Human Relationships Psychology

Discrimination

Where stereotypes refer to beliefs and prejudices refer to attitudes, discrimination is more specifically behaviours towards another person or another group. More precisely, discrimination is negative behaviour towards an outgroup. Definition Discrimination refers to negative behaviours towards outgroups.

the case for competition

What are the benefits? Competition over limited resources: there can be short-term and long-term benefits for the dominant (the one who out competes the other) individual/group Deutsch and Krauss (1960): The trucking game Creates an environment in which advantageous traits can excel What are the limitations? SOCIAL DILEMMAS: Competition over limited resources: the other party loses at an expense Deutsch and Krauss (1960): The trucking game (AIM, METHOD, RESULTS ABOVE) It can create conflict and damage interpersonal relationships If one social group perceives inequality or unfairness in the relationship, they may well blame this on the competing social group. This may in turn lead to more pronounced conflict, and in some cases hostility between two groups, or even violence (De Dreu 2010) Failing to cooperate can sometimes hurt both individuals (prisoner's dilemma) Wong and Hong (2005): Influences of culture on cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma It is difficult to know whether someone will compete or cooperate. An individual may want to cooperate but social pressures cause them to compete.

Dual concern model

While many theories of cooperation and competition are based on the idea that people are either self-concerned (pro-self) or other-concerned (pro-social), it's also possible that people may act in self-interested and group-interested ways at the same time - that's the essence of the dual concern model for cooperation and competition.

Fischer and Greitemeyer (2013)

Aim: To investigate the interplay between group size and perceived danger in the bystander phenomenon. Method: The researchers chose to conduct their study as a field experiment, in the naturalistic setting of a city subway station. The participants were 2791 citizens passing through the subway station, where they observed a staged bike theft. There were two independent variables: Expected negative consequences, operationalised as whether the perpetrator looked fierce or not. The fierce perpetrator was dressed in 'streetwear', such as torn jeans or a military 'look', while the non-fierce perpetrator was wearing a business suit or fancy dress. The perpetrator was a confederate. Passive bystander presence, which was operationalised as whether there was a passive bystander at the scene or not. This bystander was also a confederate. The dependent variable was bystander intervention, operationalised as a simple 'yes' or 'no.' The staged bike theft involved a mountain bike that the researchers had chained to a bike rack at a subway station. The perpetrator (a confederate) had a metal saw and tried to cut through the bike lock. One hidden observer counted the numbers of passers-by, while another hidden observer tallied whether participants intervened in the bike theft or not. This sequence took five minutes, and was repeated 120 times. After each set of 15 sequences, the independent variables were renewed, meaning whether a passive bystander was present throughout the sequence, and whether the perpetrator looked fierce or not. Whenever a participant intervened in the staged bike theft, the two observers approached the participant to inform them that the scene was experimental. Participants were informed of the hypotheses and fully debriefed, with the researchers ensuring that no participant left the experimental setting with negative emotions (see ethical considerations in 1.A.5). Results: The results indicated that bystanders were more willing to help in dangerous situations when another bystander was present. Conclusion: The experiment provides evidence for the positive bystander effect, suggesting that additional bystanders may increase helping behaviour in dangerous situations. Strengths: The experiment was conducted in the field, which means this experiment has more ecological validity than many other bystander studies. Limitations: Fischer and Greitemeyer (2013) suggested that bystander intervention may increase when other bystanders are present because additional bystanders provide a source of support, both physical and emotional. However, their experimental design did not provide a way to measure this, so further research is necessary on the actual mechanisms which may drive bystander behaviour in emergency situations. Methodological considerations: The researchers verified their manipulation of expected negative consequences (one of the independent variables) with a group of students before the actual experiment began, and confirmed that all participants in this pilot group expected more negative consequences from the fierce perpetrator as compared to the non-fierce perpetrator. Ethical considerations: From an ethical viewpoint, there are obviously potential issues with informed consent in a field experiment where participants are not able to give consent in advance. Furthermore, the researchers were not able to debrief the participants who did not intervene. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Wedekind and Furi (1997)

Aim: To investigate the relationship between similarity of MHC and attractiveness of scent. Method: 120 male and female participants assessed the odours of six t-shirts worn by two women and four men for 2 days straight. Results: Participants preferred the scent of t-shirts worn by people with the most different MHCs, and this finding was non-gender specific. Conclusion: Individual odour plays a role in mate choice and is non-gender specific. Individual odours may differ as a result of both differences in MHC and differences in pheromones. Strengths: Provides support for the role of pheromones in affecting behaviour. Limitations: Is a highly reductionist view of the complex human behaviour of mate choice. Methodological considerations: Although many controls were put in place, the researchers could not be sure that the confederates actually wore the t-shirts and refrained from the smell-inducing activities as they were asked to for the 2-day period. Ethical considerations: There are no major ethical considerations for this study. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5. Miller and Maner (2009) Aim: To investigate the male hormonal response to women in ovulation. Method: In another t-shirt study, undergraduate female volunteers were asked to wear t-shirts for the three nights closest to ovulation, and for the three nights furthest from ovulation, with instructions to use unscented shampoo and so on. This was the independent variable (stage of ovulation). There was also a control condition including unworn t-shirts. Undergraduate males were the participants, and they came to the laboratory and gave a baseline saliva sample (to measure testosterone). The t-shirts were smelled and rated for pleasantness (in the second study), and then a saliva sample was taken again to measure changes in testosterone levels. This was the dependent variable. The results indicated that participants who smelled t-shirts worn during the ovulation phase then had higher levels of testosterone. Results: Miller and Maner (2009) found that when undergraduate males smelled t-shirts worn by young women in ovulation, their own testosterone levels increased. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that attraction may be influenced by hormonal changes in both males and females, and also fits with evolutionary theories suggesting that attraction may be driven by reproductive potential as a key factor. Strengths: This study provides support for hormonal influences in attraction in both men and women. Weaknesses: There is a clear heterosexual bias in these findings, and it is unclear how sex and hormones may interact in homosexual attraction. Further, there were noticeable individual differences in how much testosterone levels increased from participant to participant, with some males showing large increases and others showed little or none (Law 2011). This suggests there may be genetic differences in testosterone activity, and that hormone levels vary from person to person. Further, several theorists argue that such findings place too much emphasis on the link between hormones and heterosexual attraction (Law 2011) and that attraction to a woman is more complex than sex and reproductive potential. Methodological considerations: As this was a correlational study, no cause and effect can be established. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (1969)

Aim: To test the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis and arousal-cost-reward model. Method: The researchers tested 4450 passengers who happened to be travelling on one of two designated subway carriages between Harlem and the Bronx between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays. The racial composition was 45% black and 55% white passengers. The average number of people in the train carriage was 43, and the average number of people in the critical area where the incident was staged was 8.5. Four different teams collected data from 103 trials. The female confederates sat adjacent to the critical area and observed the reactions of the passengers, both quantitative and qualitative.The victim always stood next to a pole in the centre of the critical area. As the train passed the first station (approximately 70 seconds after departing), the victim staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving help, he remained motionless on the floor, looking at the ceiling. If he received no help by the time the train slowed to a stop, the model helped him to his feet. Six to eight trials were run on any given day. The independent variable comprised the conditions: 1 The type of victim (drunk or ill). 2 The race of the victim (black or white). 3 Early or late help from the model. Results: The cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of the 65 trials, and the drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials. On 60% of the 81 trials where spontaneous help was given, more than one person offered help. There was a slight tendency for same-race helping in the drunk condition. It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Conclusion: Diffusion of responsibility is greatly reduced (in fact it seems to disappear) when participants have no means of escaping the emergency. This can be explained using the arousal-cost-reward model where the motivation to help is not because of altruism but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal e.g. guilt, discomfort. Strengths: Being in the real world means this study has high ecological validity. Limitations: There are issues of generalisability as only certain types of people ride the subway between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. Methodological considerations: This was a well-designed study incorporating elements of both lab and field experiments (standardised procedure, in a real setting, generating quantitative and qualitative data); large multi-ethnic sample; robust and rich data; inter-observer reliability. Ethical considerations: Ethics were compromised as no consent, right to withdraw or debriefing was possible, plus participants may have experienced stress; some behaviours may have been missed due to the crowded carriage; some participants may have experienced the procedure more than once over the two months, which would invalidate some data. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Biochemical influences on personal relationships

Along with evolutionary explanations of attraction, the biological approach to psychology also includes biochemical explanations for attraction. These explanations target three main biochemicals: hormones pheromones neurotransmitters.

The prisoner's dilemma

As one of the key paradigms of game theory, the prisoner's dilemma has applications to virtually every realm of human behaviour, including economics and psychology in particular. Game theory itself presents a mathematical model of conflict and cooperation, and it is often used in situations in which one person's or group's gains or losses are weighed up against another's, depending upon whether they compete or cooperate. The prisoner's dilemma is often explained in terms of reciprocal altruism (discussed in more detail in 6.C.3), as it presents a model in which two participants can either cooperate or confess. The basic idea is that two individuals have been arrested as prisoners suspected of a crime. The two prisoners are interrogated separately, and each has the choice to either: deny the crime (which represents cooperation with the other prisoner) confess to the crime (which represents competition with the other prisoner) The potential payoff or outcome of the prisoner's dilemma is usually presented as a matrix, and although the points or payoffs may vary from version to version, the main idea is that both prisoners or participants are best off if they cooperate (see Figure 5). An example of a prisoner's dilemma matrix. Figure 5. An example of a prisoner's dilemma matrix. Importantly, the prisoner's dilemma is not a fixed-sum model (sometimes called a zero-sum model) in which one participant's 'win' comes at the expense of another participant's 'loss'. Instead, the model offers the potential for a win-win solution, if both participants cooperate (meaning, both participants deny the crime), which represents a mutually beneficial outcome. However, the prisoner's dilemma does push each player to make the competitive choice (confessing) out of self-interest, because the payoff is higher for the individual player who competes and confesses. Both players would be better off together (in total) if they cooperate, but confessing leads to a better individual outcome. The prisoner's dilemma is sometimes played as a single iteration (with only one opportunity to deny or confess), but it is also played in repeated iterations (in which the same participants play the game over and over against each other). A wide variety of economic and psychological theories have attempted to explain which strategies are most effective. Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) conducted a computer tournament using repeated iterations of the dilemma, and solicited strategies from game theory experts in economics and mathematics, in an attempt to find the most stable strategy, with an overarching goal of explaining the evolution of human cooperation. Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) found that the most evolutionarily stable strategy is tit-for-tat, or reciprocal altruism, based on a simple strategy submitted by Anatol Rapoport with only two rules: On the first move, choose to cooperate. On each successive move, do whatever your opponent did on the previous move. This is effectively a strategy for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism. Further, it has applications to practically any competitive or cooperative human behaviour, including mating and territorial claims (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981 The underlying idea is that if humans had spent their evolutionary history competing with each other and 'ratting each other out' repeatedly, humans would have died off a long time ago - people need people, and that means cooperation is practically fundamental to human existence. The problem is that models like the prisoner's dilemma are only models, and they are difficult to translate from laboratory simulations to real-life behaviour with the many variables influencing whether someone, or some group, chooses to compete or cooperate in a given situation. Having said that, the prisoner's dilemma model has clear applications to game theory and economics, and it may well be used by police interrogators attempting to extract confessions out of suspected criminals.

Social cognitive theory and prosocial behaviour

It may seem a bit obvious by this point, but role models probably have a considerable influence on prosocial behaviour. Whether this has to do with day-to-day role modelling in the home by parents, or the influence of friends in school hallways, or celebrities supporting charitable organisations, the influence of social cognitive theory (see 4.A.3) and observational learning (see 4.A.4) on prosocial behaviour is well-supported. As mentioned previously, Samuel Oliner investigated people who had rescued Jews all over Europe during the Holocaust, in an effort to describe 'the altruistic personality'. Oliner's (1992) research and analysis places a large emphasis on personality characteristics in people who helped Jews during the Holocaust, but also discusses the importance of observational learning from parents. The study used research teams to administer questionnaires to more than 400 people from all over Europe who had rescued Jews in the years before and during World War II (Oliner 1992). The questionnaire itself was quite open-ended, and many of the responses came out in the form of vignettes and stories, describing the varied ways the rescuers had helped Jewish people hide or escape. The study also included interviews with rescued survivors, and with bystanders who had not been so involved in the resistance against Jewish persecution. While Oliner (1992) noticed several patterns and correlations in the data related to geography, religion, resources, and pure chance, the association that stood out most related to altruism and personality. The bystanders were characterised by feelings of uncertainty, hopelessness, and fear, while the rescuers were characterised by values related to compassion, law, and order (Oliner 1992). Rescuers refused to see Jews as guilty or beyond hope and themselves as helpless, despite all the evidence that could be marshalled to the contrary. They made a choice that affirmed the value and meaningfulness of each life in the midst of a diabolical social order that repeatedly denied it. Can we do otherwise? (Oliner 1992, p.260) More importantly, Oliner (1992) theorised on the basis of the questionnaire data that these values had been learned from parents, presumably through social cognitive theory and observational learning. The rescuers helped for all sorts of reasons, including empathy, social identity theory, and sometimes simply on principle, but the most common factor in rescuers was what Oliner (1992) called extensivity, meaning a person's sense of attachment to others and feelings of responsibility for the welfare of other people. Altruism may be explained by personality, but social cognitive theory plays a key role too. Figure 2. Altruism may be explained by personality, but social cognitive theory plays a key role too. Credit: Rawpixel iStock According to Oliner (1992), parents played a key role in shaping the altruistic personality of rescuers, by doing things like setting high standards but rarely using discipline. Instead, the rescuers described their parents as avoiding the use of punishment, choosing instead to explain the consequences of one's own actions on other people. In theory, the role modelling associated with this may have influenced the development of an altruistic personality. Personality is somewhat difficult to measure, in terms of reliability and validity, and it is not always clear what precisely is meant by 'personality'. From the viewpoint of sociocultural influences on prosocial behaviour, the most relevant conclusion from Oliner's (1992) research is that altruism appears to be driven by empathy as a personality characteristic, and social norms guiding prosocial behaviour. More importantly, individuals may learn to be compassionate and to think for themselves, in theory, through social cognitive theory.

Neurotransmitters and attraction

Not surprisingly, biological explanations for attraction also include some consideration of the role of neurotransmitters. While there has been some research on the role of specific neurotransmitters, including serotonin and dopamine, the likelier explanation is that attraction may be influenced more by neural networks and neurotransmitter interactions than by specific neurotransmitters. Regardless, it remains probable that neurotransmitters are involved in some way in feelings of attraction between two people. While hormones explain biochemical factors in attraction in the bloodstream, the role of neurotransmitters is focused in the brain.

Prosocial behavior:

Prosocial behavior: the parent category and refers to any behavior that benefits another person Altruism: a type of prosocial behavior that benefits another person while coming at some cost to the donor

Conflict and conflict Resolution

Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Intergroup hostility Resource Stress Diab (1963) Repeat of Sherif's study in Beirut. Had to be stopped because one group started to physically threaten others Esses et al (2001) Americans given editorials: life of immigrant vs how successful immigrants were in the currently competitive job market Immigrants call sandrians for prejudice Social Identity Theory McDoom (2012) Group polarization makes conflict more possible In group can do no wrong and their motives are positive. The out-group can do nothing right and their motives are negative Makes compromise much harder Stott, Hutchinson, Drury (2001) Football hooligan violence was higher when there was a large police presence at games. The presence of police makes hooligans identity more salient and thus more prone to violence in acting out against out group. Strategies for conflict resolution: The contact hypothesis Under appropriate condition, contact between groups lowers the level of conflict, hard to hate someone you know. Must include positive contact: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, personal interaction Novotny and Polanksy (2011) Limitations: Difficult to create contact situation that overcomes meanful obstacle. Superordinate goals are not easily come back Results may be limited to meeting, no guarantee attitudes will continue Anxiety felt may interfere with experience. Social cognitive theory Conflict can be reduced by observational learning The Sabido Method, when people ident with characters in television dramas they may adopt their behaviors Paluck (2009) Field experiment To see if a soap opera could reduce conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda Evalution Allows for contact without anxiety of physical contact Difficult to establish cause and effect relationship. Extraneous variables such as resource stress or societal inequality, could influence effectiveness of the strategy Often attitudes are measured, rather than actual interaction with the out group. Response could be open to demand characteristics

competition

Some theorists argue that humans are cooperative by nature. Evolutionary theories of cooperation (see 6.B.1) suggest that humans began cooperating for mutual benefit and, more simply, mutual survival. However, despite any possible evolutionary origin for cooperation, relationships between some social groups (and between some individuals) are undoubtedly competitive. Although social and cultural norms for morality and social fairness both seem to favour cooperation over competition, the reality is that some situations create conflict. (The origins of conflict are discussed in more detail later in 6.B.4

Promoting prosocial behaviour through cooperation and empathy\

The empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that prosocial behaviour may be promoted by encouraging feelings of empathy. Understandably, this is rather challenging as there is no clear way to make an individual care about someone else enough to understand their unique cognitive and emotional viewpoint. Having said that, several efforts have been made over the years to try and encourage empathetic understanding, with a long-term goal of promoting prosocial behaviour. In some cases, training in empathy begins with training for cooperation. The jigsaw classroom Although the technique isn't used as frequently as it once was, most students in classrooms today probably have at least some experience with the jigsaw classroom. This refers to dividing students into groups for learning, with each student responsible for one piece of the puzzle - the learning of the whole group depends upon the contributions of each member (Aronson 1978). The key concept in the jigsaw classroom is interdependence, meaning that it requires students to cooperate with each other in the pursuit of common goals (Aronson and Bridgeman 1979). For example, in a group project summarising and evaluating theories of altruism, each student could be assigned a particular theory (kin selection, empathy-altruism, etc.) and then the group could work together on an overall evaluation at the end. This means that students depend upon each other to learn about personality theories - their learning is interdependent. Essentially, each student teaches one part of the day's lesson to other students, which is meant to encourage cooperation and interdependence (Aronson and Osherow 1980). This is sometimes problematic when all group members fail to contribute equally to group goals, but when it works the jigsaw classroom can encourage understanding of each other's viewpoints. The jigsaw classroom promotes cooperation over competition. Figure 4. The jigsaw classroom promotes cooperation over competition. Credit: Jacob Ammentorp Lund iStock The concept of the jigsaw classroom was designed to promote cooperation over competition (see 6.B.1), and it was deliberately implemented at a time when ethnic divisions in the classroom in the USA were linked to poor academic outcomes for particular ethnic groups. Classrooms had been desegregated along ethnic lines for more than 25 years when Aronson first theorised about the jigsaw approach, and it appeared as though the competitive nature of the classroom was limiting academic achievement for some students. Aronson and Bridgeman (1979) found that a jigsaw group approach with elementary students led to several improvements across ethnic divisions: increased self-esteem, morale, and interpersonal attraction increased empathy improved academic performance of ethnic minority students The main idea is that the jigsaw classroom reactivates the hardwired human inclination to cooperate and helps students empathise with each other's viewpoints. In one bit of early research supporting the jigsaw approach, Aronson (1978) found that after three years students who had jigsaw experience were more cooperative, empathetic, and less prejudiced in comparison to students who had not had jigsaw experience. Aronson's (2002) analysis of the jigsaw approach suggested that it was effective as a method for academic improvement, and more importantly, that it could be a vehicle for promoting empathy and compassion in students. In theory, this leads to long-term outcomes in prosocial behaviour. From a theoretical viewpoint, the jigsaw classroom approach to promoting prosocial behaviour has clear links to the empathy-altruism hypothesis (see 6.C.5), with the idea being that promoting cooperation in turn promotes empathy, which in turn promotes altruism. By making students cooperate, the hope is that empathy follows, and prosocial behaviour after that. There are many ways of promoting prosocial behaviour, and even if the evolutionary theories are valid in suggesting that humans are naturally inclined to altruism, there are still important contributions to be made by cognitive and sociocultural theories in promoting prosocial behaviour.

Cognitive influences on personal relationships

While biological explanations of attraction offer some considerable insights into the evolutionary and biochemical underpinnings of human relationships, they are insufficient in a variety of ways to explain the complexity of attraction. they explain attraction in terms of mental processing.

Analysis and evaluation of the similarity effect

Another bit of research by Eva Klohnen and Shanhong Lo supports the similarity effect indirectly, with more of an emphasis on attachment style (see 7.B.1). The researchers conducted a set of related experiments investigating similarity in the self and ideal-self, and found that participants were attracted to potential mates who were perceived as being secure, supportive, and loving in their personal relationships (Klohnen and Lo 2003). More importantly, when participants perceived the potential mates as being similar to their own ideal selves, the potential mates were found more attractive (Klohnen and Lo 2003): this supports the essence of the similarity effect. It also backs up the idea that perceived similarity is more important to attraction than actual similarity. There is also plenty of evidence suggesting that similarity plays a key role in same-sex relationships, the same way it does in opposite-sex relationships, with the happiest relationships characterised by (Diamond and Butterworth 2008): Similar attitudes Similar social and economic backgrounds Similar expectations and perceptions of equity (see equity theory in 6.A.6) Similar priorities regarding shared activities and relationship commitment However, despite the considerable influence of the similarity effect, it also seems apparent that evolutionary models hold some sway over attraction. In another speed-dating study supporting Buston and Emlen's (2003) likes-attract model (see above), Peter Todd and colleagues found two challenges to the similarity effect (Todd et al. 2007): First, actual similarity was not a predictor of attraction in their study. Second, self-reported mate preferences did not match actual choices. Instead, Todd et al. (2007) found that male participants based their speed-dating decisions on women's physical attractiveness, and female participants made their speed-dating decisions on the basis of self-perceptions of their own physical attractiveness. Todd et al. (2007) argued that these results line up with evolutionary models of mating (see 6.A.1), on the basis of parental investment theory (which is essentially a trade-off between a male mate's quality and his potential as a parent). In other words, cognitive processes are involved in attraction, but the key factor is perception, not similarity. More specifically, perceptions of physical attractiveness appeared to drive attraction in the speed-dating paradigm, which suggests an interaction between cognitive processing and evolutionary factors. Finally, Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel argue that individuals might not actually know, on a conscious level, what they desire in a romantic partner (Eastwick and Finkel 2008). Ideal partner preferences suggest men value physical attractiveness and women value earning prospects, according to evolutionary theories of attraction, but it is unclear whether these preferences predict desire for potential partners in real life. Eastwick and Finkel (2008) conducted a speed-dating study, and found no association between ideal preferences and actual desire, along with no association among sex or gender, physical attractiveness, or earning potential. In other words, the study found no evidence of the similarity effect, and no evidence of evolutionary explanations for attraction. These findings suggest that individuals might not actually be aware of what's driving their partner choices. Instead, attraction may be happening on the level of intuitive thinking (see 3.A.6). All added up, this almost leads to more questions than answers about what actually attracts one person to another.

The parable of Kitty Genovese revisited

In some ways, the story goes back to Kitty Genovese and the ways the telling of her murder shaped the decades of research into bystander behaviour that followed. The newspaper story itself may have good intentions in drawing attention to what seemed a pressing social issue, but there were flaws in the story from the outset. Further, it focused the attention of psychological researchers on negative bystander behaviour, instead of positive bystander behaviour. As it turns out, the story of Kitty Genovese is far more complicated than the newspaper stories made it out to be.

Evolutionary influences on personal relationships

The biological influences on attraction explored in this section can be separated into five main categories, each representing a domain of biological research: evolution neurotransmitters hormones pheromones brain structures.

Gender differences and communication

There are some key differences in the way men and women communicate with one another. There are countless examples of men and women not understanding each other, not because they are speaking different geographical languages but because they are speaking different gendered languages.

Cooperation

it might be said that when two social groups interact with each other they may take one of two positions or orientations (Stangor 2014): Cooperation refers to groups or individuals working together for mutual benefit. Competition refers to groups or individuals working against each other for selfish benefit. The key idea is that cooperation leads to behaviours and outcomes that benefit both social groups. This depends on communication and trust, and it is built on the notion that a mutually beneficial outcome is possible (Stangor 2014). This is what is meant by a win-win situation. By contrast, a competitive orientation is built more on a win-lose ideology, that in any interaction there is a winner and a loser. This may involve competition over limited resources, such as energy resources or territory, and the usual idea is that the success of one party comes at the expense of losses for the other party (Stangor 2014).

Levine, Norenzayan and Philbrick (2001)

Aim: To investigate prosocial behaviour as a function of collectivism/individualism. Method: The study used participants from 23 countries across the world. It consisted of a field experiment in which naive participants were presented with three different help-inducing scenarios: person drops a pen in the street; person with leg brace drops magazines; blind person needs help crossing the street. Results: Collectivist countries scored most highly in terms of prosocial behaviour (Rio at 93%) with some surprising findings (Vienna ranked 5th; Kuala Lumpur only 40% prosocial). Countries with a low socio-economic status were more prosocial and there was a correlation between the pace of city life and individualism. Conclusion: There are cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour but a country cannot be completely defined by these as other variables may influence behaviour. Strengths: A strong study with a huge sample and built-in generalisability due to the fact that 23 countries made up the sample. High in ecological validity due to the use of field experiment methodology and naive participants. Limitations: There are issues of construct validity with measuring helping behaviour cross-culturally. How does a researcher measure pro-social behaviour? It is important to identify which behaviours would be valid indicators of pro-social behaviour. Do all five of the tasks which Levine and his team set up really reflect pro-social behaviour? Methodological considerations: The use of the field experiment means that there are very few controls available to the researcher. Extraneous variables may have compromised the results, e.g. aspects of the culture that interfered and the researcher was unaware of. Ethical considerations: There was deception of participants. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Fischer and Greitemeyer (2013)—The positive bystander effect

Building upon previous research suggesting that the bystander effect is less pronounced in dangerous situations, Peter Fischer and Tobias Greitemeyer conducted a field experiment at a city subway station in Germany to investigate the interplay between group size and perceived danger in the bystander phenomenon (Fischer and Greitemeyer 2013). While the 'classic' bystander studies (see 6.C.2) suggest that bystanderism increases with group size, more recent research (including Fischer et al. 2011) has suggested that additional bystanders may in fact increase helping responses in dangerous situations (Fischer and Greitemeyer 2013). The theoretical foundation for this is the arousal-cost-reward model (see 6.C.2), which theorises that dangerous situations are more immediately recognised as requiring help by the bystander.

The role of culture

For example, Wallen (1989, as cited in Buss 1989) argued that a geographical origin was just as likely for some of the mate preferences (as opposed to an evolutionary origin), and supported this by grouping Buss' data by geographical region. Wallen (1989) argued that geography and culture offered stronger explanations for the male/female differences in mate preferences. This effect was stronger for chastity, and Wallen (1989) suggested that a cultural perspective might be more important than an evolutionary perspective in interpreting the data. Some of the mate preferences appeared to be evolutionary, because they were universal across the samples, but regional differences on measures like chastity suggested that culture was a significant factor too. In all likelihood, mate preferences may result from some serious interaction between evolution and culture. Similarly, Zohar and Guttman (n.d., as cited in Buss 1989) argued that evolutionary explanations can only be tested by actual mate selection, not stated preferences. To test this, they asked 51 newly married couples in Jerusalem about their marriage choice, and found some considerable differences in comparison to Buss: Zohar and Guttman (as cited in Buss 1989) demonstrate that the males and females in their sample from Jerusalem had largely similar reasons for getting married, which challenges Buss' (1989) finding of universal sex differences in mate preferences. More significantly, the data indicate the important role culture may play in attraction. While Buss took an evolutionary viewpoint, several related studies have shown some important cultural variations in attraction.

Culture and communication

Ahmad and Reid's (2008) study on culture, listening styles, and relationship maintenance suggests that culture influences how married couples communicate with each other. The primary distinction lies between listening to understand and listening to respond

Tidwell et al. (2012)

Aim: Tidwell et al. (2012) hypothesised that perceived similarity would have a stronger association with attraction than actual similarity. Method: The participants in the study were 187 male and female undergraduate students attending one of eight meet-and-match speed-dating sessions. Several days before the speed-dating session, participants completed a questionnaire assessing a variety of individual traits, including personal characteristics, personality dimensions, sociosexuality (meaning attitudes towards sexual behaviour), traditionalism, political orientation, university major, religion, interests, and hobbies. Each speed-dating session included 11-12 speed-dates of 4 minutes with other participants, with each date followed by a 2-minute questionnaire about the date. This questionnaire asked participants to rate each date according to the same traits and characteristics assessed in the initial questionnaire. The questionnaire also included ratings on a 1-9 agreement scale for: general perceived similarity, including items such as 'My interaction partner and I seemed to have a lot in common' romantic liking, including items like 'I was sexually attracted to my interaction partner'. Results: Tidwell et al. (2012) found that actual similarity did not predict attraction, from a statistical viewpoint. In fact, it appeared as though dissimilarity was a better predictor of attraction for some of the characteristics in the questionnaire. For example, the researchers found that actual similarities between participants regarding dependability and friendliness negatively predicted liking (Tidwell et al. 2012). Conclusion: The researchers concluded that general assessments of overall similarity were more strongly linked to romantic liking than any specific trait individually. Tidwell et al. (2012) argued that their juxtaposition of actual and perceived similarity for specific traits and general attraction allowed them to conclude that: Actual similarity does not predict romantic attraction. Perceived similarity is a reliable predictor of romantic attraction. General perceived similarity is a stronger predictor of romantic attraction than specific perceived similarity. Strengths: While the speed-dating paradigm is realistic and authentic in some ways, it does not capture the wide variety of romantic initiations and interactions in the real world (Tidwell et al. 2012). However, the speed-dating interactions were genuine, and participants were actually meeting potential romantic partners, so although the paradigm has limitations it is quite realistic for the study of romantic attraction. Weaknesses: The researchers were puzzled by the negative association in actual similarity for the 'dependable' and 'friendly/nice' characteristics, for which it seemed dissimilarity predicted attraction (Tidwell et al. 2012). A deeper analysis of the data on multiple levels confirmed that perceived similarity had a much greater effect on attraction than actual similarity. However, the causal direction of this association remains unknown (see correlational methods in 1.B.4), so it is possible that romantic attraction leads to perceptions of similarity instead of similarity leading to attraction. The researchers acknowledged that the influence of actual similarity might emerge if the participants were able to interact over more than one brief encounter, and further that actual similarity may be a better predictor of relationship maintenance (see 6.A.4) than attraction (Tidwell et al. 2012). Methodological considerations: Finally, the sample is limited to undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 22, so the findings may not generalise to other populations in other contexts (Tidwell et al. 2012). Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

The Dual Processing Model & Prisoner's dilemma:

Daniel Kahneman System 1 Thinking: Fast, instinctive, emotional, automatic, and relatively unconscious System 2 Thinking: Slower, more analytical, logical, rule based based on the belief that we are rational agents and will make decisions based on system 2 thinking.

Knapp (1978): model for relationship change

In 1978, Mark Knapp developed a descriptive model explaining both how relationships grow and how they end. The model itself developed out of social penetration theory (see 6.A.5), as it is based on the various levels of self-disclosure and communication that characterise the closeness (or lack thereof) of a relationship. Knapp's (1978) model is dated, but it serves as a theoretical foundation for a wide body of research into communication and relationship change. The Fox et al. (2013) study discussed further below, for example, is based on Knapp's model. The model itself is loosely based on a staircase model, with 10 different stages categorised under two inter-related processes (Knapp 1978): relationship escalation relationship termination. In this way, the model helps to understand how a close relationship develops, and how the same relationship deteriorates. Although the model has 10 stages, a relationship does not necessarily go through all of the stages, and there is no timeline for the stages either: some relationships progress through the model quickly, others slowly, and some relationships may skip over some of the stages (Knapp 1978). Some relationships peak and don't deteriorate, while other courses almost inevitably lead to termination. The point is that the model is descriptive, not prescriptive. The first five steps of the model theorise that relationship escalation leads to increasing levels of commitment within an interpersonal relationship (Knapp 1978): Initiating: this very short stage is all about making an impression. So judgements at this stage tend not be accurate. The emphasis is on making favourable impressions, and physical appearance plays a big role in forming these impressions. Experimenting: in this stage, it's all about exploring to know each other well. This stage usually comprises small talk and searching for common ground or common interests, so that the people involved can decide whether to maintain a relationship. Most relationships wind up here due to lack of common interests. Intensifying: in this stage, the relationship intensifies and becomes less formal. Personal information is shared, and revelations are made especially regarding feelings about the relationship: this is known as self-disclosure (see 6.A.5). The relationship is nurtured and interpersonal development is strengthened through the giving of gifts, spending more time together, asking for dates, expecting a relationship commitment, and so on. Integrating: at this stage, steps are taken to make the relationship closer than ever before. Partners consider each other before making plans, and use of the term 'we' becomes more frequent. Those outside the relationship become more aware of the relationship. Bonding: usually this stage involves public announcements about the relationship. This stage also involves commitments, including engagements, marriage or friendship rituals. Relationship bonding in the age of social media. Figure 4. Relationship bonding in the age of social media. Credit: nadia_bormotova iStock The last five steps of the model describe the stages of relationship termination (Knapp 1978): Differentiating: at this stage, individuals in the relationship start thinking individually rather than with the partner. Differences start becoming obvious and partners desire independence. Feelings of dislike tend to be expressed by the partners regarding their commitment. Circumscribing: at this stage, partners tend to avoid difficult topics and their conversations become more restricted as more boundaries are set up in their communication. Often people will never communicate difficult topics, fearing an argument. They will have their own personal space and activities. Stagnating: the relationship will decline even more if it reaches the stagnation stage. The communication tends to become more limited. Often partners choose not to separate due to situations beyond their control (like children, family, or friends) or other unavoidable reasons, or sometimes even to avoid the emotional pain that may accompany separation. Relationships at this stage tend not to continue or improve, and therefore they are described as stagnating. Avoiding: at this stage, the partners intentionally avoid any contact with each other, and they tend to be physically separated. They restrict themselves from any forms of communication with each other, often to avoid conversation or arguments. Terminating: this is the final stage of a dissolving relationship, and it results in complete termination. The partners decide to take different paths. This termination is not necessarily a subjective decision (like a divorce), but sometimes occurs naturally when the people who were living next door move out, or when roommates change as the year ends, or as high-school friends head off to different universities, for example. Knapp's (1978) model places a heavy emphasis on communication between partners. While the model is clearly applicable to romantic relationships, it can also be applied to friendships, family relationships (siblings, parent-child), room-mate relationships, and sometimes also within-business partnerships. Communication, or the lack thereof, is a huge part of any human relationship. It is important to note that the model itself is more focused on how relationships change than why they change, as it describes a relationship through the various stages of escalation and termination. The reasons why relationships change, according to Knapp's model, link back to the role of communication in relationships, particularly in terms of social penetration theory and self-disclosure (see 6.A.5). For example, partners avoiding conversations in the circumscribing stage are disclosing less to each other, which may reflect a lack of trust in each other, and the partners may be starting to dislike each other. The key reason for this is lack of communication. As a final point, note that each of the steps in the model are generalisations, and may not apply to all couples or all cultures. Exam tip Knapp's (1978) model may be readily integrated into exam responses on: why relationships change or end the role of communication in relationships. However, if the model is used to explain why relationships change or end, be sure to focus on the key role of communication, including specifics like self-disclosure or social penetration theory (see 6.A.5). While theories and studies related to communication and self-disclosure can be used to elaborate why relationships change or end, Knapp's model can also be used in turn to elaborate upon the role of communication in relationships.

