factors affecting attraction:filter theory Flashcards
(7 cards)
introduction
Alan Kerckhoff and Keith Davis (1962) compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term (defined as less than 18 months) and long-term relationships. They devised a filter theory to explain how such romantic relationships form and develop.
In terms of partner choice, we all have a field of availables, the entire set of potential romantic partners, all the people we could realistically form a relationship with. But, of course, not everyone who is available to us is desirable. According to Kerckhoff and Davis, there are three main factors that act as filters to narrow down our range of partner choice to a field of desirables.
Each of these factors assumes greater or lesser importance at different stages of a relationship.
1.Social demography
Social demography refers to a wide range of factors all of which influence the chances of potential partners meeting each other in the first place. They include geographical location (or proximity), social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion and so on. You are much more likely to meet people who are physically close to you and who share several demographic characteristics. Although we might frequently encounter people who live further away, our most meaningful and memorable interactions are with people who are 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.
Although there is a vast range and variety of potential partners, the realistic field is much narrower because our choices are constrained by our social circumstances. Effectively, anyone who is too ‘different’ (too far away, too middle class) 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 and most of us find such shared demographic similarities attractive.
2.similarity in attitudes
Partners will often share important beliefs and values, partly because the field of availables has already been narrowed by the first filter to those who have significant social and cultural characteristics in common. Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, but only for the couples who had been together less than 18 months. There is a need for partners in the earlier stages of a relationship to agree over basic values, the things that really matter to them. This encourages greater and deeper communication, and promotes self-disclosure (see page 120).
There is considerable evidence that most of us find this similarity attractive, at least to begin with. Donn Byrne (1997) has described the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the law of attraction. If such similarity does not exist (for example, it turns out the partners have little in common after all), then the relationship is likely to fizzle out with a I’ll call you sometime.
3.complementarity
The third filter concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs. Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks. For example, one partner may enjoy making the other laugh, and in turn this partner enjoys being made to laugh. Or perhaps one partner is more dominant in the relationship than the other. Or one likes to nurture and the other to be nurtured. 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 a relationship, opposites attract. Complementarity is attractive because it 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-research support
One strength is support from Kerckhoff and Davis’s original study.
The researchers conducted a longitudinal study in which both partners in dating couples completed questionnaires to assess two main factors - similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Relationship closeness’ was measured by another questionnaire seven months later. The study found that closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples who had been together less than 18 months. For couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness.
This study provided evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, but complementarity is more important later on.
Counterpoint George Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings of Kerckhoff and Davis. He put 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.
limitation-problems with complementarity
One limitation is that 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, for example one partner may have a need to be dominant and the other a need to be submissive.
However, Patrick Markey and Charlotte 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 4/2 years.
This suggests that similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples.
limitation-actual versus perceived similarity
Another limitation is that actual similarity matters less in a relationship than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar.
This was supported in a meta-analysis of 313 studies by Matthew
Montoya et al. (2008). They found that actual similarity affected attraction only in very short-term lab-based interactions. In real-world relationships, perceived similarity was a stronger predictor of attraction.
One interpretation of this finding is that partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
Therefore perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not a cause, which is not predicted by the filter model.
