This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Preview Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. References Adams, J. Inequity in social exchange. Berkowitz Ed. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar Arditti, J. Google Scholar Aron, A. The matching hypothesis reconsidered again: Comment on Kalick and Hamilton. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, — Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Google Scholar Baxter, L. Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 29— Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded in break-up accounts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, — Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, — A theory of marriage: Part I.
Journal of Political Economy, 81, — The development of friendship between roommates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, — Attraction and exchange in continuing and non-continuing dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, — Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. Peterson Eds. New York: Freeman. Google Scholar Berscheid, E. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, — Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar Blumstein, P. American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: Morrow. Google Scholar Bradbury, T. Behavior and satisfaction in marriage: Prospective mediating processes. Hendrick Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar Brehm, S. Intimate relationships 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar Buehler, C. Influential factors and equity issues in divorce settlements.
Family Relations, 38, 76— Engagement and marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Google Scholar Buunk, B. Social comparison, equality, and relationship satisfaction: Gender differences over a ten-year period. Social Justice Research, 3, — Referential comparisons, relational comparisons, and exchange orientation: Their relation to marital satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Rulletin, 17, — Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication Monographs, 59, — Journal of Social Psychology, 6, — Fairness and reward level as predictors of relationship satisfaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, — The role of rewards and fairness in developing premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, — Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12— Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 93— A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role intimacy, reactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection.
Communication Monographs, 49, — Physical attractiveness, romantic love, and equity restoration in dating relationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, — A test of equity theory for marital adjustment.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 36— Affective self-disclosure and marital adjustment: A test of equity theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 93— A new look at equity and outcomes as determinants of satisfaction in close personal relationships. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?
Journal of Social Issues, 31, — Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. Google Scholar Dindia, K. Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, — A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. Duck Ed. Personal relationships Vol.
Google Scholar Felmlee, D. The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13— Presumption of joint custody: A family policy dilemma. Family Relations, 39, — Societal structures of the mind. Google Scholar Godwin, D. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 12, — The effect of community size on exchange orientations in marriage. Rural Sociology, 52, — Google Scholar Hatfield Global Measure.
Reported in E. Hatfield, M. Traupmann , Equity theory and intimate relationships. Huston Eds. Google Scholar Hatfield, E. Equity and sexual satisfaction in recently married couples. Journal of Sex Research, 18, 18— Intimate relationships: A perspective from equity theory. Gilmour Eds.
London: Academic Press. Utne, M. Confirming that the experimental manipulation had created high and low levels of arousal, White and his colleagues found that the heart rate and other signs of physiological arousal were higher for the participants who had exercised longer. They did not find that the arousal created by running in place for seconds increased or decreased liking directly, but they did find an interaction between arousal level and the attractiveness of the woman being judged.
As you can see in the following figure, the men who had been aroused by running in place liked the attractive woman more and the unattractive woman less than the men who were less aroused. In this experiment, male college students rated an attractive or an unattractive woman after they had run in place for 15 seconds low arousal or for seconds high arousal.
The judgments under arousal are polarized. Data are from White, Fishbein, and Rutstein The woman asked each man to help her fill out a questionnaire for a class project. When he had finished, she wrote her name and phone number on a piece of paper and invited him to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. Over half of the men who had been interviewed on the bridge later called her. Echoing our discussion of social cognition and affect, one interpretation of this finding is that the men who were interviewed on the bridge were experiencing arousal as a result of being on the bridge but that they misattributed their arousal as liking for the female interviewer.
When we are aroused, everything seems more extreme. This effect is not unexpected because the function of arousal in emotion is to increase the strength of an emotional response. Love that is accompanied by arousal sexual or otherwise is stronger love than love that has a lower level of arousal. And our feelings of anger, dislike, or disgust are also stronger when they are accompanied by high arousal. As with mood states, arousal may sometimes come directly from the partner.
Both very attractive and very unattractive people are likely to be more arousing than are people who are more average in attractiveness, and this arousal may create strong feelings of like or dislike. In other cases, the arousal may come from another source, such as from exercising, walking across a high bridge, or a roller-coaster ride. The strong feelings that we experience toward another person that are accompanied by increases in arousal and sexual attraction are called passion, and the emotionally intense love that is based on passion is known as passionate love—the kind of love that we experience when we are first getting to know a romantic partner.
Again, there is a clear take-home lesson for you: If you like a person and think that the person likes you in return, and if you want to get that person to like you more, then it will be helpful to create some extra arousal in that person, perhaps by going to a scary movie, taking them up a tall building for dinner, or even meeting for a workout at the gym. On the other hand, you need to be sure that the other person is initially positively inclined toward you.
If not, arousing experiences could make matters even worse! Key Takeaways Particularly in initial encounters, people are strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of the other person. People tend to prefer people who are young, who have symmetrical facial features and bodies, and who appear average.
These preferences may be because these features suggest to us that the person is healthy. Although men and women agree on many aspects of what they find attractive, women are relatively more focused on the social status of their romantic partners, whereas men are more focused on the youth and attractiveness of their partners.
We tend to like people who share our values and beliefs, both because similarity makes things easier and because similarity reinforces our own values and beliefs. Proximity and the principle of mere exposure are two important determinants of interpersonal attraction. We tend to like people more when we are in a good mood. Our current state of physiological arousal tends to polarize our liking. Exercises and Critical Thinking Consider some people that you find most attractive.
Which do not? What other characteristics do you think are important in determining how attractive you perceive others as being? Describe a time when you saw or knew a couple in which one person was much more attractive than the other. What possible reasons can you think of why they were in a relationship together? What cross-cultural differences do you see in perceptions of physical attractiveness? What potential reasons can you think of to explain these differences?
Describe a time when you experienced the mere exposure effect. Why do you think it affected your degree of liking of the other person? Outline a situation where you experienced polarization of arousal. What were the outcomes of this situation for you and why? References Anderson, J. Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13 3 , — Back, M. Becoming friends by chance.
Psychological Science, 19 5 , — Baize, H. Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 3 , — Baumeister, R. Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love. When does performance feedback prompt complementarity in romantic relationships? Personal Relationships, 8 3 , —; Berry, D. Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness.
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, — Psychological Bulletin, 2 , — Brand, R. Infant social perception: Responses to pictures of parents and strangers. Developmental Psychology, 17 5 , — Buss, D. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 1 , 1— Evolutionary social psychology.
Gilbert, S. Lindzey Eds. Buunk, B. Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 4 , —; Crandall, C. Anti-fat prejudice. Nelson Ed. Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24 3 , — Donohoe, M. Behavioral Ecology, 20 4 , — Dubois, M. Psychological Reports, 95 3, Pt. Dunn, M. Universal sex differences in online advertisers age preferences: Comparing data from 14 cultures and 2 religious groups.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 31 6 , —; Dutton, D. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, — Eagly, A. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 1 , — Epstein, J. Perceived physical attactiveness, sexual history, and sexual intentions: An internet study.
Sex Roles, 56 1—2 , 23— Festinger, L. Social pressures in informal groups. New York, NY: Harper. Foster, C. Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 1 , 86— Freitas, A. The evaluative connotation of processing fluency: Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context? The evolutionary psychology of extra-pair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18 2 , 69— Grammer, K.
Female faces and bodies: N-dimensional feature space and attractiveness. Zebrowitz Eds. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Griffin, A. Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24 2 , — Harmon-Jones, E. The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 7 , — Harrison, A. Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24 5 , — Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 28 2 , —; Hosoda, M. The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56 2 , — Isen, A. Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, — Jones, J. How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. The matching hypothesis reexamined.
The Darwin is in the details. American Psychologist, 55 9 , — Kubitschek, W. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61 1 , 1— Langlois, J. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79— Attractive faces are only average. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5 4 , — Lee, L. Psychological Science, 19 7 , — Li, N. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 6 , — Mita, T. Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 8 , — Moreland, R. Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 3 , — Nelson, L.
Newcomb, T. The acquaintance process. Olson, I. Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5 4 , —; Petersen, J. A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, — Psychological Bulletin, 1 , 21—38; Pinel, E.
Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness.Google Scholar Traupmann, J. Social comparison, equality, and relationship satisfaction: Gender differences over a ten-year period. Emotion, 5 4 , —; Petersen, J. Kelley, E.
American couples: Money, work, sex. Google Scholar Dindia, K. Personal relationships Vol. Communication Monographs, 59, —
At this point, we will begin to communicate, sharing our values, beliefs, and interests, and begin to determine whether we are compatible in a way that leads to increased liking. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The strong feelings that we experience toward another person that are accompanied by increases in arousal and sexual attraction are called passion, and the emotionally intense love that is based on passion is known as passionate love—the kind of love that we experience when we are first getting to know a romantic partner. Fairness and reward level as predictors of relationship satisfaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The effect of community size on exchange orientations in marriage.
What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?
Closer look at a matching simulation: Reply to Aron. Physical attractiveness, romantic love, and equity restoration in dating relationships. Singh, D. When the stimuli are people, there may well be an added effect—familiar people are more likely to be seen as part of the ingroup rather than the outgroup, and this may lead us to like them even more. Ickes Ed. Then the students rated their liking of the confederates.
Love that is accompanied by arousal sexual or otherwise is stronger love than love that has a lower level of arousal.
Google Scholar Martin, M. As you can see in the following figure, the men who had been aroused by running in place liked the attractive woman more and the unattractive woman less than the men who were less aroused. Psychological Science, 5 4 , — Rritish Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 33— Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis.
Proximity and the principle of mere exposure are two important determinants of interpersonal attraction. Rritish Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 33— The evaluative connotation of processing fluency: Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context?
Google Scholar Martin, M. Equity, normative disapproval and extramarital relationships. Attraction and exchange in continuing and non-continuing dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 8 3 , —; Berry, D.
Men who, on average, already have higher status may be less concerned in this regard, allowing them to focus relatively more on physical attractiveness. Harrison, A. At this point, we will begin to communicate, sharing our values, beliefs, and interests, and begin to determine whether we are compatible in a way that leads to increased liking.
Journal of Gerontology, 41, — Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 6 , — Psychological Science, 19 5 , —
Another research finding consistent with the idea that men are looking for cues to fertility in their partners is that across many cultures, men have a preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio i.