ASSIGNMENT # 02

INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION, CLOSE RELATIONSHIP AND LOVE

Submitted to:
Samavia Hussain

Submitted by:
Rabia Azhar
(1599)

M.Sc.
2nd Semester (Eve)

Department of Applied Psychology

Government College University Faisalabad
Q. NO. 1. Describe some anger management exercises.
Ans: Some people are more likely to experience anger than others. People under extreme
stress may have trouble controlling their anger. Researchers have found that children with
mental health conditions and adults with traumatic brain injuries are also more likely to have
overwhelming anger.
Help and support is out there. Research has found that anger management exercises improved
well-being and reduced the number of angry outbursts in each of these at-risk groups. And if
you struggle to calm your anger, these exercises may help you, too.
Anger management exercises to try
Anger outbursts can cause harm to you and the people around you.
A good way to calm anger and prevent any harm is to use anger management exercises.
These techniques work by first calming you down and then helping you move forward in a
positive way.
Use the following anger management exercises any time it feels your anger is overwhelming,
until you feel calm:
Learn to breathe
When you’re angry, you might notice your breathing gets quicker and shallower. One easy
way to calm your body and reduce your anger is to slow and deepen your breathing.
Try breathing slowly into your nose and out your mouth. Breathe deeply from your belly
rather than your chest. Repeat breaths as necessary.
Progressive muscle relaxation
Muscle tension is another sign of stress in the body that you may feel when you’re angry.
To help calm down, you may want to try a progressive muscle relaxation technique. This
involves slowly tensing and then relaxing each muscle group in the body, one at a time.
Consider starting at the top of your head and move your way to your toes, or vice versa.
Visualize yourself calm
Imagining a relaxing place may help you reduce your anger. Sit in a quiet, comfortable space
from your memory and close your eyes for a few moments. Let your imagination flow.
As you think of what that relaxing place is like, think about small details. How does it smell
or sound? Think about how calm and good you feel in that place.

1
Get moving
Besides being healthy for your bodily functions, regular exercise is very effective at reducing
stress in the body and mind. Try to get some exercise every day to keep stress and anger at
bay.
For a quick way to manage anger, go for a brisk walk, bike ride, run. Or do some other form
of physical activity when you feel anger growing.
Recognize your triggers
Usually, people get angry about specific things over and over again. Spend some time
thinking about what makes you angry. Make an effort to avoid or deal with those things, if
possible.
For example, this might involve shutting the door to your child’s room when they don’t clean
it instead of getting angry about the mess. Or it could mean using public transportation
instead of driving to work if you’re easily angered by traffic.
Stop and listen
When you’re in an angry argument, you might find yourself jumping to conclusions and
saying things that are unkind. Making an effort to stop and listen to the other person in the
conversation before reacting can help your anger drop and allow you to better respond and
resolve the situation.
Think carefully before replying. Tell them you need to take a step away if you feel you need
to cool down before you continue the conversation.
Change your thinking
Anger can make you feel like things are worse than they really are. Reduce your anger by
replacing negative thoughts with more realistic ones. You can do this by avoiding extreme
words, such as “never” or “always,” when you think.
Other good strategies include keeping a balanced view of the world and turning your angry
demands into requests instead.
Avoid dwelling on the same things
You may rehash the same situation that made you upset over and over again, even if the
problem is resolved. This is called dwelling or ruminating. Dwelling allows anger to last and
could cause further arguments or other issues.
Try to move past the thing that caused your anger. Instead, try to take a look at the positive
parts of the person or situation that made you upset.

