Psychology of Personal Relationships

compassion. tenderness etc. (1981) suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when witnessing a suffering: o Personal Distress (anxiety. fear etc. Explanations for Altruism:  Evolutionary:  Kin selection theory (helping according to genes shared)  Reciprocal altruism (prisoner’s dilemma)  Psychology:  Negative-state relief model: Schaller and Cialdini (1988) argue egotistic motives lead us to help others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching a bad experience Empathy-altruism model: Batson et al. John Rabe risked his life to shelter as many Chinese he could. Example: During the Nanking Massacre. Factors influencing Pro-social behavior:  Social norms  Culture  Social exchange theory (cost-benefit)  Arousal-cost-reward model (emotional arousal) Theory can be expressed through Piliavin’s (et al) train study: o The drunk is helped less often because the perceived cost is greater (helping the drunk may cause disgust.) leading to egotistical helping o Empathetic Concern (sympathy. embarrassment.Distinguish between altruism and pro-social behavior: Altruism: When one helps another person for no reward and even at some cost to oneself. harm) o The cost of not helping the caned man is higher than helping. He turned his house and office into a sanctuary and also developed a Safe Zone meant for foreigners to shelter even more Chinese civilians. He sheltered 200-250. Pro-social behavior: Behavior that benefits another person or has positive social consequences.) which leads to altruistic behavior. .000 people.

o Actions determined by self-interest (economic benefits). altruistic behavior is seen as a way to guarantee that one’s own genes will be passed on the future generations. Confederate acted distressed. Most participants behaved altruistically and took over the role of the learner  Model does not accurately predict how one will behave.Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans: Altruism: When one helps another person for no reward and even at some cost to oneself. altruistically or selfishly? . if they do not confess then both have 1 year sentence.  Does not explain why small number of people help complete strangers Reciprocal Altruism Theory:  Trivers (1971)  Explain altruism amongst people who are not related  It may benefit an animal to behave altruistically if there is an expectation that the favor will be returned in the future  Example: small fish eat parasites from large fish back.  Example: Prisonner’s dilemma o If one defect then there is maximized profit and there is elimination of population o However. Biological Explanations to Altruism: Kin Selection Theory:  Depends on the number of genes shared by individuals  Supported with empirical studies on animals  Darwin: “the selfish gene theory” suggests that there is an innate drive for the survival and propagation of one’s own genes. Small fish are fed. However. If there is predator large fish waits for big fish to leave. but participant did not know as they chose role from hat). uncontrolled pursuit of self-interest can lead to chaos Evaluation:  Cannot generalize animal to humans  Human influenced by culture more than animals  Behaviors such as adoption that do not benefit kin and thus cannot be explained by purely biological model Psychological Explanations of Altruism: Negative state relief model:  Schaller and Cialdini (1988)  Egoistic motives lead us to help others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching the bad situation  Explains why people walk away instead of helping  Lerner and Lichtman: Participant had to give electric shocks to confederate (who always had to role of the learner. Since animals living in social groups share many genes. Big fish are cleaned. if one cooperates then other cooperates (evolutionarily stable strategy) o For criminals. if one defects then other defects o Similarly. Large fish also doesn’t eat big fish. If one confess then that person will have only parole and other will have 20 year sentence.

compassion. She talked about struggled/falling behind in school. fear) which leads to egoistic helping or empathetic concern (sympathy. She talked about her car accident in which bother her legs were broken. o Students each given letter asking to meet and share notes. tenderness) which leads to altruism  When you do not feel empathy. personal distress (anxiety. you think of costs and benefits  Experiment: o Students were asked to listen to tapes of an interview. One group had to try to focus on how Carol was feeling (high empathy) and other her told they did not need to be concerned with her feelings (low empathy) o High cost (she was returning) and low cost (she would finish class at home) o High empathy helped for both high and low cost o Low empathy helped out of self-interest b/c would make them guilty if they didn’t help  Does not take in personality factors  Difficult to measure empathy LINK! LINK! Talk about difference between two!! .Empathy altruism model:  Batson et al (1981)  People can experience two types of emotions when they see someone suffering.

According to the method the results are reliable because there were many trails and the study is not ethnocentric because it was cross-cultural. fun and goodnatured. Approximately 300 trials of helpfulness that involved faking blindness. In conclusion.Using one or more research studies. This could be due to the fast paced life and that people do not want to waste their time. which doesn’t have an English synonym. but through a natural experiment instead. It refers to a range of desirable social qualities – to be friendly. returning dropped pens. sometimes mailboxes were non-existent (in under-developed countries) or the unattended letters were suspicious (Tel Aviv). In general the results showed that helping rates tended to be high in countries with low economic productivity and cities with a slow pace life and which also emphasizes the value of social harmony. Help will be provided as quickly as possible and further assistance is usually not asked for. Then. in Jakarta there are more people without limbs which reduce the response to help someone with only a broken leg. Cities which were more developed were less likely to help. His aim was to see if people’s willingness to help (or their bystanderism) varied between cultures. These results could also lead to discrimination of less helping cities. . Yet there were many evaluation points such as the ways of measuring help do not always translate cleanly across cultures. Brazil the word ‘simpatico’ is used. explain cross-cultural differences in pro-social behavior: Levine (2000) Levine carried out a cross-cultural (factor of pro-social behavior) study to investigate people’s willingness to help someone. The citizens all try to live up to this word. agreeable. nice. Levine is showing how bystanderism varies throughout cities and cultures as there are different lifestyles and habits that are associated. Next. helping the injured and returning letters were carried out in 23 major cities. Many cities were also evaluated which allows reliability of results. In Rio. Levine carried out further research in bystanderism.

62% intervened  5 other subjects. 31% intervened o LINK! Ambiguity: Help is more likely to be given in clear-cut and emergency situations The reactions of others:  Pluralistic ignorance – if several people are present and nobody shows signs of concern or action. who were meant to be discussing social problems with other participants in separate cubicles over intercom system (to prevent embarrassment).Examine factors influencing bystanderism: Situational: The number of bystanders:  Social impact theory by Latane 1981 suggests that a diffusion of responsibility occurs when many witnesses are present – the impact of a victim’s plight is felt less strongly for each subject and so more witnesses can actually mean less helping  Darley and Latane (1968): o Individual subjects.  Latane and Darley (1968): o Subjects completing a questionnaire in a waiting room that began to fill with smoke were more likely to report the smoke when alone than when in a group og three (despite being unable to see clearly after 6 minutes)  LINK! Dispositional: Nature of bystander:  The past reinforcement history of the individual for helping behavior plus internalized norms  The level of moral development reached  The personality of the individual (those who are emotionally empathetic may help more) . then the situation may be socially defined as ‘in need of no action.’ This is a form of informational social influence. 85% intervened  3 in the group.  Latane and Rodin (1969): o Subjects witting in a waiting room went to help a female experimenter (they had heard her fall over next door) more often and more quickly when alone than when in the company of a confederate of the experimenter who did nothing. bystanders look to each other to know how to react. heard one of the group (in fact a tape recording of a confederate – there was no real participants) explain that he was prone to have seizures when under stress – and later proceeded to have one o The experimenters measured the percentage who helped within 4 minutes o Results when the subject thought there were:  2 in the group.

7 or lower. o In general.8 to 1. and is a good and fertile choice for mating.0 WHR in men is attractive to women. Singh concluded in a 2004 study. Psychologist Devendra Singh of the University of Texas studied people's waist-tohip ratio (WHR). boredom  Similarity: o Not just of looks but also beliefs. o And an analysis of hourglass figures of Playboy models and Miss America contestants showed that the majority of these women boast a WHR of 0. while a 0." said evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico. non-ovulation (female attracted to men)  Evaluation: o Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and can be influenced by:  Culture (Garfield)  Context as the perception of a person’s beauty can change with circumstances. The differences can be just a few percent—perceivable though not necessarily noticeable. an attraction draws one object towards another one.Examine biological. "If you choose a perfectly symmetrical partner and reproduce with them." o Thornhill has been studying symmetry for 15 years and scanned faces and bodies into computers to determine symmetry ratios. attitudes and values . vasopressin. although having broad shoulders is more of a turn-on. a range of 0. is healthy.  Facial Symmetry: o Good symmetry shows that an individual has the genetic goods to survive development. Efran found that good looking criminals received more lenient sentences unless their looks were involved in the crime Psychological (Cognitive) Origins:  Exposure and familiarity (Zajonc): o Repeated exposure could lead to familiarity and a sense of trust o Experiment: asked subjects to evaluate photos of strangers and those strangers who appeared more often than other were rated more positively o Evaluation: exposure could give a greater chance of negative characteristics to be found. Both men and women rated symmetrical members of the opposite sex as more attractive and in better health than their less symmetrical counterparts.7—indicating a waist significantly narrower than the hips—are most desirable to men. Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. Biological Origins:  Body Shape: o Body shape is of course important and scientists have some numbers to prove it.18 in females is attractive to men. psychological and social origins of attraction: In general.  Hormones: Oxytocin. o "It makes sense to use symmetry variation in mate choice.67 to 1. your offspring will have a better chance of being symmetric and able to deal with perturbations. o Women with a WHR of 0. ovulation vs.

