Factors Affecting Attraction

Question 1

Who proposed the filter theory? When?

Answer 1

Kerckhoff and Davis, 1962.

Question 2

What did Kerckhoff and Davis argue about relationships?

Answer 2

Argued that relationships go through a series of filters, each of which is essential for the relationship to begin or to continue.​

Question 3

What were the 4 filters proposed by Kerckhoff and Davis?

Answer 3

Proximity.

Similarity/ demographic.

Psychological factors.

Complementarity of emotional needs.

Question 4

Outline the first filter (proximity) of the filter theory.

Answer 4

Physical or geographical closeness, is an important factor in determining.

Represents a minimum requirement for attraction: the further apart two people live, the less likely it is they’ll meet.

Question 5

What is the first filter in the filter theory?

Answer 5

Proximity.

Question 6

What is the second filter in the filter theory?

Answer 6

Similarity/ demographic.

Question 7

What is the third filter in the filter theory?

Answer 7

Psychological factors.

Question 8

What is the fourth filter in the filter theory?

Answer 8

Complementarity of emotional needs.

Question 9

Outline the second filter (similarity/ demographic) of the filter theory.

Answer 9

Physical attraction.

Ethnicity.

Social class.

Religion.

Educational background.

Question 10

Outline the third filter (psychological factors) of the filter theory.

Answer 10

Values.

Attitudes.

Beliefs.

Interests.

Question 11

Outline the fourth filter (complementary of emotional needs) of the filter theory.

Answer 11

Personality, how well two people fit together​.

Question 12

How did Kerckhoff and Davis test their filter theory?

Answer 12

Tested their model using a longitudinal study that consisted of student couples, who were together for 18months (more or less).

PPs were asked to report attitude similarity and personality traits with their partners.​

Question 13

What type of study was Kerckhoff and Davis’? Why was this good/ bad?

Answer 13

Longitudinal study, so gave a more rounded picture as it lasted longer.

This meant they gained more data, so were able to check in with the study, increasing consistency - this links to increased reliability.

However, many people drop out of longitudinal studies.
E.g. Hodges and Tizard, Schaffer and Emerson (2 years).

Question 14

Kerckhoff and Davis used real couples in their research. What does this increase?

Answer 14

Use of real couples, increases validity as the data is real.

Question 15

What filters did Kerckhoff and Davis test?

Answer 15

Tested the second and fourth filters (similarity and personality)

The other two filters were ignored, as the couples were already together (psychological factors), and both in the same university (proximity).

Question 16

What did Kerckhoff and Davis find from their study?

Answer 16

Found that attitude similarity was the most important factor in the first 18 months and then after that emotional compatibility.​

This supports their model.

Question 17

Evaluate external validity in Kerckhoff and Davis’ study.

Answer 17

Kerckhoff and Davis’ study has external validity, as it uses real couples within a real world. This gives us an insight in to how student couples behave.

Question 18

Evaluate support for filter theory in Kerckhoff and Davis’ study.

Answer 18

Provides support for the filter theory, as filter order is being demonstrated. However, student couples are not reflective of all couples. The study was developed in the 1960s, so patterns may have changed.

Question 19

Outline Bossard’s research from 1932.

Answer 19

Looked at 5000 marriage licences in Philadelphia.

He found there was a tendency for those getting married to live close to each other.​

This would not be the same as today, as there are more opportunities to meet potential partners e.g. online.

Technology allows people to stay in contact even if they are geographically further away.

Question 20

Signpost Bossard’s research from 1932.

(Support for the first filter)

Answer 20

This supports the 1st filter (proximity), because of the analysis of the marriage licenses showed that people lived close together.

This suggests that the structure of the filter theory is correct.

However, this study was conducted in 1932, so since then there are more opportunities to meet potential partners e.g. online. Technology allows people to stay in contact even if they are geographically further away.

Question 21

Outline Moreland and Beach’s research from 1992.

