Human relationships

Question 1

Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour

Answer 1

Prosocial behaviour: Pro-social behaviour includes behaviour intended to benefit another person, such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperating, reassuring, defending, donating to charity and showing concern. Self-interest (Schroeder et al. 1995). It is considered to be too vague, however, since it doesn’t consider the motivation behind the act. – Strong evidence; egoism accounts for pro-social behaviour (empathy-altruism hypothesis)

Altruism: is one type of pro-social behaviour which occurs without the expectation of a personal benefit as the ultimate goal. The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper.

The differences is in the ultimate goals:

Egoism - personal benefit, achieved by helping others

Altruism - increasing another’s welfare, regardless of personal cost of benefit

Question 2

Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans

Answer 2

The Kin Selection Hypothesis (Roots in Evolution Theory, Hamilton 1964, Meyer, 1999)

Background:

• It is believed that altruism occurs and is likely to have been selected during evolution
• A survival advantage in displaying selfless helping behaviour

Theory:

• Basic premise is helping others in your family group increases the chances of survival, and that genes will be passed on => direct descendant
• The set of genes is assumed to be present in other close members of family

Madsen et al (2007) – UK and South African students

Aim: Testing the hypothesis in two different culture and in different gender => this concepts can be understood in different way across the world

Participants: Male and female UK students. Zulu Male South Africans.

Procedure:

• Participants performed a physical exercise that becomes increasingly painful after a period of time which is demanding and will cost them the time and the pain to remain sited
• Each participant had supplied a list of biological relatives who DID NOT share a home with them.
• The participant were told that one specific relative would receive payment according to the length of time they could stay in the “seated” position. (Payment for UK participant: 40p per 20 seconds. Payment for Zulu participants: food items)

Results

• It showed that in UK the participants would spend more time in the position when the money was going to more closely related family members — females were slightly more equitable than males (gave quite fair amount to every relative)
• It showed that the participants made more effort to stay in that position for relatives who were biologically closer to them. — The Zulu participants did not seem to distinguish between biologically closer relatives (siblings, nephews, aunts) and cousins.

Conclusion

• It appears that kin selection is indeed a powerful motivator to perform altruistic deeds.

Evaluation

+ Applicable to different cultures (increases validity)

+ Gains empirical data, not subjective or bias

• Not a natural setting, one would not have to do this in real life
• No female South Africans were tested, so it is not generalisable to them.

Studies supporting Kin-Selection Theory

Sime (1983)

• Analysed accounts of how people fled from a burning building
• Found that individuals, unrelated group members, separated before exit
• While those with family members, together before exit

Simpson & Kenrick (1997)

• Suggest that our in-group bias can be accounted for in kin selection
• In helping situations we tend to help people who are more similar to us

Burnstein et al. (1994)

• Asked participants to report how likely they are to help people of varying degrees of relatedness, e.g. grandmother, cousin or unrelated acquaintance.
• More likely to help closer relatives, this effects became more extreme as the possible cost of the participant increased.

The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Based on Cognitive psychology, Batson, 1991)

Define Empathy:

• It is the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events and emotions (e.g. joy and sadness) the way that person experiences them.

Theory:

• The theory suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when they see someone suffering.
• Personal distress (anxiety and fear) which leads to egoistic helping. One considers costs and benefits of helping. One may help in order to relieve yourself of stressful or negative feelings, or to avoid the shame or embarrassment of not having helped.
• Empathetic concern (sympathy, compassion, tenderness) which leads to altruistic behaviour. Helping because you want to relive the person’s suffering regardless of what you will gain. We do it because we feel empathy for them

Toi & Batson 1982

Aim: To test the empathy – altruism theory

Participants: 84 female undergraduates, volunteers from an introductory course in Psychology

Method:

• The participants listed to a (fictional) interview with Carol Marcy, a girl that was in a car accident and had broken both of her legs which means that she might not be able to pass the psychology course
• The researchers manipulated the level of empathy:

High-empathy condition = they were told to imagine how she felt about what happened to her and how it changed her life

Low – empathy condition = they were to be objective about this story and not be concerned with Carol’s feelings

• The researchers also manipulated how costly it would be to not help Carol.
  
  • Altruism is when the cost outweigh the rewards
  • Egoistic is when the rewards outweigh the cost

High – cost condition = Carol would come back to class next week, and they would have to see her every time they went to class and would be reminded of her need for help

Low – cost condition = Carol would be studying at home, they would not see her so they would not be reminded of her need for help

• After listening to the interview, subjects were asked to help Carol in going over the missed lecture notes.
• Totally of 4 conditions and results
  
  • High-empathy condition (feeling) + High – cost condition (see her) = many people agreed to help when they thought they would see Carol in classes
  • High-empathy condition (feel) + Low – cost condition (not see her)
  • Low – empathy condition (not feel) + High – cost condition (see her) = many people agreed to help when they thought they would see her compared to ¯ condition
  • Low – empathy condition (not feel) + Low – cost condition (not see her)

Results:

• When empathy was low, social exchange concerns come into play, in that people based their decision to help on the costs and benefits to themselves. They helped when it was in their interests to do so → don’t want to feel guilty when facing her in a wheel chair, but not otherwise

Evaluation:

Strengths:

• Manipulate the levels of empathy, and do not rely on observed behaviour to seek out the actor’s true motivation.

Limitations:

• How can you be sure what levels of empathy the participant’s experience?
• Since the participants were told to either be empathetic, or be objective, there may be some participant expectation.
• It’s impossible to know the level of empathy the individual experiences
• Not generalisable, esp. to males

Study supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis

Batson et al (1983)

• *Aim:** To test the empathy-altruism hypothesis by measuring empathy by self-reports (instead of manipulating the level of empathy)
• *Participants:** 10 male and 10 female undergraduate students
• *Method:**
• Participants were asked to report their emotional state after observing a same-sex stooge randomly receiving electric shocks while completing a task.
• The stooge showed extreme discomfort. (Due to a childhood accident)
• The participants were able to voluntarily take the place of the stooge.(logically expecting that they would be able to tolerate the shocks better)

Results:

• High levels of empathy predicted the decision to volunteer.

Question 3

Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour

Answer 3

Pro-social behaviour:

• Behaviour that benefits another person or has positive social consequences. Is only discusses the outcome of the behaviour but not the motivation behind the behaviour

Factors effecting pro-social behaviour in different cultures

Collectivism and individualism:

• Cultural norms, beliefs, and values causes differences.
• Collectivisim – Which puts emphasises on the group, its decisions, attitudes and needs, and one’s duties towards it. Thus, helping is governed by group needs, equality-based resource sharing (fairness), obligatory reciprocity (return favours).
• Individualism – emphasises the individual and their goals, rights, attitudes and needs. Thus, helping is governed by individual needs, economics, equity-based resource allocation (fairness) and voluntary reciprocity.

Social identity theory:

• People in all cultures are likely to help someone they define as a member of their in-group. The group the individual identifies with.People in all cultures are less likely to help someone they perceive to be a member of the out-group. The group they do not identify with.(Brewer & Brown 1998)

Levine et al (1990s)

Background: A series of studies about cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour was conducted by Levine et al. during the 1990s.

Study one

Aim: To assess helpfulness towards strangers in 36 cities in US.

Method: Field experiment.

Procedure:

• Focused on simple acts of assistance, for example, will a dropped pen be retrieved, will a blind person be helped across a busy intersection?
• 3 conditions:

1. A pedestrian drops a pen on the street without noticing
2. A pedestrian wearing a leg brace drops some magazines
3. A blind pedestrian with a crane waits at a traffic light for assistance crossing the street

Results:

• People in small and medium-sized cities in the south-east were the most helpful. People from large, north-eastern and west coast cities were the least likely to help. Population density seemed to be the best predictor of helping behaviour.

Study two (2001)

Background:

• Levin considered several (independent) variables:The city’s population density, whether it has individualism or collectivism, and the city’s notion of simpatico/simpatia (refers to a range of social and emotional traits e.g. being friendly, polite, good-natured, pleasant. (no English translation).

Aim: To assess helpfulness towards strangers in 23 international cities.

Results:

• Two highest-ranking cities in terms of helping are in Latin America: Rio de Janeiro and San José. – countries having the word simpatia
• Helping rates tended to be high in countries with low economic productivity, and a slow pace of life (measured by walking speed). May be explained by a more traditional value system in countries that are less developed, where social obligations take priority over individual achievements (collectivism). These countries tend to be less economically productive, but show more willingness to assist others (Value of social harmony). HOWEVER that doesn’t explain why Copenhagen (Individualistic, fast-pasted, first world) and Vienna (Individualistic, fast-pasted, first world) helped a great deal, and Kuala Lumpur (Collectivistic, poorer, slow-paced) were not helpful at all.
• Countries high in simpatia were all above the mean in terms of helping behaviour. HOWEVER a possible confounding variable is that all countries high in simpatia were also Roman Catholic.

