Relationships

Question 1

Rusbult & Zembrodt (1982/3) – Model of Responses to Relationship Dissatisfaction
Researcher(s): Caryl Rusbult
Aim: To identify ways people respond to dissatisfaction in relationships.

Answer 1

Method: Questionnaire and interview study.
Participants: Romantic partners experiencing dissatisfaction.
Procedure:
* Assessed individuals’ responses to conflict and dissatisfaction using the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect (EVLN) model.
Results:
* Constructive responses: Voice (active discussion) and Loyalty (passive endurance).
* Destructive responses: Exit (ending the relationship) and Neglect (ignoring problems).
Conclusion:
* Responses to dissatisfaction vary based on personal and relationship factors. Constructive approaches are more likely to resolve conflicts.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Offers a framework for understanding conflict resolution.
* Applicable to a variety of relationships.
Limitations:
* Relies on self-reported data, which may be biased.
* Limited cultural diversity in the sample.

Question 2

Study:Buss (1994) – Biological, Some Influence of Sociocultural
Researchers:
Aim: To investigate cross-cultural similarities and differences in mate preferences.

Answer 2

Method: Cross-cultural survey study.
Participants: Over 10,000 individuals from 37 cultures.
Procedure:
*Participants completed questionnaires about mate preferences, focusing on traits like physical attractiveness, financial prospects, and age.
Results:
* Universal trends: Males preferred younger, physically attractive females; females preferred older males with resources.
* Cultural differences: Socioeconomic status influenced preferences.
Conclusion:
* Mate preferences are influenced by both evolutionary factors (reproductive fitness) and sociocultural contexts (gender roles).
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Large, cross-cultural sample supports generalizability.
* Combines biological and cultural explanations.
Limitations:
* Self-reported data may introduce bias.
* Limited insight into individual variation within cultures.

Question 3

Study: Wedekind et al. (1995) – Biological
Researcher(s):
Aim: To determine whether MHC (major histocompatibility complex) genes influence mate preferences through scent.

Answer 3

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: 49 females and 44 males.
Procedure:
* Male participants wore the same t-shirt for 2 nights without using scented products.
* Females smelled and rated the t-shirts for attractiveness during their ovulation phase.
Results:
* Women preferred the scent of men with dissimilar MHC genes, except when on hormonal contraceptives.
Conclusion:
* MHC dissimilarity enhances immune system diversity in offspring, suggesting evolutionary influence on mate selection.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Supports evolutionary explanations for mate preferences.
* Controlled design minimizes confounding variables.
Limitations:
* Limited generalizability due to small sample size.
* Artificial setting may reduce ecological validity.

Question 4

Study:Fisher et al. (2003) – Biological
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate the neural mechanisms associated with romantic love.

Answer 4

Method: fMRI study.
Participants: 17 individuals intensely “in love.”
Procedure:
* Participants viewed photos of their romantic partner and a neutral acquaintance while undergoing fMRI scans.
* Brain activity was recorded and compared between conditions.
Results:
* Romantic love activated dopamine-rich brain regions, including the ventral tegmental area (VTA).
Conclusion:
* Romantic love is linked to dopamine reward systems, similar to addictive behaviors.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Objective data from brain imaging supports biological basis of love.
* Novel methodology for studying complex human emotions.
Limitations:
* Small, homogenous sample size.
* Correlational data cannot establish causation.

Question 5

Study:Dion et al. (1972) – Cognitive
Researcher(s):
Aim: To examine the “halo effect” (the assumption that physically attractive individuals have more positive traits).

Answer 5

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: College students.
Procedure:
* Participants rated photos of individuals on personality traits, based solely on physical attractiveness.
Results:
* Physically attractive individuals were rated higher on traits like kindness, intelligence, and success.
Conclusion:
* The halo effect demonstrates cognitive bias in judgments based on physical appearance.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Provides evidence for cognitive biases in perception.
* Experimental design ensures control over variables.
Limitations:
* Artificial setting reduces ecological validity.
* Cultural beauty standards may affect generalizability.

Question 6

Study: Zaidi & Shuraydi (2002) – Sociocultural
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate cultural influences on mate selection preferences between Pakistani and North American individuals.

Answer 6

Method: unstructured interviews.
Participants: Pakistani muslim women ( born and raised in America)
Procedure:
* Participants were interviewed about their values and preferences in mate selection.
Results:
* Pakistani participants prioritized family approval and long-term compatibility.
* Also emphasised individual choice and romantic love.
Conclusion:
* Cultural values shape mate selection preferences, highlighting sociocultural influence on relationships.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Qualitative approach provides in-depth insights.
* Highlights cultural diversity in relationships.
Limitations:
* Small sample limits generalisability.
* Potential bias in self-reported data.

Question 7

Study:
Gottman (2003) – The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Researcher(s):
Aim: To identify communication patterns that predict relationship breakdown.

To identify predictors of relationship breakdown through communication patterns.

Answer 7

Method: Observational study and longitudinal research.
Participants: Married couples.
Procedure:
* Couples discussed areas of conflict while being observed and videotaped.
* Analyzed for four negative communication patterns: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
* Followed up with couples over several years to assess relationship outcomes.
Results:
* Presence of the “Four Horsemen” strongly predicted relationship breakdown.
* Contempt was the single greatest predictor of divorce.
Conclusion:
* Negative communication patterns can erode relationship satisfaction and stability.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Longitudinal design provides reliable predictions of relationship outcomes.
* Practical applications for therapy and conflict resolution.
Limitations:
* Cultural and individual differences may influence findings.
* Observer effects may alter participants’ behavior.

Question 8

Study: Rollie & Duck (2006) – Five-Stage Model of Relationship Breakdown
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a model outlining the stages of relationship dissolution.

Answer 8

Method: Meta-analysis and theoretical framework.
Participants: Studies of individuals who experienced relationship breakdowns.
Procedure:
* Proposed five stages of dissolution:
1. Intrapsychic phase – private dissatisfaction.
2. Dyadic phase – discussing dissatisfaction with the partner.
3. Social phase – involving social networks.
4. Grave-dressing phase – creating a personal narrative of the breakup.
5. Resurrection phase – moving on.
Results:
* The model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding breakup processes.
Conclusion:
* Relationship breakdown is a process influenced by psychological and social factors.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Practical applications in counseling and therapy.
* Explains the complex nature of relationship breakdowns.
Limitations:
* Lacks empirical support for all stages.
* Overly simplistic and may not account for individual differences.

Question 9

Study: Campbell (1965) – Realistic Conflict Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To explain intergroup conflict as a result of competition for limited resources.

Answer 9

Method: Theoretical framework supported by experimental evidence.
Participants: Various intergroup conflict studies (e.g., Sherif et al.).
Procedure:
* Proposed that conflict arises when groups compete for scarce resources, leading to prejudice and hostility.
Results:
* Intergroup conflict increases under conditions of competition and decreases when groups cooperate toward a superordinate goal.
Conclusion:
* Intergroup conflict is not inherent but arises due to situational factors like resource competition.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Strongly supported by experimental evidence (e.g., Sherif et al., 1954).
* Practical applications for resolving conflicts.
Limitations:
* Does not account for conflict in non-competitive situations.
* Overemphasis on situational factors, neglecting individual differences.

Question 10

Study:Sherif et al. (1954) – The Robbers Cave Experiment
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate intergroup conflict and cooperation.

Answer 10

Method: Field experiment.
Participants: 22 boys (11-12 years old) at a summer camp.
Procedure:
* Divided boys into two groups (Eagles and Rattlers).
* Phase 1: Groups bonded separately.
* Phase 2: Competition introduced through games, leading to conflict.
* Phase 3: Introduced superordinate goals requiring cooperation.
Results:
* Competition increased intergroup hostility.
* Cooperation reduced conflict and improved relationships.
Conclusion:
* Intergroup conflict can be mitigated through shared goals.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* High ecological validity due to naturalistic setting.
* Practical implications for reducing prejudice.
Limitations:
* Ethical concerns regarding deception and distress.
* Limited to young male participants.

Question 11

Study: Tajfel & Turner (1979) – Social Identity Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a theory explaining prejudice and discrimination based on group membership.

Answer 11

Method: Theoretical framework supported by experimental research (e.g., Tajfel, 1970).
Participants: Studies of various intergroup situations.
Procedure:
* Proposed three processes in social identity:
1. Social Categorization: Classifying oneself and others into groups.
2. Social Identification: Adopting the group’s norms and values.
3. Social Comparison: Favoring one’s in-group over out-groups to boost self-esteem.
Results:
* Group membership alone can lead to favoritism and discrimination, even without direct competition.
Conclusion:
* Social identity is a key factor in prejudice and intergroup behavior.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Broadly applicable to many social situations.
* Explains prejudice without resource competition.
Limitations:
* Overlooks individual and contextual differences.
* Lacks emphasis on cultural factors.

Question 12

Study: Tajfel (1970) – Minimal Group Paradigm and Intergroup Discrimination
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate whether group membership alone can lead to discrimination.

Answer 12

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: 64 schoolboys aged 14-15 years.
Procedure:
* Randomly assigned participants to groups based on arbitrary criteria (e.g., preference for paintings).
* Asked to allocate points to members of in-group and out-group anonymously.
Results:
* Participants favored their in-group over the out-group, even at a cost to their own group.
Conclusion:
* Discrimination occurs simply from group membership, supporting Social Identity Theory.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Demonstrates minimal conditions for discrimination.
* Controlled design enhances reliability.
Limitations:
* Artificial task limits ecological validity.
* Young, male sample reduces generalisability.

Question 13

Study: Albert et al. – Testosterone and Aggression Levels in Castrated Alpha Male Rats
Researcher(s):
Aim:To study the role of testosterone in aggressive behaviour in rats.

Answer 13

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: Alpha male rats.
Procedure:
~Rats were castrated to lower testosterone levels.
~Observed changes in aggression and dominance.
~Some rats received testosterone replacement.
Results:
~Castrated rats showed decreased aggression.
~Testosterone replacement restored aggressive behaviours.
Conclusion:Testosterone plays a significant role in aggression and dominance behaviours.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Controlled study provides strong causal evidence.
* Supports the biological basis of aggression.
Limitations:
* Findings from animals may not fully generalize to humans.
* Ethical concerns regarding animal testing.

Question 14

Study: Correll et al. (2002) – Effect of Cognitive Stereotyping on Discrimination
Researcher(s):
Aim: To examine how racial stereotypes affect decision-making under time pressure.

Answer 14

Method: Laboratory experiment using a computer simulation.
Participants: University students.
Procedure:
* Participants played a “shoot/don’t shoot” game, deciding whether to shoot armed or unarmed individuals of different races.
Results:
* Participants were quicker to shoot armed Black individuals and slower to avoid shooting unarmed Black individuals compared to White individuals.
Conclusion:
* Implicit racial biases influence split-second decision-making.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Innovative design highlights real-world implications of stereotyping.
* High internal validity through controlled conditions.
Limitations:
* Limited generalizability beyond the student sample.
* Artificial setting may not reflect real-world behaviour.

Question 15

Study: Allport & Postman (1947) – Racial Bias in Memory Recall
Researcher(s):
To study the role of stereotypes in the transmission of information.

Answer 15

Method: Serial reproduction experiment.
Participants: White American participants.
Procedure:
* Participants viewed an image of a White man holding a razor in a subway while arguing with a Black man.
* Descriptions of the scene were passed from person to person.
Results:
* Over time, participants often reversed the roles, incorrectly recalling the Black man as holding the razor.
Conclusion:
* Stereotypes can distort memory and perpetuate racial biases.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Demonstrates the influence of stereotypes on cognition.
* Highlights social implications of biased memory recall.
Limitations:
* Ethical concerns about reinforcing stereotypes.
* Limited sample reduces generalisability.

Question 16

Study:Dabbs et al. (1995) – Testosterone
Researcher(s):
Aim: To examine the relationship between testosterone levels and violent behavior in prison populations.

Answer 16

Method: Correlational study.
Participants: Male prison inmates.
Procedure:
* Measured testosterone levels through saliva samples.
* Analyzed records of violent crimes and observed prison behavior.
Results:
* Higher testosterone levels were linked to more violent crimes and aggressive prison behavior.
Conclusion:
* Testosterone may play a role in aggressive and antisocial behavior.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Large sample supports the reliability of findings.
* Correlation aligns with biological theories of aggression.
Limitations:
* Correlational design cannot prove causation.
* Other environmental factors may influence behaviour.

Question 17

Study:
Latané & Darley (1968) – Intercom Studies
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility in emergencies.

Answer 17

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: College students.
Procedure:
* Participants believed they were in an intercom discussion with others (actually prerecorded voices).
* During the discussion, a participant (voice) simulated having a seizure.
* Group size was manipulated (participant alone, with 2 others, or with 5 others).
Results:
* Participants were less likely to help as the group size increased: 85% helped when alone, 31% helped in a group of 5.
Conclusion:
* The presence of others reduces the likelihood of helping due to diffusion of responsibility.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Controlled design allows for clear causal conclusions.
* Highlights important social behavior dynamics.
Limitations:
* Lacks ecological validity due to artificial setting.
* Ethical concerns about inducing stress in participants.

Question 18

Study: William Hamilton (1964) – Kin Selection Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a theoretical framework for altruism based on genetic relatedness.

Answer 18

Method: Theoretical model with supporting evidence from animal behavior.
Participants: Observations of animal populations.
Procedure:
* Hamilton argued that organisms are more likely to help relatives because it increases inclusive fitness (passing on shared genes).
Results:
* Kin selection explains altruistic behaviors in many species, such as warning calls or food sharing.
Conclusion:
* Altruism toward relatives is an adaptive behavior driven by evolutionary pressures.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Supported by extensive evidence in animals and humans.
* Provides a biological explanation for altruism.
Limitations:
* Cannot fully explain altruism toward non-kin.
* Focuses exclusively on biological factors, ignoring sociocultural influences.

Question 19

Study: Madsen et al. (2007) – Experimental Evidence for Kin Selection Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To test whether individuals are more willing to endure physical discomfort to benefit relatives.

Answer 19

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: Students in the UK and South Africa.
Procedure:
* Participants held a painful position (squatting against a wall) for as long as possible.
* Money was awarded to relatives based on the duration.
Results:
* Participants endured longer for closer relatives.
* Results were consistent across cultures.
Conclusion:
* Supports Kin Selection Theory; willingness to help is linked to genetic relatedness.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Cross-cultural sample enhances generalisability.
Direct experimental evidence for theoretical claims.
Limitations:
* Laboratory setting may reduce ecological validity.
* Pain tolerance varies between individuals, which may confound results.

Question 20

Study: Batson & Toi (1982) – Empathy-Altruism Model
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate whether empathy motivates altruistic behaviour.

Answer 20

Method: Laboratory experiment.
Participants: College students.
Procedure:
* Participants listened to a tape of “Carol,” a classmate describing her struggles after an accident.
* Manipulated two variables:
* Empathy: High (imagine her feelings) vs. Low (focus on facts).
* Ease of escape: High (no further contact with Carol) vs. Low (frequent interaction).
Results:
* High empathy led to higher helping regardless of escape condition.
* Low empathy participants helped more only when escape was difficult.
Conclusion:
* Altruism is motivated by empathy, not just personal gain.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Strong experimental design supports causation.
* Highlights the role of empathy in helping behavior.
Limitations:
* Artificial scenario reduces ecological validity.
* Cultural differences in empathy and helping were not explored.

Question 21

Study: Banyard et al. (2007) – Sexual Violence Prevention Through Bystander Education
Researcher(s):
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of bystander education programs in reducing sexual violence.

Answer 21

Method: Field study.
Participants: College students at a U.S. university.
Procedure:
* Students attended a bystander education program focusing on identifying and intervening in risky situations.
* Measured knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors before and after the program.Back:
Results:
* Participants showed increased knowledge about sexual violence and a greater willingness to intervene in risky situations.
* Program effects were sustained during follow-ups.
Conclusion:
* Bystander education programs can effectively reduce sexual violence by empowering individuals to take action.
Evaluation:
Strengths:

*	Practical application in reducing sexual violence.
*	Long-term follow-up supports program effectiveness. Limitations:
*	Self-reported data may be biased.
*	Limited to a specific cultural and university context, reducing generalisability.

Question 22

Study: Flook et al. (2015) – Mindfulness-Based Kindness Curriculum
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate the impact of mindfulness-based kindness programs on prosocial behavior in children.

Answer 22

Method: Field experiment.
Participants: Preschool children aged 4-5 years.
Procedure:
* Children were assigned to either an eight-week mindfulness-based kindness program or a control group.
* The program included activities such as mindful breathing, sharing, and discussions about empathy.
* Measured changes in prosocial behavior, emotional regulation, and social competence.
Results:
Children in the mindfulness program showed significant improvements in prosocial behavior and emotional regulation compared to the control group.
Conclusion:
* Mindfulness programs can foster prosocial behavior and emotional development in young children.
Evaluation:
Strengths:
* Longitudinal design provides insights into developmental impact.
* Practical implications for early education and social development.
Limitations:
* Small sample size limits generalizability.
* Results may be influenced by teacher or parental biases.