4) Factors affecting attraction: Filter Theory

Filter Theory - Kerckoff & Davis (1962)

• Devised filter theory to explain how romantic relationships form and develop

• In terms of partner choice we all have a ‘field of availables’ - a set of potential romantic partners, people we could realistically form a relationship with

• But not everyone available to us is desirable

• They argue 3 factors acts as filters to narrow down our range to a ‘field of desirables’.

• Each assumes greater or lesser importance at different stages of a relationship

What are the 3 factors that Kerckoff & Davis argue that narrows down our range of available potential romantics partners to the desirable potential partners:

Level 1: Social Demography

Level 2: Similarity in attitudes

Level 3: Complement arity

Level 1: Social Demography

• Many factors influence the chances of potential partners meeting each others

• e.g. being physically close - geographical location, even of education, social class, religion, ethnic group

• WHY? - more likely to bump into them. Proximity + accessibility → more likely to form a relationship e.g. more likely to form a relationship with someone who lives close rather than far away.

• Homogamy → someone similar to us, socially and culturally

Level 2: Similarity in attitudes

• People are more likely to see someone as attractive i they share the same cores and values

• Kerckoff and Davis → Similar attitudes was important for couples who had been together less than 18 months.

• Promotes self-disclosure about things that are more deep + meaningful

• Byrne (07) calls this stage the law of attraction

Level 3: Complement arity

• Ability to fulfil each others needs

• Need for one partner to balance the traits of the other

• One may nurture and one likes to be nurtured.

• Kerckoff and Davis complementarity was more important, after the 18 month point

A03: + Evidence

Kerckoff & Davis (1962)

• Longitudinal study

• 94 dating couples at Dukes University USA

• Each partner completes 2 questionnaires assessing degree to which they shared values and attitudes and degree to need complementarity

• 7 months after initial testing they completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to how close they felt at the beginning

• In the initial analysis only similarity seemed to be related to a partner closeness

• But when couples were divided into short and long term (dating 18 months +) they found for short term similarity of attitudes and values was most important predictor of how close they felt.

• But long-term only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close each individual felt to their partner.

AO3: + Evidence

Taylor et al (2010) → reported 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 married someone of their own ethnic group, supporting the social demographic idea that choice of partner is limited to those of similar demographic background

AO3:-Cultural & Gender Validity

• Filter theory does not consider that age, culture, and gender filter out different things, due to having different needs.

• Filter theory is Culture biased

• Most of the supporting research is carried out in individualistic societies and may therefore not apply to collectivist cultures where relationships are affected by different limiting factors.

• It is based on Western Culture where we can interact with lots of people as we live in an urban setting.

• There are more opportunities to meet people than in more rural and less developed areas

A03: -Direction of cause and effect

• The theory assumes people are initially attracted because they are similar

• But there is evidence direction of causality is wrong

• Anderson et al (2003) → found from a longitudinal study that cohabiting couples became more similar over time (emotional convergence)

• Davis and Rusbult (2001) also established an attitude alignment effect (bring attitudes in line with one another)

• This suggests similarity is an effect, not a cause

AO3: - Temporal Validity

• Outdated

• The theory was created 50 years ago. Have relationships changed since then?

• There were fewer transport links and no internet. It is easier to be close in proximity and to be mobile today.

• Internet dating has changed beyond recognition the beginning of romantic relationships.

• This has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables

• Attitudes and values have also changed considerably over time. Therefore we may now pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limit.

• Indeed, in 1960 in the USA less then 3% of marriages were inter-racial but this has risen considerably

-Counter to research support - lack of validity

Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings of Kerckhoff and Davis.

He puts this down to social changes over time (e.g. dating patterns) and also to problems in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of its length.

Kerckhoff and Davis chose an 18-month cut-off point to distinguish between short-term and long-term relationships.

They assumed that partners who had been together longer than this were more committed and had a deeper relationship.

This is a questionable assumption, which means that filter theory is undermined by the lack of validity of its evidence base.

H: Newcomb (1961) stable friendships develop if room mates had similar attitudes to life and background.

-Problems with complementarity

Complementarity may not be central to all longer-term relationships.

A prediction of filter theory is that in the most satisfying relationships, partners are complementary, e.g. one partner may have a need to be dominant and the other a need to be submissive.

However, Markey and Markey (2013) found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied.

Their sample of couples had been romantically involved for a mean time of more than 4 ½ years.

This suggests that similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples.