Human Relationships Option 14/08/2013 9:02:00 PM

To what extent to biological, cognitive & sociocultural factors

influence human relationships?
BIO
 Evolution
 Hormones & Neurotransmission
 Marazitti et al (1999) – role of serotonin. Low in OCD, new love
(6 months).
 Wedekind (1995) – MHC gene in mate selection. Shirt sniffing.
 Capgras Syndrome
COG
 Markey et al (2007) – describe ideal partner & self
 Chen & Anderson (1999) – transference – describe liked and unliked
significant other. Meet new person w/ rigged description  transfer
SOCIO
 Festinger (1950) – proximity – MIT college students survey
 Zajonc (1971) – familiarity – shown photos & rate

Distinguish between altruism & prosocial behaviour

Altruism: behaviour that benefits others or has positive social
consequences
 Empathy altruism – see  empathy aroused  help (feel good)
 Neg-state relief – see  feel neg. affect  help to relieve
 Empathic joy – see  desire to act/pos effect on victim  help
 Genetic determinism – see  unconscious desire to help similar genes
 help to maximize chances of survival

Prosocial: benefits another person, sometimes at a cost (unclear)

Contrast 2 theories explaining altruism in humans

KIN
 Simmons et al (1977) – kidney donors (parents and siblings), and
recipient to rate relationship with donors/non-donors.
 Madsen et al (2007) – UK & South Africa – sitting against wall (40p 20
seconds, or food). Africa didn‟t distinguish between cousins &
biologically close.
Empathy-Altruism
 Batson et al (1981) – “Elaine” number recall & shocks. Description 
high/low empathy. Given easy/hard escape. High emp  help. Low
emp  easy escape.
 Toi & Batson (1982) – Carol recording, broke legs. High/low empathy
(feelings or information focus). Easy/hard escape (Carol stuck at
home or back next week). Given opportunity to help  high emp
more likely.

Explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour

 Whiting & Whiting (1975) – 6 countries (US, Japan, India, Kenya,
Philippines, Mexico), 3-11yrs children observed helping behaviour.
Kenya, Philippines & Mexico most, USA least. Factor – chores.
 Miller et al (1990) – role of cultural norms and moral values in
perceived social responsibility. 400 interviews USA, Hindus –
parent/child, friend/friend, person/stranger. Life threatening,
moderate, minor. Hindus  moral duty for all. US  social
responsibility as personal choice.
 Levine et al (2001) – 36 US cities, 23 world cities. Helpfulness.
Dropped pen, magazine w/ broken leg, blind person crossing, remailing
letter.
o US - small/med SE cities most helpful. Large NE cities least.
o Global – blind person – Rio de Janeiro, San Jose, Lilongwe,
Madrid & Prague every time. Kuala Lumpur & Bangkok ½. NYC
1/3
o Highest 2 – Rio & San Jose
o Against simpatico hypothesis – fast Copenhagen & Vienna =
kind. Kuala Lumpur = not kind.

Factors influencing bystanderism

 Latane & Darley (1970) Theory of Unresponsive Bystander
 Diffusion of responsibility
 Pluralistic Ignorance
 Evaluation Apprehension
 Latane & Darley (1968) – Cognitive Decision Model (if one is unmet, no
help)
 Notice situation
 Interpret it as an emergency
 Accept some responsibility for helping even if others present
 Consider how to help
 Decide how to help
Diffusion
 Latane & Darley (1968) – 59 females, 13 males. Discussed problems
new college students could have via microphone in single booths.
Confederate staged seizure. IV – number told bystanders. DV – time.
Alone – 85% reported, 4 bystanders, 31% reported. Excuses – didn‟t
know what to do, what was happening, fake.
Pluralistic Ignorance
 Latane & Darley (1969) – sat in waiting room before experiment.
Experimenter fell and cried from next room. Some confederates didn‟t
react. Reacted quicker when alone, not next to confederate. Felt
anxious at scream, but others calm, so didn‟t react.
Cognitive Arousal – Cost Reward Model
 Pilliavin et al (1960) – Subway Samaritan – IVs (type – drunk/sober,
race – black/white, helping models – yes/no, size witness group). DVs
(frequency & speed of help, race & sex of helper, comments). NYC
Subway 11am-3pm. Victims (3 white, 1 black). Collapsed. Model
instruction after 70s. 93% helped spontaneously, 60% more than 1
helper.