2
Know your body
When you get angry, your body tends to get very excited. Your heart rate, blood pressure,
breathing speed, and body temperature may increase. Your body also releases certain stress
hormones that put your body on high alert
Pay attention to your body when you’re angry. Learn your body’s anger warning signs. Next
time you feel these warnings, you can step away from the situation or try a relaxation
technique.
Q. NO.2. What do you know about attachment style theory?
Ans: Attachment Theory is an area of psychology that describes the nature of emotional
attachment between humans. It begins as children with our attachment to our parents. The
nature of this attachment, and how well it’s fostered and cared for, will then influence the
nature of our attachment to romantic partners later in our life.
Attachment theory began in the 1950s and has since amassed a small mountain of research
behind it. Two researchers named Bowlby and Ainsworth found that the nature in which
infants get their needs met by their parents significantly contributes to their “attachment
strategy” throughout their lives.
Attachment Types
According to psychologists, there are four attachment strategies adults can adopt: secure,
anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant.
Secure Attachment Style
People with secure attachment strategies are comfortable displaying interest and affection.
They are also comfortable being alone and independent. They’re able to correctly prioritize
their relationships within their life and tend to draw clear boundaries and stick to them.
Secure attachment types obviously make the best romantic partners, family members, and
even friends. They’re capable of accepting rejection and moving on despite the pain, but are
also capable of being loyal and sacrificing when necessary. They have little issue trusting
people they’re close to and are trustworthy themselves. According to research, over 50% of
the population are secure attachment types.
Anxious Attachment Style
Anxious attachment types are often nervous and stressed about their relationships. They need
constant reassurance and affection from their partner. They have trouble being alone or
single. They’ll often succumb to unhealthy or abusive relationships. They have trouble
trusting people, even if they’re close to them. Their behavior can be irrational, sporadic, and
overly-emotional and complain that every one of the opposite sex are cold and heartless.
3
This is the girl who calls you 36 times in one night wondering why you didn’t call her back.
Or the guy who follows his girlfriend to work to make sure she’s not flirting with any other
men. Women are more likely to be anxious types than men.
Avoidant Attachment Style
Avoidant attachment types are extremely independent, self-directed, and often uncomfortable
with intimacy. They’re commitment-phobes and experts at rationalizing their way out of any
intimate situation. They regularly complain about feeling “crowded” or “suffocated” when
people try to get close to them. In every relationship, they always have an exit strategy.
Always. And they often construct their lifestyle in such a way to avoid commitment or too
much intimate contact.
This is the guy who works 80 hours a week and gets annoyed when women he dates want to
see him more than once on the weekend. Or the girl who dates dozens of guys over the course
of years but tells them all she doesn’t want “anything serious” and inevitably ends up
ditching them when she gets tired of them. Men are more likely than women to be avoidant
types.
Anxious-Avoidant Attachment Style
Anxious-Avoidant: Anxious-avoidant attachment types (also known as the “fearful type”)
bring together the worst of both worlds. Anxious-avoidants are not only afraid of intimacy
and commitment, but they distrust and lash out emotionally at anyone who tries to get close
to them. Anxious-avoidants often spend much of their time alone and miserable, or in abusive
or dysfunctional relationships.
According to studies, only a small percentage of the population qualifies as anxious-avoidant
types, and they typically have a multitude of other emotional problems in other areas of their
life (i.e., substance abuse, depression, etc.).
As with most psychological profiling, these types aren’t monolithic qualities, but scalar in
nature and somewhat independent. For instance, according to the book Attached by Amir
Levie and Rachel Heller, I scored about 75% on the secure scale, 90% on the avoidant scale,
and 10% on the anxious scale. And my guess is that 3-5 years ago, the secure would have
been lower and the anxious would have been higher, although my avoidant has always been
solidly maxed out (as any of my ex-girlfriends will tell you).
The point is, you can exhibit tendencies of more than one strategy depending on the situation
and at different frequencies. Although, everyone has one dominant strategy. So “secure”
types will still exhibit some avoidant or anxious behaviors, “anxious” types will sometimes
exhibit secure behaviors, etc. It’s not all or nothing. Both anxious types and avoidant types
4
will still score a certain amount on the secure scale. But anxious-avoidants will score high on
both anxious and avoidant types and low on the secure scale.
How Attachment Styles Are Formed
Like I said previously, our attachment styles as adults are influenced by how we related to
our parents (or one parent/caregiver) as infants. As helpless little babies, this is our first and
most important relationship of our lives, so it naturally sets the “blueprint” for how we
perceive all relationships as we mature.
We use this relationship blueprint as we age into late childhood and adolescence, when we
typically start to form important relationships outside of our immediate relationship with our
parent(s). Our peer group takes on a larger role in our lives as we continue to learn how to
relate to others. These experiences further influence our attachment style as we eventually
become romantically involved with others, which, in turn, also influence our attachment
style.
So, while your early experiences with your parent(s) do have a considerable influence on how
your relate to others, it’s not the only factor that determines your attachment style (though it’s
a big one) and your attachment style can change over time (more on this later).
Generally, though, a secure attachment is developed in childhood by infants who regularly
get their needs met, as well as receive ample quantities of love and affection. They feel