Factors that affect our willingness to cooperate:

Looking at cooperation more generally, Michael Tomasello and his colleagues have developed a wider theory of the evolution of human cooperation. Their theory is built upon the idea that humans are fundamentally more collaborative than most non-human animals, including the great apes (Tomasello et al. 2012). Tomasello et al. (2012) present an evolutionary theory of cooperation suggesting that cooperation evolved from the interdependence of collaborative foragers, who worked together to meet their food needs in the early days of humanity. This collaboration was then scaled up to group life, and then became cultural norms for cooperation and collaboration (Tomasello et al. 2012). Definition In social psychology, interdependence refers to two or more people or groups of people being mutually reliant (or mutually dependent) upon each other. The evolutionary theory of cooperation loosely matches the way young children learn to collaborate, first in concrete situations with others, and then later learning cultural and social norms for collaboration at home, at school, and so on. Social comparison: looking at how others are behaving, what do other people get out of cooperating Kerr (1983) 75 undergraduates (39 males, 36 females) were asked to pump air pressing rubber bulb in each hand for 30 seconds Four conditions Alone With partner who worked hard With partner who did not work hard Individually but someone was in the room doing the test but not showing much effort Worked hardest when on their own or four If their partner was working hard they pumped less hard: free riding effect If their partner who didn't also did less: sucker effect Normative social influence: bicchieri: more people are likely to conform, if they believe a sufficient number of others will conform and that others expect the person to conform. Sattler and kerr One group of participants listen to members of a group that just completed a game that the new participants were gonna start These group members were actually confederates (deception) They made statements like: maybe i would have gotten more if i was greedy but i couldn't do it/maybe i should try to do more for the group The control group heard no statements Results: those who heard the statements were less competitive and more cooperative. Cost-benefit analysis People were more likely to donate money when they believed that only people who donated money will be rewarded. Perceived personal benefit or loss, rather than social norms increases cooperation Starbucks generates 4 billion cups a year, in order to encourage customers to cooperate on lower waste by bringing their own cup Offer customers 10 cents off their drink if they don't bring their own cup Part of Kahneman and Tversky's Prospect theory Group size: cooperation decreases in larger groups, it is likely to increase free-riding, they also lead to deindividuation:loss of self-awareness and a feeling of being anonymous and thus not feeling the pressure to conform and cooperate

Arousal-cost-reward model

The arousal-cost-reward model explains bystander behaviour in terms of cognitive and emotional processing. The key idea is that when some event or emergency triggers physiological arousal, a series of mental calculations determine whether someone helps out or not. More importantly, the unpleasant feelings that accompany increased arousal may be reduced by helping. Further, the decision to help or not is based on a cost-benefit analysis, such that if the benefits of helping outweigh the costs of helping, then an individual is more likely to help. According to Dovidio et al. (1991), when bystanders perceive someone in trouble they go through three stages or sets of calculations before they reach a decision regarding whether to intervene in an emergency situation: Physiological arousal, including reactions like an increased heart rate, sweating, 'butterflies' in the stomach, and so on Labelling the arousal, which means that it will be interpreted according to situational cues that may indicate whether help is needed Evaluating the consequences, which essentially weighs the costs and benefits of intervention, and the model suggests that bystanders will choose the course of action that reduces their own personal distress at the lowest possible cost to them. In diagram form, the arousal-cost-reward model looks like this: The arousal-cost-reward model. Figure 5. The arousal-cost-reward model. The model essentially suggests that bystanders perform a kind of bystander calculus when they observe someone in need, such that physiological arousal may lead to helping, depending upon the bystander's calculations. There are of course many costs to helping in a bystander situation, including the risk of harm to oneself or simply running late, or feeling foolish for jumping to intervene if the situation is not in fact an emergency. But there are also many costs to not helping, particularly if the victim is harmed due to lack of help, which may lead to greater emotional costs later on for the individual. In another form, the arousal-cost-reward model looks like this: The arousal-cost-reward model as a matrix. Figure 6. The arousal-cost-reward model as a matrix. In some ways, the arousal-cost-reward model is similar to two-factor theories of emotion (see 3.C.1) in that it suggests that physiological arousal combined with cognitive processing influences whether help will be given. The main idea is that a bystander will experience increased physiological arousal or stress in response to an unambiguous emergency, as indicated by a victim's distress, and that physiological arousal can be reduced by helping the victim.

Reducing discrimination

The more complicated question, however, is how to reduce discrimination. Three main techniques are discussed briefly here: By changing social norms Through intergroup contact Through social recategorisation

Promoting prosocial behaviour through conformity

The possible influence of conformity in promoting prosocial behaviour is demonstrated by two studies discussed previously (in 6.C.6): Nook et al. (2016) shows how group norms may be manipulated to promote conformity across a range of prosocial behaviours over time Park and Shin (2017) shows how anonymous peers may influence prosocial donations and participation in a signature campaign Both of these studies suggest that conformity might be used to increase prosocial behaviour, as the charity donations of online workers in Nook et al. (2016) appeared to be influenced by either generous or stingy norms. Similarly, Park and Shin (2017) found that direct peer influence increased prosocial behaviour in their sample, which may be interpreted in the contexts of both conformity and social cognitive theory.

Buss (1989)

Aim: To investigate gender and cultural differences in mate preferences. Method: Researchers conducted a correlational study on mate preferences, selecting 10,047 adult participants from 33 countries, representing 37 cultures, making it the largest sample of mate preference data ever obtained (Buss 1989). The study collected survey data on partner and spouse age preferences, and on ratings and rankings of 18 different mate characteristics (dependable character, intelligence, chastity, good financial prospects, etc.). Participants were asked to rate the characteristics on a scale from 0 (irrelevant or unimportant) to 3 (indispensable). Participants were then asked to rank the characteristics from 1 to 13 in order of which characteristics were most desirable in a mate. Data was collected by residents of each country and then mailed to Buss in the USA for analysis. Results: Buss (1989) found some evidence of cross-cultural universal features in mate preferences for both males and females. Worldwide, the self-report data indicated preferences for mates who were kind and understanding, intelligent, dependable, and healthy (Buss 2007), and these characteristics were universally desired by both sexes. However, the data also indicated some important differences in mate preferences between the sexes, supporting evolutionary hypotheses for attraction (on the basis of sexual selection and family investment). For example, females in the sample rated 'good financial prospects' significantly higher than did males in the sample. Females in the sample also rated 'ambition and industriousness' more highly than did males, which is important because the characteristic relates to resource acquisition. However, this sex difference was only evident in 29 of the 37 samples, so it was not universal. By contrast, males in the sample on average gave higher ratings to 'physical attractiveness' as a mate preference compared to females in the sample. This was taken as an indicator of reproductive potential as an evolutionary factor in attraction. Conclusion: In general, the data supported evolutionary hypotheses for preferences in potential mates and universal sex differences were evident specifically for the mate characteristics most relevant to evolutionary adaptations in humans. Strengths: The Buss (1989) study is admittedly old, and cultural norms regarding mate preferences such as chastity or homemaking skills may well have changed in many places since then. However, the study still represents the largest pool of data on human mate preferences yet collected, and it has spawned a variety of other studies that both support and challenge the evolutionary findings. Weaknesses: Although the 37 cultures included do represent a wide diversity of cultural and economic groups, the study used opportunity sampling techniques, and the samples were not representative (see 1.A.2) of each country's population because rural populations and populations with lower education and socioeconomic status were not included (Buss 1989). Therefore, the generalisability of this study may be limited, because mate preferences in the unrepresented populations may well vary from the populations included in the study. The study collected self-report data, which is sometimes problematic, but Buss compared self-reports of preferred age of mate with demographic data collected from each participant and found that the actual age of marriage corresponded with self-reported preferences, suggesting that participants were able to be accurate in their self-reports. Still, the use of self-report data is a potential methodological limitation, because people are not always accurate in perceptions of their own behaviour, and may further respond with socially acceptable answers rather than completely truthful answers. The potential lack of validity is particularly problematic in self-reports on sexual behaviour. Methodological considerations: The sampling techniques (see 1.A.2) also varied widely from country to country, with some samples drawn from high schools, others from marriage-licence application centres, and so on (Buss 1989). These varied sampling techniques may limit the reliability of the study, but Buss (1989) suggested that the variety of sampling techniques in fact limits the sampling biases that might emerge from one technique only. The sampling techniques also have implications for the study's validity, because the lack of a consistent sampling technique may lead to confounding variables in the statistical interpretation of the data. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Park and Shin (2017)

Aim: To investigate the influence of social cognitive theory in an experiment manipulating peer influence to see the effects on prosocial behaviour. Method: The study was a laboratory experiment conducted with 125 male and female South Korean undergraduate participants, manipulating the following as independent variables: indirect peer influence (through media) direct peer influence (through direct contact with another person) The dependent variable was operationalised as participation in a signature campaign and as monetary donations to children in hospital unable to pay their bills. The researchers hypothesised that direct peer modelling would have a greater influence on prosocial behaviour than indirect modelling. Participants came to the lab for a 20-minute session. When they arrived, three confederates were already seated in the seats closest to the door. The experimenter explained that the study was meant to investigate language processing and thinking styles. The participants then read a set of paragraphs. Depending upon the experimental condition. the paragraphs either were neutral, or had a prosocial message - this was meant to manipulate indirect peer influence as an independent variable. The participants then completed a questionnaire verifying that they read the paragraphs, and then completed two filler questionnaires. The experimenter then informed participants that the experiment was over, and told them about the signature campaign and charity donation for sick children, and stressed that they were not required to participate (Park and Shin 2017). The participants were then paid for their participation, and were deliberately given more money than the study had advertised so that each participant had enough to donate something to charity if they chose to. Then the three confederates were dismissed first. In the neutral model condition the confederates simply left, while in the prosocial model condition they each signed the signature campaign sheet and put some money in the donation box by the door - this was meant to manipulate direct peer influence as an indepependent variable. Then the participants were dismissed, and the experimenter recorded their signature participation and donation. Resutls: The researchers found that anonymous peers had a prosocial influence on individuals who were given the opportunity to participate in a signature campaign and make a monetary donation to a children's charity.The results indicated that the anonymous prosocial models had a considerable influence on prosocial behaviour, while the indirect modelling of the prosocial paragraph did not. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that indirect peer influence has little effect on prosocial behaviour in comparison with direct peer influence. Strengths: This study suggests that prosocial behaviour may be influenced by situational factors, in the form of peer influences that vary from situation to situation. Therefore, prosocial behaviour may not be as stable and consistent across situations as kin selection theory or the empathy-altruism theory might suggest. Limitations: There may be demand characteristics as participants may not have wanted to admit that they were conforming to the behaviour of others - instead, they convinced themselves that they were donating on their own, of their own free will. Methodological considerations: The study used a genuine situation for measuring the dependent variable, which adds to the ecological validity of the study. This also represents one of the few studies to use an experimental method to study social influence, and as such broadens the empirical literature. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the prosocial behaviours demonstrated endured beyond the end of the study - it is possible that the effects of role models on prosocial behaviour are short-lived Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

CATB: Empathy-altruism hypothesis

People act to help others out of empathetic feelings of genuine concern for the well-being of other people. Empathetic concern for others will predict helping behavior regardless of what they will gain. A limitation to Batson's research, the social desirability effect. He had to distinguish between altruistic helping and egoistic helping but people will tend to self report in a way that makes their actions seem socially desirable that is altruistic not egoistic Helping a crying child because the crying is driving you crazy is egoistic = Empathy is usually defined in terms of emotion or cognition, and hence empathy-based altruism is essentially a cognitive theory. The distinction isn't necessarily clear, as empathy also includes biological and sociocultural elements, but the emotional element tilts this set of theories towards the cognitive approach to psychology. Definition Empathy refers to not only understanding what another person is feeling, but even feeling what they're feeling. Empathy may be equated to 'walking a mile in somebody else's shoes' to understand the world from their cognitive and emotional viewpoint. It is fundamentally difficult to untangle the motivations behind any apparently altruistic behaviour. Sometimes, reducing another person's distress by helping them also serves to reduce one's own distress, and therefore such helping behaviour is not so much altruistic as egoistic (Batson et al. 1981): Egoistic helping increases the helper's own welfare Altruistic helping increases the other's welfare While definitions of altruism may vary from source to source, Batson et al.'s (1981) conception of altruism is generally consistent with many other definitions suggesting that altruism is 'unselfish concern for the welfare of others (Batson et al. 1981, p.291). Some theorists argue that altruism is not truly selfless. Figure 4. Some theorists argue that altruism is not truly selfless. Credit: Wavebreakm edia iStock The motivations behind altruistic behaviour may also be understood in terms of: Personal distress Ease of escape For example, seeing another person suffer causes personal distress, which may be reduced by helping, which in turn reduces one's own distress. This is what is meant by egoistic helping. However, it is also possible to reduce one's own distress by simply escaping from the situation, like a passive bystander. By contrast, escape is irrelevant to altruistic helping, because escape is not an option: the goal of such helping is to reduce another's distress, which cannot be done by escaping For example, when encountering a beggar panhandling for coins on the sidewalk, a person low in empathy may walk on by without giving any coins, because it's easy to escape by continuing on down the sidewalk, avoiding eye contact and so on. However, if the beggar happens to 'corner' the person in some way, through eye contact or through a direct appeal, the person low in empathy may give the beggar a few coins because escape is difficult, and being helpful eases personal distress. Essentially, a person feeling low empathy will help if helping others is in their own self-interest and the benefits outweigh the costs. By contrast, a person high in empathy may give some coins regardless of whether escape is easy or difficult, and regardless of self-interest. Even when the costs outweigh the benefits, a person feeling high empathy will help, according to empathy-based altruism. The basic idea is that individuals high in empathy will help no matter what, and that individuals low in empathy will only help when escape is difficult. If escape is easy, then that's the easiest way to reduce personal distress; if escape is difficult, then it may be easier to reduce one's own distress by helping the other person who is suffering. That's the essence of the empathy-based altruism hypothesis.

