Biological

Neurobiology of LoveNeurobiology of Love  Fischer (2004) love is a system compromised of 3 other systems (attraction, sex drive and attachment) which interact with each other to produce behaviors and emotions linked to love.  Attraction: characterized by increasing focus and attention on the specific person and thus energy. Moreover, obsessive and possessive actions towards the individual. This attraction evolves to inspire the individuals to choose and focus courtship on a particular individual.  Sex drive: the craving for sexual gratifications, this evolves to produce off springs.  Attachment: grooming, living together and maintain close proximity, evolves to staying with the preferred reproductive partner for a longer time.

Fischer et al. (2003)Fischer et al. (2003)  Aim: to investigate the neural mechanisms associated with the attraction system (romantic love)  Procedure: 17 participants aged between filled out a questionnaire to investigate how they felt about their relationships. Then they were place in fMRI scans and shown photographers f their partner. They then did a distraction task and looked at a neutral acquaintance photo next. This was done six times  Results: there was increased dopamine and this is associated with the reward system, plus there is a possibility that the brain system for addiction is similar to the attraction/romantic love.

Physiological

Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis  Suggested by Burne (1971) people are most likely to be attracted to people that they think they are similar with. This occurs because the individuals share the same attitudes and values which help to boost our self-esteem and thus leading to the attraction.  Attraction-Similarity Theory by Morry (2007) questions the theory and shows that:  People prefer friends and partners who are similar to them in terms of attitudes and traits, hence this is perceived from their own judgment and can hence be inaccurate.

Dijkstra and Barelds (2010)Dijkstra and Barelds (2010)  Aim: to investigate if people would be like to:  Perceive ideal partners as similar to themselves (similarity- attraction hypothesis)  Perceive former partner as different from themselves (attraction- similarity hypothesis)  Results: former partners were seen as different than and more negative, while ideal partners were seen as similar and more positive.  Conclusion: people tend to think their partner similar if they are still with them, however, if they are a former partner they are seen as different and negative.

Socialcultural

Proximity FactorProximity Factor  Physical closeness is important in attraction  The physical presence of another individual will enhance the probability of becoming friends.  Culture plays a big role because of the way they shape the individuals schemas thus the way/she would probably chose a mate.

Festinger et al. (1950)Festinger et al. (1950)  Aim: to investigate formation of friendship patterns at Westgate Housing for student couples.  Procedure: the researchers made observations and interviewed the residents regularly.  Results: proximity increased the chances of friendship. After month more than 10 times as many friendships developed for people living in the same building.  Conclusion: physical proximity increases opportunities for interaction, which in turn increases familiarity.