Sociology Essay: Mate Selection, Similarity, and Complementarity

This sociology essay delves into the complexities of attraction and mate selection, exploring the theories of similarity and complementarity in romantic relationships. It begins with a narrative illustrating the development of a relationship and then investigates the question of why and how people fall in love, referencing key research by authors like Byrne, Shiota, and Levenson. The essay examines the concept of similarity, where individuals are drawn to those with shared traits, and the counter-argument of complementarity, where opposites attract. It discusses methodological concerns in measuring the effects of similarity, and analyzes Shiota and Levenson's study on marital satisfaction and personality traits. The essay also highlights the limitations of previous research and the impact of cultural and generational effects. Ultimately, the essay provides a comprehensive overview of sociological perspectives on attraction and relationship dynamics.

Running head: SOCIOLOGY
Sociology
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

SOCIOLOGY 2
This is the story of a time when the two characters called John and Jenny met with each
other. They met with each other and developed a close friendship. Gradually their friendship
turned into love and they also decided to marry each other. After getting married they had
beautiful children and lived happily ever after. The story of John and Jenny would show people
that why people fall for each other and how they gradually fall into love with one another.
However, there is one question that might always crop up in our mind that why and how people
fall for each other. This really is a very interesting question. It might be because of the fact that
people find some similarities among each other.
As per the research works of eminent authors like Byrne, there is a common tendency
among people to get attracted to each other who they find similar to them and this similarity
often leads to marriage1. However, there also have been several counter-arguments that talk
about the fact that opposites do attract each other2. In other words, they talk about the
complementarity of marriage. Such views are further reinforced by research like that of Shiota
and Levenson (2007)3. They are of the opinion that complimentary marriages are the ones that
1 Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
2 Byrne, D., Clore, L. G., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The Attraction Hypothesis: Do Similar
Attitudes Affect Anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170.
3 Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of a Feather Don't Always Fly Farthest:
Similarity in Big Five Personality Predicts More Negative Marital Satisfaction Trajectories in
Long-Term Marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666-675.

SOCIOLOGY 3
are more successful in the long run. This easy will mainly try to deal with the concepts of the
similarity and the complementarity that comes into play in the act of marriage, with reference to
the romantic heterosexual relationship.
There have been many theories that are given by scholars on the aspect of mate selection.
However, the most commonly given theory in this modern day scenario is that opposites attract
each other. At the same time, this concept is really open for interpretation. This is because it is
expected that the couples who do not find any similarity among their interests will soon end their
relationship and they will also end their marriage. However, Pieternel & Dick, 2008). Felmlee
(2001) has shown that relationships which usually develop from the attraction rising out of the
complementarity usually reach its consummation point quickly.
The complementary need theory (Winch, 1954), shows that for a marriage to be really
working and successful there has to be enough gratification of the need for both. For an instance
for the marriage of John and Jenny to be successful, there must have been some gratification of
their needs so that they can understand and also support each other. A good example of the need
gratification is the fact that the younger women are usually attracted towards elder men who are
economically more stable(Eagly & Wood, 1999, as cited in Pieternel & Dick, 2008). This easy
will also discuss the recent findings for Winch's hypothesis and the reasons for the same will also
be discussed.
There is the sharp and direct contrast to the complementarity theory, which might be
defined by the phrase called birds of a feather flock together'. According to Hill, Rubin, and
Peplau (1976), there is a probability that people who find each other similar in terms of
education, religion, ethnicity, are and other such factors usually tend to get attracted to one