Similarity effect

The similarity-attraction hypothesis suggests that couples in a relationship tend to be similar in age, religion, social class, cultural background, personality, education, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. Maybe this is because, over history, people have tended to live in groups with people who are like themselves. Even though modern societies consist of many different ethnic groups living together, there is a tendency for people to live in areas where people are similar. Shared interests are also part of what attracts people to each other. In one bit of research, Marian Morry (2007) explored the similarity-attraction hypothesis in a series of studies on cross-sex friends (meaning a friendship between a male and female) and their perceptions of similarity and friendship satisfaction. In the first round of research, Morry (2007) found that her participants perceived their cross-sex friends to be similar to themselves, but that these perceptions were more believable than reality, and not necessarily an accurate assessment of similarity. Regardless, perceived similarity was a factor in the relationship. More significantly, the second round of research indicated that greater friendship satisfaction appeared to predict similarities in both traits and behaviours between friends. In other words, closer friends perceived greater similarity between themselves and their friend. Morry (2007) argues that individuals have beliefs about relationships; generally, people tend to see friends and partners as similar to themselves. Attraction, therefore, predicts perceptions of similarity, and similarity appears to predict attraction. Similarity is one of the most significant predictors of partner choice based on a variable unrelated to physical appearance. Choosing a partner who shares one's beliefs, attitudes, and outlook on life means that there is less opportunity for conflict and disagreement to arise as both partners can be said to be 'of one mind'. Sharing and agreeing on basic values is thought to be very important in a relationship, particularly in the first 18 months of that relationship so that there is the possibility of increased self-disclosure between the couple (discussed further in 6.A.5), which in turn leads to a deeper and more meaningful understanding of one another. There is a wide body of research supporting the influence of the similarity effect on interpersonal attraction, and the similarity effect has been observed in children, undergraduates, and adults for a range of factors, including but not limited to (Montoya and Horton 2004): personality attitudes demographic characteristics physical attractiveness. Similarly, Buston and Emlen (2003) investigated some of the cognitive processes underlying human mate choices, with a particular focus on how self-perceptions influence mate preferences. They found that selectivity in mate preferences was explained by self-perceptions across four evolutionary categories (wealth, family commitment, appearance, sexual fidelity), supporting a 'likes-attract' rule for attraction. The likes-attract rule essentially supports the similarity effect. Credit: RossHelen iStock Despite the various bits of evidence for the similarity effect in interpersonal attraction, there remain many questions about how or why the effect works. Some theorists have argued that similarity is reinforcing (see behaviourism in 0.0.1), such that similar people make an individual feel more positively about themselves and the world, because similarity with others essentially validates one's own attitudes or characteristics (Byrne and Clore 1967, as cited in Montoya and Horton 2004). However, this explanation does not hold for negative attitudes or negative qualities, so it is incomplete. Other theorists argue that the failure of reinforcement models for the similarity effect suggests that cognitive processes must be involved. According to this model, the similarity effect results from a cognitive evaluation of another's attitudes and personality, and that's why the effect is more evident in positive evaluations of positive characteristics. In another study elaborating upon the similarity effect, Natasha Tidwell and colleagues conducted a correlational study examining the effects of actual and perceived similarity on initial attraction during a speed-dating event (Tidwell et al. 2012). Speed-dating events are almost like mass micro-dates, in which potential partners have a few minutes to meet other single people and decide whether they want to go on a real date later. Tidwell et al. (2012) found that actual similarity did not predict romantic attraction, but that perceived similarity did. The researchers also found that perceived similarity predicted attraction more for general traits than for specific traits (discussed in more detail below). Importantly, their study built on a previous body of research suggesting that both actual similarity and perceived similarity were predictors of attraction, but no studies had yet compared the two concepts in a realistic setting. Therefore, the researchers used a speed-dating paradigm to investigate both concepts. .

Marazziti et al. (1999)

Aim: Marazziti et al. (1999) aimed to investigate possible similarities in serotonin activity between people in love and people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Method: The study included 20 participants who had fallen in love recently (within the previous 6 months) as well as 20 participants diagnosed with OCD (but not taking medication for it) and another 20 normal control participants. The researchers measured serotonin levels for each participant through a blood sample which was then put through a centrifuge to separate platelet membranes, indicating serotonin density. Results: Marazziti et al. (1999) found that participants in love and with OCD had lower levels of serotonin density than the normal controls. Conclusion: The researchers interpreted this as indicating similarities between obsession and the early phases of a romantic relationship. Strengths: The study provides preliminary evidence for a biological correlate for the feeling of obsession. Weaknesses: Arguably, serotonin activity in the brain (as opposed to indicators the bloodstream) may be even more significant to romantic attraction, so in this way Marazziti et al.'s (1999) findings are very preliminary, and the precise role of serotonin in attraction remains unknown. Methodological considerations: Marazziti et al.'s (1999) study measured serotonin levels in blood samples, which makes the findings questionable. Serotonin activity is technically neurological, meaning that it happens in the brain, in the synapses between neurons, so taking blood samples is a rather indirect way of measuring serotonin activity. It may be more effective to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or some other technique to measure functional changes or activity changes in brain regions or neural networks linked with serotonin. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5. Fisher (2008) Aim: Fisher (2008) aimed to investigate the brain regions and neurotransmitters associated with feeling in love. Results: The research found several brain regions and neurotransmitters associated with feelings of love and attraction, including: romantic love is linked to dopamine activity in brain regions associated with addiction to drugs like cocaine, that 'light up' neural networks for rewarding activities. Such drugs may cause a 'rush' or a 'high' on a neurological level, and perhaps the same networks light up for love. There are also links between love and attraction and neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin particularly), and between attraction and hormones (oestrogen and testosterone). Conclusion: Fisher (2008) also argues this attraction is linked to neural networks and to biochemicals like serotonin, dopamine, oestrogen, and testosterone. This in turn suggests that attraction has a biological basis. Strengths:​ There are all kinds of evidence that non-human animals experience attraction, suggesting a biological basis for love and attraction. Also, the same brain regions associated with reward in humans are also active in non-human animals. As Fisher discussed back in 6.A, the biological factors explaining attraction are right there in the human brain, and there seems to be little that any technology or matchmaking site can do to change it. Weaknesses: As this research is correlational, no cause and effect relationship can be established. Methodological considerations: The study has high external reliability as the neural networks for reward were particularly active in people who had recently been rejected, suggesting (like Marazziti et al. 1999) that love and attraction are similar to obsession, on a neurological level. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Montoya and Horton (2004)

Aim: Montoya and Horton (2004) aimed to investigate the role of cognitive evaluation in the similarity-attraction effect. Method: 81 male and female undergraduates were randomly assigned to similar, control, or dissimilar conditions, and in each condition half of the participants evaluated other participants before completing an interpersonal attraction questionnaire, while the other half did the attraction questionnaire first and the evaluation second. The cognitive evaluation questionnaire included nine-point scales for questions like 'My future interaction partner is probably good at everything that s/he does'. The interpersonal attraction questionnaire included nine-point scales for questions like 'I would like to get to know this person better'. Participants were seated in private rooms and asked to complete a central attitude questionnaire including attitudes about smoking, religion, money, behaviour, and so on. These attitude questionnaires were then used to create bogus questionnaire responses that were either similar or dissimilar to each participant's responses, depending upon their experimental condition. These bogus attitude questionnaires were then shown to participants, who were told it had been completed by their future partner, after which participants completed the cognitive evaluation and interpersonal attraction questionnaires (in counterbalanced order, depending upon condition) for their future partner, and were then fully debriefed about the experiment. Results: Their research suggests that the similarity-attraction effect is mediated by cognitive evaluations of the 'quality' of an individual. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that attraction is more complicated than simple similarity attracting one person to another; instead, mental evaluations of an individual come between similarity and attraction, essentially adding cognitive processing to the equation. Strengths: Cognitive evaluation was found to predict attraction, while similarity on its own was not, which suggests that cognitive evaluation is a major factor in attraction, and that similarity affects attraction only indirectly (through the mediating effect of cognitive evaluation). Weaknesses: Despite the cognitive focus of the research, the findings are also relevant to evolutionary explanations of attraction (see 6.A.1), because they indicate that mate preference characteristics may undergo cognitive evaluation as an individual sizes up potential mates as high- or low-quality, according to characteristics like genetic fitness, physical attractiveness, reproductive potential, parental investment, earning capacity, and so on. The findings may not generalise from the laboratory to actual relationships. The biggest problem is the use of a 'phantom-other' rather than a real person as the attraction target, as actual relationships provide many sources of information for cognitive evaluation, such as physical attractiveness or how the individual interacts with others and oneself, for example. There are also lingering questions about how automatic or deliberate the cognitive evaluations may be (see two-system thinking in 3.A.5), as other studies have demonstrated that implicit attitudes and stereotypes predict evaluation of other people. For example, some forms of racial bias and gender bias influence evaluations of others before the evaluator is even consciously aware of their bias and cognitive processing. Methodological considerations: This study has high external reliability as the researchers conducted two related studies, one of which more fully explored the cognitive evaluation of information about a relationship target person, and another establishing that cognitive evaluation and interpersonal attraction were distinct constructs (Montoya and Horton 2004). This is important, because some theorists had previously argued that the two constructs were really one and the same. The researchers also suggested that their use of achievement-oriented evaluation items may be biased towards individualist cultures (see 4.B.2) who tend to value individual achievements, so the findings may not generalise as well to collectivist cultures. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Madsen, Tunney, Fieldman, Plotkin, Dunbar, Richardson and McFarland (2007)

Aim: Part (a) To test the central prediction that willingness to invest altruistically declines as relatedness declines. We controlled for two possible confounding variables: participant gender and trial order. Part (b) To determine whether non-European cultures exhibit effects similar to those found in (a), replicated using two contrasting South African Zulu populations. These populations were both economically impoverished, but differed in the extent to which they were embedded in the modern economy. Method: Participants were asked to impose a cost upon themselves, in the form of pain from exercise, in return for a proportionate reward given to an individual. They were asked to hold a squat position for as long as possible. This becomes increasingly painful over time. After approximately 100 seconds, pain increases massively. The biological relatedness of the recipient was varied between 4 categories: 1) The participant themselves 2) sibling or parent 3) grandparent, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew 4) cousin. Participants told the proceeds would be sent to nominated individuals chosen at random by the experimenter. Participants for part (a): recruited from student population at University of Oxford. 40 pence for each 20 seconds that the posture was held. Participants for part (b): 22 healthy, unmarried male volunteers, recruited from the University College London student community. Results: Part (a): Participants imposed a higher cost when recipients were themselves rather than a sibling or a parent. Likewise, they imposed a higher cost when the recipient was a sibling or parent than a grandparent. There was however no difference between grandparents and cousins. A significant and reliable relationship between the effort invested in the task and the relatedness of the beneficiary was found. Part (b): On par wth part (a) and additionally, Zulu participants did not seem to distinguish between cousins and close relatives. Conclusion: Human beings tend to behave in ways that are more beneficial to closer relatives. Additionally, kinship seems to be trans-cultural. Results provide experimental evidence in support of the claim that humans are more willing to incur costs for the direct benefit of others, as a direct function of relatedness. Strengths: Provides empirical evidence for an evolutionary theory, which is hard to do - most evidence for evolution is correlational. Limitations: Only used university students from the same university, probably of the same age, therefore is hard to generalise. Cost may vary according to their relationship with parents and grandparents, e.g. someone who spent more time with their grandparents growing up than with parents may hold position longer for grandparents. Methodological considerations: Supported by two other experiments by Madsen and shows high reliability. Ethical considerations: Causing physical stress/pain to participants may be ethically questionable. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Diffusion of responsibility

Another factor in bystanderism appears to be diffusion of responsibility, referring to the idea that individuals feel less responsibility to intervene when there are other witnesses to the same emergency. Diffusion of responsibility suggests that individuals are less likely to take responsibility for helping, according to Latané and Darley's (1970) decision model. Definition Diffusion of responsibility means that bystanders may feel less responsible to help in an emergency when there are other bystanders present who might help instead. In their review of bystander research, Latané and Nida (1981) calculated that bystanders are more likely to help when they are alone, as compared to in a group. In general terms (Latané and Nida 1981): 75% help when alone 53% help when other bystanders were present From the very beginning, research into bystanderism has been interested in the anonymity of the group or the crowd, and how diffusion of responsibility in groups may influence bystanderism.

Why relationships change or end

Diamond and Butterworth (2008) discuss how the factors influencing relationship quality and maintenance are basically the same for all romantic relationships, no matter the sexual orientations involved. Factors including personality, communication, equality, trust, and conflict resolution are all key to the maintenance of relationships. Along with the wide body of research explaining how relationships begin and how they are maintained, there are a variety of theories and studies exploring the many ways relationships change or end.

Promoting prosocial behaviour

Given that so many theories have explored the origins of prosocial behaviour, the question now becomes how to promote prosocial behaviour. While there may be several specific ways that prosocial behaviour can be promoted, including through social cognitive theory, observational learning, empathy, conformity, and so on, the common denominator is group norms. Essentially, group norms for prosocial behaviour underlie many of the ways prosocial behaviour might be promoted. In a summary and analysis of the theories and studies explaining prosocial behaviour, Batson and Powell (2003) describe the many influences on prosocial behaviour. As discussed throughout this subtopic, prosocial behaviour and altruism may be explained in various ways by: social cognitive theory conformity social identity theory empathy reciprocity The list goes on, in fact, but there is a common connection to group norms in many of the explanations for prosocial behaviour, especially in the sociocultural theories. Further, there are varying personal and situational factors that appear to influence helping behaviour, so different theories and models may explain different situations of prosocial behaviour. While it remains unclear what precisely motivates prosocial behaviour, the possibilities span a wide range between altruism and egoism (Batson and Powell 2003). The bigger question, really, is how to use these theories and motives to promote prosocial behaviour. Promoting prosocial behaviour by finding a face in the crowd. Figure 2. Promoting prosocial behaviour by finding a face in the crowd. Credit: filipefrazao iStock The fact is, many theories of bystanderism and altruism are already being applied to the promotion of prosocial behaviour: in social awareness campaigns in anti-bullying programs in schools in textbooks educating readers about bystanderism The point is that for all the experimenting and theorising that goes on around prosocial behaviour, the actual application of the research might be what matters most to society at large. Whether these prosocial awareness campaigns lead to any positive changes in prosocial behaviour is sometimes unclear, but the research so far shows several ways that prosocial behaviour might be promoted. Be aware This section does not really introduce many new theories or studies. The emphasis is instead on applying the theories and studies discussed previously in the subtopic to the promotion of prosocial behaviour.

BATB: Kin selection theory

Hamilton Prosocial behavior can be explained through the concept of inclusive fitness: Indirect fitness: results from reproduction by relatives Direct fitness: results from personal reproduction Limitations We see helping behavior between strangers Assumption that we can identify kin from strangers Empirical support for this and RAM: Essock-Vitale and Maguire (1985) Kin selection theory Kin selection theory is based on genetic determinism and evolution, and it suggests people are more altruistic towards family members. The theory is based on the concept of inclusive fitness, so in this sense it suggests that an individual is altruistic not for the benefit of another, but for the benefit of one's own genes and their chances for survival. The theory was originally developed by E.O. Wilson in the 1970s, but he abandoned it in 2010 (Bergland 2012), on the basis of a mathematical assessment suggesting that altruism evolved not for the good of family genes as initially theorised, but for the good of the community. From an evolutionary viewpoint, 'cooperating groups dominate groups who do not cooperate' (Bergland 2012). The ongoing discussion suggests that there is some uncertainty about the validity of kin selection theory. Arguably, altruism evolved for the good of the community. Figure 5. Arguably, altruism evolved for the good of the community. Source: "Canis lupus pack surrounding Bison.jpg" by Doug Smith, Wikimedia Commons Some theorists, including Richard Dawkins, still support kin selection theory, and the theoretical controversy essentially rests between group selection and kin selection (Bergland 2012). Wilson argues that altruism emerges not from kin selection, but from social group selection, whether the group members are kin or not. The debate presents a major methodological challenge in finding empirical data for group selection - from a genetic or an evolutionary viewpoint, there is really no way to measure how altruism may increase a group's survival from generation to generation. There are several studies supporting kin selection theory, however, including Simmons et al.'s (1977) study investigating whether individuals are more likely to donate a kidney to close family relatives. The study concluded that kin relationships were associated with willingness to donate a kidney for transplant, with 86% of parents agreeing to do it for their children, compared to the 47% agreeing to do it for their siblings (Simmons et al. 1977). However, kinship wasn't the only factor, as similarity in age and sex were also associated with a higher willingness to donate. These findings essentially support kin selection theory, but also suggest that altruism may be influenced by several interacting factors. The evidence on organ donations supports kin selection theory. Figure 6. The evidence on organ donations supports kin selection theory. Credit: ThitareeSarmkasat iStock The Simmons et al. (1977) study is but one of the many examples of how kin selection may explain prosocial behaviour.

The bystander effect

In 1981, Latané and Nida published a review of the existing bystanderism research in an effort to synthesise and understand the many influences on bystander behaviour (Latané and Nida 1981). They found that bystanderism could be influenced by a wide range of variables, including (Latané and Nida 1981): The nature or context of the bystander incident The ambiguity of the situation The setting of the research (laboratory or field) Characteristics of the participants, the victims, and other bystanders Looking at the nature of bystander incidents particularly, Latané and Nida's (1981) analysis suggested that most psychological studies of bystanderism were designed around several bystander situations, or contexts. These contexts generally outline the situations in which bystanderism had been observed and measured by psychological science (Latané and Nida 1981): When all bystanders are in danger When a victim is in danger When the number of bystanders increases When a villain acts While those contexts do not represent every situation in which bystanderism might occur, they do describe the basic territory of bystander research up to the early 1980s. The early research into bystanderism led to the development of several models attempting to explain how and why bystanders choose to help or not, and how this may vary from situation to situation.

Bystanderism

Many people have found themselves in situations where someone else needs help. Perhaps it's seeing another student being harassed or bullied in the hallways, or seeing a motorist stranded on the side of the road, or maybe it's something as seemingly inconsequential as encountering a piece of litter on the sidewalk. Some people intervene in the hallway, or stop to offer the motorist a ride, or pick up the litter and put it in a wastebin, and some... do nothing at all. The last 50 years or so of psychological science have seen considerable interest in the bystander phenomenon, with many researchers investigating the factors that lead people to help or not in situations where someone else is clearly in need of help. According to this line of research, there are essentially two types of bystanders: Passive bystanders, who witness a problem and don't help Active bystanders, who witness a problem and do help Bystanderism, also known as the bystander effect, refers to how individuals may not help in situations requiring assistance, especially when other passive bystanders are present. Some psychological researchers argue that the very notion of the passive bystander, the person who doesn't help, has become something of a modern archetype (Garfield, as cited in Marsh and Keltner 2006). The roots of the bystander phenomenon trace back to World War II and the Holocaust and run through the decades since, from the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in the 1960s to the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, on to the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, arguably all the way up to current crises like climate change or sexual harassment in the workplace. And that's only the short version. As some theorists have put it: We are all bystanders. (Marsh and Keltner 2006) But as with anything in psychology, maybe it's not that simple. While a lot of psychological research over the past several decades has focused on the reasons why people don't help in bystander situations, in more recent years the focus has shifted more to the reasons people do help.

Resource dilemmas

One type of social dilemma is known more specifically as a resource dilemma, which refers to competition over a limited resource. Morton Deutsch was a leading expert in the psychology of conflict resolution (see 6.B.5), and one of his early studies investigated human tendencies to cooperate or compete in an experimental paradigm known as the trucking game. The trucking game is meant to model a resource dilemma, and it is a variation of the prisoner's dilemma (see below), but with a focus on limited resources.

Wong and Hong (2005)

= Aim: To investigate the effects of cultural priming (using cultural icons) on the outcomes in a prisoner's dilemma situation. Method: The method included elements of an experiment (see 1.B.2) in the manipulation of variables, and elements of a quasi-experiment (see 1.B.3) in the use of participants with a pre-existing cultural background. There were several dependent variables, but the one of interest here is whether participants would choose to cooperate or defect in the prisoner's dilemma. The participants were 171 Hong Kong college students who had been extensively exposed to both American and Chinese culture, given that Hong Kong is a 'world city' with many international influences. Depending upon the condition, participants were exposed to seven priming slides including either Chinese or American cultural icons, or geometric figures in the control condition. Then participants were introduced to the prisoner's dilemma, and the payoff matrix was explained. Resutls: The results indicated that Chinese cultural primes increased cooperation with friends, but not with strangers. The researcher found that with cultural priming increased cooperation towards friends (Wong and Hong 2005). More specifically, they found that Chinese cultural icons increased cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that Chinese cultural primes activate interdependent self-construals, and therefore show how culture may influence cooperation and competition. Strengths: While this doesn't go so far as to say that collectivist cultures are more cooperative than individualist cultures, the findings do indicate that culture may influence cooperation. The influence of interdependence itself is validated by other theories and studies of cooperation, including Tomasello et al.'s (2012) evolutionary theory of cooperation (see 6.B.1). Limitations: However, the sample was limited to Hong Kong students, and while they may have been exposed to American culture in Hong Kong, a more conclusive finding might be reached if the study was replicated with participants from a wider variety of cultural backgrounds. Methodological considerations: The use of both experimental and quasi-experimental design shows triangulation of method and increases the validity of the findings. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5

Ahmad and Reid (2008)

Aim: Ahmad and Reid aimed to investigate whether special communication styles were required to maintain arranged marriages. Method: Participants (n = 114) recruited were Indo-Pakistanis who were married from a large metropolitan city in Canada, with an age range from 19 to 67 years. The researchers focused mainly on listening styles in the relationship and constructed a survey to be completed without participants sharing their answers with their spouse. The participants completed measures of marital satisfaction, listening styles, and traditional orientation to marriage. The survey included statements (for ranking) such as: 'My partner understands and sympathises with me'. 'Our marriage has provided me with the financial and/or social security I want'. Results: The results indicated that greater adherence to traditional marital beliefs, such as the role of elders in arranging the marriage or a gender-based division of labour, were correlated with lower levels of interpersonal listening and marital satisfaction. However, a closer examination of the traditional orientation subscales revealed that the expectation of a gender-based division of labour did not result in lower empathic listening in one's marriage or lower marital satisfaction. In contrast, the lower degree to which one believed in upholding equality in undertaking such traditional roles results in lower empathic listening or lower marital satisfaction (Ahmad and Reid 2008). In other words, it wasn't the gender-based division of labour that lowered marital satisfaction, but beliefs about equality. Conclusion: The researchers concluded there was an interaction among beliefs about marriage, listening style, and marital satisfaction. Basically, the less one expects equality in a relationship, the less one listens to understand, which in turn lowers marital satisfaction. Strengths: Ahmad and Reid's (2008) results ultimately say that culture plays an important role in relationship maintenance, but not necessarily because of culture itself. It has more to do with perceptions of equality and styles of communication that may result from cultural influences. Weaknesses: While Ahmad and Reid's (2008) study might seem a bit limited to a very particular cultural group, the findings do have important implications for South Asians. As the researchers note, marriage is the most important interpersonal relationship for most South Asians, by far (Ahmad and Reid 2008). The researchers also suggest that more and more South Asian couples are seeking marriage counselling outside the family, so the findings of the study have important applications for marriage counsellors working to keep these relationships together. According to the results, relationships may be maintained more effectively if partners are trained to listen to understand (rather than respond). Methodological considerations: The researchers acknowledged the limitations of their small sample, and questioned whether the findings could be generalised to the larger South Asian population (Ahmad and Reid 2008) from the relatively smaller population of South Asians they sampled in Vancouver. Despite the potential bias from the small sample, it would have been practically impossible to draw a random sample, especially from a cultural community that generally tends to resist discussing marital issues with outsiders. It is also a correlational study using self-reported data from a survey, which has its own positive and negative factors. For example, participants aren't always truthful, or even self-aware, in self-reports. This self-report bias may be further connected to cultural norms suggesting that marital issues are a private matter, and therefore self-reports may reflect socially or culturally desirable responses, rather than the actual truth about what's happening within a marriage. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Collins and Miller

Aim: Collins and Miller (1994) aimed to investigate the idea that people tend to prefer those who disclose more about their thoughts and feelings than those who disclose little about themselves. Method: They carried out a meta-analysis of studies into self-disclosure and its role in maintaining relationships, particularly with reference to liking (and thereby attraction). Results: Collins and Miller (1994) found that people who disclose intimate information about themselves are more liked than those who don't and that people tend to disclose more personal information to those they like. They also found that if people disclose information to someone, they tend to like that person more. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that disclosure could be an important factor in establishing and maintaining relationships. Strengths The meta-analysis included studies in which questionnaires were used as well as laboratory experiments. This enabled Collins and Miller (1994) to triangulate data and methods, which in turn may enhance the validity of the findings. Weaknesses Meta-analyses do not allow for a cause and effect relationship to be established. Methodological considerations: While Collins and Miller's (1994) meta-analysis allowed for the broad synthesis of a range of findings on self-disclosure and liking, it does not show a cause-and-effect relationship, so the effect of self-disclosure on liking is inferred from the statistical data. Meta-analyses essentially represent a trade-off between broad patterns in self-disclosure and the more specific factors that might drive it. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Fox et al. (2013)

Aim: Fox et al. (2013) aimed to explore the implications of social networking sites on Knapp's (1978) relational stage model (Fox et al. 2013). Method: Fox et al. (2013) conducted a series of 10 focus groups including male and female participants. The emphasis was on how social networking sites reflected relationship escalation, as described by Knapp's (1978) model. The participants included 24 male and 31 female undergraduate students who actively used Facebook for an average of 2.39 hours per day. The focus groups included four to eight mixed-sex participants each, and were conducted by an experienced researcher using semi-structured questions (see 1.C.3). The focus group discussions were then transcribed and coded into common themes and emergent categories by the researchers (see qualitative analysis in 1.D.3). The focus of these themes and categories was Knapp's (1978) relational stage model. Results: The researchers found certain themes emerged including the importance of social media in early stages of the relationship, the importance of social media for information collection and the use of relationship status on social media as a public statement of commitment. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that an official statement on social media reflected an increased level of commitment to the relationship, as ticking 'in a relationship' with another person represented a public announcement of the relationship commitment. Strengths Fox et al. (2013) found that the implications were sometimes different for their male and female participants. Male participants expressed that they felt some pressure from their girlfriends to make their relationships 'official' online, and that they'd be in trouble if they didn't, and further that they sometimes found it difficult to keep up with the pace and breadth of their girlfriends' posts and social networks (Fox et al. 2013). Weaknesses The dark side, of course, is that when a relationship ends the news is just as public, as soon as the online relationship status is updated, so former partners may well have to deal with public fallout. Methodological considerations: Although the data is rich, the use of a narrow age range in the sample may not generalise to other populations. Further, the use of mixed-sex focus groups may have limited interactions among the participants, and the researchers suggested that same-sex groups might yield different findings. They also suggested the need for more research on differences between men and women in how they use social networking. The study itself focused only on the escalation side of Knapp's (1978) model, and future research might explore the implications of social networking on relationship dissolution too. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Thorne Et al.

Aim: Thorne et al. (2002) aimed to investigate the effect of putative male pheromones on female ratings of attractiveness. Method: The researchers conducted a laboratory experiment investigating the effect of putative male pheromones on female ratings of attractiveness The key word in there is 'putative', which means 'commonly accepted' or 'supposed': in other words, the study focuses on the assumed or presumed role of pheromones (which may not actually exist). A group of 32 female undergraduate students were selected for the study via opportunity sampling. Half of the participants were users of the contraceptive pill. The participants came to the laboratory on two separate occasions based on menstrual cycle phase. Four male volunteers provided axillary secretions collected from pads worn in the armpits overnight, and the pads were hidden in laboratory cubicles where participants completed the experiment. These pads were assumed to include male pheromones. During both visits to the laboratory, participants were asked to read fictional vignettes and answer a questionnaire, which required participants to rate the vignettes and pictures for attractiveness, all in the laboratory cubicles where the putative pheromone pads were hidden. Results: The researchers found few interactions between menstrual cycle and contraceptive use on ratings of the vignettes and attractiveness, but did find that pheromone exposure appeared to influence several of the ratings, particularly for questionnaire items related to sexual attraction. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that phermone exposure influenced ratings regarding sexual attraction. Strengths: The experiment used a repeated-measures design (see 1.A.3), so all participants were part of the experimental condition and the control. This represents a strength of the study, as it controls for individual differences in odour perception and perceptions of attractiveness. Weaknesses: There is much debate about whether human pheromones really exist (see 2.B.4), and a variety of olfactory molecules and odours are known to affect humans, so some critics argue that Thorne et al. (2002) is not so much a study on pheromones as a study on odours. Methodological considerations: Order of participation in the experimental condition was balanced (which controlled for order effects) and consisted of exposing the females to male axillary secretions believed by the researchers to be pheromones. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Correll et al. (2007)

Aim: To investigate biases in a police officer's decision to shoot or not shoot in a confrontation with a crime suspect. Method: The researchers used a quasi-experimental method to simulate the decisions a police officer has to make regarding whether to shoot or not shoot black or white targets who were simulated as suspects of a crime. The researchers used a video game simulation including armed and unarmed black and white suspects, and compared the decision times of a sample of police officers against a sample of community civilians according to their decisions and reaction times. The participants were selected as an opportunity sample of volunteers. The police and civilian participants were of varying ethnicities and ages, and they were paid for their participation in the study (Correll et al. 2007). The simulation included both white male and black male targets in a variety of poses, in armed and unarmed conditions to create a battery of 100 pictures (Correll et al. 2007). The simulation measured the participant's decision to shoot or not shoot as each picture was presented, along with the reaction time needed to make the decision. Results: The researchers found that decisions to shoot black targets were made more quickly, and further that the civilian participants were more likely to shoot black targets than white targets (Correll et al. 2007). Conclusion: The researchers concluded that prejudice and racial bias was a factor in the decisions. Importantly, however, the results also indicated that police training appeared to moderate decisions to shoot, such that the police officers appeared to be less biased than the civilian participants in their decisions in the simulation.​ Strengths: This study has real-world implications for the training of police officers and the explanation of prejudice. Limitations: It is unclear whether the sample is more or less prejudiced than the population at large. Although the sample included a mix of ethnicities, all participants were drawn from one city in the USA, so again the sample is not representative of all police officers or civilians in the USA. Methodological considerations: Although Correll et al. (2007) suggests that police participants were less prejudiced than civilian participants in their decisions to shoot or not shoot, it may not be possible to generalise as the study used a volunteer sample, and therefore the sample is not representative. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5

Levine and Crowther (2008)

Aim: To investigate diffusion of responsibility by investigating how group size and social identity theory may interact to influence bystanderism. Method: The researchers conducted a series of experiments investigating social groups and social group size in relation to bystander intervention. Results: Overall, the findings suggest that bystander intervention actually increases with group size, when bystanders and victims are in the same ingroup. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that bystanderism does not necessarily increase with group size - instead, it has more to do with social identity, and whether the group is an ingroup or outgroup. Strengths: By conducting a series of studies, which all reached similar conclusions, the research gains reliability. Limitations: Many of the bystander studies discussed here were conducted in a North American cultural context, so it is unclear whether the findings are generalisable to other cultural contexts. However, there are relatively few studies out there on the influence of culture on bystanderism, so from the viewpoint of international-mindedness it may be useful to consider whether the findings of the classic studies hold in other cultural settings. Levine and Crowther's (2008) work on ingroup membership suggests that cultural groups may have some influence on bystander responsiveness. Methodological considerations: There are problems with the ecological validity of the study, because video footage is not the same as witnessing a violent confrontation in real life. However, ethical considerations make it difficult or impossible to conduct this experiment with a real-life confrontation. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Moss-Racusin et al. (2012

Aim: To investigate gender disparities in academic science. Method: The researchers recruited 127 science faculty members (in biology, chemistry, and physics) from research-intensive universities in the USA, and had them read and rate an application for a laboratory position at the university. The application itself was randomly assigned either a man's (John) or a woman's (Jennifer) name. The science faculty participants included both men and women as participants. The participants were asked to rate the applicant on three main criteria: competence hireability willingness to mentor The participants were also asked to offer a starting salary for the applicant. Results: Although the applications were identical, the faculty participants rated the applicant with the man's name as more competent and hireable than the candidate with the woman's name, and also offered a higher starting salary and more potentials for mentoring. Further, this discrimination was evident in the science faculty participants regardless of their own gender - both men and women discriminated against the woman applicant. Conclusion: The participants generally liked the woman applicant more but didn't think she was as competent as the man applicant, who was otherwise the same. Strengths: The randomised nature of this experiment and the use of a double-blind increases the validity of this study. The study is unique in exploring not only subtle biases and discrimination in the academic sciences, but also in exploring some of the underlying causes of discrimination against woman applicants for science jobs. Limitations: Methodological considerations: The study itself is high in ecological validity (see 1.E.1), because it follows the usual hiring process in academic science in the USA. The study is also high in generalisability (see 1.F.3), as the target population of expert scientists at research universities was selected carefully and deliberately, and participants were then selected randomly from the population to create a representative sample (see 1.A.2) of the academic science community. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5

Warneken and Tomasello (2006)

Aim: To investigate helping behaviour in infants. Method: The participants were 24 infants who were presented with 10 different situations in which an adult confederate needed help achieving a goal. Each situation required the infants to cognitively process the adult's goal and problems in meeting it. There were four types of situations: Out-of-reach objects, such as the adult dropping a marker on the floor Physical obstacles, like trying to put magazines into a cabinet when the doors are closed Wrong results, such as a book being placed on top of a stack and then falling off Wrong means, including dropping a spoon into a box and then trying to grab it through a small hole instead of a large flap For each situation there was an experimental and control condition. In the experimental condition it was clear there was a problem that needed help, while in the control condition the same task was altered slightly to indicate that help was not needed. Results: The results indicated that 22 of the 24 infants helped at least once, and that 84% of the helping responses happened within the first 10s before the adult made eye contact or asked for help. Conclusion: Because the infants were able to distinguish between situations that did and did not require help, the researchers concluded that this suggests that humans have a natural inclination to altruism, which suggests a evolutionary origin to altruism. Strengths: The researchers made similar findings when conducting their experiments on chimps, suggesting a common evolutionary root of altruism. Limitations: Parents encourage helping behaviour too, and the fact that 18-month-old infants help before they learn language may be important to the teaching and learning of social norms. Methodological considerations: There may have been demand characteristics and the infants may have just been trying to please the researcher. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Aumer-Ryan, Hatfield and Frey (2007)

Aim: To investigate the idea behind the equity theory of relationships, as they claim that it does not account for cross-cultural explanations. Method: Their research took the form of questionnaires using participants from Hawaii, which represented an individualist culture, and some from Jamaica, which represented a more collectivist culture (see 4.B.3). The participants were asked to rate the importance of equity in their relationships and to reflect on how equitable their own relationships were. Both cultures thought that equity was very important in relationships but there were distinct cultural differences based on the degree and nature of satisfaction derived from the feeling of equity in the participants' relationships (Aumer-Ryan et al. 2007). Results: The participants from Hawaii reported slightly more equity than the Jamaicans and they also expressed stronger positive feelings when the relationship was thought to be equitable (Aumer-Ryan et al. 2007). The Jamaican participants, on the other hand, reported that they felt more satisfaction when their romantic relationships benefited them as an individual more than their partner (Aumer-Ryan et al. 2007). Conclusion: Aumer-Ryan et al.'s (2007) study concludes that equity theory is not something that is universally desired by couples when looked at cross-culturally (see universalism-relativism in 4.C.1). Therefore, cultural norms play a large role in equity theory, as these norms help determine what's considered equitable or fair within a given relationship. Strengths This finding suggests that those from collectivist cultures may view relationships differently from those in individualistic cultures due to the emphasis placed on family duty, family support, and shared roles within such cultures (Aumer-Ryan et al. 2007). Weaknesses Thus, equity theory cannot explain all relationships and may only apply to individualistic cultures. At the same time, a lack of equity may be one important reason why relationships change, or end. Methodological considerations: An issue with collecting self-report data via questionnaires is that they may be subjected to demand characteristics and people may not always tell the truth. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5.

