"So I say I love you, only love lasts and never withers…" Whether or not you count yourself a die-hard Kay Tse fan, chances are you can hum along to this song. Beyond the idol closest to your heart, is there someone you fancy? Or perhaps, being single, you are itching to apply for a "relationship licence" and properly start a new romance. But what exactly is it that draws two people to each other? And is the person you have your eye on actually a good match? If you would rather not be the dawdler of the relationship — forever ten seconds, ten seconds behind — then read on, because this is the love psychology behind the "Law of Attraction" of love!
Similarity
Do "birds of a feather flock together", or do "opposites attract"? Researchers generally back the former, finding that people who are similar are more likely to be drawn to one another and become couples than people who complement each other (Montoya et al., 2008). Studies point to similarity in personality traits (Bleda, 1974), interests (Curry & Emerson, 1970) and outlook on life (Tan & Singh, 1995) as important factors in mutual attraction. What is more, similarity in values, political leanings and religious beliefs also shapes how attractive two people find each other (Warren, 1966). If MIRROR and ERROR were two people, they might make for well-matched rivals — yet they would have little chance of becoming a couple. And indeed, people who share the same interests and ideals find it easier to have things in common and build a relationship; in everyday life they also tend to develop an easy rapport and work well together, with fewer occasions for conflict and friction.
Psychology's Matching Hypothesis proposes that most of us tend to pair up with people of similar attractiveness — for instance, in terms of looks (Feingold, 1988). Ordinary folk tend to see male and female "deities" as out of reach, and rarely dare to get close and develop a relationship with them. Much as a "devotee" may regard a "cult leader" as someone to admire or worship — there may be a flicker of romantic fantasy, but in real life a distance is always kept, just like in the recent song "Unlovable Cult Leader". There is even academic research to support the traditional saying that "a wooden door matches a wooden door, a bamboo door matches a bamboo door" (i.e. like marries like). Scholars' concept of homophily refers precisely to the tendency to associate and form relationships with people of similar social background — for example, age, level of education, household income, social status and so on (McPherson et al., 2001). As the saying goes, things of a kind come together, people of a mind fall into groups.
It is worth noting, though, that perceived similarity matters more than actual similarity (Montoya et al., 2008). That is, how similar two people subjectively feel they are to each other has a greater bearing on the attraction within a relationship. A psychology study on speed dating found that the more similar participants perceived themselves to be to their match, the more the data reflected a higher level of liking for that match (Tidewell, 2013). Today's dating apps tap into this very psychological tendency, telling users they have a few things in common with a suggested match in order to boost their willingness to accept the pairing. If you are single, you could try to uncover common ground with the other person. And if they are willing, you could even build shared interests or goals together. (Though if your match has already gone to MIRROR, you will have to redouble your efforts!)
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. People who are utterly different can still become a couple — it is just that psychology has not, to date, found enough research to support it. While complementary relationships can encourage us to encounter more new things and new ideas, bringing a sense of stimulation and freshness, from a psychological standpoint, finding a partner who is similar to yourself is more conducive to building a long and lasting relationship.
Proximity
We wonder whether you have been watching the Hong Kong version of Ossan's Love lately. Has its tangle of love triangles and quadrangles left your head spinning? Our protagonist Tin is, in turn, taken with by his boss KK, his colleague Muk, and his childhood friend Pui. What do these admirers have in common? Simply that they all know Tin well, and that Tin shows up again and again in their lives. Psychologists believe that we tend to like the people, things and places we are familiar with (Zajonc, 1968). The related psychological phenomenon is called the Mere Exposure Effect, which refers to the idea that the more often something appears and the more often we see it, the more we come to like it (Zajonc, 1968; Saegert et al., 1973). In Ossan's Love, Tin is a deeply familiar presence to all three of his admirers, who often share time with him in daily life. Tin is the subordinate who has worked with KK for years, the flatmate who shares a home and looks after Muk, and the partner who has grown up alongside Pui. From a psychological point of view, the familiarity that comes from this repeated face-to-face contact becomes one of the factors that make them fall for Tin.
