The similarity has to be noticed
When contemplating the homogamy based partner selection, Berscheid and Walster presented two various hypotheses for the phenomenon:
1. People like their ilk.
2. People find themselves more similar with those who they like and less similar with those who they do not like-compared with what they are in reality.
These two hypotheses are based on the thought that finding the other attractive leads to the notion of similarity and vice versa: discovering similarity leads to attraction.
I enjoyed the attention from that person…and that had been the same for him, too, because I had responded to that attention. (Woman, 23, unmarried)
Either way, in order to have similarity as the criterion of partner selection, the similarity has to be found out. This is possible only if the partners experience their similarity. Indeed, Saegert, Swap, and Zajonc considered based on their research the partners’ openness and willingness to reveal themselves to others as an important activator of a relationship: they used the expression “exposure effect”. Some studies have shown that women are more open at the beginning of dating and express their personal feelings earlier than men).
Perhaps that was insecurity because even if I loved the other person I couldn’t trust in myself and that [love] so much that I could have been able or dared to say what I was experiencing…that I could present some wishes like maybe we could do like this or that… I couldn’t solve it any other way, at least not by talking anyway, but in a more ruthless way: by breaking up… First it was important to be together, then it was important to get more space for myself.
I wish I had been able to develop the relationship in a different manner but I couldn’t. (Man, 25, unmarried)
In his theory, Levinger illustrated how the experience of homogamy leads from zero contact to mutuality with certain conditions. Levinger calls the theory “ABCDE model” (Acquaintance, Bild-up, Continuation, Deterioration, Ending).
The first impression determines how the interaction continues. The development of a relationship depends on the partner’s characteristics and the quality of interaction. Outer appearance is important at the beginning of the relationship. If the partners have the experience of positive response, if interaction functions, and if the other’s behavior and goals are predictable, the relationship will become more and more rewarding for both partners. It will lead more and more clearly toward the awareness and crystallization of the “we” identity, as Lewis (1972) stated in his illustration of the process of an intimate relationship.
I fell in love with a person who first seemed as a mystery and did not let me close immediately but who later turned out a real nugget-I found it also attractive that he was not any “born-to-date” sort of type but could appreciate more what we have. (Woman, 25, dating)
At first, I tried to be smarter than I was. Later on I relaxed and noticed that I didn’t have to go out to buy her a dinner in order to make her care. (Man, 29, married)
As the interaction gets more intensive, knowing the other and being together may be a disappointment too. The first impression of the other’s personality or attitude does not match with the reality after all.
… then I noticed that he isn’t as wonderful as he came across… so then it ran its course before it really started. (Woman, 21, married) …and then I grew exasperated with issues that I hadn’t noticed earlier; so I started to look for flaws… That was how it started to feel anxious. (Woman, 21, unmarried)
Partner Selection Based on Completion
The selection that is based on similarity is often connected with completion as well:
The other person’s character: we matched in a certain way and had certain, appropriate tensions. (Man, 33, married)
She had such a different circle of acquaintances. (Man, 30, married)
I certainly had something to do with the other person’s personality; she differed from me quite a lot. (Man, 21, unmarried)
I fell in love with the rebel, a different kind of boy who didn’t care for others’ opinions. (Woman, 24, married)
Probably the oldest theory that describes the completion is Winch’s theory of complementary needs. According to this theory, partner selection is based on the fulfillment of needs so that the partners’ need complement each other.
The idea of completion got stronger in the 1960s. Levinger emphasized the significance of the partners’ needs that complement each other by stating that “many of the most productive human relationships are complementary ones: male and female in the sex act, seller and buyer in the exchange and so forth”. Except for a few exceptions, the research prove that the similarity of features is more likely to explain the positive development of a relationship than their complementarity Both homogamy and complementarity have been explained from the perspective of the so-called exchange theory. A representative of the theory, Edwards, presented four interconnected arguments concerning the process of partner selection:
1) When building an intimate relationship, the partner is selected by the rewards he or she brings into the relationship,
2) Individuals with equivalent resources are likely to maximize their rewards because they are likely to reject those with fewer resources,
3) Individuals with equivalent resources are likely to have equivalent characteristics, and thus
4) The relationship is likely to become homogenous.
I have always been repulsed by such men who have a roving eye. He seemed to find me valuable. He showed special attention to only me and although I noticed that women were looking at him and trying to chitchat all this and that for example at a store, it was somehow nice that he implied that he is not interested in anyone else. (Woman, 29, married)
Berscheid and Walster introduced Lewin et al.’s Level-of-Aspiration theory from the year 1944 where the perception of oneself reflects in the partner selection in a way that supports the exchange theory. According to the level-of-aspiration theory, ideal choices affect partner selection: everyone has their own ideal partner who has all the ideal characteristics regardless of the possibility to find such a partner. On the other hand, the realistic level of characteristics includes both the features that the partner is expected to have and the awareness of the possibility to find that kind of a partner. The person’s idea of his or her own characteristics affect the definition of the level of aspiration: the more positive idea the person has of his or her characteristics, the more demanding the level of aspiration will be.
