Attractiveness
Attraction in Psychology: Why are we drawn to this particular person?
Attraction in Psychology: Why are we drawn to this particular person?
DESCRIPTION: The Psychology of Attraction: Why are we drawn to a particular person? Freud, Lacan and research into attractiveness, intimacy and the misattribution of arousal.
The Psychology of Attraction: Why We Are Drawn to This Particular Person
People describe strong attraction in terms of fate: ‘It clicked’, ‘the chemistry is right’, ‘I recognised him before we’d even exchanged a word’. The feeling is so strong that it validates itself. This article examines what happens in that moment. Freud called it repetition. Experimental psychology refers to it as the misattribution of arousal, and research into mate selection shows that we know very little about our own preferences.
In everyday life, attraction is also referred to as charisma, charm or allure. Psychology distinguishes between physical, sexual and emotional attraction, whilst in psychoanalysis the core of it is called desire.
What people say, and what they do
In a 2008 study published in the *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel asked participants, prior to a speed-dating evening, to state which qualities they sought in a partner. Men were more likely to mention physical attractiveness, whilst women were more likely to mention earning potential. During the speed-dating event itself, the qualities they had mentioned did little to predict who they actually felt attracted to. There is a wide gap between the preferences people state when asked and the attraction they actually experience.
This is an uncomfortable finding for any self-help literature that describes attraction as a match between lists of qualities. Anyone who says they want reliability, yet then forms a bond with someone unreliable, contradicts themselves according to those very rules. Psychoanalysis interprets this contradiction as a message.
What research says about attractiveness, proximity and similarity
Social psychology identifies factors that foster attraction. Physical proximity is one of them: in 1950, Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back demonstrated in a housing estate at MIT that friendships most frequently developed between neighbours. Repeated encounters increase liking, as Robert Zajonc described in 1968 as the mere-exposure effect. Physical attractiveness has a strong influence, particularly at the outset: in 1966, at a dance evening with randomly assigned couples, Elaine Walster and her colleagues found that attractiveness was a better predictor of mutual liking than intelligence or personality traits.
These factors explain who is even considered as a potential partner. They do not, however, explain why, out of several possibilities, one in particular triggers attraction.
The excitement we attribute to the wrong thing
In 1974, Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron conducted a well-known experiment on two bridges in British Columbia. Men who had crossed a swaying suspension bridge over a gorge were approached by an interviewer. She gave them her telephone number in case they had any questions. Significantly more of the men on the suspension bridge rang her up than those on another, stable bridge. The authors interpreted this as misattribution: the excitement caused by the height was attributed to the woman. Subsequent replications yielded mixed results, but the basic idea is nevertheless considered plausible in the psychology of emotion. Physical arousal requires an explanation, and the situation provides one.
As regards the question of attraction, this means that a racing heart says nothing about who is the cause. Anyone experiencing uncertainty, excitement or danger seeks an object and finds one. This explains why people feel so strongly attached in relationships with those who are unavailable, fickle or moody. The uncertainty generates the arousal, and the arousal captivates the person.
Freud: The old scene returns
In ‘On the Dynamics of Transference’ (1912), Sigmund Freud describes how every person, through innate disposition and early experience, develops a particular way of loving. They constantly bring this pattern – their ‘cliché’, as Freud puts it – into their lives and repeat it, as far as external circumstances allow. In analysis, this manifests as transference. In life, it manifests as partner choice.
In ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ (1920), Freud takes this further. He observes that people repeat painful experiences and attributes this to a ‘compulsion to repeat’. His examples are people in whose lives the same circumstances recur: the benefactor who, after a while, is abandoned in resentment by each of his protégés; the man whose friendships invariably end in betrayal; the woman who marries a man three times, only for him to fall ill shortly afterwards, leaving her to care for him. What appears to be fate is, according to Freud, largely self-inflicted and determined by influences in early childhood.
According to this interpretation, attraction is recognition. The other person awakens something that once existed: an attitude, a tone of voice, a pattern of closeness and withdrawal. The feeling of familiarity that people take as proof of a kindred spirit points to an earlier scene. The more familiar the scene, the stronger the attraction. Anyone who has grown up in a family where love had to be earned feels drawn to those who withhold it. Anyone who knows affection only in alternation with coldness finds consistency boring.
This explains why ‘chemistry’ often arises in relationships that end badly, and is absent where things are calm: calmness lacks that old spark.
