The Matching Hypothesis & Relationships (DP IB Psychology): Revision Note

The matching hypothesis

• The matching hypothesis proposes that people tend to choose partners who are of a similar level of physical attractiveness to themselves (Walster, 1966)

Cognitive mechanism

• It is a cognitive process involving self-assessment and the assessment of others based on physical appearance.

  • For example, someone who rates themselves as moderately attractive may look for a partner they consider to be at a similar level

Self-worth & social status

• If a partner is perceived as less attractive, this may reduce an individual’s social status.

• If a partner is perceived as more attractive, this may increase social status.

• These outcomes can influence how individuals evaluate themselves in terms of worthiness or desirability

Decision-making & risks

• There is a fine balancing act involved in the matching hypothesis

  • Individuals weigh the risk of pursuing partners they perceive as more attractive than themselves

  • Aiming higher carries a greater risk of rejection

  • Choosing partners considered less attractive may reduce rejection risk but may not be fully satisfying

• Repeated rejection can negatively affect self-esteem

• Over time, individuals often adjust their expectations towards partners they believe are realistically attainable

Research which supports the matching hypothesis

Taylor et al. (2011)

Aim

• To investigate the matching hypothesis using real-life online dating behaviour

Participants

• 60 heterosexual male and 60 heterosexual female profiles from an online dating site 

• The profiles were chosen at random

• All participants were identified as ‘initiators’, meaning that they initiated contact with other users

Procedure

• Researchers tracked the real-life online activity of the initiators

• Records were kept of who responded (reciprocating contacts) and who did not (non-reciprocating contacts)

• Up to six profile photographs were collected for each initiator, as well as for their reciprocating and non-reciprocating contacts

• In total, 966 photographs were collected (527 female, 439 male)

• Independent ('blind') researchers rated all photographs using a 7-point attractiveness scale (−3 to +3)

• Calculations were based on:

  • the mean attractiveness rating of each initiator

  • the mean rating of all contacts chosen by each initiator

  • separate ratings for reciprocating vs non-reciprocating contacts

Results

• The findings did not support the matching hypothesis:

  • The initiators’ physical attractiveness showed no correlation with the mean attractiveness of the people they contacted

  • Initiators consistently contacted people rated as more attractive than themselves

• This pattern demonstrates cognitive dissonance (holding two contradictory ideas: 'I am less attractive than they are, but I am choosing them anyway')

Conclusion:

• The study suggests that the matching hypothesis cannot fully account for real-life attraction and partner choice in online dating contexts

Evaluation of the matching hypothesis

Strengths

• Equally-attractive couples do exist in the real world, which lends anecdotal evidence to the theory

• The theory highlights the ways in which cognitions may determine partner preference and aligns with humans’ ability to engage in higher-level thinking

Limitations

• Taylor's sample size is small which means that the data is likely to lack robustness

  • This in turn decreases the reliability of the findings

• The theory is highly simplistic and reductionist as it attempts to quantify the complex nature of human attraction to a basic balancing act, e.g., ‘I am a 5 so I seek a 5’

Link to concepts

Causality

• Notions of ‘what is attractive?’ are highly subjective and prone to individual differences, which means that the theory lacks scientific validity

• Attraction does not lend itself easily to experimental/scientific testing and is probably best suited to qualitative research

Responsibility

• Research which focuses on the physical attractiveness of people should be treated with delicacy and care by researchers

• If participants are aware of how they have been rated, this could cause them some embarrassment or distress (if the rating is lower than they expected)

• There is also the issue of anonymity to consider

  • It would have been vital for Taylor and colleagues to ensure that the photos of online dating site users were not published nor any clue given as to whose photos had been used in the research