Milgram Experiment Social Psychology Critical Analysis

The Matching Hypothesis suggests that people tend to form romantic relationships with partners of similar physical attractiveness. This idea supports the belief that people seek balance and security in their relationships. I find this theory interesting because it challenges the common romantic notion that "opposites attract." Rather, research shows that relationships can thrive when both partners perceive a fair exchange in attractiveness (Baron & Branscombe., 2017).

What stood out to me is how the theory accounts for real-world observations—people in long-term relationships do seem to be of comparable attractiveness. It makes sense that choosing a mate of similar attractiveness would help with social validation and reduce insecurities. However, modern dating apps and social media have introduced some complexity to this idea. With filters and curated images, people can present an enhanced version of themselves, which can affect expectations.

However, one critique of the Matching Hypothesis is that it overemphasizes physical appearance while neglecting personality, intelligence, or emotional compatibility, all of which do matter a lot, in my opinion. Attractiveness is important, but it is more than just physical attractiveness that matters, and long-term relationships likely rely more on shared values, mutual respect, and communication to be sustainable. The Matching Hypothesis should be viewed as just one piece of the attraction puzzle.

The proximity effect in attraction argues that people form relationships with those they interact with frequently. This makes sense—whether at school, work, or through mutual connections, repeated exposure fosters familiarity, which leads to liking. Social media has changed this dynamic by allowing virtual proximity and relationships to develop without physical closeness (Baron & Branscombe., 2017).

An aspect of this concept is how it applies beyond romantic relationships. For example, in the workplace, colleagues who sit near each other tend to collaborate more effectively and develop friendships. It also explains why long-distance relationships can be challenging—physical separation reduces opportunities for spontaneous interaction.

However, mere proximity isn’t enough to guarantee attraction or friendship. Negative experiences with someone can lead to the opposite effect, where repeated exposure reinforces dislike rather than fondness. Online interactions may provide an illusion of closeness, but without genuine emotional engagement, they may not create the same level of connection as in-person relationships.

The foot-in-the-door technique is a compliance strategy where people are more likely to agree to a large request if they first comply with a smaller one (Baron & Branscombe., 2017). I think this concept is relevant in marketing and sales. A company may offer a free trial or a small discount, knowing that once customers engage, they’re more likely to make a bigger purchase.

Psychologically, this technique works because people want to maintain consistency in their behavior. If they agree to something minor, they’re more likely to see themselves as cooperative and continue to comply with larger requests. However, I question whether this technique always leads to genuine long-term change or if it simply exploits psychological tendencies.

An ethical concern is whether businesses or individuals use this technique manipulatively. For example, in social activism, organizations use small petitions to engage people in a cause before asking for donations. While this can be beneficial, it raises questions about the authenticity of commitment—are people genuinely interested in the cause, or are they just acting out of consistency?

Stanley Milgram’s obedience study is one of the most famous and controversial experiments in psychology. It showed that ordinary people can commit harmful acts under the influence of authority. The study is relevant in understanding how people justify unethical behavior in hierarchical structures (Baron & Branscombe., 2017).

I find the results to be a little disturbing. Participants were willing to administer what they believed were painful electric shocks simply because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure. This raises critical questions about personal responsibility—how much of our behavior is dictated by social roles rather than individual morality?

One critique of Milgram’s study is that it may not fully reflect real-world decision-making. The setting was artificial, and real-life situations involve additional factors such as empathy, reasoning, and opportunity for dissent. Nonetheless, the study is a warning about blind obedience and the importance of critical thinking in the face of authority.

Baron, R. A. & Branscombe, N. R. (2017). Social psychology, 11/E. Aufl, Boston.

The "What is beautiful is good" effect suggests that people tend to assume physically attractive individuals possess other desirable qualities, such as intelligence, kindness, or competence.

I have included an advertisement featuring an attractive model promoting a beauty product. This ad exemplifies how marketers exploit the "What is beautiful is good" bias to create positive associations between attractiveness and product quality. The model’s appearance makes the product seem more desirable, even though beauty and product effectiveness are unrelated.

This concept applies broadly in society, including hiring decisions and social interactions. Research shows that attractive individuals often receive preferential treatment in job interviews, even when their qualifications are identical to less attractive candidates. This bias, unconscious as it is, can lead to unfair advantages and unrealistic expectations.