Introduction:
Although popular belief has it that Potter and Evans developed romantic feelings towards each other through Evans's innately attractive characteristics and Potter's 'charm*' (1,3), this conclusion cannot be accepted without a deeper understanding of the two individuals and the circumstances in which the mutual attraction is acted upon. This paper aims to explore and perhaps name the exact cause of the relationship.
Observations & Analyses:
Attraction can be attributed to three main factors: Mere Exposure Effect, Similarity, and Physical Attractiveness (2). It is well-known that, at the time of the development of the relationship, Evans and Potter attended the same school as they had for more than 6 years (1,3). During this time, they were also known to share the same living commons and the same year level (3). Given the small population (1) of the school and the even smaller population of the living commons and narrowing it down even further to a mere handful of people within each year of each house of the school (3), it can be concluded that Potter and Evans must have been exposed to each other to a great degree—even more so when one considers the shared responsibilities of 'Head' in their seventh year (3). As implied by the Mere Exposure Effect, exposure to a stimulus—in this case each subject—breeds familiarity and familiarity breeds, in a majority of cases, friendliness (4).
An assessment of the individual personalities of Potter and Evans gives that they were similar in many respects: year level, values, and personality. The former can be said objectively; the latter two requires some more analysis: in the school Potter and Evans attended, individuals at the age of eleven were segregated into four 'houses' based on personality and values. Although personality is barely concrete especially as a child (5), these personalities tended to stay true (1). Given no models for experimental conditions—wherein children belonging to one house was placed in another or wherein there were no houses altogether—the best that can be done in this case is a statement of observations, minding the vulnerability of them to confirmation biases.
Social divisions such as these are ripe for group polarisation. This is to say that regardless of to what degree an individual belonged or didn't belong in a certain 'house,' each individual would likely exhibit the qualities of the 'house' to a greater degree and/or exhibit a greater amount of the qualities of the 'house' (6). Given this, it can be assumed that, regardless of how dissimilar Potter and Evans may have been when they were children, their being placed in the same 'house' subjected them to the effect of group polarisation where in their personalities polarised towards the personality of the collective 'house,' thus resulting in a greater degree of similarity between them (6).
What is important in considering the third factor—Physical Attractivenss—is not how the general population assess the attractiveness of each subject, but rather how each subject assess the attractiveness of the other. While there is no data, given no survey, it can be assumed that as the subjects grew more and more familiar via the mere exposure effect, their perception of the other's physical attractiveness increased. Exposure to a stimulus breeds familiarity. Exposure with little or no conflict unconsciously informs an individual that the stimulus is safe, decreasing level of fear or anxiety when faced with the stimulus. Evidence of this effect going as far as to physical attraction is available; there are studies that indicate that familiar faces, on average, are seen to be more attractive than unfamiliar faces (4).
Another theory that cannot be ruled out is misattribution theory: the attribution of the effect of one stimulus to another, unrelated stimulus. Misattribution theory involves a source stimulus that induces, typically, an increased heart rate, that the individual subconsciously and erroneously attributes to be a result of a second stimulus (7). It is known that subject Potter and his closest social relations possessed a proclivity to pranks (8) that, on occasion or perhaps more so, greatly surprised or irritated Evans (1); surprise and irritation are well-established emotions known to increase heart rate. Evans may very well, unknowingly, have attributed this physical change to Potter. Likely, her subconscious connected the effect—increased heart rate—to the unrelated stimulus—Potter. Internally noting the correlation between Potter's presence and having her heart, in technical terms, go 'all a flutter (3),' this may have aroused feelings of attraction towards Potter.
Cognitive dissonance theory also plays a role in this respect because the actions of the body—increased heart rate—and the attitudes of the individual—Evans's dislike for Potter are dissonant. Uncomfortable and wanting to reduce dissonance, attitudes then change to align more closely to actions (9)—Evans unconsciously reasoned that her physical reaction to Potter is not aligned with her deep-seated repulsion, and therefore, it must not be repulsion, but rather, attraction.
