The Law of Attraction

The notion of what constitutes attractiveness in human beings is in many cases made up of various factors from both the biological and social/physical spectrums of the issue. On one

hand, proponents of social theories of attraction would assert that personality traits and commonalities such as self-similarity, attachment security and notions of the ideal self would have the largest correlation with human attraction (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Contrarily, the biological argument for the basis of attraction implies mate selection based on factors such as facial symmetry, reproductive fitness, and the general neurobiology associated with attraction (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). The purpose of the following paper will be to examine the multiple theories associated with human attractiveness in order to gauge a greater understanding of the laws of attraction. There is no shortage of literature available on the topic of the social components associated with attraction. With regards to initial attraction specifically, Klohnen and Luo (2003) attempt to delve into the topic as they describe, why we are attracted to some individuals but not to others is one of the most fundamental human dilemmas...the most persistent question(s) in the study of close relationships (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Until recent history, researchers focused their analysis mostly on attitudes, beliefs and values, discarding the significance of personality in initial attraction. Klohnen and Luo argue that the research predecessors before them missed the most relevant personality factors in dictating attraction, as these factors are the basis for deciding whom we develop long-term, committed relationships with (2003). With regards to their research, they focused their examination on experimental attraction studies testing for self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity and attachment security, with actual and perceptual views of the participants taken into account (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Their hypothsis were as follows: indiviuals should be attracted to others who share their own attachment characteristics but not necessarily attracted to those who have personality characteristics that are complementary to their own. Participants should also be most attracted to secure partners

because they offer the best opportunity for emotional attachement. Finally, they emphasized that people would be attracted to the ideal version of themselves, implying their chosen partners would manifest desired characteristics (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). This also implies that seeing undesired characteristics of oneself in another may be in turn, aversive. (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). In saying this, there was an emphasis placed on humans perceptual views rather than those in actuality as perceptual factors are more proximal in nature (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). The study itself consisted of single, undergraduate students in an introductory psychology class at a large Midwestern University. It is important to note that these students received credits for their participation in the study. The researchers found that individual differences, specifically in adult attachment patterns, play a powerful role in interpersonal attraction (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Because the researchers measured both actual and perceptual views of respondents, they found that attachment security and self similarity increased attraction in actuality. With regards to perceptual factors, they found a strong correlation between security, self similarity and ideal-self similarity (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). This could imply that the perceived ideal-self similarity may play a more primary role in the process of attraction than attachment security as it had the strongest correlations in the study. However, there is a multitude of issues within this study. Firstly, the fact that it was administered to college students in the same institution renders it un-generalizable to the general public, or even the American college population in that case because of its concentration. Secondly, these students received credits for their participation which could further skew the results as some students may have been motivated only by the need for the credit and not valid information. Thirdly, students were fully aware of the general purpose of the study. Knowing this could very well lead to the intentional changing of responses to achieve a specific desired result in the findings.

An interesting change in the study of attraction is found in the research of Lou and Zhang (2009). They claim that current attraction research cannot achieve accurate results as it is based in well-controlled settings, therefore not allowing for natural interactions in an attempt to mimic real life situations (Luo & Zhang, 2009). These lab settings often use research assistants as male or female test dummies which takes away from a genuine encounter. In this light, Luo and Zhang opted to observe attraction in a speed dating setting. To facilitate this, the researchers used 108 single participants (with an equal number of males and females) with an average age of 19.5 from the same University in exchange for course credits. The study was completed in 3 stages, each occurring one week apart from the next. The first was the pre-event in which the participant received background information on the study and provided personal information about themselves to the researchers such as demographics, physical attractiveness, political attitudes, interests, etc. The at-event stage followed which entailed group speed dating up to an hour, with participants all spending 5 minutes with a member of the opposite sex. Following the date, participants were asked to fill out a survey in which they displayed their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their partner. Finally, during the post-event stage, participants gave final feedback about all their partners (Luo & Zhang, 2009). The resounding finding of the study was that the strongest predictor of attractiveness for both men and women was a partners physical attractiveness overall (Luo & Zhang, 2009). Although it was stronger in men, it was the overwhelming determining factor in both sexes, as stated by Luo and Zhang (2009). Interestingly, males had significant positive correlations with a partner possessing 12 characteristics including weight, age and level of conservatism while women only had two: level of sport activity and attractiveness (Luo & Zhang, 2009). This suggests that women (at least those in college) primarily like attractive, athletic men as these

