Differential Effect of Gender & Snapchat Filter Types on Attraction Perception ()
1. Introduction
Snapchat is one of the newest forms of social media which primarily incorporates communication through images, and recently with the addition of videos. Snapchat allows people to have fun, express themselves, and gain knowledge about the world [1]. Snapchat is one of the fastest growing social networks which continue to grow at an extraordinary rate [2]. Snapchat is capturing the interest of social media users, especially users within the younger demographics [2].
Facebook recognized the successful growth of Snapchat [3] [4]. Snapchat Inc. co-founders, Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy, turned down a multibillion business offer from Facebook [3] [4]. After Spiegel and Murphy turned down Facebook’s offer, Snapchat Inc. continued to increase in popularity and usage. Snapchat users are sending 700 million photos and videos daily [3]. According to investment bank Piper Jaffray, Snapchat exceeded Instagram as teens app choice [4]. Snapchat users are spending more time on Snapchat than Instagram [4].
Originally, Snapchat was created to share photos between friends; however, Snapchat Inc. is continuing to expand the platform of this social media by incorporating texts that allow not only images, but written messages to be sent with a photo, or as a separate message. Snapchat Inc. has continued to create additional features throughout the years that have increased the company’s revenue and usage numbers by allowing users and external companies to become a part of Snapchat. Recently, Snapchat creators have included advertisements in filter options, advertisement Snapchat accounts, and more. One of the primary features used in the Snapchat app are the filter options. The use of filters provides the user with options to change, enhance, and modify the images taken through the app. Filter options include, but are not limited to a pretty filter, frown filter, dog filter, and sponsored (aka advertisement) filter.
As a camera company, Snapchat Inc. [1] claimed that recreating the camera is a way to improve the way people live and communicate. However, currently communication studies lack research on this trending social network. To date, communication scholars [5] performed the only communication studies research on the use of Snapchat. The purpose of this study is to enhance communication research on Snapchat by analyzing the impact Snapchat filters have on attraction levels. We will discover how physical and social attractiveness are impacted based upon specific Snapchat filters as well as how the presence of homophily impacts individual attractiveness.
2. Literature Review
“Attraction influences perceptions such that people who are perceived as attractive are perceived as possessing many socially desirable characteristics” ([6]: p. 41). They discovered communicative competence significantly impacts an individual’s perception of one’s task, social and physical attraction [6]. Individuals who are perceived as attractive are also perceived as more successful, social, happier, popular, and persuasive. The authors conducted a study on 118 undergraduate students in an interpersonal communication class. All of the students were given a partner of the opposite sex they didn’t know and were required to hold a conversation for ten minutes. They also completed a survey after the interaction to determine the overall attractiveness of that individual. Results showed that communicative competence is more highly associated with perceived physically attractive individuals. Individuals with high communicative competence were perceived as more socially attractive than individuals low in competence. Also, social confirmation plays a larger part in the perception of social attraction than initially anticipated. For example, if I confirm your self-presentation or projected image on social media, then I am perceived as more socially attractive. Social confirmation is associated with liking another individual which results in higher social attraction. This study also showed how physical attractiveness is not a concrete perspective of any individual. Given the right situation in which an individual can perform competently, the social attractiveness is influenced and can be increased. Therefore, physical attractiveness can be altered by an individual’s social performance. An individual can increase their perceived attractiveness by improving their communicative competence.
Communication scholars conducted a field experiment among eight international virtual work teams made up of students from the United States as well as England who were taking a class from two different locations [7]. Over the course of one semester the students worked in different groups and communicated via text-based computer mediated communication (CMC). At the end of the semester, the students were given an online survey to understand the social and physical attraction of the members of their group members considering most of the members had not met each other unless they were in the same class section, meaning same country, as another group member. However, each group consisted of members from their class section as well as international class members whom they had not met as well. The survey consisted of color, head shot photos of the individuals within their groups. Questions were asked to discover when participants benefit from seeing group member’s faces within CMC. Results showed that if individuals had a picture of their group member before or during short term CMC interaction levels of social attraction increased. However, once a long-term group was acquainted only via text based online encounters, they experienced less social attraction when a picture was introduced as compared to groups in which a picture of the members was never introduced. Social attraction was increased due to higher intimacy and affection when there was not a picture of the group members present.