Indeed, as time progressed, as did the willingness of Evans to succumb to Potter's 'charms' and agree to participate in a 'date' Evans's reaction to Potter's occasional request transitioned from 'no, go [expletive] yourself' to a noncommittal shrug to a full-hearted 'yes' (1). Testimonials from Potter's social circle concluded that Potter's own requests for a 'date' grew progressively more sincere (10).
The Potter-Evans dynamic can be observed in a transcript comparing two of Potter's dates: the first with an unnamed female subject (not Evans) and the second with Evans.
Transcript A: Date involving Potter and unnamed female subject that was not subject Evans.
"The night is speckled," [Potter] proclaimed and [the female subject—not Evans] thought it remarkably poetic.
Transcript B: Date involving Potter and Evans
"The night is speckled," [Potter] proclaimed, voice low and quiet, reverberating within [Evans] as an effect of their proximity.
"Potter, put your glasses back on."
A comparison of these two transcripts proves to be of very little relevance in the scope of this paper, only that a member of Potter's closest social relations and the author both thought it to be extremely hilarious (3).
Conclusion:
It cannot be said then that attraction developed between subjects Evans and Potter based on Potty** 'charms' (1, 10); that would, in fact, be wholly unscientific. Evans and Potter most likely developed a mutual attraction due a combination of these factors: the mere exposure effect, similarity, perception of physical attractiveness, misattribution, and/or cognitive dissonance. Over time, the effect of each factor increased. Although the same can be said of Potter's 'charms,' such a thing has yet to be more fully understood and explored scientifically. As of yet, it is scientifically unaccepted and no methods have been put to use to analyse it and gather data quantifiably or quantitatively.
The scope of this paper has been limited to social and personality psychology. Perhaps a more quantitative analysis is required including measures of oxytocin levels in response to a multitude of events involved in the development of the subjects' attraction as well as measures compiled in response to stimuli—the subjects studied—at given intervals over an extended period of time.
Perhaps it is in gaining a deeper understanding of this case that the curious habits of modern human courtship may be explained; particularly how individuals can assume the classic trope of transitioning from radical destestation to moderate disapprobation to fanatical infatuation and the role of arousal and passion in this progression.
References:
(1) Potter, J. (1971). Potty's Dairy** (p. 35–1734).
(2) Cuppycake, S. (1980). Chapter 3: Attraction. In Acquiring Schnookums (p. 523–530). Umpy Lumpy Kins Pubbisshing.
(3) Black, S. (1978). Evans and Potty** Wedding Speech. Godric's Hollow.
(4) Maple B. (1993). Effect of Exposure on Perceived Attractiveness of Human Faces. Hiya to Holy Hot Hell, 25(7), 8.
(5) Freud, N. O. (1989). Development of Personality Over Time. Not Your Mother's Psychology Journal Unless Your Mother Is A Psychologist, Either Way, We Won't Accuse You Of Being Attracted To Her–Bloody Oedipus Complex, My Arse, 69(9), 9.
(6) Messi, H., & Carrot, T. (1984). Group Polarisation. A Dictionary of Words That Contain The Word 'Polar' (874th ed). WTF University Press.
(7) Caff N. (1977). Misattribution Theory and the Peculiar Courting Habits of Modern Humans. Absolutely Completely Legitimate and Ethical and Undoubtedly Trustworthy Journal of Psychology, 18(9), 5–189.
(8) Pettigrew, P. (1978). They Totally Fancy Each Other. Discussion With Fellow Student. Hogwarts School of Whosits and Whatsits**.
(9) Constance, C., & Nottea,. L. E. (1982). You Say What You Mean and Mean What You Do And Do What You Think You Like To Do and Like What you Say and Mean What You Like and Like What You Mean to Say and Say What You Like To Say and What You Like To Say Is What You Think Which is What You Think You Like To Do Which You Like. Straightfroward, 87(34), 1–19.
(10) Lupin, R. (1981). When Evans said 'yes' to Potty**. A Conversation with Little Harry. Godric's Hollow.
*It is important to note that, professionally speaking, Potter has an inflated sense of his own charm
**Data may be subject to contamination by S. Black