Psychology: Human Relationships

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.

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.

realistic group conflict theory

Cambell Aims to explain inter-group conflict Conflict arises when groups have opposing groups and are competing for limited resources Intergroup conflicts can lead to groups developing in-group norms, displaying overt acts of ingfroup favoritism that encourage discrimination and negative stereotypes towards the outgroup However, when groups are pursuing a superordinate (mutual) goal and success requires cooperation, this cooperation can help reduce and overcome existing stereotypes, prejudice and conflict

male warrior hypothesis

Evolutionary explanation for conflict: Living in groups provides many benefits to humans. It offers protection and the ability to share resources with members of the in-group in order to ensure survival. However, this doesn't explain discrimination and overt violence towards out group. Men posses specific psychological mechanisms that predispose them to planning, initiating, and exciting acts of aggression with the specific goal of acquiring or protecting reproductive resources (woman) Outgroup females are seen as being less of a threat than outgroup males so conflict is less likely to cur. This explains the high prevalence of male oc conflict. Furthermore, if a female does engage in inter-group conflict it is more likely that the conflict may result in sexual assault, encouraging females to avoid contact with outgroup males. The male warrior hypothesis, like all evolutionary theory, is controversial, but it does provide an explanation for the disproportionate levels of male violence in our society.

Greenberg at el (1990)

Greenberg et al (1990) conducted a study in which they asked Christian participants to write down what they thought would happen to them after they died (mortality salience condition). The control group didn't write anything down. Participants were then asked to rate Christian and Jewish targets. Those in the mortality salience condition rated christian targets more positively and jewish targets negatively implying that a range of ideologies may inevitably lead to perceived competition and conflict.

Factors that affect our willingness to cooperate:

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. 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.

The Robber's Cave study

The Robber's Cave studies Sherif and his colleagues conducted three amous field experiments known as the Robber's Cave or Summer Camp studies 1954, 1958, 1961) in order to demonstrate RGCT. These experiments are often considered together because of their contributions to the understanding of group dynamics and competition as they relate to RGCT, despite their subtle differences. The field studies were longitudinal and lasted three weeks; this was sufficient time to observe the changes in group dynamics. The experiments included three stages: group formation, inter-group conflict and conflict reduction. The context of the summer camp provided a very suitable and realistic setting in which to observe these processes. The boys participating in the experiments engaged in activities that were typical of a summer camp such as baseball, tug of war, football and even cabin inspections. During the course of the three weeks, the researchers, posing as the camp leaders, m careful observations of all the boys' activities. It was, of course, important for the boys to feel that the camp was real, and that all events that took place occurred naturally. Parents paid a small fee to send the boys on the break and the researchers asked parents to stay away for the duration of the study The experiments were designed to test two hypotheses 1. When individuals who have no prior relationships are brought together to interac in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with a clear hierarchy and roles. 2. If two existing groups are brought into contact with each other under conditions of competition and group frustration, each group will develop hostile attitudes and actions in relation to the outgroup and its members in relation to their existing ingroup norms Twenty-four white, lower middle-class boys from a Protestant background were brought to the campsite. The boys were not friends before the experiment and all were from stable home environments. This was to allow researchers to observe the formation of new friendships that would subsequently influence allocation to groups for the duration of the study In stage I boys were placed into two groups in which they were matched as closely as possible to other boys in the group. The researchers observed who the boys related to and who became their best friends during the first few days. In two of the experiments, it was then arranged for the boys to be in different groups to the majority of their closest friends. So, their friends would be in the outgroup for the next phase of the experiment. In the third of the experiments the boys had no initial meeting and were placed directly into their groups. They were initially unaware of the other group's existence as they were camping at opposite ends of the site. The groups, soon to become known as the Rattlers and the Eagles, developed ingroup norms, structure and rituals very quickly, and upon learning of the other group's existence the boys made comparisons between the groups in boys made comp which "the edge was given to one's own grou (Sherif, 1966). It is interesting to note that this inter-group rivalry occurred before the bovs engaged in any real competition with each other. In stage 2 the boys were engaged in a series of competitions, for example, tug of war. The winners of the competition would receive a trophy and a much-desired new penknife The losers would receive nothing. The grou were, therefore, working in opposition to each other and RGCT predicted conflict would be likely to occur. The groups were now negatively interdependent. The boys behaviour changed dramatically as a result of this imposed competition, and these once peaceful boys became hostile and violent. T boys displayed clear ingroup favouritism and openly ridiculed and belittled the other group Remember, the boys' best friends were in the outgroup! ps Sherif highlighted that this was evidence for RGCT in that the introduction of group competition affected the group dynamics by developing the following. Ingroup favouritism: the boys became a tightknit group, focusing on their similarities and strengths; they stopped socializing with outgroup members. This ingroup favouritism and lack of contact with the outgroup is crucial to the maintenance of negative stereotypes and discrimination against an outgroup. Outgroup discrimination: the boys burnt the flags of the outgroup, ridiculed each other and traded insults. They even raided the cabins of the other team This competition over resources created behaviours similar to what we see today in the media in relation to the migration criss and the war in Syria. For stage 3, after having successfully created conflict, the researchers acted to reduce it. They would reverse the groups from being negatively interdependent to being positively interdependent. The experimenters created situations which would require the boys to cooperate with each other if they want to succeed. On such situation included a heavy truck breaking down in the camp. This truck was used to drive the boys around the camp. It was two heavy for one group to bump start on their own, but if they worked together they could. The boys collaborated. Over time, the positive inter-group contact did succeed in reducing the inter-group conflict.

