Ib Diploma Psychology: OPTIONAL Companion

IB DIPLOMA
Psychology
OPTIONAL Companion
Psychology of Human
Relationships
LAURA SWASH, Claire Neeson & Joseph Sparks

Page 2 IB diploma Psychology: psychology of human relationships
Contents
Personal Relationships

Part 1A: Formation of Personal Relationships 4

Part 1B: Role of Communication 19

Part 1C: Explanations for Why Relationships Change or End 28
Group Dynamics
Part 2A: Co-operation and Competition 40
Part 2B: Prejudice and Discrimination 44
Part 2C: Origins of Conflict and Conflict Resolution 48
Social Responsibility

Part 3A: By-standerism 54

Part 3B: Prosocial Behaviour 61

Part 3C: Promoting Prosocial Behaviour 75
www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

IB diploma Psychology: psychology of human relationships Page 3
PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION

The Human Relationships option looks at relationships between individuals, including friendships and
romantic relationships, and at relationships between individuals and group members of the same group or
other groups and at relationships between groups themselves (intra- and inter-group dynamics).
In this option you will also study the topic of social responsibility: what makes people stand by instead of
helping one another in an emergency; why some people are actively prosocial and assist others,
sometimes at risk or expense to themselves, and how this prosocial behaviour of can be encouraged.
Our study of this approach is divided into three topics:

 Personal Relationships
 Group Dynamics
 Social Responsibility
Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

PART 1: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Part 1A: The Formation of Personal Relationships – Discuss explanations for our attraction to others.
 Part 1A(i): Biological theories of attraction
 Part 1A(ii) Cognitive theories of attraction
 Part 1A (iii): Sociocultural theories of attraction
Part 1B: Role of Communication – How can communication maintain relationships?

 Part 1B(i): Sharing personal information may help to maintain relationships
 Part 1B(ii) Communication may differ according to gender
 Part 1B(iii) Communication may be influenced by culture
Part 1C: Explanations for Why Relationships Change or End – Why do relationships change or end?
 Part 1C(i): Relationship breakdown may follow a pattern
 Part 1C(ii): Some relationships may be doomed from the start
 Part 1C (iii): Cross-cultural issues in relationship breakdown
PART 1A: THE FORMATION OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Key Question: Discuss explanations for our attraction to others.
No one approach can totally explain the formation of personal relationships. Just as humans themselves
are biological, cognitive and social beings, so their behaviours also need biopsychosocial explanations.
However, each of the approaches brings a unique insight into the processes that lead us to be attracted to
certain people as friends or loving lifetime partners, and this will be discussed in this section.
PART 1A(i): BIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

Biological theories of attraction are based on the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin
(1859), and on more recent research into brain activity in the form of neurotransmitters. Evolutionary
theory explains behaviour as stemming from ultimate causes, in other words, behaviours that persist
because they are advantageous to the continuing survival of the human race. This process occurs
via natural selection, in which organisms that can adapt successfully to their environment are those that
survive.
Evolutionary theories of attraction are based on the idea that sexual selection and its related behaviours
must be adaptive for it still to be part of human behaviour. The ways in which males and females seek to
attract the opposite sex for reproduction may be explained by looking back to what was deemed essential

for our ancestors’ survival.
Current neurobiological theories use brain-imaging technologies to map out and pinpoint the brain
structures and activity that may be linked to attraction; for example, investigating the reward centre of
the brain and its link to addictive behaviour in relation to attraction. Evolutionary theory is rooted in our
deepest history and is thus very difficult to support with empirical evidence. Neurobiological research
presents us with visual evidence in the form of brain scans that may or may not demonstrate a biological
explanation of attraction – the science is too young to offer any conclusive evidence as yet.
Key Theory: Anisogamy and Evolutionary Mate Selection

Anisogamy, a concept popularised by Trivers (1972), is based on the idea that male and female gametes
(sex cells) require different levels of investment due to either their proliferation (e.g. the vast number of
sperm produced in one ejaculative act) or their scarcity (e.g. females produce one zygote [egg] per 28-day
menstrual cycle). Trivers argued that as one egg requires a great deal more energy and time to produce
than a batch of sperm, then it follows that females will wish to be careful as to their choice of male
partner – the egg is precious and must not be squandered on a sub-standard male’s sperm. Females will
produce a limited number of eggs in their lifetime (add to this the fact that fertility for women has a
shorter timeline than it does for men), whereas males can produce huge amounts of sperm on a daily
basis if they so desire (or are able to).
So therefore females will seek mates who appear to be a ‘good investment’, in that they will look after the
woman and her child materially. The woman’s role, in evolutionary terms, is to care for the child and to
produce more children, thereby being unable to contribute to the household wealth. Men, on the other
hand, will look for a woman who has the physical attributes that shout out ‘I am fertile’: a 0.7 waist-to-hip
ratio; clear unlined skin; long glossy hair; full breasts; the look, in short, of youth. It is not difficult to find
examples of such evolutionarily prescribed relationships, particularly in the realms of entertainment, sport
and business.
Key Study: Buss et al. (1989)

Aim: To investigate the extent to which mate selection might be explained using evolutionary theory.
(Note: due to its scale and cross-cultural perspective this study can also be used to discuss the role of
culture in personal relationships).
Method: Over 10,000 participants aged 19-28 from 33 different countries were given a questionnaire
which was either filled in by the participants, or read to them and their answers recorded (in cases of
illiteracy). Information about each participant was obtained on one part of the questionnaire, e.g. age,
religion, relationship status, mate preference, and on the second part of the questionnaire rating scales
were used to indicate how highly certain characteristics, such as chastity, were valued. The participants
were also asked to rank a selection of 13 personality characteristics according to their ideas as to mate
preference.
Results: Overall the findings showed that males tended to value youthful looks (which may signal fertility)
whereas females prized characteristics indicative of resources and wealth. Examples of such findings
include:
 97% of the females in the study valued a future partner’s financial stability and prospects more highly
than men did.
 100% of the males in the study showed a preference for a younger female partner.

 Males rated physical attractiveness more highly than females did.
Conclusion: The study supports an evolutionary theory of attraction: males focused on looks, youthfulness
and signals of fertility, whereas women chose signs of wealth and security and had an overall preference
for older mates.
Evaluation of Buss et al. (1989)

 STRENGTHS: This is an ambitious study in the sheer scale of the design and number of participants
involved and in the attempt to highlight ultimate causes in current mating behaviour. The large
number of participants taken from a range of countries and cultures means that the data is robust and
the findings generalisable, certainly more than if this research had been carried out in only one
country. The researchers took care to ensure that all questionnaires had been translated from their
original English and then checked by translators, increasing the reliability of the procedure. The use of
the questionnaire, rather than interviews, means that the researchers were able to amass a large
amount of data and in less time than it would take to interview individual participants.
 LIMITATIONS: The variety and inconsistency of the sampling methods used means that Buss et al.’s
study is less representative than it may first appear: some samples were obtained via a self-selecting
method; some were systematic, i.e. every fifth household; some were opportunity samples. The age
range of the sample also limits the generalisability of the results as it does not include anyone over the
age of 28. Reliability is also compromised due to the fact that the questionnaire was filled in only once,
with no follow-up to check for consistency. There is also the issue of validity to consider: participants
may have filled in their answers without much thought as to what they were doing; they may have
been untruthful or prone to social desirability bias. Responses made on a questionnaire do not
necessarily reflect how participants behave in real life, as they may say one thing and do the opposite,
making the results of the study low in ecological validity.
Critical Thinking
Are we merely products of evolution? Buss et al. seems to suggest that we are, with its emphasis on the
instinctive drives that produce mating preferences in both males and females. The findings appear to
support the idea that men seek youthful looks and women seek material security in their mates, but
surely there is more to relationships than this study suggests? The continuing existence of homosexual
relationships would seem to refute the idea of anisogamy and evolutionary mate preferences, since the
goal of evolution is reproduction, which is physically impossible (without external assistance) for two
same-sex partners.
The theory also does not explain why some men prefer older women or why some women do not want
children or marriage. These desires defy an evolutionary explanation. Evolutionary explanations of
attraction are on the whole overly deterministic as they rule out the idea that human beings can exercise
choice and free will in their romantic pairings; they also do not account for the idea that people may have
many sexual partners over the years, of varying ages, body shapes and financial means.
Key Theory: Neurobiological Explanations for Attraction

A neurobiological explanation of attraction is one which is based on the idea that human beings’ brains
are hardwired to experience euphoria, contentment and almost addiction to the heady experience of
being in love (or lust, if one wishes to take a more cynical view). This approach to explaining attraction
focuses on the workings of neurotransmitters, the chemical messengers in the brain, which are
responsible for emotional responses to a range of stimuli. In the case of love/lust research suggests that it
is the neurotransmitter dopamine that produces that ‘rush’ of excitement and pleasure associated with

the loved one, particularly in the early stages of a relationship. Other research has demonstrated a link
between levels of serotonin and obsessive behaviour (which is often seen in lovers, again particularly in
the early stages of the relationship).
Key Study: Fisher (2005)

Aim: To investigate the brain systems involved in early-stage intense romantic love.
Method: 10 females and 7 males who were students at New York State University took part via a self-
selecting sampling method, aged from 18-26 years old (mean age 20). All participants reported being ‘in
love’ (a range of 1-17 months with a mean of 7 months). Participants were placed in an fMRI scanner and
shown a photograph of their loved one followed by a distraction task and then a ‘neutral’ photograph of
an acquaintance with whom they had a non-emotional relationship.
Results: There was activation in the areas of the brain associated with feelings of reward and pleasure –
the dopamine-rich areas including the ventral tegmental area (in the centre of the midbrain) and the
caudate nucleus (again close to the midbrain).
Conclusion: The results suggest that people in the early, intense stages of romantic love access the areas
of the brain most associated with motivation and reward, giving rise to the idea that people become
‘addicted to love’.
Evaluation of Fisher (2005)

 STRENGTHS: This is a highly controlled clinical method of obtaining data and Fisher and her colleagues
checked objectivity at every stage of the procedure. Identification of the reward centres of the brain
support to the idea that human beings may have an evolved brain system which ensures that they
become ‘hooked’ on an individual, which increases the possibility of them reproducing. The
standardised procedure means that the study is replicable, which increases its reliability.
 LIMITATIONS: The small sample size of 17 participants means that the results are not very meaningful
and may not be robust in terms of statistical analysis. The sample comprised relatively young students
from the same university, which also limits generalisability. Additionally, it is overly reductionist to use
brain scans to determine how romantic love is experienced: there may be a range of other factors
involved, such as similarity, same upbringing, shared ideals, cultural influences. So little is really known
about the brain that there may be other explanations for the activation of the reward centres during
the fMRI scan – perhaps the participants were simply excited to be in a brain scanner for the first time
and this stimulated the dopamine-rich areas. Scanning participants’ brains is clearly an artificial task,
which means that the results are low in ecological validity. Use of fMRI scans is also an expensive way
to collect data, which is possibly why the sample is so small.
Critical Thinking
Is neurobiological research too focused on what and not enough on why? Research by Fisher goes some
way towards explaining what is happening in the brain when someone is in love but it cannot, as yet,
explain why attraction occurs. The use of clinical methods can pinpoint what is happening in terms of fMRI
scans showing activated brain areas but it cannot explain the complexities of attraction. The phrase “What
does she/he see in him/her?” is one which highlights how intensely subjective the process of falling in love
is. One person may rhapsodise about their loved one while their friends stand by, stupefied by the
seemingly unfathomable choice of partner their once-rational buddy has made. It is a phenomenon that
may never be explained, no matter how sophisticated technology becomes.

Is Fisher’s research a victim of the self-fulfilling prophecy? Helen Fisher is a highly respected
anthropologist who has carried out a wealth of research on the biological theory of romantic love – her
TED Talks on the topic are particularly engaging and very enjoyable to watch. However, could it be as a
result of her own passionate interest in this topic that she is so convinced that our brains are hardwired to
respond to intense romantic love with activation of the reward centre that she is suffering from
researcher bias? She has used an objective clinical method to obtain her data but fMRI images can be
open to interpretation. Plus, assuming that it is reward and motivation that are associated with viewing a
loved one is to assume rather a lot, particularly in the face of no other biological evidence to support this
theory. It is clear that technology and science have to progress a lot before we can begin to form any firm
conclusions.
Evaluation of Biological Theories of Attraction

Both the evolutionary explanations and the argument that the action of neurotransmitters is responsible
for mate selection suffer from biological determinism and reductionism. They ignore cognitive (personal
choice) and sociocultural (environmental) factors and concentrate solely on the connection they observe
between current behaviour and evolutionary adaptations and between neurotransmitter actions and the
feelings of pleasure associated with being in love. This is to raise a possible correlation to the level of
cause and effect, and to pay no attention to other reasons, such as availability, friendship, and individual
choice. Moreover, the evolutionary theories are unable to explain behaviour such as same-sex lifetime
partnership that preclude having children, as all the attention is focused on the optimal development and
survival of the family and ultimately the species.

PART 1A(ii) COGNITIVE THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

Cognitive theories of attraction are based on the idea that internal mental processes (e.g. decision-making
or perception) influence the formation of relationships. For example, the perception of one’s own level of
attraction is used to weigh up the choice of potential romantic partner (the matching hypothesis); sharing
the same interests, traits and opinions as another person is used as the basis of relationship formation in
the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Cognitive theories do not measure observable behaviours but rather
what goes on internally which means that the use of the self-report method of collecting data is the most
appropriate way of measuring the variables involved.
Key Theory: The Matching Hypothesis

The matching hypothesis (Walster, 1966) is based on the idea that each individual carries in their mind a
rating of their own level of attractiveness. For example, an individual might rate themselves as a ‘6’ in
terms of their own physical attractiveness. The matching hypothesis suggests that they will then seek a
partner who is a ‘6’ too – or if they are very lucky a ‘7’ and if not so lucky a ‘5’, but anyone above a ‘7’
might be considered ‘out of their league’ and equally anyone below a ‘5’ might be ruled out as being not
attractive enough. Of course, this rating process is entirely subjective and does not necessarily happen at
a conscious level.
The matching hypothesis suggests that in making dating and mating choices people will be influenced by
both the desirability of the potential match (what the individual wants) and their perception of
the probability of obtaining the desired person (what an individual thinks they can get). Ultimately, an
individual must make realistic choices if they stand a chance of having their affection reciprocated. Not
many people are willing to risk rejection by pursuing someone who appears to be in another league,
looks-wise: self-esteem is likely to fall if your requests are continually turned down by those with whom
you seek a romantic relationship. In the long run, it is wiser to aim for romantic targets that are well
within reach.

Key study: Taylor et al. (2011)

Aim: To investigate the matching hypothesis by examining real online dating behaviour.
Method: The researchers used the activity logs of an online dating site. They selected 60 heterosexual
male and 60 heterosexual female profiles from the site at random. These 120 participants were identified
as ‘initiators’, meaning that they initiated contact with other users of the site. Records were then kept to
show who responded (‘reciprocating contacts’) and did not respond (‘non-reciprocating contacts’). They
collected a maximum of six of the initiators’ profile photographs as well as the reciprocating and non-
reciprocating profile photographs.
A total of 966 photographs was amassed by the researchers – 527 female and 439 male. The researchers
appointed judges to rate the photos, using their own contacts to do this. The ratings were based on a 7-
point scale of attractiveness (-3 to +3). Each photo was rated by at least 14 and at most 43 judges.
Calculations were based on the mean attractiveness rating given to each initiator, to each of their contacts
and separate attractiveness means for each initiator’s reciprocating and non-reciprocating contacts.
Results: Interestingly, the results do not support the matching hypothesis: the initiator’s physical
attractiveness showed no correlation with the mean physical attractiveness of all the people they
contacted on the site. What the researchers found was that the initiators tended to contact people on the
site who were rated as more attractive than they were.
Conclusion: People do not necessarily apply the matching hypothesis when it comes to dating decisions.
Evaluation of Taylor et al. (2011)

 STRENGTHS: The use of actual online dating activity that is free from researcher manipulation or
control means that the results of this study are high in ecological validity. The participants could have
been influenced by demand characteristics due to the nature of the procedure. The use of
correlational analysis means that it is easy to compare quantitative data and to look for associations
between variables. The large number of photographs increases the strength of the quantitative data,
making the statistical inferences more robust.
 LIMITATIONS: Even though this is a study that did not involve manipulation, it cannot claim to be
completely valid: one online dating site is not a representative sample of a range of dating sites (e.g. it
does not include homosexual dating choices). Additionally, people tend to present themselves in a
somewhat edited way on dating sites: they may make aspirational dating choices or present the best
version of themselves online in a way that is not possible in real-life. Furthermore, the issue of how
the judges rated levels of attractiveness is bound by subjectivity and it cannot be said to be a truly
objective measure that is consistent over time.
Critical Thinking
Are there are too many examples that contradict the matching hypothesis to make it a valid theory?
The foundation of the matching hypothesis is that people tend to opt for partners that reflect their own
level of self-rated attractiveness. To some extent this can be seen to be true. However, there are many
examples where the matching hypothesis is not supported. Evolutionary psychology has pointed out that
old, ugly, rich men seem to attract young, beautiful women due to the idea of anisogamy (see the section
on biological theories above), but there are also examples of same-age couples, neither of whom are rich
or powerful, who seem completely unsuited in terms of their looks. In this way the matching hypothesis
only provides a partial explanation for what attracts one person to another. Plus, the whole concept of
rating one’s own and others’ looks is entirely subjective: someone who rates as a ‘10’ for one person may

be judged as a ‘7’ by someone else. Is it really appropriate to use a statistical method to investigate such a
subjective topic?
The Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis

The similarity-attraction hypothesis is based on a very simple premise: people who share similar likes,
dislikes, interests, opinions and attitudes are likely to be attracted to each other or to form close
friendships. This similarity may be real or perceived (i.e. people may believe their close friends or romantic
partners are more similar to themselves than they actually are). Cognitive consistency theories offer an
explanation of the similarity-attraction hypothesis, namely that if you like something but your colleague
does not then this creates a cognitively imbalanced state, which makes you uncomfortable. A way of
resolving this is to decide that you do not like your colleague and thus restore cognitive consistency.
Key Study: Newcomb (1961)

Aim: To test the similarity-attraction hypothesis; the idea that people are attracted to those who share
similar attitudes to their own.
Method: 17 male students from a US university were asked to fill in a series of questionnaires asking them
about their attitudes and values. The questionnaires were filled in before the students arrived at the
university and subsequent questionnaires were completed during the course of the first semester. The
variables measured were attraction between the students and attitude changes.
Results: In the first few weeks, attraction was related primarily to proximity (see Festinger’s research in
the next section on sociocultural theories of attraction). As the semester progressed, however, attraction
shifted to those who most closely matched the participants’ attitudes: 58% of participants who had been
paired with a room-mate with similar attitudes had formed friendships compared to 25% with room-
mates who expressed different attitudes.
Conclusion: This research offers some support for the idea that we gravitate towards those who share
similar views to our own.
Evaluation of Newcomb (1961)

 STRENGTHS: This study played out in real-time with no manipulation from the researchers, giving the
results high ecological validity. The responses given by the pre-university students were validated by
the choices and preferences they made as the semester progressed, which seems to point to a strong
case for the idea that similarity breeds attraction. Cross-cultural evidence offers extra validation to the
similarity-attraction hypothesis: Brewer (1961) interviewed 1,500 tribespeople in East Africa and
found that perceived similarity was a strong factor in determining liking between tribes. A much more
recent study, by Markey and Markey (2007), again using US university students, also confirmed that
there is a tendency for people to seek a version of themselves in their partner.
 LIMITATIONS: The small sample size of 17 and the fact that the participants were all male US students
makes the findings difficult to generalise to those outside of this demographic. The use of the
questionnaires means that responses might have been prone to social desirability bias, with
participants possibly wanting to please the researchers (who were, after all, providing them with free
accommodation for a semester), which would invalidate their responses.
Critical Thinking
How might Newcomb’s findings be used in the real world? The results of psychological studies are often
fascinating but without them having a direct application in the real world, some of them may not be very

useful in practical terms. The findings of Newcomb (1961) might be used in a variety of real contexts:
knowing that similarity breeds attraction is useful if you have a product to advertise e.g. the choice of a
famous person or brand qualities that ‘chime’ with your target market. Similarity might also be utilised by
politicians hoping to gain votes from a particular sector of the electorate; by salespeople who really want
you to like them so that they can sell their product to you; and on more humanitarian grounds by charities
that hope to appeal to a particular type of person for donations.
Evaluation of Cognitive Theories of Attraction

The results of cognitive research into attraction appear to suggest that human beings do not like to
indulge in very much effort when thinking about their ideal mate: their ideal mate appears to be a version
of themselves. However, as the research was conducted in US universities where a certain amount of
homogeneity amongst the students may be expected, perhaps the results were not so surprising. The use
of self-report studies, as with Newcomb’s research, can lead to subjectivity and participant expectations.
Like biological research, this is a very individualistic and reductionist approach that ignores sociocultural
influences on interpersonal attraction.

PART 1A(iii): SOCIOCULTURAL THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

Sociocultural theories of attraction are based around the idea that factors outside of the self-determine
how and why a person is attracted to another person. The theories considered in this section focus on
location as a key factor (proximity); the idea that it is easier to form a relationship with someone who
lives or works near you as opposed to a potential mate who lives hundreds of miles away. The concept of
familiarity is sociocultural in that it revolves around the mere exposure effect: the idea that simply
encountering another person over time makes them more attractive than a stranger. Social exchange
theory takes an economic approach to the formation of relationships, claiming that people weigh up the
potential costs and benefits of a relationship before and during the commencement of that relationship.
Key Theory: Proximity Leads to Personal Relationships

This is a very straightforward idea, stating that the people with whom we spend more time are more likely
to become friends or romantic partners, simply because it is less effortful and more convenient to form a
relationship with someone who lives or works nearby than to go to the trouble of finding friends and
partners who are some distance away. People do tend to pair up with those with whom they have been to
school or college, who they work with or live near to. It may well be linked to another theory considered
in this section – familiarity – in which what is well known to an individual may appear to be more
attractive than what is unknown.
Key Study: Festinger et al. (1950)

Aim: To investigate the idea that proximity is a key factor in the formation of friendships.
Method: Observation of the students at M.I.T. college and regular interviews of students (randomly
assigned) who lived in rooms on 17 of the blocks on campus. The blocks each had five rooms along the
ground floor and five along the top floor with staircases at the end of each row. Participants were asked
to say who their three closest friends were as part of the data collection.
Results: Friendships occurred more between students who lived on the same floor as each other
compared with those living on a different floor. The students who lived closest to the staircases were
more likely to have made friends with those on a different floor compared to students whose rooms were
away from the staircases. Students who shared the same bed times or meal times were also more likely to
form friendships due probably to the proximity factor.
65% of the participant friendship pairs lived in the same building with 44% living next door to each other;

the expression of closeness to another student reduced as the distance between them reduced – 41%
expressed closeness when the distance was one door away, falling to 10% when the distance was four
doors away.
Conclusion: Proximity appears to be a key factor in determining the formation of friendships.
Evaluation of Festinger et al. (1950)

 STRENGTHS: The key strength of Festinger et al.’s research is that the results are high in ecological
validity, being a naturalistic observation in which no variables were manipulated by the researchers.
The researchers were able to record real behaviour in a real setting with no possibility of demand
characteristics interfering with the observed behaviour. The use of 17 rooms located on the M.I.T.
campus means that the researchers did not confine themselves to just one accommodation block,
which makes their research more representative of the student body. The self-report aspect of the
study means that the participants’ responses could be converted to quantitative data, which makes
comparison and analysis easier.
 LIMITATIONS: The major limitation of this research is that it only represents the behaviour and
preferences of a very limited sample of US students living on campus, in particular accommodation
blocks. The use of the naturalistic observation also means that the research cannot be replicated with
the expectation of obtaining the same results, which affects the reliability of the findings. Additionally,
the use of observation as a way of collecting data means that there may be an array of extraneous
variables that affect the observed behaviour but which have nothing to do with what is being
investigated.
Critical Thinking
The research does not predict the longevity of the friendships. This research reports on the friendships
formed by students living in accommodation blocks on the campus within a specific window of time. The
students were not tracked throughout the entirety of their time at the college so it is not clear that these
early, convenient friendships stood the test of time. It might be the case that it is initially easier to form
friendships with those physically close but over time this may change; early friendships based on
proximity may be dropped in favour of new people who share one’s interests, hobbies or personality traits
(as predicted by the cognitive similarity-attraction hypothesis).
Key Theory: Familiarity Leads to Personal Relationships

The concept of familiarity as a sociocultural factor in relationship formation is based on the idea that the
more an individual is familiar with a person, either by sight or through contact with them, the more
attractive they appear. Familiarity uses the premise of the mere exposure effect, a psychological
phenomenon by which people develop a preference for what is well-known and encountered often.
Zajonc (1968) stated that it is sufficient for an individual simply to see a person several times in a short
period of time in order to begin to feel attraction for them. The overlap with proximity theory is clear – we
are bound to see more of those to whom we live closest.
Key Study: Moreland & Beach (1992)

This was a field experiment, using an opportunity sample of 130 student participants who happened to
attend the classes used in the study. This is interesting, as it is an example of a study in which very little
control was exerted by the researchers, yet there is a clear manipulated independent variable.
Aim: To investigate the mere exposure effect on ratings of familiarity and attractiveness.

Method: 130 students from a university in the USA were the participants. The students were naïve
participants as their involvement in the study depended on which classes they were taking at the time the
study was conducted; they did not know that they were taking part in the study.
The researchers used four female confederates of college age who were rated as physically similar to one
another. They were instructed to attend college classes with the participants but not to interact with
them; in other words, be ‘merely’ present. They attended classes either 0 times, 5 times, 10 times or 15
times (each confederate being allocated only one of these conditions): this formed the independent
variable of the study. After the experimental phase was over the participants were then asked to look at
photographs of each of the four women and rate them on specific variables including how familiar and
how attractive they were.
Results: The results showed only a weak support for the idea of familiarity; however, there was strong
support for mere exposure influencing attraction, with the woman who had been seen the most times
rated as more attractive and better liked than those who had been seen less.
Conclusion: The researchers point to the idea that affinity may work alongside the mere exposure effect
to produce a feeling that a familiar face is preferred because it stimulates a ‘fellow feeling’, in other words
that the person is ‘one of us’.
Evaluation of Moreland & Beach (1992)

 STRENGTHS: This is an interesting study using naïve participants and conducted in a real-life
environment, which makes it high in ecological validity. The participants are unlikely to have been
under the influence of demand characteristics due to the well-planned procedure and the use of
confederates who were of their own age and demographic. The results do seem to support the mere
exposure effect, with greater liking shown for the woman who had been seen on more occasions than
the others. The use of a clear independent variable means that the researchers had some degree of
control over the procedure, which is not easy to achieve in naturalistic situation.
 LIMITATIONS: The use of an American university to obtain the sample limits the generalisability of the
study, as it does not represent older and non university-educated populations, or people from other
cultures. The fact that this was a field experiment does mean that there may have been an array of
extraneous variables that could have confounded the results and which the researchers were
powerless to control, such as the subjective judgements made of each confederate by the participants.
Replicating the study would be possible but the researchers could not be confident that they would
obtain the same results given a different sample and conditions: this reduces the reliability of the
findings.
Critical Thinking
Does the methodology of this study leave the results too open to interpretation? The use of a field
experiment with limited control by the researchers means that it is more likely that real responses were
collected by the researchers. However, it is debatable as to how far the participants’ preference for the
most-seen confederate was based on ‘mere exposure’ as there could be other explanations for the
preference. For example, it could be the case that the confederate seen 15 times had features that
appealed more to the participants than the other three confederates. The ‘baby-face’ hypothesis states
that people whose features echo that of a baby’s (e.g. large eyes, round shape, soft skin) are seen as more
desirable and likeable. If the most-seen confederate had such features it might explain the preference for
her over the others. This would then support a biological, rather than a sociocultural, explanation of
attraction, as the baby-face hypothesis has an evolutionary basis. The researchers could have introduced
another measure to ensure the validity of the participants’ responses in terms of the mere exposure effect

by perhaps then using controlled lab conditions to further test their hypothesis in a more scientific way.
The Role of Culture in Forming Personal Relationships

Culture is a key issue within IB Diploma Psychology and it is one that runs through all of the topics and
studies considered here. Most research in psychology has been carried out in individualist cultures such as
the USA, the UK and Western Europe. Such an ethnocentric focus can create the idea that there is one,
universal standard by which behaviour is judged and that standard is viewed through the prism of
individualism. Collectivist cultures are not as well represented in psychological literature; yet it is usually
assumed that theories of relationship formation apply globally, which is clearly not valid.
The study described in this section investigates one of the main ideological differences between
individualist and some collectivist cultures: that of arranged marriages versus ‘love’ marriages. Arranged
marriages are part of the cultural norm in some countries, like India or South Korea, but in individualist
countries the idea of having your marriage arranged by a third party (often family) is in direct opposition
to the idea of a ‘love-match’ in which emotion, passion and personal choice are valued. The fact that
divorce rates are now sky-high in individualist cultures and that arranged marriages tend to last may
highlight some flaws in the romantic model and may demonstrate that practicality rather than fleeting
emotions could be the key to a happy marriage.
Key Study: Gupta & Singh (1982)

Aim: To investigate how arranged marriages score on the scales of liking/loving, when compared with love
marriages.
Method: 50 couples who were students at the University of Rajasthan in India were interviewed
separately. 25 of the couples had married for love and the other 25 couples had an arranged marriage.
Some of the couples had been married for less than a year; others had been married for twenty years, and
the rest fell somewhere between these two extremes.
Each participant was asked to give their responses to questions based on Rubin’s scale of liking and loving.
This scale states that romantic love is based on the following triad:
 Attachment: The need to be cared for and be with the other person.
 Caring: Valuing the other person’s happiness and needs as much as your own.
 Intimacy: Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person.
The participants were given statements based on the levels of attachment, caring and intimacy shown by
them or to their partners. e.g. “I feel that I can confide in…I feel very possessive towards…”
Results: The higher the score, the more ‘in love’ the couple was deemed to be. Those couples who said
that they had married for love and those who had been married for one year or less scored on average 70
out of 91 points. Love marriage couples who had been married 10 years or more had an average score of
40 out of 91. The average scores for arranged marriage couples were 58 out of 91 for those married one
year or less and 68 out of 91 for those who had been married for 10 years or more. In short, the couples in
love marriages started out strong and ‘in love’ but this declined rapidly as the years passed, whereas the
arranged marriage couples started out with fewer feelings of liking/loving but as the years progressed so
did their feelings for each other.
Conclusion: Arranged marriages appear to be more successful than love marriages over time.

Evaluation of Gupta & Singh (1982)

 STRENGTHS: The fact that this study was carried out by Indian researchers using Indian participants
means that it is high in cultural relativism (which characterises an emic approach): the idea that ideas,
beliefs, morals are meaningful from within that culture itself and that one view is not absolute.
Furthermore, the use of Rubin’s scale makes the study replicable, so it could be carried out repeatedly
to test for external reliability.
 LIMITATIONS: The sample size of 50 is small, and only represents married couples from one university
in India, and therefore the results cannot be easily generalised. The participants may have over- or
under-reported how much they loved their partner, due to demand characteristics. Furthermore, a
scale is also a limited way of measuring complex variables such as feelings and emotions, making the
study reductionist.
Critical Thinking
Is it possible that acculturation could change the attitudes towards marriage in collectivist cultures?
With the global influence of individualist – particularly American – popular culture via films, music, TV,
social media across the world there is some validity in questioning the extent to which this might encroach
on the values and attitudes of collectivist cultures everywhere. Countries such as China which, until
twenty or so years ago, were communistic with little chance of wealth acquisition, travel or personal
expression have embraced some of the trappings of Western societies, e.g. designer brands, extensive
travel and youth culture. When one culture begins to dominate and erode aspects of another culture this
is called acculturation (see the core section on the sociocultural approach) and the effects of such a
process can be seen in many aspects of life, including the family, workplace, religion and attitudes. It is
possible that such effects might also be seen in the attitudes towards choice of marriage partner.
Do arranged marriages succeed due to the lack of expectations from the start? Love marriages do not,
on the whole, fare as well as arranged marriages, according to Gupta & Singh’s research. (Divorce records
back this up). Could it be that love marriages are doomed because of the weight of expectations they
bring with them? One could blame Hollywood or romantic fiction for the idea that once you have found
‘the one’ then you will be happy forever. The whole notion that there is one person – and only one – who
is your absolute perfect match and whom you must above all else find and keep is clearly quite a
damaging one as it brings with it almost unreachable goals and unrealistic aspirations. Romantic fiction
and a host of ‘chick flick’ films continually present the idea that your life is incomplete without passionate
love in it; practicality is often left out of the picture altogether. Arranged marriages do not start on such a
heady premise: they are primarily pragmatic and focused on shared wealth, health and future security,
often for both bride and groom (and their respective families). Perhaps starting married life with lower
expectations of liking or loving is a good basis from which to forge a relationship based on mutual respect,
hard work and appreciation of the other person as an individual. Love may then be built on these strong
foundations without the disappointments that romantic ideals can bring.
Evaluation of Sociocultural Theories of Attraction

Sociocultural theories of attraction seem to forget that individual choice, while necessarily made within a
sociocultural framework is still individual choice, and there are a lot of people who work, for example, in
close proximity with like-minded people and yet feel no personal attraction to them apart from the
friendliness we show to work colleagues. They do not become friends or romantic partners outside of
work; in fact people often manage to conduct long-distance cross-cultural relationships with others who
bear little resemblance to them. So, like the other two approaches, sociocultural theory can explain
some, but not all, of personal attraction. This is why an integration of the approaches offers the best
explanation.

The Integration of the Biological, Cognitive and Sociocultural Approaches

as Explanations of Relationship Formation
Each approach on its own can only go so far in terms of providing a full and comprehensive explanation of
what it is that forms the basis of one person’s attraction to another. The reality of what influences to
whom we are attracted is much more complex than can be accounted for by one approach alone.
An integrated approach, bringing in all three explanations: biological, cognitive and sociocultural, can best
explain attraction. For instance, a biological explanation for attraction has evolution at the heart of its
argument but this can be countered by considering the fact that some men prefer older women who may
not give off any sort of ‘fertility’ signals. A sociocultural explanation of this phenomenon might revolve
around the issue of proximity: the man and woman work in the same office. Bringing in a cognitive
approach one could then argue that the matching hypothesis might play a role in the attraction: the man
and woman have rated each other as having the same level of attractiveness as each other.
An evolutionary explanation could also be applied to the results of Festinger et al.’s (1950) findings, one of
the studies used in the sociocultural section. In this study the researchers claimed that proximity
accounted for the reported friendships but it could also be argued that this closeness in living conditions
prompted an evolution-based response in the participants in terms of face recognition. Research by Parr
(2011) identifies the evolutionary importance of being able to recognise faces for reasons of survival
through knowing if someone is a friend or foe. Parr’s research also highlights the cognitive processing
involved in face recognition, thus demonstrating that behaviour is best understood when more than one
explanation is applied.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF PERSONAL

RELATOINSHIPS
Evaluate one or more theories of the formation of personal relationships. [22]
This essay question is asking you to assess the strengths and limitations of one or more theories of the
formation of relationships; to show an understanding of how each theory in itself explains the formation of
relationships and to demonstrate your understanding of how the theories are integrated. Theories and
studies should be analysed rigorously in terms of their strengths and limitations, with particular attention
given to how evaluation of the study affects the validity of the theory.
Contrast two theories of the formation of personal relationships. [22]

This essay question is asking you to assess the ways in which two theories of relationship formation differ
e.g. in their assumptions, methodology, results and conclusions. You will be expected to show an
understanding of how each theory explains relationship formation in itself as well as how the theories are
integrated. The two theories should be contrasted throughout the essay.
To what extent can biological theories explain personal relationships? [22]

This essay question is asking you to consider how successfully one approach on its own can explain
relationships. You will be expected to use at least one other theory (cognitive or sociocultural) in your
evaluation of biological theories and you will need to explain how the theories are integrated. You will
need to use relevant studies to support your argument.

PART 1B: THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION

Key Question: How can communication maintain relationships?
Communication is the life-blood of any relationship, be it romantic, platonic, familial, professional: it is the
‘glue’ that holds a relationship together. Married couples may divorce due to infidelity or financial issues
but the majority of marriages break down due to ‘irreconcilable differences’, differences that could
possibly have been addressed and dealt with if the right communication channels and methods had been
used. Oscar Wilde said that, “Ultimately the bond of all companionship, whether in marriage or in
friendship, is conversation”, which is as true today as it was in the 19 th century. (One could argue that it is
even more important today given the propensity for communication at a distance through social media,
texting and Skype). Knowing how communication can be used to maintain relationships is essential for the
strength and longevity of those relationships and it forms the basis of most relationship counselling
sessions.
PART 1B(I) SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION

Self-disclosure is the act of revealing personal information and details to another person. It is something
that tends to happen gradually, over time, with increasingly intimate details being shared as the
relationship progresses. Self-disclosure is thought to be one of the most important ways of establishing
and maintaining a close relationship with another person as the act of self-disclosing involves a certain
level of trust. Research in this field has highlighted that self-disclosure increases liking and intimacy
between people. It is highly unlikely that a deep and meaningful relationship could be sustained if there
was no self-disclosure from either partner: the relationship would remain at only a superficial level if self-
disclosure never took place. The degree of and rate at which self-disclosure takes place is something that
needs to be judged by each partner in the relationship: it would be rather alarming if you met someone
for a first date and they disclosed highly personal and intimate details of their life to you.
Key Theory: Altman & Taylor (1973)

Altman & Taylor’s (1973) social penetration model alludes to the idea of ‘peeling the onion’: relationships
begin with the ‘outer layer’ of the onion being the topic of conversation between new friends/partners
(e.g. surface level details such as where you grew up, how old you are, where you went to school). These
are relatively ‘safe’ topics that could be shared between acquaintances with no particular emotional value
attached to them. The model of social penetration proceeds as follows:

1st layer: biographical details, name, age etc.
2nd layer: likes/dislikes e.g. music, films, travel.
3rd layer: goals, ambitions, aspirations.
4th layer: religious/spiritual and philosophical beliefs.
5th layer: deeply-held fears and fantasies.
6th layer: what it means to be ‘me’; the concept of self.
People are much more likely to share intimate topics with a close friend than with a casual acquaintance
or a stranger. The reciprocity principle comes into play here as well: people tend to disclose more to
people they like and trust; self-disclosure, in fact, appears to promote positive feelings between people.
This may be due to the fact that it is something of a risk disclosing personal details to another; you are in
effect saying, “I trust you with this information” when you self-disclose. Having another person trust you
with their hopes, dreams and fears is a big step and one which usually results in increased feelings of
warmth and intimacy between the couple, be they friends or romantic partners.
Key Study: Collins & Miller (1994)

Aim: To investigate a possible link between self-disclosure and liking in the maintenance of relationships.
Method: A meta-analysis taken from research articles on the topic of self-disclosure. The researchers used
a range of journal articles published between 1955 and 1992, isolating the key terms linked to self-
disclosure and liking. They also used studies found in a variety of academic textbooks to supply the sample
for their meta-analysis.
A statistical programme was used to look for effect size in studies of self-disclosure in relationships.
Studies in the meta-analysis were varied, from lab experiments through to self-reports.
Results: Liking appeared to be associated with self-disclosure, with positive correlations and effect sizes
for these two variables. This was particularly true for self-report studies (questionnaires) but even
laboratory experiments supported the idea that higher levels of self-disclosure lead to increased liking.
The researchers also found that intimacy is linked to liking: people will disclose more to those to whom
they already feel close and the very act of disclosing increases liking.
Conclusion: Self-disclosure plays an important role in the maintenance of relationships.
Evaluation of Collins & Miller (1994)

 STRENGTHS: A meta-analysis uses triangulation (i.e. more than one method, researcher or data set),
which means that the findings from one study can be viewed in the light of the findings from other
studies, thus increasing the validity. This research process is less prone to bias as well: researchers
using secondary data have fewer opportunities to confound the results. This meta-analysis used a
variety of statistical measures, which is an objective and consistent way of conducting the procedure,
which increases the reliability of the findings.
 LIMITATIONS: Secondary data is less secure than data gathered at first-hand; the researchers are, to
some extent, at the mercy of the original researchers’ procedures over which they have no control,
which could affect the reliability of the findings. There is a lack of ecological validity as the rather cold
and detached statistical measures cannot reveal why and how self-disclosure takes place, only that it
does.

Critical Thinking
Isn’t this research telling us what we already know? There is the temptation with some sociocultural
research to ask the question, “Why bother?” One could argue that decades of research into self-disclosure
have simply confirmed something that most people are aware of anyway: that human beings like to share
personal details with others and that the more we know someone (and like them), the more inclined we
are to share secrets, hopes, and fears with them. As an IB Diploma Psychology student you are an inquirer,
someone who has a natural curiosity about human behaviour, but you are also aware that human
behaviour is easy to sum up casually and difficult to explain objectively. It is the job of psychologists to
take seemingly straightforward ideas about human behaviour and to put them under scrutiny to
investigate how far, to what extent and under what conditions these ideas prevail. By doing so,
psychologists contribute to the sum of human knowledge and help to illuminate and explain what may –
up until that point – have been simply ‘hunches’ or ‘feelings’.
Does self-disclosure always benefit relationships or could it also be detrimental to the maintenance of
relationships? Self-disclosure is generally considered to be beneficial to the healthy functioning and
maintenance of a relationship but there could be some grounds for arguing that it might also damage
relationships. The sharing of unpleasant or possibly alarming information about the self (e.g. “I really
cannot stand your mother” or “I spent some time in prison for armed robbery”) might be done in a spirit of
honesty or ‘clearing the air’ but the person disclosing such sensitive information must be careful as to
when and how it is shared, and their motivation for doing so. In the case of a one-night stand (cheating on
a partner) it might actually protect the relationship if the indiscretion is never discovered: confessing to
such a negative act might make the discloser feel better but it may well make their partner feel worthless,
unloved and that they ultimately do not wish to continue with the relationship. Some items of information
are possibly best left undisturbed – for the sake of the relationship itself.

PART 1B(II) COMMUNICATION MAY DIFFER ACCORDING TO

GENDER
How gender affects what people say and how they say
it is a topic of interest to sociocultural psychologists.
Understanding the ways in which gender influences
our communication – in terms of how we give and
receive our communication – has a huge bearing on
the strength of our relationships. Women and men
seem to have different attitudes to self-disclosure, and
generally different approaches to communicating.
Differences between men and women have inspired
countless works of fiction and non-fiction, films, songs,
magazine articles: the idea that “Men are from Mars
and women are from Venus” extends into most aspects
of life, one of them being the ways in which men and
women communicate. “If you talk about yourself, he’ll
think you’re boring. If you talk about others, he’ll think
you’re a gossip. If you talk about him he’ll think you’re
a brilliant conversationalist” – quote from Linda
Sunshine. “There are only three things women want in
life: food, water and compliments” – quote from Chris Rock. These two quotes alone demonstrate the
misunderstandings that may crop up between men and women: they suggest that men and women have
different priorities when it comes to the maintenance of relationships and that they may want different
things from their partner.
Key Study: Tannen (1990)

Deborah Tannen is a renowned researcher into communication in relationships, having written several
books and articles on the topic. Her research focuses on a range of relationships: between men and
women; between siblings (particularly sisters); between mothers and daughters. She has looked at the
ways in which men and women communicate with each other, with same-sex friends, at home and in the
workplace. One of her most famous pieces of research is entitled ‘You Just Don’t Understand!’ (1990) and
it focuses on the tricky path that men and women attempt to negotiate during their conversations with
each other. Tannen’s research is published as a complete non-fiction book – it would be very useful for IB
Diploma students (and indeed anyone in a male-female relationship) to read the whole thing. What
follows is a summary of her research into language and gender:
Aim: To investigate the extent to which the features of language, as used by men and women, are distinct
from each other.
Method: The research involved a series of observations of couples involved in intimate relationships. The
couples' conversations were recorded and then analysed by Tannen to identify
patterns of speech that showed differences in linguistic style. Tannen carried out her research in the USA,
being based at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
Results: Tannen identified a whole host of gender differences in language, some of which include these
key findings:
 Men use conversation to establish their status and independence; women use conversation to
establish intimacy and connectedness between people.