Biological, psychological and social origins of attraction

BIO
 Neurobiology – Fisher et al (2003) – blood flow in brains (fMRI) of 20
men and women madly in love. Questionnaire – rate love and
statement. Look at photos of loved one  distraction  neutral. Brain
reward system activated when looking at loved one.
 Genes – Wedekind (1995) – 49 men, 44 women. Body odour plays a
role in attraction – MHC genes related to immune system protect
against pathogens. Women prefer men with unlike MHC genes.
Pregnant mice prefer similar.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
 Newcomb (1961) – field study, student dorm to see if friendship
formation was influenced by attitudes/values. 17 male students.
Questionnaires – similar attitudes  became friends.
 Markey et al (2007) – 103 female, 66 male undergrads (m. age = 19).
Questionnaire rating their personality. Described personality ideal
 romantic partner. Filler questions. All wanted similar partner. Follow
up study – high love/harmony more typical when different in ways.
SOCIAL
 Festinger et al (1950) – MIT students proximity 3 close friends survey.
Closer room = more likely to be „close‟ or best friends. 65% same
building, 41% next door, 22% 2 doors, 10% same hall.
 Zajonc (1971) – Familiarity – shown pictures of strangers and rated.
Shown more often  higher rating.

Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.

Attributions
 Fletcher et al (1987) – to see if patterns in attribution related to
relationship satisfaction factors (happiness, love, commitment). USA
undergrads. Questionnaires. 2 months later, those still in relationship
 questionnaire & free-response description of relationship. High
satisfaction  higher dispositional attribution (positive), neg.
behaviour (situational).
 Bradbury and Fincham (1990) – meta-analysis – happy spouses =
focus on positive behaviour as part of their character (dispositional),
negative (situational). Unhappy spouses = opposite.
Communication
 Levenson & Gottman (1983) – 30 couples observed having a low
conflict discussion and high conflict discussion. Marital dissatisfaction
 high levels expressed negative emotion and return of. Physiological
measure taken. Same for unhappy couples (stress response)
 Gottman & Krokoff (1989) – compared 2 longitudinal observations of
couples in low/high conflict at home/lab. Only negative sign if it
couldn‟t be resolved. Anger/disagreement not associated with
dissatisfaction over time. If solved  more satisfied. Avoiding conflict
 less satisfied.

Role of culture in formation & maintenance of relationships

FORMATION
 Goodwin (1995) – passionate love is a Western phenomenon.
Marriage culmination of loving relationship. Opposite for arranged.
 Gupta & Singh (1992) – Indian marriages for love  decreased love in
5 years. Arranged – increased.
 Dion & Dion (1993) – traditional societies  marriage is an alliance
between 2 families. USA  companionship between 2 people in love,
not for children or economic/social support.
 Buss (1994) – 2 questionnaires, 10,000 people, 37 cultures.
 36/37 – women ranked financial prospects higher than men
 All – men want younger, women want older
 23/37 – males rate chastity more important
 Love rank – USA (1), Iran (3), Nigeria (4), China (6) 
education, health, ambition, chastity, domestic skills high
MAINTENANCE
 Matsumoto (2004) – Americans marry who they love, not love who
they marry.

Why relationships change or end

EQUITY & SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORIES
 Kelley & Thibaut (1959) – Social Exchange Theory – maintained
through cost-benefit analysis.
 Hatfield (1979) – 2000 couples. Deprived, under benefited 
extramarital sex quicker and more than fairly treated.
 Clark & Mills (1979) – romantic relationships based on sharing &
belonging, not equity principles. Individuals interpreted partners
tendency to reciprocate as not wanting romantic relationship.
ATTACHMENT STYLES
 Tidwell, Reis & Shaver (1996) – less intimacy and enjoyment in
interacting with current/potential romantic partners.
 Lopez et al (1997) – seeks closeness, but experiences anxiety/shame
because feel unworthy
 Simpson (1996) – tested role of attachment style by how a sensitive
topic was discussed. Questionnaire to identify. Discussion. Insecurely
attached (preoccupied) anxious and negative strategies  negative
feelings, harmed relationship. Secure  most constructive resolution.
STUDIES
 Flora & Segrin (2003) – investigate how shared interests and spending
time together was a predictor of relationship quality. Married vs.
dating. Interview on emotional. Break up – most important predictor
was common interests and activities. Staying together – quantity of
negative feelings. Women – frequency own negative feelings (break-
up)
 Duck (1992) – meta-analysis to predict end of relationship  divorced
parents, teen marriages, different backgrounds, lower socio-economic,
many previous sexual partners.

Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence

Social Learning Theory (SLT)
 Bandura (1961) – Bobo doll – watch aggression  imitated aggression
 Totten (2003) – Canadian study on girlfriend abuse. Use violence to
construct masculinity after observing in family as justified and
necessary. 30 boys, all used physical and sexual violence against
girlfriends if they didn‟t behave, to control & maintain honour.
Subcultures of Violence Theory
 Wolfgang & Ferracuti (1967) – Theory – violent values  violent
behaviour because subcultural values act as form of social control. To
defend, maintain honour/status.
 Berburg & Thorlindson (2005) – Iceland survey, 49 public schools,
adolescents. How often engaged in violent acts. Large impact of
conduct norms on aggressive behaviour – many conformed to group
norms. Pressure to respond to personal attacks w/ aggression = social
control.
Deindividuation Theory
 Zimbardo (1969) – female undergrads to shock another student. Half
wore coats & hoods, no name tag. Other half – normal clothes, name
tags, introduced, could see each other. Told something about
participant (e.g. honest, critical). Hooded  2x shocks, didn‟t vary on
description. Normal  related shock to description. Obscured identity
 decreased consciousness/accountability

Discuss relative effectiveness of 2 strategies for reducing violence

Group Treatment (Duluth)
 Robertson (1999) – 3 problems treating violent men – culture/society
accept violent behaviour, worked in the past/positively reinforced,
unwilling to submit to therapist
 Shephard (1992) – recidivism rates 5yrs post Duluth intervention –
40% convicted of assault or police attention.
 Dutton et al (1997) – recidivism higher than stats because abuse is
covert. Certain personality traits & substance abuse good indicators.
Primary Prevention in Schools
 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
 Olweus (1993) – Norway 2500 kids, yrs 5-8. Observations &
questionnaires to students/teachers. Teachers trained,
supervised lunch & play etc. 50% reduction in bullying incidents.
Improved satisfaction, order, discipline etc. Replication – lower.
 Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS) for Preention of Aggressive
Behaviour and Violence in Children
 MACS Research Group (2002) - 2200 elementary students, USA.
Intervention 8 years. Mainly ethnic minority groups, poor. 4
conditions – control, full, only classroom, classroom and social
skills training for high risk children. No effect on aggression
overall, impact on subgroups. Full, low risk school  less
aggression compared to control. Most effective in full.
 Ferguson et al (2007) – meta-analysis school absed programs.
Ineffective overall in reducing bullying/violence. Due to rewards?

Discuss effects of short-term & long-term exposure to violence

SHORT
 Shalev (1995) – 12 survivors, PTSD, Israeli bus attack. Interviewed
after, and 10 months after. First – intrusive, fear, no avoidance
coping. Second – decreased intrusive, large avoidance coping  PTSD
 Schuster et al (2001) – reaction to 9/11. Telephone interviews, 560
adults. Indirect exposure  stress. 90% small, 68% moderate, 44%
very. NYC worst. 44% anticipated attacks next 5 years. Correlated
with TV viewing.
LONG
 Wang et al (2010) – depression fro cyber bulling greater than FTF
 Carney and Hazler (2007) – cortisol levels in saliva tested morning &
before recess. Anticipation bullying  high levels cortisol and anxiety.
Long term exposure  low cortisol.
 Mynard et al (2000) – “Victim scale” questionnaire given to British
pupils (331). 40% experienced bullying (physical, verbal, exclusion,
property damage). Social exclusion more likely  PTSD.
Abnormal Option 14/08/2013 9:02:00 PM

