Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory Flashcards
Who developed filter theory?
Kerckhoff and Davies theorised that our choices of mates are limited by several factors.
What is the overview of the filter theory?
The first filter revolves around the fact that we only meet a very small fraction of people living in our area. Most of those we meet tend to be of a similar social class, education level or maybe even the same ethnicity or racial group. The chances of short term relationships becoming more permanent depend on shared beliefs and values, and personality variables.
What is the first level of the filter?
SIMILARITY of social demography:
These are factors influencing the likelihood of partners meeting in the first place. They include proximity (how close the people are to each other geographically), social class, education level, occupation, religion, ethnicity, and so on. People spend more time with others who are similar to them in the above respects, meaning those who are different are less likely to become romantic partners. This leads to ‘homogamy’- forming a relationship with someone similar to someone else, socially and culturally. Having shared experiences and backgrounds is attractive to potential partners.
What is the second level of the filter?
SIMILARITY in attitudes:
The field of availables has been narrowed by demography, meaning it is likely that those left share similar values, attitudes and beliefs. Kerckhoff and Davies found that similarity in attitudes seemed important in those they studied who were currently in a relationship for less than 18 months. Having the same attitudes encourages deeper communication and more self-disclosure. Couples who have little in common are less likely to last for a significant length of time.
What is the third level of the filter?
Complementarity:
This is the ability of partners to meet each other’s needs. A characteristic of one partner is complemented by the other, for example one partner likes to use humour, and the other enjoys being made to laugh. Kerckhoff and Davies found that complementarity was important in couples who had been together for longer than 18 months. This makes relationships work as the two partners see themselves as ‘fitting together’ well.
FILTER THEORY - Research support?
Festinger et al (1950) found that people who lived the closest to stairways in an apartment block also had the most contact with other residents and formed the most friendships with other residents which supports the idea of social demographic variables. This was further supported by Clark (1952) who found 50% of the citizens of Columbus, Ohio were married to partners who initially lived within walking distance to each other’s homes.
Likewise, Taylor et al found that ethnicity (i.e. social demographics) was an important factor in selecting a partner. He found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 were married to someone of their own ethnicities.
FILTER THEORY - Temporal validity?
Mass accessibility offered by dating apps renders parts of this theory out of date. This has reduced the importance of social demographic variables as it has become easier to meet and talk to partners online. Therefore these filters are no longer a barrier so do not dictate who we might be attracted to.
FILTER THEORY - Culturally biassed?
In other countries arranged marriages where families are still involved in finding partners are still commonly used and none of the 3 filters can be confidently said to be at work in this.
This therefore means the theory may only be limited to relationships in western cultures from which it was based and is not a universal explanation to understand how couples find each other.
FILTER THEORY - Cause and effect?
For example Andersons (2003) longitudinal study found that cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time and they referred to this as emotional convergence. Rusbult (2001) discovered an “attitude alignment” effect in long term relationships where partners bring their attitudes inline with one another which again suggests that similarity of attitudes is an effect of the relationship rather than a cause.
This implies that we have to be careful about suggesting that similarity leads to choice of partners as this type of research can only suggest a correlational relationship between these variables but cannot claim a causal relationship.