Fehr et al. (1997)

...More recent research has demonstrated evidence of altruism that is not self-interested, including the role of strong reciprocity, which refers to cooperating with others and punishing those who violate the norms of cooperation. Importantly, strong reciprocity comes at a personal cost that may not be repaid in the future. Gintis et al. (2003) theorise that strong reciprocity functions as a schema (see 3.A.4) for altruistic behaviour, and that strong reciprocity is a stable strategy from an evolutionary viewpoint. This doesn't mean that kin selection or reciprocal altruism are invalid or irrelevant - instead, strong reciprocity may be a way of understanding forms of altruism that are not guided by long-term self-interest. In a review of research relevant to reciprocal altruism, Gintis et al. (2003) describe a series of experiments testing strong reciprocity. For example, Fehr et al. (1997) investigated strong reciprocity in the labour market (as cited in Gintis et al. 2003). This experiment sampled 141 undergraduates to play a game in which an employer hires an employee. The employee provides an effort and receives a wage from the employer: The payoff for the employer is: (effort × 100) - wage. The payoff for the employee is: wage - cost of effort It begins with the employer offering a contract that specifies the desired effort and the offered wage. Once a contract is agreed upon the employee receives the wage and then supplies an actual effort, which does not necessarily have to match the desired effort. Further, there is no penalty if the employee does not make as much effort as desired. The game itself was played several times with different partners. In theory, if the employees are self-interested they will take the contract and then provide the minimum effort. However, Fehr et al. (1997) found that the more generous the wage offered to the employee, the higher the effort they expended. More generous payoffs were associated with higher effort, evidencing strong reciprocity. Figure 9. More generous payoffs were associated with higher effort, evidencing strong reciprocity. Source: Gintis et al. 2003 This was interpreted as indicating the influence of strong reciprocity. Further, the effect of strong reciprocity was evident at every wage rate (see Figure 9). However, there was also a noticeable gap between the contracted effort and the delivered effort, and the researchers found that only 26% of the employees actually delivered their contract level of effort. Gintis et al. (2003) suggest that this happens because employees may be willing to compromise their morality somewhat, just like in real life, even in the context of strong reciprocity. Providing clearer evidence of strong reciprocity, Fehr et al. (1997) conducted a variation of the study in which employers were allowed to reward their employees for fulfilling contracts and to punish them for not fulfilling contracts. The findings of this variation demonstrated that employee efforts increased significantly when employers had the power to punish, with far fewer underfulfilled contracts and far more overfulfilled contracts (as cited in Gintis et al. 2003). Whatever effect strong reciprocity had in the first variation of the study appeared only to be amplified when punishment was allowed for violation of the norms of cooperation. \

