A Critical Evaluation of The Psychology of the Internet

Humans are social being, and over the course of time we have developed many new ways in which to interact with one another. The study of human behavior and interaction has been of interest to many psychologists. Yet despite all that has been accomplished in this field, there is still much to learn, especially with the rapid advance of technology and constant creation of new means of communication. The addition of the internet into our social lives over the past two decades has extended this realm even more, almost to the point of being overwhelming. Although much of what we know about human behavior carries over to our online activities, the Internet also introduces several different features of interaction and thus entirely new areas of study, and all within a sphere almost too recent for much research. Patricia Wallace, a pioneer in the study of this field, wrote The Psychology of the Internet, which “examines how we behave when we act and interact online, and why the characteristics of the medium can affect our behavior in surprising, and sometimes troubling, ways (p. xiii). In writing this book, Wallace hopes to “explore the psychological impact of the online world on our behavior, and show how the medium itself can influence the way we act in surprising ways” (p. 12). She also hopes to “suggest ways we can all use this knowledge to improve the psychological climate of the Internet” (p. 12). As groundbreaking research for those involved in both psychology and the Internet, Wallace’s book offers us a glimpse into this fascinating, new world. In the beginning of her book, Wallace offers seven environments that can be found online. They are 1.) the World Wide Web- which has uses ranging from library to reference manual to phonebook, 2.) email- a form of communication similar to postal mail or telegraphs, 3.) asynchronous discussion forum- newsgroups or “ongoing conferences” where members can posts their thoughts and read or reply to others thoughts at any time, 4.)synchronous chats- chatrooms or instant messenger services, where members can “chat” with each other in real-time, 5.) MUD- online games, fantasy worlds and virtual realities, 6.) metaworlds- graphical, multi-user, highly-imaginative worlds, 7.) interactive video and voice- ability to see someone and/or hear their voice over the Internet. Together, these environments help make the internet a type of “global village”, where people of any gender, race, location or background can interact and “dwell” together. (pp. 5-8) In Chapter two, Wallace explains that your online persona is how you come across to people while interacting over the Internet (p. 14). Warm or cold are two ways to describe the degree of kindness or politeness in someone, but these are predominantly measured by nonverbal cues. Because most of the interaction that takes place over the Internet involves very little nonverbal, it makes warmth or coldness difficult to distinguish. Our personalities are also somewhat obscured; since studies show what we type is not always what we would say in person (p. 17). Fortunately, by allowing users to express some degree of nonverbal language, additions to the online world such as emoticons, sounds and lexicons are helping to “thaw the icy environment” we find online (p. 18). Social psychologists Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor came up with the term cognitive miser to describe how Internet users are interested in “conserving energy and reducing cognitive load” (p. 19). In other words, to avoid being overwhelmed with information, we rely heavily on just a few cues of another’s personality. One example of this online is the email address. The domain you use for your email can be just as powerful as way you choose to express yourself to the left of the @ sign. Whereas a jwineberg@yale.edu might command some respect in the academic field, you might find customerservice@dell.com more helpful in assessing your current computer problem, and you would probably not ask momof3@homemaker.org where the best clubs in town are (p. 20). In fact, Wallace asserts that we are all “naïve scientist” who attempt to form impressions of others the simplest and fastest way possible, which usually involves stereotyping and often leads to error. We are typically victims of confirmation bias, which is the desire to go with our original impression and ignore opposing evidence while seeking out confirming evidence, which is even easier to do with a tangible internet chat conversation (p. 26). Homepages are one way that Internet users can create an impression of themselves for others easy access. Although homepages “allow us to experiment with our online self-presentations,” they also encourage a greater focus on oneself and what psychologist David Elkind refers to as the imaginary audience, during which there is an inflated “sense that others are watching us with interest” (p. 34). The Internet provides a way to represent oneself to the whole world with ease, and it is therefore just as simple to misrepresent oneself. Chapter three discusses this area. Wallace states, “The characteristics of the online world trigger a wide assortment of role plays, deceptions, half-truths, and exaggerations, partly because anonymity and the absence of visual auditory cues allows them, and at the same time insulate us from the consequences” (p. 39). Because the Internet offers the novelty of toying with our own identities, issues such as gender swapping and age altering are very common. The Internet is a lawless world, and without nonverbal cues it is even more difficult to spot deceit. Wallace does offer that the words of truthful subjects are “more likely to be complete, direct, relevant, clear, and personalized” while those who are being deceitful are more likely to evasive and indirect (pp. 52-53). Because it is so difficult to distinguish between true or false online, we are likely to use stereotypes online more often than in the real world (p. 54). With the ability to meet so many individuals in one place and to easily look up those with the same interests and hobbies as us, it is no surprise that online groups have flourished over the past several years. Chapter four explores group dynamics online. There are two types of groups online: those involving individuals who already know each other and are just staying in touch and those formed to draw people together with common interests who have not yet met and who might never meet in real life (p. 58). In either type of group, conformity is very common, as members of each group begin to have more influence over one another. Studies show that because of the absence of physical presence and the possibility of anonymity, members of online groups are less likely to conform than in real life (p. 61). Yet, despite this deficiency, “customs and conventions have emerged, and tightly knit and successful groups flourish on the Internet” (p. 61). This is due to new strategies that were formed to create the accord that is so valuable in groups. One example of Internet conformity is email. Even with its many possibilities, most people use email informally, and it is often loaded with abbreviations, simplified spellings, punctuation errors and deviations, ungrammatical sentences and asterisks, all of which are not only accepted but even preferred (pp. 62-63). It is difficult to say just exactly how one should behave on the Internet, especially since it consists of communities from every different cultural background and social standing. Therefore, if someone every does breach these unspoken rules, the chastisement is generally much more public than in the real world, and is usually followed by the offender either conforming or leaving the group (p. 68). Many online groups have also employed a “moderator,” usually an unpaid volunteer who can act as a calming influence and help resolve disagreements (p. 70). Moderators are necessary because most groups expect new members to conform to the group’s standards. Because of this, polarization is much more common online, and the moderate voice is extremely rare. When groups talk things out they tend to polarize to one end, and the Internet is full of instances where group members are talking (p. 74). Because groups and choices of topics are almost infinite on the Internet, biased discussions tend to ensue, which lead to polarization, then to extremism, and group members usually end up with inflated perceptions of their own rightness (p. 79). Because online groups are so biased, members are not likely to show dissent or encourage debate (p. 82). Although dissenters “feel more liberated to express their views online than off… unfortunately, their online remarks have less influence on the rest of the group” (p. 82). On the Internet, disagreeing can be done with fewer risks, especially if done anonymously, and therefore others might not pay as much attention to those who do attempt to oppose an idea. No pain, no gain. But one of the advantages to group discourse online is the lack of production blocking, in which, since only one person can talk at the same time, group members who are busy listening do not have time to think of their own ideas. With the advantage of online chats and the ability to refer to another chatter’s contributions only when it is convenient, production blocking is less likely to occur online (p. 84). Of course, with the rise of Internet groups comes the rise of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Chapter five discusses the inner workings of online groups. Minimal group phenomenon is “the tendency of people to identify with a group and favor its members, despite the arbitrariness and absurdity of the criteria for group membership” (p. 92). For most people, just simply being in a group is enough to create loyalty, regardless of how much the group members really have in common. Studies show that “we tend to perceive people who share our interests, whom we like, as more similar to us than they actually are” (p. 101). Because status cues are less visible on the Internet, group members are more likely to feel that other members are all on the same level as themselves, even when this is not likely to be the case (p. 101). Although it would seem that Internet groups have advantages over real life groups that allow members to get along better, there are still cases of flaming and fighting online. Chapter six analyzes the psychology of aggression on the Internet. First, it is interesting to note that there are higher levels of name-calling, swearing and insults online than in face-to-face encounters, but it is also important to realize that this type of behavior is more common in some areas of the Internet rather than in others (p. 111). This is mainly due to the environment. The Internet, especially in its earliest forms, provides many causes for aggression. Humans value their time, and difficulties making connection with the server, slow connections and loss of connection (especially