Factors affecting attraction: Filter Theory Flashcards
Who proposed the Filter Theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis
What did Kerckhoff and Davis claim?
Kerckhoff and Davis claimed that people rely on a number of social and personal factors to filter potential relationships from a ‘field of eligibles’. This is known as the Filter Model of Attraction.
In order to filter potential relationships we use a series of ‘selection filters’:
- Social Demography
- Similarity in Attitudes
- Complementarity of Needs.
Process of these ‘selection filters’
Different criteria tend to be used at different stages. In the early stages, shared demographics are often most important. Later on, similarity of attitudes/values becomes important. Finally, there is an assessment of compatibility, e.g., in terms of personality traits.
Individuals who have succeeded at getting through all 3 filters are more likely to be selected as potential partners.
1st Filter Level - Social Demography (1)
- Demographics are features that describe populations.
- Social demography refers to a wide range of factors all of which influence the chance of potential partners meeting each other in the first place.
- They include geographical location (or proximity), social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion, etc.
- You are more likely to meet people who are physically close and share several demographic characteristics.
- Although we might frequently encounter people who live further away, our most meaningful and memorable interactions are with people nearby.
- The key benefit of proximity is accessibility. It doesn’t require much effort to meet people who live in the same area, go to the same school or university, and so on.
1st Filter Level - Social Demography (2)
- Although there is a vast range of potential partners, the realistic field is much narrower because our choices are constraint by our social circumstances.
- Anyone who is too ‘different’ is discounted as a potential partner.
- The outcome of this filtering is ‘homogamy’, meaning you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar. You will probably have a fair bit in common with someone who shares, for example, your ethnicity, religious beliefs and educational level.
- Most people find these similarities attractive as they are familiar and familiarity is comforting as it allows us to predict how people will behave and thus we feel at ease and relaxed.
2nd Filter Level - Similarity in Attitudes
- Despite the saying that ‘opposites attracts’ the most stable marriages are those between couples who are similar.
- Partners will often share important beliefs and values, partly because the ‘field of eligibles’ has been narrowed by the first filter to those who have significant social and cultural characteristics in common.
- Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity in attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, but only for couples who had been together for less than 18 months. This is because there is a need for partners in the early stages of a relationship to agree over basic values, the things that really matter to them.
- Attitude similarity is particularly important for several reasons: It boosts our self-esteem when people agree with us, it validates our view of the world, it is easier and more satisfying to spend time with similar people, it encourages greater and deeper communication, and promotes self-disclosure.
3rd Filter Level - Complementarity of Needs
- This filter concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs.
- Although people may initially be drawn together because of their similarity, it may then become apparent that partners complement each other when one has characteristics that the other lacks and vice versa.
- For example, someone who is domineering may feel attracted to someone submissive and someone with a strong need to care may be attracted to someone with a strong need to be cared for.
- Kerckhoff and Davis found that the need for complementarity was more important for the long-term couples. In other words, at a later stage of the relationship, opposites attract.
- Complementarity of Needs is clearly advantageous as we benefit from characteristics that we personally lack. It also gives two romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish.
Strength
point: There is research evidence supporting the 1st Filter Level regarding Social Demography and the 2nd Filter Level regarding Similarity in Attitudes.
evidence: Hill, Rubin and Peplau found that dating couples and pairs of friends tended to be similar in terms of race, social class and religion. Similarly, Kendel found that teenage close friends often shared similarities in ethnic background, religion and their parents’ economic status.
justification: This consistency of results across both romantic and non-romantic relationships strengthens the validity of this theory as it suggests that people are more likely to form relationships with those who share demographic factors and similar attitudes.
Strength
point: A strength of the Filter Theory is its practical applications in the dating industry.
evidence: Research into relationship formation has influenced the development of online dating platforms, which use algorithms based on sharing demographic factors, attitudes and interests to help people find compatible partners. The dating industry generates an annual revenue of $200 million, demonstrating the significant real-world impact of psychological research in this area.
justification: This increases the validity of this theory as it has significantly impacted relationship counselling and online dating algorithms through improving the success rate of matches. Moreover, this research is not just limited to romantic relationships but extends to friendship formation and workplace compatibility, therefore heightening its level of applicability. Furthermore, the financial success of the dating industry highlights how this theory has positively impacted the economy. By improving relationship satisfaction, relationship breakdowns are reduced, which can have economic implications (e.g., lowering divorce rates and the associated legal and emotional costs).
Weakness
point: A weakness of the Filter Theory is that it is based on correlational research.
evidence: Anderson et al. conducted a longitudinal study and found that the emotional responses of partners in long-term relationships became more similar over time, rather than being similar from the start. Similarly, David and Rusbult found that attitudes in long-term couples became aligned over time. This suggests that similarity is a consequence of attraction rather than a prerequisite for relationship formation. Additionally, the idea of complementarity may also develop within relationships rather than being a factor in early attraction, as partners naturally assign roles over time.
justification: Consequently, this reduces the scientific credibility of this theory as a clear causal relationship is not identified between similarity or complementarity and relationship formation. Furthermore, because the findings contradict the 2nd and 3rd filters of this theory, this questions its reliability as it suggests that relationships may evolve dynamically rather than following a fixed sequence of filters.
Weakness
point: A limitation of the Filter Theory is that societal changes have altered the way relationships are formed, making some of its stages less relevant today.
evidence: In the 1960s, when Filter Theory was developed, social demography was considered a major factor in relationship formation. However, with the rise of gloablisation, multicultural societies and online dating platforms, people are now more likely to form relationships with individuals outside their immediate social circles and geographical location. Compared to 20-30 years ago, modern technology has significantly reduced the impact of physical proximity in relationship formation.
justification: As a result, this lowers the temporal validity of this theory as it suggests that the 1st filter may no longer be as influential as it once was. This further lowers the applicability and explanatory power of the Filter Theory in regards to modern relationships as it implies that attraction may be driven by shared interests, values and online compatibility more rather than traditional demographic factors.