SOCIOLOGY 4
another. This is because they feel that it will help them stay together in the long run. However, it
has also been said that this procedure may not be valid enough as there is a lack of a kind of
insufficiency in these testing methods.
This outlook is mainly suggested by research showing only a very small amount of
similarities between spouses' personality in marriage actually matters or has actually been seen to
be effective (Eysenck, 1990), and in some reported studies (Antill, 1983; Peterson et al., 1989)
no degree of similarity was observed, because couples are usually brought together on a random
basis. The theory of similarity's influence on one's attraction, therefore, needs examination in its
methodological aspects and will be treated accordingly in this essay.
Examination of Similarity and its theory in Romantic Relationships
Summary of Similarity and its theory
The theory of similarity says that individuals have a high chance of falling in a romantic
love affair when they find certain similarities within them. These similarities are usually seen in
aspects like socio economic backgrounds, religious and cultural beliefs, level of intelligence,
physical features. In a nutshell, the similarity has to be present in the overall attitude or
viewpoint that people have over life. . In other words, a girl and a boy will get involved in some
romantic affairs only if they find some similarity among themselves. This similarity is usually in
the form of socioeconomic status or religious backgrounds. According to Byrne (1971), this
concept can be explained through the theories like that of classical conditioning and also the idea
of positive reinforcement. If the relationship is between two individuals who are like mimed then
they will have a kind of similarity in their thought process as well. This, in turn, will make them

SOCIOLOGY 5
feel confident about one another and at the same time, they will also be able to keep their
relationship valid and working in the long run. This will naturally help them in enhancing their
relationship.
There is, however, a difference in the concept of perceived and actual similarity. Many
people are of the opinion that the actual similarity is not really as important as that of the
perceived similarity. There is a fact that the couples might experience or go through the positive
reinforcement, regardless of them believing that the similarity is existing. However, the
similarity might not exist on both sides4. In other words, this can be the scenario that one of the
partners feels that there is a similarity between them while the other does not. In such case, the
attraction will not be existing between them. However, it can also be argued that there are
couples who have a very low actual similarity but their level of attraction is still very high. This
is also because of the idea of ‘complementarity' (Winch et al., 1954). This idea is helpful as it
helps in reminding us that the similarity is only a positive correlate in the entire process of
attraction. This is however not the absolute factor that might determine the whole of a
relationship.
Methodological Concerns in Measuring the Effects of Similarity in the Formation of
Attraction
4 Montoya, M. R., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). perceived similarity Is actual similarity
necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922.

SOCIOLOGY 6
It is noteworthy to say that in various recent researches – post-dating Byrne's studies on
attraction – that though the concept of similarity exists between the couples in the formation of
the attraction. However at the same time, it is also true that couples are selected on a random
basis (Antill, 1983; Peterson et al., 1989); or at most, according to Eysenck (1990), the presence
of similarity is only slightly significant. This can mainly be attributed to the various
methodologies and procedures that are used to measure the level of attraction. This is the claim
that is put forward by the meta-analysis that has been done by Montoya, Horton, and Kirchner
(2008), where they have finally reached to this conclusion that similarity has a direct connection
with attraction. The concept of similarity does in some way or the other help in developing a
kind of attraction among the couples. This might take place within the laboratory settings and not
within the relationships that already exist.
The criticism has been made by the product called the bogus stranger. This mainly
resulted in the outcomes that are devoid of the ecological validity and mainly resulting in
artificial responses. The method originates from Byrne's studies, where the characters or the
participants are given some sets of characteristics that are similar to their own and are asked if
they will be getting attracted to some persona or some individuals who are actually unknown to
them. The person in question is actually an imaginary character and does not exist in reality.
However, there is no direct conversation or interaction between the stranger and the participants.
The entire process takes place through an interviewer who is also known as the confederate.
Though this process has been criticized a lot at the same time this has also proved to be very
useful5. This is because it removes all the external factors that would otherwise interfere with
5 Dryer, C. D., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When Do Opposites Attract? Interpersonal
Complementarity Versus Similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.

