Attachment Theory Research Paper

Article

Physical attraction, attachment styles, and dating development

JSPR
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships
30(3) 301–319
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0265407512456673 spr.sagepub.com Franklin O. Poulsen
Thomas B. Holman
Dean M. Busby
Jason S. Carroll
Brigham Young University, USA

Abstract
We test theoretical arguments developed by Hazan and Diamond (2000) suggesting that attachment theory presents a more parsimonious theory of mate selection than Buss’ sexual strategies theory. We hypothesized that physical attractiveness and indicators of attachment anxiety and avoidance would be related to mate choice variables (e.g., number of first dates, and the probability
We used a sample (N ¼ 242) of Latter-day Saint (LDS) young single adults. In general, our results support the idea that both physical attractiveness and attachment dimensions are important for understanding romantic relationship formation and dating processes. Physical attractiveness is generally the strongest predictor, and is more meaningful for females. Implications for theory are discussed.
Keywords
Attachment, physical attractiveness, dating, relationship formation, mate selection

Ground-breaking research by Buss (1985, 1989, 1995) suggested the fundamental importance of physical attractiveness and sex differences in human mate selection. His model has been generally accepted as the definitive view on human mate selection from an evolutionary perspective. More recently, Hazan and Diamond (2000) have suggested an alternative evolutionary explanation of human mate selection. However, there has been

Corresponding author:
Franklin O. Poulsen, School of Family Life JFSB 2082, Provo, UT 84602, USA.
Email: [e-mail]
This thinking led to the following hypothesis:
H1: When entered simultaneously, both physical attractiveness and attachment dimensions should be related to romantic relationships’ initial dating phases.

Hazan and Diamond dismiss sexual strategies theory with its emphasis on physical attractiveness being evaluated singularly as a cue for sexual fertility, but do not reject physical attractiveness as important. They simply see it as just as indicative of pair bond viability as of sexual fertility. Thus, we anticipate that both the physical attractiveness and attachment variables will retain a significant relationship with dating phases in the presence of each other. However, in light of the lack of empirical research on this issue, we have no strong evidence to suggest how these factors will position themselves in the presence of the other, so this part of our study is exploratory and could lead to theoretical clarification. If Hazan and Diamond’s attachment theory of mate selection is correct we expect physical attractiveness to be no more potent a predictor of relationship initiation dating phases for males than it is for females. Furthermore we also expect no sex differences