1

Initial physical attraction and romantic compatibility

Megan Nestor

Seton Hill University

SPY 215 Social Psychology

Dr. Jacobs

April 12, 2021

Author Note

Questions regarding this article should be addressed to Megan Nestor, 1 Seton Hill Drive,

Greensburg PA, 15601. Email: m.nestor@setonhill.edu

2

Abstract

This research will look at how initial physical attraction and relationship compatibility contribute

to the start and maintenance of a long-term relationship. This research is important to study and

educate others about because it allows for a better understanding of how romantic relationships

can last long-term. The social psychological perspective allows for a unique insight that will

directly show data that correlates to the influence on long-term relationships. Two different

studies will be discussed that show what is defined as beauty and how it differs between males

and females. Males prefer facial symmetry and females prefer larger features. It is suggested that

time and time again relationships work out better when you are more similar. In contrast,

research has shown that humans often do not choose romantic partners that are similar to their

own personalities. The research presented will provide a possible explanation as to why this

happens. Using the results that will be discussed and further research can provide answers on

why humans are attracted to certain physical features and personality traits.
3

Initial physical attraction and romantic compatibility

Surrounding all individuals is attraction and love. For most people, they go through a

time period where it seems as if just about everyone possible around them is getting married. Has

anyone ever stopped to think, how did these two people fall in love enough to get married? How

does initial physical attraction occur and how are two people perceived to be romantically

compatible? This entire concept has fascinated researchers for a long time now. With this idea of

social interaction, who would research this specific topic? The answer to that question would be

social psychologists. Social psychology provides a unique perspective on social interactions and

perspectives because it studies how someone’s thoughts, feelings and even actions influence

them. With this in mind, social psychology will look at providing a unique perspective to this

question by looking at the influence. Since social psychology directly looks at influence on

individuals, it provides a unique perspective by providing information on how what influence the

start and maintenance of romantic relationships. This research will review the literature on

romantic attraction that focuses on physical attractiveness and personality compatibility and end

with a discussion of sex differences.

Initial physical attraction has been studied for decades now. Social psychologists have

worked to try to define what is considered beauty in society. Grammer and Thornhill first looked

at this concept in 1994. They wanted to try to provide humans with a concrete definition of what

is considered beauty to others. These two researchers based their hypothesis off of the parasite

theory of sexual selection. The parasite theory of sexual selection is based off of four main

assumptions. However, for the purpose of this research, only three of the assumptions will be

explained. The first assumption is that females will choose their male mates based off of

secondary characteristics (Smyth, 1995). Secondary characteristics for males would be things
4

that would be developed from an increase in testosterone. This includes characteristics such as a

defined and larger jaw line, deeper voice and body hair. The second assumption is that the full

expression of these secondary characteristics is impaired as a result of a parasite infection. Third,

females will choose a male that has exaggerated secondary characteristics because they are

trying to greater the chances that they resistant gene to the parasitic infection would be passed on

to the offspring (Smyth, 1995). Grammer and Thornhill hypothesized that females would prefer

more exaggerated facial features and males would prefer facial symmetry when attempting to

define beauty (1994).

These two researchers used college students at as their participants. In order to help

standardized and determine what is considered beauty, Grammer and Thornhill provided

participants with a list of various adjectives to rank (1994). In addition to ensuring that the rating

system was standardized in order to ensure accurate results, the photographs of subjects used

also had to standardized. The photographs were all taken with the same camera. Subjects were

positioned upright and looking directly into the camera and were not allowed to tilt their heads in

any way. All of the pictures taken had the same resolution and were the same size. After the

pictures were taken, the researchers ensured to standardized faces on the computer from there

(Grammer and Thornhill, 1994). The two researchers on this project used 13 points on the

subjects faces to assist in making them more symmetrical. Areas like the eyes, nose, lips and

chin were considered points of importance to make symmetrical by the researchers. This entire

process was done for both male and females subjects. From there, researchers asked the

participants to rank the faces using the system described above. Participants ranked both the

computerized faces and the natural faces (Grammer and Thornhill, 1994). The results of this

study supported the hypothesis that was presented. They had found that males prefer facial
5

symmetry when looking for a physical attractiveness in females. Females seem to prefer more

exaggerated secondary characteristics in males when looking for physical attractiveness

(Grammer and Thornhill, 1994).

This concept of initial physical attraction was looked at again in 1999. With now having a

greater understanding of what is defined as beauty. Researchers wanted look more closely at the

idea of facial symmetry influencing physical attraction. Mealey et al. looked at perceived

physical attraction using monozygotic twins as the subjects. The researchers took each face and

provided participants with mirror images of each side of one twin face. Participants were told

that they had to state which twin was more attractive. Other participants in the study, were rating

the edited photographs. The participants that were rating the computer edited photographs were

aware that they were computer edited photographs (Mealey et al., 1999). The rating system used

by participants came from the Grammer and Thornhill study previously discussed (Mealey et al.,

1999).

