Two Key Studies of Cognitive Theories of Attraction (DP IB Psychology)
Revision Note
Key study one: 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
These 120 participants were identified as ‘initiators’, meaning that they initiated contact with other users of the site.
Procedure
The researchers used the real-life online activity of the participants who used the dating site
Records were kept to show who responded (‘reciprocating contacts’) and did not respond (‘non-reciprocating contacts’) to other people’s profile on the site
A maximum of six of the initiators’ profile photographs as well as the reciprocating and non-reciprocating profile photographs were collected by the researchers
A total of 966 photographs (527 female and 439 male) were collected
The researchers used ‘blind’ researchers to rate the photos they had collected
The ratings were based on a 7-point scale of attractiveness (-3 to +3)
Calculations were based on:
the mean attractiveness rating given to each initiator
the mean rating given to each of the initiator’s contacts
separate attractiveness ratings for each initiator’s reciprocating and non-reciprocating contacts
Results
The results did not support the matching hypothesis:
the initiator’s physical attractiveness showed no correlation with the mean physical attractiveness of all the people they contacted on the site
the initiators tended to contact people on the site who were rated as more attractive than they themselves were
Conclusion: The matching hypothesis cannot account for real-life decisions determining attraction
Evaluation of Taylor et al. (2011)
Strengths
The use of real online dating activity means that the results of this study are high in ecological validity:
the participants could not possibly have been influenced by demand characteristics due to the nature of the procedure
The use of correlational analysis means that it is easy to compare quantitative data and to look for associations between variables:
this use of quantitative analysis means that the study should show reliability
reliability could be tested by running the study again with another sample to check for consistency
Limitations
The sample only included heterosexual people so it cannot be generalised homosexuals:
Different standards or criteria may apply to people who are not heterosexual
People tend to present themselves in a somewhat edited way on dating sites:
they may make aspirational dating choices or present the best version of themselves online in a way that is not possible in real-life
this ‘tweaking’ of reality means that the study may lack validity
Key study two: Markey & Markey (2007)
Aim: To test the similarity-attraction hypothesis: the idea that similarity is a key factor in attraction
Participants
169 US undergraduate students (103 female and 66 male) US
The sample was obtained via self-selection (an advertisement asking for single people who were looking for a romantic partner)
Procedure
The participants filled in a series of questionnaires covering the following:
Personality: each participant rated their own personality using a list of 64 predetermined adjectives e.g. sociable, shy, confident, warm, cold etc.
Filler questionnaires: these were used to disguise the actual purpose of the research and included questions that were not relevant to the topic being investigated
Personality of their ideal romantic partner: this questionnaire was similar to the personality questionnaire but it focused on what the participant was looking for in a partner
Results
The participants consistently chose their ideal romantic partner as being someone with a personality very similar to their own
The traits they listed to describe themselves were also seen in the traits they chose to describe their ideal romantic partner
‘Warm’ individuals were hoping to meet others who were warm; people who were dominant were attracted to others who were dominant too
Conclusion: People are attracted to others who display similar personality traits to themselves
Evaluation of Markey & Markey (2007)
Strengths
The nature of the standardised questions means that this study can be replicated easily:
quantitative data can be compared and analysed easily
Being able to replicate the research means it can be tested for reliability
The findings support the similarity-attraction hypothesis:
this means that the study has face validity
Limitations
The participants may have succumbed to social desirability bias:
They may have presented an idealised version of themselves and their potential partner when filling in the questionnaire
Social desirability bias is a way to preserve self-esteem
Social desirability (and any form of bias) lowers the validity of the findings
Quantitative data does not provide detail as to why certain choices are made on a questionnaire which means that the study lacks explanatory power
Worked Example
ERQ (EXTENDED RESPONSE QUESTION) 22 MARKS
The question is, ‘Discuss cognitive theories of attraction.’
This question is asking you to give a considered and balanced argument of cognitive theories of attraction. Here is a paragraph for guidance:
Cognitive explanations of attraction may be overly simplistic. Both the matching hypothesis and the similarity-attraction hypothesis are based on unscientific, what might be termed mundane theories of human behaviour (i.e. that we seek out a mate who is as attractive as we are and who shares our interests). The lack of real scientific rigour in these theories could work to de-value them as viable and valid explanations of attraction but the fact remains that they do reflect real-world thinking and behaviour (with exceptions of course). People really do seem to match themselves to a similar mate, either consciously or unconsciously. It would be naïve to suggest that all relationships are formed according to the determinants of the cognitive theories but it would also be foolish to completely disregard them as they do have some credibility.
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?