Evaluation:

Strengths and Limitations:

• It’s difficult for a researcher measure prosocial behaviour, and to identify which behaviours are valid indicators of pro-social behaviour. Are dropping a pen, helping someone cross the street, etc. valid indicators?
• It’s difficult to translate behaviours across cultures, since some behaviours are not easily tested in multiple cultures. A lost letter might not be returned for fear of it being a scam, or because of literacy problems in the country.
• Can we really generalize about an entire culture? And can we see universal trends? The simpatica hypothesis failed to apply to all cultures.
• You can’t establish a cause-and-effect relationship in a field experiment, since there are so many confounding variables.
• time consuming

+ generalisable - worldwide participant range (increase external validity)

+ Single blind - no demand characteristics

Question 4

Examine factors influencing bystanderism

Answer 4

Definitions:

• Bystanderism – not helping someone in need of help
• Bystanders – a person who is not immediately involved in a situation

FACTOR: ​Diffusion of responsibility –when many witnesses are present, each individual feels less pressure to help

Theory of the unresponsive bystander (1970)

• Diffusion of responsibility: When there are more people (bystanders) thAn the responsibility for you to act in the situation will decrease – this reduces the psychological cost of not intervening

⇒Latané & Darley (1970) suggest a cognitive decision model consisting of five steps to helping in an emergency:

1. Notice the situation (if you are in hurry you might have missed the event)
2. Interpret the situation as an emergency (screaming or asking for help, but that could just have been a family quarrel, which is none of your business)
3. Accept some personal responsibility for helping even though other people are present (take responsibility)
4. Consider how to help ( although you might be unsure what to do or doubt your own skill to help)
5. Decide how to help (you may observe how other people react or decide that it is too dangerous to intervene)

Lantané and Darley (1968) To help or not to help

Aim: To investigate if the number of witnesses of an emergency influence people’s helping in an emergency situation

Participants: 72 students (59 female, 13 male).

Procedure:

• The participants sat individually in the booth with a microphone and headphones, they communicated through it because they were told that the conversation where through intercom to protect their identity.
• During this experiment a confederate staged a seizure to create an emergency situation
• They were later debriefed and given a questionnaire to describe their reaction to the experiment.
• IV – the number of people that the participant thought listened to the same discussion (bystanders)
• DV – was to see the time it would take for the participant to react and make a contact with the experimenter (help the confederate that had a seizure)

Results:

• Number of bystanders greatly affected the participant’s reaction.
• Alone condition – 85% went out and reported the seizure
• Believed that they were in a four other participants – 31% reported
  
  • Gender of the bystander did not make a difference

[Ambiguity about a situation and thinking that other people might intervene were factors that influenced bystanderism in this experiment]

Evaluation:

• Participant bias (psychology students participating for course credits)
• Ecological validity low– artificiality of the experimental (situation, can be in laboratory situation)
• Ethical considerations – participants were deceived and exposed to an anxiety-provoking situation

FACTOR: The cost of time, Religion

Bateson and Darley (1973) The good Samaritan

Aim: To investigate if devotion to a religious will make a difference in terms of willingness to help

• IV – which subject was told to hurry in reaching the other building (high-hurry or low-hurry)
  
  • And what they are going to talk about in another building
• DV – Whether and how the participant helped the victim

Theory: we are affected by situational and dispositional factors. The cost of time influences bystanderism

Participants: 40 students at Princeton Theological Seminary

Procedure:

• In the first session a personality questionnaire concerning types of religiosity was administered.
• In the second session, participant began experimental procedures in one building, and was then sent to a second building to give a presentation on what they had learnt.
• Participants were either told that they had to hurry or that they had time.
• On the way to give the presentation participants passed a man passed out in an alleyway.
• The victim rated each participant on a scale of helping behaviour.
• After entering the other building, the participant recorded his talk.
• The participants were debriefed afterwards, and told the exact nature of the study, including the deception, and the reason for the deception involved
• After the speech, the participant filled in a helping behaviour questionnaire.