in the middle of an email or conversation) are likely causes for aggression. Lag is the time it takes during chatting for whatever a chatter has typed to appear in the message box (p. 114). Internet chatters are most content when lag time is about 2 to 3 seconds but when it is at 8 or 9 seconds they easily get frustrated (p. 114). This is why the average message is about 6 words. Because synchronous chat is most similar to face-to-face conversation, rather than typing an entire paragraph at a time and waiting long stretches for them to appear, chatters prefer to enter a few words at a time, creating faster conversation (p. 115). But when we are frustrated, we tend to fall into the negative affect where “our ability to dispassionately reflect on the events around us declines, and we become more likely to lean toward a negative interpretation of stimuli that under other circumstances we might view as neutral (p. 116). In addition to frustrations created by the environment, the Internet also contains instances of flaming or fighting. “According to surveys, the most provocative kinds of insults are the ones in which someone appears to be attacking our character, competence, or physical appearance (p. 117). But these instances are probably not as common as some are led to believe. “One study revealed that flaming was more common in group forums than in private email” (p. 121). With flaming also comes the reproach or the retaliation. Because of the ability to remain anonymous on the Internet, aggressive behavior is even more likely than in real life (p. 125). With email, it is extremely simple and cheap to cause problems for someone, with the additional advantage of being far away (p. 126). Framing is a feature of flaming that allows one to quote from a sender’s remarks by simply cutting and pasting from the original message (p. 127), allowing one to present a very capable argument. Studies have shown that behaving aggressively usually increases one’s aggressive tendencies (p. 129). Because it is so much easier to behave aggressively online, those who do so are more likely to continue to do so, which could be why many find the Internet to be a hostile environment.Despite the presence of conflict and aggression, the Internet is also a place for liking and love, which is discussed in Chapter seven. Usually, two people meet in a group setting where they discover “something special” between them. They start backchanneling, or communicating by email, exchanging information, photographs, maybe phone calls and eventually real life visits. But some Internet relationships do not make it this far; they stay online and may never interfere with one’s real life (pp. 133-134). Contrary to popular belief, Internet friendships can be just as deep and meaningful as those made face-to-face. But it also takes longer to form a relationship online “because the cues you are using are limited” (p. 135). Although Internet relationships are very similar to those formed in real life, there is one considerable difference. Usually within real-life social circles, your friends are also your friend’s friends; but online, very few people introduce their online friends to any of their real-life friends or relatives (p. 136).Since many people meet begin a relationship online without having ever seen one another, it is interesting to discover what attracts them to someone online. Very often, we rely on physical attractiveness to form our judgments about another, but on the Internet “beauty’s power is restrained” (p. 138). Proximity is another reason why people become attracted to each other. Online, rather than physical proximity, we have intersection frequency, or “how often you run into that other person online” (p. 139). In order for that to occur, one must be an active participant in newsgroups and chats. One survey “demonstrated that Internet wallflowers are less likely to establish personal relationships than those who actively participate” (p. 140). Studies have also proven that similarity is attractive. Wallace says, “The law of attraction predicts liking from the proportion of shared attitudes, not the total number (p. 141). This is a good reason for attraction on the Internet, since many online groups tend to focus on only one area of discussion, and it is difficult and time consuming to attempt to learn where another person stands on other issues, there is a greater amount of perceived similarity (p. 141). A fourth cause of attraction is reciprocity of liking, we like those who like us. But on the Internet it is more difficult to show that you like someone. The most important method of communicating liking towards others online is by paying attention- responding to their message, agreeing with them or supporting their views and using their name (p. 145). Once past the attraction stage, self-disclosure is how two people get to know one another better. There is a tendency for people to disclose more on the Internet. Joseph Walther describes this as hyperpersonal. “You sit at a computer screen feeling relatively anonymous, distant, and physically safe, and you sometimes feel closer to the people on the other side of your screen whom you have never seen than to the people in the next room” (p. 151). When sitting at a computer, you can concentrate more on yourself, and you do not have to worry about how you look or what you are wearing (p. 151). The Internet is not only a place to form new relationships but also to maintain old ones, especially those made in real life. The