HL - Cognitive factor on personal relationships

Question 1

Byrne and Nelson (1965)

Answer 1

aim -> To see if attraction towards someone is affected by how much their opinions match your own.
Method -> Every ppt filled in a questionnaire regarding their attitudes towards various issues. Responses were carefully analyzed and ppts were then presented with the responses of another person (of the same sex). These responses had been manipulated so that the frequency of shared responses was matched at certain frequencies (100% of 4/ 50% of 8). Ppts were then asked, on the basis of this limited information about the stranger, to try to judge them on probable liking for the stranger.
Results -> As the proportion of similar attitudes increased, liking for the stranger increased.
Conclusion -> The more of another’s opinions we know and agree with the more we will like them because their world-view validates ours, and hence boosts our self-view.

Evaluation ->

✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point
✔ Supported by Aronson and Linder (1965) and Walster et al (1973)

❌ Construct validity -> probable liking for, and probable enjoying of working with, the same-sex stranger - is not a valid measure of attraction when using these results to explain opposite-sex attraction.
❌ Biological explanation (Buss (1989), Singh (1993) and/or Wedekind(1995)) and Sociocultural explanation (Zajonc (1968) and/or Kenrick and Gutierres (1980))

Question 2

Aronson and Linder (1965)

Answer 2

aim ->
To investigate the effect of changing opinion on how much someone is liked.

Method -> Through a complicated series of deceptions the researchers gave ppts several conversations with a confederate and also gave the ppts a chance to listen in on conversations the researcher had with the confederate about what they thought about the ppt. There were four conditions: Confederate stayed positive, confederate stayed negative, confederate changed from positive to negative, and confederate changed from negative to positive. After this, ppts were asked a number of questions about the confederate and the question that was focussed on was how much the ppt liked the confederate (-10 to +10).

Results -> Most liked condition was when the confederate changed from negative to positive. Least liked condition was when the confederate changed from positive to negative.#

Conclusion -> When other people’s opinions of us matter, we like more those people who make us feel good about ourselves, and we like people less if they make us feel bad about ourselves.

Evaluation ->

✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point
✔ Supported by Byrne and Nelson (1965) and Walster et al (1973)

❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
❌ Biological explanation (Buss (1989), Singh (1993) and/or Wedekind(1995)) and Sociocultural explanation (Zajonc (1968) and/or Kenrick and Gutierres (1980))

Question 3

Walster et al (1973)

Answer 3

aim ->
To investigate the likely success of being considered a selectively hard-to-get woman.

Method -> Ppts presented with profiles of five women. Women had read the profiles of five men and had given their views on each -10 to +10 on how much they would like to date each man. Ppts could see that one of their five matches were consistently hard to get (rated each of their five men between low), one was consistently easy to get (universally high ratings), one was selectively hard to get (low for four men and high for one), and two hadn’t yet expressed any views. Ppts then rated each woman with the same scale.

Results -> Those who were selectively hard to get were preferred.

Conclusion -> Being selectively hard to get increases attractiveness. This is because being chosen over other men would lead to feeling good and people would want to be with someone who makes them feel good.

Evaluation ->

✔ internal validity -> good control of variables, arguably has good mundane realism and ecological validity (dating acts are standard nowadays)

✔ Supported by Aronson and Linder (1965) and Byrne and Nelson (1965)

❌ Ethical issues -> deceived into thinking it was a dating app. May caused participants to be upset when they discovered they were not on an actual dating act / the woman that wanted them wasn’t real (protection from harm, informed consent, deception all breached)

❌ Biological explanation (Buss (1989), Singh (1993) and/or Wedekind(1995)) and Sociocultural explanation (Zajonc (1968) and/or Kenrick and Gutierres (1980))