competent among their peers but are also comfortable with their shortcomings to a degree.
They exhibit healthy, strong boundaries, can communicate their needs well in their
relationships, and aren’t afraid to leave a bad one if they think they need to.
Anxious attachment strategies are developed in childhood by infants who receive love and
care with unpredictable sufficiency. They generally have a positive view of their peers, but a
negative view of themselves. Their romantic relationships have often been overly idealized
and they rely too heavily on them for their own self-esteem.
Avoidant attachment strategy is developed in childhood by infants who only get some of their
needs met while the rest are neglected (for instance, he/she gets fed regularly, but is not held
enough). They often hold a negative view of others but a positive view of themselves. They
haven’t depended too much on their romantic relationships for intimacy and feel like they can
don’t need others for emotional support.
Anxious-avoidant types develop from abusive or terribly negligent childhoods. They often
have a hard time relating to their peers at all. They seek both intimacy and independence in
romantic interactions, sometimes simultaneously, which, as you can imagine, leads to some
pretty messed up, dysfunctional relationships.
5
Q. NO.3. Write a detail note on TRIANGULAR MODEL OF LOVE (Sternberg, 1986).
Ans: The triangular theory of love holds that love can be understood in terms of three
components that together can be viewed as forming the vertices of a triangle. The triangle is
used as a metaphor, rather than as a strict geometric model. These three components are
intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. Each component manifests a different aspect of
love.
Intimacy. Intimacy refers to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving
relationships. It thus includes within its purview those feelings that give rise, essentially, to
the experience of warmth in a loving relationship.
Passion. Passion refers to the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual
consummation, and related phenomena in loving relationships. The passion component
includes within its purview those sources of motivational and other forms of arousal that lead
to the experience of passion in a loving relationship.
Decision/commitment. Decision/commitment refers, in the short-term, to the decision that
one loves a certain other, and in the long-term, to one's commitment to maintain that love.
These two aspects of the decision/commitment component do not necessarily go together, in
that one can decide to love someone without being committed to the love in the long-term, or
one can be committed to a relationship without acknowledging that one loves the other
person in the relationship.
The Love Triangle
The three components of love interact with each other: For example, greater intimacy
may lead to greater passion or commitment, just as greater commitment may lead to greater
intimacy, or with lesser likelihood, greater passion. In general, then, the components are
separable, but interactive with each other. Although all three components are important parts
of loving relationships, their importance may differ from one relationship to another, or over
time within a given relationship. Indeed, different kinds of love can be generated by limiting
cases of different combinations of the components.
The three components of love generate eight possible kinds of love when considered in
combination. It is important to realize that these kinds of love are, in fact, limiting cases: No
relationship is likely to be a pure case of any of them.
Nonlove refers simply to the absence of all three components of love. Liking results when
one experiences only the intimacy component of love in the absence of the passion and
decision/commitment components. Infatuated love results from the experiencing of the
passion component in the absence of the other components of love. Empty love emanates
6
from the decision that one loves another and is committed to that love in the absence of both
the intimacy and passion components of love. Romantic love derives from a combination of
the intimacy and passion components. Companionate love derives from a combination of the
intimacy and decision/commitment components of love. Fatuous love results from the
combination of the passion and decision/commitment components in the absence of the
intimacy component. Consummate, or complete love, results from the full combination of all
three components.
The geometry of the "love triangle" depends upon two factors: amount of love and balance
of love. Differences in amounts of love are represented by differing areas of the love
triangle: The greater the amount of love, the greater the area of the triangle. Differences in
balances of the three kinds of love are represented by differing shapes of triangles. For
example, balanced love (roughly equal amounts of each component) is represented by an
equilateral triangle.
Love does not involve only a single triangle. Rather, it involves a great number of triangles,
only some of which are of major theoretical and practical interest. For example, it is possible
to contrast real versus ideal triangles. One has not only a triangle representing his or her love
for the other, but also a triangle representing an ideal other for that relationship. Finally, it is
important to distinguish between triangles of feelings and triangles of action.
Q.NO.4. Differentiate between BALANCE THEORY and SOCIAL COMPARISON
THEORY in relation to interaction with others.
Ans:
Balance Theory Definition
Balance theory describes the structure of people’s opinions about other individuals and
objects as well as the perceived relation between them. The central notion of balance theory
is that certain structures between individuals and objects are balanced, whereas other
structures are imbalanced, and that balanced structures are generally preferred over
imbalanced structures. Specifically, balance theory claims that unbalanced structures are
associated with an uncomfortable feeling of negative affect, and that this negative feeling
leads people to strive for balanced structures and to avoid imbalanced structures. An example
for a balanced structure is when your best friend also likes your favorite rock band; an
example for an imbalanced structure is when your best friend dislikes your favorite rock
band. According to balance theory, the first case makes you feel good, whereas the second
case creates an uncomfortable tension.

7
Theoretical Assumptions
Balance TheoryThe original formulation of balance theory was designed to describe the
pattern of relations between three individuals. Such relation patterns between three objects or
individuals are often referred to as “triadic” relations. From a general perspective, a triadic
relation between three individuals includes (a) the relation between a first person A and a
second person O, (b) the relation between the second person O and a third person X, and (c)
the relation between the first person A and the third person X (also described as A-O-X
triad). In addition, it is assumed that the specific relations between two individuals can be
positive (i.e., the two individuals like each other) or negative (i.e., the two individuals dislike
each other). According to balance theory, a triad is balanced when it includes either no or an
even number of negative relations. In contrast, a triad is imbalanced when it includes an odd
number of negative relations. For example, the resulting triad of relations between Peter,
John, and Paul would be balanced if (a) Peter likes John, John likes Paul, and Peter likes
Paul; (b) Peter likes John, John dislikes Paul, and Peter dislikes Paul; (c) Peter dislikes John,
John likes Paul, and Peter dislikes Paul; or (d) Peter dislikes John, John dislikes Paul, and
Peter likes Paul. However, the resulting triad would be imbalanced if (a) Peter dislikes John,
John likes Paul, and Peter likes Paul; (b) Peter likes John, John dislikes Paul, and Peter likes
Paul; (c) Peter likes John, John likes Paul, and Peter dislikes Paul; or (d) Peter dislikes John,
John dislikes Paul, and Peter dislikes Paul.
Even though balance theory was originally developed to explain patterns of interpersonal
relations, it has also been applied to study attitudes and opinions about objects. For example,
a triad including Sarah, Alice, and country music would be balanced if Sarah likes Alice,
Alice likes country music, and Sarah also likes country music. However, the resulting triad
would be imbalanced if Sarah likes Alice, Alice likes country music, but Sarah dislikes
country music.
Over and above these assumptions for personal sentiments, balance theory assumes that a
positive relation can also result from the perception that two objects or individuals somehow
belong together. Conversely, a negative relation can result from the perception that two
objects or individuals do not belong together. Such kinds of relations are typically called
“unit relations.” Positive unit relations can result from any kind of closeness, similarity, or
proximity, such as membership in the same soccer team, similar hair style, or same ethnic
background. In contrast, negative unit relations can result from distance, dissimilarity, or
distinctness, such as membership in different soccer teams, different hair style, or different
ethnic background.
8
Evidence
The distinction between balanced and imbalanced triads has been shown to have important
implications for a variety of different domains. First, research has shown that the
uncomfortable feeling associated with imbalanced patterns influences the formation of new
attitudes. Specifically, it has been demonstrated that newly formed attitudes usually complete
triadic relations in a manner such that the resulting triad is balanced rather than imbalanced.
For example, if Sarah learns that a yet unknown individual is liked by her friend Alice, Sarah
will form a positive attitude toward this individual. However, if Sarah learns that the same
individual is disliked by her friend Alice, Sarah will form a negative attitude toward this
individual.
Second, research has demonstrated a general superiority in memory for balanced as compared
to imbalanced information. For instance, people show higher accuracy in recalling balanced
patterns such as “Peter likes John, John dislikes Paul, and Peter dislikes Paul.” However,
people show lower accuracy in recalling imbalanced patterns such as “Peter likes John, John
dislikes Paul, and Peter likes Paul.” This difference in memory performance is even more
pronounced when the triad includes the perceiver (e.g., “I like John, John dislikes Paul, and I
dislike Paul”).
Third, balance principles have been shown to have important implications for people’s
identity and the way people feel about themselves. Research in this area has shown that
mental associations between the self and a particular group, evaluations of this group, and
personal evaluations of oneself typically show patterns that can be described as balanced
rather than imbalanced. For instance, if a Black person has a strong mental association
between the self and the category Black, and in addition shows a positive evaluation of the
cate-gory Black, this person will also exhibit a positive self-evaluation (i.e., “I’m Black,
Black is good, therefore I’m good”). However, if a Black person has a strong mental
association between the self and the category Black, but shows a negative evaluation of the
category Black, this person will likely exhibit a negative self-evaluation (i.e., “I’m Black,
Black is bad, therefore I’m bad”). According to balance theory, this transfer of evaluations is
due to the inherent “unit” between the self and the category Black.
Social Comparison Theory
We all compare ourselves to others in our social worlds, whether it is comparing our looks to
those of celebrities we see in the media or our talents to those of our coworkers. In
psychology, social comparison theory is one explanation for this tendency we have to make
comparisons between ourselves and others.
9
The social comparison process involves people coming to know themselves by evaluating
their own attitudes, abilities, and traits in comparison with others. In most cases, we try to
compare ourselves to those in our peer group or with whom we are similar.
There are two kinds of social comparison:
Upward Social Comparison
This takes place when we compare ourselves with those who we believe are better than us.
These upward comparisons often focus on the desire to improve our current status or level of
ability. We might compare ourselves to someone better off and look for ways that we can
achieve similar results.
Downward Social Comparison
This takes place when we compare ourselves to others who are worse off than us. Such
downward comparisons are often centered on making ourselves feel better about our abilities
or traits. We might not be great at something, but at least we are better off than someone else.
People compare themselves to those who are better when they want inspiration to improve,
and they compare themselves to those who are worse when they want to feel better about
themselves.
Examples of Social Comparison Theory in Action
According to Festinger, people rely on these comparisons with other people to accurately
assess their own abilities, traits, and attitudes. In cases where your comparisons are not
effective, you might find yourself getting into situations that are too difficult or complex for
your current skill levels.
For example, if you compare yourself to your friends and feel that you are pretty physically
fit, you might sign up for a marathon believing that you have the ability to finish with no
problem. When race day arrives, you might find yourself surrounded by people who are much
more athletic than you and realize that your initial assessment of your abilities was overly
optimistic.
When we can, we may put these comparisons to the test in real-world settings.
Upward Comparison
For example, if you want to assess your skill as a basketball player, you might start by
playing a game with your friends or practice shooting free throws. Once you have a good
understanding of what you are capable of, you might then begin comparing your performance
to other people that you know. You might immediately think of a friend who plays on his
school's basketball team. This is an example of upward social comparison.