Results:

• Overall, 40% of the participants stopped to help. 60% did not
• Percentage of participants who offered aid by situational variable:
  
  • low-hurry condition: 63%
  • intermediate-hurry condition: 45%
  • late condition: 10%
• Did not matter how religious
• Thus, participants who were in a hurry were likely to offer less help than those who were not in a hurry
• A person going to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan is not significantly more likely to stop to help
• The degree of hurry a person is in determines his helping behaviour
• The types of religiosity did not predict helping

FACTOR: Evaluation apprehension - Individual bystanders are aware of that other people are present and may be afraid of being evaluated negatively of they react (fear of social blunders)

Theory of the (arousal) cost reward model of helping (1981)

• Piliavin’s model emphasises the interaction of mood (emotional factors: unpleasant emotional arousal) and cognition (cost-benefit analysis), which determine whether bystanders to an event will intervene.
• Observation of an emergency situation leads to an emotional arousal, which is then interpreted (eg.sympathy, disgust, fear). This serves as motivation to either help or not, based on evaluation of costs and rewards.
  
  • Unpleasant emotional arousal – the need or distress of others, it motivates the bystanders because the person will gain the reduce of distress and unpleasant feelings. This is egoistic motivation, (opposite of altruistic motivation: empathy-altruism model)
• Egoistic motivation – to escape an unpleasant emotional state
• costs of helping (effort,embarrassment, harm, humiliation, loss of time, financial loss,)
• cost of not helping ( self-blame, blame from others)
• rewards of helping ( self-satisfaction, esteem, affection, praise, financial reward, avoidance of failure)
• reward of not helping (being able to continue doing whatever one was doing)

[Decision to help is made on rational grounds, by calculating the profits of intervening]

Evaluation of model:

• makes the assumption that bystanders make rational cost-benefit analysis rather than acting on intuitive impulse.
• Assumes that people only help for egoistic motivation.

Pilliavin et al. (1969) the subway Samaritan

Aim: To investigate the effect of various variables on helping behaviour

• IV – ill or a drunk person (carrying a crane) and black or white
• DV – Who is more likely to get help if they collapse on the floor short time after the train had left the station, speed of help

Procedure:

• The scenario where a victim ( all the actors were around the same age and dressed and acted identically) either appears to be drunk or ill and collapse to the floor in a subway, if nobody intervene after 70 seconds, the model helper was instructed then

Results:

• person that appeared ill was more likely to receive help compared to the drunk one. Out of all trials, 60% the victim received help more than one person offered assistance
• This could be because the bystanders didn’t want to be associated with a drunk for fear of being judged negatively by others

Conclusion:

• No support for “diffusion of responsibility” was found, but it could have been because the observer could clearly see the victim and decide whether or not there was an emergency situation, that it was in front of them.

Evaluation:

+Ecological validity high

+ Single blinded - no demand of characteristic

• Researchers suggested that the cost-reward model of helping involves observation of an emergency situation that leads to an emotional arousal and interpretation of that arousal (e.g. empathy, disgust, fear)
• Cost of helping (e.g. effort, embarrassment, physical harm)
• cost of not helping (e.g. self-blame and blame from others)
• Rewards of helping (e.g. praise from victim and self)
• Rewards of not helping (e.g. being able to continue doing whatever one was doing)

Question 5

Examine biological, psychological and social origins of attraction.

Answer 5

Definitions:

• Attraction – the degree to which we like other individuals.
• Love – an emotional state involving attraction, sexual desire, and concern about the other person. It represents the positive level of attraction.
• Interpersonal attraction – Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendship and romantic relationships.It is related to how much we like, love, dislike, or hate someone.
• It can be viewed as a force acting between two people that tends to draw them together and results in their separation.

Biological

Theory:

Evolutionary explanation of attraction

• The purpose of attraction = to procreate, pass on genes to the next generation
• The assumption is that; males and females have different reproduction goals/strategies to pass on their genes. Because…..
  
  • Female-Parental investment: At least 9 months
  • **Male-Parental investmetn: **None
  • Female-Human reproductive capacity: Low
  • Male-Human reproductive capacity: Can produce a vsat amount of children.
  • Female-The offspring’s parents: Can be usre that it is their offspring.
  • **Male- The offspring’s parents: **If not with DNA testing
  • That is why there are gender differneces in what men and women prefer in a mate.

Study:

Buss (1989)

Aim: to investigate gender differences in mate preferences, which mean that he was interested in what women and men find attractive.