 When women say ‘sorry’ they tend to use it as a way to express empathy (e.g. “I’m so sorry you feel
bad/that this happened to you”) whereas men hear ‘sorry’ as an apology, which is a sign of weakness
and so they may avoid saying it.
 A man doesn’t always like it when a woman is empathetic towards him (e.g. “Yes, I’ve felt like that
too”) as they feel that she is ‘intruding’ upon his feelings, rendering them ‘just like hers’ and therefore
not special or unique to him. Women may be baffled by this response as they may have offered the
empathy in order to make the man feel less alone in his feelings; it has been done to show
understanding, to communicate that negative feelings are permissible and that we all feel bad
sometimes.
 Women do not appreciate men coming up with practical solutions to their distress or low mood,
whereas a man may be oriented towards finding something he can do to help his female partner
practically. Women prefer men to listen to them when they are upset or unhappy about something: a
man trying to find a pragmatic solution to the problem may make the woman think that he has missed
the point, which is that she needs him to listen and empathise (as a woman would do), rather than
immediately try to find a way of solving the problem.
 Men interrupt more than women and they expect to be interrupted themselves. Women use a much
more reciprocal style of conversation with turn-taking and conversational rules applying.
 Women tend to use more language tags (really? uh-huh, right, no kidding?) This serves as support to
the main speaker, encouraging them in what they are saying and indicating that the communication
lines are still open. Tannen calls this overlapping speech.
 Women tend to be more inclusive, asking the other person’s opinion.
Conclusion: Men and women use language differently and for different purposes. It is important to
remember that the way in which feelings are communicated is also vital; in fact it may be one of the
fundamental reasons for conflict in a relationship. It's not so much what people communicate as how they
communicate it and it seems that men and women are still not very good at ‘reading’ each other, despite
hundreds of thousands of years occupying the same planet (this idea has, however been challenged by
Cameron, 2007, see later in this section).
Evaluation of Tannen (1990)

 STRENGTHS: Tannen’s (1990) research uses recorded observations of real couples and so the results
are high in ecological validity. Her research is entirely qualitative, tracing speech patterns in language,
which means that the findings are rich and insightful, exploring the topic in an ‘up close and personal’
way most suited to investigation of relationships.
 LIMITATIONS: It could be argued that demand characteristics might have been experienced by the
couples in the research as the video recording was not carried out covertly: they may have ‘over-
played’ for the cameras or not used their usual styles of communication in order to appear more
positive (the observer effect). Furthermore, analysis of speech patterns is time-consuming and may be
subject to interpretation, which means that the reliability of the research is low, particularly as such
research cannot be replicated as it is unique to each couple participating in it.
Critical Thinking
Tannen’s research could be used to inform and guide relationship counselling. The results of Tannen’s
research are highly useful in terms of what they reveal about the misunderstandings and ‘false starts’ that

may negatively impact male-female communication. Knowing about how men and women use
conversation could be applied to the field of relationship counselling as it provides an insight into what
might be at the root of a couple’s problems. For example, a couple may complain that ‘he/she never
listens to me’. Using Tannen’s finding that men don’t look for empathy and women don’t look for practical
solutions the counsellor might be able to help the couple to realise that each partner is trying to be
helpful in the way they know best rather than being self-centred or tactless. Knowing what it is that make
men and women ‘tick’, it is possible that the counsellor could find ways of reaching new communication
goals and strategies that the couple can practise and which will hopefully contribute towards their
relationship being saved. Research shows that women self-disclose more, particularly to those with whom
they are close. This finding could be used in relationship counselling as a springboard for encouraging men
to self-disclose to their female partners in a bid to increase understanding and empathy between the
couple.
Key Study: Cameron (2007)

In her book, The Myth of Mars and Venus, Deborah Cameron, a professor of language at Oxford
University, puts forward a direct challenge to the theory that men and women have radically different
ways of communicating. In her words: “the idea that men and women speak different languages has itself
become a dogma, treated not as a hypothesis but as an unquestionable article of faith” (p.17)
Aim: To challenge the view that men and women speak different languages.
Method: A review of the available psychological and sociological literature on gender differences in
language. One of the examples of the research is a meta-analysis of 56 pieces of research into language
and gender (the research was based on recorded male and female conversations).
Results: Quantitative data in the form of effect sizes for each of the variables investigated e.g.
talkativeness, self-disclosure and interruption showed the following:
 A tiny effect size for talkativeness of 0.11 for women talking more than men in conversations.
 An almost zero effect size (0.02) for verbal reasoning between the sexes.
 Men did not interrupt as much as previous research indicated (0.15 – 0.33 effect size).
 Women’s self-disclosure was not much higher than men’s at 0.18 effect size.
 Men were only marginally (0.11) more assertive in their speech than women.
Conclusion: Gender differences in language have been exaggerated.
Evaluation of Cameron (2007)

 STRENGTHS: This research is in the form of a meta-analysis which means that the data used is
objective and can include very large samples, thus increasing the reliability of the findings. Conducting
this type of research is less time-consuming than if primary data were collected and it helps to reduce
researcher bias.
 LIMITATIONS: Secondary data is not subject to the same levels of control as primary data: Cameron
would have had to hope that the research was carried out objectively, using the expected levels of
control for a piece of psychological research. There is also the issue of a lack of ecological validity,
which is particularly problematic for research within this field.
Critical Thinking
Does believing in so-called gender differences in language contribute to misunderstandings between
men and women? It appears that believing the stereotypes about male-female communication styles

may, in fact, be detrimental to maintaining a relationship. If males and females are not so different in their
communication then any problems in a relationship may be due to other factors, rather than the ways in
which each partner uses language. It might be the case that so-called gender differences in language
produce good 'soundbite science': newspapers enjoy pointing out the ways in which males and females
fundamentally differ and language is a good way of highlighting this. However, if men and women believe
that language is gendered then perhaps this is at the root of communication difficulties rather than any
real difference in communication style.

PART 1B(III) COMMUNICATION MAY BE INFLUENCED

BY CULTURE
Sociocultural psychologists focus on how
communication in relationships could be influenced
by culture. In the first section of this chapter, we
looked at the formation of relationships and the
topic of arranged marriages versus love marriages,
with the focus on which of the two types of marriage
provides the highest levels of happiness for the
couple. This section will consider how couples in
arranged marriages use communication to maintain
their relationship and whether a particular type of
communication is necessary for an arranged
marriage to succeed. Traditional cultures support the
idea of arranged marriage, and here we are looking
at the role of culture in communication, especially on
listening styles.
Key Study: Ahmad & Reid (2008)

Aim: To investigate the link between traditional marital expectations and listening styles in arranged
marriage couples.
Method: 114 Indo-Pakistani married couples with arranged marriages resident in a large city in Canada
were asked to respond to questions on a Marital Satisfaction Scale. The age range of the participants was
19-67 years (mean age of 36) with 51 males and 63 females represented. The couples had been married
from 6 months to 35 years with a mean of 12.5 years.
The scale looked at variables, including listening styles, how traditional each participant’s attitude towards
marriage was in terms of roles within the marriage and also how satisfied they were with the marriage.
Statements that the participants ranked on the scale included the following:
 “I don’t find it necessary to pay close attention when my partner is talking because I already know
what my partner is going to say before he/she even says it”.
 “My partner understands and sympathises with me”.
 “When my partner is explaining him/herself, I try to get a sense of what things must be like for him/her
so that I may better understand how he/she may be feeling”.
Results: The researchers found that the more traditional the marriage was (i.e. with the prescribed roles
set out for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ being adhered to strongly) then the less satisfaction was reported. This
was also linked to communication, with lower levels of active listening being linked to a traditional
attitude/expectation towards marriage. Interestingly, a close analysis of the results revealed that there
was an interaction between traditional beliefs, listening style and marital satisfaction: in other words, the
less someone listens to their partner in order to understand them then the lower their marital satisfaction
is. The lower expectation of equality between partners (which can be a feature of arranged marriages)
was linked to the communication style of the couples.

Conclusion: Perceptions of equality and communication styles are predictors of how satisfied a couple is
with their arranged marriage. Communication seems to play a key role in the maintenance of arranged
marriages along with traditional beliefs about marriage roles.
Evaluation of Ahmad & Reid (2008)

 STRENGTHS: The results of this research have important applications for couples seeking marriage
counselling, particularly so as the sample involved are from a demographic that have not traditionally
sought outside help for problems within the marriage. The use of a rating scale means that results can
be analysed and compared across the sample plus this measure is replicable, meaning that both
external and internal reliability can be checked (via the test-retest method and split-half method
respectively), to look for consistency of the measure and consistency over time.
 LIMITATIONS: The use of quantitative data means that the findings lack the depth and insight that
qualitative data would have provided. The statements that the participants rated may not adequately
sum up or express exactly how the participant felt about their partner so a ‘best fit’ response might be
all that could be used in some instances which affects the validity of the measure (this is also
compromised by potential social desirability bias and/or lying). The sample is also quite small and this
makes generalising the results quite difficult.
Critical Thinking
Is it possible for someone who is outside a culture to understand the subtleties of communication within
that culture? Because culture underpins so much of how we live our lives it is quite difficult to view
behaviour from another culture with the same level of understanding that we would bring to research
conducted within our own culture. Knowing the intricacies of a culture can help to place the behaviour
being investigated into appropriate contexts. Emic research that is conducted from within the culture and
used to explore the meaning of behaviours would give more insight into relationships and communication.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION

Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships. [22]
This question is asking you to offer a considered and balanced view of the topic of communication in
relationships by reviewing a range of arguments, factors or theories. You should choose the evidence that
you think best supports the points you have made and present your conclusion clearly.
Evaluate one or more explanations for cultural and/or gender differences in communication. [22]
This question is asking you to assess the strengths and limitations of one or more explanations relating to
gender and/or cultural differences in communication with the emphasis being placed on the methods used
by the researchers.

PART 1C: EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE

OR END
Key Question: Why do Relationships Change or End?
There are as many reasons as to why relationships change or end: infidelity, financial problems, falling
‘out of love’, boredom, breaking the ‘rules’ of a relationship are just some of the reasons as to why a
friendship or romantic relationship may face setbacks and/or termination. Countless songs, poems, plays,
books and films have been written about the pain of relationships going wrong or ending, usually from the
perspective of the person who is feeling the heartache rather than the one who is causing it. “Golden days
before they end/Whisper secrets to the wind/Your baby doesn’t love you anymore…It’s over”: these lines
from a song by Roy Orbison express some of the heartfelt pain and regret that human beings experience
when a meaningful relationship comes to an end. Relationship breakdown is an enduring topic in art and
entertainment but just how easy is it to measure? It may well be the case that neither of the two people
in the relationship truly understands nor can trace the source of the relationship breakdown, so
psychologists researching this topic have a difficult task ahead of them.
Part 1C(I) Relationship Breakdown May Follow A

Pattern
Stage theories of relationship breakdown suggest that there is a universal logical pattern to relationship
breakdown. These theories tend to be cognitive (individual psychological) theories that suggest that it is
intra-personal factors that lead to relationship breakdown, rather than sociocultural ones, such as one
partner meeting someone else.
Key Theory: Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

Steve Duck is one of the leading researchers on relationships, having carried out a range of studies and
published several books on the topic. In 2007 he put forward a stage
theory of relationship breakdown which, he claimed, signposts the
distinct phases involved in a relationship falling apart and eventually
‘dying’. Each of the phases incorporates a ‘threshold’, the point at
which the person experiencing the phase reaches that moment of
realisation (i.e. “Things have got to change”): from this point
onwards, the relationship will play out along particular lines until the
next threshold and accompanying stage is reached.
The model is composed of the following four stages:

1 - The Intra-Psychic phase: this term relates to the process of the
individual looking ‘inwards’, spending a lot of time dwelling on the
relationship, wondering what he/she is getting from the relationship,
evaluating the worth of the relationship and whether or not they
should seek freedom from the relationship.
2 – The Dyadic Phase: A dyad is something that consists of two

elements or parts and this is what this phase focuses on: the
relationship itself. In this phase both partners go over their
relationship, talking and possibly arguing about the nature of it.
There may well be resentment, anger, frustration and distress

communicated by either or both parties: long-held feelings may be given voice to and things may be said
that are hurtful and brutally frank. At this point the couple will decide to either split up or to continue
trying to make the relationship work.
3 – The Social Phase: If phase two has resulted in no positive outcome then the couple ‘go public’, with
news of their imminent break-up being delivered to friends and family. What happens next is dependent
upon the social networks, friendship groups and loyalties each partner has: some couples find that they
are deserted by one set of friends; some friends may applaud the situation while others are upset and
want to help repair the relationship.
4 – Grave Dressing Phase: This phase is marked by each partner trying to survive the fallout of the
breakup by presenting their version of it to others. It is highly likely that each partner will attempt to play
down their role in the breakup, emphasising the shortcomings of their partner rather than their own
faults. Hindsight bias may well feature in the conversations of each partner e.g. “I always knew he/she
wasn’t right for me” which serves to enable the person to feel some self-validation. Nobody likes to fail,
so these ‘break-up stories’ help people to avoid feeling inadequate and like a ‘loser’.
Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model

How useful is Duck’s Phase Model in attempting to understand relationship breakdown? Duck’s model
could be said to follow some kind of logical sequence: relationship breakdown does often follow this
pattern of introspection followed by action between then outside of the couple. The problem with this
model is that it may explain what tends to happen when relationships begin the descent into breakdown
but it doesn’t explain why. With this in mind the model might be used in relationship counselling in order
for a couple to identify the stage they are at in terms of the breakdown but it offers no insight as to why
this has happened or what might be done to rescue the relationship. Additionally, not all instances of
relationship breakdown will follow this sequential pattern, which renders the model of little practical use.
Key Study: Mitnick et al. (2009)

This piece of research looks at the changes (with the implication that these changes err on the side of
negative) in the satisfaction levels (satisfaction with the relationship itself) of couples after they have
become parents. As the researcher state in their introduction, “The U.S. government has recently spent
several hundred million dollars to promote healthy relationships in new parents: this implies that these
relationships are at elevated risk for declining satisfaction and dissolution”. Applying Duck’s phase model
to this research it becomes clear that the arrival of a new child might promote the initial self-questioning
associated with stage 1, the intra-psychic phase e.g. “How do I feel about my partner now that I have a
child to prioritise?”; “X is not as important to me now as he/she used to be”.
Aim: To investigate changes in satisfaction levels of couples after becoming parents compared to couples
who have not had children.
Sample: Samples taken from the data of 37 studies conducted in the USA (couples tracked from
pregnancy to up to a month or two after the birth of the first child) and 4 studies of childless newlywed
couples over a series of months or years. A total of almost 6,000 individual samples were included in the
study.
Method: A meta-analysis taken using research articles dating from as far back as 1887 up to and including
2006. Key words were identified by the researchers to form the basis of the research e.g. ‘transition’,
‘parenthood’, ‘relationship satisfaction’. The researchers also obtained unpublished research from key
researchers in the field of relationships to add to their findings. The studies included in the meta-analysis
used rating scales to measure the level of satisfaction expressed by the participants.

Results: There was a significant decline in relationship satisfaction for the couples who had children
compared to the childless couples: particularly in the first couple of years after the first child had been
born. There was a lot of variability in this particular finding, with some couples recording large decreases
in satisfaction compared to slight increases in some cases.
Conclusion: Becoming a parent for the first time may impact negatively on a couple’s relationship,
bringing about changes related to the level of satisfaction the couple derives from that relationship.
Evaluation of Mitnick et al. (2009)

 STRENGTHS: A meta-analysis uses triangulation (i.e. more than one method, researcher or data set),
which means that the findings from one study can be viewed in the light of the findings from other
studies, thus increasing the validity. This research process is less prone to bias as well: researchers
using secondary data have fewer opportunities to confound the results. This meta-analysis used a
variety of statistical measures, which is an objective and consistent way of conducting the procedure
which increases the reliability of the findings. The use of almost 6,000 samples within the data makes
it robust and easier to generalise than single studies which are limited to smaller samples.
 LIMITATIONS: Secondary data is less secure than data gathered at first-hand; the researchers are, to
some extent, at the mercy of the original researchers’ procedures over which they have no control,
which could affect the reliability of the findings. There is a lack of ecological validity as the rather cold
and detached statistical measures cannot reveal why and how this lack of satisfaction occurs, only that
it does. One of the issues with this study is that it measured satisfaction up to only around one year
after the birth of the child, which means that long-term effects of becoming a parent have not been
addressed. The samples involved were all taken from US data, making the research difficult to
generalise to other nations and cultures.
Critical Thinking
Aren’t changes in relationships too subjective to measure? One of the main problems in relationship
research is that the variables being investigated are essentially personal and bound up in the unique
experience of each individual and couple. Using a meta-analysis to measure a subjective emotion such as
‘satisfaction’ is notoriously difficult: it involves the assumption that satisfaction ratings mean the same
thing to each participant separately when the opposite is probably more likely e.g. one person’s rating of
‘7’ may represent another person’s ‘6’ or even a ‘5’ or a ‘9’. The very term ‘satisfaction’ may mean
different things to different people and when a large-scale study is used, drawing from many different
items of research, then the objectivity of the process is severely compromised as an array of individual
differences may intrude.

PART 1C (II) SOME RELATIONSHIPS MAY BE DOOMED FROM THE

START
This is the argument that some relationships are not meant to succeed, because the people are basically
incompatible, and have only been brought together by a brief, but passing attraction.
Key Theory: The ‘Fatal Attraction’ Hypothesis

Fans of 1980s films will be familiar with the title of this theory of relationship breakdown. The film depicts
the consequences of taking a ‘walk on the wild side’ in the form of a very brief sexual encounter with a
stranger: the male lead in the film has a weekend fling with an alluring, ambitious female New Yorker (she
is initially presented as exciting, passionate, sophisticated and free-spirited). The fall-out from this brief
affair is tumultuous: she cannot accept that the affair is over and she sets about trying to at first tempt
him back and then when she is rejected she turns all her fury onto him and his family in a grim and
desperate campaign of revenge. Although this film presents relationship breakdown in an extreme (and
rather silly) way, it does point to one explanation as to why some relationships break down: the idea that
what initially attracts an individual to another person may be the very reason for the relationship turning
sour. In other words, be careful what you wish for.
Key Study: Felmlee (1995)

Aim: To investigate the fatal attraction hypothesis as an explanation for relationship breakdown.
Method: 301 students from the University of California completed a self-report in which participants were
asked to list the qualities that had first attracted them to a recent partner and then to list the qualities
that they least liked about that person.
Results: Felmlee identified 88 (almost 30%) of what she termed fatal attraction break-ups: these could be
defined as being relationships based on the other person having qualities that initially provoked
excitement or fascination. Felmlee identified three patterns that are typical of fatal attraction
breakdowns:
1. Fun to foolish: This was the most common reason for relationship failure with a ‘fun’, outgoing, party-
loving person being gradually seen as immature, irresponsible and foolish by their partner.
2. Strong to domineering: The attraction here might be based on someone who offers strength, who has
definite opinions and a reassuring presence. Over time these traits may be perceived as being
dictatorial, bossy, forceful and overbearing.
3. Spontaneous to unpredictable: This involves the sort of person who may suddenly suggest a weekend
in Paris out of the blue: initially they come across as living in the moment, being unconventional, living
life to the full but they may ultimately be viewed as having a lack of focus, being unreliable,
inconsistent and just overall ‘flaky’.
Conclusion: There does seem to be some evidence for the idea that what attracts someone to a partner
becomes the reason for the relationship breaking down.
Evaluation of Felmlee (1995)

 STRENGTHS: This was a good sample size with quantitative data, which makes the results fairly
reliable. Patterns which emerged in the data do seem to support the fatal attraction hypothesis and

there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and real-world observations that back up Felmlee’s findings
which mean that there is some validity to her hypothesis. This theory attempts to explain why
relationships break down which is more than Duck’s phase model does.
 LIMITATIONS: The sample is ethnocentric as it only used students from the University of California,
making it limited in generalisability. The fatal attraction hypothesis is itself biased towards
individualistic cultures as collectivist cultures do not necessarily operate along the same lines, being
more influenced by familial and group concerns and priorities.
Critical Thinking
Why should it be that people are attracted to what ultimately repels them? The findings of Felmlee’s
research point to a conundrum in terms of human beings and the relationships they form. Evolutionary
psychology would suggest that we only pursue relationships which will be advantageous to our continued
survival but the fatal attraction hypothesis shows otherwise. But why pursue a relationship with someone
who is really not going to turn out to be a good match for you? Why waste precious time and resources on
them? The answer is probably a very unhelpful ‘Who knows?’ and this is the gist of research into
relationships: how can we ever hope to get to the heart of what it is that drives human beings into and
out of relationships? Some relationships do not seem to make any sense at all – even to the partners
involved in them! Plus, we do keep on making the same mistakes. Common sense would tell us that
embarking on another ‘fun to foolish’ relationship is only going to end the same way as the last one i.e. in
tears. But who really is able to stand back and be objective about their emotions? Who is able to analyse
their own relationship choices in a purely detached way? There is no such thing as a perfect relationship
and there is never only one explanation as to why any relationship changes or breaks down.

PART 1C (III): CROSS-CULTURAL ISSUES IN RELATIONSHIP

BREAKDOWN
Key Study: Argyle & Henderson (1985)
Aim: To investigate the rules governing relationships (for friendships and for romantic relationships) in
four different countries.
Method: The researchers presented participants from the UK, Italy, Hong Kong and Japan with 33 rules
which were considered to apply to all relationships and a further 12 rules specific to romantic
relationships. 22 types of relationship were also presented to participants who then rated the importance
of each rule for each relationship.
Results: The participants’ responses resulted in the following rules being chosen as those which apply to
most relationships:
 The person must be addressed by their first name (this was seen as essential in all 22 relationships).
 The person should not criticise the other person in public.
 The person should stand up for the other person in their absence.
 The person should not discuss with another person things said in confidence.
 The person should not indulge in sexual activity with the other person (if the relationship is that of
friends or colleagues).
 The person should seek to repay debts, favours or compliments no matter how small.
 The person should share news of success with the other person.
 The person should respect the other’s privacy.
 The person should look the other person in the eye during conversation (this was seen as essential in
only 11 of the 22 relationships).
There was some cross-cultural consistency shown but the Japanese participants expressed a greater
degree of difference to the other three countries, with a more homogeneous rule structure in place for
work colleagues and less intimacy and emotional expressiveness being viewed as important for romantic
partners. The participants from Japan and Hong Kong were more likely than those in Britain or Italy to
support rules such as obeying superiors, preserving group harmony and avoiding ‘loss of face’, which
highlights the collectivist/individualist cultural dimension.
Conclusion: There appears to be some agreement as to what constitutes a general set of rules for all types
of relationships although there is some cultural variation within this. The finding which relates to the
Japanese having a more homogeneous rule structure (i.e. meaning a uniform, agreed set of ideas) than
the other countries reflects a highly collectivist approach to personal relationships. Japan has developed a
cultural norm that emphasises harmony and consistency of behaviour within groups: a Japanese proverb
states that, "the nail that sticks up will be hammered down". This idea of modifying one's behaviour to
blend seamlessly with that of the group means that individual expression is viewed as less important than
group harmony. Breaking the rules of the group would therefore be considered far more damaging in
Japan than in more individualistic cultures where the emphasis is placed more on personal freedom and
emotional expression.
The individual in Japan is an extension of the group so it is more likely that rule violation within the work
place would be tolerated far less than in, say, Italy. The importance of the group is reflected in the finding
that intimacy mattered less to the Japanese participants than the other participants. One must remember,
however, that this research was carried out in the mid-1980s and the process of acculturation and social

change may have impacted on the way in which Japanese people view relationship rules, both at work
and at home.
Evaluation of Argyle & Henderson (1985)

 STRENGTHS: The reliability of the results is
high, being based on quantitative data from a
large sample, which also increases the
generalisability, particularly as four different
countries were represented in the sample. The
use of 33 and 22 items on the ‘rules’ list
means that the data can be represented
numerically which makes the results easier to
analyse and compare.
 LIMITATIONS: The sample represents only two

collectivist and two individualistic cultures
which means that the findings do not fully
represent the views or experience of a range
of countries (e.g. participants from Iceland and
Kenya may have produced different responses
to the study’s participants). The lack of
qualitative data means that the reasons
behind the responses are unknown which
affects the validity of the results plus it could be the case that the statements chosen by the
researchers do not adequately sum up or express what each participant wanted to communicate
about rule violation in relationships.
Critical Thinking
Do the rules set out by Argyle & Henderson actually manifest themselves consistently in real life?
Because this piece of research asked participants to rate the importance of pre-determined relationship
‘rules’ it is possible that participants experienced response bias. Response bias occurs when the
participant second-guesses what the focus of the research is and supplies answers according to what they
think the researchers are looking for. In the case of Argyle & Henderson (1985), it could be that because
the rules supplied to the participants cover the ‘ideals’ of relationships i.e. they suggest that violation of
certain issues such as loyalty are ‘deal-breakers’ then the participants may have felt that the answers were
obvious and that any answer that was different to the obvious response would mean that they were
somehow ‘deviant’. In other words, they might have thought that, “This is what normal, reasonable
people feel is right/wrong with relationships: if you don’t agree with this, then you have a problem”. It is
entirely possible that some rule violations may not harm the relationship and may, in fact, make it
stronger e.g. criticising someone in public if this act results in that person examining possibly sexist or
racist views. It is also very possible that participants agreed to rules that a) they never keep and b) have no
intention of adhering to in the future.

POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY

RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE OR END
Discuss research into why relationships may change or end. [22]
This question is asking you to offer a considered and balanced view of theories of relationship breakdown
by reviewing a range of arguments, factors or theories. You should choose the evidence that you think best
supports the points you have made and present your conclusion clearly.
Contrast two theories of why relationships may change or end. [22]

This question is asking you to give an account of the differences between two different theories of
relationship breakdown, referring to both of them throughout. You should choose the evidence that you
think best supports the points you have made and present your conclusion clearly.