social class. than those living two doors away o Bossard: couples living within one block were more likely to get married that those who lived two blocks apart o Evaluation: Too close proximity can invade our personal space Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships Canary and Sommer:  Extensive examination of the sex and gender differences  Women express a greater range of emotions. dislike people who are too similar Proximity1) leads to familiarity.Rubin said that we are more likely to agree with similar people which leads to more joint activities and confidence/trust. love. defensiveness. the greater the chance of attraction o Those who live near us are more likely to share our beliefs. such as their personal opinion or details of their personal history. Liking  Similarity 1) Appearance competence. these feelings could be sexual in nature.  Women are more likely to exercise power strategies than men and are more likely to engage in manipulative behaviors and to exercise negative and confrontational conflict behaviors  Women are more likely to enact self-disclosure behaviors in an effort to maintain their relationship Gottman:  Behaviors such as criticism. contempt and withdrawal hold the most impact in influencing a close relationship negatively. such as sadness. Theory Bad Relationship Good Relationship . education o Have to be close to someone to reward them (cost/benefits) o Increased exposure. fear. facilitates communication o Griffit studied 13 males who spent 10 days in a shelter and the most similar liked each other the best by the end o Evaluation: complementarily is more important. happiness and anger. increased familiarity o Festinger et al studied student friendships patterns in university campus housing and found that the students were most friendly with those living next door.  Women are also more inclined than men to disclose personal information. but not necessarily.  Women are more likely to use touch to convey feelings of closeness.read arowman o Appearance Social Origins:  Proximity (Kerckoff): o Smaller the distance separating individuals. Oxytocin.

Within dissatisfied marriages. defensiveness. and there are cultural differences between relationships . the mediating factor might be the state of the relationship. and validating.e. the research suggests that women function more aptly in high conflict situations than men. Distressed couples are more inclined to form negative attributions toward the partner during conflict and attribute behavior to internal factors Within the context of satisfied marriages. Specifically. specifically. more likely to engage in criticism. that five positive communications are necessary to balance one negative communication. which is met with another countercomplaint. both husbands and wives engage in de-escalation behaviors (i.This suggests that one cannot assume that men are emotionally distant from everyone. and so forth. nondefensive listening.  Most of the research is conducted in the US. Dissatisfied couples often find themselves in what Gottman (1994) termed "negativity cycles. reducing the conflict) during low-level conflict. Men and women function differently in the face of negative effect. Men find it difficult regardless of their marital satisfaction.. Evaluation:  Findings are not exhaustive  Majority of the research focuses on marital couples  Some of the past gender and sex research might be somewhat in error as reliability and validity issues exist. Husbands are more likely to selfdisclose their feelings to their wives in happy marriages. Gottman (1994) suggests that partners engage in the behaviors of soothing. as the common stereotype would indicate. neither the husband nor wife engages in conflict de-escalation behaviors. Whereas a satisfied couple might take only a few passes at the destructive complaint/countercomplaint cycle Attribution Whereas non-distressed couples were more likely to attribute behavior to external factors. and non-disclosive. A five-to-one ratio is necessary for a stable relationship. their feelings are often revealed to no one. In response to these destructive behaviors. contempt and withdrawal. Many of these behaviors can be expressed nonverbally (stiffening up. For those men in unhappy marriages. More often engage in destructive communication patterns. rolling eyes. Indeed." Such cycles involve one partner offering a complaint and that complaint is met with the partner's countercomplaint. staring in space) It is of particular harm when the man in the relationship withdraws from conversation about important issues on disagreement.

group one – adult bash “Bobo” doll expressing aggression 2. group two – adult assembled toys for 10 minutes – non-aggression 3. Results: The children who had observed the aggressive models were significantly more aggressive – both physically and verbally.Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence: 1. 1. group three – control. and they were put into the room with the Bobo doll. Very soon. no adult being watched Groups in groups 1 and 2 had watched same sex or different sex models The children were placed in a room with toys. whereas boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression. if children were more likely to imitate same sex models Method: Children 3-6 years old (36 boys and 36 girls) were divided into groups based on aggression evaluated by parents and teachers. The girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression. Limitations:  ecological validity  very brief encounter with the model  children were intentionally frustrated  does little to explain if children are constantly expressed to violence by parents does the aggression against the Bobo doll indicate a general aggression or is it highly specific to this situation?  It is also not standardized  the grouping of aggression by parents may have not been accurate  demand characteristics by children  ethical: using children and adults may have been frightening 2. they were taken out of the room. since the children showed signs of observational learning. Social learning theory BANDURA et al. if children will imitate the aggression shown an adult 2. (1961) Aims: 1. being told that those toys were for other children. Cultivation theory GERBNER et al (1994) . Analysis: The social learning theory was demonstrated in the study.

