Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Purpose Of Study
Literature review
Subjects for interviewing
Instrumentation
Findings
Matchmaker’s checklist for interpersonal attraction and mate selection
Final product
Score
References

Purpose Of Study

This is a research report on the relationship between couples in various situations. What the requisites are for a happy relationship is discussed. The reasons for relationships and marriages going foul are also considered here. Following the reading of Chapter 11 of David Myer’s book, Social Psychology (2007) and using the ideas of relationships gathered from the book and other journals, four people who have self-identified themselves as being in a good relationship with another were interviewed. These four people are having an interpersonal relationship with someone they are attracted to and whom they would consider a good match for them. The interviewees are to enumerate the features of the partners which attracted them and which allowed them to have a satisfactory relationship. The study aims at developing a research-based method to help people find suitable matches.

Literature review

Evolutionary psychologists have studied human mate selection broadly and systematically; it has been a heavily debated topic (McGee, 2009). Various attributes have been discussed as being the factors for interpersonal attractiveness and mate selection. A number of them could be necessary for decision-making on mate selection.

Men admire physical health, vitality, and youth in a male friend much more than women (Feingold, 1992). The physical-attractiveness stereotype indicates that beautiful people attract others most (Myers, 2007). Children also have absorbed this stereotype through stories like Cinderella and Snow White. In these stories, the beautiful is depicted as good and the ugly as bad. Altering facial and body features have become part of the statement of fashion, beauty contests, and the film world (Myers. 2007). Physical appearance is indicative of reproductive age and health and these are the attributes in a woman which attract a man (McGee, 2009). Women value other features like “dependability, good earning capacity, ambition, a career-oriented mentality, and a high socioeconomic status” (McGee, 2009). These features have been termed “successful resourceful acquisition”.

First impressions are always good when associated with attractiveness. This is probably why striking personalities with good carriage bag all the prestigious jobs (Myers, 2007). A pretty face instigates people to make good comments and act favorably. However, this concept has been questioned by Leo Tolstoy (Myers, 2007).

Attractive people are more relaxed, outgoing and they are in the limelight socially. School teachers may consider that all children are treated alike but it has been obvious that the beautiful ones are considered angels. The assumption that homely less attractive children are less intelligent than their good-looking peers can also be wrong (Myers, 2007). Let us not forget that there is a saying “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” which rings true. Diverse cultures have considered pierced noses, lengthened necks, dyed hair, painted skin, voluptuous looking figures, starved thin figures have all been beautiful at some place or the other (Myers, 2007).

Humans are very similar to animals in mating strategies (McGee, 2007). The aim of mating is to procreate remembering to select females who would be good at reproducing good offspring whose survival advantages are many. This is noted in all cultural dimensions.

Humor has been suggested as a strategy for mating. It is considered a socially desirable behavior (McGee, 2009). Murstein and Brust (1985) said that couples who had a sense of humor possessed higher levels of loving and a chance of marrying. Humorless children hardly associated themselves with social activities. Hewitt in 1958 found that 90% of males wished for a mate who is humorous just as 81% of the females wished the same. Occasionally humorous partners fail to take their responsibilities seriously (McGee, 2009). McGee (2009) concluded that a good sense of humor was a desirable feature in a mate while an average sense of humor and no sense of humor were both undesirable.

Some researchers have suggested that similarity rather than complementarity brings potential mates together (Myers, 2007). These people find more in common; attitudes, beliefs, and values, and their relationships have a tendency to last. “The greater the similarity between husband and wife, the happier they are” and divorce is less likely (Caspi and Herbener, 1990 as cited in Myers, 2007).

There is another concept that speaks for complementarity whereby partners tend to complement each other’s behaviors. However, researchers have found more similarities rather than differences which result in a permanent relationship like a marriage (Myers, 2007). The factors compared were age, religion, race, smoking behavior, economic levels, education, height, intelligence, and appearance. This is how more similarities were found. As the relationship grows, the complementarity may become evident.

People who are dissimilar to potential mates are disliked usually (Myer, 2007). If the dislike is backed by strong moral convictions, the dislike and distancing become more (Myers, 2007). A researcher has expressed this same attitude in a different way; he says that liking is depressed by dissimilar attitudes rather than similar attitudes increasing it. People who are having a relationship become more similar with time. Partners tend to have “attitude alignment” which causes partners to overestimate their similarities (Myers, 2007).

Self-esteem and attraction appear to be inversely related (Walster, 1965 as cited in Myers, 2007). People with lower self-esteem have a tendency to be attracted faster. This explains the falling in love immediately following a rejection. The person who has lost him self –esteem is looking for a way to redeem it. This he does by getting attracted to another person as he is looking forward to social approval. Low self-esteem has a disadvantage in that the person involved does not appreciate the love extended by the partner (Myers, 2007). Gaining a potential mate’s approval and esteem is another concept associated with attraction.

