Overview
Opposites attract or Birds of a feather flock together, which is it and what is behind those sayings? These old proverbs are as common as any other turn of phrase but is there any truth to either of them? Adages about attraction and compatibility aren’t restricted to English, if you speak another language, chances are you’ll know alternative sayings encapsulating the same sentiments.
The phrase “Birds of a feather flock together” implies that romantic compatibility is dictated by similarity. That those who make successful life partners share much in common in the way of physical, personal, and other demographical characteristics.
In contrast, “Opposites attract” posits complementarity as the predominant force behind relationship success. That we’re attracted to what we ourselves lack and that partners different from each other can fill in respective gaps to make a thriving relationship.
We all know couples who’re like two peas in a pod. They seem made for each other sharing the same background, race, personality and even facial bone structure.
Yet we all also encounter couples where each person is very dissimilar to the other. Their place of origin, ethnic background, age, personality and more can differ yet they seem to make a long-term partnership work.
So how do we know whether opposites attract or birds of a feather flock together are true and what explains the presence of both?
Complementarity in relationships
There’s no denying that the idea of complementarity as a foundation for relationships carries allure. The phrase “Opposites attract” is itself evocative — it contains the suggestion that human beings are highly charged forces of whom some of the most polarised will be drawn irresistibly together to form a new whole.
An old wives’ tale it remains not: as far back as the 1950s, academics were formulating theories on people selecting partners based on the complementary needs they could bring to the table. Another study found that people are attracted to others who embody ideal characteristics that they themselves desire but are lacking, implying that people do look for others to ‘fill in the gaps’ in a relationship.
What kinds of traits tend to be complemented the most? The dominance-submissiveness dyad for one. Markey and Markey (2007) found that couples differing more in levels of dominance scored higher in relationship quality and satisfaction than other couples. Even couples who don’t think they’re dissimilar in levels of dominance often are; sometimes it takes a third party to note which person is more dominant or submissive than the other even if the couple themselves are unaware.
Similarity in relationships
Despite the appeal of complementarity, surely we require some shared attributes in a successful relationship? When it comes to the “Birds of a feather” side of the coin, there’s no shortage of research supporting the importance of similarity either.
One study on opposite-sex relationships found that couples were alike on more than 80% of traits examined, traits that included everything from the less surprising alignment on religious and political leanings to the more unexpected behavioural matching on drinking habits and sexual partner count. Another paper found some evidence of similar personalities between romantic partners.
Yet the findings among researchers remain far from unanimous. Even within the aforementioned study on traits, couples did not match on several characteristics such as height, weight, medical issues and many aspects of personality. Even the introversion-extraversion spectrum remains open — extraverts are no more likely to pair up with other extraverts over introverts.
So the opposites attract or birds of a feather question is an issue of synthesis. How do we reconcile both to know when complementarity is prevalent or whether similarity is more favourable in a relationship?
Helen Fisher’s theory: A synthesis of both
The year is 2005. Match.com, the preeminent online dating service at the time wanted to know why people fall in love with certain types of people rather than others. They turned to science for answers, specifically Biological Anthropologist Helen Fisher who they hired as their Chief Science Advisor.
Dr. Fisher wanted a type theory as foundational as possible, one based on brain architecture and physiology rather than just from word or behavioural analysis like many personality tests. She scoured the literature looking for any trait linked with any biological system and found four key types:
Dopamine (Explorer)
Dopaminergic people tend to be curious, energetic, independent and inspirational. They’re “sensation seekers” who aren’t afraid of taking risks and have the mental flexibility to think outside the box. However, their temperament can lead them to be impulsive and unreflective, thinking only outward rather than inward too.
Serotonin (Builder)
Serotonergic individuals are more traditional, cautious, prudent and conscientious. They’re often controlled under pressure and value social cohesiveness holding loyalty in upmost regard. On the flip side, these traits can make them rigid, inflexible and miss the bigger picture.
Testosterone (Director)
Testosteronergic men and women are analytical, competitive, decisive and ambitious. They have a penchant for rule-based systems such as mathematics, computing, and music plus an inquisitive mind that lends itself well to strategic intelligence. Nonetheless, these tendencies can make testosteronergic people domineering, aggressive and insensitive.