Essock-Vitale and Maguire (1985)

300 Caucasian, middle-class women in L.A. were randomly sampled in a random-digit telephone dialling procedure to solicit participation. Completed a social relationships questionnaire Results supported the hypothesis predicted by both kin selection and reciprocal altruism: Helping among friends was more likely to be reciprocal than between kin. Closer kin were more reliable sources of help than more distant kin. Reproductive potential increased helping among kin. More substantial instances of helping were more likely to be offered by kin.

Research supporting KC: Flook, et al

68 pre schoolers, 2 conditions KC (30)- two lessons of 20-30 minutes each week for 12 weeks. Wait list (38) Participants were assessed on relevant measures before and after the trial. Results: Students in the KC condition showed larger gains in teacher-reported social skills, and that the control group acted more selfishly over time. Bonus: Those with the lowest prosocial scores before the training, ended up benefiting the mos

Equity Theory

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

latane and Rodin

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Felmlee (1995)

Aim: To investigate why relationships break down. Method: 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). Results: 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 Strong to domineering Spontaneous to unpredictable Conclusion: The researchers concluded that fatal attraction could lead to the end of relationships. Strengths This study supports fatal attraction theory. 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. Weaknesses The study is rather reductionist and does not account for the various factors which lead to relationship breakdown. 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.

Whiting and Whiting

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

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. 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.

Prosocial Behavior

Behavior can be broken down into prosocial or antisocial. Antisocial behavior is any behavior that causes or will cause harm to others including violent behavior, abusive language, graffiti, vandalism,. or intimidation. prosocial behavior is any behavior that benefits others. It is supportive of social norms. Helping behavior is any type of social assistance or interpersonal support. Prosocial behavior is more focused: it is an action intended to help another but is not motivated by any professional obligation, where the recipient is an individual. prosocial behaviour is the parent category and refers to any behaviour that benefits another person, which could include cooperation or altruism altruism is more specifically a type of prosocial behaviour that benefits another person while coming at some cost to the donor It is difficult to determine if helping is egoistic, altruistic and self-reporting is subject to social desirability effect. People will respond with altruistic explanation for behavior rather than egoistic bc it is socially desirable;e even if reason was egoistic. A spiteful interaction is characterised by costs to both donor and recipient A selfish interaction is characterised by benefits to the donor and costs to the recipient An altruistic interaction is characterised by costs to the donor and benefits to the recipient A cooperative interaction is characterised by benefits to both donor and recipient

CATB: Empathy alturism hypothesis

C. Daniel Batson People act to help others out of empathetic feelings and genuine concern for the well-being of other people. Empathetic concern for others 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. Low Empathy (egoistic) High Empathy (altruistic Easy Escape: Low Helping ,High Helping Difficult Escap: High Helping, High Helping