Lacan: The object that is never attained
Jacques Lacan adds a second level. According to his theory of the object a, desire is directed towards something it can never quite attain. The object of attraction stands in for a lack. We love in the other what we lack, and desire persists longest where the other withholds something. Lacan’s formula – that to love is to give what one does not have – belongs in this context: what is desired in the other is something they do not possess. It does not follow that attraction grows with distance, but it does follow that fulfilment jeopardises it.
Herein lies the connection with limerence. In 1979, in *Love and Limerence*, Dorothy Tennov described a state of involuntary, compulsive infatuation in which the uncertainty about whether the affection is reciprocated keeps the state alive. Those who are certain of the affection lose interest in the fantasy. Unattainability keeps desire going, as Lacan describes it.
This differs greatly from the everyday understanding. Chemistry is commonly regarded as a sign that two people are a good match. If it indicates repetition and lack, then it is an indication of what each of them brings with them from their own history. It does not tell us whether things will work out.
Sexual attraction and love
Sexual attraction and emotional attachment do not always coincide. In 1912, in ‘On the General Degradation of Love Life’, Freud described a split between tender and sensual currents, which coexist in children but can diverge in adults: those who love tenderly find it hard to desire, and those who desire find it hard to love tenderly. Sexual attraction then turns towards people who are far removed from tenderness. This explains why some people lose their desire in a settled relationship and rediscover it with strangers.
The kitsch of the ‘spark’
Talk of ‘the spark’, of soulmates and of that one person you recognise fulfils a cultural function. It allows us to experience repetition as a choice. Anyone who believes that the ‘spark’ is a sign need not ask what old pattern is at play. This is convenient and explains the popularity of the idea. The cost becomes apparent when someone finds themselves in the same relationship a second and third time, believing in fate each time.
Attachment research describes a similar pattern. People with an anxious attachment style strikingly often end up with partners who have an avoidant attachment style. One fears loss, the other fears closeness, and both confirm each other’s pre-existing expectations. This describes a dynamic, but says nothing about its origin. The psychoanalytic question goes further: which scenario is being played out here, and who plays which role in it?
Can attraction fade?
Attraction changes when the scenario changes. At the start, uncertainty fuels the excitement: if he replies, she gets in touch. As reliability sets in, the tension eases, and what was once seen as ‘chemistry’ fades or transforms into tenderness. Anyone who then searches for that spark is confusing tension with attraction.
What attraction is
One should not conclude from all this that attraction can never be healthy and mutual. There are encounters in which old patterns resurface and yet something new emerges. The difference lies in whether the other person has to remain in the old role. Where they behave differently from what the situation demands, it becomes clear whether the attraction is directed towards them or towards repetition. Sometimes it remains, sometimes it vanishes abruptly. Both are revealing.
Ultimately, the choice of partner remains a question of the history that each person brings with them. This is where Freud comes in.
The most important points in brief
· Strong attraction is self-fulfilling and says little about how well two people are suited to one another.
· People often know little about their true preferences: the characteristics mentioned did not predict who was attracted to whom during speed dating (Eastwick and Finkel 2008).
· Physical arousal seeks an object and finds it (Dutton and Aron 1974; later replications have yielded inconsistent results).
· According to Freud, attraction is the recognition of an old scene that repeats itself.
· According to Lacan, desire is directed towards a lack, and fulfilment jeopardises it.
· Closeness, repeated encounters and attractiveness explain who is a potential match, rather than who triggers the pull.
· Attraction fades or persists as soon as the other person steps out of their old role.
Sources and further reading
· Freud, S. (1912): On the Dynamics of Transference.
· Freud, S. (1912): On the General Degradation of the Life of Love.
· Freud, S. (1920): Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
· Lacan, J. (1960/61): The Seminar, Book VIII: Transference.
· Lacan, J. (1964): The Seminar, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis.
· Tennov, D. (1979): Love and Limerence.
· Eastwick, P. W. and Finkel, E. J. (2008): Sex differences in mate preferences revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
· Dutton, D. G. and Aron, A. P. (1974): Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(4), 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037031
· Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950): Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper.
· Zajonc, R. B. (1968): Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
· Walster, E. et al. (1966): The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(5), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021188
Related
DESCRIPTION: The Psychology of Attraction: Why are we drawn to a particular person? Freud, Lacan and research into attractiveness, intimacy and the misattribution of arousal.
The Psychology of Attraction: Why We Are Drawn to This Particular Person
People describe strong attraction in terms of fate: ‘It clicked’, ‘the chemistry is right’, ‘I recognised him before we’d even exchanged a word’. The feeling is so strong that it validates itself. This article examines what happens in that moment. Freud called it repetition. Experimental psychology refers to it as the misattribution of arousal, and research into mate selection shows that we know very little about our own preferences.
In everyday life, attraction is also referred to as charisma, charm or allure. Psychology distinguishes between physical, sexual and emotional attraction, whilst in psychoanalysis the core of it is called desire.
What people say, and what they do
In a 2008 study published in the *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel asked participants, prior to a speed-dating evening, to state which qualities they sought in a partner. Men were more likely to mention physical attractiveness, whilst women were more likely to mention earning potential. During the speed-dating event itself, the qualities they had mentioned did little to predict who they actually felt attracted to. There is a wide gap between the preferences people state when asked and the attraction they actually experience.
This is an uncomfortable finding for any self-help literature that describes attraction as a match between lists of qualities. Anyone who says they want reliability, yet then forms a bond with someone unreliable, contradicts themselves according to those very rules. Psychoanalysis interprets this contradiction as a message.
What research says about attractiveness, proximity and similarity
Social psychology identifies factors that foster attraction. Physical proximity is one of them: in 1950, Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back demonstrated in a housing estate at MIT that friendships most frequently developed between neighbours. Repeated encounters increase liking, as Robert Zajonc described in 1968 as the mere-exposure effect. Physical attractiveness has a strong influence, particularly at the outset: in 1966, at a dance evening with randomly assigned couples, Elaine Walster and her colleagues found that attractiveness was a better predictor of mutual liking than intelligence or personality traits.
These factors explain who is even considered as a potential partner. They do not, however, explain why, out of several possibilities, one in particular triggers attraction.
The excitement we attribute to the wrong thing
In 1974, Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron conducted a well-known experiment on two bridges in British Columbia. Men who had crossed a swaying suspension bridge over a gorge were approached by an interviewer. She gave them her telephone number in case they had any questions. Significantly more of the men on the suspension bridge rang her up than those on another, stable bridge. The authors interpreted this as misattribution: the excitement caused by the height was attributed to the woman. Subsequent replications yielded mixed results, but the basic idea is nevertheless considered plausible in the psychology of emotion. Physical arousal requires an explanation, and the situation provides one.
As regards the question of attraction, this means that a racing heart says nothing about who is the cause. Anyone experiencing uncertainty, excitement or danger seeks an object and finds one. This explains why people feel so strongly attached in relationships with those who are unavailable, fickle or moody. The uncertainty generates the arousal, and the arousal captivates the person.
Freud: The old scene returns
In ‘On the Dynamics of Transference’ (1912), Sigmund Freud describes how every person, through innate disposition and early experience, develops a particular way of loving. They constantly bring this pattern – their ‘cliché’, as Freud puts it – into their lives and repeat it, as far as external circumstances allow. In analysis, this manifests as transference. In life, it manifests as partner choice.
In ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ (1920), Freud takes this further. He observes that people repeat painful experiences and attributes this to a ‘compulsion to repeat’. His examples are people in whose lives the same circumstances recur: the benefactor who, after a while, is abandoned in resentment by each of his protégés; the man whose friendships invariably end in betrayal; the woman who marries a man three times, only for him to fall ill shortly afterwards, leaving her to care for him. What appears to be fate is, according to Freud, largely self-inflicted and determined by influences in early childhood.
According to this interpretation, attraction is recognition. The other person awakens something that once existed: an attitude, a tone of voice, a pattern of closeness and withdrawal. The feeling of familiarity that people take as proof of a kindred spirit points to an earlier scene. The more familiar the scene, the stronger the attraction. Anyone who has grown up in a family where love had to be earned feels drawn to those who withhold it. Anyone who knows affection only in alternation with coldness finds consistency boring.
This explains why ‘chemistry’ often arises in relationships that end badly, and is absent where things are calm: calmness lacks that old spark.
Lacan: The object that is never attained
Jacques Lacan adds a second level. According to his theory of the object a, desire is directed towards something it can never quite attain. The object of attraction stands in for a lack. We love in the other what we lack, and desire persists longest where the other withholds something. Lacan’s formula – that to love is to give what one does not have – belongs in this context: what is desired in the other is something they do not possess. It does not follow that attraction grows with distance, but it does follow that fulfilment jeopardises it.
