Factors affecting attraction - Filter Theory

Question 1

what is the filter theory?

Answer 1

Kerchkoff and Davies (1962) theorised that our choices of mates are limited by several factors.

These factors ‘filter’ down potential mates available to us.

1. Social demography
2. Similarity in attitudes
3. Complementarity

Question 2

what is the first level of the filter??

Answer 2

Similarity of Social Demographic

We’re more likely to be attracted to individuals with similar demographics to us:
Where we live

Where we work

Same place of education

Any religious groups, gym members or other social circles

Question 3

what is the second level of the filter?

Answer 3

Similarity of Attitudes

We’re more likely to meet people with similar attitudes and beliefs.
E.g.,
You meet someone at a protest march for animal rights

You meet someone at church

Question 4

what is the third level of the filter?

Answer 4

Complementarity

Focus here is on how much the individual meets their partners needs, especially emotional ones.

Very important for moving past the initial stages of a relationship into deeper commitment.

Question 5

what are the positive evaluations of the filter theory?

Answer 5

• One positive of the Filter theory is that there is research evidence to support these claims from various studies.

Festinger et al (1950) conducted a field study to investigate formation of friendship patterns at Westgate Housing (at MIT) for student couples. The researchers made observations and interviewed the residents regularly. Results showed that proximity or opportunities to bump into each other on a daily basis increased chances for friendships. After some months more than 10 times as many friendships had developed with people who lived in the same building, and even more with people who lived next door. The researchers suggest that physical proximity increases opportunities for interaction, which in turn increases familiarity. The mere exposure effect is enough to increase liking supporting the social demographic variable.

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 others 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.

This shows there is a range of support for the claim of our social demographics are important in relationship formation so these studies add credibility to the concepts put forward by the filter theory.

Question 6

what are the negative evaluations of the filter theory?

Answer 6

• On the other hand it could be suggested that the mass accessibility offered by modern dating apps renders parts of the filter theory out of date as it was proposed in 1962 so this was more a “child of its time” rather than a universal explanation that can be applied across cultures and time.

For example, internet dating has changed how relationships are conducted. It has reduced the importance of social demographic variables as it has become easier than ever to communicate, talk and even meet partners through dating websites and applications. This has opened up the possibility for people to date one another when normally social demographic variables (culture, race, social class, location) may have prevented the two from ever meeting previously. So these filters are no longer a barrier to meeting people and do not dictate who we might be attracted to as these boundaries are no longer restrictive.

Therefore, the filter theory is low in temporal validity in its attempts to explain modern behavioural phenomena in relationships and may no longer be appropriate in helping understanding what leads to attraction.

• One of the problems of the Filter theory is that it is considered culturally biased , specifically ethnocentric as in it assumes that all relationships will be formed according to Western/individualistic ideas of relationships.

For example, the key concept of the Filter theory is that relationship formation is down to individual choice, ie. choosing a partner with similar attitudes, beliefs and values. Moghadden (1993) found that there are many cultures and subcultures, mainly in Collectivist societies, where families or communities often introduce prospective partners to each other or arrange relationships; individual choice is rarely an option.

In fact the collectivist way of forming relationships is so vastly different from the individualistic culture, that some psychologists believe that Filter theory can not be seen as they only way to understand relationship formation.

This therefore means the theory may only be limited to relationships in western cultures from which it was based on and is not a universal explanation to understand how couples find each other. To understand the effect of cultural influences on behaviour, this research area would need to be analysed emically.

• A further criticism of the theory is that it proposes that people who are similar in their attitudes, personality and values are attracted to one another but this can be questioned as you cannot establish cause and effect from these two variables.

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.
Therefore questioning the direction of causality Kerckhoff and Davis had assumed. David & Rusbult (2001) found attitudes in long term relationships became ‘aligned’ with one another over time 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 because in fact you might choose a partner and the leads to similarity instead.