proposed filter theory to explain attraction & how relationships form
explain filter theory?
argue we tend to be attracted to those who pass series of filters
largegroups of potential people for relationships known as "field of availables"
filter out potential partners for different reasons at different times so that FOA is gradually narrowed down to relatively small "field of desirables" - those we see as potential partners & most attracted to
3 filters that lead to field of desirables?
social demography
similarity in attitudes
complementarity
social demography?
were more attracted to people that we actually come into contact with & filter out those not in same SD to us
people tend to mix with others who are pretty similar to them in several ways - live in same area/similar social class/ethnicity/religion
much larger group of people who live in other places & come from differentbackgrounds are rarely encountered so not attracted to them
means field of potential partners actually comes from smallselection of people who are often similar in educational/economical background
similarity in attitudes?
more likely to be attracted to people who have similarinterests & attitudes as ourselves
once 2 people start going out together next filter involves individual characteristics - attitudes & values
if couple share ideas & beliefscommunication should be easier & relationship may progress
as this stage people with different attitudes & values from our own likely to be filtered out as were more attracted to those with similar attitudes
complementarity?
more likely to find person attractive if they complement our emotional needs
means how well 2 people fit together as a couple & meet each others needs
can be physical/emotional needs
if someone does not meet & complement your needs they ae filtered out
2 * of filter theory?
evidence to support from taylor2010
evidence to support from kerchoff & davis
2 X of filter theory?
contradicted by evolutionary explanations for partnerpreferences
lacks temporalvalidity
* evidence from taylor 2010?
found that 85% of americans who got married in 2008married someone of their own ethnic group
shows that SD is an accurate filter as we are more likely to be attracted to & marry someone with similar SD to us
shows were more attracted to people who do pass through filters in particular SD
do filter those who are dissimilar in terms of out demographics to narrown down our FOD to someone we are more attracted to
* evidence from kerchoff & davis?
conducted longitudinal study of student couples who were together for more/less than 18 months
asked to complete severalquestionnaires over 7 month period - had to report in attitude similarity & personality trait with partner
found that attitude similarity was key factor upto 18 months
after psychological compatibility & ability to meet each others needs became important
shows were more attracted to those who do have similar attitudes & complement our emotional needs
suggests filters are important for maintaining attraction in romantic relationship
X contradicted by evolutionary?
women look for older man with resources & men look for youthful women
so SD may not be appropriate filter as we arent attracted to those who are similar age/class.
we may not be attracted to people based on filtering them out due to SD
instead it may be due to other factors - age/resources that will enhance our reproductive success
X lacks temporal validity?
as this theory was developed in 1960s many things have changed in todays society
now have access to social media & online dating platforms so can people who dont live near us & long distance relationships more common
but theory says we filter out those who dontlive near us & are attracted to people who live in our area
? temporal
in todayssociety we may not filter out people based on their SD being different so may still find them attractive