Internet is especially useful in preserving long distance relationships because it provides easy and convenient ways to communicate (p. 152). It also provides a means of virtual passion and cyber sex. Wallace states, “The characteristics of the Internet make it attractive as a place to fantasize about sexual adventures and even act them out at the keyboard from a safe distance” (p. 154). This type of communication is very controversial, and it is very difficult to research what causes this phenomenon and the possible lasting effects (p. 154-155). Either way you take them, relationships formed on the Internet are vulnerable- “people may disclose too much, too soon, and they may idealize and fantasize in unrealistic ways” (p. 155). One of the more controversial aspects of the Internet is the amount of readily available pornography. Chapter eight is on the psychological aspects of Internet pornography. Psychologists have trouble agreeing on whether pornography is harmful or beneficial, but studies have shown that “men who viewed extremely attractive centerfolds and watched passionate, consensual sex in videos become somewhat less enthusiastic about the attractiveness of their own real-life partners” (p. 162). The long-term effects of pornography are still uncertain, particularly if it contains episodes of aggression (p. 163). A study by Donnerstien (1980) has shown that men who were exposed to aggressive films were influenced in their behavior toward women (p. 164). But the real concern in this area is the protection of children. With the difficulty of passing appropriate legislature, “the responsibility of protecting minors is now mainly in the hands of parents, teachers, and librarians who can choose to install various kinds of software to filter objectionable materials, restrict access to particular sites, and even stop a child from transmitting certain kinds of information, such as a home telephone number” (p. 168). Wallace makes four speculations concerning the psychological aspects of pornography. First, Internet pornography will probably be used in the same way that other pornography has been. Second, Internet pornography is more widely distributed and accessible to a greater number of people than other forms of pornography. Third, because of the online environment, people may feel at more liberty to explore and indulge in different aspects of online behavior. Finally, it is possible that increased exposure to pornography via the Internet will produce familiarity and therefore people will soon tire of this trend. (pp. 169-170). With the popularity of the Internet increasing, along with the amount of information and service available, it is no surprise that people are spending more and more of their time online. Chapter nine explores the Internet as a time sink. Kraut et. al (1998) “suggest that increased Internet use is not necessarily beneficial to one’s well being or social involvement” (p. 172). It was also found that as people spent more time online they spent less time communicating with their family and those in their real-life social circles. The more one used the Internet, the more likely they were to feel lonely and depressed (p. 172). It has even been speculated that there could be an Internet addiction disorder, or IAD (p. 172). One reason for this is the amount of control and independence that is available to Internet users. They have the ability to access whatever they want, whenever they want it (p. 175). Another cause could be the “heightened sense of influence over the distant worlds of politics, commerce, and entertainment” (p. 175). With increased access to domains that would never be available offline and would normally be out of our power to do so, Internet users are spending more time online and less in the real world (p. 177). Another reason why so many feel compelled to spend more time online is the amount of rewards they receive when doing so. Rewards can be social environments and “recognition and attention from unknown and potentially idealized others” in an environment where you can control how your persona comes across to others (p. 183). However, studies have shown that most Internet users who consider themselves “dependent” are new to the online world, and the majority of those that did not feel “dependent” on the Internet had been online for at least a year (p. 187). Because we are constantly hearing about instances of violence and aggression on the Internet, many do not think acts of kindness on the Internet occur as often as they do. Chapter ten is dedicated to revealing altruism on the net. While the psychological environment of the Internet seems to promote meanness and aggression, it also encourages kindness. Internet users are very willing to provide information and assistance to others. There are also a number of support forums available online that offer advice or just a listening ear to anyone who might be struggling with a particular issue (p. 191). Wallace states, “… men tend to leap into the fray in an emergency in which physical action and superior strength are a plus, but women tend to help more when nurturing and emotional support are called for” (p. 199). Therefore, on the Internet men are more likely to provide technical assistance while women are more likely to be involved in online support groups (pp. 199-200). One advantage those seeking help have with the Internet is that it is much simpler to find and communicate with someone experiencing the same problem online than it is in real life (p. 201). By connecting people with all sorts of needs from all over the world the chances of finding someone to connect with on certain issues are much greater online. Often individuals prefer to discuss their problems with a computer or even a stranger rather than someone they know (pp. 203, 205). And obviously the issue of anonymity allows those dealing with embarrassing or illegal issues to be more open in their discussions (p. 206). And so, despite the number of disturbing instances that occur on the Internet, there are also a great number of acts of kindness and altruism.Gender also has its role on the Internet, which is the topic of Chapter eleven. Studies have shown that, on average, men are more aggressive, competitive, dominant and task oriented while most women are relational, empathetic and sensitive to others emotions and feelings (p. 209). It is important to remember that not all men and women fall into these categories, but the majority does. But on the Internet, the cues associate with gender are much more vague. For instance, because women tend to be more emotional, we expect that they would use more emoticons in their online conversations. Witmer and Katzman (1997) found that women do use graphic accent more than men, but neither use them very often. What was more surprising was that women were more likely to send proportionally more flames and challenges than men, even though they do not post as much (p. 215). Savicki et. al (1996) also did a study of online posts and found that “the groups with a higher percentage of men also contained posts with more calls to action” and the groups with more women have “posts with more self-disclosure” and “more attempts at tension prevention and reduction” (p. 218).Online communication between men and women may also pose some problems. According to Wallace, “In an environment in which contention can flare up so quickly, where it is so easy to misinterpret people’s remarks, where anonymity and physical distance provide protection from counterattack, online harassment is more likely” (p. 227). Also, because it is so simple to conceal one’s identity online, offenders are much more difficult to trace and stop (p. 227). Although currently the Internet is a male dominated frontier, there are an increasing number of women online. With this increase, gender differences are becoming more noticeable, but despite the differences between the Internet and the real-world, most gender stereotypes carry over from one to the other.
One of the most surprising findings of recent studies mentioned in The Psychology of the Internet is how similar, in social terms, this “alternate universe” is to our real-world. Although there are many substantial differences, such as the option of anonymity or the ability to swap genders, ages and occupations, many issues in social behavior, such as impression formation, group dynamics, attraction, aggression, altruism and gender stereotyping carry over from one world to the other. I found it quite ironic that while writing this paper, the Internet in our flat went down. For two entire days we were without connection to our “virtual world” and the difference was worth noting. On the first morning of the “crash” the girls in my flat all sat around that table in the computer room, pretending to be reading or doing work, but really just hoping to kill some time before the net was back up again. After an hour or so most of us resigned to the fact that it wasn’t going to happen anytime soon, and by lunchtime everyone had left. I was alone to work on my paper and the only person in the house for the first time since arriving here. Despite the fact that the Internet was still down by evening, all my flatmates were forced to return to the house for dinner. And once again I noticed some new developments in our house. First, without the ability to sit and talk to those outside of our house via the Internet, we were obligated to visit with each other. Several of my flatmates just sat around and talked while doing work that night, and when I cam back in several hours later they were still there visiting, something I don’t recall ever happening before this event. In fact, my one roommate, who happens to have her own computer and Internet connection in her room, actually made an appearance outside of her room for once and we actually had a real conversation for quite a while. (This is the same roommate who often instant messages me while we are sitting in the same house.)In addition to not being able to communicate others outside of the house, our friends also were not able to contact us via the Internet. Therefore, our acquaintances here in Oxford who wanted to make plans for the evening had to either call or, even more incredible, actually come visit. This is the only time that I can remember people stopping with no other objective than to see what was going on. Finally, one girl couldn’t take it any longer, and asked me to walk down the road with her to see if we could check our email at our friend’s house. I really hesitated to stop by someone’s house without being invited, or at least instant messaging them to let them know ahead of time (these are the friend’s that never answer the phone, so that was also pointless). Personally, I was afraid that by knocking on the door of our neighbor’s we would possibly be interrupting them in their work, or perhaps the people in that house didn’t want to see anyone that night, maybe they just wanted to stay in and watch a movie. Why are we so much