Relationships Flashcards
Rusbult & Zembrodt (1982/3) – Model of Responses to Relationship Dissatisfaction
Researcher(s): Caryl Rusbult
Aim: To identify ways people respond to dissatisfaction in relationships.
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.
Study:Buss (1994) – Biological, Some Influence of Sociocultural
Researchers:
Aim: To investigate cross-cultural similarities and differences in mate preferences.
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.
Study: Wedekind et al. (1995) – Biological
Researcher(s):
Aim: To determine whether MHC (major histocompatibility complex) genes influence mate preferences through scent.
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.
Study:Fisher et al. (2003) – Biological
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate the neural mechanisms associated with romantic love.
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.
Study:Dion et al. (1972) – Cognitive
Researcher(s):
Aim: To examine the “halo effect” (the assumption that physically attractive individuals have more positive traits).
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.
Study: Zaidi & Shuraydi (2002) – Sociocultural
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate cultural influences on mate selection preferences between Pakistani and North American individuals.
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.
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.
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.
Study: Rollie & Duck (2006) – Five-Stage Model of Relationship Breakdown
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a model outlining the stages of relationship dissolution.
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.
Study: Campbell (1965) – Realistic Conflict Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To explain intergroup conflict as a result of competition for limited resources.
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.
Study:Sherif et al. (1954) – The Robbers Cave Experiment
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate intergroup conflict and cooperation.
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.
Study: Tajfel & Turner (1979) – Social Identity Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a theory explaining prejudice and discrimination based on group membership.
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.
Study: Tajfel (1970) – Minimal Group Paradigm and Intergroup Discrimination
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate whether group membership alone can lead to discrimination.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Study: Allport & Postman (1947) – Racial Bias in Memory Recall
Researcher(s):
To study the role of stereotypes in the transmission of information.
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.
Study:Dabbs et al. (1995) – Testosterone
Researcher(s):
Aim: To examine the relationship between testosterone levels and violent behavior in prison populations.
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.
Study:
Latané & Darley (1968) – Intercom Studies
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility in emergencies.
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.
Study: William Hamilton (1964) – Kin Selection Theory
Researcher(s):
Aim: To propose a theoretical framework for altruism based on genetic relatedness.
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.
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.
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.
Study: Batson & Toi (1982) – Empathy-Altruism Model
Researcher(s):
Aim: To investigate whether empathy motivates altruistic behaviour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is Altruism ?
a type of prosocial behaviour characterised by a selfless concern for the welfare of others; it is your duty to ignore your own happiness in favour of the happiness of others; a behaviour that costs the doer and benefits others.
What is Arranged marriage?
common in many collectivist cultures, notably Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and in Middle Eastern and African countries. They are also commonly practised by religious groups, including Hindus and Muslims living in western societies. Potential partners are identified by family members or professional matchmakers, sometimes known as well wishers. The well-wisher will consult with the family/parents about the specific requirements. They are likely to discuss the importance of family background, education, career prospects and profession as well as personal qualities such as appearance, height, hair and eye colour. The well-wisher will then identify a candidate or a range of several candidates who meet the criteria set by the family. The list of potential candidates is presented to the family of the bride or groom for their approval; it may also be presented to the person wishing to marry. In the west, marriage is seen as the culmination of a loving relationship. In cultures where arranged marriages occur, the relationship between love and marriage is the other way around
