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.