Birds of a feather flock together.
—A
proverb
The starling went to the raven, because it is of its
kind.
—Baba
Kama, The Mishna
Similarity
or Complementarity?
Once upon a time, John met Jenny. They fell in love.
They married, had children and presumably will live happily ever after. This is
a common love story, and leads us to wonder why people become attracted to each
other. Traditional research (Byrne) has shown that people are attracted to
those immediately similar to them and this could lead to marriage. However,
arguments for complementarity contend that opposites do indeed attract, and
this attraction would also lead to long-term relationship and marriage. Such
views are further reinforced by research like that of Shiota and Levenson,
which suggest that complementary couples are more satisfied in the long run.
Whilst there are many theories given on the process
of mate selection, of particular interest is the recent emergence of the
popular notion that ‘opposites attract’. However, this idea is open to
interpretation, because it is expected that if a couple is not alike, they
would tend to have more conflict, which will reduce the quality of their
relationship (Pieternel & Dick, 2008). Felmlee (2001) has shown that
relationships developed from attraction based on complementarity often end
prematurely. Nonetheless, there is also evidence supporting the complementary
need theory (Winch, 1954), contending that for attraction and therefore a happy
marriage, there must be potential gratification of needs for both John and
Jenny. An example of such ‘need-gratification’ is when younger females tend to
be more attracted to older males who are financially stable (Eagly & Wood,
1999, as cited in Pieternel & Dick, 2008).
Conversely, the contrasting thought to the concept
of complementarity is the established theory of similarity; simply put, that
‘birds of a feather flock together’. According to Hill, Rubin and Peplau
(1976), there is a tendency for people who are similar in “physical
attractiveness, religion, education, age, and even height” to be attracted to
each other. However, there has been suggested that such tendencies may not
exist, due to invalid testing procedures. This thought is suggested by research
showing only small degrees of similarity between spouses’ personality in
marriage (Eysenck, 1990), and in some reported studies (Antill, 1983; Peterson
et al., 1989) no degree of similarity was observed, because couples are paired
on a random basis.
Today we will review the theory of similarity and
its aspects
Summary
of Similarity Theory
Similarity theory suggests that we will be more
romantically attracted to people who are similar to us in aspects like physical
attractiveness, intelligence, socio-economic background, and overall attitude
towards life. According to Byrne (1971), this can be explained through the
theories of classical conditioning, and in particular, the idea of positive
reinforcement. In a relationship consisting of two like-minded individuals,
sharing the same viewpoint allows them to feel that their opinions are validated,
and thereby their own confidence increases, enhancing the relationship.
However, there is a distinction between the
perceived and actual similarity. Many have argued that actual similarity is not
as important as perceived similarity. A suggestion for this is that the
individual experiences the positive reinforcement; regardless of them believing
that the similarity is there even though it is not (Montoya, Horton &
Kirchner, 2008). However, a possible flaw in this is that if only one partner
experiences such feeling of similarity whilst the other does not, then the
attraction may not exist. Nonetheless, there is also contradicting evidence of
people whose actual similarity is low, but are still highly attracted to
another, which support the idea of ‘complementarity’ (Winch et al., 1954). This
is important, as it reminds us that similarity is only a positive correlate to
the process of attraction, and is not the absolute factor that determines the
formation of a romantic relationship.
Analysis of
the romantic attraction interviews suggests that, in one-third of the cases,
similarity played a role in the initial attraction. The similarity appeared in
many different areas: family background, personality traits, appearance, ways of
thinking, goals and interests, and leisure activities. People see the
similarity as a positive factor that enhanced the original attraction and help
facilitate the development of the relationship.
Studies on
who falls in love with whom show a huge range of variables in which intimate
partners are similar. These variables include: age, appearance, height, weight,
eye color, behavior patterns, professional success, attitudes, opinions,
intelligence, cognitive complexity, verbal ability, education, social and
economic class, family background, number and sex of siblings, feelings toward
the family of origin, the quality of the parents’ marriage, race and ethnic background,
religious background, social and political affiliations, acceptance of sex-role
stereotypes, physical and emotional health, emotional maturity, physical
characteristics including physical defects, level of neuroticism, moodiness,
depressive tendencies, a tendency to be a “lone wolf” or a “social animal,” as
well as drinking and smoking habits.
The earliest
statistical study that documented similarity between couples is the study done
by the British, Victorian psychologist Sir Francis Galton (1884) toward the end
of the nineteenth century. Galton, who developed the method of statistical
correlation, found a significant correlation between husbands and wives not
only in such obvious variables as age, race, religion, education, and social status,
but also in physical and psychological traits such as height, eye color, and
intelligence.
Over 100
years after Galton, studies have reached similar conclusions. One study, involving
1,499 American couples, showed that the couples were similar in a wide range of
cognitive and personality traits (Phillips et al., 1988). Another study, using
British couples, showed that the couples were similar in such diverse traits as
intelligence, introversion, extroversion, and inconsistency (Taylor &
Vandenberg, 1988).
The authors
concluded that the similarity resulted from both physical proximity and
personal preference. Which is to say that, among those who live in their
neighborhoods, study in their schools, or work in their offices, people choose
those who are similar to them in levels of intelligence and personality.
Introverts choose introverts and extroverts prefer extroverts.
People are
more likely to choose, as a lover, someone who has similar traits than someone
who has different traits. Furthermore, the more similar couples are in terms of
personality, the more comfortable they are with each other. This is manifested
in greater compatibility and greater satisfaction (Mehrabian, 1989).