Researchers found social attraction was not impacted by self-presentation, but if one was successful in self presentation their physical attraction increased [7]. When a group did not have a picture of their members, physical attraction was dependent upon the success of an individual’s self-presentation. Interestingly, familiarity was negatively associated with social attraction, yet positively associated with physical attraction. When an individual is perceived as less attractive, they are more likely to be successful in self-presentation. The more attractive an individual is, the less likely they are to believe they have successfully portrayed themselves. The results of this study highlight the effort of individuals on their self-presentations via CMC. Individuals manipulate other’s impressions of themselves in order to be seen as more socially and physically attractive. In a face-to-face communication, the physical attraction is what it is. Whereas, how one appears online may need further exploration.
Researchers also found the only outcome that was influenced by gender effects was physical attraction [7]. The study found that regardless of whether the group members had a picture of the men, the physical attraction of the men differed among each of the male participants. Men rated women significantly higher in physical attraction than they rated other men. The women were seen as the same level of physical attractiveness as each other.
A quantitative study was conducted to understand at what age range attractiveness-based social judgments began to emerge [8]. 4934 German students completed a survey to determine the attractiveness of either children, adolescent, or young adult individuals based on the physique, educational background, and social background information. Male and female photographs were used. They were all pretested to determine physical attractiveness whereas all individuals utilized were either highly attractive or less attractive. The overarching results stated that during the average age of puberty, individuals become more likely to make social judgments based on their perceived attractiveness of another individual. This study also showed individuals who are above the average age of puberty are more likely to have a positive bias toward someone of the opposite sex they find attractive. However, there is a negative bias toward individuals who are attractive and the same sex. The negative bias towards others is increased with age.
Communication scholars conducted two studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, to understand how college students experience Snapchat on a social and emotional level [5]. The first study included experience—sampling surveys from 154 total eligible undergraduate participants from a large university within the United States. Study two utilized face-to-face interviews among twenty-eight of the initial 154 participants. Snapchat interactions were associated with a positive mood and are perceived to be more enjoyable than other social media accounts according to the quantitative data. The data also showed how Snapchat is not ideal for supportive social exchanges as Snapchat is seen to be less supportive than other social media sites. The qualitative data indicated Snapchat as a means to have a visual conversation. Snapchat is not perceived to be a site for disseminating information, it is associated with direct interaction and connecting directly with people who the individual wants to keep close ties with, no matter the other individual’s location. The interview data emphasized sharing contextual information such as the “here and now” or particular aspects of a specific experience.
Study two also found that even the minimal social exchanges are positively associated with an individual’s well-being. Therefore, although Snapchat itself is perceived as less socially supportive to an individual’s emotional needs, an individual’s investment in a relationship via Snapchat directly impacts an individual’s overall health by allowing an individual to experience the context and real time moments happening in one’s life. Snapchat allows friends, especially close relationships, to increase their social presence. Study one found face-to-face interaction was the only preferred interaction aside from Snapchat in relation to how pleasant the interaction is. Also, Snapchat dismisses some of the concern individuals have of their own self-presentation on other social media sites like Facebook. Snapchat encourages individuals to present themselves in a more authentic manner whereas “an ugly or expressive selfie is more meaningful” and increases the closeness of a relationship (p. 972). Even something as simple as an ugly selfie can serve as a means of relational maintenance, increase levels of trust, and expand feelings. However, perceptions of social support may not be directly impacted from Snapchat.
Through the lens of our study, we understand filtered attraction as the means by which individuals are found either physically or socially attractive based upon their use of filters on social media. Filtered attraction significantly impacted our results, yet no research is conducted on this concept so far. Many researchers study the impacts of physical and social attraction on social media as we have seen above; however, this idea of filters impacting the overall attraction of an individual is inconclusive in research as of now. Filters, specifically on Snapchat, impact how an individual is perceived by others based on how they look or sound physically and socially. Filters were established to alter how someone looks by either allowing the blemishes on their face to be removed and covered by a “pretty filter” (as you will see in our method) or by placing a distortion on their face such as the “frown filter” to create a perception the individual is humorous or silly. Snapchat includes many additional filters such as a dog filter and many different sponsored filters which change daily. We believe filters and their ability to impact perceived attractiveness should be highlighted.
Specifically, 1) an individual’s choice of filter impacts their attraction status among others, 2) an individual’s reasoning for being attracted to a specific filter impacts how they perceive their own attractiveness, and 3) cultural perceptions of a filter impact an individual’s physical and social attraction.