SOCIOLOGY 7
how much the participants can actually get attracted to the imaginary stranger. The other
advantages are that this method is affordable and also less time-consuming.
Summary of “Birds of a Feather Don’t Always Fly Farthest” (Shiota & Levenson, 2007)
In this given scenario, it is also very interesting to see that study of Shiota and Levenson
(2007) proposes the alternative for the concept of similarity in the context of marital satisfaction
as opposed to attraction. It is basically a kind of longitudinal study that mainly helps in
understanding the effects of the higher similarity level of the Big Five personality test on the
satisfaction of the married life. Authors have discussed the effects of this test on the different
stages of the married life that brings about a different set of roles and responsibilities. These
varying roles and responsibilities will surely have different kinds of effects on the level of
satisfaction in married life. For an instance, in the first stage of life, the newly wedded people
usually try to please and satisfy one another. So at this stage, the level of their interaction will
naturally be higher.
However, in the later stages, it can be seen that the passion will wear out as there will be
many more important reasons and duties like that of child rearing. There can be many conflicts
and issues like that of child rearing rather any agreement "spouses competing with each other in
similar performance domains and clashing when attempting to complete the same task" (Shiota
& Levenson, 2007, p. 672).
The authors have also given the reviews of the past studies. In other words, there were
several weaknesses in the previous works as well. One of the major faults was the lack of

SOCIOLOGY 8
distinction or the preciseness in the measuring of the similarity between the couples. The other
weakness is that in all the past studies the scholars have only focused on finding the similarity
between the couples who are already in an existing relationship. The study mainly has been done
in a cross-sectional view. The author improved the study's method by conducting a long-term
study but at the same time, also provide a linear trajectory that can be used to predict further
development from the given twelve years of study. Some of the other weaknesses that have been
self-identified are the inclusion of the cultural and the generational effects that were resulted
from the nature of the selected sample and the convenience of the research.
Shiota and Levenson (2007), in their discussion, have also said that complementary
couples might also have a happy and successful marriage in terms of the Big Five personality.
The research also has been conducted on the old and experienced couples who are married for
about 35 years or so. They have also given the same opinion that slowly and gradually there is a
decline in the satisfaction of the married life. However, as stated by the authors, this may not be
true in all the cases. For an instance, this may not be valid for other social domains of personality
such as the dominant/deferent trait that was tested in Winch's studies on complementarity.

SOCIOLOGY 9
Examination of Complementarity and its theory in Romantic Relationships
Defining ‘complementarity’
In this essay, ‘complementarity’, it had been seen that people who are actually different
from one another can end up making a successful relationship. This is because they will feel that
as they are different from one another they will be able to fill the gaps between themselves. The
formal definition for this term is borrowed from Winch's definition of ‘need-complementarity',
which says that an individual will be attracted to another individual who will promise to give the
maximum or the greatest amount of need gratification. (Winch et al., 1954, p. 242). Other terms
used are ‘complementary', which is a form of an adjective that mainly talks about the similarity
between the two partners. It talks about their differences and their similarities.
Winch’s Study and Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection
Winch, Ktsanes, and Ktsanes (1954) made a proposition, the "theory of complementary
needs in mate-selection" that supports the idea of ‘opposites attract'. This proposition has been
made after Winch has used participants like twenty-five, 19 to 26 years old, white, middle-class,
childless married couples who had been married for less than two years, and in which at least one
member of each couple was an undergraduate student (Winch et al., p. 245) for his
experimentation purpose6. He has been using the method of triangulation in this experiment to
6 Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender Characteristics and Relationship Adjustment: Another
Look at Similarity-Complementarity Hypotheses. Journal of Personality, 63, 879-904.