10
In comparison to him, your performance is not nearly as skilled. At first you may feel
discouraged by the gap between your ability levels. But you might also realize that you can
eventually achieve a similar skill level with a little practice. In this case, the upward social
comparison may make you more motivated to improve upon your abilities.
Downward Comparison
You might then compare your abilities to a friend who couldn't make a basket to save his life.
In comparison, your performance is much better. This is an example of downward social
comparison. In this case, observing your friend’s poor skills actually makes you feel even
better about your own abilities.
Some comparisons might make you feel inadequate and less likely to pursue a goal, while
others give you confidence and help boost your self-esteem.
Q.NO.5. which factors are important in the selection of a partner for men and women?
Ans: Most of us seek a partner, for life or at least for a while. But how do we choose? After
all, we meet hundreds, even thousands, of people in the course of our daily lives. What makes
two people pick one another from among the myriad available candidates? Psychological
science has long been trying to answer this question, and with considerable success.
Two main theories have guided scientific thinking on the subject. First is evolutionary theory,
which claims that behavioral tendencies, physical characteristics, and personality features that
promote our chances to survive and reproduce become, by that virtue, desirable to us. In
addition, biological and anatomical differences between organisms will dictate different
optimal solutions to the same problem. For example, if two animals, one with nimble feet and
the other with strong wings, encounter a hungry predator, how will they deal with the
survival threat?
Most likely, the first animal will run away and the second will fly off.
Likewise, the evolutionary approach predicts that the biological and anatomical differences
between men and women will result in different preferences for partner selection. For
example, human biology dictates that women need help and protection during pregnancy, and
that their fertility is time-limited. Therefore, it makes sense that men who can provide
protection will be deemed attractive to women, and that young—and hence fertile—women
will be attractive to men. Indeed, studies show that when it comes to long-term relationships,
women overall emphasize the importance of status parameters while men find female youth
highly attractive.

