Madison Memmott ​Undergraduate at Utah State University 

 

HOW DO YOU KNOW 

WHO’S THE ONE? 
Research analysis examining generating and maintaining relationships. 

by ​Madison Memmott​ on October 05, 2017 

What does it take to find “the one”? Turns out there is quite a bit to be knowledgeable on 
when dating. There is also a lot at stake for us to figure it out. According to Oltmanns, 
Markey, and French (2016), “ Romantic relationships are associated with greater physical 
and mental health, well-being, and longevity” (p. 566). This means that being in a romantic 
relationship can greatly improve our quality of life. All four articles I have reviewed believe 
that mate value plays a huge part in generating and maintaining our relationships. We use 
assortative mating to help us initiate and our relationships. If we want to improve our lives, 
we need to know how our relationships are influenced in order help look for potentially 
successful relationships.  
 
First, there are a couple different concepts that help us to understand why why we look for 
partner similarities when establishing a relationship. Assortative mating is the tendency of 
a couple’s characteristics to be similar. There are many different ideas that help solidify this 
theory. One of them is the compatibility quotient. According to Wilson and Cousins the 
compatibility quotient is, “ The development of a measure of partner compatibility based 
on similarity in physique, personality, intelligence, social background, attitudes, habits, and 
leisure preferences” (Wilson and Cousins 2003, p. 161). They believe that their questionnaire 
can be used as a predictor of the suitability of partnerships not yet formed (as well as 
continue assessing the couple throughout the relationship). The compatibility quotient 
Wilson and Cousins created is a questionnaire that used key traits and attitudes that were 
chosen because serious discrepancies between partners are likely to cause conflict which 
is related to marital happiness (Wilson and Cousins 2003).  
 
Have you felt like your significant other was more or less attractive than yourself? This is 
one of the biggest characteristics in the beginning of a relationship even evolving. In the 
initiation of a relationship each article stressed the importance physical appearance has. 
Matching hypothesis is the idea that people will end up in relationships with others who 
are similar in terms of physical attractiveness. Even though there is really no merit to one's 
physical attractiveness beyond gender associated traits, we still use it to determine our 
courtships. All four articles believe after enough experience of acceptance and rejection, 
we find our match according to matching hypothesis and mate value. Mate Value can be 
summed up as the “values” of each mating-relevant qualities. “Those who invest too 
heavily in partners of lower value than what they are capable of attracting are at an 
evolutionary disadvantage as they fail to achieve a fair return relative to the value that they 
contribute to a relationship. Likewise, people who ineffectively pursue individuals of higher 
mate value than what they can realistically attain are similarly at a disadvantage” (Reeve et 
al. 2017, p. 78).  
 
An interesting thing to note is that research shows men and women hold physical 
attractiveness at different values. According to Wilson and Cousins research, while both 
genders rated physical attractiveness highly, men put a higher value on physical 
attractiveness while discrepancies toward smoking, pornography, and politics seemed 
more significant to women (Wilson and Cousins 2003, p. 166). I think this reinforces the 
stereotype that men place a higher premium on physical sexuality and helps to impose 
unrealistic expectations on women.  
 
Later on when you are trying to retain the relationship we realize that nobody is going to 
have everything we are looking for, so we balance out the things we like and don’t like as 
long as it still feels equivalent. Mate selection is constrained by a person’s own 
attractiveness. Reeve et al. believe that People are willing to compromise certain values if 
they consider the overall mate value to be a comparatively equal (Reeve et al. 2017). An 
example of this would the physical attractiveness of an individual being “matched” to 
financial resources of another individual. We use the alternative process of the mate 
market operation to describe the trade offs taking place. According to Luo, “ Assortment 
through market ruling is more likely to take place on attributes high in consensual 
desirability, e.g., physical attractiveness, intelligence, education, and SES. However, 
assortment through active choice is more likely to occur on attributes where relative 
desirability is more relevant, e.g., faith, attitudes, values, hobbies, and lifestyle” (Luo 2017, p. 
6). An important finding in ideal partner similarity is that people desire differential levels of 
similarity is different areas; these characteristic include desirability do to consensus and 
desirability do to personal idiosyncrasy. Here’s an example on how mate value occurs, John 
may trade his good humor for Keri's attractiveness. John may also prioritize sexual fidelity 
over the partner's attractiveness. According to Luo, “it is unclear how individuals balance 
the trade‐off between competing desires such as desires for similarity on different 
domains and desires for an absolute level of various characteristics ( Luo 2017, p. 6). This is 
because everyone puts different values on varying desires, which is a good thing because 
this is how we end up finding people that fit our needs.  
 