Filters impact how individuals are perceived by others. Therefore, it is important for us to acknowledge the impact of an individual’s choice of filter. Filters are understood differently to every individual meaning a specific filter may be funny and exciting to one individual, yet rude and obnoxious to another. This perception of a filter impacts how individuals are perceived among others as the filter they are using is what the other friends or individuals is seeing. For example, the “frown filter” represents a distorted face which our group believed would negatively impact the perception of the individual we used in this study. However, we will see later our results demonstrated the opposite effect.
It is also significant to understand how a filter impacts an individual’s perception of their own attractiveness. People choose filters in order to either enhance or alter their appearance for a variety of reasons. As we will see, physical attraction impacts social attraction; therefore, an individual may perceive themselves more physically attractive utilizing a specific filter over another. This leads them to choose this filter and alter the perception others have of their attractiveness. Individuals intentionally manipulate their physical and social attractiveness based on their personal experience/use of filters.
Lastly, it is important to understand how filters are perceived among an individual’s culture as this directly impacts perceived attractiveness. If individuals are purposefully altering how they are perceived by utilizing different filters, they already have preconceived ideas of how a specific filter is interpreted among their friends. These predetermined notions of a filter impact the extent of attractiveness both physically and socially, but most importantly homophily. “Individuals have been found to infer how similar the targeted audience is to them in terms of age, gender, education and social status, otherwise termed as homophily. Effects of perceived homophily between communication groups found that perceiving a target group as similar to oneself increases subjective identification with the group’s characteristics” ([9]: p. 207). Moreover, the more relatable and similar a filter is to one’s culture, the more likely they are to feel a closeness with another individual. This directly heightens an individual’s attractiveness by allowing someone to interact with homophilous audiences.
RQ: How do Snapchat filters affect perceived levels of 1) physical and 2) social attraction as well as 3) homophily?
3. Method
A 2 (gender of person taking survey: male vs. female) × 5 (Snapchat filter type: no filter vs. pretty filter vs. frown filter vs. dog filter vs. sponsored filter) factorial design was conducted to examine the effects of filter use via Snapchat on student’s perception of social attractiveness, physical attractiveness, and homophily.
3.1. Participant
Participants (N = 226) were recruited from a communication course at a large Southwestern university; in exchange for participating, students received extra credit in the communication course. Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 64 (M = 22.30, SD = 4.32) and 45% were male. The racial/ethnic distribution of the participants was as follows: 54% Caucasian, 16% African American, 15%, Latin American, 4% Asian American, 4% Multiracial, and 3% other ethnicity.
3.2. Procedure
Participants were informed that they would be viewing a power point slide featuring a Snapchat photo. The participants were randomly assigned to view one of the ten versions of Snapchat mockups depicting a person with a Snapchat filter. After the participants viewed the mock-up, they were instructed to answer questions on the survey as they related to the slide they were viewing. Participants were then asked to provide demographic information and answer supplemental questions assessing their familiarity with Snapchat.
3.3. Stimuli
Ten Snapchat mock-ups were included as stimuli for this study. Each mockup used a different filter. The ten Snapchat variations in this study are: 1) a female college student with no filter, 2) a female college student with pretty filter, 3) a female college student with frown filter, 4) a female college student with dog filter, 5) a female college student with sponsored filter, 6) a male college student with no filter, 7) a male college student with pretty filter, 8) a male college student with frown filter, 9) a male college student with dog filter, and 10) a male college student with sponsored filter. Here the sponsored filter was defined as a filter which was updated on a regular basis (e.g., a filter related to a new-coming movie) rather than those filters which are always present on Snapchat.
3.4. Measures
Social attraction. The social attraction of the person on Snapchat photo was measured using 5 items of the interpersonal attraction 7-point Likert scale [10]. The scale ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The 5 items included: I think he/she could be a friend of mine; It would be difficult to meet and talk with him/her; He/she just wouldn’t fit into my circle of friends; we could never establish a personal friendship with each other; and I would like to have a friendly chat with him/her. Chronbach’s Alpha for this scale was 0.75, indicating a respectably reliable scale. An index score was created for social attraction (M = 4.86, SD = 1.03).