Media: A study by Craig Anderson was published in the March 2010 issue of the Psychological Bulletin. DIENER et al. (1976) Aim: to establish if the de-individuation had an effect on a child’s behavior determined by the amount of pieces of candy a child would take. larger name tags. hood hid face. not referred by name Group 2 = wore normal clothes. May have caused long term stress on participants. Experiment was artificial. 3. therefore not applicable to everyday experiences. Evaluation: An advantage to this study is that surveys are able to ask specific detailed questions and can be applied over different demographic groups. normal behavior. He found that heavy viewers held beliefs and opinions similar to those portrayed on television rather than the real world which demonstrates the compound effect of media influence. and causes them to develop scripts that problems can be solved through violence. From his results he placed television viewers into three categories. an American Psychological Association journal. It reports that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. light viewers (less than 2 hours a day). Method: Group 1 = asked for name and address Group 2 = were not asked any questions Both groups = told to take a single sweet Results: Group 1 = 8% took more than one sweet Group 2 = 80% toke more than one sweet . teaches them that at some level that violence is acceptable. medium viewers (2–4 hours a day) and heavy viewers (more than 4 hours a day). whether they had good or bad descriptions Group 2 = gave shocks according to description Discussion: De-individuation allows lower self-consciousness and lower sense of accountability.Cultivation theory argues that media violence gives children a perception of a world that is more hostile than it is in reality. Disadvantages to this study is that survey questions can be interpreted incorrectly resulting in inaccurate answers and that participants of the survey may or may not be doing the survey voluntarily which could influence how they respond to the survey and the type of people being surveyed. De-individuation theory ZIMBARDO (1969) Method: Female undergraduates were told to give electric shocks for “aid learning” Group 1 = wore big coats. introduced by name Both groups were given good or bad descriptions about the learner Results: Group 1 = gave shocks to everyone. and decreased empathy and pro-social behavior in youths Method: In 1968 Gerbner conducted a survey to demonstrate this theory.

Currently over 1. Effectiveness? Cooperative learning ELLIOT ARONSON (1979) He HAS shown that the use of the “jigsaw classroom” also known as cooperative learning lowers the rate of bullying in schools and increases positive interaction between out-groups during play or free periods. to recognize the feelings others. With “FearNot!” the researchers are using a new and innovative approach to get children reflect on the sensitive topic of bullying. Students must rely on each other for their learning. Zero Tolerance: . On the idea that everyone has something to contribute to the learning process. Compared with children in control groups. The advice given subsequently influences the actions of the victim. Effectiveness? VIRTUAL ROLE PLAY Researchers from Germany. Studies show that this behavior can be found in nearly every school and that the incidence is considered to be quite high. Portugal and the UK have developed an interactive role play game which helps children to cope with bullying at schools. It is not a “conflict”. The classroom works. where they witness bullying scenarios without being directly involve. Empathy strategy FESHBACH AND FESHBACH (1982) They trained junior school children to imagine how they would feel in other children’s circumstances. spreading rumors and lies. blackmailing and beating up other children. In the specially developed computer game “FearNot!” each child takes the role of an invisible friend of the victimized character. it is a form of abuse. the children who engaged in this empathy training were much less aggressive in everyday playground activities. Bullying is an often underestimated problem in the everyday life of school children. and it should be addressed as such. Evaluation of Cooperative Learning: LIMBER (1992) argues that jigsaw classrooms and peer mediation may be appropriate in resolving conflict between students with equal power.000 children all over Europe are part of pilot studies which aim to explore the impact that the software may have in the possible reduction of bullying among pupils.Discuss the relative effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence. everyone is valued. Bullying can take many different forms including name-calling. but bullying is a form of victimization. This 3-D interactive virtual environment provides a safe haven for individual children. as well as threatening. and to try to share their emotions. discussing problems and exploring possible solutions and coping strategies. and that by working together towards a common goal.