The reward theory of attraction indicates that we like those who reward us (Myers, 2007). A relationship that provides more rewards than costs or problems is liked by a person who then wishes it would continue. The liking increases in comparison with other relationships which are not rewarding or are less profitable. If two people satisfy the other’s unmet needs or the relationship is one where both share personal advantages and mutually increase favors simultaneously boosting self-esteem, the attraction is good.

There is a liking-by-association principle by Pavel Lewicki (1985 as cited in Myers, 2007). Friends who spend relaxation time together are remembered warmly and these relationships are liked ones. However, an unfriendly or spiteful person would get thrown out of the relationship circle. Pleasant and calm surroundings also increase the attraction between people. This tells us that a relationship can be nurtured by frequent exposures to romantic dinners, trips to favorite areas, or places that bring sweet memories back. The survival of a relationship banks on these escapades into “fairy-tale” atmospheres (Myers, 2007). Proximity alone could lead to attraction as frequent exposure leads to interaction and the discovery of similarities. Friendships also result when one is attracted to people who like him.

Love is a deeper relationship that is difficult to be measured. Long-term loving is not necessarily an extension of intense liking (Myers, 2007). Three components constitute love as a triangle, passion, intimacy, and commitment according to the psychologist, Robert Sternberg (1998 as cited in Myers, 2007). Love styles have been recognized as primary and secondary like colors. The primary styles are eros or self-disclosing passion, Ludus or uncommitted game playing, and storge or friendship (Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick, 2003 as cited in Myers, 2007). A high level of satisfaction is obtained from eros and storge while Ludus is disappointingly low.

Any loving relationship harbors the concepts of mutual understanding and the mutual exchange of support. Enjoying the company of the other makes the relationship special. Passion usually accompanies love and denotes sexual attraction (Myers, 2007). The two-factor theory of emotion says that when a man, in an arousal state due to magazines or lewd pictures, responds to a woman, he believes that part of the arousal is due to her. Marital relationships can improve through those other sources of arousal. Greater satisfaction is experienced by both partners. Passionate love is associated with increased adrenaline secretion and engagement of the dopamine–rich areas of the brain where the reward is also centered.

Passionate love is hot and quickly brings a couple together to spend their days physically satisfied. However, they find that they cannot stay together in an enduring relationship. This union lasts a few months or years but divorce is inevitable. Companionate love can last forever. It involves a deep and affectionate relationship and activates different parts of the brain (Aron et al, 2005 as cited in Myers, 2007). Warmth and dependability are the strengths of the relationship. Passionate love is likened to addictions. Initially a high is reached very fast. On repetition, it gives rise to tolerance and emotions become stronger. What was thrilling earlier is no longer stimulating. If withdrawn, malaise and depression set in. Things would be taken for granted till it ended. Then a feeling of remorse and emptiness set in when the separation is complete. They miss the partner, the widowed or jilted or divorced. They think bank and understand that they focused on the wrong things resulting in separation. The result would have been different had the focus been on re-triggering their romantic feelings with planned events (Myers, 2007). Disillusionment should not be allowed to enter into the relationship. Different cultures place importance on different values. Asians place importance not only on emotional attachments but also on social attachments which help them maintain married life more comfortably. Self-focused individualism is less significant to them. When the children leave, romance once again enters the relationship. The long life of mutually rewarding intimacy and rich shared experiences is evident in companionate love and is the best form of relationship.

A child’s attachment to a caregiver or the mother can be passionate love. The baby coos and smiles when it sees the parents especially the mother (Myers, 2007). This social baby at 8 months cannot be separated from the parents. The strong social attachment makes it calm and composed in their presence. The moment it is taken away, it protests against the separation and then cries loudly. When it is reunited, it clings close fearing another separation. If neglected, it is frightening and silent, having withdrawn. The security of an emotional and intimate attachment is lost and the child is insecure. All human beings require the security of an intimate attachment to be strong and enjoy life (Myers. 2007). The love between infant and mother also involves the understanding between each other, giving and receiving support, and valuing the close intimate moments with each other. When it is passionate love, something more is present in the relationship. There is the feeling of intense wonder and fascination about the other and exclusiveness about the attachment.

All infant-caregiver attachments are not secure ones with underlying trust. People or children with the preoccupied attachment style (anxious-ambivalent) have a different kind of attachment which also harbors some resentment (Myers, 2007). The infant cries and clings to the mother in a new situation or when the mother leaves and when she comes back, the child is indifferent or hostile. Adults with the same style of attachment are extremely possessive and jealous. This results in frequent separations and reunions with the same person. These people have high opinions of others but never think that they have to be similarly responsible.

