Interpersonal attraction
[1] It is a scale in which a subject rates another person on factors such as intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, adjustment, likability, and desirability as a work partner.
[1] Another widely used measurement technique scales verbal responses expressed as subjective ratings or judgments of the person of interest.
[2] The most frequently studied include physical attractiveness, propinquity (frequency of interaction), familiarity, similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement.
The impact of familiarity, for example, is shown in the way physical proximity and interaction enhances cohesiveness, a social concept that facilitates communication and positive attitude towards a particular individual on account of similarities or the ability to satisfy important goals.
One finding was that people tend to attribute positive qualities such as intelligence, competence, and warmth to individuals who have a pleasing physical appearance.
People will judge potential mates based on the physical expression of the genetic health, which is their apparent attractiveness.
[12] Studies have reported mixed findings on whether or not similarity in personality traits between people in interpersonal relationships (romantic, friendship, etc.)
[18] According to Morry's attraction-similarity model (2007), there is a lay belief that people with actual similarity produce initial attraction.
In a 1963 study, Theodore Newcomb pointed out that people tend to change perceived similarity to obtain balance in a relationship.
[20] Additionally, perceived but not actual similarity was found to predict interpersonal attraction during a face-to-face initial romantic encounter.
[21] In a 1988 study, Lydon, Jamieson & Zanna suggest that interpersonal similarity and attraction are multidimensional constructs in which people are attracted to people similar to themselves in demographics, physical appearance, attitudes, interpersonal style, social and cultural background, personality, preferred interests and activities, and communication and social skills.
[22] Newcomb's earlier 1961 study on college-dorm roommates also suggested that individuals with shared backgrounds, academic achievements, attitudes, values, and political views typically became friends.
[29] However, more recent work suggests that sex differences in stated ideal partner-preferences for physical attractiveness disappear when examining actual preferences for real-life potential partners.
[30] For example, Eastwick and Finkel (2008) failed to find sex differences in the association between initial ratings of physical attractiveness and romantic interest in potential partners during a speed dating paradigm.
[34][35] Miller (1972) pointed out that attitude similarity activates the perceived attractiveness and favorability information from each other, whereas dissimilarity would reduce the impact of these cues.
[40] Buss & Barnes (1986) also found that people prefer their romantic partners to be similar in certain demographic characteristics, including religious background, political orientation and socio-economic status.
[42] People are inclined to desire romantic partners who are similar to themselves on agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience,[43] and attachment style.
This study found that the length of the average relationship was related to perceptions of similarity; the couples who were together longer were seen as more equal.
Such idiosyncratic preferences produce a high level of active assortment which plays a vital role in affecting spousal similarity.
[citation needed] The propinquity effect relies on the observation that: "The more we see and interact with a person, the more likely he or she is to become our friend or sexual partner."
Recent studies show that relationships formed over the Internet resemble those developed face-to-face, in terms of perceived quality and depth.
Some identities on the asensual spectrum are Asenflux, Greysensual (Grey Asen), Demisensual, Aegosensual, Cupiosensual, Homosensual etc.
[58] Some of the core components of chemistry are: "non-judgment, similarity, mystery, attraction, mutual trust, and effortless communication".
This is because "if a person is comfortable with themselves, they are better able to express their true self to the world, which makes it easier to get to know them...even if perspectives on important matters differed."
[59] Dating coach Evan Marc Katz suggests that "chemistry is one of the most misleading indicators of a future relationship.
Psychologist Laurie Betito notes that arranged marriages actually do quite well in terms of relationship satisfaction, and this is because "a spark can build based on what you have in common.
Similarity seems to carry considerable weight in initial attraction, while complementarity assumes importance as the relationship develops over time.
Considering that one primary purpose of conjugal/romantic relationships is reproduction, it would follow that people invest in partners who appear very fertile, increasing the chance of their genes being passed down to the next generation.
According to this study, the exact ratio of symmetric to asymmetric facial features depicting the highest attraction is still undetermined.
For example, a study by DeBruine et al. (2008) found that individuals rated faces which had been manipulated to be similar to their own as having more prosocial attributes, but were less likely to find them sexually attractive.