Utz (2004)

Aim: To investigate how activation of the self, for self-concerned and other-concerned participants, led to differing cooperative outcomes. Method: In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher recruited 126 male and female university participants from Amsterdam took a social value orientation assessment to classify each participant as either pro-social or pro-self. The participants then completed a pronoun circling task (circling either 'I' or 'we' in a short story), which was meant to activate their self-concept. The dependent variable was measured through a series of games requiring participants to allocate points between themselves and another person. Results: The results indicated that prosocial orientation, and therefore cooperation, could be activated with 'I' primes, and that this effect was strongest for those participants classified as pro-social. Conclusion: The researcher concluded that there was an interaction between social value orientation and priming on cooperation. Strengths: This study has high external reliability as another study by Utz (2007) investigated something similar, but comparing independent vs. interdependent self-construals (see Wong and Hong 2005 above, and individualism-collectivism in 4.B.3), showing that interdependence was more associated with cooperation. Limitations: Most priming studies have been conducted in individualist cultures, in which the independent self-construal is presumably activated most of the time, so it is unclear which underlying values were actually activated by the 'I' prime - it could be something other than independence. Methodological considerations: There are issues of generalisability due to the ethnocentric nature of most priming studies. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5

Latané and Rodin (1969)

Aim: To investigate the bystander effect and whether there is 'safety in numbers' when help is needed. Method: 120 male undergraduates were recruited. The independent variable consisted of the following conditions: alone; with a friend; with a confederate. The participants were filling in a questionnaire when they overheard a woman fall and cry out in pain. Results: Two-person groups were less likely to offer help to the injured woman than were participants who overheard the emergency alone. Pairs of friends were more likely to offer help than when the participant was with a confederate. The friendship pairs also helped at a significantly faster rate. Conclusion: In an ambiguous situation, each bystander may look to others for guidance before acting, misinterpret their apparent lack of concern, and decide the situation is not serious. Friends seem less likely to misinterpret each other's initial inaction than strangers. Strengths: A lab study with a standardised procedure, increasing the reliability. ​ Limitations: It is not clear that diffusion of responsibility is the reason for the lack of action per trial - it could be due to other factors; some participants may have guessed what was happening as they were university students; the sample is limited to male university students only; no qualitative follow-up so the reasons for the help or non-help remain unclear and can only be inferred. Methodological considerations: The behaviour of confederates per trial cannot be replicated exactly each time; naive participants so demand characteristics are less likely to occur. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Deutsch and Krauss (1960)

Aim: To investigate the conditions under which bargainers would cooperate and compete, in relation to who was controlling resources or power. Method: 32 female participants (employees at a telephone company in the USA) were asked to imagine they were in charge of one of two companies (named Acme and Bolt) who have to transport merchandise from one point to another, with the goal of maximising profits. Profits were calculated as payments per mile of transport minus operating expenses. The two trucking companies each had their own starting points and destinations, but their paths crossed on a one-lane road that could accommodate only one truck at a time. There were gates operated by each company on this road, with each gate at either end of the one-lane road. The gates were meant to manipulate the threat of one company over another, in three experimental conditions: No threat (no gates) Unilateral threat (one gate) Bilateral threat (two gates) Each participant was asked to make 20 trips, and to make as much money as possible over the course of the game. Participants were free to threaten (and counterthreaten) the other company through the use of the gate, and if competing trucks met on the one-lane road, one was required to reverse to the starting point before continuing the trip. Results: The results indicated that both companies made more when they cooperated over the use of the one-lane road than when they competed (Deutsch and Krauss 1960). There were several ways of cooperating, but the most effective strategy seemed to be cooperating by taking turns using the one-lane road. Conclusion: The researchers concluded that the availability of threat made it more difficult to cooperate in a competitive situation. In fact, the condition of bilateral threat (when both companies had gates) led to the lowest payoff for both companies, which indicated that the situation led to competition.​ Strengths: The trucking game models a situation of competition, and shows how a situation may lead parties to compete instead of cooperate. Limitations: Generalisability is an issue, as this was a laboratory experiment under tightly controlled conditions, and therefore may not reflect how two companies may compete with each other in a real-life economic competition. Further, there are competitive situations in the real world in which preserving the status quo is the most cooperative way forward, but this was not an option in the experiment. Methodological considerations: Also, the experiment did not allow for much communication between the participants, besides the opening or closing of the gates. This is unrealistic since such a situation in the real world is likely to involve at least some communication between the competing parties. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines as discussed in 1.A.5

Latané & Darley (1970)

Aim: To investigate the extent to which participants would seek help in a dangerous situation depending on whether they were alone or with others. Method: 24 male university students were used as participants. The participants were invited to fill in a form about life at university; while they were doing this, smoke was pumped into the room from a wall vent. Participants were either alone, or with two other participants they didn't know, or with two confederates who ignored the smoke completely. Results: 75% of the participants who were alone reported the smoke or took positive action; 38% of the participants with two other participants took action; 10% of participants with the confederates took action. Conclusion: The presence of others can inhibit people from responding to an emergency and passive behaviour from others can persuade people that there is no emergency. Strengths: The study shows support for diffusion of responsibility. The study is useful as it highlights how people may behave in a dangerous emergency, which could inform appropriate agencies as to how to educate the public in similar situations. Limitations: The study lacks some ecological validity as it was a staged set-up which does not fully reflect how people might act in a genuine emergency; the study compromises ethics as it used deception and possible harm in the form of stress to the participants; the procedure is not entirely replicable as it relies on behavioural cues which cannot be replicated exactly, which means it is not high in reliability. Methodological considerations: It has good validity as the participants were naive and thus there should have been no demand characteristics. Ethical considerations The study compromises ethics as it used deception and possible harm in the form of stress to the participants. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Social identity theory and prosocial behaviour

Another core influence from the sociocultural approach on prosocial behaviour can be found in social identity theory. As discussed previously in the context of bystanderism, Levine and Crowther (2008) found that group size on its own did not necessarily influence bystanderism so much as ingroup size (see 6.C.2). They found that the rate of helping was highest when participants were grouped with friends, suggesting that social identity theory may interact with group size to influence bystander intervention. The same kind of thinking may be extended to prosocial behaviour more generally. The main idea is that ingroup membership may have some influence on whether individuals behave for the benefit of others.

Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley and Birch (1981)

Aim: To investigate the role that empathy plays in acts of helping compared to egoistic motivation. Method: The study used 44 female college students from the USA. The participants watched another female student receive electric shocks and were then given a chance to help her by taking the remaining shocks themselves. There were two conditions: high and low empathy. There was also the 'easy escape' condition in each high and low condition. The 'easy escape' condition meant that they could get out of the study quickly and with no consequences to themselves. The researchers felt that the high empathy condition would lead to students not using the 'easy escape' deal. Results: The high empathy condition resulted in students offering to help more than in the low empathy condition. Proportion of Subjects Agreeing to Take Shocks for Elaine Escape Condition Predominant Emotional Response Personal Distress Empathy Easy .33 .83 Difficult .75 .58 Conclusion: Empathy is a strong motivating factor in influencing altruistic rather than egoistic help. Strengths: A well controlled lab study with a standardised procedure which increases reliability; independent variable of high empathy versus low empathy does seem to have had an effect on the dependent variable, increasing internal validity. The study cleverly took account of two variables (ease of escape and motivation to help) and their effect on helping behaviour. It could therefore look at the interaction of two variables. The study randomly assigned people to the two conditions so there should not be any participant variables (individual differences) between the two groups to confound the results. Limitations: This study could be criticised for a lack of ecological validity as it was conducted in a lab. Methodological considerations: A small, all-female sample of university students cannot be generalised to much extent; there may have been demand characteristics due to it being a lab experiment; participants were deceived and may have felt some distress during the procedure; the study is low in ecological validity. Ethical considerations: There are ethical concerns with this study regarding protection of participants. The participants did experience distress when watching someone in pain. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Regan, Williams and Sparling (1972)

Aim: To test the idea that harm-doers will experience high feelings of guilt and will seek to alleviate this by helping another person in need. Method: An opportunity sample of 40 adult females who happened to be in a shopping centre at the time of the study. Each participant was asked by a male confederate to take his picture for a project. The camera malfunctioned. The guilt condition = the male implied that the participant had broken the camera; the no-guilt condition = no blame for the camera's malfunctioning. Soon after the above, a female confederate crossed the participant's path holding a broken bag from which sweets fell out. Results: 55% of the participants in the guilt condition helped in some way; 15% in the control group helped. Conclusion: People who feel that they have harmed another person are more likely to relieve those negative feelings by helping someone else in need. Strengths: This study has high ecological validity as this was a field experiment using naive participants. It has high inter-observer reliability. Limitations: It is not absolutely clear that guilt led to the helping behaviour - it may have been due to dispositional factors or another explanation; variables are hard to control in field experiments; small sample of females only; deception used. Methodological considerations: The study had a standardised procedure within the limits of being able to exactly reproduce behaviour in terms of the male confederate. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Whiting & Whiting (1975)

Aim: to investigate the prosocial behaviour of children from six different countries. Method: The researchers recruited children aged between 3 and 11 years old. Observations were made of the participants in each country in terms of their daily lives and the extent to which they were involved in family life and household chores. Results: The most prosocial behaviour was seen in Kenya, the most traditional culture in the sample; Mexico and the Philippines also scored highly in terms of children's involvement with family life (e.g. helping to look after younger children) and household chores. The USA showed the least prosocial behaviour and the most egotism. If American children took part in household chores it was usually because they were paid to do so. Conclusion: There are differences in child-rearing per culture which leads to differences in prosocial behaviour of children. This might be linked to wealth and how modern a culture is. Collectivist cultures tended to be more prosocial. Strengths: This study was a large-scale study carried out in six different countries, which generates rich qualitative data from the observations; some meaningful conclusions and comparisons can be drawn; high in ecological validity. Limitations: The study would be difficult to replicate because of its cost and its scale. Methodological considerations: The study may be prone to the observer effect if participants were aware that they were being observed; the collective/individual dimension may not be the only factor influencing prosocial behaviour as other unexplained variables may also account for the behaviour. Ethical considerations: All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

prejudice

Although related to stereotypes, prejudice refers more specifically to attitudes (as opposed to beliefs). Definition Prejudice is defined as negative attitudes towards outgroups. The main process associated with prejudice is ingroup favouritism, which links back to the minimal group paradigm described in more detail previously (see 4.A.2). The Klee/Kandinsky study conducted by Tajfel (1970) demonstrated how groups of schoolboys would discriminate against each other on the basis of nothing more than minimal groups (see 4.A.2) - all it took was sorting the boys into random groups, and before long discrimination followed. This is relevant of course to social categorisation, as it indicates how easily individuals may sort themselves and others into ingroups and outgroups. Apparently, that's all discrimination requires, as far as ingredients are concerned. However, self-enhancement is also important, and by showing ingroup favouritism an individual may confer upon themselves the positives associated with their ingroup at large. Beyond these influences on prejudice, there are several other relevant explanations, including the just-world hypothesis, which says that prejudice is a way of irrationally justifying social inequalities (Yale n.d.). The just-world hypothesis suggests that individuals may explain their otherwise inexplicable prejudices by suggesting that the victim somehow deserves the prejudice. This is sometimes referred to as 'blaming the victim', and while it does not justify prejudice, it does explain some of the irrational thinking behind it.

Realistic group conflict

Another possible origin of conflict has more to do with social groups who may be in competition for scarce resources. Resource scarcity makes it easy for one social group to blame its own difficulties on a competing group, and this often serves to exacerbate the conflict as ingroup and outgroup distinctions become entrenched. Definition Realistic group conflict is defined as conflict between groups who are in competition for scarce resources, which makes it easy for a group to blame its own difficulties on the competing group.

Social penetration theory

Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed a model known as social penetration theory to explain which kinds of personal details might be disclosed to a stranger compared with a partner in a close relationship. The main idea is that self-disclosure operates a bit like an onion, so strangers might learn one's name, while classmates might learn preferences for food or music, friends might learn goals, and so on through layer after layer. At the centre lies concepts of self, which may only be disclosed in the closest of personal relationships. For example, if someone has an argument with their boyfriend or girlfriend they might not disclose it to their teachers, but they may disclose it to their siblings or close friends.

through intergroup contact

Another way to reduce discrimination is through intergroup contact, so that perceptions of an outgroup may be modified in various ways. The basic idea is that intergroup contact leads to more positive ingroup norms for cooperation, and it also leads to the perception of more positive norms in the outgroup, thereby reducing discrimination. This idea has been forwarded by several theorists: Elliot Aronson (1978) proposed the jigsaw classroom (discussed in more detail later in 6.C.6), suggesting that discrimination may be reduced when students work in interdependent groups, in which each student has an essential role in the whole group's understanding. For example, five students from five different social groups could be put together in a single group working on a project, such as an experimental study in psychology, with each group member assigned a specific and distinct role. The evidence behind the jigsaw classroom is somewhat mixed (see 6.C.6), but the idea is that the interdependence amongst the group members is thought to reduce discrimination between social groups. Similarly, Wright et al. (1997) argued that the extended contact hypothesis could reduce discrimination. When an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member, the ingroup at large develops less negative attitudes about the outgroup. For example, two individuals from two different social groups may become friends in a class they have together, or through some extracurricular activity like sports or drama, and their relationship may change outgroup attitudes within their own ingroups. According to the hypothesis, these individuals function like a 'bridge' between the two social groups, and this extended contact between the two groups is thought to lessen prejudices and negative stereotypes about the outgroup. Turner et al. (2008) validated the extended contact hypothesis in a correlational study on university students in the UK, and found that it was mediated by: intergroup anxiety positive ingroup norms positive outgroup norms inclusion of the outgroup in the self Similarly, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) reviewed hundreds of studies on intergroup contact and the reduction of prejudice, and found three main mediators that may reduce discrimination: education about the outgroup lessened intergroup anxiety empathy and perspective-taking However, intergroup contact is not a 'cure-all' for discrimination, and probably works best under conditions of interdependence. In other words, it's not as simple as just putting different social groups into contact and then waiting for prejudice and discrimination to lessen - instead, intergroup contact seems to require some level of interdependence between the groups before contact effectively limits discrimination.

Pheromones and attraction

As discussed previously (see 2.B.4), the role of pheromones in human psychology is poorly understood and widely debated. At the most fundamental level, there is some debate about whether humans even have pheromones. It is generally assumed that humans are a more optical than olfactory animal, meaning that the human sense of sight is highly developed, while the human sense of smell is not (Grammer et al. 2005). Despite the debate, a variety of studies have investigated the role of human pheromones in attraction. In a review of available studies on human pheromones and sexual attraction, Grammer et al. (2005) concluded that while humans cannot detect pheromones consciously, there is enough evidence to suggest that humans may be using olfactory signals for social interaction and reproduction.

Stereotypes

As discussed previously in the sociocultural approach, stereotypes are essentially oversimplified cognitive representations, usually of other groups of people (see 4.A.5). Definition Stereotypes are specifically defined as positive or negative beliefs held about ingroups or outgroups. The theoretical roots of research into stereotypes rest in schema theory (see 3.A.4), which focuses on mental representations for almost anything a human might think about, consciously or unconsciously. Stereotypes are also fundamentally linked to sociocultural theories and concepts. From a sociocultural viewpoint, the main process of stereotyping relates to social categorisation (see social identity theory in 4.A.1). The concept of outgroup homogeneity is particularly relevant, as it underlines how much easier it is to apply a stereotype to a whole group of people if it is first assumed that everyone in that group is believed to be or perceived to be largely the same. To review ever so briefly, several theories of stereotype formation were discussed previously (see 4.A.5), including: Social identity theory - suggesting that ingroups are stereotyped positively, and that outgroups are stereotyped negatively Self-categorisation - suggesting that if some members of an ingroup hold a stereotype, then other members of the ingroup may adopt that stereotype too Social cognitive theory - suggesting that stereotypes are learned through observational learning, from parents, peers, the media, and role models Cognitive theories - including theories like the grain of truth hypothesis, gatekeeper theory, and the illusory correlation Exam tip Be sure to review 4.A.5 in detail, as this section provides a clear opportunity to apply the sociocultural and cognitive approaches to prejudice and discrimination. For example, both social identity theory and social cognitive theory can be applied here to demonstrate understanding of two ways stereotypes may form and then lead to later prejudice or discrimination. Once established, stereotypes tend to stick around, like 'cognitive monsters' (Bargh 1999, as cited in Stangor 2014). There are several potential reasons why stereotypes are difficult to change: Stereotype maintenance Resistance to change they can become self-fulfilling prophecies

BATB: Reciprocal Altruism Model: Robert Trivers

Defines altruism specifically to include prosocial behavior between genetically distant or unrelated individuals that includes some detriment to the helper Argued that helping is a genetic relative is not altruism because the helper is simply contributing the survival of his own genes Basic tenet: altruism between strangers can be genetically beneficial because in the long run, they benefit the helper. Stranger may help helper in future. Prisoner's dilemma Reciprocal altruism theory suggests that everyone's chances of survival are increased if people help one another. Part of the theoretical foundation for the theory goes all the way back to Trivers (1971) and the evolution of human altruism, but the theory is also relevant to the prisoner's dilemma (see 6.B.2).

