1. Formation of Romantic Relationships
Psychological Explanation 2: Freud's Psychodynamic Theory
Formation of Romantic Relationships
The Matching Hypothesis
Y13 Schizophrenia with BPA

2. The Matching Hypothesis (AO1)
People tend to form relationships with others who are equivalent in their physical attractiveness – ‘a good match’
This affects same-sex friendships, dating couples, cohabitants, married couples etc
But people who don’t match on physical attractiveness may be trading other assets, eg. Wealth, status, sense of humour.
How else do you explain this…

4. The Matching Hypothesis (AO1 / 2)
Walster (1966) His first study got folk at a dance to rate each other on physical attractiveness. He then asked who they’d like to shag and found that most folk preferred someone more attractive than themselves, not at the same level as the Matching Hypothesis predicts
AO2: Lacks ecological validity as period of meeting others was very brief and ratings likely to be given on superficial characteristics
HOWEVER a follow up study 6 months later showed that those of similar attractiveness were more likely to have stayed together, supporting the MH

5. The Matching Hypothesis (AO2)
Walster (1969) In a subsequent study he got folk to meet before a dance and spend some time chatting. This time, having got to know each other a little, the students involved were more likely to express the most liking for those of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
Murstein (1972) Folk were shown photos of couples who were engaged. Tendency for the two people in a couple to be given a similar ‘attractiveness’ rating

6. The Matching Hypothesis (+AO2)
Huston (1973) argued that the evidence for the matching hypothesis didn’t come from matching but instead on the tendency of people to avoid rejection hence choose someone similarly attractive.
He attempted to prove this by showing participants photos of people who had already indicated that they would accept the participant as a partner. The ppt usually chose the person rated as most attractive
HOWEVER, the study has very flawed ecological validity as the relationship was certain, and in real life people wouldn’t be certain hence are still more likely to choose someone of equal attractiveness to avoid possible rejection.

7. The Matching Hypothesis (-AO2)
Doesn’t account for individual differences in what folk look for in a partner. Some of us like short, dour, red-faced partners. Who smell funny. In fact Towhey (1979) found that some of us are more affected by looks than others of us
Married couples are also matched in attractiveness, which suggests that it is not only a theory which applies to couples who are forming a relationship (Christy, 1976)

8. The Matching Hypothesis (AO2)
Silverman rated couples in bars and found they were high on similarity of physical attractiveness
Brown (1986) argued for the matching hypothesis, but maintained that it results from a learned sense of what is ‘fitting’ – we adjust our expectation of a partner in line with what we believe we have to offer others, not of a fear of rejection.