Answer 21

Four women who attended varying numbers of lectures on a large campus at college.​

Women sat quietly and didn’t interact directly with any of the women students.​

When the course had finished, students rated the women who were familiar to them and had attended the course as more interesting, warm, and attractive than women who had not attended any lectures.​

Question 22

Signpost Moreland and Beach’s research from 1992.

(Support for the first filter)

Answer 22

This supports the 1st filter, because they rated people higher based on the closeness (them being in the same class).

This suggests that the structure of the filter theory is correct.

However, the sample size was very small, so this could have limited the extrapolation of the results to wider populations.

Question 23

Outline Zajonc’s research from 1968.

Answer 23

‘A mysterious students has been attending a class at Oregon State University for the past 2 months enveloped in a big black bag.

Only his bare feet were shown.

The class was on ‘basic persuasion’.

The teacher said the students’ attitude changed from hostility towards the Black bag to curiosity and finally friendship’. ​

With no verbal exchange, the classmates came to like the black bag-because he had become familiar and predictable.​

Question 24

Signpost Zajonc’s research from 1968.

(Support for the first filter)

Answer 24

This supports the 1st filter, as the students became more familiar and friendly with someone they did not know anything about, other than they were in the same classes.

This suggests that the structure of the filter theory is correct.

However, this was only conducted on one class, so the small sample size limits wider generalisation.

Question 25

Outline Newcomb’s research from 1961.

Answer 25

Paid students to take part in his study (all males).​

Obtained information about their beliefs and attitudes.​

Then used this information to assign students to rooms.​

Some paired with similar attitudes and others with dissimilar attitudes.​

Relationships (friendships) were more likely to develop between those that shared similar beliefs (58%).​

Question 26

Signpost Newcomb’s research from 1961.

(Support for the third filter)

Answer 26

This supports the third filter, as the students were able to match based on their beliefs.

However, the study was androcentric as it only used male students, this limits cross-gender generalisability.

Moreover, there was no filtering for individual differences, people may have had more nervous personalities, so they may have formed a connection slower: but this would not have been due to similar beliefs.

Question 27

Outline Kendal’s research from 1978.

Answer 27

Asked students in secondary school to identify their best friend among the other students. ​

These best friends tended to be of the same age, religion, sex, social class and ethnic background as the friends that nominated them.​

Question 28

Signpost Kendal’s research from 1978.

(Support for the second filter)

Answer 28

This supports the 2nd filter (similarity/demographic), because students had best friends that share similar character traits such as religion, social class, and ethnicity.

This suggests that the structure of the filter theory is correct.

However, this study was only conducted in one school, so findings cannot be applied to the formation of relationships anywhere else. Moreover, the ages of students in a secondary school are not representative of the entire population, again limiting generalisability and weakening support for the filter theory.

Question 29

Outline Winch’s research from 1958.

Answer 29

In favour of “Opposites attract”​.

Claimed that married couples will be happy if they each have complementary needs.​

E.g. If a laid back person marries someone who is anxious, this may allow both of them to fulfil their needs.​

Found that couples that were different in personality were happier than those who were similar.​

Question 30

Outline Burgess and Wallin’s research from 1953.

Answer 30

Obtained detailed information from 1000 engaged couples, including information about 42 personality characteristics. ​

They found no evidence in favour of the notion that opposites attract.​

Thus indicating that similarity of personality is important.​

Question 31

Outline Levinger et al’s research from 1970.

Answer 31

Failed to replicated the results of the Kerckhoff and Davis’ study.

In their study of 330 couples who were ‘steadily attached’ went through the same procedures as in Kerckhoff and Davis’ study.

There was no evidence that either similarity of attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influenced the progress toward permanence in relationships.

Question 32

Signpost Levinger et al’s research from 1970.

(Challenges filter theory)

Answer 32

This challenges the filter theory, as the second and fourth filters were not found in any of their participant couples as being an influencing factor.

This suggests that potentially individual differences and personal preference are more important for forming relationships.

Moreover, it highlights the reductionism of simplifying such a complex behaviour (the forming of relationships) into a universal model.