APPROACHES TO RESEARCH FOR Part 1: personal

relationships
Researchers investigating personal relationships use a variety of methods, and often use triangulation
within one study, to ensure reliability.
Field Experiments
While field experiments are conducted in natural situations, they involve the manipulation of the
independent variable, and are more controlled and reliable than more naturalistic methods, such as
observations, for example. Moreland & Beach (1992) carried out their research in the field with naïve
participants, but their experiment involved a degree of manipulation, which increases the level of control
available to the researchers, thus strengthening the reliability of the results. The ecological validity is also
high as the research took place in a real setting with participants who were not aware that they were
being studied. There is the possibility that demand characteristics might have influenced the participants
at the point of data collection but the support shown in the findings for the familiarity hypothesis would
appear to negate this idea.
Meta-Analysis
Meta-analysis is a popular quantitative method with cross-cultural research into personal relationships,
because it allows an etic approach to be taken, where the variable under investigation is operationalized
and then data from studies in many different countries is analysed to determine the effect cross-
culturally. Collins & Miller (1994) used a meta-analysis with triangulated data, which means that a range
of methods was used in the original research, allowing for cross-research analysis. Meta-analyses mean
that there is less chance of bias confounding the results as the researchers are handling secondary data.
This quantitative measure also increases the reliability of the findings as a large number of studies can be
analysed statistically.
However, secondary data is less reliable than primary data as the researchers have no control over how
the initial research was carried out, especially how key variables, such as ‘satisfaction’, were
operationalized.
Naturalistic Observation
Social psychologists often use methods, such as observation, which lack control and are therefore less
reliable than the other two approaches. Festinger et al.’s (1950) research used a naturally-occurring
sample of students who happened to occupy several pre-determined accommodation blocks, which lends
ecological validity to the research results. The naturalistic nature of the research does, however, mean
that it is susceptible to influence from extraneous variables that the researcher cannot control, plus it
cannot be replicated.
Qualitative Observations and Interviews

Observation can be either a quantitative method, using a statistical approach of counting incidences of
behaviour, or a qualitative method, looking for explanations for such behaviour, and often following up
individual and small group observations with interviews.
Tannen’s (1990) research is rich in description and narrative, being composed of qualitative data taken
from filmed observations and interviews. This approach goes a long way towards offering explanations
and reasons for behaviour, making it high in validity, but it cannot be replicated and therefore lacks

reliability. There is also the issue of the observer effect to consider: participants might have responded to
being filmed in a way that made their behaviour artificial and not representative of their usual
communication behaviour. Tannen’s findings are also quite deterministic in that they tend to pigeon-hole
men and women in terms of their language, not allowing for individual differences or for the idea that our
communication style changes according to context, such as where we are, who we are talking to or our
past relationship history. Cameron (2007) used a meta-analysis with triangulated data which means that a
range of methods was used in the original research: this is useful as the findings from one study can be
viewed in light of the other findings which increases the validity of the theory. Meta-analyses mean that
there is less chance of bias confounding the results as the researchers are handling secondary data. This
quantitative measure also increases the reliability of the findings as a large number of studies can be
analysed statistically. However, secondary data is less secure than primary data as the researchers have
no control over how the initial research was carried out. This method necessarily involves working at a
distance from the original research, making it a rather cold and detached method of investigating human
behaviour, thus ecological validity is low as well.
Quasi-Experiments
The word ‘quasi’ comes from Latin, and means ‘almost’, or ‘as if’. Quasi-experiments are research where
the participants are assigned to separate groups or conditions by some inherent factor like gender, age or
ethnicity, and this is the variable that is of interest to the researcher. Therefore, they are ‘almost
experiments’: at first glance they appear to be experimental, but the most basic requirement that the
participants are randomly assigned by the experimenter into experimental groups (or experimental
groups and a control group) has not been met. For example, Fisher et al.’s (2005) research, using two
groups (10 females and 7 males) is a quasi-experiment.
Self-Report Surveys
Self-report surveys use the research tools of questionnaires and self-completed rating scales (like the
Likert scale) where participants record their responses regarding behaviour and attitudes. Ahmad & Reid
(2008) used a questionnaire with a rating scale measure in their cross-cultural study of communication
behaviour. The use of the rating scale means that the results can be compared easily and the research can
be replicated which increases the reliability. There is, however, the issue of social desirability bias in the
responses of the participants that would lower the validity of the findings. External reliability could be
checked by using the test-retest method, where the same participants answer the same questions again
some time after the original research was conducted (e.g. six months later, then again a year later, and so
on.). Internal reliability could be tested using the split-half method in which responses from one half of
the questionnaire (all the even-numbered questions) are compared for consistency with the other half of
the questionnaire (all the odd-numbered questions).
A self-report survey was used in Buss’s (1989) biological research into attraction, which involved obtaining
data from a large cross-cultural sample. This has advantages in that it produces a huge amount of reliable
quantitative data, and it also means that the research has good generalisability. Similarly, the use of self-
reports in Gupta & Singh’s research on cultural norms and relationships means that quantitative data can
be obtained, with the results easily analysed and compared, giving the research reliability, but the validity
of all research relying on self-report surveys is compromised somewhat, however, due to the issues of
social desirability bias and lack of qualitative data.
Cognitive studies of similarity-attraction (Newcomb and Markey & Markey) used self-reporting in the form
of questionnaires, generating quantitative data that is quick and easy to analyse in the form of both
statistics and graphs. Markey and Markey’s sample was large (169), which increases the reliability of the
data, but in the case of Newcomb only 17 participants took part in the research, reducing the robustness
of the data. Any type of bias affects the validity of the findings, which then begs the question, did the

researchers actually measure the variable of interest (i.e. similarity-attraction) or something else entirely?
Taylor et al.’s research could be argued to be more objective in procedure as a meta-analysis and
correlational analysis were used on the data, which increases reliability. The issue with Taylor et al. is that
the perception of the degree of attractiveness of the photos had to be decided between researchers,
which on the one hand increases inter-rater reliability but on the other hand necessarily involves a
subjective viewpoint as to what constitutes ‘attractive’.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS for part 1: personal

relationships
The main ethical considerations with research into personal relationships are outlined below:
Anonymity
Although anonymity of the original participants in meta-analyses would of course have to be protected,
this is not really an issue for researchers conducting meta-analyses but for the researchers involved in the
original research. Providing they have protected anonymity, then the results from the meta-analysis will
also be anonymous.
However, Taylor et al.’s use of actual online dating sites presents more of an issue with protection of
participants and anonymity: it would have been vital for Taylor and colleagues to ensure that the photos
used in the research were not published nor any clue as to whose photos had been used appear in the
report.
Confidentiality of Data
Data collected needs to be kept confidential, so that the responses can not be traced to any named
participant in a particular study. This is vital when research into topics like personal relationships is
undertaken. All of the researchers in this section will have maintained confidentiality of data.
Informed Consent
Meta-analysis of pre-existing published research means that consent to be part of the research cannot be
obtained from the participants. It is assumed from the informed consent that was given to the original
research. Argyle & Henderson’s (1985) participants would have had to give informed consent to take part
in their research into rules of marriage in different cultures.
Psychological Harm
It is important that, given the sensitive nature of some of this research, the participants were protected
from psychological harm or distress. This is particularly important when cross-cultural research is being
carried out as some questions or topics may be deemed unsuitable for some cultures. Gupta & Singh’s use
of married couples would again have needed to ensure informed consent, right to withdraw and some
sensitive handling of the interviews in which participants were each asked their views on their own
married life. Anonymity and data protection would also need to be given absolute priority.
As well as obtaining informed consent from the participants, Felmlee (1995) would have had to ensure
that her questions about failed relationships did not impose undue distress on her participants.
Emphasising that they had the right to withdraw and offering information as to relationship breakdown,
counselling etc. as part of the debriefing process are ways of ensuring that participants left the research in
the same psychological state as when they arrived. Anonymity would also be a key ethical guideline to

adhere to, given the private and personal nature of the topic. Similarly with Tannen: the filming of
intimate partner conversations is quite a sensitive issue, so she would have had to ensure that her
participants did not experience undue distress due to her implementation of the procedure.
Ethical considerations that Fisher et al. (2005) would have to bear in mind are to ensure that no
participants suffered from claustrophobia before entering the fMRI scanner, which is often the same
rather cumbersome and stifling ‘metal tube’ that is used for an MRI.
Festinger’s (1950) research was a naturalistic observation that was followed up by interviews that were
based on friendship choices, which should not entail any undue distress on the part of the participants.
Moreland & Beach’s (1992) research used a confederate, but in such a way as to cause minimal disruption
to the participants: the confederates did not interact with the participants and the level of deception used
was not likely to become a troubling ethical issue. (Though again, there are those who argue that any
deception is unacceptable).
Remember that ethical considerations are not the same as ethical problems: the majority of these studies
were conducted ethically, but the researchers clearly had a lot to consider when planning their studies,
carrying them out and publishing them.

PART 2: GROUP DYNAMICS

This option covers three key topic areas:
1. Cooperation and Competition: This topic involves asking the question, “Is it better to try to reach a
mutually beneficial arrangement or to go all out for what is best for oneself/the in-group”? A range of
ideas will be considered, based on the work of Deutsch (1949) with application to education and sport.
2. Prejudice and Discrimination: This topic looks at the reasons and factors that might explain the
formation of stereotypes, which can lead to in-group preferences, hostility towards the out-group and
the marginalising of distinct social groups.
3. The Origins of Conflict and Conflict Resolution: This topic continues some of the themes and ideas
presented in section one (Cooperation and Competition), with the emphasis being on how particular
types of competition can be destructive and ways in which negative outcomes arising from destructive
competition can be resolved.

Part 2A: Co-operation and competition – Discuss research into cooperation and competition.
Part 2B: Prejudice and discrimination – Evaluate one or more explanations for prejudice and
discrimination.
Part 2C: Origins of conflict and conflict resolution – Discuss the origins of conflict and evaluate one or
more approaches to conflict resolution.
PART 2A: COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

Key Question: Discuss research into cooperation and competition.
What are Group Dynamics?

Group Dynamics is a term which refers to the
ways in which a group operates; the rules
(generally unwritten) which govern how the
group functions, the roles of the group
members and the ways in which the group
communicates, interacts and relates to other
groups. This topic is covered to some extent in
the Sociocultural Approach (e.g. social identity
theory, stereotyping) as it revolves around the
idea that groups have distinct processes that
determine the attitudes and behaviours of the
group’s members. For example, a member of
an ecologically-minded political party would
not be expected to drive a large, ‘gas-guzzling’
car; members of a sales team may view their
colleagues as rivals rather than colleagues; a
football team may play well only when playing
at home to a home crowd of supporters.
Throughout this topic the behaviour of groups

will be considered with reference to ideas such

as how effective particular strategies are to achieving goals (cooperation versus competition); the
processes by which prejudice and discrimination develop and the ways in which conflict within a group or
between groups might occur and strategies which might reduce such conflict. In the words of Henry Ford,
an American industrial and founder of the Ford motor company, “Coming together is a beginning; keeping
together is progress; working together is success”.
Key Theory: Goal Interdependence

Morton Deutsch’s (1949) writing on the elements of cooperation and competition has been highly
influential within the realms of social psychology, business, sport, education and conflict-resolution. This
seminal work, now almost 70 years old, is still being quoted in psychological journals and in writings on
group dynamics. What Deutsch has to say about the nature and outcome of cooperation and competition
has particular relevance today as the world seems to become less certain and more in need of a balanced
perspective rather than knee-jerk reactions.
The essence of Deutsch’s musings on the nature of group relations is based on the idea, “What does each
party want from this situation and how will this be achieved – and at what cost?” This idea applies to the
ways in which the group communicates between its own members and the ways in which the group
communicates with other groups i.e. intra-group and inter-group. This can be conceptualised as follows:
 Goal interdependence – each party in the negotiation has a goal, a desired outcome that to some
extent depends on the actions of the other party e.g. a trade union representative negotiating working
conditions with the director of the company.
 Positive interdependence – both parties in the negotiation have linked goals so that if one party gains
then so does the other e.g. the trade union representative’s goals is to have a happy workforce – and
so is the director’s. This is more likely to result in cooperation between parties.
 Negative interdependence – only one party will benefit: if one party gets what they want then the
other party will miss out e.g. the trade union rep may negotiate better working conditions for the
workforce but the director feels he will miss out as it will involve him having to pay them more and
give them more holidays. This is more likely to result in competition between parties.
Deutsch identified specific features of cooperative interactions between or within groups. These include:
 Effective communication between members.
 A friendly and helpful approach to communication and group relations; a lack of ‘blocking’ others’
ideas.
 A willingness to support each other, to encourage the success of group members rather than a focus
on one’s own progression at the expense of others.
 Tackling problems in a collaborative way so that solutions are worked on together and each group
member feels that they have helped to create a positive solution.
Competitive interactions are, necessarily, the opposite of those outlined above e.g. a focus on self-gain,
mistrust of others, revelling in others’ misfortune or mistakes, working independently and as a rival to
other members. This is not to say that Deutsch completely denigrated competition as a force for healthy
group relations: he stressed the need for constructive competition - harnessing the natural talents of
group members and using them for the good of the group. Competition, Deutsch argued, can be helpful as
it can clarify social mechanisms, highlighting who is the best person for the task in hand. He also said that
competition should be carried out in a playful, light-hearted way by the group so that it galvanises the

members rather than creating rivalry and animosity between them.
Key Theory: Negotiator’s Dilemma

This theory, developed by Lax & Sebenius, in 1992, works along the same lines as the Prisoner’s Dilemma
(Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) as it involves a decision-making process based on what might be
conceptualised as moves in a game, played by two players who each have a very distinct agenda e.g. “I
want X, but I might have to do Y to get it, although Y might lead to Z which wouldn’t be a good outcome
for me”. Lax & Sebenius describe the Negotiator’s Dilemma as hinging on the push-pull idea of whether
cooperation or competition is best for the situation. It can be summed up as follows:
 There will be a good outcome if both parties cooperate – this is the ideal result but the problem is that
in many negotiations the intentions of the other party are unknown, particularly in the early stages of
negotiation e.g. “I want to cooperate, but what if they exploit me?”
 There will be a ‘terrible’ outcome if one party cooperates while the other competes: the terrible
outcome will be for the cooperating party of course; the competing party will get what they want,
which they will undoubtedly feel good about.
 There will be a ‘mediocre’ outcome if both parties compete: the lack of cooperation may mean that
opportunities to maximise benefits are lost.
It appears to be counter-productive when viewed in Lax & Sebenius’ terms but the most likely outcome is
that both parties are more likely to compete, rather than cooperate. In the words of Lax & Sebenius,
“Acting on a rational calculation of their individual best interests causes the parties to forego cooperative
gains and actually leaves them worse off than they could have been.”
Key Study: Tauer & Harackiewicz (2004)

This study demonstrates the effect of imposing cooperation, competition or a combination of both within
a sporting framework. The focus of the study is to look at the effect of cooperation and competition on
intrinsic motivation: motivation that is derived from the sheer joy of an activity rather than on external
goals like prize money, a medal, a tangible reward.
Aim: To investigate the effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance in
sport.
Method: 36 boys from grades 7-9 (mean age 12 years) who were attending a basketball day camp in the
USA were randomly assigned to matched pairs, according to their ability in basketball. Each participant
had been pre-tested on throwing and scoring baskets. There were three conditions of the independent
variable:
 The pure cooperation condition – the paired participants’ pre-test scores were combined, and they
were told that that they had to beat this score by one point by working together.
 The pure competition condition – this was a straightforward case where one boy was pitted against
the other to see who could score the most baskets.
 The intergroup competition condition – one pair of boys was put in competition against another pair
of boys so that the pairs had to work together to win against another pair.
The dependent variable was the number of free throws each participant made and their responses to a
questionnaire about how much they had enjoyed the activity (from 1 – 10 with 10 indicating most
enjoyment).

Results: The intergroup competition condition resulted in the highest levels of task performance and self-
reported task enjoyment. There was no real difference in performance and enjoyment found between
pure cooperation and pure competition.
Conclusion: A combination of cooperation and competition appears to result in the most positive
outcomes both on task performance and enjoyment of the task (intrinsic motivation).
Evaluation of Tauer & Harackiewicz (2004)

 STRENGTHS: This is a field experiment with three distinct conditions of the independent variable
having been manipulated, which means that it is both high in ecological validity (also helped due to
the use of naïve participants) and replicable due to the standardised procedure. The results support
the idea that a combination of cooperation and competition produces the most positive outcomes for
task performance and intrinsic motivation. The use of a matched pairs design helps to reduce
individual differences to some extent as well.
 LIMITATIONS: The researchers point out that this is a quasi-experiment rather than a true experiment
as participants could not be completely randomly allocated to pairs as differing ability in basketball
might have produced a confounding variable. It might also be difficult to completely replicate the
procedure due to the specific setting of the basketball camp and the nature of the interactions
between researchers and participants per trial which could impact on the reliability of the results.
There are also issues with generalisability as the all-male sample was taken from grades 7-9 in the USA
which means that females, other age groups and nationalities are not represented in the results.
Critical Thinking
Does performance on a task improve or deteriorate in the presence of competition? Sports psychology
literature contains some good examples of how competition can bring out the best – and the worst – in
competitors. One might assume that the adrenalin-boosting knowledge that you are competing – either
individually or as a team – against a rival would be enough to provide optimum conditions for peak
performance on the field. Social facilitation theory (also known as the audience effect) is based on the
idea that a sportsperson is more likely to perform well at a task they are good at when there is an
audience present: the downside to this is that they perform badly on tasks at which they have less
practice or skill. These theories of sports psychology can be applied to the debate as to whether
cooperation or competition enhances performance as they demonstrate that it may well be the nature of
the audience (hostile or friendly) that ultimately decides the outcome on the day, rather than the
competition itself.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTION FOR CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

Discuss research into cooperation and competition. [22]
You will need to offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses related to research into cooperation and competition. Opinions or conclusions should be
presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence. Your conclusions should be presented clearly and
supported by relevant studies.

PART 2B: PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Key Question: Evaluate one or more explanations for prejudice and discrimination.
Key Theory: Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is a key theory covered by the Sociocultural Approach from
year one of the IB Psychology Diploma programme. Its application to group dynamics is that the concepts
and theories involved in social identity theory relate to the initial processes involved in the formation of
prejudice and discrimination. Social identity theory, you may recall, involves the following concepts:
 Social categorisation – this is a type of short-cut that allows us to pigeon-hole someone so that it
makes it easier for us to understand how to relate to them and what to expect from that person.
Social categorisation uses physical appearance, ethnicity, age, job, interests, political affiliations etc. as
markers of identity, which allow us to classify someone. For example, it might be assumed that a
university professor will fall into the categories marked ‘liberal, book-loving, wine-drinking, tweed-
jacket-wearing’ when in fact this person may be a teetotal extreme sports fan who hates reading. In
this way, social categorisation is linked to stereotyping.
 Social identification – this is the idea that part of our identity is influenced by the groups to which we
belong. Membership of a group brings with it an expectation that group norms will be adhered to e.g.
being in a football team may involve a ritual trip to the pub after each practice session; not taking part
in this aspect of team behaviour may result in isolation and alienation from the group. The more
involved an individual becomes with a group the more they internalise the group norms.
 Social comparison – once someone has a secure identity of themselves as a group member then they
are likely to wish to preserve the integrity and high status of that group. Any group of which an
individual is a member of is an in-group, and the relative success and positive qualities of the in-group
are linked to an individual’s self-esteem and self-worth. One way to feel good about your in-group is to
compare it favourably to groups of which one is not a member i.e. out-groups. For example, staff at a
school may feel huge pride and self-validation if their exam results are better than those of a nearby
school, particularly if the schools are already rivals.

The route to prejudice and discrimination starts when all of the above processes are in place, particularly
if prevailing social attitudes encourage the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The point at which a natural preference
for one’s in-group becomes a tendency to view the out-group in a hostile or stereotyped way may depend
on a range of factors but these factors will necessarily involve the following:
 Positive distinctiveness of the in-group – this involves emphasising the positive qualities of the in-
group with the focus being on preserving the self-esteem of the group members. One is more likely to
reward or assign favourable characteristics or attribute good motivations to members of one’s in-
group.
 Homogeneity of the out-group – this involves reducing the out-group to a kind of amorphous mass so
that they are presented not as a group of individuals but in a way that makes them appear
anonymous, therefore easier to stereotype and disregard.
Key Study: Lam & Seaton (2016)

This study uses the minimal groups paradigm as investigated in Tajfel’s (1970) classic study involving
Bristol schoolboys in which the creation of minimal groups resulted in the in-group being favoured over
the out-group. Almost 50 years later it is interesting to see that this in-group bias tendency can still be
manipulated using minimal groups.
Aim: To investigate the influence of intergroup competition on children’s in-group and out-group
attitudes.
Sample: 112 children (65 girls, 47 boys) from a primary school in East London aged from 6 to 10 years old.
The sample reflected the ethnic mix of the school e.g. a quarter having South Asian heritage with Black
African/Caribbean being the second largest demographic.
Procedure: The children were given either a green or a yellow tie to wear as part of their school uniform
over a period of two weeks. In the experimental condition, the children were encouraged to see the
colours they had been randomly allocated as ‘team’ colours and they were reminded through the two-
week period that there would be a competition and that the members of the winning team would win a
prize. The children in the control condition were given no encouragement to think in terms of them being
part of two different teams and no reference was made to the two teams competing. The last day of the
two-week period involved the children taking part in spelling and numeracy tests, competing as teams.
The children were then interviewed about their attitudes towards their own team and the other team;
they also completed rating scale questionnaires on in-group and out-group attitudes.
Results: Children in the experimental condition (where group identity and competition with the out-group
was encouraged) showed the strongest in-group bias, with positive distinctiveness for the in-group being
shown more in the rating scales and interviews. The younger children in the experimental group gave
lower ratings for the out-group than the control condition children. Children of all ages in the
experimental group attributed fewer positive traits to members of the out-group compared to the in-
group.
Conclusion: In-group bias can develop when a strong sense of group identity and a competitive element
are introduced through social categorisation using the minimal groups paradigm.
Evaluation of Lam & Seaton (2016)

 STRENGTHS: This study is high in ecological validity as it took place in a real school, using the day-to-
day activities and tasks that the participants would have considered a natural part of school life. The
researchers were acting as classroom assistants, which gave them first-hand experience of the norms

and ambience of the school which should help to ensure the validity of the study even further. The use
of both a questionnaire and interview means that both quantitative and qualitative data were
gathered which would have enabled the researchers to check both measures for agreement
(triangulation), thus increasing the internal validity of the findings.
 LIMITATIONS: It would be difficult to replicate this study due to the longitudinal, field-based aspect of
the research, which reduces the reliability of the findings. The array of extraneous variables involved
means that the researchers would not have been able to impose complete control over their research.
There is also the issue of bias to consider: the teachers involved in the process may have unwittingly
treated the children in a way which was not entirely neutral due to their pre-existing experience with
them. The sample can only be generalised to inner-city children from London from a low to lower-
middle income bracket, which limits the results somewhat.
Critical Thinking
Does this research tell us anything that we don’t already know? The use of primary school age children in
a field experiment based on in-group bias is not something that is new to the psychological literature. The
infamous ‘brown eyes/blue eyes’ activity devised by Jane Elliott in the 1960s is still being used today to
demonstrate the dangers of unchecked demonising of the out-group. Lam & Seaton (2016) used the idea
of creating distinctive differences between children – albeit far more ethically – in a similar way to that of
Elliott (although Elliott’s is not a peer-reviewed study) but, unlike Elliott, their findings do not tell us
anything that we don’t already know i.e. children will form strong in-group allegiances and a disinclination
to reward the out-group when given the green light to do so by adults. Knowing this is one thing but it
would be more interesting to investigate why this occurs, particularly in a world where social media is a
highly influential gatekeeper for even very young children.
Key Theory: Low Cognitive Ability Predicts Prejudice

While cognitive theories of prejudice have been around for a long time, linking the ‘authoritarian
personality’ with a tendency to exhibit prejudice and discrimination towards others (see Adorno, et al.,
1950; Allport, 1954), a more recent theory argues that cognitive ability plays a role in prejudice. Hodson
and Busseri (2012) developed a theory suggesting that low cognitive ability in childhood is correlated with
greater prejudice and right-wing authoritarian attitudes.
Key Study: Hodson & Busseri (2012)

Aim: To investigate a proposed correlation between low cognitive ability, preference for right-wing
authoritarianism and prejudice and discrimination, with the proposal that it is the socially conservative
ideology that mediates most of this effect. (i.e. it is the attraction to the right-wing authoritarianism that
results in the prejudice, rather than just a direct route from low cognitive ability to prejudice and
discrimination).
Method: A meta-analysis was conducted of longitudinal data from two UK samples measuring intelligence
in childhood and conservative ideology and racism in adulthood. A total data set of over 7,500 men and
over 8,000 women, born in either 1958 or 1970 was used, and data was analysed, regarding childhood
intelligence, social conservatism, racism, parental socioeconomic status and personal socioeconomic
status and education level in childhood and adulthood. The measurement of childhood intelligence
preceded the measure of adult racism and social conservativism by at least 20 years.
Results: For both men and women, there was a significant correlation between low childhood intelligence
and right-wing authoritarianism. The higher the cognitive functioning, the less likely the person was

twenty years later, in adulthood, to be an adult racist, and vice-versa. Socioeconomic status and education
type had no effect.
Conclusion: The researchers concluded that cognitive ability plays a crucial role in prejudice and
discrimination and should be investigated further. Social conservatism becomes the mechanism through
which prejudice and discrimination is expressed.
Evaluation of Hodson and Busseri (2012)

 STRENGTHS: This study disentangled conservative ideology from prejudice and showed that right-wing
authoritarian ideologies and conservative ideology can contribute to negative out-group evaluations
and it is the lack of ability to resist the stereotypes or apply abstract reasoning to the arguments of the
social conservative ideology that resulted in prejudice and discrimination.
 LIMITATIONS: While the researchers did conduct an analysis of a small US study, which supported
their findings, this time with regard to homophobia, there is a lack of cross-cultural research linking
cognitive abilities and prejudice and discrimination. As Brandt & Crawford (2016) point out, we need
to look at all victims of prejudice, not just those targeted by racism and anti-homosexuality. They
found that lower cognitive ability could predict prejudice against groups who are perceived as liberal,
unconventional, and having lower levels of choice over group membership (such as ethnic minorities
and homosexuals). They found the opposite, however, for groups perceived as conservative,
conventional, and having higher levels of choice over group membership (certain political or social
groups). Moreover, people with both relatively higher and lower levels of cognitive ability showed
approximately equal levels of intergroup bias but toward different sets of groups
Critical Thinking
Less prejudiced, or better at hiding it? Could it be that more intelligent adults are aware of the social
disapproval of prejudice, and more skilled at hiding their prejudice from researchers? The social
desirability effect may prevent them from revealing their prejudices.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTION FOR PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Evaluate one or more explanations for prejudice and discrimination. [22]
You will need to consider one or more explanations for prejudice and discrimination, the strengths and
limitations of the theory(s), writing a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments,
factors or hypotheses. Your conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by relevant studies.

