filter theory Flashcards
FILTER THEORY
Kerckhoff and Davis “filter theory’ of attraction (Kerckhoff and Davis, 1962) suggests that we choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the ‘field of availables’ from which we might eventually make our choice.
According to this theory, different filters are prominent at different stages of partner selection.
During the early stages of courtship, demographic similarities (e.g. class, religion, where they live) are likely to be the most important factors in initiating a relationship.
As the relationship develops, a similarity of attitudes and underlying values becomes more important in determining whether or not the relationship continues.
Finally, partners are assessed in terms of whether they are compatible, for example whether their personality traits complement the individual’s own traits.
Social demography:
Social demography refers to variables such as age, social background and geographical location, which determine the likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place.
Social circumstances reduce the range of people that are realistically available for us to meet.
This range is already fairly restricted as we are more likely to come into contact with people from our own ethnic, social and educational groups, and those who live geographically close to us.
These are the people we feel similar to and so more at ease with.
As a result, we find them more attractive precisely because we have more in common with them.
In this first filtering stage, attraction has more to do with social rather than individual characteristics.
Similarity in attitudes:
The second filter involves individuals psychological characteristics, specifically their agreement on attitudes and basic values.
Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity in attitudes and values was of central importance at the start of a relationship and was the best predictor of the relationship becoming stable.
Through their disclosures to each other, individuals are able to weigh up their decisions about whether to continue or terminate their relationship.
Partners who are very different to the individual in terms of their attitudes and values are not considered suitable for a continuing relationship, and so are filtered out from the field of possible long-term partners
Complementarity of needs:
The final filter involves an assessment of the complementarity of needs.
People who have different needs (e.g. the need to be caring and the need to be cared for) like each other because they provide each other with mutual satisfaction of these opposed needs.
This is important, because finding a partner who complements them ensures that their own needs are likely to be met.
For example, young women who lack economic resources may feel attracted to older men who are a good financial prospect and therefore may be good providers.
Winch’s investigation of 25 married couples in the US (Winch, 1958) suggested that ‘social needs’ (such as dominance and deference) should be complementary rather than similar if marriages are to work.
If one partner was low in a particular attribute then the other should be high. This is not the same as suggesting that ‘opposites attract, but rather that in long-term relationships people are attracted to others whose needs are ‘harmonious’ with their own rather than conflicting with them.
Key study: Kerckhoff and Davis (1962):
Procedure:
Kerckhoff and Davis carried out a longitudinal study of 94 dating couples at Duke University in the US.
Each partner in the couple completed two questionnaires assessing the degree to which they shared attitudes and values (the Index of Value Consensus test) and also the degree of need complementarity (the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation or FIRO-B test).
Seven months after the initial testing, the couples completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to how they felt at the beginning of the study.
The researchers believed that this would indicate progress towards permanence in the relationship.
Key study: Kerckhoff and Davis (1962):
Findings:
In the initial analysis of the results, only similarity appeared to be related to partner closeness.
However, when the researchers divided the couples into short-term (those who had dated for less than 18 months) and long-term (those who had dated for more than 18 months), a difference emerged.
For those couples that had been seeing each other for less than eighteen months, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of how close they felt to their partner.
For those who had been dating for more than 18 months, only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close each individual felt to their partner
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
- filter theory:
Lack of research support for filter theory
The real value of the filtering process
A problem for filter theory
Lack of research support for filter theory
Levinger et al. (1970) failed to replicate the results of the Kerckhoff and Davis study.
In their study, 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 progress towards permanence in relationships.
They also found no significant relationship between the length of the couples relationships and the influence of these different variables.
In an attempt to explain why their research failed to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ findings, Levinger et al. suggest that the questionnaires used in the original Kerckhoff and Davis study would not have been appropriate given the changes in social values and courtship patterns that had occurred in the intervening years between the two studies
The real value of the filtering process:
Duck (1973) suggests that the filtering process is important because it allows people to make predictions about their future interactions and so avoid investing in a relationship that ‘won’t work.
Each person conducts a series of explorations, disclosing bits of information about themselves, and making enquiries about the other person.
Based on these exchanges, partners may decide to continue with a relationship or make a decision that it will not work and so end the relationship before becoming too deeply involved with the other person.
This suggests, therefore, that the real value of filtering is that it stops people making the wrong choice and then having to live with the consequences.
A problem for filter theory:
Kerckhoff and Davis’ filter theory assumes that relationships progress when partners discover shared attitudes and values with their partner and the possession of needs that complement their own.
However, this may no longer be the case.
For example, Thornton and Young-DeMarco (2001) found evidence of changed attitudes towards relationships in young American adults over a period of a few decades.
This included a weakening of the normative imperative to marry, attitudes towards mothers working outside the home and more egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles in marriage.
They conclude that as attitudes and values are constantly changing over time and that many people are not aware of their partners’ values, needs or role preferences, this weakens the relevance of filtering theory to mate selection.
