Where Attraction Begins

People are constantly coming into contact with one another—we are nestled into adjoining seats in college lecture halls, bump into strangers at coffee shops, move into neighboring houses on suburban cul-de-sacs, or spend long hours in catty-corner cubicles at the office. This proximity is often the first step in becoming attracted to someone.

Historically, you can see this in who people choose as their mates. Back in the 1930s, a study examined five thousand marriages performed in a single year, 1931, to determine where the bride and groom lived before their wedding. One-third lived within five blocks of each other and more than one-half lived within a twenty-block radius. Several studies over the decades have uncovered similar patterns. For example, in classrooms with assigned seating, relationships develop as a function of how far people are seated from each other. Students assigned to a middle seat are more likely to make acquaintances than those who are seated at the end of a row. With alphabetical seating, friendships form between those whose names start with nearby letters.

Although being near someone does not guarantee that a sexual spark will be struck, repeated contact (up to a point) with someone increases the odds. One study found that a series of brief—that is, no more than thirty-five-second—face-to-face contacts without even talking to the person increased positive responses. That is, we tend to like the people we see often more than those we see less frequently. In another study, four women research assistants with comparable physical attractiveness attended a college class. One research assistant attended the class fifteen times during the semester, one assistant attended ten times, another five times, and one not at all. None of the women had any verbal contact with the students in the class. At the end of the semester, the students, both men and women, rated how much they liked each of the research assistants. Attraction increased as the number of exposures increased, even though all of the research assistants were fundamentally strangers to the people in the class.

As it turns out, some amount of familiarity creates liking whether you’re talking about a person, a drawing, a word in an unknown foreign language, a song, a new product being advertised, a political candidate, or even a nonsense syllable.

The more frequent a person’s exposure during the crucial early period of introduction, the more positive the response. Why?

We often respond to anyone or anything strange or novel with at least mild discomfort, if not a certain degree of anxiety. With repeated exposure, our feelings of anxiety decrease; the more repeated exposure, our feelings of anxiety decrease; the more familiar we are with someone, the better we are able to predict his or her behavior and thus to feel more comfortable around the person.

Once people are in close proximity, eye contact becomes important. The effect of mutual eye gaze is especially strong for women and men who are “romantics” by nature—those who believe in love at first sight, love for “the one and only,” and love as the key to relationships. In one study, forty-eight women and men came to a lab and were asked to stare into each other’s eyes while talking. The effect of mutual gaze proved powerful.

Many reported that deep eye contact with an opposite-sex stranger created feelings of intense love.

Another study had strangers first reveal intimate details of their lives to each other for half an hour, and then asked them to stare into each other’s eyes for four minutes—without breaking eye contact or making any conversation. Participants again reported deep attraction to their study partners. Two of these total deep attraction to their study partners. Two of these total strangers even ended up getting married!

Too much familiarity, however, can backfire. Traits that are initially deemed positive can become a source of annoyance.

Men who were once described as “funny and fun” become “embarrassing in public.” An attractive “spontaneity” transforms into an unattractive “irresponsibility,” “successful and focused” into “workaholic,” and “strong willed” into “stubborn.” Indeed, a certain amount of “mystery” can be sexually motivating for women, or for men for that matter. Not only can mystery stoke attraction; too much familiarity can quash it. As one woman said in her sexual memoir, “proximity can kill sex faster than fainting.”

Just as overexposure can douse the fire of sexual attraction, its opposite—novelty—can stoke its flames. Psychologist Daryl Bem sums it up with the phrase “the exotic becomes erotic.” Indeed, in college classes in which instructors ask women to list the qualities they find sexually attractive, “mysterious” invariably emerges on the list.

Humans come blessed with five known senses—sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste—and the sensory cues that enter into attraction tend to have greater effect with physical closeness.

That’s particularly true when considering one of the strongest ingredients in sex appeal, one long neglected by the scientific community: women’s acute sense of smell.