SOCIOLOGY 10
see if people actually marry based on their complimentary requirements. He has been using
various kinds of methods like examining a case history interview of participants, TAT, "need-
interview", which is to find out the type of need pairs present; a case history interview of
participants. He has also used the process called eight cards thematic approach test (Winch et al.,
p. 244).
Winch, in his theory, proposes that either of the two conditions exists. In his arguments,
a complementary relation between partners is essential for their existence. As a matter of
specification, the two conditions are Type 1 and 2. Type 1 difference involves a difference in
intensity. Here, one of the partners is aggressive in their approach, which contradicts the
submissive nature of the other partner. One of the striking features here is the difference in the
need pattern. A person, who needs to be aggressive, possesses a complementary relationship with
someone, who requires a small portion of this expression.
On the other hand, in Type 2 difference mainly revolves around the interactions between
the two persons. Expressiveness in the approach and contrary needs are the two components of
this difference. For example, a person, who needs to be dominant in this approach, indulges in a
relationship with a person, who has deferring needs. Complimentary needs are crucial in both
these differences due to abasement. In one of the need pairs, the existence of abasement-
autonomy and abasement-hostility gives rise to a different continuum, which is devoid of
sufficient explanation through type 1 difference.
Evaluation of Winch’s Need Complementarity
Lack of sufficient evidence and proofs is one of the main weakness in Winch's theory.
This weakness nullifies the desperate attempts to prove the differences within the relationships.

SOCIOLOGY 11
On the other hand, provides justification for the discrepancies through the proposition of
different needs in different relationship levels. Countering Winch proposes that the needs of a
married couple differ from that of two friends. In his theories, use of Edwards Personal
Preference is evident in terms of exploring the dynamics of peer relations. This theoretical
consideration helps in testing the validity of Winchs' inclusive complementary needs within a
relationship.
Insufficient explanations for types of complementary needs compelled Winch to
encounter criticisms. In case of a hypothetical person, fulfilling the complementary needs is
impossible. This is because he is average in his intensity and kindness. The major drive behind
this is conditions needed in case of type 1 and type 2 difference are complementary to the
spectrum, compelling the persons to be on either end of the spectrum. This is in terms of the
intensity within the personality traits.
A possible solution for this is that if the two persons expose similarity in their expression
and have moderate needs, they can have a complementary relation between them. This
proposition adds a hypothetical parameter to the aspect of relation. This is because of the use of
another hypothetical expression for proving the assumptions. Based on the propositions, it can be
said that similarity in the needs and expression of two persons, gives rise to complementarity.
Here, "loosing" is taken care of, which needs tests and evidence for deducing relevant results.
The absence of clarity in the guidelines in complimentary needs is one of the other
weaknesses in Winch's theory. Propositions, only in case of dominance-deference and
nurturance-succorance, add an interrogative parameter to the validity of the theory. Replacement
of the study, through practicability and impracticability, can be useful in terms of establishing the

SOCIOLOGY 12
pairs. Complexities in deciding the criteria of characteristic compliments can be solved through
Schultz's theory of need compatibility. This is through the means of inference. Here, limitations
exist to type 1 difference; however, it acts as a foundation for a complementary relationship.
Conditions are evident in the form of similarity, which is needed within the expressions of the
two persons.
Critics point out the difficulty in the application of Schultz' theory to married couples.
This is because of the limitation of the theory to friendship only. However, the usage of different
circumflex models can be beneficial in terms of testing the dynamics of peer relations. This
usage would enrich the perspectives regarding the differing interpersonal behaviors and the
complementary need pairs. The aim of these theories is to excavate the unexplored realms of
friendship and familial relations. Here, there are possibilities regarding the need for a different
kind of structuring, as per the propositions of Kiesler's Interpersonal Circle.
Empirical research on the Complementary hypothesis
Lack of clarity in supporting evidence aggravates the complexities towards establishing
complimentary hypothesis in the case of married couples. This lacuna deprives the researcher to
gain an insight into the specificity of the theoretical assumptions. Along with this, the weakness
increases the difficulty in terms of assessing the conditions needed for forming the
complementary need pairs7. However, this assessment is needed, as complementarity is often
simplified for providing a better understanding of the relationships to the common people.
7 Zhuang, X. (2004). We or I? Collectivism-Individualism in Chinese and American Values.
Sociology. The University of Victoria.