11
On the other hand, "social role theory," developed by the American psychologist Alice Eagly,
argues that social—rather than biological—processes dictate our social choices. According to
this argument, the mate selection rules are dictated by the roles that women and men occupy
in society. Thus, people's preferences in the search for a mate are expected to shift as social
roles and norms shift. For example, women are attracted to men with power and money
because society limits their own ability to gain power and money. If, tomorrow, most
positions of power and money go to women, then a man’s status and wealth will matter much
less to women, while male beauty, youth, and stamina may come to matter more.

Indeed, studies over the past 50 years show some fundamental changes in mate preferences
among both men and women. For example, since maintaining a comfortable life on one
salary has become difficult in Western countries, and since most women in those countries
work and earn income, both men and women currently put more emphasis than before on the
partner’s economic and social status when choosing a life partner. Matters of housework,
such as cooking and cleaning capabilities, on the other hands, are no longer considered
important criteria for selecting a partner in both sexes. These changes indicate that the culture
has an impact on the qualities we deem attractive.
Motivations be what they may, studies from the 1940s to the present point to the existence of
several well-supported "laws of attraction" that govern the general process of choosing a
long-term mate:
1. Exposure and Familiarity.
In general, we grow to like those around us and those with whom we have frequent
contact. The more time we spend with someone, the greater the chances that we'll like,
accept, and fall in love with him or her. Now granted, we all know someone with whom
increased interaction causes increased frustration and resentment, but that is the exception
that proves the rule. Simple exposure is one reason why many a romance blooms at work
or at the university. Daily contact over time turns strangers into friends, and more.
2. Physical Attraction.
Physical beauty is an important life advantage, and it is of fundamental significance in the
mating game. Bottom line: You do not want to spend your life with someone you find
physically repellent. Physical attraction, it turns out, obeys the laws of the market: The
best goods cost more, and so buyers do not get what they want but what they can afford.
Ultimately, the rich drive the Mercedes, the middle class drives the Toyota and the poor

12
 ride the bus. Similarly with physical attractiveness, beautiful people end up with others
who are very beautiful, average looking with average looking, etc.
3. Personality and Character.
Research on the personality factors that attract us to others (and others to us) has
identified two personality factors that are considered across the board desirable:
competence and warmth. Competent people, that is to say intelligent and socially skilled,
are considered more attractive. Kind people with a warm personality are also more
attractive. Warm and wise is a winning pair in the mate selection tournament.
4. Proximity.
Most of us will marry someone who lives within walking or driving distance. We are
unlikely to persist in a relationship or get married to someone who’s a transatlantic flight
away. The great poet Yehuda Amichai wrote, "Advice for good love: Don't love those
from far away. Take for yourself one from nearby. The way a sensible house will take
local stones for its building.” And the poet was right—most of us choose from the nearby
selection. Long-distance relationships are more difficult to nurture, and they survive
much less often.
5. Similarity.
This is without a doubt the most powerful finding in this area. We are drawn to people
who are like us. Christians will appeal to other Christians, educated people are drawn to
other educated people, leftists love leftists, extroverts love extroverts, etc. On almost
every parameter of background, personality, values, and experience, we prefer someone
who has a lot in common with us over someone who is totally different from us, and also
over someone who "completes" or complements us. The ocean wants the ocean, not the
beach, and not the boat. One reason for this preference is that it’s easier for us to
communicate, understand, know, and trust someone who speaks our language, gets our
culture, shares our values, or believes in our God. The second reason is that loving
someone similar to us amounts, psychologically, to killing two birds with one stone: He’s
wonderful, and he’s just like me; therefore, I'm wonderful! And who does not want to feel
wonderful?
How We Decide
Several years ago, in an attempt to refine our understanding of the forces that shape mate
selection, American researchers Todd Shackelford, David Schmitt, and David Buss analyzed
the responses of more than 9,000 women and men from 37 countries to a questionnaire about
their preferences regarding potential life partners. The researchers used a technique called
13
"principal components analysis." This technique seeks to reduce a wide universe of data into
a small number of basic underlying factors. For example, millions of cars travel on the roads
all the time, going here and there. But all this commotion can be reduced to two basic
components: direction and speed. These are the only factors controlled by the driver, and all
the driving being done can be explained by some combination of these two factors alone.
The researchers identified four universal components underlying the process of mate
selection. Each of these four components amounts to an internal negotiation we perform
when choosing a romantic partner. Here are the four components, in order of importance.
1. Love vs. Status/Resources.
When choosing a partner, we frequently engage in internal negotiations whereby the
value of romantic love is pitted against the value of social status and economic security. If
the love is strong, we may sacrifice security or economic status. If the potential partner’s
status is high, we may compromise regarding the intensity of our romantic feelings.
2. Dependable/Stable vs. Good Looks/Health.
When choosing a partner, we tend to compromise regarding emotional stability if the
potential partner is very attractive physically. Alternatively, we may agree to accept a less
attractive partner if they are exceptionally stable and emotionally sound.
3. Education/Intelligence vs. Desire for Home/Children.
We tend to forgive a partner who’s pursuing higher education and a career if they are not
interested in having many children. Conversely, we may forgive the limited educational
and career achievements of someone who really wants to have children and raise a large
family.
4. Sociability vs. Similar Religion.
Someone of the same religion as us will be seen as an attractive choice even if he or she
does not possess a particularly sociable character. A potential partner who’s very sociable
by nature will attract us even if they don’t share our religious background.
These four factors operate, independently, in both men and women; but for the first three,
significant differences were found between the sexes. In general, women place more
importance on socio-economic status than romantic love. Women also prefer emotional
stability to attractive appearance, and they prefer intelligence to the desire to have children.
Status, emotional stability, and intelligence are less important features for men when they
seek a long-term partner. Men emphasize the value of external beauty, youth and physical
health, and a desire for children.

