THE FILTER THEORY

SPECIFICATION: FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTION IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS: Filter Theory:

• The process of narrowing down potential partners based on specific criteria, including:

• Social Demography: Factors such as age, location, and social background.

• Similarity in Attitudes: Shared values and beliefs.

• Complementarity: The balance of traits that complement each other in a relationship.

FILTER THEORY

THEORY

One suggestion as to why humans form relationships is the filter theory. This theory is as you would expect from its name—that is, potential partners must pass several filters before we form a relationship with them. It focuses on gradually eliminating (or filtering) individuals according to several characteristics. This explanation suggests that we are more likely to form and sustain relationships with individuals who meet certain criteria.

Kerchoff and Davis (K and D) argued that relationships develop through three filters, making different factors important at different times. K and D referred to the ‘field of availability’ as the possible people we could have relationships with. They argued that we ‘filter out’ potential partners for different reasons at different times so that the ‘field of available’ is gradually narrowed down to a relatively small ‘field of desirables’ – those we would consider potential partners. 

1ST FILTER: SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC SIMILARITY

The first stage of the filter theory focuses on social and demographic variables, particularly proximity. The first filter is possibly the most critical; this is known as the ‘field of available’, and, simply put, this filter says that we will not form a relationship with anyone we don’t meet. This may seem obvious, but it is essential. It is all very good for us to give the criteria of the perfect reason why two people will form a relationship, but if they never meet, it will never happen. In other words, we are more likely to filter out people who do not live or work near us, those who are not close to us(simply because we don’t meet them). Though this is not always the case, it is implied that, for the most part, we will meet people of a similar class, ethnicity, religion and wage band as us simply because most people tend to mix with people who are pretty similar to them, e.g. many people in Orpington are white, middle class, Christian, conservatives. A much larger group of people who live in other places and come from different backgrounds are rarely encountered.

Included in this filter are physical features. It is suggested that we filter out potential partners based on whether they are physically appealing to us. It may be that a woman is looking for a tall man rather than a short man, or the other way around and will filter out what they are not looking for. Therefore, we will only talk to someone who suits our criteria. Individual characteristics play a small part in this first stage.

2ND FILTER: SIMILARITY OF ATTITUDES AND VALUES ('FIELD OF DESIRABLES')
Then is a filter called similarity of attitudes and values, which is judged when we meet someone and begin talking to them. It is thought that we will want to form a relationship with someone with similar attitudes and beliefs. This filters psychological features- shared beliefs are considered pivotal here—for example, diet, music, politics, ambitions, etc. K and D thought this stage was most closely related to the probability of the relationship becoming stronger. People with different values, attitudes, interests, etc., will be filtered out at this stage.

3RD FILTER: COMPLEMENTARITY OF EMOTIONAL NEEDS ('FIELD OF DESIRABLES')
After forming the relationship, the final filter is the ‘complementarity of emotional needs’. K and D believe if couples have this third filter, their relationship will be more likely to be long-term (longer than 18 months). Complementarity of emotional needs suggests that a relationship will last if the couple suits each other in areas, such as how their personalities gel, e.g., one could be domineering and seek a submissive partner, or an extrovert may need another extrovert. It could be as simple as whether they both enjoy snuggling up on a night in or partying nonstop night after night- this will affect how they function as a couple, determining whether they stay together.

ANALYSIS FILTER THEORY

Cultural bias: The Filter theory is ethnocentric in its assumption that all relationships will be formed according to Western/individualistic ideas of relationships. The premise of the Filter theory is that relationship formation is down to individual choice, e.g., choosing a partner with similar attitudes, beliefs and values. There are many cultures and subcultures, mainly in Collectivist societies, where families or communities often arrange relationships; individual choice is rarely an option (Moghadden, 1993). Indeed, the collectivist way of forming relationships is so vastly different from the individualistic culture that some psychologists believe that theories on formation, like the Filter Model, can never be seen from an Elitist point of view, as there are no universal behaviours. To understand the effect of cultural influences on behaviour, this research area would need to be analysed emically.’

LACK OF TEMPORAL VALIDITY (HISTORICAL BIAS)

The Filter theory was formulated over fifty years ago, in 1962. Is it relevant to today as there is a completely different zeitgeist? For example, internet dating has changed how relationships are conducted. Perhaps it has reduced the importance of the filter and social demography. People can now choose to date people who do not live or work near them - this means that potential partners might be out of our social demography, e.g., different cultures, ethnicities, etc.

METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS:

APFC RESEARCH
Much research has been done to support this theory, the most famous of which was by Kerckhoff and Davis, in which students in relationships answered questions on shared beliefs and complementarity of emotional needs and were then assessed later to see if their relationship had endured. Their research supported that shared beliefs are fundamental to forming a relationship and that the complementarity of social needs is central to maintaining a relationship.

Most research surrounding the filter theory has tended to focus on questionnaires and establishing correlations. For example, Spreecher (1998) conducted a longitudinal study over a twenty-year-one-year period. Findings suggested that couples with similar intelligence, education, and social background were more likely to stay together. This correlation supports both the first and second stages of the Filter Theory.

Several further studies have pointed to a link between proximity and the formation of relationships. See your textbook for studies on similarity and proximity.

• Participants, biased sample? Was there any external/population validity? Do students represent relationship formation in general? Students are only young; they may not know much about relationships. Expectations of relationships may be different in teens and early twenties.

• Questionnaires are subject to demand characteristics and social desirability bias. You may be embarrassed to talk about a relationship, not loyal, and also socially sensitive. If you admit you have different attitudes, you may worry the information will not be confidential.

• How did they get their sample? Participants who respond to adverts on relationships may be similar in character and relationship satisfaction, e.g., only those happy with their partner respond.

• Also, participants may drop out because of embarrassment over the cause of their breakup. The remaining pps may reflect a bias in the sample.

IS PSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE? Is the research for the filter model scientific? No, it’s non-experimental questionnaires that are then correlated. Can it be scientific? This is the only way it can be studied, too many variables, and can’t experiment. Triangulate or meta analyse.

REDUCTIONIST:  Reduces relationship formation to three filters and ignores biological, cultural and cognitive factors.

DETERMINISM: Yes, it says you will be more likely to form relationships with similar people who live near you and complement your personality. What about the Internet and people who meet in cyberspace?

NATURE VERSUS NURTURE:  Nurture theory ignores biological influences.

Perhaps proximity is simply a repercussion of several factors linked with similarity. 

What exactly is meant by a filter? For example, are there qualitatively different types of behaviour and emotions during different filters? Do later filters depend on coping successfully with earlier filters? Do people go through filters in the same way for the same amount of time? 

ANALYSIS OF BOTH THEORIES

Another problem that affects both theories is reductionism. For the filter theory, Rubin suggests that it implies we like people who are similar to us because we assume that they will like us on the same merit. Most of us are vain enough to think that anyone who shares the same views as us is worth our time- and anyone who does not- is not! Similarly, reward/need theory may suggest that even if we don’t suit someone, we will stay with them if we have had enough good experiences. It should be noted that we know from experience that this is not the case. Therefore, perhaps we should consider that either theory may go some way to explain why we form relationships but does not explain fully and should be used within a broader explanation.