Human Relationships

General learning outcomes

To what extent do biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors influence HR?

These factors have an influence on attraction, which leads to the initiation of human relationships.

biological: we find smells suggesting difference in immune genes attractive – Wedekind et al.
1995 sweaty t-shirt experiment [linked to ideas about pheromones, but not to pheromones per se]

cognitive: familiarity – Jorgensen & Cervone 1978 found that participants rated photographs of
strangers’ faces as more attractive the more times they saw them; proximity - Festinger et al.
1950 survey = most university friends lived in the same building and almost half of pairs lived
next door to each other.

social: reciprocity – Dittes & Kelley 1956 experiment = tended to report more attraction to group
members if they believed those members liked them; social comparison - Kenrick & Gutierres
1980 experiment = rate attractiveness of women after watching/not watching Charlie’s Angels

Evaluate psychological research (theories and/or studies) relevant to the study of HR.

select a study to discuss here

Social responsibility

Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour.

prosocial behaviour = any behaviour intended to benefit others (aggressiveness and violent
behaviour are not valued by society = antisocial behaviour), implies an egoistic motivation.

altruism is more selfless = performed without expectation of benefit for oneself (Batson 1991 –
difficult to determine, hedonism argues that the goal of all human actions is personal pleasure).

Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.

Kin selection theory Hamilton 1963 = we are more likely to sacrifice ourselves for relatives
(evolutionary, as we contribute to the survival of our genes)

Kin selection in UK and South Africa Madsen et al. 2007 – kin selection is a powerful motivator
and is variable across cultures.

Empathy-altruism hypothesis Batson et al. 1981 = motivated by the genuine desire to help upon
perceiving someone experiencing a mismatch between their current state and their potential state
— this produces either empathetic concern or personal distress – reducing due to the former is
altruistic, the latter is instead egoistic.

Batson et al. 1981 experiment showed that degree of empathy predetermines altruism.

KIN SELECTION EMPATHY-ALTRUISM

focus on genes that operate at a
biological level without human
consciousness (largely based on animal
observation); altruism = behaviour that
has a self-sacrificial cost for the
individual; based on selfish gene
preferences; does not assess conscious
motivation of altruists; cannot explain
why persons help those that are not
related; difficult to assess
evolutionarily, but empirical research
shows preference for close blood
relatives (kin selection) Madsen 2007.
focus on empathy as the primary motivator;
altruism = behaviour that increases another
person’s welfare; considers egoism, but does not
rule out true altruism; can explain motivation, but
empathy-evoking situations do not necessarily
result in altruism; can be simply tested under lab
conditions (Batson et al. 1981), but empathy is
difficult to operationalize. Cialdini et al. 1973 sees
only an egoistic motive of avoiding feeling sad or
upset, due to empathising with the person//factor of
moral obligation? Oliner & Oliner 1988 –
interviewed WW2 rescuers of Jews = 37% felt
empathy, while 52% felt moral obligation.

Explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour (one or more research studies).

Define individualism vs collectivism: how this was found to predict prosocial behavior; there are
cross-cultural differences; shown thusly, but not necessarily universal, as cultures are diverse and
categorizing them as “individualistic” or “collectivist” is simplification.

Whiting & Whiting 1975 systematic naturalistic observation of cultural differences in child-rearing
practices and the consequence of that on prosocial behaviour = children between the ages of 3 and 11
in Kenya, the Philippines, Japan, India, Mexico, USA … more modernised, hence individualist
countries (Japan, India, USA - especially) showed more egoism and less selfless prosocial behaviour.

Altruism in UK and South Africa Madsen et al. 2007 Participants asked to perform a physical
exercise that becomes increasingly painful (leaning against a wall with legs bent at the knee and
thighs parallel to the floor — money went to a family member the longer they stayed like this. UK
participants spent more time in this position for more closely related family members, while Zulu
males in South Africa showed a similar trend, but did not significantly distinguish between cousins
and biologically closer relatives such as siblings or aunts — kin selection is a powerful motivator and
is variable across cultures. … different concept of family.

Examine factors influencing bystanderism.

