Re-examining the Matching

Hypothesis

Danna Wolf
The Matching Hypothesis

People adjust their preference for physically

attractive mates on the basis of their own
attractiveness (a change in our aspiration
level).
 Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in
Matching?

 Physical appearance affects how people

view each other
– People assume they share more attitude similarity
with more attractive people (Kalick & Hamilton,
1986)
 Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in
Matching? (cont.)

 Physical attractiveness is valued in mate

selection
– Though there are other qualities that are valued in
potential mates, physical appearance seems to be the
initial quality that needs to be satisfied before
considering other qualities (Murstein, 1972)
– People generally tend to prefer more
attractive people (Kalick & Hamilton,
1986)
 Why Focus on Physical Attractiveness in
Matching? (cont.)

 People tend to match according to

similar levels of attractiveness
– Repeated findings of attractiveness in intracouple
matching indicates some degree of motivation to
match on this characteristic  (Feingold, 1988)
– Meta-analysis of 17 studies revealed high correlation
(.49) for interpartner attractiveness, and even among
pairs of friends. Correlations also found in self-ratings
of attractiveness in partners (Feingold, 1988).
 Why Does the Matching
Phenomenon occur?

  It's a type of positive assortative mating: Nonrandom matching

between individuals
 Unfolds that way naturally- initially, everyone approaches the
most socially desirable dates, but eventually the attractive ones
pair up and you have to settle (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986)
 Equity Theory: Perceived interpartner equality is important for
relationship formation and maintenance (Walster, Walster, &
Berscheid)
 People don’t adjust their preferences in line with feasibility.
They change their motivation.
– People get a general idea of their own social value and aim for
goals through which they can obtain the greatest reward at the
least cost (rejection) (Straaten)
Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating
Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966)

 Level of Aspiration Theory

– Ideal choices: Ideal goals are based entirely on desirability
of goal (no consideration of possibility)
– Realistic choices: Depends on desirability and perceived
possibility of attaining goal
 Attractiveness of a goal is negatively correlated with
probability of attaining the goal  The goal that one
would expect to attain is typically less attractive than
what one desires. Therefore:
– One’s realistic social choices should be less attractive than
one’s desired social choices.
– One’s aspiration should be affected by his own social
attractiveness
 Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating
Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966)
…Continued

 Hypotheses:
1. Individuals who are more socially desirable will
have higher expectations of partners
2. When paired, couples who are similar in social
desirability will most often attempt to date one
another
3. Individuals will express the most liking for a
partner with a similar level of desirability
 Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating
Behavior – Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams (1966)
…Continued

 The Study
– Computer Dance; randomly assigned to date
– Attitudes measured during intermission
– Follow-up
 Results:
– Hypothesis 1 confirmed (higher social desirability = higher
expectations)
– Hypotheses II and III not supported. The only significant
predictor of liking the date or asking him/her out again was
the attractiveness of the date.
– Intelligence and personality were not better predictors of
liking than physical attractiveness
 Replications & Modifications of Walster et al.
Study

 Walster & Walster (1971)

– Hypothesis: The Matching  hypothesis will be supported under conditions of realistic choice (when
possible rejection is emphasized)
– Experiment: Computer Dance.
 Subjects’ looks are rated. They are asked to specify what kind of date they would prefer
(attractiveness, personality, popularity). Rejection salience increased for some, minimized for
others.
– Results: Rejection salience had no effect. However, subjects did generally operate on a Matching
principle.
 Berscheid & Dion (1971)
– Hypothesis: The matching principle will operate more strongly under realistic conditions of dating
choice (possibility of rejection)
– Experiment: Undergraduate Dating Study
 Subjects’ looks are rated. They’re asked to choose from among 6 photos (also rated), for a
date. Tested for interaction between attractiveness, condition of choice, gender.
Manipulation: Realistic-Idealistic.
– Results: No interaction was found with idealistic vs. realistic. However, subjects did generally
operate on a Matching principle.
 Straaten, Engels, Finkenauer, & Holland (2009)
– Purpose: Investigate approach behavior toward opposite-sex individuals of similar vs. dissimilar
attractiveness
– Experiment: Single participants interacted with confederates varying in attractiveness, and
observers recorded behavior in terms of relational investment
– Results: Men showed more relational investment if the confederate was similarly attractive. The
same did not apply for women.
Problems with Previous Studies