more comfortable sending someone an instant message or an email rather than calling or actually meeting with them face to face, especially, as in this case, when those people are our friend’s, with whom we spend a lot of time? Part of it may be having the appearance of an intruder or risking rejection. It we had been able to call our friends prior to stopping by, it might have been a little easier. This is because we feel safe with distance. If our friend’s had said they were busy and couldn’t see us that night, it would have been much easier to hear over the phone than be told in person while you’re standing in the doorway. Since this is the case, instant messaging or emailing, which is considered less intrusive, is even more enticing. When telephones first came out in the United Kingdom they were installed in the servant’s quarter, because it was considered rude to call without notice and those doing the calling did not want to intrude on anyone else’s time (p. 174). With the Internet, you don’t have to worry about that. Usually, if someone is on Instant Messager it is to communicate with others, and if they are not around or don’t want to talk they can always leave or put up an “away message.” Because of this, and the informal nature of most Internet communication, it is preferable to simply leave a message, rather than call or stop by someone’s house. That way, you’re giving the other person some control, and if they want to get back to you and let you know it’s okay to stop by to borrow their computer, they can let you know at a time that is convenient for them. For some people, especially those like myself, the Internet provides a revolutionary means of communication. Every time I go online I have the opportunity to talk to people that I would have never called, much less went to visit. But this also poses a problem, because it is so easy (and less risky) to contact others from the safety of our computer chairs, many people are less likely to leave the comfort of their own homes. Home visits are becoming scarcer and, in the most severe cases, some people have all but abandoned their real-world relationships for those they have online.Without the ability to leave messages for our friends, or at least read their “away messages” to know where they were or what they were doing, my roommate and I did end up walking down the road to visit our friends, going out for the evening and even meeting up with some of our other acquaintances. Our day without Internet taught us that even without our usual means of communication it is still possible, although not always as convenient, to meet up with friends and make plans. But for some, like my flatmate, this is not enough. Upon returning home and finding that the network was still down she declared she had “no reason to live” and was going to bed. And she did, hours earlier than I’ve ever seen her do.In analyzing our dependence, or obsession, with the Internet I wonder what our grandparents would say. It is interesting to note that even though the Internet is fairly new (most of my friends and I have only been “online” for the past 5 or 6 years), we have come to rely on it very heavily. Sometimes, usually after discovering that I have spent several hours online, I try to remember what I did with my time before I had the Internet. I agree with Wallace when she speculates that Internet addiction is often a “newbie disease” (p. 186). I certainly do not spend nearly as much time online as I did when I was first connected. But for some people IAD may be an ongoing problem, even after the novelty has long worn away. For some people, like my flatmate, a life without the Internet could just as well be a life not worth living. Although this may be taking things a bit far, Internet dependency is very real, in the same sense that we can’t imagine a world without telephones or cars. But it is not something that should be ignored, nor should many cases be taken too seriously. The Internet is, as Clifford Stoll says in Silicon Snake Oil, “an unreal universe, a soluble tissue of nothingness. While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where – in the holy names of Education and Progress – important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued” (p. 233). As a means of informal communication and information sharing, the Internet has proven to be extremely valuable, but when it becomes an alternate society or a means of indulging in fantastic behavior, it is best to return to the real world.

Wallace, Patricia. The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rules of Attraction

Everyone is involved in relationships, whether it is at home, work, school or in the neighborhood. Some relationships, such as family, are a matter of chance, but many other relationships, like friends and lovers, are the result of choice. Attraction is what compels us to choose whether or not to continue a relationship with a new acquaintance. Why is attraction not random? What is it about the others that surround us that lead us to either desire or spurn a further acquaintance? It is a common understanding that following an attraction, there are certain regulations that govern the quality and sustainability of a relationship, but it is just as important to understand the events and conditions leading up to a relationship – the rules of attraction. Most scholars would agree that attractiveness is based on, or on variations of, four characteristics: physical attractiveness, proximity, similarity and reciprocity.
First, it is important to emphasize that attraction may not always lead towards an actual relationship, therefore the rules of attraction should be viewed as only that, and not as an indication of the quality or stability of a relationship. Attraction may be what spurs us to form an attachment, but it is certainly not what sustains one, especially when the rules of attraction are not so very stable themselves- beauty is fleeting, people move or change occupations, and humans are apt to find new interests and ways to bide their time. It is also interesting to note that not all causes were equal. In a study by Aron et al. (1989) it was found that factors such as reciprocity of liking and physical attractiveness were more likely to lead to a romantic relationship, whereas factors such as similarity and proximity tended to lead towards a friendship (Sprecher, p. 288). Depending on the type and function of the future relationship, some rules of attraction may be more important than others.
The first, and no doubt the most obvious, cause for attraction is physical attractiveness. In most cases it is the first indication we have of someone’s character, and it is almost always subjective. Although many are reluctant to admit to relying on so superficial a level, it has been well established that everyone appreciates a beautiful person. Physical attractiveness may be a reasonable basis for initial attraction, but it is rarely used as a means to determine the stability of further acquaintance (Sprecher, p. 298). In other words, once involved in a relationship, individuals are less likely to base their satisfaction in the relationship on physical appearance, even if it was the means of drawing them together. It is also fairly well known that physical attraction carries far more weight for men than it does for women, who tend to prefer to focus on attitudes, values and personality (Sprecher, p. 297). While men are apt to be drawn to a beautiful, young woman, women are more likely to go for an established, honorable man.
Not only does the importance of physical attractiveness vary by gender, but also by culture. There are some universal standards of physical attractiveness, according to Ford and Beach (1951) such as cleanliness and a healthy complexion (Sabini, p. 463). But there are also some differences, even within the same country. For instance, Singh and Luis (1995) found that white American women tend to value slimness, whereas black American women do not think obesity is unattractive (Brehm, p. 76). Separate cultures not only have standards for beauty, but also for what beauty signifies in another person. Although most cultures would agree with the “what is good is beautiful” concept, they may not agree on just what is good. For example, Berscheid and Reis found that in North America, people “perceived attractive persons to be high in potency while Koreans did not, and Koreans perceived attractive people to be higher in integrity and concern for others but North Americans did not” (Gilbert et. al, p. 208).
Proximity is another factor in the case for attraction. Humans feel comfortable with what is familiar and tend to be attracted to those they see frequently rather than those that they rarely come in to contact with. The closer we are to someone physically, the more likely it is that there will be an attraction. Zajonc (1968) came up with the “mere exposure” hypothesis which states that the more we are exposed to an object the more attractive it becomes (Berscheid, Reis, p. 205). Like physical attractiveness, proximity is also most useful in drawing two people together, rather than in maintaining that relationship (Sprecher, p. 298). Anyone with old high school friends, or who has experienced moving or changing jobs, knows this to be true. Although it is very helpful in forming a friendship, proximity is not necessary in order to continue that relationship, especially with improved means of communication and travel.
Not only are humans attracted to others with whom they are familiar, but also to those with similar attitudes, beliefs and interests. According to Carol Werner and Pat Parmelee, "It is commonly believed that attitude similarity serves as the strongest foundation for lasting friendship" (p. 62). But just as similarity leads one to be attracted to another, so does dissimilarity cause one to appear unattractive. Hinde says, “…a number of studies (mostly conducted in the USA) have shown that married couples or chosen partners tend to come from similar backgrounds; to have similar physical characteristics; or to have or to perceive each other similar cognitive abilities, attitudes, values, and personality traits” (p. 115). In the same way, we tend not to be attracted to those whose backgrounds, characteristics or attitudes are different from our own. This is because similarity is rewarding. It has been found (Byrne, 1971; Clore, 1977; Clore & Byrne, 1974) that similarity in attitude is reinforcing because it provides confirmation of the subject’s actions or opinions (Hinde, p. 129). Being with someone who is similar to us helps us to feel good about ourselves, both physically and emotionally, and helps to confirm what we believe.
Finally, the more someone likes us the more we like them. Reciprocity of feelings is a means of attraction. Just simply knowing that someone is interested in us will often spur us to get to know them better. Berscheid states, “Individuals generally view others who like them as potential sources of help and unlikely sources of harm (p. 206). And in already formed acquaintances, it is obvious that knowing that someone likes you is a good reason to continue the friendship. At the risk of sounding vain, this principle is similar to the previous one- attraction based on similar beliefs and interests. Clearly, given that one is content with oneself, it should naturally be found attractive when someone is attracted to you. Therefore, it can be deduced that we are attracted to those who reciprocate our attraction because it shows an agreement in tastes and beliefs, which humans find reinforcing.
