Attraction: Filter Theory

• Overview:

  Kerckhoff and Davis developed the 'filter theory' of attraction; suggesting our choice of partner should be narrowed down using a series of filters in order to provide us with a 'field of availables'. This allows us to make the most suited choice. The theory states that different filters are prominent and most influential at different points within the relationship.
• Social Demography:

  Refers to variables such as age, social background and geographical location which determine the likelihood of meeting. These social circumstances reduce the range of people we can realistically meet, meaning it is fairly restricted to people from our own ethnic, social and educational group. We feel similar and more at ease with these people, meaning we find them more attractive as we have more in common. This stage is more about social characteristics than individual characteristics.
• Similarity in Attitudes:

  Involves an individuals' psychological characteristics, specifically their agreement on attitudes and basic values. Kerckhoff and Davis found this was of central importance at the start of a relationship, and was the best predictor of relationship stability. Through their disclosures, individuals could decide whether to continue or end their relationship. Those who had differing attitudes and values were seen as unsuitable and 'filtered out' from the field of available partners.
• Complementarity of Needs:

  People who have differing needs like each other as they can provide each other with mutual satisfaction of these opposed needs. They need to find a partner who complements them to ensure their needs are met. E.g. a young women who lacks economic resources may feel attracted to older men with good financial prospects. Needs should be harmonious. Winch's study of 25 married couples in the US found that social needs (like dominance or respect) should be complementary in order for the marriage to remain long-term.
• Key Study: Kerckhoff and Davis

  Procedure- using a sample of 94 dating couples in a US university, each partner completed two questionnaires assessing the degree to which they share the same attitudes and values, and the degree of need complementarity. 7 months later, they were asked to complete another questionnaire which asked them about how close they felt to their partner since the last questionnaire- this was used to indicate their progress towards a permanent/more stable relationship.
• Key Study: Kerckhoff and Davis

  Findings- when analysing data initially, only similarity in attitudes appeared to be related to partner closeness. However, couples were then divided into long-term (over 18 months) and short-term (less than 18 months). For those in short-term relationships, similarity of attitudes was the most important predictor of closeness. But for long-term couples, complementarity of needs was the main factor for closeness. Supporting the claim that certain filters are more prominent at different points.
• AO3: Lack of research support

  Levinger et al failed to replicate the results of Kerckhoff and Davis' study. In their study of 330 'steadily attached' couples used the same procedures as the key study. Yet there was no evidence that similarity in attitudes or complementarity of needs influenced relationship permanence. They also found no influence of the relationship length and the influence of different filters/variables. Arguing the different results are due to the changes in social values and courtship patterns that have occurred in the years between the studies.
• AO3: Key Study Criticisms

  Low Temporal Validity- research was conducted in the 1960s and the ways in which relationships are defined and formed has changed. Many people now meet online and don't require the social demography filter. Relationships aren't confined to heterosexual norms.

  Culture Bias- all couples in the sample are American- therefore these norms only account in Western societies, and applying these universally is imposing etic. Meaning the data collected is limited in relevance and application.
• AO3: The Value of the Filtering Process

  Duck suggests that it allows people to make predictions about their future interactions, meaning they can avoid investing in a relationship which won't work. Each person can conduct a series of explorations, disclosing bits of information about themselves, and encouraging a partner's self-disclosure through questioning/provoking a disagreement. Based on these exchanges, they can decide whether to end the relationship before becoming too deeply involved. Stopping people making the wrong choice and having to live with consequences.
• AO3: Perceived Similarity may be more important than Actual Similarity

  Research has generally supported the importance of similarity in attitudes in attraction. Though some researchers have found that perceived similarity predicts attraction more strongly than actual similarity does. Tidwell et al tested this using speed-dating, decisions about attraction must be made over a shorter time span. After measuring actual and perceived similarity through a questionnaire, perceived similarity predicted romantic liking.
• AO3: Complementarity of Needs may not be that important

  Dijkstra and Barelds studied 760 college singles on a dating website who were looking for a long-term partner. P's own personalities were measured, and they were asked to rate characteristics they desired in an ideal mate. Researchers found that initially p's indicated that they desired a complementary partner rather than similar, there were strong correlations between an individuals' personality and their ideal partners personality. Supporting the similarity-attraction hypothesis rather than complementarity of needs.
• IDA: Deterministic

  Assumes that relationships progress when partners discover shared attitudes, and that their partner's needs complement their own. However, people's attitudes change continually- this theory ignores the emotions and cognitions involved in attraction. Thornton and DeMarco show there has been changes in attitudes regarding young Americans. Including the weakening of the imperative to marry, stay together and have children. People are no longer seeking a 'soulmate', instead they opt for a cooperative cohabitant.
• IDA: Individual Differences

  For example, many people have long distance relationships where each member of the couple has a different social demography. Some couples thrive despite the distance. The theory can be seen as culturally bias because couples whose marriages have been arranged only meet the social demography filter, but many of these relationships still progress normally despite disagreements on basic values.
• IDA: Causation or Correlation

  Researchers are looking for a causality when they have found a positive correlation. It may be that the act of a couple being together over time causes their attitudes to converge as their image of themselves as a couple develops.