In contrast to the Grammer and Thornhill study, Mealey et al., found no difference in the

physical attractiveness between males and females. In this study, females did not seem to prefer

more dominant secondary characteristics. However, this study allowed participants to rank the

same sex. It was found that when males ranked other males, they gave much lower ratings

overall when compared to males ranking female subjects (Mealey et al., 1999). The researchers

found it important to note that while there was no overall difference in attraction ratings between

males and females, males tend to rank attractiveness higher than females as a more important

feature when selecting a mate. However, males are less choosy when it comes to their mate

selection (Mealey et al., 1999). When looking at these two studies, one thing remains consistent.

The consistency is that facial symmetry is found to be considered more attractive.

6

After an initial physical attraction occurs between two individuals, what is needed to fuel

this new burning flame? That is romantic compatibility. Essentially, what makes two individual’s

personalities, work together well enough to develop a long-term relationship. Zentner looked at

this idea to try to learn more about what makes relationships work long-term. Zentner wanted to

work towards determining what personality traits are desirable in long-term relationships and

which ones are not desirable. This was completed over the course of a longitudinal study.

Participants for this study were all half of a romantic relationship. Participants were instructed to

rank various personality characteristics. From there, participants ranked those same

characteristics based on their romantic partner and their own personalities (Zentner, 2005). When

the participants were brought back together almost a year after their initial meeting for the study,

participants were asked to rank their ideal partner. Following this, participants ranked their

partner at home (Zentner, 2005).

Zentner had learned that desirable personality traits for long-term relationships included

openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness. Openness being the most desirable trait in a

romantic relationship. Zentner noted an undesirable trait as neuroticism (2005). While

neuroticism is an undesirable trait, Zenter found that having this personality trait can work in

some instances. If someone is high on the neuroticism scale, their romantic partner would need

to be low on neuroticism and high on openness for the relationship to work long-term. It has

been known that individual’s most often seem to want to have a romantic partner that is most

similar to their own personality. However, that is not what Zentner found to actually occur

between romantic couples. Zentner explained that while people tend to want a romantic partner

with a similar personality to their own, that is not what tends to occur. It is possible that this
7

occurs as a result of individual’s have an impaired perception of what their own personality is

like (Zentner, 2005).

Zentner was not the only person interested in studying romantic compatibility. Markey &

Markey’s study on romantic compatibility found similar results to that of the work of Zentner.

This study hypothesized that those that are looking for a mate, would want someone who is

similar to themselves in warmth but opposite in dominance. The first part of this study looked at

the desired personality traits in romantic relationships among those that are single. The second

part of the study looked at couples who have been in a romantic relationship for at least one year

(Markey & Markey, 2007). In both parts of the study, personality traits in romantic relationships

were the main focus. The findings in the second study supported the hypothesis of Markey and

Markey. These two researchers found that those who had the highest relationship satisfaction

were similar in regard to warmth but opposite when it comes to dominance. They found that

couples who had a low relationship satisfaction were more similar in terms of dominance

(Markey & Markey 2007).

This research has shown that opposites do attract, but only in certain ways. It is best for

couples to be opposite in dominance but rather similar in all other ways. Romantic relationships

that are similar in dominance tend to have a lower relationship satisfaction than those that are

opposite. Research has also shown that individuals may not know their own personalities well.

This was shown in the Zentner and Markey and Markey studies. While it has been found that

romantic partners want someone who is similar in personality to their own, that is not what tends

to occur. It appears to be that individuals have an impaired perception of their own personality

that results in being in a long-term romantic relationship with someone who might not be that

similar to themselves.
8

One might think that when it comes to a long-term relationship romantic compatibility

would be key to making it last. However, there has been a study completed on romantic

relationships and the importance of physical attraction throughout the entire relationship. In

1966, Rottmann looked the importance of physical attraction throughout a relationship and how

those individuals that would be considered extremely attractive could have a negative impact on

their romantic relationship. Rottmann hypothesized that individuals who find themselves to be

socially desirable, they will require their mate to be of the same level as them if not higher, those

that are most similar in social desirability will attempt to date one another, and if someone is

more likely to give a second date to those that are of the same social desirability as them

(Rottmann, 1966).

Rottmann decided to test her hypothesis at a freshmen level college party. People bought

tickets to this party in exchange for the chance of being set up on a date with someone else at the

same party. As participants entered the party, four other sophomore level college students ranked

all participants based strictly on physical attraction on a scale from 1 to 8. 1 being extremely

unattractive and 8 being extremely attractive (Rottmann, 1966). From there participants had to

answer various questions. These questions included things about their current level of

nervousness, how well they feel they personally do with the opposite sex, how attractive they

think they are, what they would expect out of their date and lastly about their personal level of

self-esteem (Rottmann, 1966). The results showed the researcher a couple of things. One being

that males tended to be more judgmental of their dates on about physical attraction than the

women were (Rottmann, 1966). Essentially, if the male did not find the female mate he was

assigned to physically attractive, he was less likely to give her a second date when compared to

females. This was especially seen with males that would consider themselves on the end of
9

extremely attractive. Why would it be that males are more judgmental of their females partners

physical features than females are of males? This was specifically studied by David Buss in

1988.