Evaluation apprehension

Diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance are far from the only factors influencing the bystander effect, but in the early days of bystander research the two concepts formed the backbone of many bystander studies. However, Darley and Latané (1970) also suggested that bystander behaviour may be understood in terms of evaluation apprehension, which refers to the fear of embarrassment associated with intervening in an emergency, especially when other more 'expert' bystanders may be present. Definition Evaluation apprehension refers to how bystanders may be nervous about helping in public, because of potential embarrassment, or because of assumptions that other bystanders may be more 'qualified' to help in some way. Notably, the various factors influencing bystanderism may well interact, as pluralistic ignorance and evaluation apprehension may feedback on each other to result in bystander inaction, which may be further limited through diffusion of responsibility. Evaluation apprehension may be used to interpret the findings of several of the studies discussed above, including: Latané and Darley's (1968) smoke-filled room study, suggesting that bystanders didn't report the smoke in part because if it was 'normal', reporting it would be embarrassing Darley and Latané's (1968) intercom seizure study, suggesting that participants may not have reported the seizure because of the ambiguity of hearing it over the intercom, or because other participants may have been perceived as having more skill or experience in responding to seizures

checklist

Discuss biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors in relationships between social groups. Discuss theories and studies of cooperation and competition in human relationships. Differentiate between stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination using relevant theories and studies. Compare and contrast theoretical origins of conflict. Describe and evaluate different styles of conflict resolution.

Checklist

Discuss biological, cognitive, and sociocultural influences on personal relationships. Compare, contrast, and evaluate evolutionary, biochemical, cognitive, and sociocultural influences on attraction. Examine the role of communication in maintaining personal relationships. Explain why relationships change or end. Discuss methodological considerations related to research on personal relationships. Discuss ethical considerations related to research on personal relationships.

Checklist

Discuss the relative influence of the core biological, cognitive, and sociocultural approaches on bystanderism and prosocial behaviour. Evaluate methodological and ethical considerations in studies on bystanderism and prosocial behaviour. Describe factors influencing bystanderism in the 'classic' studies on bystanderism. Analyse factors influencing bystanderism through more modern studies on bystanderism. Compare and contrast biological, cognitive, and sociocultural theories of prosocial behaviour. Apply theories and studies of prosocial behaviour to the promotion of prosocial behaviour.

Arguments challenging evolutionary factors in attraction

Evolutionary theory is ultimately based on a reductionist idea that males and females are simply the product of their biology. Evolutionary theory doesn't account for the role of cognitive or sociocultural influences, for example, even though the decision-making processes involved in mate selection are clearly cognitive. Evolutionary theory tries to explain what attracts one person to another, but does not explain the cognitive processes that might actually lead to mate selection. Further, social norms have changed considerably since the days back in the 1800s when Darwin theorised about sexual selection. For example, in many cultural contexts assertiveness is no longer considered to be only a male characteristic and child rearing is no longer considered to be only a female trait. Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not fully account for attraction in same-sex relationships. The theory rests on the assumption that attraction is driven by reproduction, but since same-sex couples cannot reproduce the evolutionary theory offers little explanation for same-sex attraction. By the same token, evolutionary theory cannot really explain friendly relationships either, because reproduction is not a factor in friendship the same way it might be in a romantic relationship. Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) argue that when it comes to attraction, most individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, value characteristics like affection, similarity, and dependability in a relationship, and evolutionary theory does not fully account for these. The end result is that evolutionary theory seems somewhat oversimplified.

Arguments supporting evolutionary factors in attraction

For example, research conducted by Clarke and Hatfield (1989) suggests that when male and female researchers approached a member of the opposite sex on campus and asked a series of questions, including 'Would you like to go to bed with me tonight?', none of the female participants said yes, compared to 75% of the males. This supports Buss (1989) and evolutionary explanations that male mating is guided to some extent by quantity over quality, and that males and females have adapted different strategies for short-term mating. However, it is important to note some other possible interpretations to the data. It's possible that female participants simply found the bed request overly forward, or even creepy, and evolution didn't even enter into it. Regardless, male participant responses in the study stand in stark contrast to the female participant responses. Clarke and Hatfield (1989) interpreted their findings as supporting the idea that females have adapted 'choosier' strategies in mate selection, on the basis of family selection. In theory, male respondents said yes to the going-to-bed request because they could size up the female researcher's childbearing potential at a glance, and the minimum investment for males ends (again, in theory) immediately after conception. By contrast, evolutionary theory suggests that female participants said no because it takes time to decide whether a male is a good genetic risk, and if he's likely to be nurturant, protective, and productive. nd and Butterworth 2009 In a review of research on same-sex relationships, Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) also support Buss (1989) in suggesting first that most individuals are seeking the same things in a relationship, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, so that affection and dependability may hold a greater value than any evolutionary factor. However, Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) also find some support for evolutionary theories of attraction in same-sex relationships, arguing that: Men tend to emphasize physical attractiveness in attraction to a partner Women tend to emphasize personality characteristics in attraction to a partner In other words, the key evolutionary factors in attraction may be just as relevant to same-sex relationships as opposite sex relationships. The point is that evolutionary theory explains (to some extent) gender differences in attraction, with a key focus on links between attraction and reproductive strategies. The main idea is that gender differences in attraction might be explained by sexual selection and parental investment. Evolutionary factors in attraction are also supported by research on same-sex relationships. For example, Diamond and Butterworth (2009) describe a 'friendship script' in the development of lesbian romantic relationships, by which communication and compatibility and other hallmarks of emotional intimacy form the foundations of a friendship that later develops into a romantic relationship. This essentially supports evolutionary theories suggesting that females may be 'choosier' in their mating decisions.

Evolution and attraction

From an evolutionary viewpoint, romantic attraction between individuals is fundamentally explained as some product of natural selection (see 2.C.5), which essentially influences which individuals find mates and reproduce to pass on their genes. Evolutionary theorists argue that the purpose of attraction is to allow mating and the passing on of one's genes to the next generation. successful mating requires individuals to solve several problems at once (Buss 2007): finding a fertile mate fending off competitors fending off mate poachers keeping the mate from leaving successfully conceiving and raising children. Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have evolved a number of important psychological adaptations in order to deal with the challenges of mating (Buss 2007), and many of these are evident in the psychology of attraction. Buss (2007) identifies five mating strategies inherited from human ancestors: long-term committed mating short-term mating extra-pair mating mate poaching mate guarding. Further, there are important psychological sex differences in how these mating strategies evolved in males and females.

Cooperation vs. competition

In some ways, the origins of conflict rest in the situation itself, and whether it's seen as cooperative or competitive (see 6.B.2). This ties in with cultural norms (see 4.B.1), because norms for independence in individualist cultures and norms for interdependence in collectivist cultures may influence whether an individual or a group chooses to cooperate or compete in a given situation. Conflict resolution depends upon cooperation. Figure 2. Conflict resolution depends upon cooperation. Credit: alphaspirit iStock According to Deutsch (2011), conflict resolution essentially depends upon cooperation (discussed in more detail later in 6.B.5). The orientation of an individual or group to cooperate or compete has a fundamental influence on the causes or origins of conflict, and this in turn influences conflict resolution. The concepts of cooperation and competition have already been explored in detail (in 6.B.1 and 6.B.2). The theories and studies discussed previously can be applied here to explain and discuss some of the possible origins of conflict: The trucking game in Deutsch and Krauss (1960) demonstrates how competition may lead to conflict, as the participants dug in their heels and resource conflicts became deadlocked (see 6.B.2). Further, the Utz (2004) study on I-primes and cooperation shows how personality and social value orientations may influence decisions to cooperate or compete (see 6.B.2). This suggests that some conflicts may emerge between pro-self individuals or groups, and may be more easily resolved between pro-social individuals or groups. Although those two studies show how competition and personality may explain the origins of conflict, some other studies raise some analytic questions about the precise roles cooperation and competition may play in the origins of conflict: For example, Wong and Hong (2005) demonstrated how culture may influence orientations to cooperate or compete, because priming with Chinese cultural icons appeared to activate interdependent self-construals, which in turn made participants more cooperative (and less competitive) in the prisoner's dilemma (see 6.B.2). This therefore suggests that cultural norms for cooperation or competition may moderate the role of competition in the origins of conflict. Tomasello et al.'s (2012) evolutionary theory of cooperation suggests that humans are by nature cooperative (see 6.B.1), and therefore conflict may originate somewhere other than evolution. The theory essentially suggests that humans have evolved to be cooperative, so the origins of conflict may be better explained through cognitive or sociocultural influences.

Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan et al. 1998):

Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory[1] is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have "real consequence" for prejudice between groups.[1]

Hormones and attraction

Law (2011): hormones and desire Bridget Murray Law (2011) discusses the possible influence of hormonal cycles on sexual attraction in both men and women, making reference to several relevant studies. Outward signs of fertility are less obvious in humans than other animals, and while some theorists take this as indicating that humans are less driven by sex hormones, there is plenty of research investigating the role of hormones in attraction. Some research has focused on behavioural changes in females in relation to ovulation, with a variety of studies suggesting that females may dress more provocatively or flirt more right around the time of ovulation (Law 2011). Other studies have detected subtle changes in scent and voice, and another found that men mimicked a woman's gestures more when she was ovulating, and inched closer to her during the study (Maner, as cited in Law 2011). In other words, the influence of hormones on attraction in humans might not be as obvious as it is in yowling cats or baboons with swollen backsides, but there is some evidence suggesting that hormones play at least a small role. The big problem is that few, if any, of the various studies on ovulation and attraction have extended into real-world partner choices (van Anders, as cited in Law 2011), so their external validity is generally questionable. Furthermore, male hormones may have just as much influence on attraction. And, it's fully possible that hormones are responding to behaviour, not driving it. The reality is that the possible influence of hormones on attraction is not well understood, and many individuals have little awareness of how hormones might be affecting their own behaviour.

Technology and communication

Not surprisingly, technology appears to be having a significant impact not only on how people communicate in personal relationships, but in how that communication shapes one's identity and self-concept. As Sherry Turkle (2012) puts it: I share therefore I am. In the video below, Turkle (2012) discusses how the age of social media has led people to be more connected than ever before. Ironically, these same connections may make people more alone than ever before. Take a look: The truth is that nobody really knows exactly how technology may be affecting communication and personal relationships. Turkle argues that social media provides 'the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship'. In this way, it seems like communication on its own is not enough to foster close personal relationships; instead, it's about the quality of the communication, and whether it's happening face to face. According to Turkle, face-to-face conversation might be the most human thing people do. The problem with conversation is that it happens in real time, and it's not as easy to control what is said, as compared to text or email. Technology therefore allows people to present the self they want to present, whether that includes retouching or editing or anything else, and to have more control over communication. According to Turkle (2012), human relationships are messy, and people clean them up with technology. Connecting via technology may be useful for collecting information, but it doesn't compare to a conversation for getting to know someone more deeply. Turkle (2012) argues that people rely on technology because of loneliness and fear of intimacy. This is how mobile technology provides 'the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.' This also has implications for identity: 'I share therefore I am.' An idealised self on social media may be more likeable, but at the same time may leave the real self more isolated. Taken to a further extreme, the modern tendency to connect to technology is really a symptom of an underlying desire for connections to other people; for human relationships, basically. Reliance on mobile technology may also be leading to the decay of human qualities such as empathy and self-reflection, qualities that no robot can replicate, at least not in any human way. Conversation, by contrast, involves the whole person, where empathy arguably begins. Conversation may also foster connectedness with other people, even the boring bits of conversation that might occur at the dinner table as a young child decompresses after a long day at school. Turkle (2012) argues that technology should be approached with more self-reflection and self-awareness, and that time and space should be reclaimed for actual conversation and listening to understand each other. As it stands, people are so 'busy' with communication technology that they hardly have time to talk, which is more than a little ironic.

Sociocultural influences on personal relationships

Not surprisingly, there is a lot of debate about the role of culture in interpersonal relationships, and any discussion of culture always comes with the risk of stereotyping and overgeneralising. At the same time, culture has a major influence on human behaviour in general, and it seems likely that culture plays a key role in attraction A great deal of research has focused on relationships within individualistic cultures (see 4.B.1), largely because lots of research on attraction originates in these cultures. However, the growth of communities of ethnic minorities with different cultural values and the study of more collectivist cultures have allowed psychological science to more clearly understand the various roles that culture plays in personal relationships. There are obviously some important cultural differences in the attitudes and practices surrounding romantic relationships and marriage, and cultural norms for marriage are dynamic, shifting along with social change. For example, there are cultural variations in whether a marriage should happen because of romantic love between the partners, because of family arrangements, because of economics, or between same-sex partners, and so on. Another set of cultural differences lie in which characteristics are considered attractive in a romantic partner. Males and females in different cultures place a different value on chastity as a preferred mate characteristic, and there are also cultural variations in the importance of love as a mate preference. In some cultures, emotional stability and maturity are valued over love or physical attractiveness, and sometimes the rankings of mate preferences vary even further between males and females within the culture. The general argument for the role of culture in personal relationships suggests that some of the evolutionary findings for attraction might be better explained by culture than evolutionary factors.

Changing social norms

One potential solution to discrimination is by changing social norms. Education is a major factor in efforts to change social norms, whether that happens through sustained effort in the classroom at every level of education, or through public awareness campaigns and programs. Social norms may also be changed through direct confrontation, which essentially means calling out discrimination when one sees it happening. Sometimes individuals or groups may be unaware of their discriminatory behaviour, or they may be unaware that their behaviour violates some social norms. Discrimination may be reduced through direct confrontation. Figure 5. Discrimination may be reduced through direct confrontation. Credit: allanswart iStock For example, Alexander Czopp and colleagues showed how bias and discrimination could be reduced through direct confrontation by another person (Czopp et al. 2006). The researchers found participant stereotypes about a particular social group were lessened after a direct confrontation. The data indicated that some of the participants felt hostile and negative towards the confronter, but despite this participant reaction to confrontation, stereotypical responses were reduced in later inferences about outgroups (Czopp et al. 2006). In other words, even when the confrontation might be awkward and may evoke hostility, confrontation still appears to reduce discrimination. Confrontation is not particularly comfortable for either party in a discriminatory situation, and it's easy enough to imagine situations in which direct confrontation may escalate a conflict rather than defuse it. Despite some evidence favouring direct confrontation as a technique for reducing discrimination, confrontation should perhaps be used cautiously.

Culture and prosocial behaviour

Research on culture and prosocial behaviour generally focuses on cultural similarities and differences, and possible reasons for these. Cultural norms and cooperation While much of this subtopic focuses on altruism, cooperation is also a relevant prosocial behaviour. The basic idea is that behaviours like altruism are essentially based on cooperation, and over the years many theorists have argued that cultural norms are the basis for cooperation. As discussed previously, Tomasello et al. (2012) theorised that cooperation itself evolved in humans (see 6.B.1), which in turn suggests that altruism may have an evolutionary origin. According to Tomasello et al.'s (2012) evolutionary theory, small-scale collaboration as foragers eventually led to a sense of group-mindedness, which in turn led to cultural norms for cooperation - that's how large-scale collaboration in humans may have evolved. A theory of the evolution of human cooperation. Figure 4. A theory of the evolution of human cooperation. Source: Tomasello et al. 2012 Given that altruism is simply a more specific form of cooperation, it follows that altruism may stem from the same evolved cultural norms for cooperation. Taking the argument one step further, the next implication is that cultures may be largely similar in terms of prosocial behaviour, since prosocial behaviour evolved from the same cooperative origin from culture to culture. Taken to an extreme, one line of argument suggests there wouldn't be any such thing as culture without cooperation in the first place.

Factors influencing bystanderism

So far, psychological research has provided evidence for a wide range of factors influencing bystanderism, several of which were introduced in the previous section (6.C.1) and which will be elaborated upon here. The factors influencing bystanderism include: pluralistic ignorance diffusion of responsibility evaluation apprehension Importantly, each of these factors influencing bystanderism can be linked back to Darley and Latané's (1970) decision model of helping described previously (see 6.C.1). Factors: The number of people present Diffusion of responsibility Studies by Latane and Darley showed that when there are more people present, people are less likely to help Based on informational social influence A person's level of religiosity Darley and Batson (1973) found that time pressure rather than one's level of religiosity may be responsible for one's choice to help. Research indicates that the social context may be more important than personal traits However, this may not always be the case. See the case of "Le Chambon" Cultural differences Culture dimensions (collectivism vs. individualism) may influence likeliness to help. Often an etic approach- meaning that helping behavior may not be interpreted in the same way. Difficult to isolate this variable from environmental context. Social identity Ingroup bias Football fans are more likely to help a stranger wearing their team's jersey, Levine (2005) Duclos and Barasch argue that social identity is more important than cultural dimensions Arousal-cost-reward model Arousal is required for helping Arousal triggers a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to help or not. Piliavin (1969) Law of social impact Helping is the function of SIN (Strength of situation, immediacy of the situation, number of people present.)

Social dilemmas

Social dilemmas In the simplest terms, it might be argued that it's not the people involved, but the social dilemma that causes conflict. Even if people want to do the right thing, the situation almost demands that they be selfish. Definition A social dilemma is defined as a situation in which the goals of the individual conflict with the goals of the group (Stangor 2014). For example, Stangor (2014) summarises the commons dilemma, which refers to how some farmers overused common pasture land (known locally as 'the commons') in Europe to the point that the common land was no longer usable by any farmer. This kind of thinking applies to basically any limited resource, such as fossil fuels or water on a global scale, or it could even apply to something as small as a bag of crisps meant to be shared between siblings. From a critical thinking viewpoint, it may be worth considering how culture influences approaches to social dilemmas in which the goals of the individuals may conflict with the goals of the group. For example, is the bag of crisps shared automatically with everyone in the room, or not? And, does this vary with the cultural context? The social situation essentially creates a kind of trap, because the individual (or group) may want to cooperate, but the situation leads to competition. Social dilemmas are often arranged such that: Selfish choices produce individual benefits right now Negative outcomes operate on a kind of time-delay In other words, there appears to be some interaction between short-term benefits (in favour of the individual) and long-term benefits (in favour of the group), and any punishment for behaving selfishly in the short-term is delayed until later, after the benefit has already been conferred. In some ways it's a distinction between reinforcement now, and reinforcement or punishment later (see behaviourism in 0.0.1). For example, a shepherd may graze their sheep in the common pasture, and if the sheep eat up all the grass the short-term benefit is that they are fed now. However, in the long-term the overuse of the pasture means that other shepherds cannot feed their flocks off the common land, and any punishment for the first shepherd is delayed until after the sheep have already grazed anyway.

Equity theory

Some psychologists have taken a rather economic approach to relationships. The social exchange theory argues that relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis. In other words, the costs of the relationship must not outweigh the benefits: the more one invests in a relationship, the more one expects greater returns. A relationship will endure only as long as it is profitable to both partners in an appropriately equivalent degree. Though non-equivalence may be tolerated in the short-term, the balance must be restored if the relationship is to survive. Elaine Walster and colleagues argue that social exchange theory is too simplistic an explanation, and that this is no reliable way of determining costs and benefits (Walster et al. 1978). They argue instead that equity theory or the perception of equality is what determines whether a relationship will be maintained (Walster et al. 1978). The equity theory of relationships predicts that people are happiest in relationships where benefits and costs are balanced so that both partners contribute and receive more or less the same. Therefore, relationships may change or end if the perception of equality falls out of balance. According to equity theory, relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis. Figure 7. According to equity theory, relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis. Credit: gustavofrazao iStock Equity theory is supported by evidence suggesting that the happiest couples (same-sex or opposite sex), are those who understand their romantic relationships as providing more benefits than costs (Diamond and Butterworth 2008). This essentially validates equity theory through its applicability to a variety of romantic relationships. In their review of a range of studies on same-sex relationships, Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) find support for equity theory in that relationship satisfaction appears to be highest when partners are equally involved at various levels of the relationship. However, this is also one of the areas where magnified gender differences in same-sex relationships (see 6.A.1) may come more clearly into focus. Diamond and Butterworth (2008) argue that same-sex relationships are generally characterised by a more equitable division of household labour in comparison with opposite-sex couples, but that the equity may be defined in various ways. For example, the researchers argue that where male-male couples may divide up the responsibilities for specific tasks, with one person in charge of cleaning the toilets and another in charge of doing the laundry, female-female couples may instead work together on the same tasks (Diamond and Butterworth 2008). This point is further supported by Peplau and Fingerhut (2007), who argue the same point using some of the same evidence. They suggest that the 'traditional' gender-based division of household labour may not apply in the same 'traditional' ways in same-sex relationships. This may be one of the reasons why same-sex relationships are perceived as more equitable. Arguably, some of these same-sex models may provide a creative way forward for solving equity issues in a variety of relationships, as the division of household labour may not be so skewed by 'traditional' gender roles within the household. Given the importance of equity to relationship maintenance, the division of household labour has important implications for many romantic relationships, regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

Role of communication

Substantial psychological research conducted within the field of human relationships focuses not only on the formation of relationships, but also on the maintenance of relationships. Some relationships last, and others fade away, or end quickly or dramatically. Communication is just one of many aspects that seem to have a significant role in either keeping relationships together or tearing them apart. Canary and Dainton (2003) describe communication as the fundamental force that maintains relationships, suggesting that relationships are, by nature, destined to be pulled apart unless maintained.

Self-disclosure

The concept of self-disclosure is built around the idea of intimacy in personal relationships. One of the most effective ways of becoming close to another person is to share personal and intimate details pertaining to oneself, about one's experiences, ideas, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on. This type of intimate sharing appears to bring people closer together because each person is essentially trusting the other with personal details. Self-disclosure refers to the act of revealing personal and intimate details about oneself to another person. Self-disclosure is not the kind of activity that usually happens between strangers. It would be not only odd, but perhaps alarming to meet a stranger on the bus and have him or her disclose their deeply held desire to be a visual artist, or to disclose their resentment of their own parents, for example. That said, researchers such as Collins and Miller (1994) have proposed that self-disclosure, whether to friends or strangers, appears to increase liking and attraction. According to the theories, self-disclosure leads to self-validation (as the discloser may feel accepted by the listener), and a deeper mutual understanding of one another also allows partners to meet each other's needs more readily. Further, self-disclosure is an indicator of trust between two people. Self-disclosure essentially takes a relationship to the next level, and it is usually done with the expectation of reciprocation, meaning that the partner will self-disclose also. While this runs the risk of overwhelming a potential partner with too much personal information too soon, it also takes a relationship beyond the superficial.

Pluralistic ignorance

The first factor influencing bystanderism is pluralistic ignorance, which refers to the tendency to take cues from another person about whether help is needed in an apparent emergency. The idea here is that if other bystanders do not appear to interpret a situation as an emergency, then maybe it's not really an emergency. Definition Pluralistic ignorance means that bystanders take the behavioural cues of other bystanders to interpret whether an apparent emergency is really an emergency. If other bystanders do not respond, then the event may not be interpreted as an emergency requiring help. Ironically, bystanders may look to other bystanders for cues, but the definition of pluralistic ignorance suggests that none of the bystanders know what to do or how to react - bystanders are ignorant in the plural. This links back to Darley and Latané's (1970) decision model of helping (see 6.C.1) in that a bystander event has to be interpreted as an emergency or situation requiring help before help will be provided.

Prejudice and discrimination

The focus now turns from the many theories attempting to explain cooperation and competition to some more specific applications of the research to particular issues in relationships between groups, including prejudice and discrimination. There are many interrelated concepts in this domain of psychology, and the theoretical foundations rest largely in the cognitive approach to psychology, with its emphasis on schemas and stereotypes, along with some key influences from the sociocultural approach to psychology, with its emphasis on social identity. While there are many possible explanations for prejudice and discrimination, the process generally flows from stereotyped beliefs to prejudiced attitudes to discriminatory behaviours (see Figure 1). A simple process for discrimination. Figure 1. A simple process for discrimination. The process is not necessarily as linear as Figure 1 suggests, because the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination interact in a variety of ways to explain the sometimes hostile relationships between different groups of people (and between individuals). Further, the stereotypes at the 'beginning' of the process in Figure 1 themselves may stem from the larger social identity theory (see 4.A.1

Latané and Darley (1970): Decision model of helping

The model suggests that a bystander's decision at each stage of the process may be shaped by several factors influencing bystanderism: An event happens, and is noticed. This is the very first step - if the event isn't noticed, then help won't be provided. If the event is interpreted as an emergency, the person is more likely to help. However, pluralistic ignorance (see 6.C.2) may inhibit helping, as the individual uses the crowd or the group as a source of cues to interpret the emergency, so if other bystanders do not respond, the individual may not respond either. If the person takes responsibility for helping, they are more likely to help. At this stage of the process, diffusion of responsibility (see 6.C.2) may inhibit helping, which means that the presence of other bystanders may prevent the individual from responding, since it may be assumed that someone else in the group will take responsibility for helping. If the person knows how to help, they are more likely to help. Helping at this stage may be limited by evaluation apprehension (see 6.C.2), which says that individuals may not help if they are unsure how to proceed, or if they might be embarrassed by their intervention, or if there is someone else more 'qualified' to help, such as a doctor, firefighter, police officer, and so on. Latané and Darley (1970) suggested that helping decisions in bystander situations are guided by the decision model of helping, and their various studies focused on the factors at each stage of the decision making process that might influence bystanderism.

Parental investment

The parental investment theory suggests that the sex which invests the most in the offspring after mating will be more choosy in mate selection (Buss 2007). In humans, for example, there are large differences in the minimum investment in offspring between males and females. A male could move on immediately after the act of mating, while the female is obligated to 9 months of pregnancy. It makes sense then that female mate preferences may have evolved to favour highly selective females who were careful about mate selection, preferring males who would be protective, and who would stick around in the months and years after conception, through childbirth and childrearing. Put very generally, from an evolutionary viewpoint, males are considered attractive if they appear to offer security and protection, and females are considered attractive if they appear to offer childbearing potential.

Positive bystanderism

The so-called 'classic' theories and studies of bystanderism generally focused on the negative aspects of bystander behaviour, with a clear emphasis on the factors influencing why bystanders do not intervene in emergency situations. However, there are also plenty of examples of bystanders who do intervene when their help is required. Since the 1980s or so, there has been more of a focus on positive bystander behaviour. In a discussion of the counternarrative to the classic bystander studies, Marsh and Keltner (2006) describe several examples of positive bystander behaviour. Arguably, for every case in which a bystander fails to intervene, there are counterexamples showing when bystanders do intervene. The counternarrative centres on the experiences of researchers like Ervin Straub, who would most certainly have died in the Holocaust were it not for the intervention of his family maid, who risked her own life to shelter Straub and his sister (Marsh and Keltner 2006). Marsh and Keltner describe one study by Straub in which 66% of the participants took action when a confederate suggested they should do something, and 100% of the participants helped when the confederate took action first, compared to the only 25% who helped when the confederate dismissed the emergency as unimportant (as cited in Marsh and Keltner 2006). There are many examples of bystanders who do intervene. Figure 2. There are many examples of bystanders who do intervene. Credit: omgimages iStock According to this line of research, an active bystander can help people focus on an emergency and motivate them to take action. Some theorists, including Samuel Oliner, have argued that there may be an altruistic personality which explains why some help and some don't (as cited in Marsh and Keltner 2006). These personalities share some common characteristics: A capacity for extensive interpersonal relationships A strong sense of attachment to others (see 7.B.1) Feelings of responsibility for the welfare of others Others have suggested that the altruistic personality feels strong links to other people, presumably through the bonds of shared humanity. The reality is that nobody is exclusively one or the other - some people help in some situations, and some don't. At the same time, altruism may be both teachable and learnable, and some theorists see the roots of altruism stemming from parents and upbringing.

Sexual selection

There are notable differences between the females and males of many species, and Charles Darwin theorised that these differences evolved not for the purposes of survival, but for the purposes of mating. This theory is known as sexual selection, and it refers to the evolution of mating characteristics. Sexual selection is defined as an evolutionary explanation for partner preference, based on the idea of increasing reproductive advantages. There are two main processes involved in sexual selection (Buss 2007): Intrasexual competition within each sex: members of one sex compete or battle with each other to gain preferential access to mates, like stags locking horns. Intersexual competition between the sexes: mating strategies are used to attract the opposite sex, and members of one sex have preferences for certain qualities in the other sex, such as wide hips or broad shoulders. The basic idea is that these two processes co-evolved and influenced each other, so that the characteristics and qualities considered desirable in a mate (intersexual competition) influenced what kinds of battles and competitions the opposite sex would have with each other (Buss 2007). For example, if females evolve a preference for nest-building ability, then males may compete with each other to build the strongest nests and attract mates. However, sexual selection does not explain why males are often the competitive sex in many species, or why females in many species are often choosier with mate selection than males. Robert Trivers (1972) eventually theorised that parental investment could explain these differences.

Fatal attraction hypothesis

This rather dramatic and expressively titled theory, proposed by Diane Felmlee (1995) offers insight as to why relationships break down, which is something previous models do not really address as they seem to place more emphasis on description rather than explanation. Essentially, this hypothesis says that what used to be considered a benefit is now considered a cost: the same trait that initially caused attraction ultimately leads to the dissolution of the relationship. Felmlee (1995) claims that this is how some relationship breakdowns can be explained. Felmlee (1995) used the self-report method on 301 college students, asking them to list the qualities that had first attracted them to a recent partner and then to list the qualities that they least liked (meaning what initially attracted them to that person and then what drove them mad about that person as the relationship developed). Felmlee (1995) identified 88 (almost 30%) fatal attraction break-ups, defined as relationships that develop on the basis of exciting or fascinating qualities that later lead to the dissolution of the relationship. Felmlee (1995) identified three patterns that typify fatal attraction break-ups: Fun to foolish: this type of reason for relationship breakdown was the most prominent in the findings. For example, a 'fun' and unpredictable person who is the life and soul of the party, who jokes around and is always 'up' can later begin to seem immature, lacking in responsibility, and ultimately foolish. Strong to domineering: the initial attraction here may be based on someone who offers strength, definite opinions, and confidence, and who has a reassuring presence. Over time these qualities may be perceived as being dictatorial, bossy, forceful, or hectoring. Spontaneous to unpredictable: this is the sort of person who might suddenly take up karate or say, 'Let's go to Paris this weekend!' and they may attract others because they seem spontaneous and life-affirming. These qualities may, in time, be viewed as irritating because they seem to indicate a lack of focus, unreliability, unpredictability, and a lack of consistency. It was fun at first, but it soon became foolish. One explanation for fatal attraction as the source of relationship breakdown is the similarity effect discussed previously (see 6.A.3). Put simply, individuals are attracted to others who are perceived as similar to oneself, even though it is exciting to date those who might be opposites. It is not impossible for two people who are very different to have a successful relationship but it is more likely that couples whose relationships last tend to have more, rather than less, in common. Once the 'novelty effect' wears off (as some estranged couples put it), similarity appears to rule.

Promoting prosocial behaviour through social cognitive theory

n an article discussing some of the ways altruism might be promoted, Rebecca Clay outlines several studies related to inborn altruism and ways to nurture it (Clay 2006). As Felix Warneken puts it: The old idea was that we're born purely selfish and become helpful, prosocial beings through moral education and other socialisation processes....It rather seems to be the case, that selfish and altruistic motives are there from the beginning in competition with each other, but we can build upon those altruistic, prosocial tendencies (as cited in Clay 2006). This same idea was suggested in Warneken and Tomasello's (2006) discussion of inborn altruism in human infants, on the basis of their study demonstrating that even pre-linguistic infants helped an adult with a dropped marker and other such tasks (see 6.C.4). The key idea is that if such altruistic tendencies are there from the start, then maybe these tendencies can be capitalised upon from the start, through the use of social cognitive theory and observational learning to promote prosocial behaviour. The potential application of social cognitive theory to prosocial behaviour is also supported by: Park and Shin's (2017) experiment on the influence of anonymous peers on participation in a signature campaign and donations to a children's charity (see 6.C.6) Oliner's (1992) discussion of the altruistic personality, and more importantly, the role of prosocial parents in modelling helpful behaviour for their children (see 6.C.6) Altruistic motives may be developed through social cognitive theory. Figure 3. Altruistic motives may be developed through social cognitive theory. Credit: Rawpixel iStock A related study by Clary and Miller (1986) demonstrated that role modelling by parents was linked to teenagers fulfilling their volunteer commitments at a crisis counselling centre. The key idea is that altruism may be socialised through parent-child relationships. In the end, the researchers found a difference between those who did and didn't fulfil their volunteer commitment (Clary and Miller 1986): Those who did had good relationships with their parents, who further modelled helpfulness in various ways. By contrast, those who quit before the commitment was fulfilled did not have good relationships with their parents, who further did not model helpfulness. This all suggests that social cognitive theory plays a key role in promoting altruism.