Procedure:

• 2 questionnaires, 10,000 people, 37 countries on six continents => to rate the importance of 32 characteristics in potential mates

Results:

• Men would prefer for young and healthy women.
• Men valued having a physically attractive mate more than what women did.
• The women preferred for an older men, thinking of the importance of earning potential, status, ambition, and financial prospects.

Conclusion

• Powerful support for the evolution based origins of attraction
• May reflect different evolutionary selection pressures on males and females
• They powerful cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in attraction
  
  • Found similarities in many cultures around the world so it is possible to draw the conclusions that these differences are biological rather than learned
• Does not mean that the environment/ the social context, does not influence partner preferences

The role of neurotransmitter dopamine on attraction

• The symptoms exhibited in human romantic passion indicate that the neurotransmitter dopamine plays an important role.
• Neurotransmitter Dopamine - it has an excitatory effect - has the main function in emotional arousal, which can be stimulated by looking at someone attractive.
• Intense nerve impulses are sent to the brain which stimulates dopamine cells to activate by positive stimuli.
• The role that neurotransmitters have in attraction.
• Neurotransmitter dopamine plays a major role in emotional arousal (also in memory, learning, experiencing pleasure or pain)
• It has an excitatory effect
• This can be stimulated by the opposite sex, through romantic love
• The presentation of a rewarding/positive stimuli causes intense nerve impulses to the brain – activates dopamine cells

Fisher et al 2005

Aim: To study courtship attraction in humans by looking at early stages of intense romantic

Procedure:

• Each participant was orally interviewed in a semi-structured format to establish the duration, intensity and range of his or her feelings.
• Passionate Love Scale (PLS) a 9 point Likert Scale self-report questionnaire which measure several traits commonly associated with RL.

1. First condition, photograph of beloved shown for 30 seconds, following 40 seconds a count back distraction task
2. Second condition, photograph of a neutral acquaintance shown for 30 seconds, following 40 seconds a count back distraction task

• This was repeated six times
• Pre-scanning instructions were to think about a nonsexual, euphoric experience with the beloved

Results:

• There was group activation regions detected as individuals looked at an image of their beloved COMPARED TO an image of an acquaintance.
• Evidence from the human fMRI study support the hypothesis that reward regions using the neurotransmitter dopamine are activated during feelings of romantic love.

Evaluation/Implication:

**Strengths Ethics: **

• The participants have not come to any harm because they have been debreifed about the results.
• Study conducted in 2005 and therfore it followes the BPS guidlines

Limitations Ethics:

• Stress to participants behacuse it could cause them fear

**Strengths Method: **

• Both qualitative and quantitative data from the interview and the fMRI scans
• It’s replicable because we know the IV and DV

Limitations Method:

• Interview- How reliable the information is. The participants might answer what the researchers expect.
• The instructions of non-sexual situation which could affect the IV

Psychological

• Interpersonal relationships – attraction between people which leads to friendship and romantic relationships
  
  • It is related to how much we like, love, dislike or hate someone, it can be viewed as force acting between two people that tends to draw them together and result their separation
• Attraction – degree to which we like other individuals
• Love – an emotional state involving attraction, sexual desire, and concern about the other person it represents the positive level of attraction

The similarity Hypothesis

say briefly about the self esteem only

• similarity is a cognitive factor since it is about the way we interpret how similar we are to someone else
• Suggests that people are more likely to attracted to those they perceive as similar to themselves – in age, race, religion, social class, education, intelligence, attitudes, and physical attractiveness BUT the most important is the personality and attitudes
  
  • Byrne (1971) – the greater the similarity between husband and wife, the happier they are and the less likely they are to divorce (supports the theory)
• Other people’s supports for one’s own views and attitudes is rewarding because it validates one’s opinions and boost self-esteem – people tend to assume that those who are similar to themselves will like them, even though modern societies often consist of many different ethnic groups, there is a tendency for people to live in areas where people are like themselves

Evaluation

• Difficult to establish causation. Does similarity cause attraction or does attraction cause people to become more similar?
• Have only dealt with attitude and personality similarities, Yoshida (1972) only presents a narrow view of factors important in relationship formation, such as other factors; economic level, physical condition etc. is equally important
• Similarity effects in romantic relationships may simply reflect the fact that for most people, the field of available and eligible potential partners tends to be “overwhelmingly composed of similar persons”

+ Correlations is that similarity cause attraction

+ Lab experiments on attitude similarity conducted by Byrne et al. suggest that similarity does cause liking (Byrne, 1997; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986)

Markey et al (2007) – The similarity Hypothesis

Principle: Human beings are information processors and that mental processes guide behaviour

Aim: To investigate the extent to which similarity is a factor in the way people choose partners

Procedure

• large sample of young people
• Using questionnaires, they were asked to describe the psychological characteristics, values, and attitudes of their ideal romantic partner, without thinking of anyone in particular
• later on asked to describe themselves.

