factors affecting attraction: filter theory

Question 1

who developed the filter theory

Answer 1

kerckhoff & davis (1962)

Question 2

describe the filter theory

Answer 2

• field of availables = set of romantic partners which we could relaisatically form a relationship with
• not everyone available is desirable
• 3 main factors which act as filters to narrow range of field of availables
• each factor has greater or lesser importance at different stages of relationship

Question 3

what are the 3 filters

Answer 3

1. social demography
2. similarity in attitudes
3. complementarity

Question 4

describe filter 1: social demography

Answer 4

• wide range of factors which influence chances of meeting potential partners initially
• include: geographical location (proximity), social class, level of education, ethic group, religion etc.
• more likely to meet someone who’s physically closer to you & shares many demographic characteristics
• key benefit to proximity is accessibility
• anyone who’s too ‘different’ is discounted as potential partner
• outcome of filtering = homogamy (socially/culturally similar)

Question 5

describe filter 2: similarity in attitudes

Answer 5

• partners often share important belief/values, as field of availables already been narrowed by filter 1
• kerckhoff & davis found it was important in development of romantic relationships, but only for couples who’d been together less than 18 months
• encourages greater/deeper communication & promotes self-disclosure
• byrne (1997) has described the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the ‘law of attraction’

Question 6

describe filter 3: complementarity

Answer 6

• ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs
• partners compliment each other when they have traits that the other lacks
• kerckhoff & davis found the need for complementarity was more important in long-term couples
• attractive as gives romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole = adds depth & more likely to flourish

Question 7

AO3 (+) research support from kerckhoff & davis’ original study

Answer 7

E:
- conducted longitudinal study where both partners in romantic couples completed questionnaires to asssess: similarity of attitudes & complementarity
- relationship ‘closeness’ measured by another questionnaire 7 months later
- study found closeness was associated with similarity of attitudes but only for couples who’d been together less than 7 months
- for couples in longer relationships, complementarity predicted closeness

T: provided evidence that similarity of attitudes is important in early stages of relationship, but complementarity is more important later on

Question 8

AO3 (-) counterpoint to research support from kerckhoff & davis’ original study

Answer 8

E: levinger (1974)
- pointed out that many studies failed to replicate their findings
- he said this was due to social changes over time & problems in defining depth of relationship in terms of its length
- kerckhoff & davis chose 18-month cut off to distinguish between short-term & long-term relationships
- they assumed partners who’d been together longer were more committed & had deeper relationship

T: questionable assumption which means filter theory is undermined by lack of validity of evidence

Question 9

AO3 (-) complementarity may not be central to long-term relationships

Answer 9

E:
- prediction of filter theory is in the most satisfying relationships, partners are complementary
- eg. one parter may have need to be dominant, and the other submissive
- however, markey & markey (2013) found lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied
- their sample couples had been romantically involved for mean time of over 4 and a half years

T: suggests similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least for some couples

Question 10

AO3 (-) actual similarity matters less in relationships where partners believe themselves to be similar

Answer 10

E: meta-analysis of 313 studies by montoya et al. (2008)
- found actual similarity affected attraction in very short-term lab-based interactions
- in real-world relationships, perceived similarity was stronger predictor of attraction
- one interpretation of this finding is partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to one another

T: perceived similarity may be effect of attraction and not a cause, which is predicted by the filter theory