What Leads to Romantic Attraction: Similarity, Reciprocity, Security, or Beauty? Evidence From a Speed‐Dating Study

Abstract

Years of attraction research have established several "principles" of attraction with robust evidence. However, a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity. The current research was designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. Social Relations Model analyses demonstrated that initial attraction was a function of the actor, the partner, and the unique dyadic relationship between these two. Meta-analyses showed intriguing sex differences and similarities. Self characteristics better predicted women's attraction than they did for men, whereas partner characteristics predicted men's attraction far better than they did for women. The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness. Finally, there was some support for the reciprocity principle but no evidence for the similarity principle.

How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario

“…However, Luo and Zhang (2009) point out that in face-to-face dating situations, men and women do not differ in how physical attractiveness affects their choices. Others have concluded that men generally choose partners based on physical attractiveness, and women choose partners primarily based on social status, but only when considering a long term relationship (Li, Yong, Tov, Sng, Fletcher, Valentine & Balliet, 2013).…”

“…On one hand research suggests that physically attractive individuals are more desired as romantic partners compared to those who are less physically attractive (Feingold, 1990), and the physical attractiveness of a potential dating partner is the best overall predictor of attraction (Luo & Zhang, 2009;Curran, 1973). On the other hand, the Matching Hypothesis proposes that individuals will tend to choose partners that are of approximately equal attractiveness (Berscheid, Dion, Walster & Walster, 1971;Curran, 1973;Walster, Aronson, Abrahams and Rottman, 1966).…”

“Have You Been Married, or …?”: Eliciting and Accounting for Relationship Histories in Speed-Dating Interaction

“…There are two misalignments here, then, between the usual age and occupations of participants in the experimental versus real life setting, and between their reasons for attending both types of event. It is likely that the stakes are lower, or different, for undergraduate students attending a speed-dating event for 'course credit' (Luo & Zhang, 2009), than for thirty-something participants in a real speed-dating event.…”

“…Such dates are often organized under "experimentally controlled conditions" and take numerous pre-and post event measures from the participants (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008: 348). In their USA-based studies, Eastwick and Finkel recruited undergraduate students to take part in a "study of romantic-attraction processes" (2008b: 248, see also Luo & Zhang, 2009). As well as running a two-hour speed-dating event, they collected pre-event stated mate preferences to compare with the preferences that emerged for each potential match following actual speed-dates.…”

Further Exploring the Relation Between Uncertainty and Attraction

“…In this case, it may be more accurate to state that uncertainty led to more behavioral attraction (compared to a control condition), but not necessarily more romantic attraction. Other researchers have similarly used affiliative desires and romantic desires interchangeably (e.g., Luo & Zhang, 2009), while other researchers have not differentiated between behavioral attraction and affective attraction (e.g., Litt, Khan, & Shiv, 2010). Thus, it may be that the trust-based approach and the positive-consequence approach are measuring the same dependent variable (affiliation), but are calling it and concluding different things from it (e.g., "affiliative motives" versus "romantic attraction").…”