Likewise, Walster regards that the exchange theory is connected with the partners’ self-esteem. If the person has high self-esteem, thinks that he or she has a lot to give and considers him or herself justified in having a partner that has plenty of good attributes. Goffman supports the same thought by his notion: A proposal of marriage in our society tends to be a way in which a man sums up his social attributes and suggests to a woman that hers are not so much better as to preclude a merger of partnership in these matters.
In his exchange theory, Edwards (1969) says that people with equivalent resources does not have to be similar in all those features that are relevant in partner selection. The balance based on the exchange theory is built on the balance between positive and negative traits in various areas. Therefore, the exchange theory is close to the next model, the investment and equity model.
Partner selection may result in balance between the partners’ various resources. The Investment and Equity Model is based on the idea that individuals try to create as a beneficial relationship as possible: profits are the rewards that they get from the relationship after subtracting the costs of the relationship. The cost can be emotional, financial, or physical, or consist of such factors or activities that one has to give up for the relationship.Walster, Walster, and Berscheid noted that the balance exists when the person (A) thinks that his or her input (I) in relation to the outcome (O) is equal to the partner’s (B) situation: O (A) – I(A) = O(B) – I(B)
Thibaut and Kelly referred to the comparison level (CL) that is the average value of all outcomes: If the outcomes in a given relationship surpass the CL, that relationship is regarded as a satisfactory one. And, to the degree the outcomes are supra-CL, the person may be said to be attracted to the relationship. If the outcomes endured are infra-CL, the person is dissatisfied and unhappy with the relationship.
In her study, Rusbult showed that the cost of a relationship is not as determining factor for the progress of the relationship than the rewards of it. Thibaut and Kelly, for their part, considered that a person can stay in an unsatisfying relationship is the reward-cost relation is the best among the comparison level for alternatives.
I was fascinated by her being so modest and flexible. She was always ready to do what I suggested. But then it started to repulse me that she never had ideas but just expected me to figure out what to do or where to go. Then, I became tired of pulling her with me; I started to feel that she didn’t give anything to me. (Man, 36, unmarried)
Especially, Hatfield and her work group applied the balance model in analyzing a relationship.
She presented five sequential arguments about the development of an intimate relationship:
1) If the relationship is balanced (vs. imbalanced) for both partners, it leads more easily to stronger intimacy;
2) The partners are more satisfied and less stressed in a balanced relationship;
3) When imbalance occurs, partners try to restore balance or end up breaking up the relationship;
4) As the imbalance continues, the couple tries to restore the balance or end up breaking up the relationship; and
5) A balanced relationship predicts stability and permanence of the relationship.
I really tried to please the other; even unintentionally I tried to make him care for me. Then, little by little, I noticed that my life and freedom were shackled by him too much… I can’t turn into something that he thinks a woman should be. He was awfully selfish. (Woman, 22, unmarried)
Altman and Taylor consider the reward-cost dynamics as a process where the partners evaluate the cost-reward configuration of the relationship in various interaction situations. The evaluation in question is versatile and is connected with continuous decision making and anticipatory evaluation. Several studies show that women and men emphasize different features in the cost-reward configuration and even when it comes to the exchange theory. Early studies proved that women appreciate the partner’s socioeconomic factors while men appreciated women’s social factors-that illustrates the time when men’s role was to support the family and women were wives and mothers. There is evidence that the above-mentioned results are still valid. This viewpoint differs from the homogamy theory as here the relationship is expected to be as rewarding as possible.
Centers’s instrumental theory is also based on the assumption that men and women have various needs that that the needs can complement each other. An individual selects a partner with whom the relationship involves plenty of rewards with low “costs”. I am doing much better now: I have another person to support me… When I have my partner as a support, I’m able to give support to others. I feel much stronger…I can reach higher, believe in more, and trust in myself more. (Woman, 20, unmarried)
…you care about the other so much that you want to start look after him in a way that it rises above your own needs. (Woman, 21, unmarried)
When analyzing the significance of the above-mentioned theories and research results, it is worth noticing that there are certain characteristics that seem to be important both to women and men. Both sexes appreciate a partner who has a good sense of humor and good social skills, and who is reliable and honest, etcetera.
The evolution model grounds on the assumption, that when selecting partners people try to maximize the genetic suitability of their ancestors. Individuals look for partners who have a) suitable genes and b) such other features that foster the survival of their descendants. Mellen analyzed the development of love during thousands of years and noted how natural selection and sexual selection enabled the survival and adjustment of the human species. Buss, on the other hand, claimed how love actually is a category of natural love acts and a result of evolutionary genotype.
From the evolutionary point of view, partner selection is not cognitively-focused action. Instead, it has to be regarded as an attempt to influence on the positive development of the next generation. Because of reproduction, men appreciate women’s youth, health, and good physical shape whereas women value features that affect the development of the next generation more indirectly, such as men’s social, educational, and financial status.
Kenrick et al. refer to numerous, even inter-culturally similar research results-among others, that older men tend to marry relatively younger women regardless of the cultural background or economic status. They end up noting that this kind of partner selection cannot be explained only from the point of view of social norms and financial models.
