As is common in many areas of psychology, theories about interpersonal attraction are based on numerous studies. A similarity found in the majority of these studies is that they all try to quantify attraction in terms of the values of what we have to offer of which we receive. To do so is to apply objectivity on our emotions towards others and as we all know, our actions and emotions are not always objective. They can often be irrational and unrelated to what we might loose or gain.
In my opinion this automatically compromises the validity of such studies. Clore and Bryne (1974) provide us with a simple study from which to start. They state that we are attracted to people whose presence is rewarding to us. They define rewards in terms of several positive factors including; exposure, proximity, familiarity, complementarily and competence. Based on their ideas, the more we experience these factors, the more we will like somebody. This is a simplistic view of what is most likely a more complex situation.
It is generally accepted that out attraction to a person is not solely based on the rewards which they might offer us. Other factors must be taken into account such as the rewards we may be able to offer them, and the likelihood that our rewards will be valued equally. Social exchange theory dictates that people are more likely to become romantically involved with those who are closely matched in their ability to reward one another. For example studies have shown that people with a similar attractiveness (average or good looking etc) rating tend to choose corresponding partners.
According to the theory this is because we will always strive to find the perfect partner but will eventually settle for a ‘value-match’, the most rewarding we partner could realistically hope to find. Brown (1986) argues that this phenomenon is a result of a well-learned sense of what is fitting in terms of our expectations of the value of rewards we have to offer. A study by Lowe(1994) reminds us that the issue of interpersonal attraction is not one that can be simplified.
After looking at a study of 738 sets of identical twins in an attempt to find similarities in mates he suggests that; ‘Although most human choice behaviour is fairly rational, the most important choice of all – that of a mate – seems to be an exception’. According to the ‘reward cost principle’ (Aropnson (1980)) we are attracted to people who seem to like us. This may be in a number of forms such as; complimentarily, or based on a person agreeing with our beliefs, ideas and attitudes. This is attributed to the belief that when a person is in agreement with us, they back up and support what we believe.
They provide us with a reward; reinforcement. Another general criticism is the fact that many of these studies are based on the initial contact between two people. The point at which two people are strangers may indeed be a good indicator of attraction but we must accept that attraction can change or evolve over time. Studies into this area have mainly concentrated on attraction between younger people, and heterosexual people. What we must also consider is the attraction between older people and amongst homosexual people.