What Draws You to Your Partner?
Most people can describe what attracted them to their partner. Maybe it was their sense of humour, or the way they listened. These conscious explanations feel true and personal. But what if unconscious processes shape these preferences in the first place?
Researchers in different fields answer this question differently. Biologists study evolutionary mechanisms. Psychologists focus on attachment and compatibility. Family systems theorists examine patterns from the family of origin. Each field explains a different aspect of partner attraction. But all of them relate to what Dr. Bowen would call “emotional systems”, which are non-conscious influences on our thinking and behaviour. For example, physiological processes monitor your blood sugar levels. The brain gets signals about this and at some point creates what we notice as the feeling of hunger. This drives our behaviour to eat something. The non-conscious emotional process was the basis of this.
The Biological Basis of Attraction
Researchers have identified several biological mechanisms that influence who we find attractive. Their work on the genes involved in immune function (major histocompatibility complex, MHC) suggests we’re drawn to partners whose immune profiles differ from our own. In a well-known series of experiments, Claus Wedekind and colleagues (1) found participants preferred the scent of worn t-shirts from people with dissimilar MHC genes. The proposed explanation is that offspring would benefit from greater immune diversity.
Neurotransmitters also play a role in early attraction. Dopamine creates feelings of reward and motivation. Norepinephrine contributes to the heightened focus and energy many experience when newly attracted to someone. These chemical responses aren’t random, but they don’t fully explain why one person triggers them and another doesn’t.
Evolutionary psychologists propose that attraction signals serve as cues for reproductive fitness, including health and genetic compatibility. While these frameworks offer useful data, they describe mechanisms rather than the full picture of what draws two specific people together.
Psychological Perspectives on Partner Selection
Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby and expanded by researchers like Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, offers another lens. Our early experiences with caregivers shape internal working models of relationships. For example, we learn what to expect about whether others will be available and responsive. These models influence who feels familiar and comfortable as potential partners. (Dr. Bowen developed a different approach called emotional programming.)
Someone with secure attachment experiences may seek partners who demonstrate consistency and emotional availability. Someone with anxious attachment might find themselves drawn to partners whose intermittent responsiveness feels strangely familiar. This matters. The pull isn’t always toward what’s healthy. It’s often toward what’s recognizable.
The similarity-attraction hypothesis represents another well-researched framework. Research dating to the 1960s suggests we’re attracted to people who share our attitudes and values. People with similar backgrounds report greater initial attraction and relationship satisfaction over time. We tend to like people who see the world as we do.
These patterns often operate outside our awareness. We experience attraction as spontaneous and personal, yet it follows patterns shaped by our histories and learned expectations.
A Family Systems Perspective
Bowen family systems theory adds another dimension by examining the multigenerational patterns that influence partner selection. From this systems perspective, attraction isn’t just individual; it’s shaped by the emotional systems we grew up in.
From a systems perspective, two factors receive particular attention: sibling position and level of differentiation.
Sibling Position Compatibility
Walter Toman’s research on sibling position, which Bowen incorporated into his theory, suggests that our position in our family of origin shapes our expectations for relationships. An oldest child develops certain patterns of relating; a youngest child develops different ones.
Toman proposed that some sibling position combinations create natural complementarity. Consider an oldest sister of brothers paired with a youngest brother of sisters. She’s accustomed to functioning with males and taking responsibility. He’s accustomed to functioning with females and following another’s lead. Neither experiences conflict over rank (who leads) nor unfamiliarity with the other sex.
Contrast this with two oldest children. Both are accustomed to leading. Both may expect the other to follow. The relationship requires more negotiation of roles that don’t come automatically.
This doesn’t mean certain pairings will succeed or fail. It suggests that some combinations require less adjustment, while others involve working through expectations that don’t naturally align. What matters is awareness of these patterns rather than treating them as fixed predictions.
Level of Differentiation
Bowen made a clinical observation that partners select partners with a similar level of differentiation. Differentiation refers to the capacity to maintain a solid sense of self while remaining connected to others, with the ability to think clearly under emotional pressure and distinguish thoughts from feelings. From his perspective, the idea that a marriage partner is more or less differentiated than the other isn’t valid. However, their functioning can move through a range from worse to better.
According to this observation, people with higher differentiation, those who can stay calm and think for themselves in anxious situations, tend to partner with others at similar levels. Those who are more reactive and whose functioning depends more heavily on relationship harmony also tend to find each other.
This matching isn’t conscious. It happens through the emotional process of courtship, where two people’s sensitivities and patterns interlock. The person who “feels right” often shares a similar level of emotional reactivity, even when surface characteristics differ considerably.
What Might You Notice in Yourself?
Each of the three perspectives (biological, psychological, and family systems) explains part of what drives attraction. They’re not mutually exclusive. Biology provides the hardware. Family systems thinking examines multigenerational and family of origin patterns. In addition, the emotional forces related to being liked and belonging can drive thinking and behavior more than any rational thinking.
If you’re curious about your own patterns, some questions worth considering:
What felt familiar about your partner when you first met? Not just comfortable—familiar. What patterns from your family of origin might have shaped what felt “right”?
What’s your sibling position, and your partner’s? Where do your expectations about roles align naturally, and where do they require ongoing negotiation?
When you’re under stress, how do you function? How does your partner function? Are these patterns similar, even if they look different on the surface?
These questions don’t have right answers. They’re invitations to observe patterns you may not have noticed. Understanding what draws you to a partner—beyond the story you tell yourself—can be the beginning of more conscious choices in how you function in relationships.
Counselling can provide a space to examine these patterns more closely. It’s not to fix or change your partner, but to observe your own part in the relationship system. If you’re curious about what you might notice, feel free to reach out using the form here.
Thank you for your interest in family systems.
Email your comments to dave.galloway@livingsystems.ca
Learn more about Bowen Theory here
You can read more about sibling position here. Look for: Basic Series #3 – Multigenerational Transmission Process and Sibling Position.
References:
- Wedekind C, Füri S. Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Oct 22;264(1387):1471-9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0204. PMID: 9364787; PMCID: PMC1688704.
- Hazan and Shaver study is here