Another factor in preserving the relationship is mate retention tactics. This suggests that if 
the couple has different levels of physical attractiveness, the less attractive romantic 
partner will attempt particularly high levels of mate possession. Oltmanns et al. research 
found that people who were in a relationship with a mate who was comparatively more 
attractive were likely to engage in behaviors such as public signs of possession, intrasexual 
threats, and derogation of mate to rivals. They also examined whether or not the 
dissimilarity effect was greater for men than women and, surprisingly to them, found no 
difference in their mate retention behaviors ( Oltmanns et al. 2016, p. 573-574). Basically, 
their findings suggest how we perceive the physical attractiveness of the self does not 
matter but rather how we view our partner's physical attractiveness in relation to our own.  
Of course, there is more to a relationship than physical appearances. To maintain a 
successful relationship, you have to have similarities in many aspects of life. Although 
physical attractiveness is a particularly important trait in a partner for men and 
status/resources is particularly important for women, kindness and intelligence are 
reported as necessary traits in a partner for both sexes ( Reeve et. al 2017, p. 77). Human’s 
need more substance to a partner if they want the relationship to continue to flourish. 
Wilson and Cousins found an average correlation of 0.30 between a subject’s own 
personality and that of their ideal mate; though they did note that trade-offs such as the 
‘equity’ and ‘exchange’ theories do occur (Wilson and Cousins 2003, p. 161-162). Luo also 
found similarity correlations on personality variables to be positive around .30 ( Luo 2017, p. 
3).  
 
Should your relationship be a “two peas in a pod” scenario? There are many factors that go 
into maintaining a successful relationship but according to Wilson and Cousins it comes 
down to four factors: Proximity, leisurely activities, genetic similarity theory, and 
parent/child relationships (Wilson and Cousin 2003, p. 162). By proximity, it means we 
marry those at the hands of our environment. Luo (2017) even goes a step further than 
simply geographics and states that the people we meet in our social surroundings will 
share similarities in other characteristics like leisurely activities or genetic similarities (p. 
3). Also, When partners make accommodations and compromises it will increase their 
apparent similarity over a period of time (Wilson and Cousins 2003, p. 164). Happy couples 
have a tendency to “grow together,” so have no fear if you are not close now because we 
use similarities to improve our relationships. 
 
I think it would be interesting to see research on how children replicate their parents 
mating values. This could show a third person’s opinions on if the individual really portrays 
what they think they value in a mate. I feel like this could be done by having the parent fill 
out a questionnaire, have the child fill out a questionnaire, and then have them fill out a 
questionnaire as they think the other individual would. This idea could even be broadened 
to how mate compatibility affects the offspring. 
 
This information really helps us to understand where we stand with our own mate values. 
I’m currently single and this research has given me the chance to analyze which values I do 
value most compared to which values I feel I should value most. I won’t lie, I feel a little 
cognitive dissonance on this subject because I do feel like I have subconsciously accepted 
societies need to first judge appearances before comparing anything else. Now, I’m judging 
my relationships on an intersexual and intrasexual level. I say intersexual level because if I 
like someone I try to monopolize their time (not an overwhelming amount, but still). I know 
I use intrasexual tactics to retain my partner by holding hands and other physical 
expressions directed at same-sex rivals. Before the readings, I honestly assumed that you 
had to be pretty similar before you got together if you wanted your relationship to work. I 
now have a new realization that people are changing constantly. To me, this proves the 
relationship is no better off if you start out similar; what matters is that both partners 
strive to grow together and will then (in a successful relationship) grow congruently 
towards similarity.   

Bibliography 
Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and 
consequences. ​Social and Personality Psychology Compass,​ ​11​(8). 

Oltmanns, J. R., Markey, P. M., & French, J. E. (2016). Dissimilarity in physical attractiveness 
within romantic dyads and mate retention behaviors. ​Journal of Social and Personal 
Relationships,​ ​34​(4), 565-577.  

Reeve, S. D., Kelly, K. M., & Welling, L. L. (2017). The effect of mate value feedback on 
women's mating aspirations and mate preference. ​Personality & Individual Differences​, 
11577-82. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.007 

Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2003). Partner similarity and relationship satisfaction: 
Development of a compatibility quotient. ​Sexual and Relationship Therapy​, 18(2), 161-170. 

 
READ MADISON’S ADDITIONAL ARTICLES 
TOP ARTICLES 

 
  

5 MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPTS TAUGHT IN 

THE COMMUNICATIONS MAJOR 
by ​Madison Memmott​ on January 29, 2018 

Out of everything being taught in the major, these five concepts are the ones that will 
change how you communicate in your interactions with others, handle differences, and 
interpret how you view the world and your place within it. 

MY BLOG 
by ​Madison Memmott​ updated on January 31, 2018 

I also have a blog where I post about gender and social media issues. 

READ MORE ON MY WEBSITE  

  

Madison Memmott 
Logan, UT, 84322