Discuss validity & reliability of diagnosis

RELIABILITY
 Inter-Rater
 Low – Nicholls et al (2000) – DSM (.36), ICD (.63), GOS (.87)
child eating disorders
 Low – Cooper et al (1972) – NYC 2x likely to diagnose
schizophrenia. London 2x mania/depression. Same video.
 High – Pedersen et al (2001) – Danish GPs use ICD-10. 0.71
reliability depression.
 Test-Retest
 Lipton & Simon (1985) – NYC hospital rediagnosed. Original 89
schizo  16 re-eval. 15 mood  50
 Mary Seeman (2007) – schizophrenia diagnosis open to change
due to symptoms being misdiagnosed – problem of test-retest
VALIDITY
 Rosenhan (1973) – 1- 8 healthy people getting into psych hospital
 Rosenhan (1973) – 2 – told staff pseudo-patients would come. 41 real

Discuss cultural and ethical concerns in diagnosis

Ethical
 Correct Diagnosis – Rosenhan
 Stigmatization –
 Read (2007) – people fear dangerousness and unpredictability of
diagnosed. Reluctant to enter romantic relationship.
 Sato et al (2006) – Japan renamed schizo. 40% never informed.
 Self-fulfilling prophecy –
 Doherty (1975) – reject label, improve quicker
 Discrimination
 Langer and Abelson (1974) – job experience video. Told
applicant v patient.
 Racial Bias
 Jenkins-Hall & Sacco (1991) – European American therapists vs
African American depressed/not depressed and European
American depressed/not depressed.
 Confirmation Bias
 Rosenhan (1973) – trouble getting out.
Cultural
 Ballanger et al (2001) – variations culturally don‟t reflect
social/medical reality  factors of diagnosis, lack of appropriate
instruments.
 Culture bound syndromes –
 Zhang et al (1998) – 16 of 20,000 reported mood disorder.
 Tseng and Hsu (1970) – Chinese concerned with body 
manifest neurasthenic symptoms similar to physical depression
 Kleinmen (1982) – Similar to depression in DSM-III. 87%
classifiable as depressed. Mood only given 9% cases. Somatic.
 Cultural Bias
 Beck (1982) – minority group shows same symptoms as white 
same disorder, may not be true.

Describe symptoms and prevalence (depression & bulimia)

Depression
 Poongothai et al (2009) – Chennai South India, 15.9 prevalence.
Patient Health Questionnaire. Depressed mood (30.8%), fatigue
(30%), suicidal thoughts (12%)
 Weisman et al (1996) – 19% Beirut, 1.5% Taiwan
 Levav (1997) – increase in Jewish males
Bulimia
 Drewnowski et al (1988) – telephone survey, USA studets. 1%
women, 0.2% men. 2.2% undergrad women on campus.
 Keel & Klump (2003) – meta analysis. Increase 1970-1993

Analyse etiologies of depression & bulimia

Depression
 Hammen (1997) – 4 biological reasons – families, meds start/stop,
physical symptoms.
 Hagen et al (2004) – evolutionary perspective – to signal need and
elicit help
 Genetics –
 Sullivan et al (2000) – meta-analysis. 21,000 twins. MZ 2x
likely if co-twin had disorder. Genetic influence 31-42%
 Neurobiological –
 Rampello et al (2000) – imbalance of noradrenaline, serotonin,
dopamine, acetylcholine
 Lacasse & Leo (2005) – no finite evidence neurotransmitter role
 Cognitive –
 Ellis (1962) – cognitive style theory (psychological disturbances
from irrational thinking  false conclusions)
 Beck (1976) – negative triad Cognitive Distortion Theory
 Boury et al (2001) – correlation negative automatic thought &
depression severity.
 Sociocultural –
 Brown & Harris (1978) – Life Events & Difficulties Scale. 82%
depressed recently experience sever life event. Vulnerability
model.
Bulimia
 Genetics –
 Kendler et al (1991) – twins - increase incidence in families.
2163 twins. 23% concordance MZ, 9% DZ
 Cognitive –
 Perceptual Distortions - Fallon and Rozin (1985) – shown
images, indicate own shape, ideal figure, most attractive
opposite sex.
 Cognitive Disinhibition – Polivy and Herman (1985) – dieters/non
dieters taste test. Milkshake. Icecream. Dieters ate more.
 Sociocultural –
 Jaeger et al (2002) – 1750 med/nursing students. 10
silhouettes, BMI, dieting. Sig dissatisfaction northern
Mediterranean, European. Non western = lowest. Role of media