Results

• The description on themselves was similar to what their ideal partner was like

Conclusion

• People’s ideal partner is similar to themselves
• Made a follow-up study to support (2007)

Procedure

• 106 couples that had been together for a year, questionnaire

Results

• (just like the first investigation) People want partners who are similar to themselves

Evaluation

• Questionnaires => self –reports, which are liable to lack some reliability
• Culture bias: sample consisted of young Americans, not possible to generalise to other populations unless similar research were to be conducted in other cultures to confirm the results

+Confirm the results of the first study by making a follow-up study which supports each other

+The results are based on a relatively large sample, which enhances the validity of the study

Kiesler and Baral (1970) – Self-esteem

Principle: Cognitive processes are influenced by social and cultural factors

Aim: To investigate whether self-esteem could influence a person’s perception of themselves, and thus whom they would choose as a partner

Method: Experiment, Independent measures design, only men:

• IV – fictions scores on an IQ test, high or low
• DV – how fast they engaged in a conversation with a woman, how engaged they were in the conversation

Participants: men

Procedure:

• Took a fake IQ test, and were given a fake IQ scores privately either
• High (self- esteem): “you scored off the charts the highest scores ever seen on the exam”
• Low: “There must have been a misunderstanding, because your scores were so low that the researchers could not account for the errors. You can redo the test in the near future”
• Participants waited in a waiting room individually for their pay for taking part in the study, and an attractive woman walked into the room

Results

• Men with high scores: engaged in conversation with the woman more quickly, and they were more quickly, and they were more engaged in discussion than the men who were given low test scores

Social

Ahmad & Reid (2008) – Role of culture in formation and maintenance of relationships

Principle: Sociocultural level of analysis is that culture influences behaviour. Culture can be defined as the norms and values that define a society

Theory

Buss 1990 – Different cultures have different norms when it comes to attraction and mate preference. for example: chastity and homemaking skills valued in women in more traditional societies with more clearly defined gender roles

Background

• What makes a good wife for a man is more easily determined by a mans family than it might be in more individualistic western societies.
• Bad or good Marriage is understood differently across cultures. Affection may for example not be a big part of a relationships for some cultures. There may also be social norms affecting how appropriate it is to express dissatisfaction with a marriage. Passion and romance has little impact on marital satisfaction.
• Indo-Pakistani marriages tend to be satisfying when there is a strong religious component to the relationship, financial security and high status and parental acceptance by families with good reputations (Ahmad and Reid, 2008)
• However there are evidence that expectations are changing in many traditional societies and more intimacy and romance is expected than previously, which can lead to difficulties.

Aim: to investigate if special communication styles, such as specific listening styles in relationships, maintain arranged marriages.

Hypothesis: there would be a strong relationship between marriage satisfaction and marriage where levels of traditionalism are low and self-ratings of levels of listening to understand are high.

Variables:

• DV - Marriage satisfaction
• IV- Traditional relationship or Listening relationship

Participants: were chosen through snowball sampling so that participants could give surveys to others they know. South Asian living in Canada and Canadians couples.

Procedure:

• Survey (using Revised Relationship Adjustment Survey) included traditional marriage questions. The degree of traditionalism was measured as well (with Traditional Orientation to marital Scale). Furthermore, listening relationships was measured (using Listening styles in Committed Relationship scale). Participants were asked to not share answers with their spouses.

Procedure (explicit)

• The participants were given a survey to measure marital satisfaction. The Revised Relationship Adjustment Survey was used, which includes items like “My partner understands and sympathizes with me” and other relevant items such as “Our marriage has provided me with the financial and/or social security I want”.
• The Traditional Orientation to Marital Relationships scale was used to measure the degree of traditionalism in the marriage.
• Listening Styles in Committed Relationships Scale was used to measure listening styles, and includes items like “When my partner is explaining him/herself, try to get a sense of what things must be like for him/her, so that I may better understand how she/he must be feeling” and also “I don’t find it necessary to pay close attention when my partner is talking, because I already know what my partner is going to say before she/he even says it”

Results:

• Traditional relationship: Lower marriage satisfaction, suggested because of listening to respond rather than to understand (For example when your parents or friends aren’t listening to what you’re saying)
• Listening relationship: Higher marriage satisfaction, suggested as listening to understand rather than to respond

Evaluation

+The hypothesis was confirmed.