PART 2C: ORIGINS OF CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Key Question: Discuss the origins of conflict and evaluate one or more approaches to
conflict resolution.
Key Theory: Realistic Conflict Theory

This theory was proposed by Sherif (1966) who ran a series of now-classic field experiments during the
1940s and 1950s. You are probably aware of the ‘Robber’s Cave’ study from the Sociocultural Approach as
it is often used as an explanation for the formation of stereotypes and to demonstrate social identity
theory. Sherif developed the Robber’s Cave experiments in order to explore the idea of intergroup
relations in the presence of competition via the minimal groups paradigm. Sherif believed that when
groups compete over scarce resources then conditions are in place to produce conflict and a prejudiced
attitude towards each other. He argued that when a group shares the same goals – particularly when
those goals are interdependent – then the group will work together to achieve those goals in a
cooperative way. Conversely, when two groups share mutually exclusive goals (i.e. they are both aiming
for the same goal but only one group can prevail and win this scarce resource) then realistic intergroup
conflict will occur, and along with it, prejudice. It is only when the two groups share the same
superordinate goal that conflict will be reduced and intergroup relations will improve to create harmony.
Key Study: Sherif (1961)

Aim: To investigate intergroup relations in the presence of competition for scarce resources.
Method: 22 boys aged around 12 years old who were attending the Robber’s Cave camp in Oklahoma,
USA were randomly assigned to one of two groups but they were not told of the existence of the other
group. The boys were from a white, middle-class, Protestant, two-parent demographic and they did not
know each other before the onset of the study. The camp was run by the experimenters, although the
boys were not aware that this was the case. The two groups of boys were initially kept apart from each
other and were encouraged to from strong in-group bonds and a clear group identity.
Once the two groups had formed strong group identities the researchers introduced the idea of
competition between them, as the boys were made aware that another group existed at the camp. In fact,
the boys had been asking for competitions to be put in place even before the experimenters introduced
the 4-6-day competition phase. A series of competitive games and tasks followed, with the winning team
receiving a trophy and individual prizes and the losers getting nothing.

Results: The boys very quickly adapted to their groups, creating group norms, engaging in a range of tasks
and giving their group a name: ‘The Eagles’ for one group and ‘The Rattlers’ for the other group. The
group names became part of their unofficial ‘uniform’ and group identity i.e. via group flags. Once aware
of the existence of the other group, each group showed strong out-group prejudice, treating the other
with disrespect, hostility and negativity.
The experimenters then attempted to unite the groups as one by getting them involved in activities such
as watching a film or engaging in ‘getting to know you’ games but this proved fruitless: the boys were still
firmly entrenched in their ‘Eagles’ or ‘Rattlers’ identities. At this point the experimenters engineered some
‘problems’ (e.g. a water tank that needed fixing, money for a movie that night, a truck that was stuck)
which would inconvenience the whole camp and which presented an issue that went beyond in-group-
out-group concerns. Sherif called this the use of superordinate goals to create a common motive and to
trigger intergroup cooperation – which is what happened in this study: the boys came together to solve
the problems and intergroup relations improved to the point that the two separate groups forged a new
group identity and cast aside intergroup rivalries and prejudice.
Conclusion: Intergroup conflict may be resolved by the introduction of a superordinate goal that is shared
by both groups.
Evaluation of Sherif (1961)

 STRENGTHS: This study is high in ecological validity as it took place in a real camp, using the day-to-
day activities and tasks that the participants would have considered a natural part of camp life. The
researchers were in role as camp leaders which gave them first-hand experience of the procedure and
the effect it was having on the naïve participants. The issue of demand characteristics would not have
arisen as the boys were unaware that they were taking part in a study, enhancing the validity of the
findings.
 LIMITATIONS: It would be difficult to replicate this study due to the field-based aspect of it which
reduces the reliability of the findings. The array of extraneous variables involved means that the
researchers would not have been able to impose complete control over their research. There is also
the issue of bias to consider: the researchers involved in the process may have influenced the boys to
behave in ways which was in line with their hypothesis. The sample can only be generalised to white,
male, middle-class Protestants aged 12, which limits the findings. The study also lacks temporal
validity, as it is possible that social changes over the last 60 years might produce different results if the
study were to be carried out today. Finally, there are real ethical concerns with the study (see below).
Critical Thinking
Is this the right sample to use to test realistic conflict theory? The use of 12-year-old children in a field
experiment set at a summer camp may not have been the best way of testing realistic conflict theory. For
a start, boys attending a camp would have been expecting to engage in competitive games and tasks as
part of the activities set up by the camp leaders: this poses a problem in terms of the validity of the
findings as the sample could be said to be biased towards competition even before the minimal groups
were created. Children are accustomed to using conflict scenarios in imaginary play (particularly in the
1950s when boys would have engaged in ‘Cowboys and Indians’-type games to a much greater extent
than happens today) so the strong intergroup conflict observed by Sherif may simply have been an
extension of what the boys do on a daily basis and with a strong element of make-believe attached to it. It
is possible that the boys were simply playing at being ‘Eagles’ or ‘Rattlers’ with no more meaning attached
to the titles as they would if they were playing ‘Cowboys’ or ‘Indians’.

Key Theory: ‘Peaceful Peoples’

Traditional Western views about conflict and conflict resolution tend to be based around the idea that
conflict a) is inevitable, b) is best dealt with by governments and institutions, c) will be reduced by threat
of punishment and d) is a positive and necessary part of life. There are societies and cultures in the world
in which these assumptions about conflict and conflict resolution are alien concepts: these are societies
typified by Bonta (1996) as ‘peaceful’, to be specific, “a relatively high degree of interpersonal harmony;
little if any physical violence; workable strategies for resolving conflicts and averting violence” (p405).
Key Study: Bonta (1996)

Aim: To investigate the ways in which ‘peaceful peoples’ use strategies to resolve conflict.
Method: A cross-cultural sample of studies of 24 peoples was investigated. The sample came from sub-
cultures or societies within a larger culture e.g. the Semai, the Amish, the !Kung, the Inuit, the Hutterites.
Whilst most of these groups tend to be from collectivist cultures (e.g. Indonesia, Botswana) some of them
reside in the USA or Canada (e.g. the Amish, the Hutterites, the Mennonites). What all of them have in
common is that they do not use violence to resolve conflicts, and they are generally non-violent in all
aspects of their lives. Bonta gathered information (a review of the available literature on the topic) about
the norms of the 24 peaceful peoples and arranged them into categorised strategies relating to conflict
resolution.
Results: Bonta identified six strategies or assumptions made by peaceful peoples regarding conflict
resolution:
1. Self-restraint – this is the opposite of the idea, ‘let it all out, you’ll feel better’: the peoples in this
study tended to avoid expressing negative views or conflict-making interactions or confrontations,
moving away from such situations to let things settle. Some of the peoples felt that expressing
emotion in such a way would be physically and psychologically harmful.
2. Indirect Negotiation – the peoples in Bonta’s research did not feel that direct negotiation was a
positive thing, preferring instead to make inferences as to the best course of action in a situation and
to make suggestions rather than demands which could lead to conflict.
3. Separation – this might involve full-scale re-location to another area to avoid conflict or it might mean
simply not being in the same space as the person causing you annoyance or irritation. In this way a
whole tribe might up sticks and leave or a husband and wife might sleep in separate rooms or houses
for the night.
4. Intervention – this involves asking someone else to act as the mediator in a potential conflict, to
enable the two parties to reach an understanding and avoid a confrontation.
5. Meetings – the peoples in this research used meetings to enable people to air grievances in a way that
enabled dialogue to flow and understanding to be reached; meetings were not seen as reasons to
berate others or to settle personal scores, rather to stop disagreements from becoming bitter rivalries.
6. Humour – this may seem to be a surprising addition to the list but many of the peoples in the research
used humour, jokes, facetiousness, silliness, funny songs etc. to diffuse serious situations that might
lead to conflict. Some of the societies featured cited humour as a way to gain status in the group, with
loss of temper being seen as a terrible faux-pas, with the person involved then regarded as a lesser
being by the group.
Conclusion: Conflict resolution does not have to involve force, aggression or violence.

Evaluation of Bonta (1996)

 STRENGTHS: This is a review of available literature which means that the researcher could have access
to large amounts of rich qualitative data in a time-efficient way. Being able to review the research of
others means that it is easy to spot patterns and emergent themes which is not possible with only one
set of results. The cross-cultural nature of the study means that the results can be generalised to
peaceful societies across the world. This use of the etic approach means that the researcher is not
taking a universal viewpoint as to conflict resolution but has considered a range of culturally different
perspectives which reduces bias in the findings.
 LIMITATIONS: Bonta only had access to secondary data, which can reduce the reliability of the results
– the original research may have had flaws which Bonta would not have been able to control. There
are issues with validity as well due to the potential for extraneous variables to have interfered with
the original collection of the data e.g. cultural misunderstandings, different researchers’ approaches,
researcher bias. The study lacks reliability due to the qualitative findings which are difficult to analyse
and may be interpreted subjectively.
Critical Thinking
Are these strategies helpful or might they lead to psychological or even physical harm? Bonta points out
many noble and highly commendable peace-keeping strategies from his sample of 24 peoples but there
are some caveats to consider with regard to these strategies. The first potential problem with the peaceful
people is that, as Bonta points out, they tend to be ‘meek’, fearful and to have a policy of non-resistance
to aggression – whether that aggression stems from an individual or from another state or country. It
might be argued that the peaceful peoples are not so much peaceful as cowardly and lacking in the grit
needed to defend oneself from hostile forces. Consider what the world might be like if no-one had ever
resisted a malignant, destructive force (e.g. French resistance fighters in World War II; Nelson Mandela’s
refusal to accept apartheid): perhaps there are times when peaceful strategies are incompatible with the
magnitude of the threat. It might be the case that the majority i.e. ‘non-peaceful peoples’ need to take on
the attitudes of the minority such as the Semai or the Amish in order to create a world in which conflict is
simply part of life that is not very important and is easily – and peacefully – dealt with.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTION FOR THE ORIGINS OF CONFLICT AND CONFLICT

RESOLUTION
Contrast two theories of the origins of conflict. [22]
You will need to give an account of the differences between two different theories /studies of the origins of
conflict, referring to both of them throughout. You should choose the evidence that you think best supports
the points you have made and present your conclusion clearly.
Evaluate one or more approaches to conflict resolution. [22]

This essay is asking you to assess the strengths and limitations of one or more explanations relating to
conflict resolution, with the emphasis being placed on the arguments and methods used by the
researchers. You should choose the evidence that you think best supports the points you have made and
present your conclusion clearly. Alternative explanations may be used as part of the evaluation.

APPROACHES TO RESEARCH for part 2: group dynamics

Research into group dynamics often involves field experiments, with the manipulation of the variable of
interest and the measurement of the effect of this on the participants, under natural conditions.
Field Experiments
The strengths of field experiments is that the data gathered is usually high in ecological validity and less
subject to the effect of demand characteristics, as these experiments take place in natural conditions, and
largely with naïve participants, which results in low demand characteristics. However, natural settings
mean a lack of control over variables and subsequent lack of reliability of data.
Lam & Seaton’s (2016) research was carried out in a school, using everyday school procedures and rituals
as part of the investigative process, which makes it high in ecological validity and unlikely to produce
demand characteristics. The use of a control group means that the researchers were able to see the effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable by comparing the self-report responses of the two
groups involved in the research. However, the natural setting used means that the researchers would
have had to relinquish a lot of control and the potential for extraneous variables to confound the results
was high. The research would be difficult to replicate exactly due to the natural setting and lack of
controlled conditions but the collecting of qualitative and quantitative data means that the findings
provide some degree of insight (qualitative data) and some reliability (quantitative data). The split-half
method could be used to check the internal reliability of the children’s responses to the questionnaire.
Tauer & Harackiewicz used a field experiment with manipulation of the independent variable. This makes
the results of the study high in ecological validity and low in demand characteristics, as the participants
would not necessarily have known that they were being studied and are more likely to have behaved in a
natural and unforced way. The manipulation of the independent variable with three conditions means
that the study is to some extent replicable and the collecting of quantitative data means that the study
results have reliability. The use of the enjoyment questionnaire provides some internal validity as the
results from this measure can be checked against the results for performance. The study lacks
generalizability, however, as no girls were included in the sample and the ages involved and geographical
location limits the extent to which the results represent a wider population.
Sherif’s (1961) research took the form of several field experiments carried out over a number of years,
making the studies high in ecological validity and low in demand characteristics due to the use of naïve
participants and experimenters in role as camp leaders. The use of the minimal groups paradigm supports
the idea that the origins of conflict can be seen in the creation of in-groups and out-groups with strong
group identities. However, the use of qualitative data in the observations made by the experimenters is
rich and insightful but more difficult to analyse and compare than quantitative data: for this reason, the
research lacks reliability, plus it would be difficult to replicate under the same conditions.
Meta-Analysis
Meta-analysis as described in the section on personal relationships, is also an interesting way to
investigate cross-cultural similarities and differences in group dynamics and inter- and intra-group
behaviour.
Bonta’s (1996) review of the available psychological literature involves the thematic analysis of existing
secondary data. Using previous research in this way means that the researcher has access to a range of
results from a wide demographic which can increase the validity of the data – known as triangulation, as
more than one set of findings is used – but it also means that the researcher has no control over how the

results were obtained, which reduces reliability. The qualitative findings would have been time-consuming
to analyse and to some extent they are open to interpretation, which makes them subjective rather than a
reliable, objective measure.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS for part 2: group dynamics

Many of these studies used children and young people. The issues of informed consent and confidentiality
of data are even more important here. When participants are under the age at which they are considered
adults, and may give their own informed consent (usually at the age of 18 in most countries), parents or
guardians give consent for them. It is also even more important that they be protected from psychological
harm; understand that they are able to withdraw at any point; and given a detailed debriefing after the
study. Anonymity and confidentiality of data are also issues that should be considered. Naturalistic
observations and field experiments that avoid the stress of artificial surroundings are the most common
form of study for young people.
Informed Consent
Lam & Seaton (2016) obtained written consent from the children’s parents and their school before they
carried out their research. The children had a teacher and other familiar adults with them during the two
weeks of the study so they should have felt comfortable and that everything was familiar. The researchers
would have had to take great care to prevent the children from feeling distressed, enabling them to
withdraw at any point if they wanted to and they should not have been made to feel overly competitive to
the point that this was causing them to feel pressured. The researchers do not identify the school in their
report, only that it is in East London, protecting the anonymity of the participants. The researchers would
have to prepare a careful debriefing for the students, ensuring that they had not encouraged or
perpetuated any feelings of in-group/out-group rivalry, helping the children to feel united as one group.
Psychological Harm
In Tauer & Haraciewicz’s (2004) study there is a slight concern that some boys may have felt pressurised
to score baskets from the free throws, which may have led to some feelings of inadequacy or anxiety if
they failed to do so. The researchers would have had to ensure that an atmosphere of positivity and good
humour prevailed throughout the procedure to protect the participants from any negative feelings
induced by the allotted task. The anonymity of the participants has been ensured as the original report
does not identify which area of the USA the camp was in or where any of the boys were from.
Sherif’s (1961) research brings with it a range of ethical concerns, such as a lack of informed consent,
deception, risk of psychological harm and a lack of anonymity. It is unclear as to whether or not Sherif
obtained informed consent from the boys’ parents and the boys were unaware that they were in a study
which means that they were not given the right to withdraw from the study. The experimenters deceived
the boys as to their true identities, as they were in role as camp leaders. It could be argued that the boys
were encouraged to see the out-group as rivals or competitors which could have put pressure on them to
out-perform each other: this may have been particularly stressful for the boys who were not as skilled at
sport or team games as the others. There is no mention that the boys were debriefed after the research
was over. The fact that Sherif published the name of the summer camp and its location also compromises
the anonymity of the participants –this would not be passed by an ethics committee nowadays.

PART 3: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

This option covers 3 key topic areas:
 Bystanderism: this topic looks at the reasons and factors that determine whether help is given in an
emergency situation. One of the main theories studied is the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis.
 Prosocial behaviour: this topic involves asking the question, “Under what conditions are people most
likely to help someone in need?” Both biological and psychological theories of altruism will be
considered, along with cultural perspectives on prosocial behaviour.
 Promoting prosocial behaviour: this topic covers research investigating what is likely to produce
prosocial behaviour in people. A range of strategies will be looked at including prior commitment.
These topics, plus related theories and studies, form the basis of the Social Responsibility topic in the
Psychology of Human Relationships option.

Part 3A: Bystanderism – Discuss factors that play a key role in bystanderism.
Part 3B: Prosocial Behaviour – Why do people engage in pro-social behaviour?
 Part 3B(i) Biological Theories of Altruism
 Part 3B(ii) Cognitive (Psychological) Theories of Altruism
 Part 3B(iii) Culture and Prosocial Behaviour
Part 3C: Promoting Prosocial Behaviour – Evaluate one theory or study related to promoting prosocial
behaviour.
PART 3A: BYSTANDERISM

Key Question: Discuss factors that play a key role in bystanderism.
What Is
Bystanderism?
In 1970 the concept of the
unresponsive bystander was
introduced into the
psychological literature. Latané
and Darley – the researchers
who coined this term – were
responding to a famous case of
non-intervention that had
occurred in New York City in
1964. The case concerned a
young woman, named Kitty
Genovese, who had been
attacked and eventually
murdered outside her apartment
block in front of 38 witnesses; the case became notorious due to the fact that Kitty could have been saved
if just one of the witnesses had intervened to help her (simply by calling the police). At the time the
newspaper reports suggested that it was the experience of big city life that had produced an uncaring,

indifferent attitude in the bystanders but Latané and Darley disagreed: they propounded the theory that it
was the situation that produced the behaviour rather than the inhabitants of New York being cold or
indifferent to a woman in peril. Thus, a bystander is, literally, someone who simply stands by and allows
the emergency to happen without offering assistance, creating the bystander effect.
Key Theories: Diffusion of Responsibility and Pluralistic Ignorance

Latané and Darley’s concept of the unresponsive bystander is based on the idea that circumstantial
factors can – and do – override an individual’s distress, concern and motivation to help at the scene of an
emergency. One of the main factors explaining lack of help is diffusion of responsibility, the idea that the
more bystanders there are present at the scene then the less likely it is that help will be given. Latané and
Darley theorised that diffusion of responsibility occurs because the individual does not perceive that is
their own, personal responsibility to take charge and offer help for various reasons: lack of competence
(e.g. I don’t know first aid); taking cues from others (e.g. why should I help if no-one else is?); lack of
knowledge (e.g. is this actually an emergency?).
Pluralistic ignorance shares some features with diffusion of responsibility: it is the idea that an individual
believes there to be a group norm to which the members of the group adhere and which they must follow
in order to fit in with the group. Examples in terms of the bystander effect might be a fire alarm going off
in a shopping centre followed by a lack of action in exiting the building – each individual fails to exit
because nobody else is doing so. Each individual may be looking to the others for behavioural cues as to
what to do, each one believing that everyone else shares the same knowledge about the situation when in
fact no-one actually does. There have been real-life cases of people dying in large numbers in fires
because group norms – rather than survival instincts – dominated the behavioural rules for that situation.
Key Study: Latané & Darley (1968a)

The first study by Latané and Darley from 1968 that will be dealt with here is one in which diffusion of
responsibility could be said to the motivating factor behind the observed behaviour of participants; in
short, it may explain the lack of help given when participants were alone compared to when they were in
the (believed) presence of others.
Aim: To investigate diffusion of responsibility in a perceived emergency.
Method: 72 students (59 female, 13 male) on an introductory psychology course from New York
University were contacted by the researchers and asked to take part in an experiment, although they
were not told what the procedure would consist of.
Each participant was taken to a room and placed at a table with headphones and a microphone on it. The
participant was then told that they would be taking part in a discussion of problems that college students
faced and that because this might be a sensitive discussion they would be alone in the room, using the
microphone and headphones, rather than having a face-to-face discussion.
The participants were in the middle of listening to another person (a confederate) speaking when it
became clear that the person on the other end of the intercom was having a seizure. The dependent
variable was measured as the time (from the start of the confederate’s seizure) it took them to seek
assistance to help the person having the seizure.
The independent variable was designed as follows: either the participant believed that they alone were
listening to the seizure; or the participant believed that one other person was listening in (3-person
group); or the participant believed that four other people were listening in (6-person group).