Discuss cultural/gender variations in prevalence

Depression
 GENDER Nolen Hoeksema (2001) – women 2x likely men, little
support women more depressed only because of sex hormones,
women have less power/status (sociocultural)/ role strain hypothesis
 CULTURE Weissman et al (1996) – depression v bipolar in 10
countries. Vary 19% Beiruit, 1.5% Taiwan. Onset age 24-34
Bulimia
 GENDER
 Makino et al (2004) – 11 Western countries. More females.
 Currin et al (2005) – UK. 94/1000 female, 5/1000
 CULTURE
  Makino et al (2004) – Western prevalence 0.3-7.3%. Non-
western to 3.2%
 Jaegar et al (2002) – nursing students, silhouettes. West/non.

Biomedical, individual, group approaches to treatment

 BIO - Neale et al (2011) – anti-depressants v placebo. Anti-
depressants 25% relapse, 42% meds then stopped. Depression.
 CBT –
 Depression - Paykel et al (1999) – 158 patients, 1 depression
episode. 29% relapse in CBT group – effective as well as meds.
 Bulimia – Wilson (1996) – 55% CBT didn‟t purge after therapy,
and those who did, did so less (86% reduction)
 IPT –
 Depression - Fairburn et al (1993) – less effective than CBT post-
treatment. 1-6yrs follow up – equally effective.
 Group –
 Bulimia – Proulx (2008) – 8 week MBCT intervention. Increased
control of emotional/behaviour extremes.
 Depression – Kuyken et al (2008) – MBCT, meds. Med relapse
60%, MBCT 47%. MBCT 75% off meds, all decreased.
 Mutlaq & Chaleby (1995) – problems in Arab countries.

Use of biomedical, individual, group treatments in depression

Biomedical
 Janowsky et al (1972) – stem from imbalance in neurotransmitters.
Drug to decrease noradrenaline  depression.
 Arrol et al (2005) – 12 efficacy studies, SSRIs, tricyclics, placebo.
SSRIs and TCAs more effective than placebo.
 Elkin et al (1989) – 50% recovered in CBT, IPT, drug groups, 29%
placebo. 280 patients, best controlled.
Individual
 Luty et al (2007) IPT and CBT – 8-19 sessions in 16 weeks. No
difference in 2 forms. CBT more effective for major depression (57%
response, compared to 20% IPT)
Group
 Toseland and Siporin (1986) – 74 studies individual v group. Group
effective as individual 75%, more 25%.
 MBCT Kuyken et al (2008) – MBCT, meds. Med relapse 60%, MBCT
47%. MBCT 75% off meds, all decreased.

Eclectic Treatment
Antidepressants and Cognitive Therapy
 DeRubeis – CT alone just as effective. Respond in first 8 weeks
compared to drugs. No statistical significant better drugs than CT
(27% v 37%)
 Klerman et al (1974) – relapse highest for patients in placebo alone
(36%), anti depressants alone (12%), IPT alone (16.7%)
Antidepressants & Chinese Herbal
 Liu Jing Geng & Zheng Hong Yue (2002) – 11 Chinese herbs,
antidepressants. 41 cured from herbs v 36 from antidepressants. All
showed improvement in herbs, 2 didn‟t in meds.
8/14/2013 9:02:00 PM