Culture and Prosocial Behavior

CAF World Giving Index Whiting and Whiting: differences in prosocial behavior may be caused by differing socialization and child rearing practices Naturalistic observations of children between 3-11 in six different cultures: India, Mexico, Kenya, Japan, the Phillippines, and the USA Children in Kenya displayed the most prosocial behavior followed by Mexico and the Phillippines. Children in Japan, India, and the USA showed the lowest levels of prosocial behavior. Can you make a connection between these results and Hofstede's research on cultural dimensions? Johnson, et al: University students across six cultures (Australia, Egypt, South Korea, Taiwan, the USA, and Yogoslavia. Self reported data on: Giving help, receiving help, and the rated importance of helping behavior Helping behavior showed substantial consistency Self reports are subject to social desirability, but giving and receiving were mostly balanced showing that social desirability did not play a significant role. Levine, et al (2001) International field experiment spanning 23 cities examining helping behavior across cultures. As population size and density of a city increases, helping behavior decreases (1994) 3 types of non emergency helping behaviors were measured. They were stable across the three measures. Alerting a person of a dropped pen Offering to help a person with an injured leg try to reach magazines Helping a blind person cross the street Overall, helping behavior was inversely related to economic productivity (GDP), perhap due to more traditional value systems associated with less developed cultures. Sympatia: cultures are characterized by an emphasis on socio-emotional awareness and concern with the well being of others. Countries with a tradition of sympatia were more helpful, on average, than countries without this tradition.

Social Penetration Theory

Communication is just one of many aspects that seem to have a significant role in either keeping relationships together or tearing them apart. Altman & Taylor (1973) a theory that predicts that as relationships develop, communication increases in breadth and depth. Individuals dont share their deepest desires and concerns with just anyone, they choose carefully. Relationships develop over time and go from shallow to more intimate. Intimacy is characterized by greater discussion of emotions and feelings as well as self- debt, concerns regarding self-worth and identity. We are like onions (google picture)

Factors influencing bystanderism

Diffusion of responsibility: the perception that others are witnessing am event will significantly decrease the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency. This may because they believe someone else will act or bc they are more comfortable sharing the blame than taking it all Ambiguity of the situation: if individuals are unsure of whether there is indeed an emergency, they may be less likely to react for fear that they have misread the situation and acted in a way that breaks social norms of decorum Group inhibition: we look to others to help us interpret situations. If others are not acting, we won't either. 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.)

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. 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. 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. . 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.

BATB: Kin Selection Theory

Hamilton (1964) 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 Helping behavior takes place between strangers there is an assumption that we can identify kin from strangers

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]

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. 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.

Latane and Darley: Bystander Research

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. Latané & Darley (1968) Aim: To investigate whether help is given depending on the number of bystanders at the scene. Method: 72 university students (59 female and 13 male) were recruited. The participants were asked to discuss what kind of personal problems new college students might face living in a city. Each participant sat in a booth alone with a pair of headphones and a microphone. They were told that the discussion took place via an intercom to protect the anonymity of participants. At one point in the experiment a participant (a confederate) staged a seizure. The independent variable (IV) of the study was the number of bystanders that the participant thought were listening to the same discussion. The dependent variable (DV) was the time it took for the participant to react from the start of the victim's fit until the participant contacted the experimenter. Results: The number of bystanders had a significant effect on the participant's reaction. In the alone condition 85% reported the seizure. Only 31% reported the seizure when they believed that there were four bystanders also listening in. Conclusion: Diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance are factors that could prevent help being given in an emergency. Strengths: There was a high degree of control over confounding variables. Limitations: There may have been sample bias as these were psychology students from one university. Methodological considerations: There may have been demand characteristics; low ecological validity due to artifical task. Ethical considerations: The participants experienced mild deception in this task. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines, as discussed in 1.A.5.

Promoting Prosocial Behavior

Legislation: Good Samaritan Laws: Designed to protect people from blame when trying to help someone in need Australia: Argentina Quebec, Canada Early Years Education Mindfulness based kindness curriculum (KC) 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 Furthermore . . . Short term compassion training can increase prosocial behavior (and improvements in mood and health) in adults. Researchers used the Zurich Prosocial game, a measure of prosocial behavior that claims to be sensitive to the influence of reciprocity, helping costs, and distress cues. They concluded that those who had received compassion training in the form of short, guided compassion meditation showed more prosocial behavior in the post-training prosocial game (Leiberg et al, 2011). Finally, modelling behavior (SCT): Individuals learn from observing the behavior of others. In 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).

De Dreu et al (2010)

Neurobiological explanation of intergroup conflict. Discovered that oxytocin, can lead humans to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the in-group. When there is a perceived level of threat from an outgroup, the likelihood of conflict is high as it may cause an individual to engage in acts of defensive aggression What was the aim of De Dreu et al? To observe the role of oxytocin in inter-group conflict What was the procedure of De Dreu et al? Double blind study where participants were given a dose of either oxytocin or a placebo. "Prisoner's Dilemma" game where participants were separated into groups and chose whether they wanted to cooperate or compete and were rewarded with points depending on what they chose What were the findings of De Dreu et al? A participant's non-cooperation is more likely in an oxytocin induced condition and if the vulnerability of the participant's group is high What was concluded of De Dreu et al? Researchers concluded that oxytocin-induced non-cooperation is motivated by the desire to protect vulnerable group members and less themselves

Negative State Relief Model

One of the early theories explaining prosocial behaviour is built around the negative state relief model, which theorises that altruism happens because individuals want to relieve stress and negative feelings that arise when someone else needs help. The negative state relief model was proposed by Cialdini et al. (1973) as a way of understanding altruism in situations of transgression or harm-doing. The basic idea is that exposure to any kind of distressing situation, specifically, the situations in which another person needs help, induces a negative mood state. This emotional dimension is what makes the negative state relief model relevant to the cognitive approach to psychology. Importantly, that negative mood state may be relieved by helping another person, which means that an act of apparent altruism is ultimately selfish, or egoistic, because it is motivated not by concern for the welfare of others, but by concern for one's own mood state. Cialdini et al. (1973) went so far as to describe the negative state relief model as hedonistic. The negative state relief model was based on an experiment by Cialdini et al. (1973), in which participants were first exposed to a harmful act which was meant to induce a negative mood state. Half of the participants were then exposed to a positive event, in the form of approval or money, which was theorised to relieve their negative mood. The other half of the participants experienced no positive event. Later, these same participants were presented with a fellow student's request for aid. Cialdini et al. (1973) found that: the participants who did not receive the positive event were more helpful, presumably to relieve their negative mood the participants who did receive the positive event were less helpful, presumably because their negative mood state had already been relieved

Choosing your in-group: Social exchange theory

People want to join a group that offers them the maximum reward. So for rugby you want to ensure that you are rewarding for your efforts (participation) by being something like team captain. This cost-benefit analysis is bidirectional so people recruiting also consider what they gain from having the person join.

arousal: cost-reward model

Piliavin: this model is based on social exchange theory. The premise is that people exchange social goods such as smiles, a friendly, hello, love, reproachful glances, angry stares, and so on on the same why they exchange commercial goods and services. A strength of this model is that both physiological arousal and cognition is taken into consideration. This is an intretation of helping as an egoistic behavior. people experiences an unpleasant emotion (physiological arousal) when they witness others in distress. Arousal acts as a motivator for action. With esses perform a cost-reward appraisal to determine if they should act to help or remain a bystander. There are cots and rewards to both acting and not acting: witnesses are evaluating if there will be a net cost or a net reward for action. It is important that categorical thinking os reductionist. harmful to full explanations, so any lines drawn between bystander and prosocial behavior are arbitrary and should be erased for a better explanation 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. 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 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.

Promoting prosocial behaviour through cooperation and empathy

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.

Racism:

Racism is a form of discrimination that provides advantages to one's own ingroup and disadvantages or harms another group that is defined by racial characteristics. According to Dovidio (2010) Racism can be defined by three characteristics. There is a culturally held belief that groups can be distinguished by race-specific characteristics that can be applied to all members. These racial characteristics render the outgroup inferior to the ingroup. Racism involves an element of social power in order to enable the negative attitude and behaviours directed towards the outgroup to result in real disadvantages relative to the ingroup. inter-group dynamics has long been influenced by race-related behaviour. History books record nany accounts of one group attempting to gain an economic, political or social advantage on the basis of racial characteristics. Racism has the power to shape behaviour at the individual, group and institutional level and as such has the power to reshape social norms, a process that facilitates the maintenance of such prejudice, for example, through socialization and the media. Classic psychology has sought to explain racism on the basis of it being a normal cognitive process. From as young as three years old children have an acute sense of category awareness and as such are able to identify male from female, black from white, and so on. Why is this significant? Categorization formed the basis of both realistic group conflict theory (RGCT) and social identity theory. Campbell (1958) argues that categorization occurs automatically and that factors such as proximity and similarity facilitate the process. We have a natural desire to belong so seeking out ingroup membership is inevitable as it raises our self- esteem. Both Sherif's Robber's Cave studies and Tajfel's research on minimal paradigms highlighted that we prioritize our ingroup over the outgroup. Ingroup favouritism and outgroup discrimination are therefore by-products of the categorization process and can result in very overt displays of prejudice and discrimination.

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. al Ramaiah and Hewstone (2013) 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

Cikara, Botvinick and Fiske

Research into inter-group competition has also highlighted that competition helps to define our social identities (Tajfel, 1982), and also affects the way an individual processes pleasure and pain of their respective ingroups and outgroups. For example, witnessing a member of your ingroup in pain may result in feelings of empathy (Batson, 1991), whereas an outgroup member in pain may result in feelings of pleasure. This explanation for he origins of inter-group conflict was explored by Cik ara, Botvinick and Fiske (2011). They believed hat attaching a positive value (happiness, cognitive reward) to an outgroup member's suffering may motivate an individual to inflict suffering and pain upon them. Under certain conditions,. thus may lead to large-scale conflict such as football hooliganism, riots, and genocide. The researchers investigated the link between an individuals social identity and aggression by examining the neural structures responsible for valuation of behavior. They used self-report measure and fMRI scans. They measured the affective and neural responses of die hard baseball fans (Red Sox or Yankee fans) while the fans were observing plays that were considered positive, negative, and neutral for their team. The researchers predicts that observing a positive result they would respond with a positive emotion (affect) but a negative outcome,e would cause a negative affect and this would correlate with a willingness to cause an outgroup member harm. Participants rated good plays as significantly more pleasure. Plays considered bad were more angering and painful. They also reported they would be likely to heckle, insult and even hit a member of the outgroup than members of the control group ( a neutral condition observing a team for which they had no value.) This corresponded with increased activation in the ventral striatum, a natural structure responsible for valuation (pleasure at outgroup failure) and motivation (urge to inflict pain.) Researchers concluded that there is a link between an individual's social identity , the area of the brain to encode in-groups and outgroup behavior, and the willingness to harm.

Toi, Batson and Steiner (1982)

Research shows that individuals who are told to imagine another person's distress experience more intense physiological arousal than those told simply to observe movements (Stotland, 1969) Toi, Batson and Steiner (1982) One group of female introductory psychology students was asked to imagine the feelings of a victim while the second group was asked to focus on the movements of the victim. Both groups were further broken down into easy and difficult escape conditions. Results: participants in the low empathy condition helped less when escape was easy than when it was difficult, suggesting that their helping was egoistic (reducing their own distress). Participants in the high empathy condition displayed a high rate of helping no matter the escape condition.

Prejudice, Stereotypes and Discrimination

Stereotypes are specifically defined as positive or negative beliefs held about ingroups or outgroups. Little picture in our heads that comes to mind when we picture a specific social group. These are often inflexible, incorrect, and overgeneralized. They allow individuals to process large amounts of information more quickly by basing judgments on previous experiences with similar individual/ "Schemas used by social perceivers to process information about others" Prejudice is defined as negative attitudes towards outgroups. 'An antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization' Discrimination refers to negative behaviours towards outgroups. It involves action, treating people in an unfair way due to their group membership. Anti-immigration bias and racism are presented to the general public via mass media on a daily basis and influence not only how migrant or persons of color is perceived by an in-group but also how they perceive themselves. In Unit 4 we referTred to the formation of stereotypes and the origins of prejudice in relation to classic pSychological theory and experimental research. Social cognitive theory, social identity theory, and fundamental and ultimate attribution errors have all contributed to our understanding of how prejudice is formed. Claude Steele's research on stereotype threat has given us insight into the effects that this prejudice can have on academic performance. This chapter will focus on understanding prejudice and discrimination in relation to contemporary issues. Anti-immigration bias and racism are presented to the general public via the mass media on a daily basis and influence not only how a migrant or person of colour is perceived by an ingroup, but also how individuals perceive themselves. These perceptions have the potential to influence behavior. (Take studies from past curriculum)

Why relationships change or end: Gottman's Four Horseman

Studied thousands of relationships. They claim they are able to predict relationship outcomes after observation, questionnaires and analysis of interviews. Gottman claims these negative elements help predict divorce/relationship ending 1) Criticism: a statement that attacks the character of a person, not a simple complaint, attributing negative behavior to disposition not situation 2) Contempt: treating someone with disrespect or mocking sarcasm. Considers this the worst and primary predictor of divorce, result of long-term negative thoughts 3) Defensiveness: a self-defense mechanism in the form of claimed innocent victimization where the target of crictism claims to be under attack for no reason. 4) Stonewalling: a listener withdraws from a conversation by refusing to acknowledge the other person, listener shuts down and refuses to communicate with partner. Accuracy of divorce prediction is 90%

terror management theory

Terror management theory Terror management theory (Greenberg et al, 1990) proposes that humans fear their own meaninglessness in the world as we are very aware of our own mortality. In order to reduce the fear and give themselves meaning people create their own ideologies or cultural worldviews. These views cannot accommodate alternate views so conflicts arise. Much research supports the notion that when faced with death, humans increase their prejudice towards outgroups who threaten or challenge their religious or political views (Greenberg, Solomon and Pyszczynski, 1990). In support of this argument, Chenoweth (2010) argues that political ideologies and democracies are directly linked to an increase in terrorist activity due to inter-group competition.

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.

Sociocultural influences on personal relationships

The formation of relationship is at its core a social phenomenon. 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 there are cultural differences in surrounding romantic relationships and marriage. 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. Different characteristics are considered attractive in a romantic partner. 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. Individualism and Collectivism Individualism and collectivism Cultural factors play a strong role in interpersonal relationships. Specifically, Dion and Dion (1993) examined the influence of individualism/ collectivism on romantic love and intimacy in marriage. They examined research done in two individualistic cultures (USA and Canada) and three collectivistic cultures (India, China and Japan). From the findings of multiple studies researchers suggested ways in which individualism or collectivism could influence interpersonal relations . Romantic love is more likely to be the basis for marriage in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures. Intimacy in marriage is more about satisfaction . with marriage and personal wellness in individualistic cultures. Dion and Dion pointed out that these findings may seem counterintktive because individualism values romantic love and intimacy but a psychologically individual mindset should value independence rather than connection with others. In later research, Dion and Dion argued that although culture plays a role in interpersonal relations, the process of acculturation is changing how. They argue that changes in cultural norms related to romantic love are evident in collectivism cultures and among immigrants in these cultures. Culture and marriage: Cultural practices and traditions sometimes have a very direct and profound impact on relationships. Social norms vary on many issues: appropriate marrying age, same-sex marriage, etc. 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.

Reducing discrimination

The more complicated question, however, is how to reduce discrimination. Three main techniques are discussed briefly here: By 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. 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. 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. 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. (Robber's cave) Through social recategorisation

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.

Arguments supporting evolutionary factors in attraction

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.

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.

Phermones & attraction

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. Despite the debate, a variety of studies have investigated the role of human pheromones in attraction. Some theorists have 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.

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 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. 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. 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.