Bystanderism = an individual is less likely to help in an emergency when passive bystanders are
present

Latané & Darley 1970 – three factors: diffusion of responsibility; pluralistic ignorance
(ambiguous situation, each person looks to others to see what to do); evaluation apprehension
(aware of others present…want to avoid social blunders – embarrassment)

Latané & Darley 1968 (seizure during booth interview) – the number of bystanders influenced
rate of assistance

Pilliavin et al. 1969 (drunk/ill collapse in subway) – assistance was consciously appraised: cost-
benefit evaluation linked to evaluation apprehension.

Interpersonal relations

Examine biological, cognitive, and social origins of attraction.

Biological: we find smells suggesting difference in immune genes attractive – Wedekind et al.
1995 sweaty t-shirt experiment [linked to ideas about pheromones, but not necessarily
pheromones]

Cognitive: familiarity - Jorgensen & Cervone 1978 found that participants rated photographs of
strangers’ faces as more attractive the more times they saw them; proximity - Festinger et al.
1950 survey = most university pairs lived in the same building and almost half of pairs lived next
door to each other

Social: reciprocity - Dittes & Kelley 1956 experiment = tended to report more attraction to group
members if they believed those members liked them; social comparison - Kenrick & Gutierres
1980 experiment = rate attractiveness of women after watching/not watching Charlie’s Angels

Discuss the role of communication in maintaining HR.

Levenson & Gottman 1983 showed that marital dissatisfaction often manifested as negative
affect during disagreements: unhappy couples experienced a negative spiral of expressed negative
emotions that led to increased stress and mutual unhappiness.
Gottman & Krokoff 1989 found that expressions of anger/disagreement did not necessarily
lead to an unhappy marriage as long as the conflict was solved in a mutually satisfactory fashion.

Buunk 1998 developed the concept of communication style: couples are happier with each other
when their interaction is characterized by problem-solving and open communication:

HAPPY COUPLES UNHAPPY COUPLES

express their feelings and openly disclose show conflict avoidance; ignore or conceal mutual
their thoughts; exhibit mutual empathy and differences; exhibit destructive communication
understanding of each other’s perspectives. (criticism, complaint, disagreement).

Explain the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.

Levine et al. 1995 surveyed college students of 11 countries if they would marry someone who
had all the qualities they desired even if they did not love the person: individualist = USA 4%;
Australia 5%; UK 8% VS collectivist = India 49%; Pakistan 51% … motive for formation.

Yelsma & Athappilly 1988 compared 28 Indian arranged marriages with 25 Indian love
marriages. Arranged scored higher in marital satisfaction. (Could be skewed, as the customs of an
arranged marriage may restrict expressions of complaint.) … arranged abides culture, thus seems
to maintain well.

Buss 1990 identified values (which may determine relationship success) that apply cross-
culturally: mutual attraction and love is most important cross-culturally for both sexes; chastity
was most important in traditionalist countries (China, India, Taiwan, Iran); men valued youth and
physical attractiveness in women, while women valued good financial prospects, ambition, and
social status in men.

Analyse why relationships may change or end.

Change is inevitable, as two dynamic individuals form a relationship, thus they may develop or
disagree at times: how this is resolved may indicate relationship success (Gottman & Krokoff
1989). Satisfaction indicated by constructive problem solving and style of communication (Buunk
1998).

Sprecher 1999 longitudinal study found that relationships that spanned more than four years
exhibited the creation of positive illusions, which idealise the partner (potential threat if partner
cannot live up to expectations). Those that did not last showed a significant decrease in
satisfaction, indicating that relationships end due to dissatisfaction.

Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.

Social learning theory: children learn to be violent through exposure to instructions (direct) or
models whose violent behaviour is rewarded (indirect) – Bandura et al. 1961

STRENGTHS OF SLT WEAKNESSES OF SLT

social norms of violence can be does not take individual factors such as intelligence into
thus transmitted; explains how it is account (some may also be more prone to violence due to
reinforced via social status. brain damage, childhood abuse, etc.)
The formation of a subculture of violence links it to mechanisms of social control among group
members and serves as a means of defending honour and maintaining status. Berburg &
Thorlindsson 2005 survey of Icelandic adolescents showed a significant impact of conduct norms
on aggressive behaviour.

Discuss the relative effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.

Discuss the effects of short-term and long-term exposure to violence.