Results: 85% of the participants in the ‘alone’ condition reported the seizure before the confederate had
even finished their pre-prepared enactment of the fit. 62% reported the seizure in the 3-person group
(where it was believed that there was one other bystander) and in the 6-person group where the
participant believed that there were four other bystanders only 31% went off to find help.
Conclusion: An individual is less likely to help another person in need if that individual believes there to be
others present who can offer help. The likelihood of help being given decreases as group size increases.
Evaluation of Latané & Darley (1968a)

 STRENGTHS: this is a well-designed study with a clear difference in the results according to the three
conditions of the independent variable; group size did seem to have an influence as to the speed and
rate of helping so it supports the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. The use of standardised
instructions, timings and script read by the perceived victim mean that the study is replicable which in
turn increases the reliability of the findings. The researchers reported that 100% of the participants’
behaviour indicated that they believed the seizure to be genuine as they comment in their discussion
that, “Subjects, whether or not they intervened, believed the fit to be genuine and serious. "My God,
he's having a fit," many subjects said to themselves (and were overheard via their microphones).
Others gasped or simply said "Oh." Several of the male subjects swore. One subject said to herself, "It's
just my kind of luck, something has to happen to me!" Several subjects spoke aloud of their confusion
about what course of action to take, "Oh God, what should I do?" Such reactions – if genuine –
increase the validity of the study as it means that participants were not experiencing demand
characteristics.
 LIMITATIONS: regardless of the researchers’ insistence that the participants had no idea that the
seizure was faked it is entirely possible that they were not behaving in a manner that was completely
natural due to the laboratory-based nature of the study. The participants may have been behaving in a
way which was contrived or artificial simply because they were in the unfamiliar setting of the lab;
they may even have helped more than they would have done in real life because they were in a more
formal setting. (i.e. They were on their ‘best behaviour’). The lab setting decreases the ecological
validity of the study results, and the sample is not generalisable due to the limited nature of the
demographic (US university students in New York).
Key Study: Latané And Darley (1968b)

This study hinges on the idea that human beings are so conditioned to follow the group norm that they
will put their lives at risk in order to do so.
Aim: To further investigate the bystander effect with an emphasis on group inhibition.
Method: Male students from Columbia University who were living on campus were invited to take part in
research on university life (although this was not the true aim of the study). Each participant was shown
into a room and then given a questionnaire to fill in. The independent variable was whether the
participant was alone or with two other confederates (group of 3). As soon as the participant had
completed two pages of the questionnaire a harmless smoke was pumped into the room. In the ‘alone’
condition the participant filled in the questionnaire alone. In the group of 3 condition the participant was
put in a room containing two confederates. The confederates were told to glance briefly at the smoke,
shrug and continue filling the form in. If the participant attempted to talk to them about the smoke they
were instructed to try to avoid saying anything very much and if possible to continue ignoring the smoke
even to the point where visibility became difficult. The participants were observed via a one-way mirror
with the dependent variable being the reporting of the smoke.

Results: 75% of the participants in the alone condition reported the smoke whereas only 10% in the group
of 3 did so.
Conclusion: An individual is likely to look to other people to see how to react in an ambiguous situation.
Evaluation of Latané And Darley (1968b)

 STRENGTHS: this is another well-designed laboratory study with a clear independent variable which
appears to have affected the dependent variable, thus giving the study internal validity. The use of the
unresponsive confederates in the group of 3 condition appears to support the theory of pluralistic
ignorance as it can be inferred that the low rate of response in this condition may have emerged due
to perception of the group norm. (i.e. ‘do not react to the smoke’). The use of the one-way mirror to
observe the participants meant that the researchers could claim inter-rater reliability.
 LIMITATIONS: there are ethical problems with this study (as there are with most research on
bystanderism) as the participants were deceived as to the true nature of the study and they may have
experienced some distress at being in a room which was slowly filling up with smoke. The validity of
the study may have suffered if the participants experienced demand characteristics or realised that
the smoke was not dangerous (some reported that it looked ‘strange’). Of the participants who didn’t
report the smoke there was what the researchers describe as ‘an astonishing variety of alternative
explanations’ as to what the smoke was, with some participants thinking it was steam or that it was
indeed, ‘some sort of experiment’. This range of reactions means that participant variables may have
confounded the findings of the study to some extent. The use of the all-male, student sample also
means that the findings are difficult to generalise to other populations.
Critical Thinking
Do Latané & Darley’s (1968) experiments have any external validity? The studies considered here are
both lab-based experiments and although they used naïve participants (who had been misled as to the
true aim of each study) the fact that the study took place in a lab – plus the limited sample characteristics
– means that the findings are not easily generalised to other populations or to behaviour outside of the
laboratory. This means that they lack external validity in that the findings can only explained in light of the
experimental manipulation and they may not reflect the ways in which the participants might behave in
an emergency in real life.
Is the bystander effect consistent and if so how can this be measured? Latané and Darley’s research is
limited in that it measures one instance of bystanderism per participant per trial, in conditions, which are
not entirely natural. One of the main issues with trying to measure bystanderism in this way is that it only
includes an isolated incident and it does not give any insight into how an individual may fluctuate in their
bystanderism dependent on the context. For example, one of Latané and Darley’s participants who did
not help in their study may actually help in other contexts. (e.g. rescuing someone who is drowning;
picking up a dropped letter; donating to charity). The research on bystanderism is essentially limited
because it cannot account for what drives differing degrees of help in a range of emergency and non-
emergency situations.
Key Theories: The Just World Hypothesis and The Cost-Reward Model
The Just World Hypothesis (Lerner, 1966) works along the premise that there is a sense of rightness
(justice, i.e. what is just) in the world and that people are rewarded or punished according to what they
deserve. When applied to bystanderism it may explain why some people tend to be given help more than
others. i.e. they are a ‘deserving’ victim rather than someone who has played a role in bringing about their

own misfortune. A victim who appears innocent is more likely to be helped than a victim who seems to
have invited their fate. e.g. someone who is drunk, on drugs, homeless etc.
The Cost-Reward model is a cognitive construct as it involves a bystander undertaking a calculation of
whether to help someone in need or to offer no assistance. The costs of helping may be judged as
outweighing the rewards in which case the bystander is unlikely to offer help. If the victim appears to be
drunk then the costs of helping are high (e.g. the victim may turn violent, they may smell, they may seem
frightening), but the costs of not helping may also be high (e.g. the victim may die, they may be attacked
by others, the bystander may feel guilty for not helping). The bystander then must work out what to do
based on this internal process of weighing up the pros and cons of helping/not helping.
Key Study: Piliavin et al. (1969)

This study is unusual in that it combines both a field experiment with participant observation and a
standardised procedure with manipulated variables. It is an ambitious and labour-intensive piece of
research which challenged the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis and highlighted that people will help
others even when in a large group under certain conditions.
Aim: To investigate the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis and the Just World Hypothesis in a real
setting involving two different types of victim.
Method: The participants were the 4,450 passengers on the New York subway who happened to board a
specific carriage travelling between Harlem and the Bronx during the hours of 11am to 3pm during the
period of the research. The ethnicity of the sample was 45% black, 55% white. The train selected by the
researchers did not make any stops for 7 and a half minutes. The researchers manipulated the typology of
the victim – on the ‘drunk’ trials a male confederate stood next to a central pole wearing a brown jacket,
holding a bottle in a brown paper bag and smelling of alcohol; in the ‘cane’ condition the victim’s
appearance was the same as the ‘drunk’ but he was holding a cane instead of a bottle and he did not
smell of alcohol. Two female researchers sat in the adjacent carriage at right angles to each other in order
to observe the number of passengers who helped, who moved out of the critical area, the speed of
helping and whether a ‘model’ needed to be used to prompt the helping behaviour. They also recorded
the comments made.
The independent variables were:

 whether the victim was ‘drunk’ or carrying a cane
 the ethnicity of the victim
The dependent variables were:

 the speed of helping
 the frequency of helping
 the ethnicity of the helper
103 trials were run with the ‘cane’ victim being used more than the ‘drunk’ victim. 70 seconds into the
journey the victim would stagger forward, collapse and then lie on the floor with his eyes open. If the
victim was not helped early on (after 70 seconds) or later on (after 150 seconds) a confederate would help
him. (The ‘model’ condition therefore was either early or late modelling of help).
Results: The ‘cane’ victim received help 95% of the time (62 out of 65 trials) whereas for the ‘drunk’ victim
it was 50% (19 out of 38 trials). These figures reflect spontaneous help given rather than help given after a
model intervened. 60% of the total spontaneous help involved more than one person helping and this
prompted more help from others, regardless of the condition or ethnicity of the victim.

90% of helpers were male and 64% were white. The observers noted that comments made by women
suggested that they felt it was men’s ‘duty’ to help. e.g. “It’s for men to help him”; “I don’t know what to
do”.
What is interesting in terms of research into bystanderism is that there was no diffusion of responsibility,
in fact the larger the group the more help was given. There was little evidence of same-race helping; there
was a slight tendency towards this in the ‘drunk’ condition but it was not significant overall.
Conclusion: Help will be given in situations where the costs of not helping outweigh the rewards. The
experience of being in closely confined space (the subway carriage) with a victim may have induced a high
state of negative arousal in the participants (e.g. discomfort, anxiety, guilt) which could only be reduced
by actually offering help (which links to the negative-state relief model from the section on psychological
theories of altruism). It can be concluded, therefore, that if certain conditions are in place then the
diffusion of responsibility is over-ridden by the need to reduce feelings of anxiety and guilt in the presence
of a victim.
Evaluation of Piliavin et al. (1969)

 STRENGTHS: this study stands as a kind of one-off in terms of psychological research: it is a well-
designed study conducted in the field with naïve participants using a standardised procedure
generating both quantitative and qualitative data. The nature of the procedure means that the study is
replicable; however, the logistical problems of running the study in a different setting may mean that
replication is quite difficult. The size of the sample (4,450) means that the quantitative data is robust
and generalising the findings is made easier. The qualitative data collected in the form of comments
made by the participants adds an extra dimension to the results, highlighting reasons behind help
given (or not) and adding some rich detail to the findings. The natural setting and use of naïve
participants means that this study is high in ecological validity, which means that the researchers can
be confident that demand characteristics did not play a part in the participants’ behaviour. The use of
two observers means that the study has inter-rater reliability as well.
 LIMITATIONS: one of the main problems with carrying out research in the field is that it is difficult to
control all variables: Piliavin et al.’s study might have been affected by a range of extraneous variables
that were impossible to control. e.g. participant mood on the day; some of the participants
experiencing the procedure more than once. The number of participants in the adjacent area (where
the observers were located) may have obscured the view of the critical area (where the emergency
was staged), meaning that some data may have been lost or misinterpreted. Another consideration is
that the ethics of the study were compromised due to the lack of consent given, deception of
participants, possible psychological harm and distress and the lack of right to withdraw. This means
that it would not be possible to carry out the study today to check the findings with a modern
population.
Critical Thinking
Why does most research on bystanderism focus on the lack of help given? The fact that research on
bystanderism was provoked by a murder in which 38 witnesses apparently did nothing to help one of their
neighbours who was being attacked in front of them may have produced something of a self-fulfilling
prophecy in terms of how subsequent studies were designed. Latané and Darley’s lab-based research
manipulated participants into not helping in that it used the real or perceived presence of others as a
crucial factor in whether or not help was given. The use of confederates as those ‘others’ also means that
the stakes were raised against help being given – if those around you are behaving as if there is no
emergency then it is very difficult to go against this trend and to act differently. In some ways research on
bystanderism is really research on informational and normative social influence: the power of the

majority to influence the minority. Piliavin’s research highlights the more positive side of bystanderism:
people can, and do, help others in need. This help may be given for less-than-altruistic reasons but it is
given nonetheless. By carrying out a field experiment Piliavin was able to demonstrate that the diffusion
of responsibility may not necessarily depend on the number of bystanders present, but it may instead be
based on feelings of empathy and distress at the plight of another person.
How does the Just World hypothesis apply to this research? In Piliavin’s research most help was given to
the victim who appeared to be disabled (‘cane’) with the ‘drunk’ receiving only 50% of spontaneous help.
This makes sense according to the Just World hypothesis: the tendency to blame the victim for their own
misfortune is a source of comfort to people as it confirms the idea that the world is a fair place and bad
things only happen to bad or irresponsible people (i.e. ‘you are drunk therefore you deserve what you
get’). It is a way of preserving our belief that if we lead a ‘good’ life then we will be rewarded by having
good things happen to us; it makes no allowance for the rather depressing fact that bad things can, and
do, happen to good people all the time.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR BYSTANDERISM

Discuss factors that play a key role in bystanderism. [22]
You will need to consider a range of factors for the phenomenon of bystanderism, offering arguments as to
why and how these factors account for and offer explanations of bystanderism. You should consider the
research methodologies involved in the investigation of these factors and to what extent they explain the
factors involved in bystanderism.
Evaluate research into the phenomenon of bystander apathy. [22]

You will need to consider how and why these research methods are used, what their strengths and
limitations are, writing a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses. Your conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by relevant studies.

PART 3B: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Key Question: Why do people engage in prosocial behaviour?
What is Prosocial Behaviour?

Prosocial behaviour could loosely be described as any form of behaviour that is beneficial to another
person or society as a whole. The behaviour may stem from instinctive drives and may be automatic, e.g.
a mother dives into a river to save her child or the behaviour may be more considered, conscious and
deliberate, e.g. a celebrity publicly donates a large sum of money to a charity.
Prosocial behaviour includes the concept of altruism, a form of helping behaviour which is based on the
donor (helper) giving help to the recipient (person receiving the help) for no expected gain and at some
risk to themselves. In other words, altruism is an act of selfless helping behaviour; one which may put the
donor in some danger.
There are cultural considerations which may influence the ways in which prosocial behaviour occurs, for
example in collectivist cultures one might expect a greater sense of shared responsibility to help when
compared to individualistic cultures, simply because of cultural norms.
PART 3B(I): BIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ALTRUISM

Biological altruism is based on the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin (1859). Evolutionary
theory explains behaviour as stemming from ultimate causes: behaviours that persist do so because they
are advantageous to the continuing survival of the human race. This process occurs via natural selection,
in which organisms that can adapt successfully to their environment are those that survive.
Biological altruism, therefore, is based on the idea that altruistic behaviour must be somehow adaptive
for it still to be part of the range of current human behaviours. There is no denying that altruistic acts
occur on an almost daily basis (with some being more extreme than others) so an evolutionary argument
would explain such acts as having an evolutionary basis. In short, people are altruistic because it is in their
genes to be so; the act of altruism is a reflex, rather than a conscious and pre-planned act.

Key Theory: Kin Selection

Kin Selection theory states that the closer the relative is to an individual i.e. in terms of their genetic
relationship, then the more likely it is that an altruistic act will take place. In other words, this theory
suggests that an individual is more likely to save their mother or their son from a fire than their aunt or
their grandfather. This theory is based on the idea that an individual is more likely to act in an altruistic
way towards someone they are related to - someone who shares their genes - than to a non-relative. By
helping a relative the donor is, in theory, enhancing that relative’s reproductive fitness and, by extension,
their own. The genes shared by the related individuals will then be saved and they will have a better
opportunity of reproducing. In this way Kin Selection theory reflects some of the ideas of the Selfish Gene
theory (see below) as it is the genes that are prioritised in the altruistic act.
Richard Dawkins first proposed the selfish gene theory in 1976. His theory states that the concept of
selfishness is actually a very positive one when it comes to the survival of the species. Genes obviously
cannot ‘think’ but Dawkins claims that there is a purpose behind the behaviours or characteristics that are
selected for continuation – and those which are rejected as unfit for purpose. According to Dawkins, the
action of genes is automatic but – ultimately – quite ruthless. If one set of genes is deemed to be ill-suited
to the survival of the organism then they will be jettisoned in favour of more adaptive or hardy genes. This
is, of course, rather a simplistic summing up of a more complex idea but the essence of Dawkins’ theory is
that the good of the group is not as important as the good of the gene in terms of survival. He describes
genes as ‘survival mechanisms’ so it follows logically that individual genes will be protected and promoted
rather than the group (i.e. the species generally). If this seems counter-intuitive then consider this: genes
are selfish in order to increase the number of copies of themselves which leads to safety in numbers (the
safety for the genes) and in turn this leads to the survival of the gene.
Dawkins describes altruism in the same way that he describes selfishness, as ‘unconscious purposive
behaviour’. What this means is that a seemingly selfless altruistic act can be viewed in terms of how
beneficial it is to the survival of a particular gene or set of genes rather than how much it helps another
person or group. Dawkins argues that an individual may act altruistically but they do so for the
preservation of the gene or genes rather than for the preservation of the group. An example of how this
might work in action is given in the study by Simmons et al. (1977).
Key Study: Simmons et al. (1977)

Aim: To test Kin Selection theory by investigating whether close relatives of a kidney patient would be
more likely to offer themselves as kidney donors.
Method: A non-probability sample of potential kidney donors was obtained from the University of
Minnesota hospitals. The participants were asked whether or not they would be willing to donate one of
their kidneys to their close relative. The potential kidney recipients (the kidney patients) were asked to
rate how close, emotionally, they felt to all of their possible donors before the choice of a donor had been
made.
Results: 86% of the parents of the kidney patients said that they would be willing to donate one of their
kidneys; 47% of the siblings in the study agreed to donate a kidney. The kidney recipients reported feeling
emotionally close to 63% of the potential kidney donors but this dropped to 42% for non-donors.
Conclusion: There is some support for Kin Selection theory as determining an altruistic act as 86% of the
parents said that they would donate a kidney. However, the fact that 14% of the parents did not agree to
donate a kidney to their son/daughter casts some doubt on the validity of the theory as if it held true then
100% of parents should automatically agree to donation. The drop to 47% for siblings also agrees with Kin

Selection theory to some extent as siblings are not as genetically close as parent and child (children share
50% of their genes per parent). There may, however, be other factors determining the decision to donate
or not as the siblings who agreed to donate were more likely to be the same sex as the recipient, closer in
age and – by inference – with more in common with their sibling than the siblings who refused to donate.
Evaluation of Simmons et al. (1977)

 STRENGTHS: The main strength of this study is that it used actual renal patients who were awaiting
kidney donation, which makes the ecological validity of the study high. The results support the idea of
altruism being an act that occurs at some cost to the donor with the recipient benefiting. This ties in
with selfish gene theory as it would make evolutionary sense for a parent to sacrifice their own fitness
to ensure that their offspring survives as a younger person (with similar genes) has a better chance of
reproducing in the future.
 LIMITATIONS: There are issues of sampling here, as this is not a representative sample, being made up
only of potential kidney donors and recipients; this means that its generalisability is limited to similar
populations rather than a general population. The study was also conducted in one area of the USA,
which means that it may be ethnocentric. The methodology used also casts some doubt as to the
validity of the participants’ responses as it is possible that social desirability bias may have affected the
responses given e.g. it is ‘bad form’ to say that you would not donate your kidney to your son or
daughter which may account for the high number of ‘yes’ responses to this question. The issue of
participant variables may also be a confounding factor in this study as some people are simply more
(or less) generous and altruistic than others.
Critical Thinking
Is the study compromised due to ethics? The study used actual potential kidney donors and recipients –
people who were already suffering possible stress, discomfort and anxiety. By asking the participants to
focus on the issue of kidney donation it is possible that the researchers may have increased these negative
feelings. It is also possible that the participants who said that they would not donate a kidney went on to
feel guilt, shame and self-blame as a result of their response to a relative in need.
Do the findings really support a biological theory of altruism? There could well have been a variety of
non-biological factors that influenced the response of the participants: closeness to the recipient;
personality; mood at the time of being asked; their own state of health, etc. It is also possible to use
selfish gene theory to argue against the findings of Simmons et al.’s research: kidney patients are – bluntly
– not 100% fit and well so it would seem more logical not to donate a kidney to someone who may not
survive long enough to reproduce. There is no guarantee that even after donation the recipient would go
on to produce healthy offspring; using this argument the study may not support selfish gene theory.
It might be useful to look at Sanner (2005), a study that investigated the decision-making processes
behind kidney donation, the conclusion being that it is not the genetic tie to a potential recipient that is
important but the ways in which each part of the donation process is handled by both donor, recipient
and health professionals that really informs such a life-changing decision.
Key Theory: Reciprocal Altruism

Reciprocal altruism was first proposed by Trivers (1971). It is a theory that accounts for acts of altruism
that are not directed towards a blood relative, as is the case for many altruistic acts. The theory is also
based on the principles of evolutionary psychology but it approaches altruism from a different perspective
to that of kin selection theory; namely that altruistic acts are performed in order to gain some future
benefit from the recipient. In other words, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

The basis of reciprocal altruism is that the donor's fitness is temporarily compromised in order to help
another, fellow organism. This help is given with an expectation of future help from the recipient to the
original donor; in this way both organisms benefit over time and thus the species is protected and can live
to fight another day for survival.
Key Study: Axelrod & Hamilton (1981)

This theory and the associated research is based on the idea that there is a reasonably good probability
that two organisms (e.g. two unrelated individual human beings) will meet again at some point in the
future, making reciprocity possible. The mutual benefit derived from reciprocal altruism is part of an
evolutionary approach to psychology as it is in the interest of the species (and individual genes) to protect
each other from possible harm; without such reciprocity there is the possibility that the entire human race
would have died out by now.
Axelrod & Hamilton's research is unusual in that it does not follow the conventional procedural sequence
of most studies in psychology. The research uses a conceptual game, The Prisoner's Dilemma (Merrill &
Flood, 1950), in which two individuals are placed in a situation that will require them to think either in
terms of self-serving or mutually-beneficial behaviour. The game operates along these lines:
 Two criminals are arrested at the scene of their crime and put into separate cells, which means that
they have no means of communicating with each other.
 Unfortunately for the prosecutors there is insufficient evidence to charge both of them for the crime
but they might be able to get them both on another, less serious charge.
 The prosecutors approach each prisoner separately and offer them the same deal: you can give up
your partner and say he committed the crime in which case you will go free and your buddy will get 3
years in prison.
 As both men are criminals it's likely that they'll take this deal; if they do (i.e. each betrays the other)
then each of them will get 2 years in prison.
 However, if neither prisoner betrays the other one then they will each serve only one year.
The logical – and self-serving – response to the Prisoner's Dilemma would seem to be to take the deal,
thereby preserving your liberty (and safety – prison is a dangerous place). Reciprocal altruism however,
would suggest otherwise; by taking the self-serving path each prisoner may end up far worse than if he
were to say nothing. Why? Well, if both prisoners betray each other then they will both serve one more
year in prison than if they said nothing, which is not good for either of them. But what if you betray your
criminal buddy? By doing so you are favouring your own fitness but you are also storing up a whole world
of trouble for yourself. Why? Because what if your buddy doesn’t betray you? He will serve 3 years in
prison for the crime that both of you committed. So, when your ex-buddy gets out of prison it's unlikely he
will have forgotten that you betrayed him and he is likely to want his revenge. By saying nothing and
refusing to betray each other both prisoners are temporarily reducing their own fitness. In the long run,
though, this is advantageous as by protecting each other both prisoners serve only one year – in short,
this a reciprocally altruistic act.
Axelrod & Hamilton (1981) devised a computer-based model of chess games involving two players to test
the idea behind the Prisoner’s Dilemma and reciprocity. The researchers analysed a range of strategies
used in chess games that had been provided by economists, sociologists, political theorists and
mathematicians. A second round of chess games was then analysed from 62 entries covering six countries.

The submissions from this sample also came from computer enthusiasts, professors of biology, physics
and computer science.
Strategies employed in the chess games were analysed by the researchers. What they found was that the
most successful way of achieving the highest average score was to employ an extremely simple strategy
known as tit for tat. This strategy involves a reciprocal arrangement: players cooperate on the first move
and then follow whatever move the preceding player makes. Subsequent games went on to highlight how
good the tit for tat strategy was when compared to other less reciprocal strategies. This strategy reflects,
to some extent, the Prisoner’s Dilemma and illustrates that mutually advantageous behaviour may
ultimately be more beneficial to an individual than pure self-serving acts. Axelrod & Hamilton based their
model on the assumption that there is no fixed figure on the number of possible future interactions that
could take place between two individuals; in other words, it’s wise to help your neighbour because at
some point in the future you may be needing their help.
Evaluation of Axelrod & Hamilton (1981)

 STRENGTHS: the researchers found that their computer-based model and the chess tournament
provided robust evidence that the tit for tat strategy worked best for players. This gives the research
reliability as the procedure (a chess tournament with defined moves) is replicable. It also provided
support for the theory of reciprocal altruism. By asking a range of players from different academic
disciplines to play and to employ specific game strategies it is possible to claim some validity for the
theory – the tit for tat strategy continually scored highly and was used by players most frequently,
thus emphasising its suitability for mutual gain. There is also a degree of external validity to this
research as the play employed by the participants can be generalised to more mundane, everyday
settings and contexts e.g. I’ll help my neighbour start his car because I might want to him to water my
garden when I’m on holiday.
 LIMITATIONS: the study lacks ecological validity, as it did not investigate real behaviour in a
naturalistic setting; the participants knew that they were taking part in research (which could also
raise the issue of demand characteristics), thus making the behaviour contrived and possibly artificial.
The sample of academic specialists is also not representative of the general population, making the
study difficult to generalise. The theory of reciprocal altruism is very difficult to test as it is based on
evolutionary theory: evidence is generally based on making assumptions of current behaviour using
ultimate causes as explanations.
Critical Thinking
Do the findings really support a biological theory of altruism? Given that the theory of reciprocal altruism
is a biological theory there is very little, if any, evidence of biological processes at work here. The idea that
evolutionary mechanisms have evolved to ensure that species protect each other and, by doing so,
themselves, is something that is extremely difficult to find evidence for at the biological level. In fact, the
theory of reciprocal altruism seems to have more in common with a cognitive approach to behaviour as it
involves the idea of future interactions and future altruistic acts i.e. a process of judgement and decision-
making rather than an ultimate cause argument. Axelrod & Hamilton’s research used a chess tournament
which – again – uses higher-order cognitive processes so that the idea of evolutionary mechanisms
governing the behaviour is inferential rather than evidential.
Is the study culturally biased? Axelrod & Hamilton (1981) and the concept of reciprocal altruism may be
more suited to individualistic cultures than to collectivist cultures. An individualistic culture tends to place
more emphasis on the role – and importance – of the individual rather than the group. It is possible that
collectivist cultures may not see the relevance of a tit for tat reciprocal strategy as such cultures are

already set up to look out for the needs of the group and, by extension, the protection of all members of
that group.
Discussion of Biological Theories of Altruism

All of the above theories are examples of biological reductionism: the idea that a complex phenomenon
like human behaviour can be explained using the most simplistic and basic level of explanation. Using
biological reductionism to explain acts of altruism means that other, equally plausible, explanations are
ignored. The kin selection theory of altruism states that blood relatives will be helped over non-relatives
because of the evolutionary urge to protect one’s gene pool. This is a biologically reductionist explanation
because it fails to consider a range of other variables that could account for the preference of helping
family over strangers e.g. a social psychologist might argue that it is familiarity and family loyalty learned
over the years that might prompt altruistic acts rather than an evolutionary force.
There may, however, be some advantages in taking a reductionist approach to human behaviour: by
eliminating the ‘noise’ of other variables and isolating a simple, biological explanation it may be easier to
formulate a clear and coherent account of what are, essentially, complex and sometimes contradictory
phenomena. Ultimately though, biological reductionism can only go so far in its attempts to penetrate the
complexities of human behaviour.

3B(II): COGNITIVE (PSYCHOLOGICAL) THEORIES

OF ALTRUISM
What distinguishes psychological theories of altruism from biological theories is their emphasis on the
cognitive and social processes involved in helping another person. Where biological theories look to
evolution for explanations of altruism psychological theories are based on the idea that specific states of
mind (e.g. empathy, egoism, negative mood) can influence the degree of help given to another person.
Psychological theories of altruism have been tested in semi-realistic conditions using participants who are
not necessarily aware that they are being tested (see Batson, 1981).
One of the main difficulties in testing and measuring psychological theories of altruism lies in the fact that
the variables being manipulated by researchers (e.g. empathy) are notoriously difficult to operationalise
as they are not concrete, nor are they easily defined. Psychological theories of altruism do tend to use
quite subjective means by which to measure altruistic acts: for example, one person’s view of what
constitutes empathy or egoism might be quite different from another person’s. Plus, it is very difficult to
know the motivation behind someone’s behaviour; the person in question may not even understand their
own motivations for their actions.
Key Theory: Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

This theory was suggested by Batson (1981) and it is based on the notion that acts of altruism are not
necessarily only motivated by a selfless desire to help someone in need. Batson proposed that an egoistic
motivation may underlie some acts of altruism: in other words, the help is given not out of a genuine
feeling of care for the person in need but to alleviate the unpleasant, negative feelings that accompany
the witnessing of another’s pain or for the positive rewards that helping brings e.g. material gain or a
boost to self-esteem. For example, if you were to walk past a homeless person the street you might feel
inclined (or even obliged) to donate some loose change. This act might well be followed by positive
feelings about your own kindness (‘Aren’t I a nice, caring person?) thus you have benefited from helping
them - and it is even better if others are there to witness your altruism. It could also be that you were
discomfited by the other person’s plight so you helped them in order to make yourself feel better, and so
your feelings of discomfort vanished once you helped them.
Batson was interested in identifying the point at

which altruism differs in terms of whether it is
based on empathy (a true and real feeling for the
person in need) or egoism (as outlined above –
self-serving motivations). In his 1981 study Batson
stated that, ‘egoistically motivated helping is
directed toward the end goal of increasing the
helper's own welfare. In contrast, a person's
helping is altruistic (empathic) to the degree that
he or she helps from a desire to reduce the distress
or increase the benefit of the person in need.’ (p.
290).

Key Study: Batson et al. (1981)

Aim: To test the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Method: 44 female psychology students from the University of Kansas were told that they would be
working with another student, ‘Elaine’ in a study looking at how stress affects performance. Elaine was in
fact a confederate who was working with the researchers. The participants were told that they had been
randomly allocated to the position of observer; Elaine was to perform the tasks. They then observed
Elaine over CCTV as she performed a memory task. Elaine was given electric shocks at random intervals,
which were described as ‘moderately uncomfortable’.
The researchers manipulated the participants’ levels of empathy for Elaine by giving them either very
similar or very different questionnaire responses (supposedly filled in by Elaine) from their own. Those
participants in the similar condition believed that Elaine had filled in the questionnaire with responses
almost identical to their own; this was done to make them feel a certain degree of empathy with Elaine
compared to the dissimilar condition. Two different ‘escape’ conditions were also used in the study: the
difficult escape condition consisted of participants being told that they had to stay and keep observing
Elaine for the whole 10 trials; the easy escape condition involved the participants being able to leave after
observing two trials. The participants were then given the chance to swap places with Elaine and to take
the shocks in her place.
Results: Most participants in the similar (high empathy) condition agreed to swap places with Elaine,
regardless of whether escape was easy or difficult. In the dissimilar (low empathy) condition most
participants opted to leave early in the easy escape condition without offering to take Elaine’s place. Some
participants in the low empathy group offered to take her place in the difficult escape condition.
Conclusion: by manipulating empathy levels it is possible to see a difference between altruistic and
egoistic helping: in the high empathy condition it is more likely that help was given because Elaine
appeared to be similar to the participants, and so help was offered even when escape was easy. The low
empathy condition appears to have prompted more egoistic helping as the levels of help offered in the
difficult escape condition were higher than for the easy escape condition, suggesting that it was the
discomfort of having to observe Elaine being shocked that prompted the offers of help rather than
empathic concern.
Evaluation of Batson et al. (1981)

 STRENGTHS: this was a well-designed experiment with four clear manipulations of the independent
variable, making the procedure replicable; the use of quantitative data adds to the reliability of the
research as the results are easy to compare and to analyse. There is some support for the Empathy-
Altruism hypothesis as the high-empathy group offered most help, whereas the low empathy group
only offered help when an easy escape was not possible, thus confirming Batson’s hypothesis that
there is a distinction between altruistic and egoistic helping.
 LIMITATIONS: the study used a small sample of female-only participants who were on an introductory
psychology course, which makes generalising the results difficult. The use of this sample also sets up
possible demand characteristics as, being psychology students, there is the chance that some of the
participants may have guessed the true aim of the study and thus behaved in an artificial way,
invalidating their data in the process. There are ethical concerns with the procedure: the participants
were deceived as to the true aim of the research and they may well have suffered distress at having to
observe someone receiving electric shocks. Those participants who did not offer to take Elaine’s place
may also have experienced guilt.

Critical Thinking
How might extraneous variables have affected the results? Because the observation of Elaine and her
interactions with the experimenter introduced behavioural aspects into the procedure, it means that this
study is less controlled than an experiment in which the variables are free of direct human involvement.
The use of ‘Elaine’ might itself be an extraneous variable in that she may have resembled someone that
some of the participants knew, thereby either increasing or decreasing their level of empathy for her; the
interactions between Elaine and the experimenter could not be replicated exactly in each trial and this
may have interfered with each participant’s perception of what they were observing - the body language,
tone of voice, gestures used. Participant variables may also have provided extraneous variables: some
people are simply more empathic than others and some participants may have been having a ‘bad day’.
Key Theory: Negative State Relief Model

This model, proposed by Schaller & Cialdini (1988), is closely related to the Empathy-Altruism hypothesis
in that it considers the extent to which personal discomfort at the sight of another’s distress motivates
altruistic acts. The assumption of this model is that when someone witnesses another in need of help they
experience a negative mood, such as sadness, concern, anxiety, discomfort and/or guilt. The Negative
State Relief model assumes that if an individual feels empathy for someone in need then they are likely to
experience sadness or guilt about it. This negative mood may then prompt the individual to offer help in
order to improve their own mood, so in this way the model is more directed towards the egoistic
motivation of making oneself feel better rather than simply helping the person in need, (Batson describes
this as “providing the helper with mood-enhancing self-rewards”). According to this model there are two
ways to alleviate the unpleasant symptoms: walk away (out of sight, out of mind) or stay and help: either
of these decisions should then reduce or eliminate the negative state.
Key study: Batson et al. (1989)

Aim: To test the Negative State Relief model.
Method: 44 students (20 male, 24 female), taking an introductory psychology course at the University of
Kansas were randomly allocated to two conditions: half of the participants were told that they would be
watching a video that would cause them “moderate feelings of depression and sadness” (the depression
of mood condition); the other half that they would be watching a video that would cause “strong feelings
of happiness and pleasure” (the enhancement of mood condition). The participants in the first group were
then asked to recall for a few minutes an event from their past that made them feel sad; the second group
was simply asked to explain everyday activities such as driving or performing household chores. The
experimenter left the room and a female confederate entered and asked the participant if they would be
willing to give some time to help make phone calls related to blood donation up to a total of 10 calls.
Results: There were more offers of help from participants in the sad mood condition than in the positive
mood condition.
Conclusion: The participants who had been induced to feel sad may have helped in a bid to feel better
(self-reward), thereby supporting the Negative State Relief model as they may well have experienced self-
reward from helping. Anticipating feeling sad, therefore, is a good predictor of helping behaviour.
Evaluation of Batson et al. (1989)

 STRENGTHS: This is a laboratory experiment with a replicable procedure, but its use of naïve
participants means that the validity of the results is strong, as the participants were not told that it
was their offer (or not) of help that was being measured. This therefore reduced the possibility of
demand characteristics. The use of random allocation to condition and a single blind design (i.e. the

confederate was not told which condition each participant belonged) means that the research has a
degree of objectivity that increases its reliability.
 LIMITATIONS: The issue of generalisability applies to this study in the same way as it did to Batson et
al. (1981), namely that the sample consisted of psychology students from the University of Kansas,
though in this study males as well as females were used. The same issues of participant variables may
also have affected the study: some people are simply more helpful than others; some of the
participants may have reacted strongly or negatively to the female confederate for a range of reasons.
Both of Batson’s studies outlined here only provide single instances of altruism, and therefore it is not
possible to state conclusively that the participants would be likely to behave in a similar way in other
contexts, which means the studies lack external validity.
Critical Thinking
One of the main drawbacks of research into psychological altruism is the difficulty of operationalising
the key variables. Both the Empathy-Altruism hypothesis and the Negative State Relief model rely on
researchers being able to operationalise the variables of empathy and sadness respectively. These
variables - which are key to the aims of both pieces of research outlined here - are highly subjective and
open to interpretation, making the research less controlled than a conventional laboratory experiment.
One person’s response to another person in need (e.g. ‘Elaine’ in Batson et al. 1981) will depend on a
range of factors: her likeness to a familiar person; their mood on the day; their attitudes, beliefs, opinions;
their upbringing and family history; their cultural/religious background. One way of improving the validity
of this research might be to include a range of measures involving both quantitative and qualitative data
(triangulation).
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Discuss theories of prosocial behaviour. [22]
You will need to consider two theories, what their strengths and limitations are, writing a considered and
balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. Your conclusions should be
presented clearly and supported by relevant studies.
Contrast two theories of prosocial behavior. [22]

You will need to consider the ways in which your chosen theories differ; what are the main points of
difference between them. You will need to ensure that you explain and evaluate each theory distinctly
while also highlighting the differences between them. Your conclusions should be presented clearly and
supported by relevant studies.

3B(III): CULTURE AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Culture influences so many aspects of an
individual's life (food, art, religion, work,
relationships etc.), that it is bound to have an
influence on prosocial behaviour as well.
Sociocultural psychologists investigate how
cultural norms make inroads into our behaviour
and our attitudes. From a very young age we
learn how our culture views a range of issues,
from schooling to marriage to death, to the
extent that it is very difficult to think in ways
that are contrary to our culture.
The cultural dimensions of individualism and

collectivism (studied in the sociocultural
approach) are considered as descriptors
of culture and represent value systems within
those cultures that develop as communities
evolve, being passed on from one generation to
another.
These cultural descriptors refer to how people define themselves and their relationships with others.
In individualist cultures, the interest of the individual prevails over the interests of the group; people look
after themselves and their immediate families. Broadly, in collectivist cultures, the interest of the group
prevails over that of the individual. People in collectivist cultures are integrated into strong, cohesive in-
groups that may continue throughout a lifetime whereas individualistic cultures tend to be marked by
social mobility, personal choice and movement away from the family.
Key Study: Whiting & Whiting (1975)

Aim: To investigate the prosocial behaviour of children from six different countries, based on the child-
rearing practices of each culture.
Method: Naturalistic observations took place in the home environments of children aged between 3 and
11 years old from Mexico, India, the USA, Japan, the Philippines and Kenya. Observations were based on
the children’s interactions with other people, their involvement in family life and the chores they
undertook.
Results: The researchers found that there were clear differences in prosocial behaviour dependent on
culture and that these differences were consistent. Countries which followed tradition and traditional
values and norms (collectivist cultures) showed the highest levels of prosocial behaviour, with 100% of the
Kenyan children behaving prosocially. The country that exhibited the highest level of individualistic
behaviour, that is with a focus on the self, was the USA with these children only demonstrating prosocial
behaviour 8% of the time. Countries like India, Japan, Philippines and Mexico were found to be between
the two extremes. Mexico and the Philippines scored particularly highly in terms of children's involvement
with family life (e.g. helping to look after younger children) and household chores.
Countries showing the higher levels of prosocial behaviour (e.g. Kenya, Mexico) were those in which
extended family tended to occupy the same house, and it was in these countries that children were seen

to participate in the day-to-day running of the house more fully. However, interestingly, this degree of
prosocial behaviour was not observed in India where extended families are also very common.
The results also highlighted the fact that the mother's role in the family (in collectivist cultures) was key to
the functioning of the family and her financial contribution was also significant. Contrastingly, the children
from the USA did not take part in the life of the family as much and if they performed household tasks it
was because they were paid to do so.
Conclusion: The research concluded that cultural dimensions such as the collectivist/individualistic
dichotomy influences prosocial behaviour in the family as it plays a role in the ways that families rear their
children both practically and via the attitudes they express both explicitly and implicitly.
Evaluation of Whiting & Whiting (1975)

 STRENGTHS: This is one of those rare studies that is high in ecological validity and can be generalised
to wider populations due to its scale and to the fact that it took place in the everyday, natural settings
of the participants. The observational data provided the researchers with rich, in-depth findings that
are genuinely meaningful due to the sample size and the range of cultures involved in the research.
 LIMITATIONS: The fact that an unfamiliar person was observing their behaviour may have produced
the observer effect in some of the participants. This occurs when behaviour becomes
artificial/contrived simply because someone knows that they are being observed. The young age of the
participants, however, may have reduced the potential for this confounding effect, as young children
tend to be less conscious of being observed. The cost and scale of the study would make it difficult to
replicate, which means that the dated findings of the study cannot easily be checked. One of the main
limitations of this research is that the individualistic/collectivist dimension of behaviour may not be
the only factor behind the prosocial behaviour observed: there may be a range of other factors
involved, such as personality, religious upbringing, social desirability bias or education, any or all of
which would decrease the validity of the findings.
Critical Thinking
Is the study outdated? This study was published in 1975, which means that it could, to some extent, be
era-dependent; in other words, it cannot be easily applied to current behaviour, attitudes, lifestyles, etc. It
could be argued that the influence of the media, technology and changing social attitudes and values
might produce different results if the research were to be carried out today.
Do the findings perpetuate existing stereotypes? It could be that Whiting & Whiting’s findings confirm
and reinforce stereotypical notions, such as the beliefs that individualism equates to self-serving
motivations and that collectivism breeds a lack of personal autonomy. Both of these ideas are limited and
they may even be used to denigrate and discriminate against people of different cultures. It might be
useful to apply the issue of cultural relativism to Whiting and Whiting’s research. (This will be dealt with at
the end of this section).
Key Study: Levine et al. (2001)

Aim: To investigate prosocial behaviour as a function of collectivism versus individualism.
Method: 23 large major cities across the world were used as testing ground for a large-scale field
experiment on cross-cultural prosocial behaviour. Participants were those sampled from the 23 countries
selected. Thus, the researchers used an opportunity sampling method.

The researchers (all male) set up three different scenarios in a variety of outdoor settings involving the
following actions:
 A pedestrian drops a pen in the street without noticing.
 A pedestrian wearing a leg brace drops some magazines.
 A blind pedestrian with a cane waits at a traffic light for assistance crossing the street.
The researchers then proceeded to observe the rate and degree of help given in each of the above
situations.
Results: The most helpful cities were also those in which collectivism was more of an influence than
individualism (Rio de Janeiro was the highest at 93% overall, San Jose in Costa Rica, Lilongwe in Mali,
Calcutta in India). Helping rates tended to be high in countries with low economic productivity with low
purchasing power for each citizen. However, not all results obtained reflect this tendency: the one
surprising finding here was that Vienna ranked fifth as the most helpful city; Vienna is a wealthy European
capital which does not fulfil the criteria for collectivism as the other cities in the top five do.
Another unexpected result was that Kuala Lumpur (the capital of Malaysia) ranked lowest out of all the 23
countries in terms of prosocial behaviour (40%). One of the related findings was that there was a positive
correlation between slow pace of life (measured by walking speed) and pro-social behaviour.
Conclusion: There are cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour, but a country cannot be defined
by their collectivistic versus individualistic nature, as other variables influence behaviour.
Evaluation of Levine et al. (2001)

 STRENGTHS: This is a fascinating example of a well-controlled study (which increases the reliability of
the findings) that also has good ecological validity as it was conducted in the field using naïve
participants. The ambitious scale of the research, taking in 23 countries and involving hundreds of
participants means that the results are generalizable across a range of cultures. It produces robust
quantitative data that can withstand statistical analysis.
 LIMITATIONS: Replicating this study would be extremely difficult due to the scale of the design,
making it costly and time-consuming. It might also yield different results when replicated due to the
lack of control possible. e.g. a different sample at a different time under different circumstances from
the conditions present when the study was first carried out. It is important to remember
that individualism and collectivism are on a dimension that describes cultures, rather than being
dichotomous concepts; it is not clear that they cause differences in helping, which means that the
study may lack internal validity. It may be that the other values which tend to thrive in these
environments are responsible for differences in pro-social behaviour.
Critical Thinking
Does the study really measure cultural dimensions as a differentiating factor in behaviour? As a far
Eastern collectivist culture it would be natural to predict that Kuala Lumpur would score highly for
prosocial behaviour but this was not the case. Bangkok, capital of Thailand which is a strong Buddhist
country where 'karma' (the idea that good deeds come back to you) is part of the culture scored very
badly in terms of helping the blind person. This may be due to some extent to the fact that Bangkok is a
fast-paced, generally less affluent city in which many people are competing every day to earn money on
the streets. It may simply be a case of 'too busy to care' rather than a reflection on cultural values.

Have the researchers highlighted that some cities have a ‘personality’, regardless of culture?
The idea that a city’s ‘personality’ affects individual behaviour is known as the simpatico hypothesis —
that is, people in communities where social obligations take priority over individual achievements tend to
be less economically productive, but show more willingness to assist others. This trend did not hold for all
the cities in the study, however. Pedestrians in the fast-paced cities of Copenhagen (Denmark) and Vienna
(Austria), for example, were very kind to strangers, whereas their counterparts in slower-paced Kuala
Lumpur were not helpful at all.
Should the issue of cultural relativism be applied to all research that aims to be cross-cultural?
Cultural relativism is the view that to understand human behaviour researchers must assume that one
culture is just as worthy as another, in short, all cultures are equal and must be understood within their
own contexts. This approach is also known as an emic approach to the study of human behaviour; it
assumes that no culture is superior to another and that to properly understand a culture one must view
behaviour from within that culture, rather than standing outside of it and assuming that there is one,
universal truth/law that governs all behaviour.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTION FOR CULTURE AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Discuss the key factors that influence prosocial behaviour across cultures. [22]
You will need to consider a range of factors that play a key role in how prosocial behaviour occurs across
cultures. In your discussion you will need to use research evidence to support the points you make, giving a
considered and balanced review, including some evaluation of methodology. Your conclusions should be
presented clearly and supported by relevant studies.

PART 3C: PROMOTING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Key Question: Evaluate one theory or study related to promoting prosocial behaviour.
What Does Promoting Prosocial

Behaviour Involve?
Prosocial behaviour has been defined as
‘voluntary actions that are intended to help or
benefit another individual or group of
individuals’ (Eisenberg and Mussen 1989). So
far in looking at human relationships, we have
considered ideas such as whether altruism is
truly selfless: why it is that some victims don’t
receive help, and what is the process of
decision-making involved in helping behaviour.
This section will deal with the topic of
promoting acts that are prosocial, which
benefit society rather than single individuals.
Promoting prosocial behaviour may begin at
an individual level (see Moriarty, 1975) but the
ultimate aim of promoting prosocial behaviour
is to reach a wider audience, to spread
messages which may be general e.g. ‘Keep
Britain Tidy’ or more specific e.g. ’Thank you for driving carefully through our village’. Prosocial behaviour
may be promoted by governments (e.g. TV adverts asking people to recycle) or schools (e.g. nurturing key
prosocial behavioural traits in children) or it may be ‘hijacked’ by profit-oriented companies in a bid to
make them look less about business and more about social responsibility (e.g. Coca Cola’s ‘Open
Happiness’ campaign that put the emphasis on spreading positive ‘vibes’ and prosocial acts. Interestingly,
Coca Cola has now dropped this approach for more product-focused advertising).
Key Theory: Prior Commitment

This theory hinges on the idea that people are more likely to behave in a prosocial way because they have
been encouraged to feel responsible for providing assistance to someone or to a cause. Prior commitment
involves getting active and willing participation in a prosocial act from someone who may not necessarily
have set out to behave prosocially or whose role is not one where prosocial behaviour is expected, such as
a doctor or a priest. The operationalising of prior commitment in people is a key step towards crime
prevention as it fosters in people the idea of shared responsibility and a duty of care towards others.
Key Study: Dickerson et al. (1992)

This study involved investigating ways of encouraging people to be more ecologically friendly, in this case
by using less water.
Aim: To investigate the extent to which a prior commitment to use less water would be observed in
subsequent behaviour.
Method: The participants were 80 female students who were swimmers, comprising an opportunity
sample.

There were four conditions of the independent variable:
1) The participants were approached individually by a female confederate as they were on their way
from the pool to the showers. They were asked about their water consumption in a short survey-
based interview.
2) The participants were asked to sign a flyer that read: ‘Please conserve water. Take shorter showers’.
The confederate also drew the participants’ attention to water-conservation posters which had been
put up around the campus.
3) The participants answered the survey questions and then signed the flyer.
4) The control condition where no manipulation was used.
A second female confederate timed the length of each participant’s shower once they had finished
speaking to the first confederate (this second confederate occupied one of the shower cubicles in the
shower block).
Results: The results are summarised below, highlight each condition (1-4) and the mean time in seconds
of showering time:
1 – 248.30
2 – 241.05
3 – 220.50
4 – 301.80
The participants in condition 3 who had made the prior commitment of signing the flyer and answering
questions about water consumption spent less time showering than participants in all of the other
conditions.
Conclusion: Making a prior commitment to a cause (i.e. using less water) seems to influence subsequent
behaviour (i.e. using less water while showering).
Evaluation of Dickerson et al. (1992)

 STRENGTHS: This is a field experiment with four distinct conditions of the independent variable having
been manipulated, which means that it is both high in ecological validity (also helped due to the use of
naïve participants) and replicable due to the standardised procedure. The results show that conditions
1-3 used less water than the control condition, which serves to illustrate the idea that even a low level
of prior commitment might influence subsequent behaviour.
 LIMITATIONS: There are ethical problems with this study as the participants could not give informed
consent due to the covert nature of the procedure. There is also the issue of privacy to consider as one
of the confederates was timing the women while they showered which is, arguably, in the private
domain and should therefore be out of bounds to researchers. There is an issue with reliability, as
there was only one confederate timing the length of the showers: she may have easily missed the start
or the end of the showering sessions due to a range of factors such as noise, other people showering
at the same time, her own shower being on for the duration of the recording. There are also issues
with generalisability as the all-female sample was taken from Santa Cruz, California which means that
males, other age groups and those not from the area are not represented in the results.

Critical Thinking
Do the results of this study tell us anything about long-term changes in behaviour? Dickerson et al.’s
findings seem to show good support for prior commitment as an influential factor in promoting prosocial
behaviour but as this was a snapshot study there is no way of knowing whether or not this water-
awareness was long-term or if it only had an effect on the day. For the promotion of prosocial behaviour
to be truly effective the message needs to be ongoing and consistent but there are also in-built problems
with such a campaign of awareness. The first problem is that people may experience ‘compassion fatigue’,
a kind of weariness that comes over people when they are fed too much of the same guilt-inducing
information for too long. Being constantly reminded to use less water or donate to a charity might actually
backfire on itself: people either stop taking proper notice of the message or they become immune to its
power. A second problem is that diffusion of responsibility might occur, with people assuming that
because a message (e.g. ‘conserve water’) is everywhere then most people must be following the
instruction which means that they don’t really have to because their actions won’t impact too much on
the situation.
Key Theory: School-Based Interventions

Children spend a great deal of time at school, from the age of four in some countries up until the age of
18. The influence that school life has on children is undoubtedly huge: friendships are formed at school;
ideas and skills are honed; future behaviours are to some extent determined by a child’s schooling – not
only in the classroom but in the wider social context of school life. Schools essentially aim to set children
up for life academically but since the 1960s there has been a drive to educate the ‘whole child’, that is, the
person that the child can become, not just their academic potential. The promotion of prosocial behaviour
can be seen in initiatives such as anti-bullying programmes, ‘buddy’ mentoring systems, community
programmes e.g. cleaning up local areas. Lower school courses such as Citizenship and PHSE programmes
go some way towards encouraging prosocial behaviour but they are not always given high status by some
schools and they tend to be jettisoned after year 9 when the spectre of GCSE exams looms ever closer.
Research in this field does, however, demonstrate that promoting prosocial behaviour in schools can have
very valuable outcomes for a range of variables e.g. behaviour, attainment, values.
Key study: Flook et al. (2015)

Aim: To investigate the effect of a 12-week mindfulness-based Kindness Curriculum on levels of prosocial
behaviour in pre-school children.
Method: The participants were 68 pre-school children from a Midwestern city in the USA with a mean age
of 4.67 years, predominantly white (59%) with a range of ethnic minority groups making up the rest of the
sample e.g. 6% African American; 12% Hispanic. Almost 40% of the demographic were described as
‘socioeconomically disadvantaged’.
They were randomly allocated to one of three conditions:

1) A mindfulness-based ‘Kindness Curriculum’
2) A waiting for the Kindness Curriculum
3) A control group
Condition 1, the Kindness Curriculum experienced training and practice in mindfulness e.g. directing
attention on the present moment, regulating emotions, practising prosocial skills with an emphasis on
sharing, empathy and gratitude. They received this training twice a week for 20-30 minutes at a time over
the 12 -week period.

The teachers then rated all of the children in the study on measures such as ‘sharing’, ‘delay of
gratification’ and cognitive tasks involving decision-making.
Results: The children in condition 1, the Kindness Curriculum, were rated as showing definite
improvement in social skills and interaction with others, in their learning as a whole and in their emotional
intelligence e.g. thinking about other people and regulating their own emotions. The control group
showed the highest levels of selfish behaviour. The children in condition 1 who started the experiment
with low levels of social skills and cognitive functioning showed the highest rates of improvement overall.
Conclusion: The promotion of prosocial behaviour in young children has an immediate effect that seems
to last over time.
Evaluation of Flook et al. (2015)

 STRENGTHS: The study was carried out in real time and in a real setting, which means that ecological
validity is high. The use of the three levels of the independent variable including a control group
means that the study’s results can be compared across conditions, including both quantitative (e.g.
class scores) and qualitative (e.g. social skills) measures. The random allocation of the children to
condition means that researcher bias could not interfere with the results. The age of the children also
means that it is unlikely that they guessed the aim of the research, thereby avoiding demand
characteristics; the longitudinal design also helps to eliminate this source of bias as it is difficult to
sustain artificial behaviour over the course of 12 weeks.
 LIMITATIONS: One of the main limitations of Flook et al.’s research is that the behavioural variables
(empathy and sharing) are difficult to measure precisely and may be subject to interpretation, which
affects the reliability of the findings. It is also possible that the teachers who were rating the children’s
behaviour might have unknowingly used confirmation bias in their appraisal of the children’s
behaviour, which would affect the validity of the study. The sample itself is also rather small and is
limited geographically and culturally and so the results may not be generalised to children from other
areas of the US and children of different cultures.
Critical Thinking
Is it appropriate for schools to promote prosocial behaviour: does this let parents off the hook? It could
be argued that the teaching of prosocial values (e.g. consideration for others, kindness, shared
responsibility) should be the exclusive domain of the parents and that schools should not have to shoulder
the burden of this responsibility. Some people might argue that it gives parents a ‘get out of jail free’ card
if their child is seen to behave in an anti-social manner i.e. the parents can claim that the school has failed
to do their duty rather than assuming any responsibility themselves. To some extent this is a valid point:
parents are the child’s primary role models and therefore it is they who should be setting a good example
and providing a positive prosocial message. The reality is, though, that some parents are simply incapable
of doing so: for whatever reason they either cannot or will not provide positive prosocial modelling. For
some children school is the only place where they are likely to be exposed to the promotion of prosocial
behaviour so for schools to only focus on academic attainment means that some children would never
have the benefit of receiving clear prosocial messages.
Key Theory: Cross-Cultural Research into Promoting Prosocial Behaviour

Several very rich people are now almost as famous for the huge charitable donations they have made as
they are for how they became so rich in the first place (e.g. Bill Gates; Warren Buffet; Angelina Jolie). At
least one of these aforementioned philanthropists – Warren Buffet – has spoken of the great happiness he
experienced in giving away 99% of his fortune to good causes. There is a saying that ‘It is better to give

than to receive’ and there seem to be plenty of examples that support this idea. The following piece of
research takes a cross-cultural perspective on how spending money on worthy causes produces feelings of
happiness and positive affect in participants from a diverse range of cultures and countries.
Key Study: Aknin et al. (2013)

Aim: To investigate whether there is a correlation between prosocial spending and levels of reported
happiness.
Method: 136 countries were represented in the sample with a total number of 234,917 participants, 51%
female, 49% male with a mean age of 38 years (1,321 participants on average per country).
The participants were asked to say how much money that had donated to charity in the past month. They
were then asked to give their responses to a scale measuring subjective well-being from 0 – 10. These two
measures were then subjected to correlational analysis.
Results: There was a strong positive correlation between prosocial spending (e.g. donations to charity)
and levels of reported happiness.
Conclusion: The reward experienced from prosocial spending may be something that is shared by human
beings across cultures: it may in fact be deeply ingrained in our nature.
Evaluation of Aknin et al. (2013)

 STRENGTHS: The massive scale of this study and the huge number of participants involved means that
it is high in reliability (the researchers claim that over 95% of the world’s adult population is
represented in the sample). The diverse range of ages, cultures, educational and social backgrounds
means that it is highly generalizable. The standardised questionnaires and use of correlational analysis
means that the research is replicable with results that are easy to compare, also adding to the study’s
reliability.
 LIMITATIONS: The use of questionnaires in this research means that no qualitative data was gathered
which limits the study’s validity: the reasons behind the reported prosocial spending and happiness
are not included in the results, so while it is possible to say that a correlation exists between the two
co-variables, it is not conclusive as to cause and effect. If one variable does cause an effect in the
other, the direction is not certain: it may be that those who are already happy with their own lives are
naturally more inclined to give to charity – which demonstrates causality, but in the opposite direction
of that which is hypothesised. There is also the possibility that social desirability bias compromised the
validity of the research (particularly as some participants responded verbally to the question) as the
issue of donating to charity carries with it a social stigma (i.e. not many people would admit to never
donating anything to charity as this carries with it social disapproval).
Critical Thinking
How might these findings be used to promote prosocial behaviour? Aknin et al.’s (2013) findings could be
used very successfully by charities and other interested institutions to promote prosocial behaviour. By
understanding that prosocial spending is linked to enhanced happiness levels it might be possible to
design a campaign to increase donations to specific charities by calling on what is essentially a selfish
motivation to donate e.g. ‘You’ll feel so good about yourself if you donate to our charity’. Current
campaigns such as Cancer Research’s well-publicised ‘Race for Life’ raises money via donations to sponsor
friends or family running in 5K or 10K events. These campaigns tend to feature a host of happy faces with
the implicit message being that taking part (and donating to the charity) equals pleasure and a ‘feel-good’

sensation. This approach may be more successful than using ‘scare’ tactics to promote prosocial
behaviour (e.g. graphic TV adverts to encourage responsible drinking) as they are more likely to lead to
positive reinforcement (e.g. donate to feel good) rather than negative reinforcement (e.g. donate to make
the horrible images go away) which in the long-term is more likely to motivate future donations.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS for promoting prosocial behaviour

Evaluate one theory or study related to promoting prosocial behaviour. [22]
You will need to consider one theory or study of promoting prosocial behaviour, what its strengths and
limitations are, writing a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses. Your conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by relevant studies.
Contrast two theories of promoting prosocial behaviour. [22]

You will need to choose two theories of promoting prosocial behaviour and give an account of the
differences between these two theories, referring to both theories throughout your response.

APPROACHES TO RESEARCH for part 3: social

responsibility
Research into prosocial behaviour, like research into group dynamics, is largely undertaken under natural
conditions, to avoid participant expectations and social desirability effects.
Field Experiments
Dickerson et al. (1992) used a field experiment with manipulation of the independent variable and naïve
participants who did not know they were being studied: they were in a natural setting and therefore
demand characteristics were unlikely to confound the results. Both studies used a replicable procedure –
as far as is possible in this type of study (i.e. it is not possible to replicate confederate behaviour 100% for
each trial) and quantitative data, which helps to increase the reliability of the findings. There are some
methodological issues with the study, as it failed to implement inter-rater reliability checks, which means
that there is some question as to how effectively the confederate measured the observed behaviour, and
there was also no pre-test measure as to the length of the participants’ showering times. The study lacks
generalizability as it used an opportunity sample that was limited in terms of location and age (university
students).
The field experiment carried out by Flook et al. (2015) was integrated into the school curriculum, but a
trained specialist, not school staff, led the sessions. The ecological validity of the study results is high due
to the natural setting, the nature of the procedure and the longitudinal design, which serves to show
changes over time. The limitations of this study mainly stem from the issue of bias: how able were the
teachers to rate the students in the study in an objective way? It is possible that some preconceived ideas
about the children could have led to the teachers rating their prosocial behaviour in a partial way due to
their pre-existing knowledge of and experience dealing with the children. It is also difficult to measure
behavioural variables such as empathy in a way that is consistent across raters and towards participants,
which means that the study’s reliability may be compromised.
Self-Report Surveys
Analysis of large amounts of data can make the use of self-report surveys a lengthy and unwieldy process,
but software packages have speeded this analysis over the years. They provide useful data which is often,
nonetheless, subject to a social desirability bias, as people answer in a way that shows them to be good
people, rather than telling the truth.
Aknin et al. (2013) conducted their large-scale survey over two years, from 2006 – 2008. This involved a
huge number of participants (well over 200,000) responding to two questionnaires, which makes the
results both reliable and generalisable as the sample consisted of participants from 136 countries. The use
of correlational analysis gives the study a clear focal point: that levels of happiness are linked to prosocial
spending and with such a large data set there is compelling evidence that the two variables are linked. The
main problem with correlational data is that it indicates a link between variables but not the extent to
which one variable influences the other. Namely, does a feeling of happiness follow prosocial spending or
do people spend prosocially because they are feeling happy? Social desirability bias could also have
affected the validity of some of the responses but as the data set was so large this type of bias should not
confound the results too dramatically. Large-scale surveys (an etic approach) is a common method in
cross-cultural research.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS for part 3: social

responsibility
Field experiments and studies under natural conditions, like natural experiments and observations, often
involve deception, as people do not necessarily know they are being observed. Therefore, they are also
unable to give informed consent, though with school-based research, parents give consent for the
children.
Anonymity
As noted earlier, the issue of anonymity is particularly important with children: Flook et al.’s report merely
referred to as a school in the Midwest of the USA, which protects the participants’ anonymity. The
involvement of staff in the study means that the children would not have had to endure interventions
from a series of strangers but instead they experienced the Kindness Curriculum as part of the normal
school day in the presence of familiar teachers. The only slight ethical concern is that some children were
allocated to the ‘waiting list’ condition which means that they will not have experienced the Kindness
Curriculum: this may have made some of them feel ‘left out’ or that they possibly were not ‘special’
enough to have this extra lesson.
Aknin’s large-scale correlational research into prosocial spending and levels of happiness would have had
to be anonymous. Ensuring anonymity would be an important ethical consideration due to the sensitive
nature of the questions about donations to charity. The researchers would have had to be mindful as to
cultural norms: care would have to be taken not to embarrass participants or to behave in a way that was
culturally insensitive.
Deception
The participants in Dickerson et al.’s study were not aware that they were taking part in the research,
which raises a host of ethical issues, the first being informed consent. The participants were also deceived
in both studies (e.g. the fake theft in Moriarty and the fake, in-role confederates in Dickerson et al.) which
raises concern as to how well protected from harm the participants were: witnessing a theft may have
unduly distressed some participants in Moriarty’s study and participants from both studies may have
experienced guilt if they allowed the theft to happen or if they felt that their water consumption was too
high (Dickerson et al.). None of the participants were given the right to withdraw and in Dickerson et al.’s
study there is also the issue of privacy to address as the water consumption was measured in the shower
block. The researchers would not have obtained informed consent from the participants because it would
have undoubtedly led to artificial behaviour and invalid results if they had done so. The need to deceive
therefore affects the ethical issue of consent.

REFERENCES
Ahmad, S., & Reid, D. W. (2008). Relationship Satisfaction among South Asian Canadians: The Role of
‘Complementary-Equality’ and Listening to Understand. Interpersona, 2(2), pp. 131-150.
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Making a difference matters:
Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 88; pp 90–95.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1986). The Informal Rules of Working Relationships. Journal of of
Occupational Behaviour, Vol 7 (4); pp 259-275.
Axelrod, R. (1981). The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. American Political Science Review, Vol
75 (2); pp 306-318.
Batson, C. D., Bruce, D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., Birch, K. (1981). Is Empathic Emotion a source of
Altruistic Motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 40 (20), pp 290-302.
Batson, C. D.; Batson, J. G.; Griffitt, C. A.; Barrientos, S.; Brandt, J. R.; Sprengelmeyer, P.; Bayly, M. J.
(1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol 56 (6), pp 922-933.
Burnstein, E. and A.V. McRae. 1962. “Some effects of shared threat and prejudice in racially mixed
groups.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(4): pp 257–263.
Buss, D. M. (1989) Sex difference in human mate p: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 countries.
Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 12, pp. 1-49.
Cameron, D. (2007). The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women really speak Different Languages?
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, R.D. & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers. Journal of Psychology
and Human Sexuality, Vol 2 (1), pp 39-55.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, C. (1994). Self-Disclosure and liking: a meta-analytical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 116 (3), pp. 457-475.
D.C. French, C.A. Brownell, W.G. Graziano, WW Hartup (1977). Effects of cooperative, competitive and
individualistic sets on performance in children’s groups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24 (1);
pp 1-10.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8; pp 377-383.
Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E. and Miller, D. (1992), Using Cognitive Dissonance to Encourage
Water Conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: pp. 841–854.

Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
112 (1), pp. 106-124.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-
analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 104 (2); pp 226-235.
Felmlee, D. (1995). Fatal Attractions: Affection and Disaffection in Intimate Relationships, Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, Vol 12 (2), pp. 295 – 311.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Black, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human
factors in housing Palo Alto, California. Stanford University Press.
Fisher, H., Aron, A. & Brown, L. (2005). Romantic Love: an fMRI Study of a Neural Mechanism for Mate
Choice. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493 (1), pp 58-62.
Flook L., Goldberg S. B., Pinger, L., Davidson R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory
skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology
(51), pp. 44–51.
Gupta, U., & Singh, P. (1982). An exploratory study of love and liking and type of marriages. Indian Journal
of Applied Psychology, 19 (2), pp. 92-97.
Lam, V. L., & Seaton, J., (2016). In-group/Out-group Attitudes and Group Evaluations: The Role of
Competition in British Classroom Settings. Child Development Research, vol. 2016, Article ID 8649132, 10
pages.
Latane, B. & Darley, J.M. (1968). Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 10 (3); pp 215-221.
Levine R., Sato S., Hashimoto T., Verma J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology, 26, pp. 554–571.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 543-560.Marazziti, D., Akiskal, H. S., Rossi, A., & Cassano, G. B. (1999).
Alterations of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love. Psychological Medicine, 29, pp 741-745.
Markey, P. M. & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and relationship experience:
The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 24 (4), pp. 517-533.
Miller, N. E., & Bugelski, R., (1948). Minor studies in aggression: The influences of frustrations imposed by
the in-group on attitudes toward out-groups. Journal of Psychology, 25, pp. 437-442.
Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the
transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23; pp 848–852.
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity
among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 28, pp. 255–276.
Moriarty, T (Feb, 1975) Crime, commitment, and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 31(2), pp. 370-376.

Newcomb, T.M. (1978). The Acquaintance Process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36 (10), pp.1075-1083.
Parr L.A. (2011). The evolution of face processing in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences. 366 (1571), pp. 1764-1777
Piliavin, I.M., Rodin, J.A. & Piliavin, J. (1969), Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, (13); pp 289-299.
Shaw Taylor, L., Fiore, A. T., Mendelsohn, G. A., Cheshire, C. (2011). ‘Out of My League’: a real-world test
of the matching hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37 (7), pp. 942–954.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation:
The Robbers’ Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Institute of Intergroup
Relations.
Simmons, R.G.; Klein, S.D.; Simmons, R.L. (1977). Gift of Life: The Social and Psychological Impact of Organ
Transplantation. London, UK: Wiley.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, USA: Harper Collins.
Tauer, John M., Harackiewicz, Judith M . (2004). The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic
Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 86(6); Jun 2004, pp 849-
861.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. (Vol. 136, p. 179). Cambridge, MA: Biological
Laboratories, Harvard University.Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-
cultural analysis. Harvard University Press. 237 pp.
Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Monograph Supplement, 9 (2), pp. 1-27

More Psychology revision and support at:
www.tutor2u.net/psychology
@tutor2uPsych IBPsychologyStudents tutor2uPsych

Ib Diploma Psychology: OPTIONAL Companion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ib Diploma Psychology: OPTIONAL Companion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB DIPLOMA

LAURA SWASH, Claire Neeson & Joseph Sparks

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION

Our study of this approach is divided into three topics:

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

PART 1: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Part 1B: Role of Communication – How can communication maintain relationships?

PART 1A: THE FORMATION OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

PART 1A(i): BIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

Key Theory: Anisogamy and Evolutionary Mate Selection

Key Study: Buss et al. (1989)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Evaluation of Buss et al. (1989)

Key Theory: Neurobiological Explanations for Attraction

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

Key Study: Fisher (2005)

Evaluation of Fisher (2005)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Evaluation of Biological Theories of Attraction

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

PART 1A(ii) COGNITIVE THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

Key Theory: The Matching Hypothesis

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Key study: Taylor et al. (2011)

Evaluation of Taylor et al. (2011)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

The Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis

Key Study: Newcomb (1961)

Evaluation of Newcomb (1961)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Evaluation of Cognitive Theories of Attraction

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

PART 1A(iii): SOCIOCULTURAL THEORIES OF ATTRACTION

Key Theory: Proximity Leads to Personal Relationships

Key Study: Festinger et al. (1950)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Conclusion: Proximity appears to be a key factor in determining the formation of friendships.

Evaluation of Festinger et al. (1950)

Key Theory: Familiarity Leads to Personal Relationships

Key Study: Moreland & Beach (1992)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

Evaluation of Moreland & Beach (1992)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

The Role of Culture in Forming Personal Relationships

Key Study: Gupta & Singh (1982)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

Evaluation of Gupta & Singh (1982)

Evaluation of Sociocultural Theories of Attraction

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

The Integration of the Biological, Cognitive and Sociocultural Approaches

POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF PERSONAL

Contrast two theories of the formation of personal relationships. [22]

To what extent can biological theories explain personal relationships? [22]

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted.

PART 1B: THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION

PART 1B(I) SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION

Key Theory: Altman & Taylor (1973)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Licence. Photocopying Permitted. www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Key Study: Collins & Miller (1994)

Conclusion: Self-disclosure plays an important role in the maintenance of relationships.

Evaluation of Collins & Miller (1994)