What are the five main factors that influence interpersonal attraction and the formation of relationships?

They are:

Physical attractiveness - supposedly this is the most important, and there is a bunch of research evidence indicating that people find good-looking people way more brilliant in every way than plain or ugly people. This was later modified to include the ‘Matching Hypothesis’, which says that you might PREFER drop-dead gorgeous people, but you’re more likely to go out with people who are just as ugly as you. This theory, to me, is utter rubbish, but hey. I don’t choose the syllabus, I just regurgitate it.

Attitude similarity - you gotta feel the same way about the important things in life. You get to decide the important things though, so you could not care about them being a rapist, and love him if he feels the same way as you about pizza. Though apparently, in married couples, stuff like ‘political convictions’ should be similar for the marriage to be a happy one.

Proximity - Well, duh. You have to meet someone before you can start fancying them. And you’re more likely to meet people at work, or at school, or near your house than in, say, China. Unless you live in China or you have the internet.

Demographic similarity - I hate the word ‘demographic’. It sounds like something marketers made up. But yeah, you’re more likely to fancy someone in the same age group/social class/religion/ethnic background as you.

Similarity in personality - this one’s split in half. Some people say similar personalities attract each other, and some say that opposite people can have complementary needs (like a dominant person being with a submissive one). They’re both bollocks.

What is the evolutionary explanation?

Well, that’s easy. You’ve probably heard it before, about how men have evolved to be attracted to young gorgeous women, and women have evolved to be attracted to old, rich men. Because y’know, women have evolved to need financial support, and men have evolved to need a wet hole. I think they do all their research on celebrities, and ignore the general population, which is why they get such ridiculous results. Oh and all this is said to ‘maximise the propogation of our genes’, which sociobiologists believe is the main purpose for every living organism. I can’t exactly see how my genes would be better off if I stopped being ugly, but there you are. Apparently attractiveness signifies ‘health’, and youth signifies fertility.

The evolutionary explanation also explains why people put so much effort into nurturing children - the propogation of genes thing again. It’s called ‘kin selection’, and the closer a person is linked to you by blood, the more you’ll sacrifice for their well-being. After all, if they survive, then it’s basically YOUR genes surviving too. There was this study done by this dude, and he got this family, and to each individual he said “okay, you have to dunk your head into this tank of water, and the longer you hold your breath, the more money (someone) gets”. The (someone) was either a sibling, parent, aunt, grandparent, or niece. It was found that the more genetically similar you are to the person, the longer you’d hold your breath underwater for them. But I can’t remember if that was an actual psychological study or just something I saw on telly. Possibly it was both.

Oh, and as more ‘evidence’ for the evolutionary approach, some psychologists had a look at newspaper personal ads. They discovered that men emphasised their success and richness, and women emphasised their beauty. Which of course is iron-clad proof, and not just a bunch of losers in a newspaper dating ad. This is an unscientific theory, despite the fact it’s based on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It doesn’t even apply to the whole world, as the studies have only been done on Western relationships.

What is the reward/need satisfaction theory?

It’s exactly what it says on the tin. You get into a relationship which is rewarding to you, in the form of companionship, sex, being loved, money, or whatever else you might get out of it. Classical and Operant Conditioning come into play too. You start to associate enjoyment with your partner, and when you see them we feel happy, even if they’re not doing anything specific to make you happy. And if someone is boring and stupid and mean, we’re less likely to like them.

A study was done to test whether making associations have an impact on who we like. They put people in a room together to chat, and then asked them to rate each other on how much they liked them. They also had a radio playing in the background. If the radio had bad, depressing news on, the people were more likely to rate the people they met as low. When good news was playing, they rated people higher. So the circumstances in which you meet someone - even if the person you’re meeting has no control over them - have an effect on you.

This theory is good because it actually says why the five factors (above) are important - because they provide rewards with minimum effort. But it doesn’t explain familial relationships, like parent-child ones, which appear to be unrewarding for the parents, and extremely rewarding for the children. If this theory was right, then parents would give up their kids a lot more often. Also, this theory assumes we’re all selfish, and just seek rewards without earning them or deserving them. I won’t talk about how rubbish the methodology of the research is. The social exchange theory is better for the whole give-take things in relationships.

What is the social exchange theory?

It factors in both rewards and costs. The costs of a relationship are stuff like having to compromise, effort, and whatever else you might dislike about being with someone. People try to get more rewards and less cost, and want to receive as many rewards as they provide to their partner. This theory also thinks everyone’s extremely selfish too, I guess.