14
In addition, studies indicate that women are more selective and demanding than men when
choosing a life partner. One reason is that women have more to lose in making a bad choice.
The poet Margaret Atwood once said: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them.
Women are afraid men will kill them." Women are more vulnerable, and so they need to be
more cautious. Another reason for female selectivity is that bringing an offspring into the
world is a much more demanding and dangerous matter for a woman than it is for a man. The
one who is going to invest more and take a greater risk necessarily examines the investment
more carefully.
In conclusion, we understand quite well the basic calculations people use to identify a group
of potential candidates from which to pick a mate. In contrast, there is no scientific answer
yet to the "final selection" question: how do we choose just one from a group of suitable
candidates?
The laws of selecting candidates, it turns out, do not apply to the final selection phase. For
example, as mentioned earlier, the most powerful law of attraction at the ‘candidate selection’
stage is that we are drawn to people who resemble us. If the same law was to hold in the
"final selection" stage, we could predict that from a group of rather similar candidates, the
one most similar to us will be picked. We may also assume that the choices of people who are
very similar will be similar as well. But research findings refute these assumptions. It turns
out that we do not choose the one most like us from the candidate group. In addition,
researchers David Lykken and Auke Tellegen have shown in the nineties that the wives of
identical twins are not at all alike. Twins do not tend to covet their co-twins’ wives. The
wives, for their part, are not particularly attracted to their husbands’ twin brothers. These
results imply that biology and society direct us to the right store, one that has items to fit our
budget, taste, and needs. Biology and society, however, cannot determine which item we buy.
That, we decide on our own.
The winner—the final selection among all the worthy candidates—is decided by a subjective
internal process that is obscure and whimsical and does not necessarily obey the dictates of
rationality, evolutionary mandates, cultural pressures, or even our own conscious will, plans
or intentions. At the end of the day, as the philosopher Blaise Pascal said, the heart has
reasons that reason doesn’t understand.

15
References
 Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality
development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333
 Bartholomew, K., Kwong, M. J., & Hart, S. D. (2001). Attachment. In Handbook of
personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 196–230). New York, NY,
US: Guilford Press.
 ABCT Fact Sheets: Anger. (n.d.).
abct.org/Information/?m=mInformation&fa=fs_ANGER
 Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–
135.
 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
 Insko, C. A. (1984). Balance theory, the Jordan paradigm, and the Wiest tetrahedron.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 89-
140). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201412/laws-attraction-
how-do-we-select-life-partner

16