Physical attraction. The physical attraction of the person in the Snapchat photo was assessed using another 5 items of McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) interpersonal attraction 7-point Likert scale. The items included: I think he/she is quite handsome/pretty; He/she is very sexy looking; I find him/her very attractive physically; I don’t like the way he/she looks; and He/she is somewhat ugly. The reliability of this scale was α = 0.81, indicating that the scale is reliable. An index score was created for physical attraction (M = 4.07, SD = 1.15).
Homophily. The perceived homophily of the person in the Snapchat photo was assessed using eight items from the 7-point semantic differential scale [11]. The items included: Doesn’t think like me/Thinks like me; From social class similar to mine/From social class different from mine; Behaves like me/Doesn’t behave like me; Economic situation different from mine/Economic situation like mine; Similar to me/Different from me; Status like mine/Status different from mine; Unlike me/Like me; Background different from mine/Background similar to mine. The reliability of this scale was 0.72, indicating this was respectable. An index score was created for homophily (M = 3.98, SD = 0.83).
Other measures. Participants also responded to a series of questions that assessed if they used Snapchat, how often they were on Snapchat, if they used Snapchat filters, and if they were familiar with a sponsored Snapchat filter. Demographic questions including the age, gender, race, religion, and relationship status of the participant were asked at the end of the survey.
4. Result
Data Analysis
We first tested if there was a significant difference of the ratings of Snapchat person among the ten variations (a female college student with no filter, a female college student with pretty filter, a female college student with frown filter, a female college student with dog filter, a female college student with sponsored filter, a male college student with no filter, a male college student with pretty filter, a male college student with frown filter, a male college student with dog filter, and a male college student with sponsored filter) of the Snapchat persons on all the dependent variables based on gender. An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine if the gender of the person on Snapchat affected his/her social attractiveness. Results showed the effect of gender was significant t (224) = 2.89, p < 0.01. Female in the Snapchat was rated more socially attractive (M = 5.07, SD = 0.87) than male in the Snapchat (M = 4.68, SD = 1.13).
Another independent sample t-test using gender as independent variable and the physical attractiveness rating as the dependent variable showed a similar pattern. Female on Snapchat was rated more physical attractive (M = 4.42, SD = 0.99) than male in the Snapchat (M = 3.75, SD = 1.20), t (224) = 4.57, p < 0.001.
In addition, an independent sample t-test showed there was no significant difference on homophily rating based on the gender of the person in the Snap Chap, t (223) = 0.19, p > 0.05.
A one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted using the different Snapchat types (no filter vs. pretty filter vs. frown filter vs. dog filter vs. sponsored filter) as the independent variable and the social attractiveness as the dependent variable. A significant difference was noted, F (4, 221) = 3.06, p < 0.05. The Tukey HSD post hoc analysis indicated that the social attractiveness of the Snapchat person with no filter (M = 4.53, SD = 0.1.06) was significantly lower than the social attractiveness of the Snapchat person with the frown filter (M = 5.10, SD = 0.77); Also the social attractiveness of the Snapchat person with no filter (M = 4.53, SD = 0.1.06) was close to reach the significant difference level compared to the social attractiveness rating of Snapchat person with the sponsored filter (M = 5.09, SD = 0.68). However, the Tukey HSD post hoc test did not find a significant difference between the social attractiveness of Snapchat person with no filter (M = 4.53, SD = 1.06) and the Snapchat person with the pretty filter (M = 4.68, SD = 1.17) or the Snapchat person with the dog filter (M = 5.00, SD = 1.23).
Additional ANOVA tests did not find a significant difference among the physical attractiveness of the person on Snapchat with different types of filters F (4, 225) = 0.58, p > 0.05. Similarly, ANOVA test did not find a significant difference between homophily rating of the person on Snapchat based on different types of filters, F (4, 224) = 0.41, p > 0.05.
Finally, the univariate General Linear Model (GLM) was then conducted to determine which factors affect the social attractiveness of the Snapchat person. The omnibus test included all factors as independent variables including gender of person on Snapchat, Snapchat type, participant’s Snapchat use, participant’s gender, homophily, age, ethnicity, participant’s own filter use, and the possible interactions among those factors. After dropping the non-significant factors, we found that besides Snapchat type (F (4, 226) = 3.32, p < 0.05), the gender of person on Snapchat (F (1, 226) = 8.03, p < 0.01) as reported before, there was a significant interaction effect between Snapchat type and gender of person on Snapchat (F (4, 226) = 2.94, p < 0.05), which showed the social attractiveness rating of the person on Snapchat displayed a different pattern depending on both the type of filter and the gender of person on Snapchat.