Estrogen (Negotiator)
Last but not least, estrogenic humans have a tendency to be intuitive, contextual, holistic and nurturing. They have excellent people skills, being able to read body language and tone of voice well along with being emotionally expressive themselves. On the other hand, they can be overly agreeable and miss detail.
We all have elements of each of the four personality types in our makeup but we undoubtedly express some more than others. The majority of us have a primary type, a predominant biological personality base that influences how we think and behave. But most of us also have a secondary type that we express, just to a lesser degree than our primary type.
What has this got to do with opposites attract or birds of a feather?
These four types aren’t just the bedrock of our personal makeups, they’re hugely determinant of our love and romantic lives too. So much so that they provide the answer to the opposites attract or birds of a feather conundrum — why some relationships thrive due to similarity and others due to complementarity.
How so? Using the types as a basis, Dr. Fisher set up a division of Match.com called ‘Chemistry.com’, integrating a questionnaire that assigned individuals their type prior to starting their dating journey on the site. Once the online soul-searching began, she could discover which types gravitated to which organically, a perfect gathering of social science data.
The outcome? More than 28,000+ results (since then more than 15 million people across 40 countries have now taken the survey) showing people’s romantic tendencies in terms of personality.
She reliably found that:
Explorers (Dopaminergic) tend to bond with other Explorers — Similarity
Builders (Serotonergic) tend to bond with other Builders — Similarity
Directors (Testosteronergic) tend to bond with Negotiators (Estrogenic) — Complementarity
Negotiators (Estrogenic) tend to bond with Directors (Testosteronergic) — Complementarity
In other words, half the types exhibited similarity (birds of a feather) and the other half exhibited complementarity (opposites attract).
By now some of you may have had an aha moment. If you’re in a relationship wondering why you can’t understand how your other half thinks yet you’re both fond of each other and make it work, there’s a good chance you’re a Director-Negotiator pairing. As Dr. Fisher herself describes this pairing: “They might love each other but can’t understand which planet they are on.” An embodiment of the testosterone-estrogen dyad, polarised opposites yet so right for each other. And if you’ve been thinking how your partner is almost another version of you, chances are you’re an Explorer or Builder and your partner is too.
Of course not all successful relationships fit this mold exactly. There will be exceptions, some of which will be due to the aforementioned secondary types coming to the fore which will affect the relationship dynamic. And it’s true that all good couples must share things in common to make a relationship work, even the Directors and Negotiators. But as a general observed tendency, Fisher’s theory remains reliable.
Still, it’s fair to say that most scientific research such as meta analyses of hundreds of studies find correlations leaning towards similarity as the dominant paradigm in relationship compatibility. Why is this the case?
It’s because behind any personality type pairing is a requisite underpinning of shared values and beliefs. Those core tenets so foundational to who we are and how we operate that a partner’s alignment with them is non-negotiable. A Director type might experience an indescribable attraction for a Negotiator type but if they differ in religious beliefs, political leanings, and opinions on the value of family, the relationship won’t work no matter how strong the initial lust. It’s due to this compulsion of at least some shared core values that similarity literature dominates the online landscape of the subject, even though such articles and studies miss the key distinction of how and when opposites do attract.
Summary – Opposites attract or birds of a feather?
Opposites attract or birds of a feather flock together, two long standing proverbs yet contradictory to one another. Both contain a kernel of truth, but when and how?
Opposites attract stands for complementarity — the idea that one partner’s gaps are filled in by a partner with different attributes making both ‘whole’ together.
Birds of a feather stands for similarity — the idea that compatibility is best determined by matching attributes and traits.
Dr. Helen Fisher’s theory synthesizes the two. Most of us exhibit a predominant personality expression underpinned by our neuronal wiring and fall into one of four types: Dopamine (Explorer), Serotonin (Builder), Testosterone (Director), and Estrogen (Negotiator).
In romantic relationships, Explorer and Builder types bond best with those who are similar to them, other Explorers and Builders respectively. In contrast, Directors and Negotiators bond best with each other, both personality types being complementary to one another.
Consequently, across a population, the observance of opposites attract can be explained by testosteronergic and estrogenic pairings while birds of a feather flock together can be explained by dopaminergic-dopaminergic and serotonergic-serotonergic pairings.
Nevertheless, whether opposites attract or birds of a feather, all successful relationships are underscored by common shared values and beliefs that strengthen a couple’s compatibility with one another for the long run.
