FORMATION - Matching Hypothesis

AO1

• ppl ml to become involved if matched in their ability to reward each other in terms of physical attractiveness
• happier with partners who we feel won't reject us rather than one we desire
• Hatfield - we choose ppl with same level of social desirability
• influenced by what we want and what we can get, making realistic choices based on chance of affection being reciprocated

AO2

• TOP AGAINST Walster Computer Dance Study - 752 freshers by tickets for a dance, fill out q's and are matched with ideal date (actually randomly allocated) -unseen observer rates each persons attractiveness, after 2.5 hrs freshers rated dates on attractiveness

• FINDINGS - physical attractiveness was v important in how much each student liked their partner, m students ml to ask higher rated females out, regardless of own attractiveness
• TAIL - did not go for ppl with same level of social desirability, went for more attractive and ignored personality however could be bcus no fear of rejection

• TOP FOR Murstein (1972) - aimed to retest with more ecologically valid methods, used photos of 197 couples in various stages of relationship (casual to married) and got 8 judges to rate them on attractiveness without knowing who was with who, ratings were similar for each couple
• TAIL people who are similarly attractive are in relationships because they go for who they can realistically get

AO3

• Walster - lacked ecological validity, used only students who are more likely to have superficial relationships?, didn't take into account possibility of rejection
• Murstein - real relationships, high inter rater reliability