 Measurement of attractiveness not reliable

 Mixed results
 Matching hypothesis never garnered
sufficient support
 Lack of salience of social rejection
 Studies have been done under “idealistic”
settings
 Hypotheses

 Past studies have been unable to find

conclusive evidence of the Matching
Hypothesis. This study will reexamine the
Matching Hypothesis to verify its' validity.
 It is hypothesized that the results of the study
will support the idea of the Matching
Hypothesis- that is, that people adjust their
preference for physically attractive mates on
the basis of their own attractiveness
 Proposed Study

Method
 Participants
– 100 Participants will be recruited from among the TCNJ student population. Advertising will be
placed around the campus to participate in a free matchmaking experiment, for heterosexual
men only. Participants will be randomly placed into one of three groups: One will be told that their
choice of date will have to reciprocate their interest in order to be matched; one will be told that
they are guaranteed a date with their pick; and the control group will simply be asked to pick their
choice.
 Procedure
– The participants will first fill out a questionnaire about their core beliefs and personality. They will
have their photo taken. Then, they will proceed to a waiting room, where there will be 2 male
confederates pretending to be waiting as well. Half of the participants will be placed with
confederates who rate very high on physical attractiveness, and half with ones who rate low on
the scale. He will then be ushered into the room, where he will be shown 5 photos of different
females. These photos will have been rated by a separate panel of judges on an 5-point scale,
and there will be one of each approximate rating. He will be told that these women all match him
on his core beliefs. Additionally, there will be a one-way mirror in this room, through which a
judge panel will be able to view and rate the participant on a 5-point scale. The participant will be
told about the likelihood of getting his pick, depending on the variable group that he was placed
into. Then, he will be asked to pick which one he would be interested in being matched with.
– 2x3 ANOVA
 Independent Variables: Confederate Attractiveness X Rejection Salience
 Dependent Variable: Level of Matching, as operationalized by (Attractiveness rating of date
picked) – (Attractiveness rating of participant)
Results
 Hypothesized Results
1. Participants will overall prefer more attractive women over less attractive women
2. There will be a positive correlation between the attractiveness of the participant and the attractiveness of
the date chosen
3. There will be a main effect for probability of rejection. A post-hoc test will reveal that there is a statistically
significant difference between Guaranteed and Rejection Salience.
4. There will a main effect for Confederate Attractiveness
5. No interactions
6. The participants that are in the rejection salience group and the attractive confederate group are
hyothesized to represent the most realistic results, because there are two variables that are likely to
remind them of their own social status. This group will depict the matching hypothesis to the greatest
extent (have an average score closest to zero).

Table 1

Probability of Rejection

Guaranteed Control Rejection salience

Confederate
High attractiveness 1.275 1.105 .988
Attractiveness

Low attractiveness 1.342 1.202 1.063

Note. Scores potentially range from -4 to 4, and represent deviance from ideal
Matching Hypothesis, set at zero.
Discussion

 Limitations
– Still possible that idealistic came into play
– Controlled setting
– Does not take into account personality, other factors
– Limited population
 Future direction
– Study more realistic situations
– Study older population, more varied
– Look at long-term partners
– Take other factors into account
References
Bailey, R. C., & Price, J. P. (1978). Perceived physical attractiveness in married partners of long and short
duration. The Journal of Psychology, 99, 155-161.
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.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: a meta-
analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226-235.
Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton III, T. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(4), 673-682.
Murstein, B. I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 22(1), 8-12.
Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: how
attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 685-697.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., & Abrahams, D. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating
behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508-516.