantly, by choosing this particular school, she was choosing her children’s peer
group and potential dating partners. Therefore, she was choosing the people her child
was most likely to associate with (something parents are always concerned about), with
the understanding that proximity leads us to form relationships.
Of course, the definition of proximity has changed over the last 15 years or so.
Information technology and social networking sites make it possible to virtually “meet”
others who live in vastly different geographic areas and with whom we are not able to
interact with in “brick and mortar” situations. However, I like to point out to my students
that cyberspace still has “space” and that you need to be “near” someone online in order
to meet them as well. In other words, the Internet does not randomly connect people;
individuals need to go to specific sites or sign up for specific chat rooms in order to
interact with one another. Therefore, I maintain that the importance of proximity is
upheld online, just defined differently.
We aren’t attracted to every person who lives nearby or that we interact with daily,
even those that are attractive according to our standards. So, how then do we form
couples? Aron et al. (1989) found that we are just waiting for an attractive person to
“make the first move.” Among most animals and all primates, mate selection begins with
a sequence of three kinds of behaviors that signify making the first move, quite literally
in fact. These three types of behaviors are: behaviors that alert potential mates to one’s
presence, behaviors that establish one’s gender, and behaviors that advertise one’s
availability and interest in a relationship.
I find it interesting that if I poll my female students on whether or not they are
willing to make the first move, the majority of them will say no. In fact, culturally the
stereotype is that men make the first move. However, Perper (1989) coined the term
proceptivity, meaning that women nonverbally indicate they are receptive to an approach
from an attractive potential partner. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to your students as
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. many of them are aware of the importance of eye contact with someone that they are
interested in talking to.
Research has found that weaker indicators of interest include: leaning forward,
speaking with animation, and not checking out others passing by. Among the stronger
indicators are standing less than 18 inches away and touching while laughing. As these
indicators are interpreted as interest, the two engage in behavioral synchrony (Crown,
1991) or mimicking each other’s movements unconsciously. Conversely, people who are
not interested in the person they are talking to tend to demonstrate the opposite behaviors,
like avoiding eye contact, leaning away, or crossing one’s arms (Grammer, 1990). The
concentration on nonverbal indicators is significant because they are ambiguous
indicators of interest that allow deniability in terms of interest. In other words, I can
always deny that I was nonverbally flirting so it is “safe,” and I can avoid potential
rejection if I find out you don’t return my interest. Unfortunately, ambiguity is
problematic simply because it is ambiguous and leaves much room for misinterpretation.
Social penetration theory addresses the interactions between two people who have
successfully indicated their interest, gotten a positive response, and decided they would
like to get to know each other more. Social penetration theory considers the breadth of
topics and the depth, or personal significance, to which these topics are discussed. An
initial conversation is neither broad nor deep (what is your major? where are you from?).
As the relationship progresses, however, the breadth and depth of these disclosures
increases. Therefore, we can classify relationships based on the kinds of information we
share with them.
Initially in relationships partners look for disclosure reciprocity, or quid pro quo: I
tell you something and you tell me something in return. However, as a relationship
develops, partners are looking for a reaction from one another, usually in the form of
validation and support. There are socially prescribed levels of self-disclosure based on
the length and nature of the relationship as well. One way to illustrate this to students is
to have them think about someone who immediately disclosed personal information early
in a relationship, as most of us have had interactions like this.
Sometimes what partners disclose to each other isn’t as interesting as what they
don’t disclose to each other. While the text provides a list of what college students avoid
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. discussing in textbook Table 5.2, Common Topics Avoided by Partners in Romantic
Relationships, it would be worth using these topics to generate discussion about
disclosure in relationships. The first item on the list is The State of the Relationship, a
discussion that my students often mention as taboo. In fact, “dropping the B-Bomb”
means that someone is now officially considered a Boyfriend, a very significant stage in
the development of college relationships. Another area for discussion is that prior sexual
history is also a taboo subject. While this topic could take you in another direction, it is
worth spending the time to discuss the possible ramifications of avoiding discussing past
sexual histories with a current partner.
The final section of the chapter addresses how we go from self-disclosure to an
actual intimate relationship. The staircase model suggests that relationships develop
through a series of five stages. The first four steps, initiating, experimenting, intensifying,
and integrating, are marked by increasingly personal disclosures across a widening
range of topics. The partners (and others) believe they have formed a committed
partnership, and they consider a future together. The final step is a formal recognition of
that partnership such as a wedding or commitment ceremony.
In order to address the critique of stage theories, I ask students if all of their
relationships have progressed through the same steps. Another question might be, do you
think these steps also apply to those who are in a different life stage, for example, a single
parent in his or her mid-thirties who has never been married or two retired people who
are both widowed. Clearly, not all relationships follow exactly the same series of stages.
Instead, it may make more sense to examine relationships in terms of their turning points,
those discrete events where the relationship moved to a new level of commitment and
intimacy. Research indicates that partners agree on these turning points even when
interviewed separately, whereas they are not as likely to agree on what initially attracted
them to each other or how they first started dating. It is important to consider that these
turning points may have to do with events such as finishing their education or moving in
together rather than on enduring qualities of either partner.
Intimate Relationships, 2e Bradbury and Karney © 2014 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.