characteristics yielded the only significant correlations among the other characteristics. Also, this study suggests that men look for more characteristics to assess the attractiveness of their partner, including younger women who showed elevated levels of conservatism. This is interesting because it runs contrary to what social norms tend to teach us: that men are preoccupied with physical attractiveness and women look for intrinsic characteristics in their partners. In the post-event stage, the participants received all their partners feedback. Participants who rated others positively, received the most reciprocal liking, implying that humans have a tendency of reciprocity which can be explained by the popular phrase, attraction breeds attraction (Newcomb, 1956). In the spirit of popular cultural phrases, the principle of similarity, which can be summed up as birds of a feather flock together, did not exhibit a strong correlation with attractiveness (Luo & Zhang, 2009). It is important to note that in the final analysis of the study, beauty was the biggest indicator of attractiveness as it displayed the highest significance levels (Luo & Zhang, 2009). As almost every study, Luo and Zhangs speed dating experiment does possess some imperfections. For example, the fact that the study was based in speed dating fails to demonstrate the importance of longer-term encounters, limiting the results. Also, similar to the study mentioned previously, there is an issue of generalizabilty as students from the same college were surveyed. Finally, students were allowed to exchange personal information before the post event, which could have skewed the results and placed an unnecessary emphasis on reciprocity as the students would have a full week to communicate with one another, creating a relationship outside of the scope of the study. However, despite its flaws, the study provides insight into initial attraction. Many studies focus on the factors which facilitate attraction on a face to face basis, but in a time of technological advance in various gadgetry and communication mediums, it is difficult

to ignore the role of online relationships in attraction. As Levine states, online attraction is based on words, charm and seduction rather than the standard physical molds of attractiveness (2000). This gives those who do not fit these socially defined roles of attractiveness an equal opportunity in pursuit of attraction. It is important not to discard the role of online relationships as all initial relationships, no matter where they occur, start in interpersonal attraction and the desire to approach a partner (Levine, 2000). Like in any other relationship, online relationship seekers are attracted to those whose presence is considered rewarding (Levine, 2000). As examined by Levine, there are five factors which constitute online attraction. The first is proximity and frequency of contact. While online, proximity cannot be defined in terms of location as it is a globally accessible medium, it is instead characterized by the particular chat room or online forum one is associated with (Levine, 2000). Being online at regular, similar intervals increases ones exposure rate which can increase finding attraction which holds true in the real world. Applications such as buddy trackers and facebook make exposure even easier as they have the ability to alert people when someone comes online (Levine, 2000). The second factor is self presentation. Online, the way one chooses to present themselves is carefully chosen and consciously manufactured, giving one power over how people see you which is impossible in real world situations (Levine, 2000). The third factor is similarity. This aspect has shown to be prevalent in attractiveness in a variety of studies in face to face interaction and plays an important role online as well as individuals looking for a mate online already share that in common. (Levine, 2000). The fourth aspect is reciprocity and self-disclosure. The internet community can be very supportive for people belonging to the same organization or group. For example, if a person tells someone about the fact that they have had three divorces and delves into their poor relationship choices, it can be considered a turn off. However, if one does the