Why does
similarity enhance attraction and satisfaction in intimate relationships? One
explanation suggests itself: similarities are generally rewarding whereas
dissimilarities can be unpleasant. Consequently, couples who are similar in
attitudes, temperament, and behavior are more likely to stay together over time
(Hartfield & Rapson, 1992). Even those who build and organize their
thoughts and perceptions in similar ways are more attracted to each other and
find more enjoyment in each other’s company (Burleson et al., 1997; Neimeyer,
1984).
In addition,
studies document similarity between couples in such physical features as
height, size, and weight. Short men, it turns out, tend to marry short women
and tall women tend to marry tall men. Fat men tend to marry fat women, and
skinny women prefer skinny men. When the weights of 330 married couples were
examined during four stages of their life cycle, it was discovered that even among
young couples there was a similarity in the partners’ weights. This correlation
probably reflects peoples original attraction to potential partners who are
similar to themselves in physical appearance. It is less surprising that
similarity was found in the couples’ weights at the age of retirement—the
probable result of similar eating habits and similar life styles (Schafer &
Keith, 1990).
Another fascinating
topic is the similarity found in a couple’s mental health or illness. One of
the studies that addressed this topic showed that husbands of schizophrenic
women also tended to show symptoms of mental disturbance (Parnas, 1988). A
study of people who suffer from depression revealed that in 41 percent of the
cases, both parents suffered from a mental problem (Merikangas et al., 1988).
Some evidence exists that moody people with depressive tendencies tend to be
attracted to people who are similar to them in unhappiness. There is much
stronger evidence that happy people are attracted to happy people. In all of
these cases, it is clear that similarity in emotional makeup increases a
couple’s attraction to each other (Lock & Horowitz, 1990).
When we consider
the long and impressive list of variables in which a couple can express
similarity, a question suggests itself. Are some similarities more important
than others? Evolutionary psychologist David Buss (1985) looked at this
question and says the answer is yes. Age, education, race, religion, and ethnic
background account for the highest correlations between partners; they also
have the greatest effect on a relationship. Next in order of size and importance
are similarities in attitudes, opinions, mental ability, social and economic
status, height, weight, eye color, behavior, personality, number of brothers
and sisters, and a large number of physical characteristics.
These
correlations suggest that when we are looking for marriage partners, we
eliminate first those whom we perceive to be inappropriate in the most
important ways. They are too old or too young—“I never thought about him in a
romantic way, because he seemed too old for me.” They have too much or too
little education—“I can’t talk about issues that come up in my work with a man
who didn’t finish high-school and never reads.” Their skin color, ethnic
background, and religious background are too different from our own—“I could
never get seriously involved with a non-Jew.”
After passing
the initial screening, people look at the other dimensions of potential mates.
Here too, the greater the similarity the greater the chance that the person
will pass the test successfully. In the second screening, we assess basic
values, similar social and economic status, personality, and behaviors. It
would be very difficult, for example, for a liberal democrat to continue dating
a racist fascist even if attractive and otherwise appropriate.
It is
possible that underneath all these similarities exists a more basic, more
fundamental similarity in genetic makeup. Indeed, a number of studies done in
the last decade show that people are able to identify, and prefer as romantic
partners, people who are similar to them genetically (e.g., Rushton, 1988).
Clearly,
people tend to fall in love with, and choose as marriage partners, individuals
who are similar to them. Fairy tales about great loves between Cinderella and
the prince or between the beautiful call girl and the millionaire are very
rare. This is probably why we enjoy hearing about them and seeing them in
movies. In the original version of the movie Pretty Woman, the couple parted in
the end. But at an early screening, viewers objected. They saw the story as a fairy
tale and demanded an appropriate ending, which they got.
When such
miracle romances do occur, they usually don’t lead to marriage. On the very
rare occasions that they do, the marriages are characterized by a high number
of conflicts. The greater the similarity between a couple, the greater their satisfaction
from the relationship. People who come from similar cultural and social
backgrounds have similar expectations and assumptions. This makes communication
between them easier and prevents conflicts. They don’t need to discuss who does
what and how, these things are mutually understood and accepted. Similarities in
attitudes, interests, and personality also make communication easier; consequently,
married couples who share these characteristics report greater happiness and
satisfaction from their marriages (Caspi & Harbener, 1990).
So, when
people have a choice, they seek people who are just like them. Psychologists
call this the similarity-attraction effect (SAE) and it shows itself across
many cultures. In the early 1990s the Chicago Sex Survey collected data to find
out where and how Americans met their partners. It found that “people search
for – or, in any case, find – partners they resemble and partners who are of
comparable ‘quality’… the great majority of marriages exhibit homogamy on
virtually all measured traits, ranging from age to education to ethnicity.”
Summary
Most
researchers agree that attraction theory may be a substantial predictor of the
potential attraction between two individuals by asserting that people are
attracted to others who are similar to themselves. Consistent with this view, multiple
studies have revealed that people prefer to affiliate with those who share
similar attitudes, personalities, physical attributes, and a host of other
characteristics compared to others who do not. Though similarity of attraction
theory explains many cases of interpersonal attraction, it may not accurately
predict all attraction outcomes. In some cases complementarity or avoidance of
dissimilar others may better explain certain patterns of human liking.
Sources and Additional Information:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/concepts-of-similarity-and-complementarity-in-romantic-relationships-psychology-essay.php
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/concepts-of-similarity-and-complementarity-in-romantic-relationships-psychology-essay.php
Ayala Malach Pines. Falling in
Love: Why We Choose the Lovers We Choose
