Human relationships studies Flashcards
Batson et al. 1981
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Student participants did a questionnaire on some personal issues.
They were told they are going to observe a study.
They read a description of the person who they observed.
In one condition they could identify with her (High empathy condition)
In another condition they couldn’t (Low empathy)
They then thought the observed live from tv a situation were the girl was answering questions. After two trials she received electric shocks.
She looked in very much pain.
The participants were told they could either go to her place or fill a questionnaire and leave. (Easy escape) or
They could go to her place or watch her do it until the end. (difficult escape)
Most people in high empathy helped her in both conditions.
Most people left in low empathy easy escape.
Some helped in low and hard escape.
The study shows that there is a clear correlation between feeling more empathy and helping.
Toi and Batson 1982
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Psychology students heard radio interview of a student who had broken both her legs.
They were either told to listen to the information she says, or how she feels about it.
Then they were told she was either stuck at home or that she will come to the same tutor meeting as the participant next week.
The participants were then asked if they would help her with her notes. Those who had listened to “Carol’s” feelings helped more.
The condition who would meet her later would also help more, but according to the researchers it was not the cause.
Madsen et al. 2007
Kin selection hypothesis and cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
UK and South African students gave a list of relatives they did not live with.
They then did a physical exercise where they had to sit with their back on a wall. Painful.
Brits were told that a relative would get 40p for 20 second of sitting.
They were more likely to sit longer for closer family members. Women more equal.
Zulu tribe members sat for food. Again, more sitting for closer family members. However, they did not make such big distinctions between cousins and biologically closer relatives. Shows the effect of collectivistic cultures.
Whiting and Whiting 1975
Cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour
Anthropological study in six countries on the cultural differences in child rearing and its effects on prosocial behaviour.
Children from 3-11 were observed on their daily interactions with people.
The researchers found that children from countries like Mexico and Philippines showed more prosocial behaviour than those from the USA or Japan. Children in Kenya were the most prosocial.
-More collectivistic=more prosocial learnt behaviour. Kenya is the most traditional, and most prosocial children came from there. The most egoistic children came from the USA.
There was also a difference in house chores. In the collect. countries children did more chores. In usa less, and they were paid.
The study shows that different aspects of modernization and socioeconomic organization and norms affect prosocial behaviour.
Levine
Cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
Tested how people would help in 23 different cities. The conditions were: someone dropping a pen. A blind man trying to walk past a street. A man with a cast dropping magazines.
Least help was received in Kuala Lumpur, New York and Amsterdam, for example. Most was in Rio de Janeiro. The countries with most individualism helped less.
Latané and Darley 1968 A
Bystanderism and diffusion of responsibility
Participants were told the study was about personal problems. They heard a man telling about his problems with seizures on tape. They either thought they were the only ones hearing this, or that there were four others hearing the same thing in different rooms.
When participant had told about their problems, the “person” (actually pre-recorded) started to answer and immediately began a seizure.
They asked for help and eventually fell silent after struggle.
The time it took for the participants to inform the researcher was measured. For those who thought they were alone, 85% acted within two minutes.
Those who thought there were four others, only 31% acted within two minutes.
After 6 min all in the alone condition had done something. Only 62% in the not alone condition.
Latané and Darley 1968 B
Bystanderism and diffusion of responsibility
Participants sat in a room either alone or with others. Then steam started to come to the room.
75% of those alone reported the steam within six minutes.
Only 12% of those with others.
Piliavin et al 1969
The arousal-cost-reward model to bystanderism
Field experiment on how situational factors affect helping behaviour.
NY subway, two observers/note-takers. An average of 8.5 people near the victim.
-an estimated 4450 people were part of the study.
Either a man with a white cone or a man who appeared drunk fell down 70 second after the train left.
It was observed when people helped. If no one would help, after 70 seconds a model helper would help.
There were 103 trials, in 38 a drunk victim and 65 a white cone.
93% of the time someone helped spontaneously, and in 60% more than one helper was involved.
The white cone man received help always, with an average of 5 seconds respond time.
The drunk man received help 81% of time, with a response time of over 100 seconds.
There was no diffusion of responsibility.
High ecological validity. However, different trials for different conditions.
Marazziti et al. 1999
Neurobiology and love:
serotonin levels in blood.
20 people who had fallen in love in the past 6 months, 20 people who had OCD and 20 people not in love.
Those in love and with OCD had similar LOW levels of serotonin in blood, which might cause the obsessive behaviour.
Fisher et al. 2003
Neurotransmitters and love.
10 women and 7 men who had been in love for an average of 7.5 months. Filled a questionnaire on their love.
Then went to fMRI machine and were shown picture of the loved one. Then they counted backwards (distraction task) and then they saw a picture of a neutral person.
This was repeated six times.
The brain areas with a lot of dopamine showed increased activity. The areas are associated in motivation, reward and goal orientation.
The study shows that love is and addiction?
Wedekind 1995
Genes and attraction
Aim: to study if attraction is caused by will to have the best genetic makeup possible for the offspring.
The gene that was considered is MHC that is important in for the immune system. It protects from pathogens.
There were 94 students, half male and half female.
The men were asked to sleep with a t-shirt for two nights and keep it in a plastic bag. The women had to smell 7 t-shirts: one control, three with similar genes and three with different genes.
The women found the smell of the t-shirts worn by men with dissimilar genes to be the most appealing. Their immune system is dissimilar, which would make the offspring a stronger immune system.
This suggest that there are biological factors to attraction.
Markey et al. 2007
Psychological explanations of attraction
Similarity and attraction
Participants were asked to describe and ideal partner, their values, psychological characteristics, attitudes.
Then they were asked to describe themselves.
The study showed that their ideal partners would be similar to themselves.
Follow-up of the study: 106 young couples asked to describe their partner as well as themselves. Again the characteristics were similar.
The method was self-reports, which might be biased and unreliable.
Kiesler and Baral 1970
Self-esteem in relationship formation
Seek for similar partners - what if self-perception is changed?
Male participants did a fake IQ test and got fake results. One group was told they did exceptionally good, another there must have been a mistake as they did so badly.
They then waited in a corridor and an attractive female walked in. It was observed how much the men engaged in a convo.
Those who received high scores engaged more often and showed more willingness to discuss with the woman.
This indicates that men who had a self-esteem boost felt that they were possible mates for an attractive woman.
Dittes and Kelley 1956
Reciprocity in psychological explanations to attraction
Participants were offered anonymous feedback from others in a group on whether they liked them or not. Those who believed someone liked them were more attracted to them.
Festinger et al. 1950
Proximity and attraction
Students in a pair student housing were studied on their formation of friendships.
They were interviewed regularly and observed.
Results show that those who had proximity were more likely to become friends.
Those who lived in the same building were 10 times more likely to become friends than those outside.
