Factors affection attraction: Filter theory Flashcards
Filter theory
- include names
Kerckhoff and Davis explain attraction in terms of attitudes and personalities
- First we consider the field of availables (pool of potential partners who are accessible to us)
- From this we select the field of desirables via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship
What are the 3 levels of the filter theory
Social demography
Similarity in attitudes
Complementarity
Social demography (1st level of filter theory)
Demographics are features that describe populations, social demographics include geographical location and social class
More likely to meet and have meaningful encounters with people who are physically close and other features with yourself e.g same social class
Too ‘different’ e.g too far away, too middle class, not a potential partner so they are ‘filtered out’ before the next stage - outcome is filtering homogamy (partner is similar to you, shares your background)
Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter theory)
- include law of attraction
Important for couples who have been together for less than 18 months
In the early stages of a relationship agreeing on basic value promotes better communication and self disclosure
Law of attraction - Bryne found that similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction. Where such similarity does not exist, it is found that often the relationship fades after only a few days
Complementarity (3rd level of filter theory)
Partners complement each each when they have traits that the other lacks
e.g some partner may enjoying making the other laugh, in turn this partner enjoys being made to laugh
Complementarity is giving the romantic partners feeling of togetherness and ‘making a whole’
e.g partner will feel like they are meeting each other’s needs if one likes caring and the other enjoys being cared for known as ‘opposites attract’
What are the two strengths of the theory
Make future predictions
Support from Kerckhoff and Davis’s original study
Evaluation: Make future predictions
People can use the filtering process to foresee the future and steer clear of unworkable relationships.
Various tactics are employed, like providing personal information and causing conflict, to determine whether to maintain the partnerships.
This demonstrates how filtering can help people avoid relationships that won’t workand prevent them from making poor decisions.
Evaluation: Support from Kerckhoff and Davis’s original study
Dating couples completed questionnaires to measure similarity of attitudes/values, complementarity of needs and relationship ‘closeness’
Closeness was linked to similarity of values only for partners together less than 18 months. Complementarity of needs was more important in longer relationships
This is evidence that shows similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, but complementarity becomes more important later
What are two limitations of the theory
Reductionism
Conflicting evidence
Evaluation: Conflicting evidence
According to Kerckhoff and Davis (1962), attraction is created by similar social backgrounds, interests, attitudes, and complementary demands. Some researchers argue that the causality should go in the opposite direction.
For instance, based on the findings of their longitudinal study, Anderson et al. (2003) claimed that rather than being similar from the beginning, the emotional responses of partners in long-term relationships become increasingly similar with time.
This is contrary to the Filter Theory’s claims, which hold that for partnerships to flourish, individuals must initially hold similar attitude
Evaluation: Reductionism
Reducing the variety of real-life love experiences that may be explained by a set of filters is a reductionist approach to explaining complex phenomena like romantic relationships.
For instance, despite the fact that long-term partnerships are thought to be characterised by a lack of complementarity, the Filter Theory is unable to explain why so many people continue to live long lives in violent relationships.
This shows that a holisticapproach of researching romantic relationships would be more appropriate for understanding the complexities involved in maintaining partnerships.