same thing on an online dating forum, their struggles can be met with supportive comments, even come-ons from people with similar experiences (Levine, 2000). Finally, expectations and idealizations play a huge role. It holds true that when we expect to be attracted to someone, we act in ways that elicit attractive behaviour from the other person (Levine, 2000). This self fulfilling prophecy is reinforced by Tesser and Paulhus study in which subjects who thought about their partner for two weeks without any new external information, experienced intensified feelings towards them (1976). This holds true in the online world especially. For example, in metaphorical terms, in sending an email the constructor of the email can be considered the architect of a message. The receiver of the email sifts through the blueprints, and begins to design their kitchen. Later, this person pictures themselves cooking, and creating various memories in the new home (Levine, 2000).The notion of idealization is extremely strong in online attraction. To reinforce these notions, Buss found that 6 out of 10 characteristics most effective in attraction such as humor and sympathy, could be translated online (Levine, 2000). This creates a new level of what attraction can be defined as in this evolving technological age. Returning back to face to face interaction, as previously examined, the importance of perceived beauty in judgements of human physical attractiveness cannot be understated. Specifically, the role of the face and body in these judgements can be broken down in a study conducted by Currie and Little (2009). In this study, 127 men and 133 women were shown images of 10 individuals of the opposite sex. These photographs were standardized, entailing equal distances of the model away from the camera, and all other factors that were alien to the face being removed, e.i. hair (Currie & Little, 2009). Participants were instructed to rate these pictures on the basis of either short or long term relationships, rating the face and body separately, and then in combination (Currie & Little, 2009). What they found was that face

ratings were more indicative of what the combined ratings turned out to be, in fact, males placed more importance on bodies in short-term relationships while females showed minimal differences between long and short term characteristics (Currie & Little, 2009). Body characteristics which yielded attraction levels in males included waist-to-hip ratio, body fat, symmetry and breast size (Currie & Little, 2009). What this suggests is that the face and body may be signaling different information about potential mates, indicating preference for either short or long term engagements. Moving towards biological explanations for attraction, Erickson-Scroth approach the issue of neurobiological gender-based attraction, specifically that of same-sex attraction. Similar to online attraction studies, same-sex attraction at social and biological levels is seldom explored, so it is important to know who conducts the few experiments that do exist (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). In the case of same-sex attraction, it is mostly gay researchers trying to figure out why they are how they are on a biological basis in order to prove it is not by choice, which can be made easier with scientific backing (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). However, arguing this case implies that if homosexuals could choose, they would choose to be straight which is indeed a form of internalized homophobia (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). Examining a study conducted by Rieger, Chivers, & Bailey which measured the arousal of straight, gay and bisexual men in response to male and female sexual stimuli (2005), EricksonSchroth found the study to be incredibly bias and discriminatory. Prior to the studys release, The New York Times reported on the study with an article entitled, Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited. The hypothesis behind the study was that bisexual men did not exist. Furthermore, it claimed that those claiming bisexuality were actually straight and simply trying to be more open (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). However, a study conducted by Hammer (1993),

found that there may be a locus on the X chromosome in males related to sexuality which implies closeness to mothers over fathers (Hammer, et al., 1993). Furthermore, a study examining fraternal birth order found that subjects with more older brothers had a greater chance of being born gay, suggesting that after previous male pregnancies, a mothers body identifies male antigens as non-self, developing antibodies which influence the fetus (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). What does this imply for attraction studies? Binary assumptions, such as that of exclusive homo or heterosexuality, can skew results due to classification judgements (Erickson-Schroth, 2011). This article itself is entitled The Neurobiology of sex/gender based attraction, not the neurobiology of attraction, recognizing that there are many bases for attraction. Biological explanations for attraction have roots in trait matching as well (Karp, Jackson &Lester, 1970). According to Karp et al, two factors operate in mate selection: homogamous trait matching so that a mate will be chosen based on self resemblance or ideal-self recognition. The study employed 50 engaged female undergraduate students who were given a list of 54 adjectival phrases and asked to check off those which applied to the actual self, ideal self, fiancees actual self and fiancees closest male friends self (Karp, et al.,1970). Of the 54 traits, women and their fiancees shared over half (27) in all cases, supporting the hypothesis that partners search for like characteristics in one another (Karp, et al.,1970). Between the fiancees friend the median was a similarity of 2 traits less than that of the fiancee, possibly suggesting that males seek friends with similar traits as well. Additionally, 63.4% of the traits for an ideal self were also shared with the fiancee (Karp, et al.,1970). This study, although emphasizes the role of the ideal-self in mate selection, contains many construct flaws. Firstly, the experiment was conducted in a different time, as there aren't as many engaged undergraduate females in University populations in the 21st century. Furthermore,

the couples were not yet married, raising questions of construct validity and if the study was truly measuring its intended target. There is not doubt that results would have been different (and possibly more accurate) after the first few years of marriage. Secondly, the fact that women were asked to rate their fiancees friends may have skewed the results as some women may have been unwilling to provide accurate answers on the basis of it being socially unaccepted to think of a parters closest friend as attractive or desirable. The halo effect is also a possibility, where each women is expected to idealize her ideal self and fiancee (Karp, et al.,1970). Further expanding on the importance of biology in mate selection, Thornhill and Gangestad believed attraction was based in averageness and symmetry of the human face (1993). Averageness is defined as displaying high individual protein heterozygosity which entails an unusually high level of proteins for parasites to adapt to while symmetry is the overall phenotypic quality and developmental health (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). The researchers argued that because these traits reflect good genes and superior viability, they are deemed attractive intrinsically by the general population. Furthermore, it is argued that bilateral symmetry is the ideal outcome of development in morphological traits (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). If ones face is not in good symmetry, it is the result of their inability to resist environmental perturbations during a humans developmental stages (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). These findings assert that judgements about attractiveness are not arbitrarily made, but important in that they reflect preference in fit partners. Facial attractiveness is therefore said to be correlated with chain, jaw and cheek bones as well as strength and breadth of shoulders in men (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). An example illustrating the concept of physical health found in nature is that of the scorpionfly. Female scorpionflys choose males on the basis of nuptial gifts in the form of salivary masses. Males who can produce more, will be more sexually

successful, and tend to produce more sexually successful offspring (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). This is taken into account because studies show that the relationship with heterozygosity between human parent/offspring are highly significant (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). Are these findings of attractiveness culturally specific? Delving into social factors of attractiveness, the easy answer is yes, as cultures have different values that shape what is defined as attractive. For example, western culture values thinness and tanned skin while many african cultures value heavier women as it is an indicator of health and wealth (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). On the other hand, studies found that people rated attractive by their own culture, were also rated attractive by other cultures as well (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). Some aspects of attractiveness are therefore biological and present from generation to generation, while some are a result of social values and changes of a specific time period. A book review conducted by economist G. Mallard, emphasizes the role of biological facial recognition aspects on attraction. Reviewing the book, In your Face: The new science of human attraction, Mallard claims that the brightness of each part of the race is recoded be specialized cells, identifying face edges to locate various facial characteristics, attaching specific information to it (Mallard, 2011). These facial blueprints act as heuristics , simplifying our behaviour in identifying attractiveness (Mallard, 2011). This occurs in the right side of the brain, meaning the focus is on the left side of the persons face. For example, if one is presented with a picture with one half of the face being male and the other a female, the subject will assign sex based on whichever half is on the left side of the face (Mallard, 2011). All of these assertions add to the biological argument that humans look for symmetry and averageness when judging attractiveness for a potential mate. To say that attraction is either rooted in biology or social factors is false. This binary division fails to recognize the diversity involved in the foundations of attraction, a dichotomous

divide in which certain groups of people (such as the gay population) are marginalized by socially reinforced categories. Through the literature examined, I have gained a better understanding on what factors, both biological and social, contribute to the laws of attraction in combination. Although the notion of what humans consider attractive is highly subjective, the literature examined provides a better understanding on the highly important topic. Citations Buss, D.M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of male attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4):616628. Currie, T. E., & Little, A. C. (2009). The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(6), 409-416. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.005 Erickson-Schroth, L. (2010). The neurobiology of sex/gender-based attraction. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 14(1), 56-69. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359700903416917 Karp, E. S., Jackson, J.,H., & Lester, D. (1970). Ideal-self fulfillment in mate selection: A corollary to the complementary need theory of mate selection. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32(2), 269-272. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login? url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/60923243?accountid=13631 Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive-self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709-722. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.85.4.709 Levine, D. (2000). Virtual attraction: What rocks your boat. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(4), 565-573. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493100420179

Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 933-964. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x Mallard, G. (2011). Review of in your face: The new science of human attraction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 531-533. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.008 Tesser, A., Paulhus, D.L. (1976). Toward a causal model of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34:10951105. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4(3), 237-269. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02692201