Cognitive psychologists recognize that choosing a partner is difficult as there is so much information to consider.  As a result, we may use System I thinking to make a decision about a partner – that is, cognitive biases and existing schema based on past experience. Bowlby’s Internal Working Model argues that the schema for a trusting relationship that we create by interacting with our mothers plays a role in how we approach relationships. Markey and Markey argue that people choose a partner that is similar to themselves for self-validation – that is, reaffirming their own self-schema.  Finally, cognitive biases may play a role, such as the halo effect.

Bowlby argued that our adult relationships are the result of the expectations and beliefs that we have formed about ourselves and our close relationships as a result of our experiences with early attachment figures. Hazan and Shaver did a study in which participants were asked to take a “love quiz” which measured both their attachment style in their current relationships and their parents’ behaviour when they were children.  The researchers found that people who were anxious-avoidant in their relationships said that their parents were rejecting and inattentive to their needs, whereas those that were secure in their relationships had parents who were available and responsive to their needs.

This study appears to show that past experience creates schema which can then affect our adult relationships.  The study, however, is problematic. Although the sample size was large, the study was conducted through a local newspaper, which could lead to sampling bias.  The people that took the love quiz were a large age range – and the majority of those that responded were women, making it difficult to generalize the findings. In addition, the study was based on self-reported data.  This may be open to memory distortion as well as demand characteristics.  It is also important to note that the study was done in the US, which means that the participants were from a highly individualistic culture, so the research may not have cross-cultural validity.

Markey and Markey also studied the role that schema play in relationships.  They argue that we seek partners who are similar to us because this validates our sense of self.  In their study, they used questionnaires which first asked students to describe their perfect partner.   Then, they were asked to describe themselves.  The found that what they were looking for was highly correlated with how they described themselves. In a follow-up study, the researchers asked couples to fill out questionnaires about both their own and their partner’s personality.  The results showed that there was a strong correlation between the two.

This research indicates that our self-schema play a key role in what we find attractive.  If people like what we like and have similar values, this helps to validate our sense of self and promote esteem.  The studies, however, are correlational and do not establish a cause and effect relationship.  Although both studies had large sample sizes, the studies were based on questionnaires, meaning that demand characteristics may have played a role.  In addition, as in the first study, there is a sampling bias – the participants were American students.  This research, however, is supported by modern research.  Fiore found in a content analysis of messaging data on a US dating site that users preferred profiles of people that had a high level of similarity to their own profile.  

Finally, we may also use our schema as a way to make quick decisions.  One example of this is a cognitive bias known as the halo effect.  The halo effect occurs when we assume that if someone has one positive trait (for example, physical attractiveness), they will have other positive traits.  Dion et al did a study in which people were given three photos – an attractive, medium attractive and unattractive photo – and then asked to rate the individual on a set of personality traits.  The researchers found that regardless of the gender of the participant or the image in the photo, if the photo was attractive, they were rated as having more positive traits, including being a good potential spouse and successful in work. The researchers made sure that the level of attractiveness of the photos was valid by having 100 students rate the attractiveness of a set of photos and only using those with the highest reliability in ratings.  It could be argued that the study has low ecological validity.  Being asked to rate the personality traits solely on how someone looks is a rather reductionist approach.  However, this is how cognitive biases work – we use them when we do not have enough information to make an informed decision.  It is also true that this is what happens when people apply for jobs.  A photo may play a key role in the judgments made by employers.

The cognitive approach argues that we don’t choose a partner simply because of the quality of their immune system or their fertility.  Instead, choosing a partner is informed by our schema from past relationships and our own sense of self. However, it is impossible to precisely measure these variables or to isolate them to determine a cause and effect relationship. In addition, much of the research that is done shows a sampling bias, focusing on young American students.  This may mean that one’s sense of self is less relevant in collectivistic cultures.  Although most of the research in this essay is done in laboratories, the study by Fiore is based on actual online dating profiles.  This means that the research may be applicable to real life, even outside of the laboratory.

The cognitive approach is a less deterministic approach than the biological approach.  It shows that changing schemas, people may change their approach to dating.  However, as with all of the approaches, it is important not to see relationships through only one lens.  It is clear that an interactionist approach is necessary – involving biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors.