How Do We Pair Off?

Numerous studies have established that Homogamy is the most important predictor of how couples pair off. Homogamy is the tendency to pair off with another person who is similar to us. Most people are attracted to people of about the same beauty, about the same economic status, about the same value system, and often about the same cultural background. It is not true, at least based on most research studies, “that opposites attract.” Typically, like-persons attract. We seek out and associate with people at the same clubs, the same workplaces, and the same universities and colleges. They often introduce their homogamous friends to you and your homogamous friends. Are you at a state, private, or Ivy League college or University? The factors that impacted you ending up in your institution are probably very similar for you and the other student there. Similar people end up in similar places and organizations.

No couple is 100 percent identical. Homogamy does not mean being identical, it simply means being similar. All couples experience both Homogamy and heterogamy. Heterogamy is the tendency to pair off with another person who is different in some ways from us. I once had a student say that she disagreed with the Homogamy principle. She argued that she and her husband were opposites. She explained that she liked country and he liked classical music; she liked Chinese food and he likes Latin; She like basketball and he liked football; and she was majoring in Sociology and he was majoring in Business. I pointed out to her and the other students in the class that they had differing tastes, but both liked music, ethnic foods, sports, and learning. Many studies have demonstrated that the more Homogamy two people are together the higher the odds of the relationship succeeding over the long-run.

Another explanation for pairing off is the Social Exchange Theory, which claims that society is composed of ever present interactions among individuals who attempt to maximize rewards while minimizing costs. It focuses on how rational decisions are made considering the fact that most of us want to maximize our rewards, minimize our losses and make our final choices economically. The formula looks like this: (Max Rewards- Min Costs)=Outcomes. More than once I have challenged my student to do the following activity:

Go down to the cafeteria or commons and pick the person you find to be the least attractive. Ask him/her on a date and pay for everything. At the end of the date give them one kiss that last at least 7 seconds.

The most common response I get from them is “WHY?” Why would anyone in their right mind make such an effort to suffer in this way? My response of course is that we typically won’t do these things because it would reverse the social exchange approach of maximizing rewards while minimizing costs. In the real world, we should and do want more physical attraction, fun, affection, status, economic support, friendship, social belonging, and even popularity from our dating experiences. If you are really fortunate, you might have a date every so often that ranks high on all of these rewards. But, we never truly get the perfect catch in a partner, dating or married. Mostly because we are not the perfect catch either and we tend to pair homogamously with those much like ourselves (Normal people attract to other normal people).

Another major principle that influences who you might pair off with is called Propenquity, or the geographic proximity of two potential mates to one another. Ask most couples you know where they met and you’ll probably here something like: “we went to the same college, summer camp, mission, church, or Peace Corps experiences.” Others meet at work. Still others are introduced by friends of friends’ roommates. Few meet if they are not geographically close to one another.

I’m often asked about the influence of online match-making sites. These are relatively new but they function to compress propenquity at the stage of meeting someone. They actually reduce the influence of propenquity in the acquaintance process. But, eventually couples typically spend time together before they make any long-term commitments. Finally, Filtering is the process of eliminating potential mates from the pool of eligible’s in the market place.

How many students attend your college or university? Take that number and multiply it times 0.6 (In the US about 6/10 of all college or university students are female). This equals the likely number of females in your market place. The remaining number (representing a multiple of 0.4) is the number of males. Knock another 20 percent off the estimate for men and women because some will be married or already in a relationship. That’s the estimated market place total.

Now, how many do you come into contact with each day? If you don’t know then count for two days (simply count the numbers of potential mates you see walking to classes on a Monday then again on a Tuesday. Add in those you interact with at work or in other places. Add in roommate’s friends and families. Finally, add in sorority or fraternity friends). This is your pool of eligibles. Your pool could be as high as 100-300. Were there some you pass or have in the same class that you didn’t count because you know it wouldn’t work? If yes, this is what filtering is about—you filter out based on your best judgment and on Social Exchange principles.

Another factor in the pairing process is the Sex Ratio, or the number of males per 100 females in a given population. The US sex ratio for young adults is out of balance—meaning that there are more males per females in the 18-29 age group. The US Census bureau estimates that there are about 105-114 males per 100 females in this age group which means 5-14 extra males per 100 females in 2000 (taken from Internet 31 March 2009 from A.C.E. Revision II: Adjustment for Correlation Bias http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/pp-53r.pdf ).

In 1970 a researcher named Murstein published a theory of marital selection which has been very useful in understanding how people move from being strangers to the point where they choose to marry or cohabit. The Stimulus-Value-Role Theory of Marital Choice states that as people find someone they are attracted to, they initiate contact, spend time together comparing values and establishing compatibility, and eventually either break things off or make commitments toward marriage or cohabitation (See Murstein, B.I. (1970) Stimulus-value-role: A theory of marital choice, Journal of Marriage and the Family 32, 465-81).

For example, a young man might see a young woman at a fraternity-sorority party and ask his friend if she's single. Eventually he moves over to her side of the room and introduces himself. If, after the forces of homogamy, propenquity, filtering, and social exchange support their interaction, they might go out together in the near future. After enough quality interactions in groups with friends and alone by themselves they feel compatible and similar, they might eventually decide to date exclusively or “steady.” Over time this may lead to a proposal or a decision to cohabit. The original and continuing stimulus helps to establish similar values and eventually leads to semi-permanent or permanent roles.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 816