Matching+Hypothesis

Matching Hypothesis Matching hypothesis is a social psychology theory that proposes the reasons behind partner selection based on physical attractiveness. The theory states that when making dating and mating choices, people will choose someone of their own level of social desirability. ** Theory Originator  **  Elaine Catherine Hatfield, was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1937. She received her Bachelors  Degree from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1963. Shortlyafter receiving her doctorate, she began work as an Assistant and Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota (Hatfield, 2007). While at Minnesota, Hatfield (using the surname of Walster) and her colleagues published a study in the // Journal of //  // Personality and Social Psychology // entitled “Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior.” ** The Computer Dance  ** Hatfield wanted to study if “one’s romantic aspirations are influenced by the same factors that affect one’s level of aspiration in other areas” (Walster, 508). This was based off of Kurt Lewin’s theory of aspiration that proposes that there are two goals, ideal and realistic where the first is based entirely on the desirability of the goal where as the second takes into account the possibility of attaining the goal (Lewin, 368). In order to test her hypothesis, Hatfield advertised a ‘computer dance’ for students during freshman week at the University of Minnesota. The first 376 males and 376 females were allowed in at $1 each. When they came to sign up for the dance, 4 independent judges assessed each student’s attractiveness as a measure of social desirability. The participants were seated upstairs and asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire, supposedly for use in the computer pairing. They were told that, on the basis of the data gathered from these, each student had been allocated an ideal partner for the evening of the dance. Actually the questionnaire was used to provide data about similarity and the pairing was done randomly (except that no man was assigned to a taller woman). The dance was held 2 days later - before which the students were given their dates’ names. During the dance participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the dance and their dates. This was done during the intermission when the partners had been together about 2.5 hours (Walster, 518). ** Dance Results and Criticisms  ** The results or the questionnaires showed that the more physically attractive students were liked more than were the less attractive students. Physical attraction was rated a more important factor than such qualities as intelligence and personality. Liking was not affected by how attracted the other person felt towards the participant. Physical attractiveness was the best predictor (from both males and females) that they would see each other again. Since physical attraction was the only attribute the participants seemed to care about and everyone liked more attractive partners, this did not support Hatfield’s Matching Hypothesis (Walster 1966). The computer dance was not a very realistic test of the //Matching Hypothesis// because dates were assigned and assessments made before any rejection could have taken place. The interaction was very brief and, therefore, interpersonal assessments had to be based on superficial characteristics. It also possible that the measure of physical attractiveness used was unreliable. In addition, participants were students and so the results could only be generalized to a youthful population who were not making long-term romantic choices. When the researchers asked the students 6 months later whether they had dated their partners since the dance, they found the partners were more likely to have dated if they were similar, rather than dissimilar, in physical attractiveness, supporting the Matching Hypothesis (Sprecher 2009). ** Dance 2.0 and Further Studies  ** Since the finding of the first computer dance did not satisfy Hatfield’s Matching Hypothesis, she tweaked her original idea and repeated the experiment again in 1969. Only this time the students met before the dance and were asked to state what kind of partner they wanted in terms of physical attractiveness. Now they found the students expressed greater liking for those who were at the same level of physical attractiveness as themselves. This was thought to be because, having met their partner before the dance, they would have had time to think about what they were looking for in a partner. Another important factor was the possibility of rejection, because without it participants would not look into realistic goals (Berscheid, 1969). In 1972, Bernard Murstein conducted a study in which photographs of couples were taken and questionnaires were filled out by each person asking about their partner’s physical attractiveness. The results showed that individuals with “equal market value” for physical attractiveness are more likely to associate in an intimate relationship such as premarital engagement. Even though the Matching Hypothesis was upheld, it also found that the subjects overvalued the physical attractiveness of their partner. When the couples were asked to rate their partners and their own attractiveness, men and women both rated themselves as 3.4/5 on average. However, when rating their partner, men rated their female partner at an average of 4.1/5 and women rated their male partners at an average of 3.9/5 (Murstein, 1972). Further studies have been conducted which support the findings of the Matching Hypothesis, but some have questioned the motives behind choosing a suitable mate, some theorizing that it is due to fear of rejection that someone picks a mate not far above their own social attractiveness. This however seems unlikely since Murstein showed that most people find their mates more attractive than themselves anyway. ** References  ** 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. Hatfield, Elaine. (2007). Elaine Hatfield, Ph.D. // University of Hawai’i. http://www.elainehatfield.com/ // Murstein, B.I. (1972). Physical Attractiveness and Marital Choice. // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8-12. //   Sprecher, S. & Hatfield, E. (in press/2009). Matching hypothesis. In H. Reis & S.    Sprecher (Eds.) //Encyclopedia of human relationships.// New York: SAGE. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. //Journal of Peresonality and Social Psychology, 4,// 508-516.