|
|
Controversy over Similarity Matching for Assortative Mating
Psychological Science
2015, 38 (3):
748-756.
What kind of person are you looking for? What kind of person is the one you ultimately married? How can a series of characteristics be matched between two people that will favor the fruitful development of the marital relationship? These are essential questions with regard to assortative mating, and it is clear that these issues have considerable practical significance. Assortative mating refers to the nonrandom coupling of individuals based on their resemblance to each other on one or more characteristics. Although hypotheses on assortative mating have typically been framed in terms of similarity (i.e., positive assortment ) and complementarity (i.e., negative assortment), numerous studies on mate choice have supported the similarity hypothesis. Homogamy has been reported for numerous characteristics, including facial appearance, relative stature, body mass index, physical attractiveness, education level, socioeconomic status, religion, mental ability, attitudes, attachment style, and some personality traits. Most people ultimately pair with partners who resemble themselves; however, there are some inconsistencies in the existing literature on the association between assortative mating and relationship quality.
We have summarized the extant controversies with regard to three aspects, namely, the roles of perceived similarity and actual similarity, the association between similarity matching and relationship quality, and the link between dominant position and fitness of similarity matching. Specifically, the first controversy involves the question of whether actual similarity or perceived similarity is linked to attraction and relationship satisfaction. While some researchers maintain that actual similarity is critical for facilitates attraction, others argue that only perceived similarity is important. These researchers argue that satisfaction also leads to increased perceived similarity, and that perceived similarity further facilitates satisfaction. Second, although we expect that partners who are similar in terms of their psychological characteristics would get along better and be more satisfied with their relationships, the results of extensive research on this topic have been generally weak and contradictory. Several studies have found a positive relationship between similarity and marital quality for personality-related domains, but not for attitude-related domains. However, other studies have reported that personality similarity had only a negligible additional effect on relationship quality after controlling for the main effects of each individual’s personality. Third, the widespread of similarity matching phenomenon has established its dominant position in the field of assortative mating, but there is no consensus on whether this dominance means absolute fitness. Some researchers emphasize the positive effects of homogamy on marital relationship as well as on reproduction and nurture, so they believe in "what exists is reasonable". However, others find no substantial effect or even undesirable outcomes. In fact, several studies have supported the fitness of dissimilarity-matching under certain conditions, suggesting that similarity and complementarity are not necessarily opposing, but are affected by individual and situational factors.
Several studies have supported dissimilarity-matching under limited conditions, suggesting that similarity and complementarity are not necessarily opposing, but are affected by individual and situational factors.
The underlying causes behind these differences may be complex. Given that most studies have only explored the correlation between assortative mating and marital relationships while ignoring potential moderating or mediating variables, it seems likely that the use of exceedingly simple designs has lead to perceptions of the superiority of similarity matching. Furthermore, different studies have focused on divergent characteristics or sub-characteristics have employed various theories and different measurement scales, potentially leading to inconsistent results.
Finally, some studies may not have been sufficiently precise in their calculations of similarity and the analytical methods employed. In conclusion, future studies should deepen their research focus in order to construct a complete theoretical model with regard to assortative mating, embrace diverse research methods and scientific measurements, ensure consistency in calculations and analytical methods, and conduct further research on the association between assortative mating and relationship quality in both China and in other cultures.
Related Articles |
Metrics |
Comments（0）
|
|