Table 1 provided the detailed descriptive information of the mean and standard deviation scores of social attractiveness rating based on different type of filter and the gender of person on Snapchat.
Table 1. Descriptive of social attractiveness rating.
SnapChat Type |
Male M (SD) |
Female M (SD) |
No Filter |
4.14 (1.01) |
4.90 (0.98) |
Pretty |
4.29 (1.13) |
5.15 (1.05) |
Frown |
5.08 (.87) |
5.14 (0.63) |
Dog |
4.74 (1.45) |
5.28 (0.89) |
Sponsored |
5.28 (0.69) |
4.91 (0.64) |
Figure 1 shows the pattern of social attractiveness rating based on the impact of Snapchat type and the gender of person on Snapchat.
Figure 1. Interaction effect graph between Snapchat type and the gender of person on Snapchat.
As shown in Figure 1, in the no filter condition, male on Snapchat was rated much less social attractive than female counterpart. The same pattern was observed in the pretty filter condition. Although using pretty filter increased the social attractiveness for both male and female on Snapchat, the gap between male and female was still wide. The effect of using frown filter was very different for male and female: it greatly increased the male on Snapchat person’s social attractiveness, while it did not boost the female on Snapchat social attractiveness rating at all. As a result, the social attractiveness rating between male and female in the Snapchat became very close. The effect of using dog filter was also different for different genders: it increased the social attractiveness of female on Snapchat while decreased the rating of male. Lastly, the effect of using a sponsored filter also had an opposite effect for different genders: it decreased the social attractiveness rating of female (bringing it close to the lowest level) while increased the social attractiveness rating of male, boosting it up to the highest level.
5. Discussion
The focus of this study was to examine how different factors including gender and Snapchat filter types influence social and physical attraction and homophile. While we did not detect significant effects of gender and Snapchat filter types on homophily, we did find significant effect of gender, Snapchat filter types and their interaction on social attractiveness rating. Physical attractiveness was only affected by the gender of person on Snapchat, but not by the Snapchat filter types.
Our results showed gender of the person in the Snapchat photo affects both social and physical attraction, but not homophily. As previously discovered [6], social attraction and physical attraction are intertwined. Physical attraction can be changed depending by an individual’s social performance. Our results indicated that female on Snapchat were favored over male on both social and physical attraction.
We also tested the effect of participant’s gender on the social attractiveness ratings. Across the board, female participants gave higher physical and social attraction ratings to both male and female Snapchat photos, while male participants gave lower scores overall. In other words, female participants were more generous to both male and female Snapchat photos. Our results were consistent with the findings in prior research [7], which found that physical attraction was the only outcome that influences gender effects. Regardless of how group members had a picture of their CMC group members, men rated women significantly higher in physical attraction than other men. Women rated each other the same on physical attraction.
For the effect of Snapchat filter types, social attractiveness was the only type of attraction that had relevant results. Previous research studied how physical attractiveness, social attraction, and task attraction are viewed with online networking profile as reflected by the wall posting of an associate’s post [7]. Negatively-valanced messages about certain moral behaviors increase male attractiveness, but females are viewed as less attractive. The gender of the participant doing the survey had no effect on how the female profiles versus the male profiles were scored. Both genders rated female profiles less attractive when they viewed negative messages on their profile and males scored more attractive with negative messages on their wall.
While researchers applied negative messages to their subject’s profiles [12], we applied positive “fun” filters to females and male Snapchat photos. Interestingly, our male Snapchat photos were rated higher, when the filter was seen as “ugly” as opposed to “pretty” or “normal”. Overall the male Snapchat photos did receive a lower social attraction score than females.
The social attraction results indicated that compared to no filter, using the frown filter and the sponsored filter resulted in higher scores. The pretty filter and the dog filter did not receive high scores in social attractiveness. Previously, it was found that Snapchat interactions were positively associated with a positive mood and perceived as more enjoyable than other social media accounts [5]. Snapchat is designed for more direction interactions and connecting with people on a personal level. Increasing direct interactions is a way to increase social attractiveness because it is not perceived to be an account to disseminate information, but rather close ties with the recipient of the Snapchat photo and an investment in the relationship of the receiver of the Snapchat photo.
