Walster's 1966 Computer Dance Study

We've seen it played out a thousand times; nerdy guy bumps into his opposite, a Megan Fox-like bombshell; cue initial friendship, dramatic row, eventual discovery of their unrequited love for one another and Hollywood-required happily-ever-after. This may simply be a dramatized example typically reserved for movie screens, but in 1991 Psychologist Lynn McCutcheon found that 77% of undergraduates do believe that opposites attract in relationships. So, why is this widely used proverb often held true? And is it really myth, or is there any supporting evidence?
By the very nature of it being commonly known folk wisdom, familiarity with this saying can be mistaken for accuracy, which can lead to a confirmation bias in what we readily tune into, as we are more likely to tune into information that fits our expectations. This gives the impression that such events occur more frequently than they actually do, also known as the illusion of the availability heuristic; when our perception of how

Although we would like the most attractive partner available, we are more likely to keep someone of equal physical attractiveness. Correspondingly, in 1972, Murstein judged the physical attractiveness of engaged couples and found most to be similar in ratings of attractiveness. Walster's 1966 computer dance study randomly paired participants who were then asked to rate each other. It was predicted that couples who were ranked to be equivalent in looks were more likely to seek a second date, however, in reality, more attractive dates were favoured. Physical attractiveness was also found to be more important than similarities in intelligence and personality, which conflicts with the matching hypothesis. However, there is an ecological validity issue, as in this laboratory environment participants may not have responded to each other as they would in normal day-to-day