The people with avoidance style of attachment (includes the dismissing and fearful styles) have negative views of others. The infants with this style do not have distress or cry when the mother leaves or returns. Adults with this style find it hard to maintain relationships. They prefer quick one-day associations, not any lasting relationship. The fear of rejection is uppermost in these people.

The equity principle of attraction is when both the partners contribute to the relationship (Myers, 2007). This can result in a successful marriage provided both partners contribute to and receive good outcomes. They each get a return equivalent to what they put in. Equitable does not mean equal. The partners may not keep calculating short-term equity returns. Happily married people never keep score of how much they give and get (Myers, 2007). Marital distress is caused by perceived inequity.

Self-disclosure is evident in many happy marriages (Myers, 2007). Both partners disclose matters that are in their minds or disturbing them.. Each person learns more and more about the other and the intimacy grows. Researchers have used the disclosure reciprocity effect for evaluating the happiness of a relationship (Myers, 2007). Praying together is another activity that shows respect for each other, another shared moment, and intimacy.

Happily married couples appear to have many predictors. Marriage at an appropriate age, stable two-parent homes, having dated for long, being both well-educated, and having good jobs are the common predictors which expect a good marriage (Myers, 2007). Less important predictors include living in a small town, having had a sexual relationship only after marriage, being religious and of similar faith and age. However, it must be remembered that these predictors do not have to be present at all for a good marriage.

Detachment is painful. Separated couples usually miss their partners even after recently being separated. Memories of having rejected someone’s love years ago can be remorseful. People are prepared to even settle huge amounts on the spouse and make other adjustments hoping to escape whereas efforts at keeping the marriage strong would have worked easier and better without any involvement of bitter feelings and remorse.

Subjects for interviewing

James is the first person interviewed. He is a forty-five-year-old engineer who has been working in a construction company for years together and is in the top brass now. He is a happily married person with an equally enterprising architect for his wife.

Chen, an Asian, is the second interviewee. He is in a close relationship with a girl Ming whom he plans to marry.

Susan, a 16 year old girl, has a very close relationship with her friend Jill.

Molly, 30, has a special attachment to her son of 2 years old.

Instrumentation

The interviewees were officially requested to participate in the interview. They were convinced that the secrets divulged in the interview would be confidential and the matter would not be published with their names: names would be changed. A written consent was obtained from them. Standards of ethics were maintained. The setting was the office of the University in complete privacy. Only the interviewer was present. It lasted half an hour each and the interviewees were given the exact time to arrive so that they were not inconvenienced. Using prepared questions, the interviewees were directly interviewed. The interviews were audio-taped. The interviewees were expected to speak openly. The matter divulged would not be used against them at any cost.

The literature was first reviewed and possible questions that would elicit maximum information from the interviewees were prepared to help the interviewer. The interviewees had just to answer orally and the matter was audio-taped. It was to be used for further evaluation.

Findings

James is a forty-five year old engineer who has been working in a construction company for years together and is in the top brass now. He is a happily married person with an equally enterprising architect for his wife. He believes that he is having a wonderful relationship with his wife. Both are in good jobs, have surplus income and enough time for each other. He described the first meeting with her when they studied in the same college. She was a college beauty and he was attracted. Seeing her finesse in architecture, he became more attracted. It seems she also had that affinity for him. Both waited to complete their studies for 4 years and then had a wedding ceremony attended by the parents, relatives and friends. Both maintain their physical attractiveness by exercising and doing yoga together. They have two teenagers who are as warm and close to the parents. James and his wife have their own private outings or dinners which rejuvenate their life. The family as a whole has picnics, cycling expeditions and boating. James has a special quality of keeping the family in stitches of laughter. (McGee, 2009). His wife and children join in. Similarity in the age, religion, race, economic status, education, intelligence and the attractive appearance have contributed to James’ admirable relationship with his wife (Myers. 2007). Both have also made efforts to revive their romantic nature and keep their marriage intact. This companionate love is surviving well. With the years, complementarity also has become evident (Myers, 2007). The parents take turns to do the looking-after of their children. Occasionally turns have to be taken to do the different household work. The children chip in.

Chen, an Asian, is in a close relationship with a girl Ming whom he plans to marry. They are both Chinese but belong to different dialects. They have average looks yet they were attracted to each other in the same college. Chen belongs to an extremely rich business family but Ming belongs to a famer family in a rural area. Chen had some difficulty in convincing Ming that things would be alright. His sincerity and ardent behavior have changed Ming’s views. Both worked hard and decided that they would wait for the parents’ approval. Chen’s family did not appreciate women of the family going to work. So Chen asked Ming if she needed to work. When she agreed to remain at home, Chen was happier. Ming also considered the successful resourceful acquisition concept by Chen (Myers, 2007). Similarities were found in the age, religion and race, education, intelligence and appearance. However they were prepared to start a life with some complementarity also Myers, 2007). When Chen worked, she would remain at home to tend to the housework and family. Chen vowed that he would make time for her and never hurt her anytime. He believes that he is in for a good long relationship. Theirs would be a relationship of intimacy, commitment and passion. They need to make attempts to keep it like that all along (Sternberg, 1998 as cited in Myers, 2007).