While riding the bus one day, I noticed a magazine lying on the seat across the aisle, I picked it up to flip through and ironically came across the article: “The Seven Laws of Attraction: Why the chemistry between you is more important than you think.” After having spent several days studying the scholarly point of view, I thought it would be interesting to read how a popular magazine, aimed at modern women and consisting mainly of articles on fashion, beauty and men, would present this subject. Dismissing “stupid cupid” and claiming it is biology that dictates our initial romantic feelings, Flic Everett and Red magazine cite seven “scientific facts” that influence attraction. Those already acquainted with this subject will not be surprised to find proximity and similarity (of both attitudes, backgrounds and “love stories” or notions of romance) on the list, but I find it rather odd that physical attraction did not make the seven, especially for a magazine that only pictures the most beautiful on every other page. I can only assume that the author thought it either too obvious or overdone, or felt that readers would be offended to learn that their attraction is based on merely the physical, a fact many individuals would rather not admit. The article also introduced several new factors, such as a “compatible birth order”- saying the best match is a first-born female and a youngest male, “the perfect height ratio”- which for women is a man whose ratio to yours is 1:1.09, and most interestingly if “he looks like your mom.” Apparently, “we tend to be instinctively attracted to people who look like the first person we bonded with as a child,” which is typically the mother. It would certainly be interesting to further investigate these “scientific facts” but one thing Everett and the social psychologists do agree on is that opposites do not attract.
And this is precisely the area that I struggle to agree with the professionals on. Be it elementary science lessons on magnetism or the influence of pop-culture, such as Paula Abdul’s song “Opposites Attract,” I have always that it was so… until recently. Anthony Giddens, author of The Transformation of Intimacy, describes intimacy as when, “The other, by being who he or she is, answers a lack which the individual does not even necessarily recognize – until the love relation is initiated. And this lack is directly to do with self-identity: in some sense, the flawed individual is made whole” (Giddens, p. 45). So the question is, “How much opposition is healthy?” A lack of attraction in couples is attributed to “being too different” just as much as it is caused by “being too much alike.” Giddens is not saying that a person who likes hard rock music should be with someone who likes classical piano. What he is saying is that, through intimacy, one person can become stronger by coupling himself/herself with someone whose strengths may be in the other’s weak areas and vice versa. Intimacy is not two halves attempting to create a whole, but it is about two completely individual beings that come together and produce a strong pair. The concept of attraction is not necessarily the combination of two opposing viewpoints but of one person discovering characteristics he/she might lack in another. Perfect intimacy, I believe, is found in a balance of shared backgrounds, attitudes and interests and a perceived compensation of each member’s weaknesses.
Although there are many factors that influence our decision to further a new acquaintance, the four main ones are physical attractiveness, proximity, similarity and reciprocity. Each of these plays a different role in determining attractiveness and the stability of a relationship. It is also important to note that these characteristics, particularly that of physical attractiveness, vary by gender and culture. It should also be stated that although these “rules of attraction” have been developed through extensive research and scientific study, relationships are as unique as the individuals that make them up, and therefore it is impossible to put all relationships, and how they are formed, into the neat little categories discussed above.

Berscheid, Ellen. “Attraction and Close Relationships.” Chap. 22. The Handbook of Social Psycholgoy, Vol. II. 4th ed. 1998.
Everett, Flic. “The 7 Laws of Attraction.” Red. November 2004. pp. 123-124.
Giddens, Anthony. The Transformation of Intimacy.
Hinde, Robert. Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. (1997).
Sabini, John. Social Psychology. 2nd ed. (1995).
Sprecher, Susan. Insiders perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social Psychology Quaterly, 1998. Vol. 61, No. 4, 287-300.
Werner, Carol and Parmelee, Pat. Similarity of Activitiy Preferences Among Friends: Those who play together stay together. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1979. Vol. 42, No. 1, 62-66.