Relationships Flashcards
(42 cards)
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.
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: 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
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: 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 generalisability 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.
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
What is Attraction?
The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something; a quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire.
What is Communication?
the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.
What is Co-operation?
the action or process of working together to the same end.
What is competition?
the action or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.
What is conflict?
a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.
What is a Culture?
an intrinsic way of life that has commonly, though not necessarily consciously, evolved and been agreed upon by the people within a particular group. This may have been cultivated over many thousands of years such as in the example of Australian aboriginal culture or over just a few years as can be evidenced in the different cultures between generation gaps.
What is Diffusion of responsibility?
the more people that witness an incident, the less likely it is that one of them will help as they individually feel less individually responsible.
What is Discrimination?
a behaviour when a person treats someone differently based on his or her membership of a group, rather than on individual merit. This type of behaviour can range from denying the person a job (e.g. because they are overweight, old or suffer from a physical disability), to segregation, to violent hate crimes.
What is Egoistic motivation?
behaving in a particular way out of self-interest, to feel good about yourself.