A replication study of the sex difference mate preferences originally done by David Buss,

an evolutionary psychologist, was completed in 2016. Originally, David Buss found that men

tend to put a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness, as a sign of fertility, when looking for a

long-term romantic partner. Buss explains that males look for signs of fertility rather than

reproductive value (Buss, 1989). Both are associated with age. He explains that reproductive

value peaks in the early teen years and declines steadily from there. Whereas fertility peaks in

the early 20s and, like reproductive value, declines steadily from that age. Males tend to look for

cues of fertility rather than the reproductive value of a female (Buss, 1989). On the opposite

spectrum, women tend to look for signs of financial and social stability. David Buss

hypothesized that women would pick a mate based on off of his ability to provide for a family

and protect others (Buss, 1989). Bech-Sorensen & Pollet also used this hypothesis in their

replication study in 2016.

The replication study had heterosexual participants answered a series of questions

regarding their demographics and mate preferences. The mate preference questions included

about willingness to marry various types of individuals. Factors included younger than the

participant by five or more years, a greater education, someone who has been married before,

someone that would earn much less than you and someone who would not be considered

physically attractive (Bech-Sorensen & Pollet, 2016). The results of this questionnaire had

shown that men have a greater preference for physical attractiveness than women do. This shows

that the implications from the Rottmann study could possibly stand true. While women did not
10

emphasize physical attractiveness, women did put a much greater emphasis on wanting mates

with a steady job and high paying job than men did (Bech-Sorensen & Pollet, 2016). This

replication study showed to have much of the similar results that Buss did in 1988.

It has been known for a long time now that physical attraction plays a key role in the start

of a romantic relationship and romantic combability is needed to maintain the romantic

relationship. When trying to decide on a long-term partner, what is the difference between sexes?

This is something that evolutionary psychologists specifically study. David Buss explains that

evolutionary psychology is a lens that is working to inform all other areas of psychology (2009).

As it is seen throughout the course of research, physical attraction is important to both males and

females. However, males seem to prefer physical attraction more than females. While females

prefer wealth and status. To fully understand this concept, individuals must take a step back to

look at there are evolutionary components to these ideas. When looking for a long-term partner,

males, for as long as time, have looked for cues of fertility (Geary et al., 2003). Cues of fertility

which end up relating to a women’s physical features. Men are subconsciously looking at waist-

to-hip ratio, facial features that can be interpreted as healthy and youthful, and overall symmetry

throughout the entire physical appearance in women (Geary et al., 2003). All these features that

males tend to look at give cues about whether or not a female would be good at childbearing.

Even though females do look at physical features just like males, females put a much

greater emphasis on wealth and status when searching for a long-term romantic partner. Females

do also look at reproductive ability. However, the reproductive ability that they are looking for

are social and materialistic things that the male would be willing to invest into her and her

children’s future (Geary et al., 2003). When females are looking for a long-term partner, it has

been seen across multiple cultures that females prefer males that are culturally successfully.
11

Culturally successful men are seen as dominant and providers. To the female’s eye, this means

that the male will be able to provide for their family (Geary et al., 2003). Essentially, males are

not animals who only care about at physical features and females are not gold diggers. This

concept of sex differences in romantic relationships stems back to the start of time and is still a

part of human mate selection today.

An implication that can be drawn from this study is that, while time has gone by since

original studies were complete, the results about physical attractiveness being surrounded around

symmetry still hold true. While results still hold true, there are areas of future research that can

be looked at. One area of which being researching how mate preferences changes over time. The

majority of articles found discussed mate preferences to those that are college students and

young adults. There were not many studies looking into mate preferences to those in their forties

or even older. Additionally, future research should look at how mate preferences vary across

cultures. The studies looked at in this research looked at Americans and on studied looked at a

European country. Future research that analyzes different cultures could provide insight on not

only mate preferences, but the differences in cultures overall.

12

Reference

Bech-Sorensen, J., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Sex differences in mate preferences: a replication

study, 20 Years Later. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 171-176.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0048-6

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested

in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Buss, D. M. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary

psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 140-148.

Geary, D. C.,Vigil, K., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2003). Evolution of mate choice.

https://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual

selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative

Psychology, 108(3), 233-242.

Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship

experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic

partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517-533.

http://dx.doi.org.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0265407507079241

Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R., & Twonsend, G. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial

attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76(1), 151-158. http://dx.doi.org.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.76.1.151 
13

Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508-516.

http://dx.doi.org.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0021188

Smyth, A. (1995). The Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis: finding its rightful place amoung models of the

evolution of female mate preferences. Retrieved April 11, 2021, from

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/past_papers/smyth.html#:~:text=As described above,

the parasite,genes for their offspring;

Zentner, M. R. (2005). Ideal mate personality concepts and compatibility in close relationships:

A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 242-256.

http://dx.doi.org.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.242