Quite a few scholars have studied the "Mere Exposure Effect". For example, Moreland and Beach (1992) arranged for their experiment to have four women of similar age and appearance attend a university class; the one who attended the most sessions was rated by the other students as the most attractive. The study by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) also found that, within a university hall of residence, students who lived in neighbouring rooms were more likely to become friends than students who lived on other floors. We wonder whether this brings back memories of your old secondary-school seating arrangements? Perhaps at first you were no more than nodding acquaintances, but before long you were playing ball together, going to the toilet together, eating together… Or, when you arranged to meet a match from a dating app, did you ever find the other person rather ordinary at first sight, only to feel after a few dates and chats that they were not bad after all, with your liking for them growing? That is the "Mere Exposure Effect" at work.
Scholars believe the "Mere Exposure Effect" is closely tied to evolutionary psychology. People tend to feel apprehensive about the unknown, but when we feel familiar with something, we feel more secure, and a positive impression is formed (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001). When facing other people, we tend to view those we are familiar with as the in-group — our own kind — and those we are unfamiliar with as the out-group — outsiders (Zebrowitz et al., 2007). What is more, the "Mere Exposure Effect" appears as early as infancy. One study found in an experiment that, compared with someone they were seeing for the first time, infants more readily broke into a smile at someone they had seen before (Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1981). The more times we meet certain people, the more information we can gather about them, recognising that they pose no threat to us. Evolutionary psychologists believe the sense of security this produces is one of the reasons we tend to like the people we are more familiar with.
That said, the "Mere Exposure Effect" always has its limits. If, on first encountering certain people, we already find them thoroughly off-putting because of something they have done, the "Mere Exposure Effect" may not necessarily come into play. After all, there are many factors that shape whether we form a positive or negative impression of a person. For example, if we particularly dislike people in a certain profession, then no matter how many times they appear on television or online, we will still feel repelled by their contemptible behaviour.
Subjective Love
In this instalment, we have looked at the part that similarity and proximity play in romantic attraction. We wonder whether anyone has come to mind for you? There are many other subjective factors that influence whether one person likes or dislikes another; the research above is offered only for reference, and love psychology has plenty more articles for you to read. Feelings always come down to the emotions and the bond between two people. If the other person feels nothing for you, then no matter how much time you spend getting to know his or her interests, or how doggedly you carry on by their side, it will all be in vain. We hope everyone meets the right person at the right time! And if you would rather not end up like Mr E, caught in a chain of unfortunate events, be sure to look out for the second part of the "Law of Attraction in Love"!
References
Bleda, P. R. (1974). Toward a clarification of the role of cognitive and affective processes in the similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 368–373.
Curry, T. J., & Emerson, R. M. (1970). Balance theory: A theory of interpersonal attraction? Sociometry, 33(2), 216–238.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological bulletin, 104(2), 226.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 889-898.
Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1981). Visual attention at three months as a predictor of cognitive functioning at two years of age. Intelligence, 5(2), 131-140.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922.
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255-276.
Saegert, S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 234.
Tan, D. T., & Singh, R. (1995). Attitudes and attraction: A developmental study of the simi-
larity attraction and dissimilarity repulsion hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 975–986.
Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2012, May 18). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed‐dating paradigm. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x?casa_token=ZTNzRjLQXLUAAAAA%3AU8h30w_QUboUCs5LT66G16YuttjjhTjfTVKc-Od48tblQWrU4ugFlrTU07JiHeBPItcjF4vm8pEg0Wjqqg
Warren, B. L. (1966). A multiple variable approach to the assortative mating phenomenon. Eugenics Quarterly, 13(4), 285-290.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Bronstad, P. M., & Lee, H. K. (2007). The contribution of face familiarity to ingroup favoritism and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25(2), 306-338.
Comments
No comments yet — share your thoughts.