Filter theory

• Filter theory - Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

  -Compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term (less than 18 months) and long term relationships. 

  -Filter theory was created as a result to explain how relationships form and develop. 

  -We all have a field of availables, but not everyone who is available is desirable. 

  -There are a series of factors or filters which narrow down our potential partners to a field of desirables.
• Filter theory - Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

  Procedure:

  94 dating couples at Duke University completed 2 questionnaires assessing similarities and values (Index of Value Consensus Test) and the degree of complementarity (FIRO-B test)

  7 months later, the couples completed another questionnaire to assess how close they felt to their partner now, compare to the beginning of the study
• Filter theory - Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

  Findings:

  For “short term couples” (those dating for less than 18 months), similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of closeness.

  For “long-term couples” (dating for more than 18 months), complementarity of needs was the only predictor of closeness.
• Filter 1: Social demography

  These factors influence the chance of meeting a partner in the first place

  They include:

  • Geographical location (proximity)
  • Social class
  • Educational level
  • Ethnic group
  • Religion
• Filter 1: Social demography

  You are much more likely to meet people in your physical vicinity and this increases the likelihood that you will in turn share certain demographic characteristics.

  Obviously we do occasionally meet people who don’t meet this criteria, HOWEVER these are the people with whom our most meaningful interactions will be with
• Although there is a vast number of potential partners in the world, we are realistically constrained to those who share our social demography

  Anyone who is too different is effectively ruled out - this leads to homogamy in which you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who shares similar interests and values to you.
• Filter 2: Similarity in attitudes

  Because filter 1 has already narrowed the field of availables down, Kerckhoff and Davis found that couples will often share similar and important beliefs and values.

  Similarity in attitudes was found to be the most important factor in the development of relationships but only for those couples who had been together less than 18 months

  We find this similarity attractive!

  Supporting evidence: Donn Byrne (1997)

  Suggested that this similarity causes attraction - the law of attraction
• Common sense: It is important for partners to value the same things in life and find the same things important for the relationship to continue. If they do not agree or find that they fundamentally disagree on something that they find to be important, the relationship will fizzle out
• Filter 3: Complementarity

  This filter is all about the ability of the partners to meet each others needs

  Two partners compliment each other best when one possesses traits that the other lacks

  This need for complementarity was most important for long term relationships - in other words, once the relationship is established opposites attract!
• Evaluation - Temporal validity

  Rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables

  Mobile apps like Tinder etc. have made meeting partners easier than ever 

  May pursue a relationships with someone outside the usual demographic limits.
• Evaluation - Lack of research support

  Levinger et al (1970) replicated Kerckhoff and Davis’ study with 330 steadily attached couples

  Findings= 

  • No Evidence that similarity of attitude and values or complementarity of needs influenced progress towards a permanent relationship.
  • No significant link between length of relationship and the influence of these filters
  • Results may have differed because the questionnaires would not have been appropriate due to changes in social values and courtship patterns that occurred since the initial studies
• Evaluation - Perceived similarity may be more important than actual similarity

  Tidwell et al.( 2013):

  In speed-dating event, where decisions about 

  attraction are made over a shorter time span, 

  it was found that perceived but not actual

  similarity predicted romantic liking
• Evaluation: An interesting additional one…

  (-) Incorrect direction of cause and effect