Fomation of personal relationships: Evolutionary Explanations

Theories argue that many human behaviors have a basis in our distant past. The assumption is that behaviors that are beneficial in passing on our genes will be carried on through generations. There are universal traits that are considered physically attractive both sexes tend to be attracted to characteristics that signal health, youth, and reproductive capacity. Evolutionary arguments for mate selection should be universally applicable to all Homo sapiens and transcend culture. Gender plays a role in determination of desirable characteristics in a mate. 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.

reciprocal altruism model: BATB

Theory: Robert Trivers (1971) defines altruism specifically to include prosocial behavior between genetically distant or unrelated individuals that includes some detriment to the helper. He argued that helping a genetic relative is not altruism because the helper is simply contributing to the survival of his own genes. Basic tenet: altruism between strangers (or even species) can be genetically beneficial because in the long run, they benefit the helper. Research connection: Axelrod and Hamilton, "The Prisoner's Dilemma" Reciprocal Altruism Trivers helping behaviour between non-relatives individuals help others so that they will get help in the future when they need it - individuals will cease to help cheaters 1. Sociality 2. Helping individuals of similar abilities 2 Requirements sociality individuals must have the opportunity for repeated interactions

sexual selection

There are notable differences between the females and males of many species these differences evolved for for the purposes of mating. Sexual selection: refers to the evolution of mating characteristics, an evolutionary explanation for partner preference, based on the idea of increasing reproductive advantages. 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.

Analysis and evaluation of the similarity effect

There is also plenty of evidence suggesting that similarity plays a key role in same-sex relationships However, despite the considerable influence of the similarity effect, it also seems apparent that evolutionary models hold some sway over attraction. 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

Hormones & attraction

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.

Fatal attraction theory

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) 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.

Group dynamics

We interact or operate in groups a lot in our lives. Our families, friends and colleges form significant groups in our lives. The groups we belong to help shape our individual self and social identities and can have a significant impact on our happiness and self-esteem. Group dynamics refers to the processes that occur within a group to which we belong, our in-group, and also the processes or interactions between the in group and an out group, known as inter-group processes A group consists of at least two individuals who perceive themselves to be a member of that group when the existence of the group is recognized by at least one other. A groups behavior is directly influenced by the individuals within it. A group can be considered large-scale interpersonal behavior, behavior no different from that occurring between two people. Group behavior is the product of relationships between group members and the importance they apply to the groups membership. Group mind refers to the power of a group in its ability to shape the individuals behavior and make them act totally out of character.\ Deindividualism refers to the sense of anonymity that individuals experience when they are acting as part of a group: this can result in group members engaging in extreme behaviors.

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.

Clark and Clark (1947)

conducted a famous study that sought to test category awareness in children. The researchers presented a white doll with blonde hair and a brown doll with black hair to children and asked questions designed to test the child's ethnic awareness, for example, "which doll looks white?" By the age of five, over 90% were able to accurately identify the correct ethnicity of the doll

Regan (Negative State Relief Model)

im: 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. This of course raises some big questions about whether such prosocial behaviour is really altruistic, because although picking up the dropped groceries is clearly helpful, the motivation for such altruism is not necessarily to benefit another person, but to reduce one's own negative mood state. In this sense, altruistic behaviour may instead be selfish. The negative state relief model is often contrasted with empathy-based theories of altruism.

Cooperation & Competition

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).

Cognition and interpersonal relationships

many cognitive determinants of attractions studied by social psychologists Reciprocity is based on social exchange within a relationship. This simple theory argues that we like those who like us. This is related to self-esteem, self- enhancement, and self-verification. People who like us are validating the choices we have made in constructing a self-image. (Kenny and La Voie 1982) The matching hypothesis predicts that individuals that assess their own attractiveness or social desirability and select partners who match their levels in these areas. (Berscheid 1971) & (Taylor 2011)

Bystanders effect

the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present. We like to believe we are good people: that we are the kind of person someone can count on in an emergency. 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.