+The questionnaires was filled individually - the partners did not see each others answers which prevents them from affecting each other.

• The results indicates that listening relationships has a higher satisfaction when it comes to marriage. However, going through divorces is much more common in individualistic cultures than collectivistic, where traditional marriage is most common, and this is not explained by the study.
• The study only tests listening and security within a relationship, however there is impossible to state that those are the two only factors influencing whether a relationship is satisfactory or not, since satisfaction is very subjective.
• The sampling is not generalizable to the whole population since is was snowball sampled; biased.
• Few people like to see their marriage as unhappy, and even if the questionnaires were anonymous, it may be difficult to reassure that they were honestly fulfilled, since some people may even be capable of lying to themselves.
• Only tested in two cultures.

Theory – Ainsworth et al 1978

• The kinds of bonds we form early in life influence the kinds of relationships we form as adults. There are three identified types of relationships between infants and mothers: secure attachment style, avoidant attachment style, and anxious/ambivalent attachment style.

Effect of parenting styles on children:

• Secure attachment style typically have caregivers (parents or guardians) who are responsive to their needs and who show positive emotions when interacting with them. The infants trust their caregivers, aren’t worried about abandonment, and grow up viewing themselves as worthy.
• Avoidant infants typically have caregivers who are negligent to the infants’ needs, rebuffing the infant’s’ attempts to establish intimacy. People with avoidant style find it difficult to develop intimate relationships.
• Anxious/ambivalent infants typically had caregivers who were inconsistent and overbearing in their affection. The infants then become anxious, since they do not know how their needs will be met.

Behaviour when in adult romantic relationships:

• Secure attachment style: Typically search for secure-secure relationships where there is emotional equality and equality in the overall relationship. (high levels of trust and equality)
• Avoidant attachment style: Typically men display this behaviour::display stereotypical male traits in relationships where they invest little energy, show little emotion, and avoid talking about the relationship.
• Anxious/ambivalent attachment style: Typically women display this behaviour: display stereotypical female traits in relationships where they act as caretakers towards their partners, invest a lot of energy in the relationship and worry about how it is doing.
• Researchers suggest that gender stereotyping play an important role in maintaining anxious women-avoidant man relationships. They are unhappier than secure women-secure man relationships, but tend to last because the other person’s behaviour fits in with their stereotype or schema of how the opposite gender should behave “he’s just being a guy”. Thus they tolerate the relationship.
• anxious man-avoidant women relationships do not tend to last because the individual views the partners behaviour as negative because it does not fit into the traditional gender stereotype.
• The different styles for different combinations with other styles when in a relationship, not necessarily sticking to the same style.

Evaluation Theory

Strengths

• Demonstrates consequences of children’s attachement/upbringing

Limitations

• Reductionistic, does only look at how hte parents act and not all the other people in the person’s life

Study:

Hazan & Shaver (1987, 1994) - Attachment styles theory

Aim: to investigate couples behavioural patterns with their upbringing in their childhood

Participants: Intimate couples

Method: Experimental

Procedure:

• Couples were asked to choose one of three statements which most closely described how they felt in romantic relationships. Each statement captured one of the three kinds of attachment styles. They were also asked questions about their relationship which were late compared to the question they chose.

Results:

• Secure attachment: Reported that they easily became close to others, trusted others, and had a satisfying romantic relationship.
• Avoidant attachment: Reported being uncomfortable becoming close to others, finding it hard to trust others, and having less satisfying romantic relationships.
• Anxious/ambivalent attachment: Reported having less satisfying relationships but of a different type: likely to be obsessive and preoccupied with their relationship, being afraid that their partner doesn’t want to be as intimate or as close as they desire them to be.

Discussion:

• However, a person’s attachment style can change over time, even though someone had an unhappy relationship with their caregiver during childhood they are not doomed to be in “4everunhappy” relationships in adulthood. Some researchers contacted the participants months or years later and asked them to answer the attachment style scale again, and it had changed.

Evaluation Study

Strengths

• Supports the theory

Limitations

• Might not be the same in different cultures
• Correlation, it is not a lab experiment and can therefore not measure a cause and effect relationship
• can change over time