Herein lies the connection with limerence. In 1979, in *Love and Limerence*, Dorothy Tennov described a state of involuntary, compulsive infatuation in which the uncertainty about whether the affection is reciprocated keeps the state alive. Those who are certain of the affection lose interest in the fantasy. Unattainability keeps desire going, as Lacan describes it.
This differs greatly from the everyday understanding. Chemistry is commonly regarded as a sign that two people are a good match. If it indicates repetition and lack, then it is an indication of what each of them brings with them from their own history. It does not tell us whether things will work out.
Sexual attraction and love
Sexual attraction and emotional attachment do not always coincide. In 1912, in ‘On the General Degradation of Love Life’, Freud described a split between tender and sensual currents, which coexist in children but can diverge in adults: those who love tenderly find it hard to desire, and those who desire find it hard to love tenderly. Sexual attraction then turns towards people who are far removed from tenderness. This explains why some people lose their desire in a settled relationship and rediscover it with strangers.
The kitsch of the ‘spark’
Talk of ‘the spark’, of soulmates and of that one person you recognise fulfils a cultural function. It allows us to experience repetition as a choice. Anyone who believes that the ‘spark’ is a sign need not ask what old pattern is at play. This is convenient and explains the popularity of the idea. The cost becomes apparent when someone finds themselves in the same relationship a second and third time, believing in fate each time.
Attachment research describes a similar pattern. People with an anxious attachment style strikingly often end up with partners who have an avoidant attachment style. One fears loss, the other fears closeness, and both confirm each other’s pre-existing expectations. This describes a dynamic, but says nothing about its origin. The psychoanalytic question goes further: which scenario is being played out here, and who plays which role in it?
Can attraction fade?
Attraction changes when the scenario changes. At the start, uncertainty fuels the excitement: if he replies, she gets in touch. As reliability sets in, the tension eases, and what was once seen as ‘chemistry’ fades or transforms into tenderness. Anyone who then searches for that spark is confusing tension with attraction.
What attraction is
One should not conclude from all this that attraction can never be healthy and mutual. There are encounters in which old patterns resurface and yet something new emerges. The difference lies in whether the other person has to remain in the old role. Where they behave differently from what the situation demands, it becomes clear whether the attraction is directed towards them or towards repetition. Sometimes it remains, sometimes it vanishes abruptly. Both are revealing.
Ultimately, the choice of partner remains a question of the history that each person brings with them. This is where Freud comes in.
The most important points in brief
· Strong attraction is self-fulfilling and says little about how well two people are suited to one another.
· People often know little about their true preferences: the characteristics mentioned did not predict who was attracted to whom during speed dating (Eastwick and Finkel 2008).
· Physical arousal seeks an object and finds it (Dutton and Aron 1974; later replications have yielded inconsistent results).
· According to Freud, attraction is the recognition of an old scene that repeats itself.
· According to Lacan, desire is directed towards a lack, and fulfilment jeopardises it.
· Closeness, repeated encounters and attractiveness explain who is a potential match, rather than who triggers the pull.
· Attraction fades or persists as soon as the other person steps out of their old role.
Sources and further reading
· Freud, S. (1912): On the Dynamics of Transference.
· Freud, S. (1912): On the General Degradation of the Life of Love.
· Freud, S. (1920): Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
· Lacan, J. (1960/61): The Seminar, Book VIII: Transference.
· Lacan, J. (1964): The Seminar, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis.
· Tennov, D. (1979): Love and Limerence.
· Eastwick, P. W. and Finkel, E. J. (2008): Sex differences in mate preferences revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
· Dutton, D. G. and Aron, A. P. (1974): Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(4), 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037031
· Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950): Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper.
· Zajonc, R. B. (1968): Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
· Walster, E. et al. (1966): The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(5), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021188
Related
Newsletter
Möchten Sie informiert werden, wenn ich einen neuen Blogbeitrag veröffentliche? Tragen Sie sich gern hier ein.
Klicken Sie auf „Kostenlos abonnieren“, wenn Sie meine Datenschutzerklärung gelesen und akzeptiert haben. Ihre Einwilligung können Sie jederzeit widerrufen.
Newsletter
Möchten Sie informiert werden, wenn ich einen neuen Blogbeitrag veröffentliche? Tragen Sie sich gern hier ein.
Klicken Sie auf „Kostenlos abonnieren“, wenn Sie meine Datenschutzerklärung gelesen und akzeptiert haben. Ihre Einwilligung können Sie jederzeit widerrufen.