Filter theory. Flashcards
What is the filter theory?
- Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) attempted to answer questions about how we choose our potential mates and did so by studying students couples in relationships.
- Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term (less than 18 months) and long-term relationships.
- Found that individuals choose their partner based on some important criteria and called these ‘filters’, which led to the birth of the filter theory.
- Theory states a series of different factors progressively limits the range of available romantic partners (field of availabilities) to match a smaller pool of possibilities (field of desirables).
1st Level: Social Demography (dating).
Social and demographic factors that influence whether you will date someone: Geographical location (proximity), Social class, Level of education, Employment, Religion, Ethnic group, Age.
- Our choices are constrained by our circumstances.
- You’re much more likely to meet and have meaningful encounters with people who are physically close and share common demographic characteristics.
- Anyone who is too ‘different’ is not a potential partner. You are left with your field of availables.
Outdated? - The rise of online dating.
- Rise of online dating in recent years has changed initial stages of romantic relationship completely.
- Has reduced importance of some social demographic variables e.g. dating apps.
- Means that we are more likely to meet someone outside usual demographic limits such as different cultures, ethnicity and age than we would have around 30 years ago.
2nd level: Similarity in Attitudes (less than 18 months).
- Kerckhoff & David (1962) found that similarity of attitudes was important to development of romantic relationships, but only for couples who have been together less than 18 months.
- Is need for partners in earlier stages of relationship to agree over basic values and the things that really matter to them. This also encourages greater and deeper communication, promoting self-disclosure.
- Byrne (1997) has described consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the ‘law of attraction’. If similarity does not exist, the relationship is likely to fizzle out after a few dates.
3rd Level: Complementarity (Long-term).
- This filter concerns ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs. Two partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks.
- Kerckhoff & Davis found the need for complementarity was more important for long-term couples, which means that in the later stage’s, opposites attract - together they form a whole.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962): Research - Procedure.
- Surveyed couples who were considering marriage.
- The survey asked them about their personalities, attitudes and their relationship.
- 7 months later, they conducted a follow-up survey to see if the couples’ relationships had progressed towards permanent partnership.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962): Research - Findings & Conclusions:
- Couples who had been together for less than 18 months were likely to have progressed towards permanent partnership if they had similar values.
- Among couples who had been together for more than 18 months, it was couples who has complementary needs who were more likely to have progressed to permanent partnerships.
Wrong direction.
- Filter theory may be assuming the wrong direction of causality.
- Theory assumes that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar in various ways.
- Also been found that cohabitating partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time and that their attitudes become more aligned.
Limitation of filter theory: lack of replication of original findings.
P: One limitation of research into filter theory is the lack of replication of original findings.
E: Levinger (1974) has suggested that social change and difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship could be the reason for a lack of
replicability. Kerchoff & Davis (1962) assumed that partners over 18 months were more committed. This may not be the case in all cases or
cultures.
C: The overall applicability of filter theory (e.g. to other cultures and types of
relationships) is questionable.
I&D: Most research supporting filter theory uses participants from individualist, Western cultures where free choice is valued in relationships
without much influence from other people. This is not the case in collectivist cultures where it is common for romantic relationships to be arranged.
Limitation of filter theory: direction of effect.
P: Another limitation of filter theory is that there are questions about the
direction of effect.
E: Anderson et al (2003) found that cohabitating partners experienced
emotional merging, becoming more similar over time. Furthermore Davis & Rusbult (2001) suggest that attitude alignment also takes place (their attitudes change to become more similar).
C: This evidence suggests that similarities are the effect of having a relationship rather than the cause, as suggested by filter theory.
I&D: Correlational research only demonstrates a relationship or association
between variables and does not infer cause and effect which makes scientific footing questionable.
Strength of filter theory: research support.
P: One strength of filter theory is that there is research support.
E: Winch (1958) found similarities of personality, interests and attitudes
between partners are typical of the early stages of a relationship but complementarity of needs increases importance. This supports at least two of
the filters in the theory and also suggest that the filters may determine the
development of the relationship.
C: This means that the validity of the theory has been supported in surveys of actual relationships.
I&D: However, basing the complex phenomenon of romantic relationship on
the application of a series of filters is reductionist and limits the range for real
life romantic experiences it can explain. The theory does not explain why many people stay for a long time in abusive relationships, suggesting a
holistic approach would be better at explaining relationship maintenance.