Since our results indicate that the frown filter and sponsored filter are seen as more socially attractive, the “goofiness” of the filter can be seen as a stronger investment in the relationship of the receiver of the Snapchat photo because it distorts the face of the sender. Snapchat is perceived as more authentic because the user can express themselves by an ugly or expressive selfie. Since the frown filter is seen as “ugly”, this explains why our results saw the frown filter with the male and female as the highest social attraction since the person using the “ugliest” filter purposely allowing the receiver of the Snapchat to see themselves at the most “ugly” the sender can be perceived. The sender is being the most vulnerable and most trusting of the receiver. The frown filter is the “ugliest” filter possible to apply on the Snapchat, and therefore, the most trustful of the receiver of the filter. Since the sponsored filter is only on the app for one day, users must check the filters daily to see the new sponsored filter. We argue that that sponsored filters users receive higher levels of social attraction because the user is up to date on the most current filter, and therefore, the most relevant. The social attraction score is higher because the person is being active on Snapchat and taking time to check for the new filter daily to apply to their face. Future research could understand if being more socially present on a social media account makes you seem more socially attractive or not.
In this study, we also found the gender of the person in the Snapchat photo and the Snapchat filter types jointly effect the social attraction. The male Snapchat photos produced a wider variation of social attraction. The male received the highest social attraction score in the frown and the second highest social attraction score in the sponsored filter. All filters increased the male’s social attraction scores. More importantly, the large increase on social attraction rating from the no filter to the sponsored filter was found.
The female Snapchat photos received a higher social attraction score in the no filter, pretty filter, frown filter, dog filter, but not the sponsored filter. The female Snapchat photos did not receive as wide of a variance as the male filters; in fact, the filters only slightly increased the female’s social attraction score. The female photo that received the highest score was the dog filter. The sponsored filter received the lowest score, and was similar to the same score of no filter.
These results could be indicative of the most recent use of the dog filter on female participants. Recently, females have been taking screen shots of the dog filter on their face and posting the photo on other social media accounts like Facebook and Instagram. This is an interesting shift in the use of Snapchat filters, but most interestingly because it is only the dog filter the females have used on other social media accounts. Currently, no research explains how the interweaving of social media accounts affects social attraction; however, these results could be the beginnings of explaining how certain social media accounts do effect social attraction, especially whenever the accounts are crossed over.
Social attraction increased when a picture is not present during the CMC interactions [7]. However, since our male Snapchat photo with the Sponsored face did receive higher social attraction score, we argue that the Sponsored face Snapchat filter is perceived to have lower levels of self-presentation for males. Thus, we argue that the Snapchat filter type has a different effect depending on the gender of the person in the Snapchat photo.
6. Conclusion
This study found that gender plays a significant role in the attractiveness rating. Physical attractiveness was only affected by the gender of person on Snapchat, but not by the Snapchat filter types. It showed physical attractiveness rating was a more stable evaluation based on the look of the person, rather than how the person is utilizing the technology. Our results showed gender of the person on Snapchat photo affects both social and physical attraction, but not homophily. The use of different types of Snapchat filters had a significant effect on social attraction, but not on physical attraction. Moreover, there was a significant interaction effect between gender of the person on Snapchat and the types of Snapchat filter used on the social attraction rating.
7. Limitation & Future Research
The present study examined the impact Snapchat filters had on physical, social, and homophily attraction. Snapchat Inc. changes its sponsored filters on a regular basis. For this study, we used a “Trolls” movie filter. This specific filter modified the eyes and hair of the individuals. This specific sponsored filter may have created a limitation to our sponsored filter results. Another limitation in this study could be the number of participants that partook in the sponsored filter portion of our study.
Overall, the Snapchat application is an understudied area within communication research. Due to the lack of research and the rapid growth of this commutation app, scholars in the future should extend research on Snapchat communication. Researchers in the future could study a broader sample size and due to the constant change in sponsored filters, a study could be performed to analyze which sponsored filters are most successful.
We also suggest more inclusive studies on the impact of filters on both physical and social attraction of an individual via social media. We believe the idea of filtered attraction is highly significant in the life of future studies, as this is not a concept we would have even thought about several years ago, now filters have become a part of an individual’s everyday life and perception of another individual. It will also be interesting to discover the reason some individuals are naturally attracted to certain filters over other filters, and how those each impact someone’s perception of another.