Susan, a 16 year old girl, has a very close relationship with her friend Jill. They have been studying together since the age of seven. Both live near to each other. Their parents also have been close. They spend their relaxation time together and they remember their childhood days with nostalgia. When Susan lost her father, it was the support of Jill that brought her through. Living in calm and pleasant surroundings and friendly atmosphere, Susan and Jill have become thick friends who cannot manage without the other. This relationship reminds one of the liking-by-association principle (Lewicki 1985 as cited in Myers, 2007).

Molly’s attachment to her son of 2 years is also passionate love. He cannot stay away from his mother or father. His attachment is more intense where the mother is concerned. This strong social attachment is obvious by his calm and composed nature in their presence (Myers, 2007). He plays around in his playpen with his toys as long as the parents are in his view. Molly has paid special attention to providing her son the security of her attachment. She, being a paediatric nurse, knows very well about attachments: how they contribute to the security of a child, how this can influence his growth into adulthood and how it can affect the adult right through his life. She understands her child and his wants just as he understands when she is not pleased with him or when she accepts what he is doing. If strangers appear, he responds to them in her presence only. The underlying trust between the mother and child is the basis of their attachment (Myers, 2007). The child is much fascinated by the mother just as she is of him. Theirs is an exclusive attachment.

Matchmaker’s checklist for interpersonal attraction and mate selection

Similarity in age, race, religion, economic status, education, job,
Physical attractiveness.
Possessing socially desirable behavior
Known person for a long time.
Liking by association

Final product

Match making Questionnaire

This match making questionnaire is useful for testing compatibility. The scoring is explained after the questionnaire.

What are your views on raising children; how many will you have, when will you have them? What discipline are you planning? Are you in agreement?

True – We completely agree. We could even agree to disagree.
False – We disagree over some things causing tension occasionally.
Discussion has not occurred on this topic

Do both of you have common hobbies?

True – We share and enjoy several hobbies and activities together.
False – Few mutual interests keep us together
Do not know yet.

Do you get along with parents and relatives?

True – They are very close to us and we love them or it has been difficult for us but we have managed to deal with the problem without hurting them
False – The feeling is mutual in that we cannot stand each other’s family and conflicts have arisen.
We have not met them

What are your goals short-term and long-term? Are they set together?

True – Our goals are set together and we plan to achieve them
False – Our goals are separately set as to our position a few years from now
This has not been discussed yet.

Are you sharing your responsibilities?

True – We share them equally
False – This has not worked out well yet, sometimes one is working all the time.
We have not defined the sharing yet.

Are you financially secure?

True – We are and we plan what to do together based on the money we have
False – Conflicts on expenditure is a common event.
The discussion is yet to materialise.

What are your views on moral, political and religious issues?

True – We agree on most of them but disagree on a few but we understand the other’s viewpoints.
False – These are reasons for frequent disagreements
We have refrained from doing so for fear of problems

Do your views on sex and intimacy differ?

True – Open discussion has helped us understand our desires and develop expectations accordingly
We feel uncomfortable talking about it.
No discussion has taken place yet

Do both of you have any vices?

True – No substance abuse, gambling or other activities.
False – One or both have had a history of substance abuse and gambling or other activities
The discussion has not taken place

Do both of you communicate well with each other?

True – We can talk on most topics without irritating the other person.
False – Frequent misunderstandings occur however cautious we are.
Maybe not

Score

Maximum A’s: A score of 7-10 A’s show your compatibility for marriage or a committed relationship. Even if not getting A’s, you still can make enough changes in your attitudes to convert to A’s. Total agreement is not necessary. You need to work on the points of disagreement

Maximum B’s: Your relationship may not be committed enough with more B’s. However before you marry, both of you should work to iron out issues. Improved communication and your knowledge of each other would help your compatibility to improve. If married, the differences should be recognized and tackled.

Maximum C’s: More Cs indicate that the time is not ripe yet for marriage. Your partner and you have a lot to discuss and get to know each other better. Your compatibility is yet to be determined. Discussion would indicate whether there are areas of agreement and similarity.

References

Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112. P. 125-139

McGee, E. & Shevlin, M. (2009). Effects of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection. The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 143, No. 1, p. 67-77, Heldref Publications

Murstein, B.I. & Brust, R.G. (1985). Humor and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49. P. 637-640

Myers, D. (2007). Social Psychology, 9^th edition. Published by McGraw-Hill.

Click Here To Order Now!