Yet it is simply the far end of a continuum of responses to what has become the largely unquestioned assumption that school violence is accelerating at an alarming rate and that increasingly draconian disciplinary measures are not only justified but necessary to guarantee school safety. you are being set up for Learned Helplessness (e. the NCES found that schools that use zero tolerance policies are still less safe than those without such policies. expulsions. appears once again to be the NCES study of school violence. From one perspective. The NCES survey asked principals to identify which of a number of possible components of a zero tolerance strategy (e. where you come to believe that you can't do anything to change your ugly situation even if that isn't true). and is unlikely to be implemented. When you are forced. DELVILLE (2002): Aim: The determine the effects of bullying on the health and brain development of adolescent hamsters Group 1: Hamsters are placed in a cage with adult hamsters who responded with hostility for one hour a day for 2 weeks Group 2: Same duration but in an empty cage .. Such an approach is extreme.g. Of the responding principals. Some have gone as far as to suggest that principals be armed in order to deter -.g. since unsafe schools might well be expected to try more extreme measures. that you are not safe in the world. Already many districts have decreed that making any sort of threat will result in automatic expulsion. locker searches. Schools with no reported crime were less likely to have a zero tolerance policy (74%) than schools that reported incidents of serious crime (85%). filled with reports of seemingly random violence in communities heretofore immune to such incidents.students who bring firearms to school. which in turn sets you up for hopelessness and depression.. the use of metal detectors. Discuss the effects of short-term and long-term exposure to violence Short Term:  Anger  Depression  Higher rate of illness  Low grades  Suicidal thoughts and feelings The first ugly outcome is that it becomes more likely that you will become increasingly susceptible to becoming depressed and/or angry and/or bitter. 79% reported having a zero tolerance policy for violence. and (when it is dished out by forces that are physically superior to yourself) that you are relatively powerless to defend yourself. Being bullied teaches you that you are undesirable. to contemplate your relative lack of control over the bullying process.or perhaps outshoot -. again and again. school uniforms) were employed at their school. Effectiveness: The most comprehensive and controlled study of zero tolerance policies.THE 1997-98 school year was a shocking and frightening one. to say the least. we can expect to hear renewed calls for increasingly severe penalties for any kind of school disruption. however. In the wake of these tragedies. a stance that has led to the widespread adoption of so-called zero tolerance discipline policies. Yet after four years of implementation. the relationship is unsurprising.

Results:  40% of the bullied respondents said that the bullying had affected their plans for further education. and in work and social relationships. and this of course will have altered and limited the job prospects they have available to them as adults. The majority of the adults reported feeling angry and bitter now about the bullying they suffered as children. 20% attempted suicide  Adults who were not bullied are not afraid of new situations or uncommunicative or loners and they feel they are better people than when they left school  43% of bullied report low self-esteem . Leaving school may be a dramatic (if occasionally realistic) example of how early bullying can affect one's life. employment. Out of 1044 adults. Too much Cortisol can prevent the brain from laying down a new memory.Results: Cortisol (stress hormone. the affected children can lose out on opportunities for advancement and further study. scared and vulnerable  Both genders are more angry and bitter now. The deficits themselves are not the real issue. Nearly half (46%) of those who were bullied contemplated suicide compared with only 7% of those who were not bullied. while the feelings of being scared and vulnerable have subsided. 828 were bullied. I've read retrospective studies where people report having left school early so as to avoid continued bullying. adrenal gland) was released on first day of experiment for both groups. The questionnaire consisted of 16 set questions. but there are surely other ways that anger or depression caused by bullying harms and developmentally delays people's progress. KIDSCAPE SURVEY: The extensive survey of over 1000 adults shows that bullying affects not only your self-esteem as an adult.  46% contemplated suicide.  Men were more likely to be angry and frustrated by the bullying that the women  Women more likely to be depressed. They certainly also occur when victims ditch school to avoid bullies. and ultimately. you will tend to have a harder time persevering through difficult situations and challenging circumstances. The real issue is that if deficits occur for too long or become too pronounced. plus open space to reply in a fuller way if the respondent wished. and when you have difficulty believing in yourself. but you ability to make friends. Having a wounded self-concept makes it harder for you to believe in yourself. Deficits in academic performance can easily occur when bullying victims succumb to depression or otherwise become demoralized. Succeed in education. Group 1: Cortisol remained elevated for entire two weeks Evaluation: Results cannot be generalized to human beings Reductionist approach Long Term:  Lingering feelings of anger and bitterness  Difficulty trusting people  Fear/avoidance of new social situations  Increased tendency to be a loner The second ugly outcome unfolds more slowly over time. Most received no help at the time to stop the bulling and telling either made matter worse or had no effect.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful