Relationships

Question 1

Study: Rusbult’s Investment Model
Researcher(s): Caryl Rusbult
Aim: To examine factors influencing commitment in romantic relationships, including satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment.

Answer 1

Method: Surveys and longitudinal studies on relationships
Participants: Romantic partners (typically heterosexual couples in various relationship stages)
Procedure: Participants assessed their relationship satisfaction, available alternatives, and personal investments. Commitment levels were tracked over time.
Results: Higher satisfaction, lower quality of alternatives, and greater investment predicted stronger commitment to the relationship.
Conclusion: Rusbult’s model suggests that commitment is influenced by a balance of satisfaction, alternatives, and investment, and it predicts whether individuals stay in or leave relationships.
Evaluation:
Strengths: Applicable to diverse relationships; explains why individuals may stay in unsatisfying relationships due to high investment.
Limitations: Self-reported data may introduce bias; doesn’t account for complex individual and cultural differences in relationships.

Question 2

Study: Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Researcher(s): John Gottman
Aim: To identify predictors of relationship breakdown through communication patterns.

Answer 2

Method: Observational and longitudinal studies
Participants: Married couples observed in lab settings and interviewed
Procedure: Couples’ conversations were analyzed, and Gottman identified four behaviors (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling) that often predict divorce.
Results: The presence of the “Four Horsemen” behaviors in conflict discussions correlated with higher divorce rates and lower relationship satisfaction.
Conclusion: Negative communication patterns can erode relationships, and the presence of these “Four Horsemen” significantly predicts divorce.
Evaluation:
Strengths: Provides practical applications for relationship counseling; widely supported by research.
Limitations: Observations in lab settings may not capture all aspects of real-life interactions; may oversimplify complex relationship dynamics.

Question 3

Study: Robbers Cave Experiment
Researcher(s): Muzafer Sherif
Aim: To investigate intergroup conflict and cooperation using Realistic Conflict Theory.

Answer 3

Method: Field experiment at a summer camp
Participants: 22 boys aged 11-12, divided into two groups (Eagles and Rattlers)
Procedure: Boys were separated into two groups, engaged in competitive activities that led to tension and hostility. Researchers then introduced superordinate goals (tasks that required cooperation) to reduce conflict.
Results: Competition fostered intergroup hostility, but introducing superordinate goals reduced conflict and promoted cooperation.
Conclusion: Competition over limited resources leads to intergroup conflict, but shared goals can improve intergroup relations.
Evaluation:
Strengths: Provides strong empirical support for Realistic Conflict Theory; applicable to real-world group dynamics.
Limitations: Ethical concerns due to deception and distress among participants; limited generalisability due to the sample of young boys.