Why We Are Attracted to Certain Types — The Psychology
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
One of the most consistent findings in attraction research is the similarity-attraction effect. A large meta-analysis by Montoya and Horton (2013) concluded that, on average, we tend to be drawn to people who resemble us in attitudes, values, and background. The pull is real but often subtler than the cliché that 'opposites attract' — perceived similarity, in particular, predicts liking well.
Familiarity also shapes who feels appealing. Zajonc's classic work on the mere exposure effect (1968) showed that simply encountering something repeatedly tends to increase how much we like it, all else equal. Applied to people, this helps explain why proximity and repeated contact often warm us to faces and personalities that once felt neutral.
Attachment theory adds a developmental layer. Hazan and Shaver (1987) framed adult romantic bonds as an attachment process rooted in early relationships. Patterns formed with early caregivers can influence what feels comfortable or exciting in a partner later — though, importantly, this is a tendency shaped by experience, not a fixed romantic destiny.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Similarity tends to feel rewarding for practical reasons: someone who shares our outlook is easier to get along with, validates our worldview, and reduces friction. Montoya and Horton's analysis suggests part of the effect runs through the inference that similar others will like us back — and anticipated acceptance is itself attractive.
Familiarity works partly because the mind treats the easily processed as safe. Repeated exposure makes a face or manner feel fluent and recognizable, and that ease is often experienced as liking. This is why a 'type' can feel almost magnetic: such people match a template we have encountered before, so they read as comfortable rather than strange.
Attachment patterns operate quietly underneath all of this. Someone who learned that closeness is reliable may gravitate toward steady, available partners; someone whose early bonds were inconsistent may, without meaning to, find intermittent or hard-to-read partners strangely compelling — because that uncertainty feels familiar. The pattern is learned, which also means it can be examined and revised.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A person who notices they keep dating the same emotionally unavailable kind of partner is often experiencing a learned pattern, not bad luck. The familiarity of the dynamic — the chase, the uncertainty — can register as chemistry, even when the relationship repeatedly leaves them anxious.
Sometimes a 'type' is more ordinary than it sounds: people raised around a particular temperament, humor, or set of values often feel an easy click with partners who share them. The connection can feel like instant recognition because, in a sense, it is.
Many people also find their type shifts over time. Someone who once chased intensity may, after enough painful cycles, start to feel genuine attraction to calm and consistency — a sign that attraction can be reshaped by insight and new experiences.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The biggest misconception is treating a type as fixed fate — proof that you are 'meant' for a certain kind of person. The research points elsewhere: types reflect familiarity and learned patterns that can be understood and, where they cause harm, gradually changed. Calling it destiny can keep people stuck in cycles that no longer serve them.
Pop psychology also overstates the idea that we always recreate a parent or that 'opposites attract.' Both contain a grain of truth, but the steadier finding is similarity and familiarity at work — usually a tendency with wide individual variation, not an iron law.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
If a recurring type keeps leaving you unhappy, it can help to get curious about what feels familiar rather than trusting the pull blindly. The spark of recognition is not always the spark of compatibility, and noticing the difference is often the first step toward choosing differently.
It also helps to give slow-burn connections a fair chance. Because familiarity grows liking, people who do not produce instant fireworks can become genuinely attractive over time — and steady, responsive partners are frequently the ones with whom relationships last.
Where it varies
The nuance
These patterns describe tendencies, and individuals vary enormously. Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) is a useful reminder that men and women are far more alike than different on most psychological measures, and attraction is no exception — both genders are shaped by familiarity, similarity, and attachment in broadly similar ways.
A type is best read as a soft default rather than a verdict. Personality, life stage, past heartbreak, culture, and simple circumstance all reshape who appeals to us. The same person can have very different 'types' across a lifetime, which is itself evidence that attraction is more flexible than it feels in the moment.
Questions people ask about this
Is having a 'type' real or just a myth?
It is real in the sense that people often show consistent preferences, but it tends to reflect familiarity, similarity, and learned attachment patterns rather than fate. Research suggests these pulls are genuine yet flexible, so a type is better understood as a tendency than a fixed rule.
Why do I keep dating the same kind of person?
Often because the dynamic feels familiar. Attachment research suggests early relationship patterns can make certain partners or interactions register as comfortable, even exciting, regardless of whether they are good for us. Recognizing the pattern is usually the first step toward changing it.
Do opposites really attract?
Less than the saying implies. The more consistent finding, from work like Montoya and Horton's meta-analysis, is that similarity in attitudes and values tends to predict attraction. Some complementary differences can add spark, but broad similarity is generally the stronger and steadier pull.
Can your type change over time?
Yes, and it often does. Because attraction is shaped by experience and familiarity, insight and new relationships can reshape what feels appealing. Many people find that after painful patterns, they grow genuinely drawn to qualities like steadiness that they once overlooked.
Does familiarity really make people more attractive?
On average, yes. Zajonc's mere exposure research suggests repeated, neutral contact tends to increase liking. This helps explain why proximity, shared spaces, and time can warm us to people who did not produce instant chemistry, and why slow-burn attraction is common.
Is being attracted to a 'type' a bad thing?
Not inherently. A type only becomes a problem when it repeatedly steers you toward relationships that leave you unhappy. The patterns themselves are normal and human; the useful skill is noticing when familiarity, rather than genuine compatibility, is doing the choosing.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
- Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 64–94.
- Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.